Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-03-13 UPDATED BOA Agenda PacketIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Wednesday, March 13, 2024 – 5:15 PM City Hall, 410 East Washington Street Emma Harvat Hall REVISED Agenda: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Election of Officers 4. Special Exception Item a. EXC24-0001: An application submitted by Adelaide Subtil and Thomas Heineman requesting a commercial reuse exception to reduce the minimum on-site parking requirements in a Central Business Service Zone (CB-2) to accommodate the reuse of the vacant building at 215 N Linn Street. 5. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: December 13, 2023 6. Board of Adjustment Information 7. Adjournment If you need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact Parker Walsh, Urban Planning at 319-356-5238 or at pwalsh@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Upcoming Board of Adjustment Meetings Formal: April 10 / May 8 / June 12 Informal: Scheduled as needed. March 13, 2024 Board of Adjustment Meeting EXC24-0001 ITEM 3A ON THE AGENDA Staff Report Prepared by Staff 1 STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC24-0001 Address: 215 N Linn Street Prepared by: Parker Walsh, Associate Planner Date: March 13, 2024. GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant Adelaide Subtil Adelaide.subtil30@gmail.com Thomas Heineman Property Owner: Merci, LLC Contact Person: Thomas Heineman 611 River St Iowa City, IA 52240 (641)-990-7456 Thomas.e.heineman@gmail.com Requested Action: Reduce the minimum on-site parking requirements Purpose: To allow for a second story eating establishment Location: 215 N Linn St Location Map: Size: 2,730 square feet Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant; Central Business Service Zone (CB-2) 2 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: Central Business Service Zone (CB-2) East: Central Business Service Zone (CB-2) South: Central Business Service Zone (CB-2) West: Central Business Support Zone (CB-5) Applicable Code Sections: 14-4B-3A: General Approval Criteria 14-2C-11D: Commercial Reuse Exception File Date: February 22, 2024 BACKGROUND: The applicants, Thomas Heineman and Adelaide Subtil (Merci, LLC), are requesting a commercial reuse exception to reduce the minimum on-site parking required for an eating establishment in a Central Business Service Zone (CB-2) at 215 N Linn St. The site currently contains a 2,730 square foot vacant commercial building and the applicant is proposing to renovate the first floor to a retail shop and the second floor into an eating establishment. Attachments 1 and 2 include an aerial image and zoning exhibit of the subject property. The property was developed in 1880, prior to the current Zoning Code and zoning designation of Central Business Service Zone (CB-2). The last known uses for the property were office on the first floor and storage on the second floor. The building is currently vacant. Due to the changes in the City Code since its development, additional parking would be required for the reuse of the property in a CB-2 zone. However, the building was constructed to fit the lot size in its entirety and there is no additional development area to provide parking on site. The first floor retail will require 5 parking spaces. However, these spaces are already credited according to the nonconforming development standards. The minimum parking requirement for the proposed eating establishment use is 1 space per 150 square feet of floor area, or parking spaces equal to 1/3 the occupant load of the seating area, whichever is less. The required on-site parking to serve the eating establishment would be 9 parking spaces. The applicant is seeking to reduce the on-site parking minimum to renovate the existing commercial building to retail and an eating establishment. As proposed, this renovation of an existing commercial use building would require a Commercial Reuse Exception to reduce the parking requirements. Section 14-4E-8 of the zoning code outlines provisions for nonconforming development. Subsection B specifically outlines standards related to nonconformities with regard to the number of parking and loading spaces. Based on these standards the property can get credit for 5 parking spaces that are tied to the last use (office use), where the past development and use were approved without the parking being provided. The required amount of parking was determined by the office use minimum being 1 parking space per every 300 square feet of floor area. In these situations, the development is given credit for having provided the minimum amount of spaces that would have otherwise been required to serve the use. The site and any future uses will continue to get credit for 5 parking spaces. These 5 parking spaces will be credited towards the future first floor retail use, which requires 5 parking spaces. In summary, this is an existing historic building built in 1880. There is no ability to provide on-site parking since the building takes up the entire lot. The property currently gets credit for 5 parking spaces, but the proposed uses (retail and eating establishment) require 14 spaces. The commercial reuse exception requested is to reduce the required on-site parking from 14 spaces to 0 spaces to 3 accommodate the reuse of the vacant building. The exception would credit the existing building with 14 parking spaces for any future reuse. ANALYSIS: The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare; to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city; and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the requested commercial reuse exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the specific criteria included in Section 14-2C-11D-4, pertaining to Commercial Reuse Exceptions to allow the alteration of existing buildings for which the constraints of the building and/or site make it difficult to meet certain zoning code standards, requiring a special exception. The general approval criteria in Section 14-4B-3A must also be met. For the Board of Adjustment to grant this commercial reuse exception request, each of the following criterion below must be met. The burden of proof is on the applicant, and their comments regarding each criterion may be found on the attached application. Staff comments regarding each criterion are set below. Specific Standards: 14-2C-11D-4: Commercial Reuse Exception: 1. The exception is necessary due to existing building or site constraints that make it difficult to meet that standard. FINDINGS: • The subject property was constructed in 1880 and established before current zoning standards. • The retail use can meet minimum parking requirements through the 5 credited spaces. However, the eating establishment would not be able to meet the standard. • The building was constructed to fit the entirety of the lot size, leaving no remaining development area to meet parking requirements. Site plan details on Attachment 4. • The renovation is proposed to convert an existing vacant first floor into retail and the second floor into an eating establishment. If the vacant space is to be reutilized it will trigger current code compliance, which the site was not constructed to meet in 1880. 2. The exception will be compatible with and/or complementary to adjacent development in terms of building mass and scale, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation, general layout, and lighting. FINDINGS: • 9 parking spaces would be required for the proposed eating establishment. If the on- site parking were to be reduced, the subject property and surrounding neighborhood development would continue to be served by on street parking, public transit, a public parking lot, and several bike racks along N Linn St and E Market St. • Nearby off street public parking is located along E Market St and bus stops are located at the corners of E. Market St. and N Linn St., and two stops at adjacent corners of E. Market St., and N, Dubuque St. 4 3.The exception will not adversely affect views, noise, stormwater runoff, light and air, and privacy of neighboring properties any more than would a development that satisfies the applicable standard. FINDINGS: •The proposed project is primarily interior renovations, which will not alter the building mass or scale and affect existing views, stormwater runoff, light and air, or the privacy of neighboring properties any more than existing development in the area. •The site is currently fully built out and the reduction will not impact stormwater runoff. •The eating establishment will close by midnight as it is not considered a drinking establishment, which can be open until 2am. 4.The exception is not contrary to the intent of the standard. FINDINGS: •The intent of the minimum parking requirements is to ensure that enough off street parking is provided to accommodate most of the demand for parking generated by the range of uses that might locate at a site over time, particularly in areas where sufficient on street parking is not available. Staff finds that sufficient on street parking, public transportation, off street public parking, and bike parking is available to accommodate the increased parking demand to serve the eating establishment. 5.The exception will be in the public interest. FINDINGS: •The exception would allow a vacant space to be renovated into an eating establishment that can serve not only the neighborhood, but the greater Iowa City area. Without a parking reduction the space would have to remain vacant. •The Comprehensive Plan neighborhood design principle, Neighborhood Commercial Areas, encourages off street parking and pedestrian oriented development that promotes walkability and fosters active neighborhood focal points. General Standards: 14-4B-3: Special Exception Review Requirements: 1.The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. FINDINGS: •The existing development will not be altered as all work will be interior renovations. •Without a parking reduction the building can only be used if the proposed use does not exceed 5 required parking spaces •Without a parking reduction, redevelopment of the site will be required to accommodate the required parking. The intent of this request and the purpose of the Commercial Reuse Exception is to maintain and reuse existing commercial spaces. •Access to surrounding properties will not be affected. 2.The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. 5 FINDINGS: • The proposed renovations and parking reduction will not impact the ability of neighbors to utilize and enjoy their properties, nor will it negatively impact property values in the neighborhood. • Additional traffic is likely to be generated by the proposed uses as they will utilize a vacant commercial building. However, the existing on street parking, bus routes, bike racks, and public parking lot in the area will help meet parking demand and mitigate potential negative impacts. • The proposed renovations would reinvest in an underutilized and vacant commercial space to serve the community. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in which such property is located. FINDINGS: • The surrounding neighborhood is already fully developed with a mix of commercial and residential uses. • The proposed uses will occupy an existing structure that has been in the neighborhood since 1880 and will provide beneficial services that will not substantially impact the development or improvement of surrounding property. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. FINDINGS: • The subject property is already developed, and all utilities access roads, drainage and necessary facilities are established for this neighborhood. • Pedestrian access is provided by sidewalks along N Linn St. 5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. FINDINGS: • The existing development has been in place since 1880 and takes up the entirety of the lot. The property does not have vehicular ingress or egress, nor is one being proposed. No impacts to vehicular traffic congestion are proposed as part of this exception. • No changes are being proposed to the existing sidewalk or street. • No additional parking is proposed that would impact traffic flow for surrounding developments. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. FINDINGS: 6 • The subject property meets most standards of the CB-2 zone. Again, this property was developed in 1880 prior to current zoning regulations. Portions of the development that do not meet current code would be considered legal nonconforming. • No structural alterations are proposed, and all work is interior renovations. Elements that do not meet current standards may continue as legal non-conformities because a change of use is allowed by Article 14-4E ‘Nonconforming Situations’ of the City Code where no structural alterations are being proposed. Existing legal nonconformities on the site include: o Doorways adjacent to a right of way must be set back so that doors do not swing into a right of way. Similarly, stairways and ramps must not be located in a right of way. o To encourage commercial activity at the street level, entrances to storefronts must be at grade and the ground level floor height should be no more than one foot (1') above the level of the abutting sidewalk or pedestrian plaza. (Entrance at 4’) • Staff will ensure all new elements and any future changes comply with relevant standards during building permit review. 7. The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, as amended. FINDINGS: • The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan designated this area for Mixed Use. The Future Land Use Map of the Central District Plan designated this area for General Commercial; Office; Mixed Use. The property is currently vacant. However, the proposed land uses are consistent with the Comprehensive and District Plans and will not change because of the proposed commercial reuse exception. • The Comprehensive Plan’s vision includes to “Preserve Historic Resources…in Established Neighborhoods” (p.21) which is carried out through supporting reinvestment in existing neighborhoods. Although the property is not a locally or nationally recognized historic property, it was constructed in 1880 and contributes to the historic character of the Northside Marketplace. • The Central District Plan has goals to “Encourage development and redevelopment that will maintain the character and economic vitality of the Northside Marketplace” (p.58). • The Central District Plan includes a section on the Northside Marketplace, which is defined as the historic commercial neighborhood bounded by Bloomington and Jefferson Streets and North Gilbert and Dubuque Streets. The subject property is located in this area. Although this area is close to downtown, the plan notes that it maintains a distinct identity and scale. There is a strong desire to maintain the historic Mainstreet character (pg. 15, 16). Many community members also indicated that the historic character of the Northside Marketplace is one of its greatest assets (pg. 55, 56). A parking reduction will allow the reuse of this building and help to achieve the vision outlined in the plan to maintain the historic character of this commercial area. • The Central District Plan also emphasizes the goal to “Support the use of alternative modes of transportation” (p.59). The neighborhood is currently served by on street parking, public transportation, a public parking lot, and bike friendly transportation. 7 CORRESPONDENCE: Staff has received one piece of correspondence in support of this application (Attachment 3). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of EXC24-0001, to reduce the required minimum on-site parking requirements from 14 to 0 for the existing building located at 215 N Linn St, Iowa City, Iowa. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Location Map 2.Zoning Map 3. Correspondence 4.Application Materials Approved by: _________________________________________________ Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services March 13, 2024 Board of Adjustment Meeting EXC24-0001 ATTACHMENT 1 Location Map Prepared by Staff March 13, 2024 Board of Adjustment Meeting EXC24-0001 ATTACHMENT 2 Zoning Map Prepared by Staff March 13, 2024 Board of Adjustment Meeting EXC24-0001 ATTACHMENT 3 Correspondence Submitted by the Identified Party From:Luke Gude To:Parker Walsh Subject:Re: 215 N Linn St Date:Saturday, March 2, 2024 6:38:48 PM Attachments:image003.png image001.png image002.png image005.png image006.png image004.png ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Parker, Thank you for the helpful info! Please pass along my below comments to the Board of Adjustment: I am writing as a neighbor in support of the exception. This location on N Linn St is within walking distance and (free) bus distance of thousands of area residents and should not be stifled by mandating 9 additional parking spaces. Minimum parking requirements are a pseudo-scientific impediment to good projects for the community such as housing or (in this case) a restaurant, and they serve to subsidize and continue a car-oriented culture. Parking spaces are surprisingly expensive, and their costs would be passed onto patrons/residents. They would also take up a large amount of valuable space (likely around 2000 sq ft) that would better serve our community as a different land use. Parking is a negative for the environment, both directly and indirectly in terms of reducing density/walkability and further incentivizing driving. Please consider the broader good of our community and do not be beholden to the arbitrary minimum parking requirements, which many forward-thinking municipalities around the country are getting rid of entirely. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Luke Gude 628 N Johnson St On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 9:53 AM Parker Walsh <PWalsh@iowa-city.org> wrote: Good morning Luke, What is the current minimum parking requirement for this property/properties of this type? The current minimum parking for the property is 5 spaces. This is based on the last use within the building being office, although it is currently vacant. The renovation would require an additional 9 spaces based on the proposed use. Parking requirements are based on uses. The parking ratio for similar uses would be: 1 parking space per every 300 square feet of retail or office floor area March 13, 2024 Board of Adjustment Meeting EXC24-0001 ATTACHMENT 4 Special Exception Application Submitted by the Applicant 1 Special Exception Application: For a proposed second floor restaurant on 215 North Linn Street Summary: As the owners of Claude, our proposed second floor restaurant, we understand Title 4 of the city’s code, the county’s code (public health), and plan to meet both. We are working closely with the City of Iowa City, OPN architects as well as Clevenger Food Service Consultants, to make sure we follow all local and state regulations and requirements. We plan to close at midnight and are serving a menu of food that will add a unique French menu to the city. Our plan is to be an intimate space that serves food, wine, and artistic cocktails. The Northside neighborhood is already a destination for locals who will walk or bike or ride a bus. We can leverage the bike racks in front of our building. The Northside is also a dense, walkable neighborhood, which is on a bus route. The following is our response to the specific criteria for the Commercial Reuse Exception found at 14-2C-11D-4: a.The exception is necessary due to existing building or site constraints that make it difficult to meet that standard. Our property at 215 North Linn St does not have any available parking as the entirety of the lot is composed of the building. b.The exception will be compatible with and/or complementary to adjacent development in terms of building mass and scale, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation, general layout, and lighting. The Northside Commercial district is a vibrant neighborhood of dinning establishments including The Webster, Brix, Oasis, and Wild Culture among others. c.The exception will not adversely affect views, noise, stormwater runoff, light and air, and privacy of neighboring properties any more than would a development that satisfies the applicable standard. Our goal with the project is to create a small, intimate space that would account for a small percentage of overall foot traffic, car traffic, and commercial activity relative to what is already part of a commercial district. We are not changing the lighting, size, or scope of the building which is already in place. d.The exception is not contrary to the intent of the standard. [14-5A-4A: The minimum parking requirements are intended to ensure that enough off street parking is provided to accommodate most of the demand for parking generated by the range of uses that might locate at a site over time, particularly in areas where sufficient on street parking is not available. The minimum parking requirements are also intended to ensure that enough parking is provided on a site to prevent parking for nonresidential uses from encroaching into adjacent residential neighborhoods.]4 2 As referenced below in the Comprehensive Plan of the City, we want to be accessible as much as possible from neighbors who would arrive on foot or bike, as well as public transportation. We expect the restaurant’s maximum capacity to be about 30 people. Given the size and scope of the project, we feel strongly that the parking demand for our business would not negatively impact the neighborhood. Additionally, there is a public city parking lot nearby on Market Street as well as metered street parking already available on Linn and Market Streets. The exception will be in the public interest. Adding to the cultural fabric of Iowa City is in the public interest. We seek to create a destination that provides a unique entertainment experience that does not currently exist in Iowa City. This is in addition to the preservation of a historical building and adding a commercial space back to the public which is currently unused. The following is our response to the general criteria for the Commercial Reuse Exception found at 14-4B-3A: 1.The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. We understand Title 4 of the city’s code, the county’s code (public health), and plan to meet both. We will close at midnight and focus on being an upscale establishment. We estimate that the number of cars required to serve our small space would not impact the available parking of the Northside. 2.The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. To the contrary, we feel by further enhancing the options for patrons of the Northside Commercial and Residential districts, property values will be increased. Additionally, we believe that reinvestment in an underutilized commercial space may improve the property values in the neighborhood. 3.Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district in which such property is located. We are repurposing a building that contributes to the historical nature of its neighborhood. We have no plans to change the size and scope of the building that would impact the neighborhood or surrounding buildings. 4.Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The existing water, sewer, and electrical utilities will be used. Existing sidewalks and alleys will be used. No change is proposed to existing drainage or existing stormwater management. 5.Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. We are working with OPN architects as well as the city currently to evaluate the optimized ingress/egress to our building. It has unique challenges given it is a historical building but we plan to spend significant resources to improve the ADA accessibility of our building, as currently it is lacking. 6.Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the special exception being considered, the specific proposed exception in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. Depending on the type of special exception requested, certain specific conditions may need to be met. The applicant will demonstrate compliance with the specific conditions required for a particular use as provided in the City Code section 14-4B as well as requirements listed in the base zone or applicable overlay zone and applicable site development standards (14-5A through K).] This application requests a parking waiver for the parking requirement of the proposed second floor restaurant. The existing second floor is currently permitted as Storage and the proposed change of use, a restaurant, requires parking. The existing lower-level commercial space will not change use. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. We feel our proposed business aligns with the Comprehensive Plan of the City on the following aspects: • Preserve Historic Resources: Our project with invest in an historic building in Iowa City and preserve it for future generations. Currently the upstairs is dilapidated, and we plan to invest significant resources to rehabilitate the property. • Neighborhood Commercial Areas: Our property is within the Northside commercial district which is vibrant and within convenient walking distance for the residents in the immediate area. The conversion of that block of North Linn Street to a pedestrian mall during the summer months is a focal point of the city. We want to add to this neighborhood. • Pedestrian/ Bikeway Connections: Our business is readily accessible by pedestrians and bicyclists with a pleasant streetscape with trees and appropriate building setbacks and driveway separation creates an environment that is safe and appealing for pedestrians and cyclists. • Independent, locally- owned businesses: We are first time business-owners and were drawn to downtown Iowa City as a beacon of independent and local commerce. • Promote use of public transit: Our restaurant is on a bus route and easily accessed by public transportation. • Recognize the economic development potential of Arts and Culture for Iowa City: We want to use our space as a showcase for French Cuisine, French Wine, Frech Cocktails, and French Antiques, and local authors. Iowa City has a wealth of talent in these areas and creators who are looking for an opportunity to have more visibility in the community. This is one of the principal reasons we want to create this multicultural space. March 13, 2024 Board of Adjustment Meeting PRELIMINARY MEETING MINUTES ITEM 4 ON THE AGENDA December 13, 2023 Prepared by Staff MINUTES PRELIMINARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAL MEETING EMMA HARVAT HALL DECEMBER 13, 2023 – 5:15 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Nancy Carlson, Bryce Parker (via zoom), Mark Russo, Paula Swygard MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Kirk Lehmann OTHERS PRESENT: CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: A brief opening statement was read by Carlson outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BYLAWS: Lehmann began by explaining the amendments are mostly minor changes such as terminology and the way that headings are structured, etc., but there are two general sets of more substantive changes that he laid out in his memo. The first came about because there have been some appeals recently and the appeal order is a little off from what would be expected, the appellant is to make their case first and then staff would make their case, and then it would go from there. So, Article 6, Section 8, Hearing Order is the one that would be retained for special exceptions and variances, which are the bulk of the applications, but staff also moved the sentence noting the Board may request additional comments to this section rather than having it noted after the hearing is closed. Staff also proposes to add a Section 9 to the article that would create a similar setup for appeals but would be slightly different in that there'd be a brief introduction by the secretary of the Board, and then the appellant presentation, and then the staff presentation on the administrative decision being appealed. The next change is to convert from business days to calendar days throughout. There are several different sections that can cause confusion, the first would be in an Article 4, Sections 2 and 5, Article 5, Sections 1, 2 and 3, and then Article 8, Section 5. With regard to Article 5, which is related to public hearing notices, this a case where the wording would transition from business days to calendar days but the number would be the same. Lehmann explained the goal for this change is to reduce administrative error and ensure consistency of City notice timeframes. It's based on what is currently in the City Code for BOA notices, within the Code right now it states public hearing notices must be seven days prior to a hearing but the bylaws changes that to business days which leads to a little bit of confusion for inexperienced staff and could be problematic and has the potential to lead to error. Calendar days are also more consistent with other notice time frames for planning applications. Lehmann pointed out for Board of Adjustment December 13, 2023 Page 2 of 8 example in the good neighbor policy, and in pretty much every other policy. With regards to Articles 4 and 8, those are changing from business days to calendar days as well. However, in those cases staff converts the number of days, for example five business days would be converted to seven calendar days and 10 business days would be approximately 15 calendar days. These conversions are happening so that they keep a consistent timeframe but that some are not calendar days and others business days. The goal is not to modify the actual timeframe, just to have it be similar to any other timeframes for notices in the Code. Lehmann noted generally they have no problems getting out notices in time and haven’t had problems with the appeals but they just don't want to shorten those lengths or anything. But it does lead to a slight change in timeframe with those Article Five changes regarding notice. Carlson asked if moving onto Article Two, membership, are there any questions for staff on any of those sections. Swygard had a question and it ties in with a questions about minutes, in the officers it says the Board Secretary shall be a staff person who is appointed by the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services, so who is the Board Secretary. Lehmann replied it is him as he is the one to publish all the notices and keep all the minutes, etc. Swygard noted in the section for the new order of procedure for an appeal, number one is a brief introduction by the Secretary of the Board, so that is Lehmann or the staff person in his position, and number three is staff presentation on grounds, so that would be the Board Secretary again. Lehmann explained most likely not, the way it would generally work is the Secretary is going to be independent from the person that is representing the City or the person that made the decision, which is often the building official. For example, in terms of the most recent appeal, the front setback question, Danielle Sitzman, the development services coordinator, is the building official and made the determination to issue the building permit that was being appealed, therefore she represented the City in that case, and Lehmann as the Board Secretary in that case was acting only as the Secretary of the Board. In most cases the Board Secretary can provide a general orientation about the property in question and then at that point it would turn over to the appellant to make their case as to why they believe a decision should be overturned. Then after the appellant speaks it would be the actual staff presentation. Lehmann explained as the Secretary of the Board he would essentially discuss the location and zoning maps to make sure everyone is familiar with what's happening because an appellant may not give the full context on those sorts of technical background things that the Board should be aware of. Dulek noted it is the Secretary of the Board’s responsibility is to share that information without advocating the City was correct, it's an orientation, it's not a presentation. Swygard asked who actually creates the minutes. Lehmann explained the minutes are created by a minute taker and then he reviews as Secretary for the Board. He will review them for accuracy before they are presented to the Board for approval. Swygard asked under what circumstances would staff forward the minutes to City Council without having approval by the Board. Lehmann explained typically he includes the preliminary minutes that are prepared in the agenda packet for approval and then forwards the final minutes to the City Clerk. Dulek explained draft minutes will be in the information packet that goes out every Thursday for all Board of Adjustment December 13, 2023 Page 3 of 8 boards and commissions, a draft of preliminary minutes. Once the board or commission approves it then it goes to City Council for approval and is part of their agenda packet. Russo asked how the minutes are taken, is it that this meeting is recorded and then someone takes minutes off that recording and they are not present. Lehmann confirmed they are not present, they have access to the zoom recording and he then reviews the minutes to make sure that it's full and complete and accurate. Carlson stated she had a couple questions on the notice letters and the notice signs and the fact that it's no less than seven days. How much time do staff usually try to send out the letters and put the signs in the yard because it says no less than seven days but that seems kind of tight and a lot of people have a lot of other things going on and it makes her nervous they probably will not read or respond to it but she wants to make sure that the that the public knows about these things. Lehmann replied that they don't really have any problems meeting these timelines as the typical process is they get an application and put out the sign immediately, and that’s usually 40 days in advance. The letters usually go out pretty early as well, generally somewhere between two and three weeks in advance. The public notice is around a similar timeframe however the public notice specifically can't be published more than 20 calendar days in advance, and he has almost run into situations where he accidentally posted too early. But that 20 calendar days gives two to three weeks for people to react to these things, and then the City will publish the packet that Friday before the meeting. Carlson asked how this process in relation to the process for other commissions, like planning and zoning, do they try to make all of these boards have the same timeline. Lehmann confirmed they do try but in planning and zoning it largely depends on when things come in and how fast they need to be processed, however two weeks is pretty typical for most cases and the sign goes out almost immediately upon receiving an application. Lehmann noted also the Board of Adjustment is unusual in that these requirements are in the bylaws, they are the only commission that actually has that, a lot of the other ones are based on City policy and not based on bylaws. For example, a zoning code amendment, within the City Code section for the Board of Adjustment it specifically says seven calendar days is when they have to post the notice, but the letters are not included in there or codified anywhere. Overall staff’s goal is to try and make sure that if nothing else the bylaws match the Code and changes to the Code are at the discretion of City Council typically. Carlson asked with just seven days if someone didn't like the ruling, could they come back and say they don’t feel that there was not enough time given for public notice for people to respond to this. Dulek said no because per State Code states almost all notices are for a minimum of 4, maximum of 20 days, to give too much time could get lost in the shuffle, likewise you don’t want to give to little notice. For all notices State Code is 4 and 20 although recently public bidding changed a little bit on some big construction projects. Board of Adjustment December 13, 2023 Page 4 of 8 Lehmann added in terms of publishing the packet actually, that only requires 24 hours’ notice, Iowa City does more than what's the minimum required so there's not really a legal ground for them to say they didn't have enough time. Carlson noted she is involved in dealing with a very complicated lease and so things like these dates suddenly become very important and the implications that can be had by that, that's why she’s asking these questions. Lehmann agreed, the timelines make sure that they are doing what they need to do to notify the public and also to protect themselves so that someone can't come back and say the City didn't notify them in a timely way. Lehmann noted it is possible for the Board to keep longer timeframes in their bylaws as well if that's something they want to do, they could convert the five business days to seven calendar days or 10 calendar days. Lehmann did convert everything in Articles 4 and 8 and in Article 8 the sections on the timelines in which one could make appeals and sections on the timelines in which an applicant could request reconsideration. He didn't do it for notices just because the Code has a different timeframe and he wanted to try and standardize that. Carlson had a question on the Board voting, it states a Board member may abstain from voting, which is a non-vote, when would that occur. Lehmann replied typically they don’t see that other than a recusal, but it may be something where a Board member doesn't feel they could make an informed decision. Perhaps one person felt like there wasn't enough information and requested more information, but the rest of the Board determined that there is enough to move forward, then that person may say they can’t make a vote and is going to abstain. It isn’t something that happens very much. Lehmann asked is there such a thing as three people abstaining where a decision can't be reached. Dulek is not aware of such a situation, she noted about 10 or 20 years ago there was a City Council member that abstained quite a bit and actually Council then passed a resolution that said if someone abstains it's a no vote. That's why this is listed as a non-vote, it would be just like a recusal and not an automatic no. Parker asked if the City Council rule is across all City boards. Dulek replied that was just a City Council resolution and hasn't really happened since that person left the Council. Baker moved to accept the consideration of the amendments to the Board of Adjustment Bylaws including to accept the proposed changes as written by the Secretary, including the appeal order and the counting of days. Russo seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF LETTER OF SUPPORT OF SIDEWALKS NEAR 1839 B STREET: Board of Adjustment December 13, 2023 Page 5 of 8 Carlson noted she was not at the last meeting when this item was discussed, she did read the minutes and went and looked at the situation. Swygard noted that after hearing the application at the last meeting the Board really felt it was important to ask the City to take a look at B Street because there are no sidewalks there and with the testimony from 4C’s they felt that there would be potentially quite a few people coming to 4C’s using public transit. The nearest transit stop is up on Court Street so people would need to walk down B Street to get to the newly created 4C’s building location and the Board felt strongly that would be a safety hazard since there are no sidewalks and asked that this letter be drafted on behalf of the Board for signature. Lehmann added prior to Board consideration he wanted to add he did receive a message from 4C’s and some funding that they were hoping would help them establish this use was not awarded to them so they're not sure if they'll be able to move forward or not with this project. However, a special exception is associated with the land so there is still an opportunity for childcare used to be here or 4C’s might still be able to utilize it if they receive other funds. Swygard asked what impact that would have on the letter then as it was written in the frame that this childcare center was happening. Lehmann stated the Board of Adjustment did still approve a special exception request by the nonprofit, 4C's, so they could either modify the letter to be an approved a daycare use or if they think that the sidewalks are important to the area they could modify the letter to state they think sidewalks are important in this area regardless of use. Lehmann stated they could table this for a month to see if 4C’s does go ahead with the project but the decision allows a childcare use to be established in that location, it doesn't have to be 4C’s. Maybe a new buyer will want to do a childcare center there and they could with this exception approved and he might not hear about it if that happens. Parker noted the neighborhood still is without sidewalks so they could just draft a letter stating there is a need for sidewalks in that neighborhood. Baker and Parker agree they should still send the letter. Lehmann noted the letter states they approved a special exception request for a daycare proposed to serve 120 children which drew attention to the lack of sidewalks. It’s still a valid letter it just may not be as pressing if nothing moves into the building immediately. Council may take that into consideration as they're looking at how they want to budget it to see what happens there but he encouraged 4C’s to apply for community development block grant funds, which is something that 4C's has used in the past, it wouldn't be the same amount of funding that they requested but it might help. Carlson asked how City Council would know that this is not as pressing at this point, but the Board would still encourage sidewalk. Lehmann explained they would have the minutes and he could send the letter with the minutes as an attachment so they have the full context. Board of Adjustment December 13, 2023 Page 6 of 8 Russo stated since he missed the last meeting, is the position of advocacy a safe position for this Board, they’re a quasi-judicial body that weighs on things that come in front of them so this is a little unusual. He agrees there is a need for the sidewalks, on his street, Seymour Street, right up from Longfellow, there's a whole side of that block that doesn’t have a sidewalk. Dulek stated there was discussion at the last Board meeting whether adding sidewalks should be actually a condition however if they just put it on one lot, that didn't make any sense because there would not be a continuous sidewalk. Therefore, the Board didn’t think that it made a lot of sense to require this owner to put in a sidewalk and after a little more discussion it was thought perhaps just letting Council know there's no sidewalks on either side of B Street, a there's a new childcare going in there, sidewalks should be considered. Russo asked if the City would impose the sidewalk requirement on homeowners or would the City pay for this. Lehmann stated the City has infill sidewalk funds that they use from time to time. Where they install them is determined by a mixture of City Council and engineering. If the Board approves the letter he would send it probably to the engineering department and then also include it in a Council packet for them to consider. Swygard is torn between waiting and sending the letter how. Although it does go with this special exception and the specific use, she would still want to encourage sidewalks there with that use. She would support sending it as long as it's clear that the initial use has been put on hold by 4C’s and it’s clear that it's not pressing. Parker thinks they should send a letter just because a daycare is currently approved and there is a park around the corner as well. Additionally, pedestrian mode of traffic was highly contingent on the applicant as all modes of transportation were considered and he doesn’t think it burdens anybody to actually put in sidewalks. It's up to Council to say yea or nay and most likely it just depends on budget anyway. Baker noted it's a recommendation not a requirement and Council will take responsibility for whether or not it's required. The Board took some time to wordsmith the letter, including striking the sentences specifically referencing information in 4Cs application and modifying “the” daycare to “such a proposed” daycare and agreed to send it with the changes as indicated. Baker moved that the request for consideration of the sidewalk infill letter be sent to City Council as amended in the meeting of December 13, 2023. Swygard seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. Board of Adjustment December 13, 2023 Page 7 of 8 CONSIDER NOVEMBER 8, 2023 MINUTES: Carlson asked if any members had changes to the minutes. Swygard noted that in the 3rd paragraph on page 7, Bryce Achen’s comment should be clarified that the project would only bring the lighting up to code if it was required, however it was her understanding that the lighting would not need to be brought up to code during the site plan process. Baker moved to approve the minutes of November 8, 2023 with amendments discussed. Swygard seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: Lehman recognized that Swygard has been reappointed for a full term. He also added they will not have a January 10 meeting due to no applications and the deadlines passed. ADJOURNMENT: Baker moved to adjourn this meeting, Swygard seconded, a vote was taken and all approved. Board of Adjustment December 13, 2023 Page 8 of 8 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ATTENDANCE RECORD 2023 NAME TERM EXP. 3/8 4/12 4/19 5/10 6/14 7/12 11/8 12/13 BAKER, LARRY 12/31/2027 X X O/E X X X X X PARKER, BRYCE 12/31/2024 X X O/E X X X X X SWYGARD, PAULA 12/31/2023 X X X X X X X X CARLSON, NANCY 12/31/2025 X X X X X X O/E X RUSSO, MARK 12/31/2026 X X X O/E O/E X O/E X Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused -- -- = Not a Member