HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-13 BOA Agenda PacketIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Wednesday, November 13, 2024 – 5:15 PM
City Hall, 410 East Washington Street
Emma Harvat Hall
Agenda:
1.Call to Order
2.Roll Call
3.Special Exception Item
a.EXC24-0004: An application submitted by Staci Humiston of Reach For Your
Potential requesting a special exception to allow a daycare use in a Low Density
Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone for the property located at 1839 B Street.
(EXC24-0004)
4.Consideration of Meeting Minutes: August 22 and October 10, 2024
5.Board of Adjustment Information
6.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: December 11 / January 8 / February 12
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
November 13, 2024
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC24-0004
ITEM 3A ON THE AGENDA
Staff Report
Prepared by Staff
1
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC24-0004
1839 B Street
Prepared by: Parker Walsh, Associate Planner
Date: November 13, 2024
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Staci Humiston
Reach For Your Potential Inc.
1705 S 1st Ave I
Iowa City, IA 52240
staci.humiston@rfyp.org
Contact Person: Ross Nusser
202 N Linn ST Unit: Unit 501
Iowa City, IA 52245
rossnusser@urbanacres.com
Property Owner(s): Eureka Lodge #44
Independent Order of the Odd Fellows
1839 B Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
Requested Action: Approval of a special exception to allow a daycare
use in a Low Density Single-Family Residential
(RS-5) zone
Purpose: Establishment of a new daycare center
Location: 1839 B Street
Location Map:
2
Size: 26,524 square feet
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Residential; Low Density Single-Family Residential
(RS-5) zone
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: Residential; Low Density Single Family
Residential (RS-5)
East: Residential; Low Density Single Family
Residential (RS-5)
South: Residential; Low Density Single Family
Residential (RS-5)
West: Residential; Low Density Single Family
Residential (RS-5)
Applicable Code Sections: 14-4B-3A: General Approval Criteria
14-4B-4D-7: Daycare Uses
File Date: October 10, 2024
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Reach For Your Potential, Inc. intends to use the subject property at 1839 B Street
as a daycare facility for up to 100 children. The subject property and surrounding neighborhood are
currently zoned Low-Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) which allows a daycare use by
special exception.
The subject property was developed prior to its current zoning designation. The existing structure
was built c. 1960 as a church and has been used as a fraternal lodge by the Independent Order of
Odd Fellows since 1974. The property is unusual in that it includes undeveloped land in the rear of
the property that is separated from the rest of the lot by a public alley. In addition, several elements
of the site do not comply with current zoning standards because it was developed under a different
zoning code.
The applicant proposes several site improvements. These include, additional parking, establishing
traffic circulation to avoid congestion and providing play space, adding new pedestrian paths with
raised curbs along the southern and western sides of the existing building connecting the parking
areas to the entrances, and adding new landscaping buffers to east and west side of the existing
building and around the parking areas south of the alley. Existing site development that is currently
non-conforming is legally allowed to continue.
The applicant held a Good Neighbor Meeting on October 29, 2024. A summary of the meeting is
attached.
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 special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the specific
criteria included in Section 14-4B-4D-7, pertaining to daycare uses, as well as the general
approval criteria in Section 14-4B-3A.
3
For the Board of Adjustment to grant this special 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: 14-4B-4D-7: Daycare Uses:
a. Required Interior Activity Areas: Child daycare centers must contain at least thirty
five (35) square feet of usable interior floor space per child. Adult daycare centers
must contain a minimum of sixty (60) square feet of usable floor area per adult
client. An additional twenty (20) square feet of floor area is required for every adult
client who uses ambulatory aids. Reception areas, kitchens, storage areas, offices,
bathrooms, hallways, treatment rooms, and specialized areas used for therapy are
excluded when calculating the required floor area. The dining area may only be
included in the square footage calculation if used by daycare participants for
activities other than meals. When collocated in a facility that houses other uses or
services, the proposed daycare use must have its own separate identifiable space
for program activities during operational hours.
FINDINGS:
• The subject property has approximately 5,552 square feet of interior floor space used
for daycare purposes which could accommodate up to 158 children.
• The applicant proposes using the subject property for a daycare use with up to 100
children, which is well below the maximum allowed based on the usable interior floor
space.
• The applicant intends to begin daycare operations with 40 children and increase over
time.
b. Required Outdoor Areas: Child daycare uses must provide a fenced outdoor play
area of not less than one hundred (100) square feet per child based on the maximum
number of children that will be using the outdoor play area at any given time. The
outdoor play area must meet the following standards:
(1) Playground equipment is not permitted within the front and side setbacks.
(2) Outdoor play areas must be well drained, free from hazards, and readily
accessible to the daycare center. In residential zones, outdoor play areas must
be completely enclosed by a fence at least four feet (4') in height. In commercial
and industrial zones, the outdoor play area must be completely enclosed by a
fence built to the S4 standard and be screened along the perimeter of the fence
to the S3 standard. (See chapter 5, article F, "Screening And Buffering
Standards", of this title.) The city may waive the screening requirement if it is
determined that land uses surrounding the daycare use will not pose a nuisance
or safety hazard to the children such that a screening buffer is necessary.
FINDINGS:
• The subject property is zoned Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5).
• All playground equipment is located outside of front and side setback areas.
• The site plan includes an outdoor play area of approximately 3,795 square feet which
can accommodate up to 37 children at one time.
• The outdoor play area will be enclosed by a 4-foot-tall fence and is free from hazards.
• The subject property is within easy walking distance of Chadek Green Park.
4
c. Vehicular Circulation: The use must provide a drop off/pick up area in a location
that is convenient to or has good pedestrian access to the entrance to the facility.
This drop off/pick up area must contain sufficient stacking spaces and/or parking
spaces to ensure that traffic does not stack into adjacent streets or other public
rights of way. (See minimum parking requirements for daycare in section 14-5A-4,
table 5A-2 of this title.) To promote safe vehicular circulation, one-way drives are
encouraged.
FINDINGS:
• Most traffic is expected to flow in one direction through the site with vehicles accessing
the subject property from B Street, continuing south through the property, and exiting
east through the alley towards 5th Avenue. The alley is currently unimproved. The
proposed use is for a daycare accommodating up to 100 children, which will
significantly increase the daily traffic within the alley. Due to the anticipated increase
in daily traffic beyond what is typically experienced in a residential alley, staff
recommends a condition that Reach For Your Potential, Inc. improve (pave) the alley
to City standards from the western property line east to 5th Avenue, the shortest
improvement route to a street, prior to occupancy to ensure safe and efficient travel
through the site. Like all residential alleys, adjacent property owners, including Reach
For Your Potential, Inc. will be responsible for snow clearance, but the City will
maintain the paved alleyway surface for the life of the pavement (assumed to be 20
years) if improved to City of Iowa City standards.
• The subject property has 24 parking spaces, including 11 spaces south of the alley, 8
existing nonconforming spaces just north of the alley, and 5 existing nonconforming
spaces in front of the building.
• The site has 7 stacking spaces west of the building on a 9-foot wide, one direction
drive.
• All parking and stacking/loading spaces are connected to the building with pedestrian
routes.
• Daycare uses require 1 parking space per employee based on the maximum number
of employees at the site at any 1 time, plus 1 parking space for each 10 children served
based on the maximum number of children present on the site at any one time, plus 1
stacking space for each 20 children served based on the maximum number of children
present on the site at any one time.
• Stacking and parking spaces are adequate to accommodate up to 100 children, in
addition to 14 staff members. However, the final required number of parking spaces
will be determined by staff-to-children ratios which could vary over time.
• The site plan shows bicycle parking that meets the minimum requirement of 4 spaces.
d. Pedestrian Circulation: A sidewalk must be constructed connecting the main
entrance of the center to the adjacent public right of way. Pedestrian access must
be clearly separated or distinguished from vehicular circulation areas to minimize
the extent to which users of the facility are required to walk across drives or aisles
to gain access to the daycare center.
FINDINGS:
• The subject property has a sidewalk from the main entrance to the public right of way.
• There is currently no sidewalk along the B Street right of way near the subject property.
5
• The site plan proposes new pedestrian paths with raised curbs through the property
along the west and south sides of the building that help minimize the extent to which
users must walk across drives or aisles. Staff recommends a condition that any new
pedestrian routes through the site have a raised curb to help ensure pedestrian safety.
• Staff recommends the condition that the outdoor play area be made accessible by a
pedestrian path with a demarcated crossing over the alley.
e. Site Development Standards: If the proposed use is located in a residential zone or
in the central planning district, it must comply with the multi-family site
development standards as set forth in section 14-2B-6 of this title. Daycare facilities
that are accessory uses are exempt from this provision.
FINDINGS:
• The proposed use is in a residential zone in the Central Planning District, so it must
comply with the multi-family site development standards.
• The building and site meet some multi-family site development standards but do not
comply with standards related to the location and design of surface parking (Section
14-2B-6C), mechanical equipment (Section 14-2B-6H), and additional standards in the
Central Planning District (Section 14-2B-6I), specifically regarding the location of
parking areas, required setbacks for parking areas and drives, landscaping between
parking areas and ground floor windows, location of mechanical equipment, and the
windows and architectural style of the building.
• All existing noncompliant features are either considered elements of a non-conforming
structure or non-conforming development, which allow a change in use provided the
change does not increase or extend the degree of nonconformity.
• All changes to the site being proposed as part of this special exception do not increase
or extend the degree of non-conformities on the site, and new site elements comply
with current zoning requirements.
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 building and site characteristics are well suited to a daycare use.
• Potential negative impacts due to increased traffic is mitigated as discussed below.
• The proposed use will provide services that are beneficial to the neighborhood.
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.
FINDINGS:
• The proposed daycare use will primarily be in an existing building, and outdoor play
areas are relatively small and set back and screened from adjacent properties which
will help mitigate noise impacts.
• Additional traffic is likely to be generated by the proposed use during business hours,
but the proposed traffic flow, site layout, and recommended conditions will mitigate
potential negative impacts.
6
• New parking areas south of the alley are setback and screened from abutting uses.
• Existing parking areas and drives are currently not screened from adjacent properties
as part of a legal nonconforming development, but the site plan shows new
landscaping to buffer parking from and provide additional privacy to abutting uses.
Staff recommends this new S2 screening be required along the property lines of
existing parking areas as a condition of approval to align with current zoning standards.
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 area is already a fully developed residential neighborhood.
• The proposed use will occupy an existing structure that has been in the neighborhood
since 1960 and will provide beneficial services that will not substantially impact the
development or improvement of surrounding property.
• Conditions help mitigate potential negative effects for surrounding properties.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
FINDINGS:
• The subject property and neighborhood are already developed, so all utilities, access
roads, and necessary facilities are established.
• This neighborhood was largely developed without sidewalks, but there is a pedestrian
connection to the right of way and through the site.
• Based on the proposed use and site layout, it is anticipated the alley will see a
significant increase in vehicle use. This increased traffic through the alley is expected
to accelerate alleyway deterioration without improvements. Improving the alley to City
standards would provide a paved surface, maintained by the City for the life of the
pavement, that is capable of accommodating the additional traffic volumes. If left
unimproved, the alley would require significant ongoing maintenance from the
adjacent property owners, which can be difficult to coordinate among multiple property
owners. Chip seal or other improvements that do not meet City standards can provide
short term performance but have a much more limited lifespan and durability, requiring
additional ongoing repairs. Alleys that are not adequately maintained can result in
surfaces that are difficult to use, or even cause vehicle damage, due to potholes,
uneven surfaces and other unmaintained situations. Conditions help ensure
infrastructure can handle an increase in traffic volumes.
• Any changes to the site features will be evaluated for compliance with City standards
at site plan and building permit review, including standards regarding drainage.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
FINDINGS:
• The front of the site is accessed from B Street and the rear is accessed from an alley
that enters/exits onto Garden Street and 5th Avenue.
7
• Most traffic is expected to flow in one direction through the site with vehicles accessing
the subject property from B Street, continuing south through the property, and exiting
east through the alley towards 5th Avenue.
• Some staff and drop off traffic will utilize the alley to access additional parking spaces
in the rear of the building which are connected to the building.
• Staff recommends as a condition of approval “Do Not Enter” signage and one way
pavement markings to direct traffic through the site.
• Conditions will ensure the alleyway is improved to accommodate the increased traffic
and can handle the anticipated future traffic volumes prior to occupancy of the site.
• No changes are proposed to the existing street or drive on the portion of the property
north of the alley, other than adding a pedestrian route through the site and new
landscaped buffers. New parking on the portion of the property south of the alley
complies with all current standards.
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:
• The subject property meets most standards of the RS-5 zone.
• Elements that do not meet current standards may continue as legal non-conformities
because a change of use is allowed by 14-4E ‘Nonconforming Situations’ of the City
Code where no structural alterations are being proposed. Examples of legal non-
conformities include 9 parking spaces that back directly into an alley, the width of the
parking aisle in front of the building, the building encroachment in the side setback,
and the location of parking lot trees, in addition to legal non-conformities related to the
multi-family site development standards discussed in the specific approval criteria.
• Some elements of the site will be brought into compliance with current standards due
to proposed conditions, such as new landscaping buffers along property lines.
• Staff will ensure all new elements and any future changes comply with relevant
standards during building permit and site plan review.
7. The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City,
as amended.
FINDINGS:
• The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map shows this area as Residential (2-8
dwelling units per acre), and the Central District Plan Future Land Use Map of the
Central District Plan shows this area as Private Institutional.
• The Comprehensive Plan generally supports providing goods and services within
convenient walking distance for residents in the immediate area.
• The proposed exception would convert a religious/private group assembly use to a
daycare use, both of which are classified as private institutional uses and are
consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of EXC24-0004, with an expiration timeline of 12 months to allow
enough time to receive approval of the site plan, alley improvements, and secure a building permit,
8
to allow a daycare use in a Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone for the property
located at 1839 B Street, subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy:
a. Improvement of the alley to City standards from the western property line east to
5th Avenue.
b. Development of a pedestrian path with a demarcated crossing over the alley from
the building to the play area, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
2. Any new pedestrian routes through the site that directly abut parking areas shall be
separated by a raised curb or barrier that is a minimum of five inches (5”) in height.
3. Provide screening to the S2 standard between parking areas and adjacent properties
along the east and west property lines as shown in the site plan.
4. Provide “Do Not Enter” signage and one way pavement markings to direct traffic through
the site.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Good Neighbor Meeting Summary
4. Application Materials
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
November 13, 2024
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC24-0004
ATTACHMENT 1
Location Map
Prepared by Staff
Frien
d
s
h
i
p
S
t
5t
h
A
v
e
5t
h
A
v
e
B S
t
EXC24-0004
1839 B Streetµ
Prepared By: Sanzida Rahman Setu
Date Prepared: October 2024
0 0.01 0.020.01 Miles
An application submitted by Staci Humiston, requesting a
special exception to allow for a childcare center for
‘Reach for Your Potential’ in a Low Density Single-Family
Residential (RS5) zone.
November 13, 2024
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC24-0004
ATTACHMENT 2
Zoning Map
Prepared by Staff
Frien
d
s
h
i
p
S
t
5t
h
A
v
e
5t
h
A
v
e
B S
t
RS5
RS5
EXC24-0004
1839 B Streetµ
Prepared By: Sanzida Rahman Setu
Date Prepared: October 2024
0 0.01 0.020.01 Miles
An application submitted by Staci Humiston, requesting a
special exception to allow for a childcare center for
‘Reach for Your Potential’ in a Low Density Single-Family
Residential (RS5) zone.
November 13, 2024
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC24-0004
ATTACHMENT 3
Good Neighbor Meeting Summary
Submitted by the Applicant
November 13, 2024
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC24-0004
ATTACHMENT 4
Special Exception Application Materials
Submitted by the Applicant
Legal Descriptions 1839 B Street
Commencing at a point on the northerly line of Friendship street 446.0 feet southeasterly
from the southwest corner of Lot 9 in Block 39, East Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa,
according to the recorded plat thereof, thence northeasterly parallel with the east line of Garden
Street 136 feet to the point of beginning; Thence continuing northeasterly parallel with the east
line of Garden Street 77.4 feet to the southerly line of the public alley, thence northwesterly
along the southerly line of the public alley 121.3 feet, thence southwesterly parallel with the est
line of Garden Street 94.8 feet, thence southeasterly to the point of beginning, subject to
easements of record.
And
Lot 3, except the easterly 53 ⅓ feet in width thereof, and all of Lot 4, in Block 39, in East Iowa
City, Johnson County, Iowa, according to the recorded plat thereof
Specific Approval Criteria 1839 B Street Special Exception
14-4B-4-D-7 (a-e)
7. Daycare Uses:
a. Required Interior Activity Areas: Child daycare centers must contain at least
thirty five (35) square feet of usable interior floor space per child. Adult daycare centers
must contain a minimum of sixty (60) square feet of usable floor area per adult client. An
additional twenty (20) square feet of floor area is required for every adult client who
uses ambulatory aids. Reception areas, kitchens, storage areas, offices, bathrooms,
hallways, treatment rooms, and specialized areas used for therapy are excluded when
calculating the required floor area. The dining area may only be included in the square
footage calculation if used by daycare participants for activities other than meals. When
collocated in a facility that houses other uses or services, the proposed daycare use
must have its own separate identifiable space for program activities during operational
hours.
Per the site plan, the proposed Daycare Facility will follow 14-2B-6 Multi-family Site
Development Standards except where elements are existing-non-conforming with a
proposed 100 Children and 14 Staff.
The building provides the minimum of 35 SF floor space per child.
The subject property has approximately 7,785 sqft of usable interior floor space which
could accommodate up to 222 children
The applicant proposes using the subject property for a daycare use with 100 children
and 14 staff which is well below the maximum allowed based on the usable interior floor
space.
b. Required Outdoor Areas: Child daycare uses must provide a fenced outdoor
play area of not less than one hundred (100) square feet per child based on the
maximum number of children that will be using the outdoor play area at any given time.
The outdoor play area must meet the following standards:
The outdoor play area will be at least 100 square feet per child for the number of
children that will be using the outdoor play area at one time. Currently the site contains
approximately 3,795 sqft of play space which can accommodate 37 children at one
time. The site does not accommodate all children outdoors at once so scheduled
outdoor times will stagger/alternate among age groups and based on enrollment.
The subject property is with easy walking distance of Chadek Green Park
(1) Playground equipment is not permitted within the front and side setbacks.
Playground equipment will be within the site setbacks.
(2) Outdoor play areas must be well drained, free from hazards, and readily
accessible to the daycare center. In residential zones, outdoor play areas must be
completely enclosed by a fence at least four feet (4') in height. In commercial and
industrial zones, the outdoor play area must be completely enclosed by a fence built to
the S4 standard and be screened along the perimeter of the fence to the S3 standard.
(See chapter 5, article F, "Screening And Buffering Standards", of this title.) Th e city
may waive the screening requirement if it is determined that land uses surrounding the
daycare use will not pose a nuisance or safety hazard to the children such that a
screening buffer is necessary.
The outdoor play area will be fenced in according to the applicable standard.
c. Vehicular Circulation: The use must provide a drop off/pick up area in a
location that is convenient to or has good pedestrian access to the entrance to the
facility. This drop off/pick up area must contain sufficient stacking spaces and/or p arking
spaces to ensure that traffic does not stack into adjacent streets or other public rights of
way. (See minimum parking requirements for daycare in section 14-5A-4, table 5A-2 of
this title.) To promote safe vehicular circulation, one-way drives are encouraged.
Per the drawing, 7 stacking spaces are provided which exceeds the required 1 stacking
space per 20 students.
d. Pedestrian Circulation: A sidewalk must be constructed connecting the main
entrance of the center to the adjacent public right of way. Pedestrian access must be
clearly separated or distinguished from vehicular circulation areas to minimize the
extent to which users of the facility are required to walk across drives or aisles to gain
access to the daycare center.
The main entrance is directly connected to the public right of way on B Street via a
separated sidewalk.
e. Site Development Standards: If the proposed use is located in a residential
zone or in the central planning district, it must comply with the multi-family site
development standards as set forth in section 14-2B-6 of this title. Daycare facilities that
are accessory uses are exempt from this provision.
Per the site plan, existing non-conforming elements exist and will not materially change
in dimension. Any new elements will conform to the multi-family site development
standards.
General Approval Criteria 1839 B Street Special Exception
14-4B-3-A (1-7)
14-4B-3: SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS:
The Board of Adjustment is empowered to grant special exceptions to the provisions of
this title in certain circumstances specifically enumerated within this title. To ensure that
the spirit of this title is observed and substantial justice done, no special exception shall
be granted by the Board unless the applicant demonstrates that all of the following
general approval criteria are met in addition to any specific approval criteria for the
proposed exception listed in section 14-4B-4 of this article or elsewhere in this title. The
procedures for obtaining a special exception are set forth in chapter 8, article C, "Board
Of Adjustment Approval Procedures", of this title.
A. Approval Criteria: In order to grant a special exception, the Board must find that
the applicant meets the specific approval criteria set forth in this title with respect to the
specific proposed exception. The Board must also find that the applicant meets the
following general approval criteria or that the following criteria do not apply:
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare.
The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to nor endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare. It will aim to enhance all of the
aforementioned as it will provide a new amenity to the neighborhood and surrounding
area, which will be of benefit to public safety, comfort and general welfare.
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.
The proposed exception will make it easier to live in this neighborhood and the
surrounding properties as it will provide additional childcare and educational services. It
will not diminish nor impair property values and could potentially enhance them.
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.
The surrounding property is 100% developed and will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been
or are being provided.
This is an existing building with all utilities already located on site.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
Ingress is being provided via B Street and will be “one-way” traffic. Egress is being
provided via the alleyway to the rear of the property, exiting on 5th Avenue.
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.
Correct
7. The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the
City, as amended.
Correct
B. Burden Of Proof: The applicant bears the burden of proof and must support each
of the approval criteria by a preponderance of the evidence.
Acknowledged.
C. Precedents: The granting of a special exception is not grounds for granting other
special exceptions for the same or differing properties. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005)
Acknowledged.
B
S
T
R
E
E
T
1814 B ST
R
E
E
T
,
I
O
W
A
C
I
T
Y
,
I
A
5
2
2
4
5
1
8
2
7
B
S
T
R
E
E
T
,
I
O
W
A
C
I
T
Y
,
I
A
5
2
2
4
5
1
8
3
0
F
R
I
E
N
D
S
H
I
P
S
T
R
E
E
T
,
I
O
W
A
C
I
T
Y
,
I
A
5
2
2
4
5
1
8
4
0
F
R
I
E
N
D
S
H
I
P
S
T
R
E
E
T
,
I
O
W
A
C
I
T
Y
,
I
A
5
2
2
4
5
1
8
5
0
F
R
I
E
N
D
S
H
I
P
S
T
R
E
E
T
,
I
O
W
A
C
I
T
Y
,
I
A
5
2
2
4
5
E
X
I
S
T
I
N
G
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
AL
L
E
Y
10
'
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X
X
X
X
XXXX
X
W W W
DN
UPDN
DN
DN
WD
DN
REF DN
319 SF2-3 YR
S3
157 SFKIDS RR4
164 SFBREAK RO
O
M5
182 SFOFFICE6
1592 SF4-5 YRS7
223 SFHALL18
529 SF8 WK - 12
M
O19 732 SF13-24 M
O20
46 SFRR2240 SFRR23
PROJECT NAME RFYP CHILDCARE
2229 E Grantview Lane, Suite 2
Coralville, Iowa 52241
P 319-626-9090
0 10105
SITE INFORMATION AND ZONING REQUIREMENTS:
ADDRESS: 1839 B STREET, IOWA CITY, IOWA 52245
ZONE: RS-5
LOT AREA: 26,261 SF
GROSS BUILDING AREA: 10,638 SF
NET USABLE INTERIOR FLOOR SPACE (INCLUDES CIRCULATION): 9,119 SF
PROPOSED USE: DAYCARE FACILITY
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PER ARTICLE 14-2B-6 - MULTIFAMILY SITE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
PROPOSED # OF CHILDREN: 100
PROPOSED # OF STAFF: 14
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS:
MIN. LOT SIZE: 8,000 SF
LOT WIDTH: 60 FT
FRONTAGE: 45 FT
MAX. HEIGHT: 35 FT
MIN. WIDTH: 20 FT
MIN. OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS: N/A
PARKING REQUIREMENTS:
1 SPACE PER EMPLOYEE + 1 SPACE PER 10 CHILDREN + 1 STACKING SPACE PER 20
CLIENTS/CHILDREN SERVED
BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS:
10 PERCENT
LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS:
1.) A BUFFER AREA OF AT LEAST TEN FEET IN WIDTH AND LANDSCAPED TO S1
STANDARD MUST BE PROVIDED BETWEEN PARKING AREA AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES
AND BETWEEN ANY PARKING AREA AND STREET RIGHTS OF WAY
2.) A BUFFER AREA AT LEAST FIVE FEET IN WIDTH AND LANDSCAPED TO THE S1
STANDARD MUST BE PROVIDED BETWEEN ANY PARKING AREA CONTAINING MORE
THAN EIGHT PARKING SPACES AND AN ADJACENT AREA
PARKING MINIMUM:
LOADING (STACKING) SPACES: 7 STALLS
STANDARD STALLS: 24 STALLS
PARKING PROVIDED:
LOADING (STACKING) SPACES: 7 STALLS
STANDARD STALLS: 15 STALLS
COMPACT STALLS: 7 STALLS
ADA ACCESSIBLE STALLS: 2 STALL
TOTAL (EXCLUDING LOADING SPACES): 24 STALLS
ONE WAY SIGNAGE
EXISTING SIDEWALK AND
DRIVEWAY APPROACH TO REMAIN
PROPOSED STREET TREES
DIRECTIONAL ARROW
PAVEMENT MARKING
EXISTING SIDEWALK AND
PAVEMENT TO REMAIN
EXISTING
LANDSCAPING
TO REMAIN
PROPOSED SIDEWALK W/ RAISED CURB
PROPOSED LANDSCAPING
TO THE S2 STANDARD
7 LOADING SPACES
2 ADA ACCESSIBLE
PARKING STALLS
3 STANDARD
PARKING STALLS
BICYCLE PARKING ON
NEW PCC PAD
EXISTING STOOP AND
STEPS TO REMAIN
APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE
APPROXIMATE SETBACK LINE
5'
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
EXISTING TRANSFORMER TO REMAIN
2'4.
4
'
PROPOSED LANDSCAPING
TO THE S2 STANDARD
20' FRON
T
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
27.8'
10'
7'
4'
10
6
.
6
'
18
'
(
T
Y
P
.
)
9' (TYP.)
9.
1
'
19' (TYP.)
9'
(
T
Y
P
.
)
8.
9
'
5.
4
'
5'
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
DIRECTIONAL ARROW
PAVEMENT MARKING
DO NOT ENTER / EXIT
(LEFT) SIGNAGE
5'
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE
TO THE S1 STANDARD
5' LAND
S
C
A
P
E
B
U
F
F
E
R
23.3'
20' REA
R
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5'
18' (TYP.)
9'
(
T
Y
P
.
)
8
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
PA
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
A
L
L
S
5'
EXISITNG STOOP TO REMAIN
PROPOSED SIDEWALK W/ RAISED CURB
EXISTING PAVEMENT TO REMAIN
PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKINGS BASED ON
EXISTING NON-CONFORMING SPACES (TYP.)
5'
APPROXIMATE PLAYGROUND EXTENTS (20'X20')
17
'
(
T
Y
P
.
C
O
M
P
A
C
T
)
8' (TYP. COMPACT)
6 COMPACT
PARKING STALLS
22
'
18
'
(
T
Y
P
.
)
9' (TYP.)
4 STANDARD
1 COMPACT
PARKING STALLS
4' TALL OPAQUE FENCE
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE
TO THE S2 STANDARD
PLAY AREA
3,795 SF
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER
PROPOSED PAVEMENT
MARKING (TYP.)
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE
TO THE S2 STANDARD
4' TALL OPAQUE FENCE
10
'
10'
5'
APPROXIMATE
PROPERTY LINE
PROJECT LOCATION
M
U
S
C
A
T
I
N
E
A
V
E
.
E COURT AVE.
S
1
S
T
A
V
E
.
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 1000'
PROPOSED FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE
TO EXTEND FROM PUBLIC MAIN
*PROPERTY LINES ARE APPROXIMATE
AND PROVIDED FROM GIS SOURCES
8'
4' TALL CONCRETE
BOLLARD (TYP.)
PROPOSED SIDEWALK
W/ RAISED CURB
November 13, 2024
Board of Adjustment Meeting
PRELIMINARY MEETING MINUTES
ITEM 4 ON THE AGENDA
August 22, 2024
Prepared by Staff
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAL MEETING
EMMA HARVAT HALL
AUGUST 22, 2024 – 5:15 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Bryce Parker (via zoom), Mark Russo, Paula
Swygard
MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Carlson
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Anne Russett, Parker Walsh
OTHERS PRESENT: Alex Carrillo, Brock Heller, Marcia Hammond, Mike O’Donnell
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL:
A brief opening statement was read by Baker outlining the role and purpose of the Board and
the procedures that would be followed in the meeting.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC24-0003:
An application submitted by Harvest Preserve Foundation, Inc. requesting a special exception to
allow a religious/private group assembly use in an Interim Development Single Family
Residential (ID-RS) zone at 1645 N Scott Boulevard.
Baker opened the public hearing.
Russo stated he had consulted with the City attorney about a possible conflict of interest
involving himself and a principal of this project. It turns out that it's not considered a legal conflict
however, it falls upon his judgment as to whether or not he thinks he can be fair and impartial in
in assessing the outcome of this hearing, and he believes he can. He acknowledged he is a
supplier of materials to a project for Bedrock Builders in Kalona and that is the extent of his
contact with them.
Walsh began the staff report showing a location map of the property and although there is
approximately 100 acres of land on this property, the project discussed in this application is
located up in the northeast corner. Next Walsh shared the zoning map showing residential
property to the west and to the south, and the remaining surrounding properties are zoned ID-
RS. The Harvest Preserve Foundation, Inc, was established in 2005 as a nonprofit corporation
dedicated to maintaining and preserving natural areas, while also increasing public awareness,
appreciation, and participation. The Preserve maintains approximately 100 acres of land that
has been placed within a private conservation easement to achieve their mission. The primary
use of this land being parks and open space. The conservation easement also outlines
buildable areas that are suitable for construction of allowed development and the applicant is
seeking to construct a meeting space that provides members with the opportunities for
education and shelter, with year-round restrooms. This use is classified as private group
Board of Adjustment
August 22, 2024
Page 2 of 12
assembly.
Walsh noted that the Good Neighbor meeting held in May, and correspondence from that,
reflects where the applicant initially proposed to construct the building, which is up in the
northwest corner of the property, and the current application before the Board has been revised
in an effort to try to answer some of those concerns, including the building being moved. Staff
has not received additional correspondence since the site revision. Walsh reviewed the floor
plans of the building, floor one would be the main assembly area of the building and then there
would also be a walkout basement.
The Board of Adjustment is charged with approving, approving with conditions, or denying the
application based on the facts presented. To approve the special exception, the Board must find
that it meets all applicable approval criteria, beginning with the specific standards of religious/
private group assembly in the ID-RS zones.
Criteria A is that the following setbacks are required in lieu of the setback specified in the base
zone, and those requirements are front and side setback of 20 feet and a rear setback of 50
feet. The proposed project and building location propose a front setback of 181 feet and a side
setback of more than 181 feet. The side setback to the west would be 778 feet, and to the south
more than 2750 feet. Therefore, the applicant is proposing to meet and exceed all the minimum
requirements.
Criteria B states the proposed use will be designed to be compatible with adjacent uses. The
Board of Adjustment will consider aspects of the proposed use such as site size, type of
accessory uses, anticipated traffic, building scale, setbacks, landscaping and location and
amount of paved areas. The Board of Adjustment may deny the use or aspects of the use that
are deemed out of scale, incompatible or out of character with surrounding residential uses, or
may require additional measures to mitigate these differences, such as requiring screening,
landscaping, pedestrian facilities, setbacks, location, design of parking facilities and buildings.
Walsh explained this use would provide an indoor meeting space and restrooms for its
members for the purpose of education, trainings, leisure, shelter, and because it is a private
group assembly it is primarily used for its members and that would mean it's restricted access to
the general public. This space cannot be rented out for commercial office uses or events for the
general public. The proposed design of the building is compatible with adjacent uses. It's 60 feet
by 40 feet, or 2400 square feet, and it's one story with a walkout basement. The nearest
residential home is a two story, 2242 square feet footprint, and a total floor area of
approximately 4400 square feet. Transportation staff has reviewed and determined that the
proposed use and associated traffic will not overburden Scott Boulevard, stating that the street
currently carries approximately 5100 vehicles per day, and theoretically the capacity would
exceed 15,000 vehicles per day. Transportation staff also determined that the use and existing
parking spaces will not generate enough traffic to warrant further improvements to Scott
Boulevard such as turn lanes or a traffic study. The occupant load of the main auditorium in the
building is what is used to determine the off-street parking requirement, that occupancy is 125
people and would require 21 parking spaces.
Criteria C states given that large parking lots can seriously erode the single-family residential
character of these zones, the Board will carefully review any parking spaces beyond the
minimum required. The Board may limit the number of parking spaces and the size and location
of parking lots, taking into account the availability of on-street parking, the estimated parking
Board of Adjustment
August 22, 2024
Page 3 of 12
demand and opportunities for shared parking with other non-residential uses in the vicinity.
Walsh noted the proposed use does require 21 parking spaces, again calculated based on the
largest room in the building. The property contains an existing paved area capable of being
striped for the required 21 spaces, so no new pavement or parking areas are proposed as part
of this application. Bike parking will be required and that's something staff will review further at
the site plan review. There's no on-street parking available along North Scott Boulevard, the
nearest on-street parking would be along Tamarack Trail, which is 26 feet of pavement width,
and that size of street would support parking along one side.
Criteria D is the proposed use will not have significant adverse effects on the livability of nearby
residential uses due to noise, glare from lights, late night operations, odors or litter. The closest
residential property line from the proposed use is located 778 feet to the west and it is
separated by existing woodlands. To ensure the use does not produce negative impacts
relating to noise or late-night operations, staff recommends a condition that the building housing
the private group assembly use be closed from 10pm to 6am and that amplified sound not be
allowed outside. Single family and ID-RS zones are in the low illumination district, which is the
lowest lighting district within the code, however the ID-RS zone properties are not subject to the
same lighting restrictions as single family uses. Due to the proximity to existing single family
uses and the specific approval criteria that the use be designed to be compatible with adjacent
uses, staff does recommend the condition that any future lighting be subject to the standards of
14-5G-3 standards related to single family and two family uses to ensure compatible lighting
designs.
Criteria E states the building official may grant approval for the following modifications to private
group assembly without approval from the Board of Adjustment:
1. An accessory storage building less than five hundred (500) square feet in size.
2. A building addition of less than five hundred (500) square feet, provided the addition
does not increase the occupancy load of the building.
Walsh explained this section is not applicable because this is a new application and new
development.
Criteria F is if the proposed use is located in a residential zone or in the Central Planning District
it must comply with the multifamily site development standards. This property is not within a
single-family residential zone or within the Central Planning District, so these standards do not
apply.
Next, Walsh reviewed the general standards applicable to all special exceptions. First is that
the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
comfort or general welfare. The proposed building will generally be of comparable scale to the
surrounding residential uses and the applicant proposes an increased setback to maintain
separation from existing development. The proposed use is classified as private group
assembly so this is a site that's primarily intended for its members and would restrict access
from the general public and cannot be rented out for commercial uses or events held by the
general public. Regarding transportation, staff has reviewed this site and the traffic generated
by the proposed use will not overburden existing streets, and access to surrounding properties
will not be affected. This proposed building would also provide an amenity to enhance the
visiting experience for its members, programs and camps, while also acting as a safety shelter
when necessary. Conditions for noise and lighting have been proposed to ensure the proposed
use remains compatible with surrounding development as not to impede on the health, safety,
Board of Adjustment
August 22, 2024
Page 4 of 12
comfort or welfare of the public.
Criteria two is 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. Walsh stated the proposed use will not impact the neighbor's ability
to utilize and enjoy their property, the building will be located approximately 778 feet from the
nearest residential property line and buffered by existing woodlands. The proposed
development is within an area that would allow development activity per the existing
conservation easement agreement, and the vast majority of the property will remain open space
which serves as an amenity and benefit to neighborhood properties which can have a positive
impact on property values. The proposed development is also located in an area in the
northeastern portion of the subject property that contains other existing structures for Harvest
Preserve member use and do not have City imposed limitations. Walsh stated there are
conditions, however, recommended that will help mitigate potential negative effects on noise
and hours of operation for the surrounding properties for the proposed construction.
Criteria three states the 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 which such property is located. The residential neighborhood to the
west is nearly fully developed with residential uses and the residential neighborhood to the
south is beginning to develop. Land to the north and east of the subject property remains
undeveloped and the development of that land will occur as utilities extend and development
continues from the west. Again, this property is set back over 778 feet from the existing
residential neighborhood, is compatible in scale and the conditions as recommended are
intended to mitigate potential effects on surrounding properties.
Criteria four states adequate utilities, access, roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have
been or are provided. Walsh noted the subject property has access to City utilities and will
extend utilities to the property to serve the new building. An eight-foot-wide sidewalk does exist
along the property's North Scott Boulevard frontage and pedestrian access for visitors of
Harvest Preserve is also available through onsite trails. A large portion of the subject property is
also green space, which does allow for the absorption of any stormwater runoff.
Criteria five is that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Direct access to the new development
will be off North Scott Boulevard through the existing curb cut and driveway. Transportation
staff determined that the existing drive was acceptable and the use, as well as the existing
parking, would not overburden the streets or require improvements.
Criteria six states 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 of the zone. Walsh stated the proposed use and development does meet
all the code standards for the ID-RS zone.
Finally, criteria seven, the proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use map shows this area as Conservation Design
and the Northeast District Plan identifies this property as the Bluffwood neighborhood. The
Comprehensive Plan notes that Conservation Design is appropriate in areas containing
sensitive features and is meant to balance the protection of sensitive natural features with the
Board of Adjustment
August 22, 2024
Page 5 of 12
development rights of the property owners. By clustering development on more buildable
portions of the property, natural areas can be preserved. The proposed use and building would
be located in the northeast corner of the property, away from those sensitive areas and in a
designated buildable area per the conservation easement. The Northeast District Plan also has
the goal to use conservation design principles to locate streets, utilities and structures in a way
that minimizes disturbance of natural features. And although the street network is already in
place, in recent years City utilities have been extended to a location that is more able to limit
disturbance to natural features while providing the property with the proper utilities. The
Northeast District Plan goes on to note the goal to treat environmentally sensitive areas as
amenities and the Harvest Preserve Foundation has placed over 100 acres in a private
conservation easement for the long-term protection of natural features with the intent of raising
public awareness, appreciation, and participation. The proposed use and structure would
provide an indoor space intended to further support and enhance the amenities of those who
visit.
Walsh stated staff received 23 pieces of correspondence in opposition of the proposed
development as presented at the Good Neighbor meeting on May 29, 2024. Since the Good
Neighbor meeting the applicant revised the site plan in response to neighbor concerns.
Staff recommends approval of EXC24-0003 to allow a Religious/Private Group Assembly use
in an Interim Development Single Family Residential Zone for the property located at 1645 N.
Scott Blvd, subject to the following conditions:
1. General compliance with the site plan dated 8/15/2024 in terms of the location
of the building, parking, and the size and scale of the proposed building.
2. The building must be closed between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
3. No amplified sound shall be allowed outdoors.
4. Future lighting be subject to the standards of 14-5G-3: Standards for Single
Family and Two Family Uses to ensure compatible lighting designs.
Russo noted under general standards 14-4B-3 Walsh mentioned camps, are those an allowed
activity. Walsh replied his understanding from the applicant is those are private members or
groups that are Harvest Members that have day camps there.
Alex Carrillo (Bedrock Builders) stated he was approached by Julie Decker and Doug Paul with
Harvest Preserve with the idea of creating a building to support the programming for Harvest
Preserve to have an indoor space and have functioning restrooms that members of Harvest
Preserve could use. Initially they looked at doing a building at the current spot, but it became too
cost prohibitive at the time to do the building in that location. It was then decided to move it
closer to where utilities have to come from, which is Tamarack Trail, so it was revised to that
location. Carrillo noted that's also where they have some of their current programming with their
tap roots, and some of the day camps happen right there where a chip and seal drive comes
down. They then had a good neighbor meeting and there was lots of opposition, and it was
pretty clear that was not the best location, despite the cost. Additionally, that area would have
had to have more parking and more paving. Fortunately Harvest Preserve was workable and
okay with moving to this current location.
Russo stated it seems that there are just several possible areas of conflict, one is parking
because in the letters one of the major concerns was spillover parking that would be on
Board of Adjustment
August 22, 2024
Page 6 of 12
Tamarack Trail. Carrillo stated the reality is it's not a concern, the general intent of the building
is for the current programming, for day camps, for members to rent, or if they want to reserve
the space to do some club or activity (a class or seminar or something) that is onsite in Harvest
Preserve. It’s probably unlikely in its current spot that people would park on Tamarack Trail and
walk a good distance to Harvest Preserve to get in. He can’t say people won't park there but
thinks there are very few scenarios where that would likely happen. Carrillo noted one
restriction on Tamarack Trail is they allow parking on one side of the street only, so it's not going
to congest both sides of the street if people follow the rule.
Brock Heller (MMS Consultants) addressed some of the questions in terms of parking overflow.
The intended use for the parking area is 1/6 of the total occupant load which is based on the fire
code with the allowable occupancy. The occupancy only allows for 125 people to be in this use
at one time, and it’s unlikely that would happen, but it could happen and there's also a through
connection past the existing building where there's an additional curb cut. He could foresee
maybe if kids did have a camp there at pickup time that might be a heavily parked situation for a
short period of time with queuing and stacking along that just to avoid over parking in the limited
existing parking lot.
Baker asked about the gates at all the entrances and if those are locked or closed 24 hours a
day and only accessible by a code. Heller stated they are code accessible but there are certain
times that they'll have them open when they're expecting multiple guests to be arriving, but they
are intended to be closed at all times so the public cannot come and go.
Marcia Hammond (1344 Tamarack Trail) noted she had a lot of conflict with the initial project
and when they had the good neighbor meeting, they did a lot of petitioning with the neighbors to
get their feelings and send emails to staff. The questions she still has for this project are how
many special exceptions are allowed on this property. Russett replied all that's being requested
at this point is a special exception for this particular use.
Hammond asked how many special exceptions could be allowed, potentially. Russett stated the
site's limited based on the conservation easement and the only buildable area is the areas that
staff showed. This is an ID-RS zone and so only uses that are allowed in that zone would be
allowed on this property. Hammond stated their homes are adjacent to that land, right next to
the fence line, and when they built these properties they were told nothing is going to be built
back there for 100 years. She stated they didn't have that in writing and neither did the builders.
The concern is what it leads to is this ambiguity, is it a building that will house campers and
what's the religious or spiritual component of that, how many people will there be, is it on a
Sunday or is it on a Wednesday. Hammond stated she is not against religion but to congregate
at that level it will then impact Tamarack Trail parking. They have a very narrow road as it is and
very narrow lots so if they are to have company come over for Sunday brunch and they couldn't
park in the driveway they would need to park on the road across the street. If overflow from
Harvest Preserve is parking there as well, where are their guests supposed to park. It is a deep
concern because in Minneapolis, where she is from, she experienced some of this very same
issue and it makes one feel like they really can't live within their own space because they don't
know when there's going to be an overflow. Another concern with the building and parking there
is if there are 21 car spaces and it's in the middle of winter with no leaves on foliage, how are
those beams of light to come across. They won’t know until the thing is built, but it's too late, it’s
already built. She would really like them to reconsider this, the amount the parking, the amount
of cars, and the what it's used for. Taking this land out of residential and putting it into this type
Board of Adjustment
August 22, 2024
Page 7 of 12
of zoning they’ve taken away their rights to really ask what goes on. Additional special
exceptions can happen and will impact their property values, and it would not increase the
value, it would be an issue.
Swygard would like a clarification of the requested action, the Code lumps this request under
the title allow a religious/private group assembly and what does that mean. Walsh stated the
Code uses religious/private group assembly to classify private groups and that could be a
religious focus, like a church, or could be a club focus, like an Elks Lodge, it’s just private
groups that assemble in the space.
Baker asked if a church group could assemble in this space, Walsh replied it could if they were
members.
Russett noted from a land use perspective, they can't treat religious institutions any differently
from other membership groups that gather together in a space, from a land use and zoning
perspective needed to be treated the same way. If the Board remembers a few months ago the
Porch Light Group, a religious private group assembly of membership organization that are
focused on literature and writing, are located in a single family neighborhood. Again, from a
zoning perspective, they need to treat a church the same way as a membership organization
like Harvest Preserve.
Russo stated essentially this property is the same as the individual properties along Tamarack
Trail correct, it is the same zoning. Walsh replied it is two different zones, Harvest Preserve is
Interim Development Single Family Residential and have different development uses allowed.
Prior to its development Tamarack Trail was zoned the same and then when it was developed,
rezoned and subdivided to the residential zone that it is now. Russo asked though it is the
intention to hold this project to the same lighting standards as Tamarack Trail is held. Walsh
confirmed that was correct.
Russo asked about gathering along Tamarack Trial, is it an HOA, are there limitations to how
many can be at a party because if someone has 60 people at a party, where would they park.
Russett noted from a zoning perspective this use, religious/private group assembly, is also an
allowed use in the single-family residential zones.
Baker stated then a large private gathering along Tamarack would be subject to the same
parking limitations, not legally but logistically. If people from the Preserve overflow and use a
public parking space on Tamarack it's perfectly legal.
Carrillo wanted to clarify the location and the visibility, Carrillo lives on Tamarack and makes
that walk a lot and can't see any of the current buildings anywhere on Tamarack, and this new
building would be at a lower elevation. The proposed building would be down the hill to where
the pond is as they are proposing to build it into the side of that slope to make it a walkout.
Therefore, he would anticipate there'd be no visibility and he’s never seen a car light or any of
the activity going on at Harvest Preserve from Tamarack and would anticipate that would
continue to be the case.
Russo stated he can understand the sort of disappointment or dismay that some homeowners
felt that they were led to believe there wouldn't be any development but that's not really an issue
that this Board can address. Dulek confirmed that was correct and the land wasn't put into an
Board of Adjustment
August 22, 2024
Page 8 of 12
easement until 2022 so presumably the development could have been a lot of different things.
Hammond stated there's a history to this and if they have this preserve and get a tax break
because they're a nonprofit and then their overflow comes out to the public parking on
Tamarack Trail and the private property owners have no public parking on Tamarack Trail
because the overflow, what’s their options, can they use the Preserve parking lot, because they
used ours.
Swygard noted she lives in an area in Iowa City where she’s impacted by home football games.
People park on the public street in front of her house, in that space, and when she has visitors
that may be coming to her house the parking is impacted, but it is public parking, and she
doesn’t have any control over that.
Hammond stated this isn't a football stadium and the University of Iowa is completely different
than Harvest Preserve. Swygard begs to differ. Baker stated they are talking about public
parking, it’s not private parking, it is public parking, clearly marked, anybody can use it and if
they overflow into places they're not supposed to park you can call a cop, but you have no
control over who uses that public parking.
Hammond understands what they are saying but they don't know who's going to use this
gathering space, other than the members and their 5000 family members, or whatever it is and
that certainty leaves that bad taste in her mouth. She will speak for her neighborhood, for the
people that have written their emails and signed the petitions that the transparency was lacking
and the trust is minimal so they will just have to go on good faith that it will work out.
Brock Heller (MMS Consultants) wanted to address some of the potential concerns with a lack
of transparency, that could possibly be from the initial building permit application that was filed,
not with the special exception use. The building permit was for staff review and through the
process of that application staff reviewed it and based on what was being proposed they said
they think this falls outside of the standard building permit application and a special exception
would be needed. So some members of the neighborhood think that they were trying to slide
this under their nose without having a meeting but prior to the special exception going into place
but it was just a simple building permit application. Then with the special exception process
they held a neighborhood meeting, got input and changed the location of the building per that
input. It was also required by City engineering to extend the public utilities to serve water and
sewer to this building and because of that requirement, because Tamarack Trail was extended
from the dead end street and connected all the way through to Scott Boulevard, part of the
public streets and infrastructure was put in place so that it made it accessible to attach to City
services even though there's not anything in the right-of-way in front of this property, it ends
right at the Tamarack Trail line but because it's close enough to that City engineering required
that they extend approximately 900 to 1000 lineal feet of public water main in order to provide a
water and sanitary service to the building.
Russo asked in terms of screening involved in this, are there any special plantings or any sort of
visual mitigation necessary. Heller stated with this location they don't believe any additional
screening is needed due to the existing landscaping and topography on the site.
Mike O'Donnell (1320 Tamarack Trail) asked if there are any future plans to build on this plat
behind the north end of the Tamarack on the east side. If there is, will they have to go through
Board of Adjustment
August 22, 2024
Page 9 of 12
this whole process every time they want to put another building in, right in their backyards on
the other side of the fence. Walsh replied as far as staff knows there's no future plans but there
are other uses allowed in this zone that would not go through a special exception process and
could move forward with a standard site plan application for administrative review. Examples of
those uses would be detached single family, animal related commercial (things like a vet, animal
grooming, animal daycare, kennels and stables), parks and open space. Other uses would be
golf course, plazas, gardens, nature preserves, clubhouse and rec facilities, and then agriculture
would be things like farming, plant nurseries, livestock operations, dairy farms, horse farms, and
some communication uses that would be allowed could be broadcast towers and cell towers.
O’Donnell noted there is a conservation easement in place. Walsh confirmed the property's
private conservation easement would limit them further for what uses would be allowed.
O’Donnell noted that leaves that whole property pretty much wide open for whatever the hell
they want to do. Walsh again stated they're limited by their conservation easement and the uses
allowed in the zone, but within their buildable areas they could build some of these uses that are
allowed. O’Donnell noted then they could have farm animals on the other side of the fence in
their backyard.
Russett suggested it would be best to reach out to the neighbors and talk to Harvest Preserve
about their intentions for development, staff doesn't know what their vision is. Based on their
website they want this to be parks, open space, conservation that is their goal.
Russett noted any proposed development in the City, there's always neighborhood opposition to
it. Baker stated the City is applying as much oversight as it's legally allowed to do on this issue
and future possible development is subject to the conservation easements. Walsh stated the
applicant can speak more clearly on what those restrictions are as private conservation
easement restrictions are not enforced by the City.
Baker closed the public hearing.
Russo moved to approve EXC24-0003 to allow a Religious/Private Group Assembly use
in an Interim Development Single Family Residential Zone for the property located at
1645 N. Scott Blvd, subject to the following conditions:
1. General compliance with the site plan dated 8/15/2024 in terms of the
location of the building, parking, and the size and scale of the proposed
building.
2. The building must be closed between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
3. No amplified sound shall be allowed outdoors.
4. Future lighting be subject to the standards of 14-5G-3: Standards for Single
Family and Two Family Uses to ensure compatible lighting designs.
Swygard seconded the motion.
Swygard certainly understands the concerns of the neighbors, in her time on Planning and
Zoning Commission and on this Board, she learned one thing and that is that unless you
actually own the property you don't have control over what may possibly happen to it. People
can promise all kinds of things but unless it's in writing, boards, especially boards like this, don't
Board of Adjustment
August 22, 2024
Page 10 of 12
have any jurisdiction over that. She thinks that moving the building to the other part of the area
goes a long way in appeasing the concerns of the neighborhood, which are very valid. The
wooded area and the topography will help mitigate the concerns, and no amplified sound
outside will also help things. She is a little confused still on how lighting a parking lot blends into
a single-family use, but they would have to meet the standards as far as lumens and shielding
and all of those kinds of things and it's far enough away at close to 780 feet, so that it wouldn't
be impactful.
Russo would agree and also state that they are in pretty good hands here in terms of the project
managers having shown a willingness to discuss and try to meet neighbor’s requests and
concerns. He feels that will be ongoing and can't imagine anybody wants a conflict over this.
They will be left with essentially a wildlife area with 100-year easement behind the houses
everybody’s values will be continually valued.
Parker concurs with that assessment. Installing 1000 linear feet of sewer and water is not cheap
to put in, so they're trying to be as neighborly as possible, and the site elevations worked in the
favor of the neighbors.
Swygard stated regarding agenda item EXC24-0003 she does concur with the findings set forth
in the staff report of meeting date, August 22, 2024, and concludes that the general and specific
criteria are satisfied, so unless amended or opposed by another Board member she
recommends that the Board adopt the findings and conditions in the staff report for the approval
of this exception. Russo seconded the findings.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0.
Baker stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision to a
court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk’s Office.
DISCUSSION OF BYLAWS:
Dulek stated it was brought up to have a discussion about whether the Board should be able to
nominate and elect a person who is not present at that meeting and there's a couple of options
through Robert’s Rules of Order. One option would be that a member who's not present cannot
be nominated at all. Or someone could nominate somebody, and that person could then
promptly notify staff, who is the Secretary, that they decline, and then another election would
occur at the next meeting. A third option would be nominations via a slate of candidates brought
forth by a nominating committee, but that option is found more with larger boards where they
have a nominating committee, but with only five folks that doesn't seem to be very good
approach.
Swygard asked if staff has a preference or any thoughts because the second option would
require staff involvement. Walsh replied there are no concerns from staff and no preference
from staff.
Swygard shared the concern about the second option is it's a little bit vague as far as the word
promptly. She thinks there are different circumstances that a nominated elected member might
be personally experiencing that would maybe still make the second option less desirable and
Board of Adjustment
August 22, 2024
Page 11 of 12
would lean towards the first option. The first option is a member who is not present, may not be
nominated.
Russo stated there just might be a whole bunch of no shows that day.
Baker stated his preference is to let Robert's Rules of Order stand and if the person does not
want it, to decline it, and the Board will do it over again. That seems like a perfectly viable
solution to the problem.
Parker noted they would need to define timeline, as in, before the next meeting or something.
Baker stated if the person declines, the next meeting would include a new election. City staff will
be assigned to notify the person promptly of the nomination, and the person should either
accept or decline the nomination, and if the person declines the agenda for the next meeting
would include a new election.
Swygard moved to modify Article Three Section Two of the bylaws to include nomination
with election in term of office with the wording, the Secretary must promptly notify a
member elected to an office if the member was not present at the meeting. The member
must notify the secretary whether the nomination is accepted or declined, and if
declined, election for that office will be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. Parker
second the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0.
CONSIDER APRIL 10, 2024 MINUTES:
Russo moved to approve the minutes of April 10, 2024. Swygard seconded. A vote was taken
and the motion carried 4-0.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Baker asked about the chair being able to make a motion or second a motion. Dulek noted it
was changed four or five years ago by a previous Board making it possible for the chair to make
a motion. Baker wanted to go on record to say he will not be making any motions, that's just his
personal feeling on what the role of the chair ought to be.
Baker raised the question regarding part of the findings of fact or the staff review, there's
discussion of how the application will affect property values and it states “will not substantially
diminish or impair property values” so is this language by law recognizing that property values
might indeed be impacted negatively, but still be acceptable. Dulek stated she can issue a
memo to the Board for that but there can't be any discussion on that tonight because it's not on
the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT:
Swygard moved to adjourn this meeting, Parker seconded, a vote was taken and all approved.
Board of Adjustment
August 22, 2024
Page 12 of 12
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2023-2024
NAME
TERM
EXP.
3/8 4/12 4/19 5/10 6/14 7/12 11/8 12/13 3/13 4/10 8/22
BAKER, LARRY 12/31/2027 X X O/E X X X X X X X X
PARKER, BRYCE 12/31/2024 X X O/E X X X X X X X X
SWYGARD, PAULA 12/31/2028 X X X X X X X X O/E X X
CARLSON, NANCY 12/31/2025 X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E
RUSSO, MARK 12/31/2026 X X X O/E O/E X O/E X X X X
Key: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
-- -- = Not a Member
November 13, 2024
Board of Adjustment Meeting
PRELIMINARY MEETING MINUTES
ITEM 4 ON THE AGENDA
October 10, 2024
Prepared by Staff
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAL MEETING
HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM
OCTOBER 10, 2024 – 5:15 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Nancy Carlson, Mark Russo, Paula Swygard
MEMBERS ABSENT: Bryce Parker
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Parker Walsh
OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas Heineman
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL:
A brief opening statement was read by Baker outlining the role and purpose of the Board and
the procedures that would be followed in the meeting.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC24-0001:
A request submitted by Adelaide Subtil and Thomas Heineman to extend the six (6) month
expiration time limitation for an application 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.
Walsh noted this application was originally approved in March of 2024 to allow a parking
reduction from 14 spaces down to zero to accommodate a vacant building to be reused for
ground floor retail and an upper floor eating establishment and since that time there have been
some structural complexities and concerns that have delayed the project. The applicant has
worked with their architect and structural engineers to work through some of these concerns so
the City did not receive a building permit until earlier October 2024. However, that permit
cannot be issued until the City has either received an extension on the application or a new
application is submitted and approved by the Board.
Walsh stated the Board's duty for an extension request is because an application expires after
six months if the applicant has not taken action to establish use or obtain a building permit
which they have not yet and they at this point cannot unless granted this extension. Upon
written request and for good cause shown the Board may extend the expiration date of any
order without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application and that is
what they are here to discuss tonight.
Carlson asked if they grant an extension how long will the extension be for. Walsh explained it
is up to the Board to decide and the extension will last as long as the Board determines and
within that time frame the applicant will need to get their building permit issued or they will have
to come back before this Board again, however the building permit that is in review right now so
that would likely not be of any concern.
Board of Adjustment
October 10, 2024
Page 2 of 3
Russo stated the only thing the applicant has to do is have a building permit, they don’t need to
complete the project in the extension time. Walsh confirmed with the Board granting an
extension it is just for the filing of a building permit and the extension doesn't have to last
through the length of the project. He noted the permit would probably be issued in the next
week or two.
Baker opened the public hearing.
Thomas Heineman stated they are still full steam ahead on this project, but it has taken longer
than expected due to some of the nuances of working with an 1870’s building and trying to bring
it up to code. The issues mainly pertain to the back wall which is on the alley and has some
previously unforeseen structural issues. They have to replace the entire back exterior wall, and
they have been working with their structural engineering company as well as with OPN
Architects and have a plan to move forward and the City is on board with that as well.
Additionally, they also have to work on supporting the floor the second floor for the change in
use and have work through that as well and from with whom they have spoken with at the City
on the building permit side are happy with the solutions, their architects and structural engineers
are happy as well. The building permit is in submission pending this review and they are hoping
to start soon. The scope of the project approved previously has not changed, they still have
exactly the same intent, it’s just unfortunate it has taken six months to arrive at the point of
everyone is happy with, from a budgetary standpoint and a complexity standpoint, so hopefully
there aren’t any more big surprises.
Baker closed the public hearing.
Carlson moved to approve EXC24-0001, a request submitted by Adelaide Subtil and
Thomas Heineman to extend the six (6) month expiration time limitation for an
application 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.
Russo seconded the motion.
Carlson stated she doesn’t think they will need an additional six and is happy to see this project
moving forward.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Walsh noted the deadline for November meeting is tomorrow and there are no expectations for
an application to come in so they likely won't be meeting in November. Additionally, Dulek
noted Council did approve the bylaw amendment if anybody wants a hard copy staff can provide
that to them.
ADJOURNMENT:
Russo moved to adjourn this meeting, Swygard seconded, a vote was taken and all approved.
Board of Adjustment
October 10, 2024
Page 3 of 3
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2023-2024
NAME TERM
EXP.
3/8 4/12 4/19 5/10 6/14 7/12 11/8 12/13 3/13 4/10 8/22 10/10
BAKER, LARRY 12/31/2027 X X O/E X X X X X X X X X
PARKER, BRYCE 12/31/2024 X X O/E X X X X X X X X O/E
SWYGARD, PAULA 12/31/2028 X X X X X X X X O/E X X X
CARLSON, NANCY 12/31/2025 X X X X X X O/E X X X O/E X
RUSSO, MARK 12/31/2026 X X X O/E O/E X O/E X X X X X
Key: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
-- -- = Not a Member
November 13, 2024
Board of Adjustment Meeting
ITEM 5 ON THE AGENDA
Amended Bylaws
Submitted by Staff