HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.12.25 BOA Agenda PacketIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Wednesday, March 12, 2025 – 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. EXC25-0002: An application submitted by Staci Humiston of Reach For Your
Potential requesting a special exception to allow the expansion of a daycare use in
a Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone for the property located at
1839 and 1849 B Street. (EXC25-0002)
4. Discussion on Placement of Special Exception Applications and Appeals on the
Board’s Agenda
5. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: February 20, 2025
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: April 9 / May 14 / June 11
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
March 12, 2025
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC25-0002
ITEM 3A ON THE AGENDA
Staff Materials
1
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Parker Walsh, Associate Planner
Date: March 12, 2025
Staci Humiston
Reach For Your Potential Inc.
1705 S 1st Ave I
Iowa City, IA 52240
staci.humiston@rfyp.org
Ross Nusser
202 N Linn ST Unit: Unit 501
Iowa City, IA 52245
rossnusser@urbanacres.com
Approval of a special exception to increase the size
of the daycare previously approved in a Low
Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone. See
EXC24-0004.
A building addition to increase the size of the
previously approved daycare.
1839 B Street and 1849 B Street
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC25-0002
1839 & 1849 B Street
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant/Owner:
Contact Person:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Location Map:
2
Size: 37,583 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: February 13, 2025
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Reach For Your Potential, Inc. intends to expand daycare operations at 1839 and
1849 B Street for up to 140 children. The subject property is zoned Low-Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-5) which allows a daycare use by special exception. Reach for Your Potential
received approval of a special exception to allow a daycare use on November 13, 2024 (EXC24-
0004), 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. Outdoor lights must be brought into compliance with current outdoor lighting standards
found at Article 14-5G of the City Code.
The applicant proposes combining the 1839 and 1849 B Street lots into one, then constructing a
building addition. The existing single family house on 1849 B Street would be demolished as part
of the project. The proposed addition is intended to accommodate additional children and staff that
Reach For Your Potential has agreed to take on when a nearby daycare closes. Reach For Your
Potential proposes increasing the number of children from 100 to 140 with the addition. The existing
building could accommodate up to 158 children with the addition, and the daycare could
accommodate up to 196 children based on the Zoning Code. However, the Zoning Code does not
consider the existing building constraints or the necessary usable space needed to efficiently
accommodate children and staff. The addition would provide more useable space and allow the
Owner to redesign the facility to provide safe and efficient childcare, which allows the age groups
3
to be spaced out and ensures each group has the necessary staffing. The maximum amount of
childcare allowed on site will be further limited by parking constraints.
The proposal includes several site improvements. These include adding additional parking,
establishing traffic circulation to avoid congestion, 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 the 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 subject properties were developed prior to its current zoning designation. The existing structure
at 1839 B Street 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. 1849 B Street was constructed in 1928 as a one
story single family home. The property remains a single family use today and the two lots would
need to be combined in order to expand the daycare use to this portion of the property.
The applicant held a Good Neighbor Meeting on March 5, 2025. 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.
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.
4
FINDINGS:
• 1839 B Street has approximately 6,878 square feet of interior floor space used for
daycare purposes, which could accommodate up to 196 children based on the Zoning
Code.
• The applicant proposes using 1839 B Street for a daycare use with up to 140 children,
which is below the maximum allowed based on the usable interior floor space.
• The applicant has agreed to take on the children and staff of a nearby closing daycare,
which would exceed their previous plans to accommodate 100 children.
• The 3,682 square foot addition is intended to provide more space for children and staff,
but not significantly increase the maximum daycare occupancy.
• The daycare will not be able to exceed 140 children due to site constraints that limit
the amount of stacking/drop off spaces to 7.
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 3,682 square feet which
can accommodate up to 41 children at one time.
• Staff recommends the condition that the outdoor play area be enclosed by a 4-foot-tall
opaque fence to provide extra screening from the nearby residential uses.
• Staff recommends the condition that the east property line of 1839 B St. be screened
to the S2 standard to provide additional screening and buffering of the outdoor play
area and ramp from nearby residential uses.
• The subject property is within easy walking distance of Chadek Green Park.
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.
5
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 140 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 the Owner improve (pave) the alley to City standards
from the western property line of 1839 B St. 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.
• 1839 B St. has 34 parking spaces, including 20 spaces south of the alley, 9 existing
nonconforming spaces just north of the alley, and 5 existing nonconforming spaces in
front of the building.
• 1839 B St. has 7 stacking spaces west of the building on a 9-foot wide, one direction
drive. Due to site constraints, the site is limited to 7 stacking spaces, which limits
daycare participants to 140.
• 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 140 children and
20 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 pedestrian walkway 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.
• 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 a pedestrian path with a demarcated crossing be
constructed over the alley.
6
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 and 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, the proposed addition, and site characteristics are well suited to
a daycare use.
• The proposed use will provide services that are beneficial to the neighborhood and
surrounding areas.
• Potential negative impacts due to increased traffic is mitigated as discussed below.
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 the building.
• Outdoor play areas are limited to no more than 41 children at any one time. The play
areas are also setback and screened from adjacent properties which will help mitigate
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.
• The new parking area south of the alley is setback and screened from abutting uses.
Staff recommends a condition that the parking area be screening by an S5 fence with
7
a minimum height of 6’ and that the fence perimeter include additional S2 screening
to further buffer the parking area from nearby residential 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 a fully developed residential neighborhood.
• The proposed building addition will increase the size of the previously approved
daycare facility and 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
walkway 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.
8
• 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 located on the property 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 and Multi-Family Site
Development Standards.
• The building addition and all new site elements will comply with current standards.
• Elements that do not meet current standards may continue as legal non-conformities.
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, 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.
• In order for development to be compatible with the surrounding residential uses, staff
recommends a condition that all outdoor lighting, new or existing, be compliant with
Section 14-5G-3, Standards for Single Family and Two Family Uses.
• Staff recommends all outdoor lighting be turned off by one hour after the business
closes to limit the impacts of lighting on neighboring properties.
• 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 1839 B Street as Private Institutional and 1849 B Street as
Single Family and Duplex. The lots would be combined if approved and operated as
one Private Institutional use.
• The Comprehensive Plan generally supports providing goods and services within
convenient walking distance for residents in the immediate area.
9
• The proposed exception would expand an existing daycare use, which is classified as
a private institutional use, and is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of EXC25-0002, 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,
to allow a daycare use expansion in a Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone for the
property located at 1839 and 1849 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 and play area to the parking area, subject to review and approval by
the City Engineer.
2. The outdoor play area be enclosed by a 4-foot-tall opaque fence to provide extra
screening from the nearby residential uses.
3. 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.
4. Provide screening to the S2 standard between existing parking areas and the outdoor
play area from adjacent properties along the east and west property lines as shown in
the site plan dated 3/6/2025.
5. Provide screening of the new parking area with a 6’- 8’ fence that meets the S5 standard
and includes additional S2 screening around east, west, and south fence perimeter.
6. Provide “Do Not Enter” signage and one way pavement markings to direct traffic through
the site.
7. Outdoor lighting, new and existing, be compliant with Section 14-5G-3, Standards for
Single Family and Two Family Uses.
8. Outdoor lighting must be turned off by one hour after the business closes.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map & Zoning Map
2. Good Neighbor Meeting Summary
3. Application Materials
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
March 12, 2025
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC25-0002
ATTACHMENT 1
Location & Zoning Maps
5t
h
A
v
e
C
S
t
5t
h
A
v
e
Frien
d
s
h
i
p
S
t
B S
t
µEXC25-0002
1839 & 1849 B Street
Prepared By: Parker Walsh
Date Prepared: February 26, 2025
0 0.01 0.020.01 Miles
An application submitted by Staci
Humiston requesting a special
exception to allow for a childcare
center expansion for Reach For Your
Potential in a Low Density Single-
Family Residential (RS-5) Zone
5t
h
A
v
e
C
S
t
Ga
r
d
e
n
S
t
5t
h
A
v
e
Frien
d
s
h
i
p
S
t
B S
t
µEXC25-0002
1839 & 1849 B Street
Prepared By: Parker Walsh
Date Prepared: February 26, 2025
0 0.01 0.020.01 Miles
An application submitted by Staci
Humiston requesting a special
exception to allow for a childcare
center expansion for Reach For Your
Potential in a Low Density Single-
Family Residential (RS-5) Zone
March 12, 2025
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC25-0002
ATTACHMENT 2
Good Neighbor Meeting Sumamry
March 12, 2025
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC25-0002
ATTACHMENT 3
Application Materials
3/6/2025
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. The daycare
will provide a much-needed amenity to the neighborhood and surrounding area, offering
reliable childcare services that support working families. This will enhance public safety
by ensuring a structured, supervised environment for children, contribute to overall
comfort by alleviating childcare shortages, and promote general welfare by fostering
early childhood development in a secure setting. Additionally, the conversion of the
property will include appropriate modifications to ensure compliance with zoning
regulations, traffic flow considerations, and noise control measures, further supporting
the well-being of the community.
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.
Landscape screening and opaque fencing will be used to buffer the site from
neighboring properties, further ensuring the site will not diminish nor impair property
values.
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.
Existing utilities are already located on site. Access will be achieved at 1839 B Street
and will circulate through the alley at the rear of the property which will be improved to
the city standard.
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 1839 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.
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.
The building provides the minimum of 35 square feet floor space per child.
The subject property has approximately 6,878 square feet of usable interior floor space
(including cafeteria) which could accommodate up to 196 children.
The applicant proposes using the subject property for a daycare use with 140 children
and 20 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 4,100 square feet of play space which can accommodate 41 children at
one time. The site does not accommodate all children outdoors at once, thus scheduled
outdoor times will stagger/alternate among age groups and based on enrollment.
(1) Playground equipment is not permitted within the front and side setbacks.
Playground equipment will be within the site setbacks. Please see attached Site Plan
demonstrating this requirement has been met.
(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.
The outdoor play area will be fenced in according to the applicable standard. Please
see attached Site Plan demonstrating these requirements have been met.
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.
Per the drawing, 7 stacking spaces are provided which meets the required 1 stacking
space per 20 students. Please see attached Site Plan demonstrating these
requirements have been met.
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. Please see attached Site Plan demonstrating this requirement has
been met.
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.
Any new elements will conform to the multi-family site development standards. Please
see attached Site Plan demonstrating these requirements have been met.
March 12, 2025
Board of Adjustment Meeting
Discussion on Placement of Special
Exception Applications and Appeals on
the Board’s Agenda
ITEM 4 ON THE AGENDA
Date: March 6, 2025
To: Board of Adjustment
From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Sue Dulek, Assistant City Attorney
Re: Placement of Special Exception Applications and Appeals on the Board’s Agenda
At the February 20, 2025 meeting, the Board requested that staff provide a summary of the
process used to determine when applications are placed on the Board of Adjustment’s agenda.
This memo summarizes how staff approaches this task.
During several recent meetings the Board has referred to the Board of Adjustment application
deadline schedule (Attachment 1) and questioned how staff uses it. The schedule identifies
deadlines; however, staff uses the schedule as a guide since the deadlines are not regulatory.
The application deadlines ensure that staff has enough time to review the special exception
application, prepare the staff report, and properly notice the public meeting. However, we do not
strictly adhere to the deadlines. In most cases applicants reach out to City staff prior to submitting
a special exception application. This allows staff to answer any questions, explain required
application materials, and address any potential issues. There are instances where we have been
working with a potential applicant for weeks, or even months, and they apply a day or two past
the deadline. If staff feels we still have enough time to prepare the item for the next Board meeting,
we will not hold them to the deadline.
Appeals are different than special exceptions for primarily two reasons. One, appeals still need
to be properly noticed; however, unlike a special exception where most of the work is done after
application submittal, most of the work related to an appeal is prior to submittal. The person
appealing is required by Section 14-8C-3B of the City Code to “specify[] the grounds of the
appeal.” Therefore, the person appealing already has had to research the basis for appeal before
filing the appeal. Additionally, because the appeal is a challenge to a staff decision, we have
already documented the approval through the approval of a site plan or building permit and so do
not need substantial time to prepare for the hearing. Two, appeals can be used as a tactic to
slow down or stop a development project. The person appealing could knowingly submit an
appeal the day after the deadline to push the item to the next Board meeting. Unlike special
exceptions, appeals result in a stop work order, which greatly impacts a property owner’s ability
to move a project forward and delays can be costly. For these reasons, staff works to ensure
appeals are heard as quickly as possible.
In summary, staff uses its own discretion in applying the application deadline schedule to make
reasonable determinations regarding agenda placement based on the information we have at the
time of application submittal.
Attachments:
1. Board of Adjustment 2024-2025 Application Deadlines
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Board of Adjustment
2024-2025 Application Deadlines
APPLICATION DEADLINE (12:00 p.m.) MEETING DATE
May 10, 2024 June 12, 2024
June 7, 2024 July 10, 2024
July 12, 2024 August 14, 2024
August 9, 2024 September 11, 2024
September 6, 2024 October 9, 2024
October 11, 2024 November 13, 2024
November 8, 2024 December 11, 2024
December 6, 2024 January 8, 2025
January 10, 2025 February 12, 2025
February 7, 2025 March 12, 2025
March 7, 2025 April 9, 2025
April 11, 2025 May 14, 2025
May 9, 2025 June 11, 2025
June 6, 2025 July 9, 2025
July 11, 2025 August 13, 2025
Submit Online Application by Noon at
https://egov.iowa-city.org/energovprod/selfservice#/home
APPLICATION FEES*
Special Exception, Variance, or Appeal: $564
Combination BOA Actions: $656
These fees will be updated in February 2025 to reflect changes in the rate of inflation.
Meeting time and location
Board of Adjustment formal meetings are scheduled for the second Wednesday of every month at 5:15 p.m. in Emma
Harvat Hall, City Hall, 410 East Washington Street. Board of Adjustment informal meetings are scheduled as needed.
Attendees are advised to check the meeting agenda at www.icgov.org/boa or contact the Department of
Neighborhood and Development Services at 319-356-5238 for any possible changes.
For more information contact Parker Walsh at 319-356-5238 or pwalsh@iowa-city.org.
March 12, 2025
Board of Adjustment Meeting
PRELIMINARY MEETING MINUTES
ITEM 4 ON THE AGENDA
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAL MEETING
EMMA HARVAT HALL
FEBRUARY 20, 2025 – 5:15 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Nancy Carlson, Paula Swygard, Julie Tallman
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Russo
STAFF PRESENT: Emily Bothell, Madison Conley, Sue Dulek, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Jon Marner, Hans Kuhlmann
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 EXC25-0001:
An application requesting a special exception to allow a drive-through facility associated with an
eating establishment in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone at 21 Sturgis Corner Dr.
Baker opened the public hearing.
Conley began the staff report with a location map of the subject property which is located north
of Highway 6 East and west of the Iowa River. Currently the property has access from the north
and east curb cuts on Sturgis Corner Drive. Conley next shared the zoning map noting that the
subject property is zoned CC-2 along with the surrounding properties. To the south is Highway 6
East and a Neighborhood Public (P1) zone, there are no residential zones in the vicinity of the
subject property.
Regarding background Conley begin with 21 Sturgis Corner Drive being zoned CC-2. Currently
there is a Los Amigos restaurant that occupies the current eating establishment that exists on
site. The owner intends to maintain the same zone and use of the subject property, which is the
CC-2 zone with an eating establishment use. The developer plans to demolish the existing
structure and construct a new eating establishment with a drive-through facility. The new eating
establishment is estimated to have around 2300 square feet of usable space and an occupancy
load of 49 people. The proposed business is a Chipotle utilizing a new drive-through format.
The proposed drive-through lane will not include an order board since the main purpose is to
serve as a pickup lane for orders that are placed online via the app or through the website.
With this proposal the City has requested a traffic impact study. Conley reviewed the site plan
showing the proposed drive-through lane that starts on the north facade and wraps around the
west facade of the building. In the drive-through lane there are six proposed stacking spaces,
Board of Adjustment
February 20, 2025
Page 2 of 14
and there's two access points off Sturgis Corner Drive. Conley noted there used to be three, but
the developer is proposing two. She pointed out there will be directional arrows and also “do not
enter” signs at each one way exit and that there is a sidewalk along Sturgis Corner Drive.
Conley shared some photos of the property noting the existing building that is proposed to be
demolished.
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, specific standards pertaining to the waiver
requested and general standards for all special exceptions.
Conley first reviewed the specific standards 14-4C-2K-3 for drive-through facilities. Regarding
access and circulation, first, the transportation system should be capable of safely supporting
the proposed drive-through use in addition to the existing uses in the area. Whenever possible
and practical, drive-through lanes shall be accessed from secondary streets, alleys or shared
cross access drives. Staff learned that the traffic impact study found that Sturgis Corner Drive
and South Riverside Drive intersection is already functioning poorly and the proposed
development will make traffic slightly worse at that intersection. The study also noted the
westbound to southbound turning movement from Sturgis Corner Drive onto South Riverside
Drive is currently functioning as a level of service F during PM peak hours, and the proposed
development has a moderate impact to the westbound to southbound delay. The traffic study
also found that the City does not have a proposed project to deal with the failing turning
movement, therefore staff is not recommending any offsite improvements. In the future, the City
could move forward with a standalone intersection improvement project, or a couple the
intersection project with the larger future Highway One/Six/Riverside project that is currently
being planned to address the failing level of service. Additionally, Sturgis Corner Drive is a
secondary street.
Second, to provide for safe pedestrian movement the number and width of curb cuts serving the
use may be limited. Conley stated the site currently has three curb cuts, but as she noted earlier
the site plan shows that one of those curb cuts will be removed as part of the redevelopment of
the site. Therefore, access to the site would be from the remaining two curb cuts off Sturgis
Corner Drive. Additionally, sidewalks would be installed along both sides of Sturgis Corner
Drive. Staff will ensure all standards are met during routine site plan review and therefore staff is
recommending general compliance with the attached site plan as a condition of the approval to
help ensure safe pedestrian travel.
The third criteria is an adequate number of stacking spaces must be provided to ensure traffic
safety is not compromised. A minimum of six stacking spaces is recommended for drive-through
facilities associated with eating establishments and as Conley shared earlier the site plan did
show there are six stacking spaces provided meeting the minimum recommended number of
sacking spaces required for eating establishments and the single drive-through lane leads to the
pickup window and includes a bypass lane. Additionally, the parking aisle around and to the
drive-through provides additional space to help accommodate spillover traffic and minimize
traffic safety impacts.
Fourth, sufficient on site signage and pavement markings shall be provided to indicate direction
of vehicular travel, pedestrian crossings, stop signs, no entrance areas and other controls to
Board of Adjustment
February 20, 2025
Page 3 of 14
ensure safe vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff found that the site plan included those
directional arrows all throughout the site in the drive-through area and parking areas. She noted
there’s a “digital pickup ahead” pavement marking to the drive-through entrance, and there are
“do not enter” signs at each one way exit. On the site plan Conley pointed out a pedestrian route
that crosses the parking drives to the west. The signage, in addition to the pavement markings,
help prevent improper lane travel and promotes the safety of vehicular circulation on the site.
Also, Conley noted pedestrian safety is improved by having the pedestrian crossing designation.
Continuing with specific standards 14-4C-2K-3 b discusses location. First, drive-through lanes
and service windows must be located on a non-street facing facade, unless the applicant can
demonstrate that a street facing location is preferable for the overall safety and efficiency of the
site, does not conflict with adjacent uses or pedestrian access, and does not compromise the
character of the streetscape or neighborhood in which it is located. Staff found that although a
portion of the drive-through lane is located between Highway 6 and the building, this proposed
design is preferable for the overall safety and efficiency of the site. The drive-through will not
impact the design quality of the streetscape because it is on the interior portion of the lot, it's
also adequately set back and screened to the S2 standard from Sturgis Corner Drive, Highway
6 East and the adjacent property to the west by the building and the landscaping. Conley stated
all of these factors help integrate the proposed drive-through lane into the landscape and
streetscape design of the neighborhood. She reiterated that sidewalks are to be installed on
both sides of Sturgis Corner Drive and staff recommends the condition that the developer shall
pay the City a fee for the cost of installing a sidewalk along the Highway 6 East portion of the
site. The sidewalk will be installed by the City at a future date, and this condition aims to
improve the pedestrian environment.
Second, drive-through lanes must be set back at least 10’ from adjacent lot lines and public
rights of way and screened from view according to the design standards. Staff found that the
drive-through lane is set back 46’ from the adjacent lot line to the west, and it's screened to the
S2 standard. Staff will also ensure that all standards are met during site plan review.
Specific standards 14-4C-2K-3 c reviews design standards and the number of drive-through
lanes, stacking spaces and paved area necessary for drive-through facility will not be
detrimental to adjacent residential properties or detract from or interrupt pedestrian circulation
on the commercial character of the area in which the use is located. First, to promote
compatibility with the surrounding development the number of drive-through lanes should be
limited to not diminish the design quality of the streetscape or the safety of the pedestrian
environment. The site plan proposes one drive-through lane at 10’ wide for pickup and one
bypass lane, which is 12’ wide. Staff finds the drive-through will not impact the design quality of
the streetscape because it is on the interior portion of the lot, it's set back 46’ and it's screened
to the S2 standard from Sturgis Corner Drive, Highway 6 East and the adjacent property to the
west. Sidewalks are to be installed on Sturgis Corner Drive, on both sides, and to help improve
the pedestrian environment staff recommends the condition that the developer pay the City a
fee for installing the sidewalk at a future date.
Second, drive-through lanes, bays and stacking spaces shall be screened from views from the
street and adjacent properties to the S2 standard. If adjacent to residential use or property
zoned residential, it must be screened from view of these properties to at least the S3 standard.
Staff found that there is only one drive-through lane proposed, and it will be screened
appropriately to the S2 standard from adjacent properties and street rights of way. All
Board of Adjustment
February 20, 2025
Page 4 of 14
surrounding properties are zoned CC-2, the neighboring property to the west is an auto repair
shop and the properties to the north and east are a mix of office uses. Directly to the south of
the subject property is Highway 6 East and there are no residential properties in the surrounding
area.
Third, multiple windows servicing a single stacking lane, (e.g., order board, payment window,
pickup window) should be considered to reduce the amount of idling on the site. Conley
reiterated there will be no order board associated with the proposed drive-through lane since
orders will be placed on the mobile app and the website in advance for pickup.
Fourth, stacking spaces, driveways and drive-through windows shall be located to minimize
potential for vehicular and pedestrian conflicts and shall be integrated into the surrounding
landscape and streetscape design of the neighborhood in which it is located. Staff noted the
drive-through lane is separated from the parking areas by pavement markings to help avoid
vehicular conflicts and since the drive-through is on the interior portion of the lot, and it's
screened from Sturgis Corner Drive and Highway 6 East by the landscaping, that ultimately helps
integrate this proposed drive-through into the landscape and streetscape design of the
neighborhood.
Fifth, lighting for the drive-through facility must comply with the outdoor lighting standards set
forth in Chapter 5, Article G of this title and must be designed to prevent light trespass and glare
on to neighboring residential properties. Staff will ensure lighting meets City standards to
prevent light trespass during site plan review.
The sixth criteria was repealed by Ordinance No. 16-4685 on 11/15/2016.
Seventh, loudspeakers or intercom systems, if allowed, should be located and directed to
minimize disturbance to adjacent uses. Special consideration should be given to locations
adjacent to residential uses to ensure such systems do not diminish the residential character of
the neighborhood. Again, Conley stated that no loudspeakers or intercom systems will be
proposed with this drive-through lane since orders will be placed in advance.
Conley next reviewed the General Standards for all special exceptions at 14-4B-3. First, the
specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
comfort or general welfare. As required by the City a traffic impact study was submitted found
that the Sturgis Corner Drive and South Riverside Drive intersection is already functioning poorly
and the proposed development will make the traffic slightly worse at the intersection. Also,
westbound to southbound turning movement from Sturgis Corner Drive onto South Riverside
Drive is currently functioning as a level of service F during PM peak hours and the proposed
development does have a moderate impact to the westbound to southbound delay. Currently,
the City does not have a proposed project to deal with the failing turning movement, therefore
staff is not recommending any offsite improvements. In the future the City could move forward
with a standalone intersection improvement project, or couple the intersection project with a
larger future Highway 1/6/Riverside Drive project that is currently being planned to address the
failing level of service. Pedestrian circulation on the site will be improved with the inclusion of
pedestrian paths that provide routes within the site, as well as the new sidewalks that will be
placed along Sturgis Corner Drive. The proposed signs and pavement markings will help
efficiently direct traffic on the site and vehicular circulation and access are adequate to
accommodate anticipated users and drive-through traffic.
Board of Adjustment
February 20, 2025
Page 5 of 14
Second, 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. Conley reiterated the surrounding properties are all zone CC-2 and the
proposed eating establishment is a permitted use in the CC-2 zone so it's not going to change
with this proposed development. The only abutting property is the property to the west, which is
an existing vehicle repair use and the proposed development will be required to incorporate
screening along the western property subject to City standards. To the south is Highway 6 East
which separates the subject property to the City owned land directly to the south and this use
does not interfere with the use of the surrounding properties which include the vehicle repair
and general office uses.
Third, 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. Again, the surrounding properties are developed with general
office uses to the north and east, a vehicle repair use to the west and Highway 6 East and
institutional use to the south. The proposed drive-through lane is on the interior area of the lot
and will be appropriately screened from adjacent properties. Conley stated this site is suitable
for the proposed infill development since City services are currently provided to the site. Finally,
the westbound to southbound turning movement from Sturgis Corner Drive onto South Riverside
Drive is currently functioning as a level of service F during PM peak hours and the proposed
development has a moderate impact to the westbound to southbound delay. This is an existing
condition that may affect future redevelopment and improvement however, this condition is not
created due to the proposed drive-through facility.
Fourth is adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and or necessary facilities have been or are
being provided. Conley stated the subject property is an infill parcel surrounded by existing
development, sanitary sewer and water mains can service the subject property and have
sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed use. Again, the traffic impact study found that
the Sturgis Corner Drive and South Riverside Drive intersection is already functioning poorly, and
the proposed development will make traffic slightly worse at this intersection, the westbound to
southbound turning movement from Sturgis Corner Drive onto South Riverside Drive is currently
functioning as a level of service F during those PM peak hours, and the proposed development
has a moderate impact to the westbound to southbound delay. However, the City does not have
a proposed project to deal with the failing turning movement, therefore, staff is not
recommending any offsite improvements. In the future the City could move forward with a
standalone intersection improvement project, or couple the intersection project with the larger
future Highway 1/6/Riverside Drive project that is currently being planned to address the failing
level of service.
Five is adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed to
minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Again, staff has the same notes here from the
traffic study, finding that the intersection of Sturgis Corner Drive and South Riverside Drive is
functioning poorly, and the proposed development will continue to make that traffic slightly
worse. The failing turning movement in the westbound to southbound area at the PM peak
hours, and the proposed development does have that moderate impact to the westbound to
southbound delay. Once again, the City does not have a proposed project to deal with the failing
turning movement, so staff is not recommending any offsite improvements. Again, in the future
the City could move forward with that standalone intersection improvement project, or couple
Board of Adjustment
February 20, 2025
Page 6 of 14
the intersection project with the larger future Highway 1/6/Riverside Drive project that is
currently being planned to address the failing level of service. Finally, the site plan did show that
there are the adequate stacking spaces (6) for the eating establishment on site.
Sixth, 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. Staff will ensure the proposed
development conforms with all applicable zoning standards and regulations during subsequent
site plan and building permit review.
Seven, the proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City as
amended. Staff found that the Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map shows this area as
Mixed Use, and the Future Land Use Map of the Southwest District Plan shows this area as
Community Commercial. The Comprehensive Plan generally supports compatible infill
development, and the proposed exception would allow the redeveloped eating establishment to
include a drive-through facility, both which are classified as commercial uses and are consistent
with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Staff recommends approval of EXC25-0001, to allow for a drive-through facility for the property
located at 21 Sturgis Corner Drive subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall pay the City a fee for the cost
of installing a sidewalk along Highway 6 East to be installed by the City at a future date.
Fee to be determined by the City Engineer.
2. General compliance with the site plan dated 02-05-25 [Attachment 3].
Carlson wanted to know what level of service F during PM peak hours means.
Bothell (Senior Associate Transportation Planner) explained level of service refers to the
general flow of traffic. There is the level of service A, where they have free flowing traffic and
vehicles are moving at a normal speed, and then it's all the way to an F level of service which
means more stopping and go conditions and speeds may be variable. Bothell noted it doesn't
mean that the intersection is not operating well and it's gridlocked, it just means that the flow is
not as steady as level of service A. She also noted that particular problem is responsibility of
the City, not of the person who is initiating this exception. The delay that is experienced at the
intersection is not caused by this redevelopment, and any additional delay is marginal.
Bothell further explained the level of service is maybe 30 more seconds, and it's primarily for
that westbound left turning movement. When they look at the PM peak hour, only one hour in
the PM was looked at, they had an additional of 76 vehicles that were trying to enter and exit the
site but only 13 making that westbound left turning movement.
Carlson noted the capacity of the of the restaurant is 49 so how many parking spaces are
needed to service 49 people. Russett explained the parking space ratio is not based on
occupancy it's based on the square footage of the interior space and staff will ensure that that
minimum parking standard is met as part of site plan review.
Swygard noted this subject property is in the floodplain and that evaluation happens during the
permit process. Conley confirmed that's correct, and the applicant is not asking at this time for
any exceptions to the zoning requirements in a floodplain.
Board of Adjustment
February 20, 2025
Page 7 of 14
Tallman asked about the new sidewalk that goes along Highway 6, roughly east to west, will the
fee for that sidewalk include that east/northeast leg that would be required to connect to the
sidewalk that they are installing on Sturgis Corner Drive. Russett acknowledged it would make
sense to include that piece so staff can confirm that with public works.
Dulek noted if the Board wants to make that more clear in its condition, it certainly can.
Tallman noted the south drive that's going to be abandoned isn't shown on the exhibit as to be
abandoned, should staff call that out just for clarity, for people making bids for the work and for
staff when it's completed. Russett agreed staff can make that comment and ask them to revise
that for the purposes of attaching the condition so that it complies with the site plan.
Tallman asked about the bike parking by the dumpster, with the improvements that are going to
occur on Highway 6 East it seems likely that there might be more bicycle traffic and she is just
wondering about the location of the bike parking and the fact that it requires a person to cross
the stacking spaces for the pickup. Would there be a more visible and maybe safer location for
bike parking. Swygard agreed and noted it may not be the best location for the bike parking.
Russett noted the zoning code doesn't require that bike parking be placed on a particular place
onsite, and the minimum required is met, so if the Board wants to request that that be relocated
to another part of the site they could add that as a condition. Tallman thinks it would be a better
separation of vehicle vehicular traffic and bike traffic if the bike parking was located elsewhere,
perhaps somewhere on the east side of the site but would defer to staff and the designer to
come up with the appropriate location.
Swygard has some questions about the traffic study. The traffic study talked about the
westbound queue from the signal at Highway 6 and Highway 1 backing up towards the east,
where that entrance to Sturgis is from Highway 1. However, there was nothing in the study
about the backup of traffic northbound on Riverside between Benton and Sturgis. Particularly
that area in front of Staples and McDonald's and then down to the Sturgis Corner Drive entrance,
there was nothing in the traffic report about the backup traffic in that location and perhaps the
difficulty of getting out to the right to head north.
Bothell stated they studied the vehicles that are coming out of Sturgis Corner Drive, they are
stacking up on Sturgis Corner Drive before they make a right hand turn or a left hand turn. And
then they looked at the overall intersection level of service and considered the percentage of
vehicles that are entering that intersection, when they look at Riverside Drive, that has a
majority of the vehicles, 13 additional vehicles that are queuing on Sturgis Corner Drive have to
wait to get out and find a gap that's acceptable because it is a smaller percentage of overall
intersection traffic. It’s like 1% to 2% of total traffic at that intersection.
Swygard stated her concern is the backup from Benton Street in front of McDonald's, which
already happens, and Staples, impacting the space that's available for people coming out of
Sturgis then plugging up the Staples exit more,but there was nothing in the study about the
number of vehicles there because it refers to the driving queue down at the other corner. Bothell
confirmed it wasn't measured for Benton Street. She did note there may be queues but there
will also be gaps available so there will be opportunities for motor vehicles to exit out of there.
The other thing is there is another access point to the south so anyone that is accessing this
property would have the opportunity to travel south, down to the Highway, and then continue on
Board of Adjustment
February 20, 2025
Page 8 of 14
to Riverside. They have also found that people do tend to self-correct if they find it is very
difficult to turn left out of an intersection, they will turn right and then self-correct.
Swygard noted regarding this study, they mentioned repeatedly it was done during a time when
the University was not in session, or it was during finals week, and one of the major and popular
restaurants along Riverside Drive, at that diagonal intersection, was closed during both traffic
studies so is there any way to guess how much traffic that would have perhaps been and how
that would have impacted the study. Bothell stated when the Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) completed their counts it was done in October of last year and she is not sure if that
business was closed at that time, but the counts that the MPO had taken at that time were even
lower than what the consultant had derived.
Swygard reiterated the impact of having the University on finals week and having this restaurant
(Pancheros) closed, also impacts the traffic study so she feels like they don't have real
numbers.
Swygard wanted to clarify the 76 trips that they're referring to, approximately 40 in and 36 out
during the PM peak is just for the one hour of 4:15 to 5:15pm. Bothell confirmed yes, they
typically only look at one hour during the AM and PM in situations like this because that's
typically the hour that is the busiest and the hour they’re going to see the most vehicles. She
explained the 76 vehicles were derived from the trip generation manual and it's based on
square footage of the business. When that's applied out there are estimated numbers, so based
on 2300 square feet during the AM peak hour, it's estimated that, on average, nationally, there's
nine vehicles that may be accessing the site or generated by the site, and then they do a
breakdown as to the number of vehicles that are going in and the number of vehicles that are
coming out. It's derived based on the IT trip generation manual, which is a national standard.
Swygard asked if there is any way to determine how many of those 76 are using the drive-
through versus how many are going into the restaurant. Bothell stated the ITE trip generation
manual doesn’t have a specific code for Chipotle Lane so the trip generation code that was
used was for a fast food restaurant that would have an intercom where one could drive up and
order there. As a part of that they don't have the number of vehicles that are going to be in the
lane at any given time, but it's likely that the trips generated with that fast food restaurant drive-
through code may even be higher than what the Chipotle Lane may experience since the orders
will already have been placed.
Swygard asked about the onsite pavement markings that indicate that it's a mobile drive-
through, are there any signs at eye level. She stated she is unfamiliar with the restaurant to
know what typical markings are but noted this is not a typical order situation like at a
McDonald's. Russett stated there was a similar drive-through that the Board approved on North
Dodge Street for Press Coffee where there is no order board, so it'd be similar to that. She
doesn’t recall if there was any type of condition that the Board put on it regarding a sign that
says something about order on the app. If that's something that the Board wants it could be
added as a condition to have additional signing for clarification.
Swygard asked what happens if someone pulls up, they've ordered and they've done everything
they're supposed to do but their order isn't ready and so they're just sitting at the window.
Russett suggested that would be a question for the applicant.
Board of Adjustment
February 20, 2025
Page 9 of 14
Baker had a question about the fee that is to be paid at the time of the issuance of the building
permit. It states the fee is to be determined by the City Engineer, how is that fee determined.
Russett stated it's the linear foot of the cost of the pavement. Baker asked since this fee is paid
up front and the City has no timetable for putting the sidewalk in, is there a cutoff point and how
long is the City allowed to keep that money. Russett stated the City will keep it forever and will
spend it when they get to the point of improving that that highway. She noted the City has
various fees for many things, they have fees paid for parks, but per code those have to be spent
in a certain time which they keep track of, they also take escrow payments which are a little
different, and that money is paid up front and then when the developer makes the improvement
that is required, they get that money back but sometimes the improvement isn't made and it
stays in escrow. The City has a project in the works as the staff report alluded to, and at some
point in the future, because they know this is a poorly functioning intersection, they will want to
fix it.
Carlson asked about the dumpster location and Russett stated that also is a question for the
applicant.
Jon Marner (MMS Consultants) is representing the developer and Chipotle also has a
representative here who can speak to the specific question about how the Chipotle Lane works.
Regarding the bicycle parking and the dumpster location, their recommendation, if it's
acceptable and everybody generally agrees, that a good location would be next to that patio
area. There's some green space surrounding it so there's an opportunity to have the bicycle
parking next to that patio. It's near the front door entrance and it fits well. Marner stated part of
the reason the location was chosen originally was it allows a reasonably quick path from the
public sidewalk along Sturgis Corner directly through the site and then to cross over to the park.
He reiterated they are more than happy to change the location of the bike parking and have it
near that patio area. He noted the dumpster location was chosen primarily because one of the
requirements of a site plan submittals is that they need to screen it and make sure it's not set
along the public right away, as best as possible. In this instance, there's are three public right of
ways so there are very limited locations. This location is near the back side of the building so
that's why that location was chosen. Regarding the third access, part of the reason they chose
the access to the north, as opposed to the one to the south was, and this ties into some of the
other concerns about vehicular flow, where these vehicles want to leave, exit the site, it allows
for the most stacking distance from Highway 6. So that's intended to offset some of those
concerns about peak hour traffic. Marner pointed out it's 167’, approximately eight car lengths,
that can queue up before it impacts the intersection for the restaurant itself. He noted there was
a question about parking spaces, the building is around 2300 square feet that would require, per
code, 23 parking spaces. That is something that would be reviewed as part of the site plan
application but they have 26 shown on the site to allow for a few extra just to make sure that it's
not at the minimum required. Last but not least, there were some questions and concerns about
the intersection at the Pancheros location and the timing of the traffic study. MMS Consultants is
located very close to this particular location and he actually frequented that location quite a bit
over the years so he’s very familiar anecdotally with some of the traffic concerns there. He
noted that the recent City capital improvement to Orchard Street and the site development that
is currently under construction for that Pancheros site facilitates more access to Orchard Street,
as opposed to all of the traffic needing to come out to Riverside Drive. And once it gets to
Orchard Street, then it can flow back towards Highway 6, Highway One, or it can flow over
towards Benton Street and utilize those stop lights.
Board of Adjustment
February 20, 2025
Page 10 of 14
Hans Kuhlmann (Halifax Development) will address the question about ordering. People will
order on the app, they will get notified when their order is ready to be picked up so they wouldn't
get in the drive-through lane until they were notified that their order is ready to be picked up.
Swygard acknowledged that would probably be the best case scenario, but she has seen
multiple comments online about people being held up in lanes because they were behind
people still waiting for their orders. Marner asked if that was that specific to the Chipotle site in
Coralville or drive-throughs in general. Swygard replied just Chipotle.
Baker stated he doesn’t use apps because he is old, are there studies showing what difference
this makes versus a regular drive-through operation of ordering, waiting and picking up.
Kuhlmann stated they did provide the Chipotle study when they submitted their application, it’s
an eight page study that indicates the Chipotle Lane is a much quicker time in line and there's
much less stacking requirement, because again they’re not in line ordering and then waiting for
the order to be prepared, people are ordering ahead of time and then showing up when they're
notified that the order is ready.
Marner stated for people that aren't familiar with the Chipotle Lane, with that process and what
that looks like, there's not an order board, it's just simply a mobile order app and a pickup. He
stated that's one of the benefits of the bypass lane, if someone starts to enter the drive-through
lane and realizes that there is no order board, they still have the opportunity to get in the bypass
lane, come back around the site, pull into a parking space, order on the mobile app and go from
there.
Marner also wanted to mention about the fee upfront versus other options, they would request
consideration that those fees would be assessed, as opposed to an upfront fee, for some of the
same concerns and statements already made. It's an indeterminate amount of time. He actually
thinks there would be benefit to the City to consider it as an assessed fee, it provides for a little
bit of variance because if it's two years or five years from now, they are all certainly familiar with
construction costs and the rapid change in what those have been over the past four to five
years. Doing it as an assessment might be a better opportunity to capture the real cost of that
project in the future, if it actually moves forward.
Dulek noted the City doesn't do assessments, or at least hasn’t in the 25 years she’s been here,
some communities do but they don't.
Marner asked if there would be an opportunity to defer the fee until such time that the project
was contemplated, or there was a request for proposal put out for that project. They don't have
a problem participating and are more than happy to participate to allow for the pedestrian
sidewalk. Russett stated they have not done that with other applications, the City always like to
ensure that there's a trigger that in order to get the building permit, or in this case get a site plan
approved, that they need to pay the fee.
Baker asked if there is only one way to do this is, which is to take the fee up front. Russett
explained the alternative is to have them install the sidewalk, which Public Works does not want
them to do because it's just not ready and they want to do it with the with the project.
Carlson asked if their major emphasis is on the drive-through. Kuhlmann stated that it is not a
major emphasis. As opposed to a Starbucks, which has 60%- 70% of their traffic through the
Board of Adjustment
February 20, 2025
Page 11 of 14
drive-through Chipotle is still around 20% to 30%, they have not reached the capacity that a
typical drive-through fast food or Starbucks would have. That is why they have a lot less
stacking and a lot less cars in queue, based off that study, compared to most fast food
restaurants.
Baker closed the public hearing.
Carlson moved to recommend approval of EXC25-0001, to allow for a drive-through
facility for the property located at 21 Sturgis Corner Drive subject to the following
conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall pay the City a fee for
the cost of installing a sidewalk along Highway 6 East to be installed by the City
at a future date. Fee to be determined by the City Engineer.
2. General compliance with the site plan dated 02-05-25 [Attachment 3].
Tallman seconded.
Tallman asked if they wanted to make a condition of the bike parking being moved. She doesn’t
think it's necessary to put a condition for relocating the bike parking, it sounds like the applicant
is able to do that easily.
Carlson agrees with that and also with the dumpster location, their goal is to have a successful
business. She was wondering if the City made them put the dumpster in that particular spot,
rather than them feeling that this would be the best spot. She just wants to make sure they are
able to design their site for the best traffic and whatever so that they have a very successful
business and doesn’t want to see the City put in things that make it more difficult for them to
succeed.
Swygard stated she is struggling with the traffic study in this location, the findings in the traffic
study that are listed in staff report states it functions poorly and on paper 76 vehicles in an hour
may not look like much and it may not have that much impact, but in reality she has experienced
the traffic in this location daily and has been caught up waiting in traffic to pull in or out. She has
designed her own routes to get around in the area. Sometimes she’s had to go turn right out of
Staples, turn right on Benton, go turn around at Heartland and back out so that she can head
west. The traffic is a mess in this area and it really does bother her that the pedestrian collision
analysis also included deaths in the area. For her the drive-through is going to add more than
what it looks like on paper. She does not disagree with the findings of fact, the facts are in there,
they're facts out of the traffic study.
Carlson noted the question becomes who is responsible for the traffic pattern at that particular
intersection and along Riverside Drive, it's the City and the City needs to step up and deal with
some of these problems. It’s not fair to go against someone who wants to put a business in
because the City is not keeping up with their responsibility as far as the traffic goes.
Tallman agreed with the concern in the traffic study, it was alarming and it seemed like the bulk
of the problems are in turning left to go south on Riverside Drive. But it's not the applicants
making, it’s an existing problem. She thinks overall this will be a really good improvement to
that little corner.
Board of Adjustment
February 20, 2025
Page 12 of 14
Swygard agrees that area has suffered for a long time with various attempts at restaurants that
haven't been very successful so it will be nice to see something there that will add to the
community and add to the area.
Carlson stated regarding agenda item EXC25-0001 she does concur with the findings and
conditions set forth in the staff report of meeting date, February 20, 2025, 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. Tallman 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.
CONSIDER JANUARY 8, 2025 MINUTES:
Baker noted he would abstain from voting on the minutes as he recused himself from this
meeting.
Russett noted that David Moore had requested that some changes be made to these minutes
and shared a copy of his email with the Board. She also wanted to note that Parker Walsh
checked the audio today based on Mr. Moore's requests and what he's asking, and the minutes
as written are accurate. Mr. Moore is asking for some additional detail to be provided so it's up
to the Board whether they want to amend the minutes.
Carlson noted Baker recused himself from this item at the last meeting and Tallman was not a
member yet so that would just leave Carlson and Swygard to vote on the minutes. Dulek
corrected that by noting Tallman had been appointed as a member of the Board prior to the
meeting she just chose not to participate because her appointment occurred the day before so
she can vote or she can choose to abstain.
Tallman stated she was here and observed, listened, and read this email so she feels
comfortable participating.
Carlson noted she has some real concerns about some of the things that happened at the
meeting last time, about the dates that was brought up over and over again. The minutes state
“with respect to the timing and the calendar day and his interpretation of this body's rules for its
calendar was that today is the proper date for this hearing based on the timing of the
application. Dave Moore's lawyer said deadline for submittal was December 6 and this submittal
occurred four days later”. Carlson noted there was a lot of question as to when things should
have been submitted in order to be considered for the meeting in January.
Dulek stated this discussion is just about the minutes themselves, not about the process of the
meeting. If the Board is concerned about the process that's another matter. This is just
approval of the minutes as submitted and whether the Board wishes to amend them as
requested, or any other amendments the Board in reviewing the minutes would like to make.
Baker asked if an option would be to not amend the minutes but to include the correspondence
Board of Adjustment
February 20, 2025
Page 13 of 14
for Mr. Moore as part of the record. Dulek stated that is allowable.
Tallman was thinking that for transparency, and as he said he's talking about a principle, it was
an issue and it did cause some concern but she doesn’t think it's anything that would have
changed the outcome. However, she thinks the minutes should be amended to include these
comments.
Russett stated in Walsh’s review of the minutes he found on page five there was something
attributed to Board member Russo and it should have been to Cox, so staff would also like to
make that correction in the second paragraph.
Carlson moved to approve the minutes of January 8, 2025, with the amendments from
staff and Mr. Moore. Swygard seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 3-0-1.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Carlson requests that in the next meeting agenda they have time set aside to specifically
discuss the questions about when the appropriate date was to file and the application deadlines
in relation to the meeting dates.
Baker stated staff would put that on the agenda for the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
Tallman moved to adjourn this meeting, Swygard seconded, a vote was taken and all approved.
Board of Adjustment
February 20, 2025
Page 14 of 14
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2023-2025
NAME
TERM
EXP.
5/10 6/14 7/12 11/8 12/13 3/13 4/10 8/22 10/10 11/13 1/8 2/20
BAKER, LARRY 12/31/2027 X X X X X X X X X X X X
PARKER, BRYCE 12/31/2024 X X X X X X X X O/E O/E -- -- -- --
SWYGARD, PAULA 12/31/2028 X X X X X O/E X X X X X X
CARLSON, NANCY 12/31/2025 X X X O/E X X X O/E X X X X
RUSSO, MARK 12/31/2026 O/E O/E X O/E X X X X X X X O/E
TALLMAN, JULIE 12/31/2029 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X
Key: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
-- -- = Not a Member