HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.08.25 BOA Agenda PacketIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Wednesday, October 8, 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:
EXC25-0006: An application requesting a special exception to allow a drive-through in a
Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for the property located at 1910 Lower Muscatine
Rd.
4. Appeal Item:
APL25-0001: An appeal submitted by Prestige Properties to overturn a decision of the
Building Official to approve a minor modification (MOD25-0005) to decrease the minimum
required parking by 50% from 8 to 4 spaces for a proposed eating establishment for the
property at 305 N. Gilbert Street.
5. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: September 10, 2025
6. Adjournment
If you need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please
contact Anne Russett, Urban Planning at 319-356-5251 or at arussett@iowa-city.org. Early
requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Board of Adjustment Meetings
Formal: November 12 / December 10 / January 14
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
Agenda Item 3:
EXC25-0006
1
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC25-0006
1910 Lower Muscatine Rd.
Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Date: October 8, 2025
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Owner/Applicant: 1910 LLC
Crownretail714@gmail.com
Contact Person: Thomas McInerney
Thomas McInerney Architects
macarchitect@me.com
1208 Marcy St
Iowa City, IA 52240
Requested Action: Special exception to allow a drive-through facility for
an alcohol and tobacco sales-oriented retail use in a
Community Commercial (CC-2) zone.
Purpose: To allow a drive-through facility for an alcohol and
tobacco sales-oriented retail use
Location: 1910 Lower Muscatine Rd.
Location Map:
Size: 0.57 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Community Commercial (CC-2) zone
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: General Industrial (I-1)
East: Community Commercial (CC-2) zone
South: Community Commercial (CC-2) zone
West: Community Commercial (CC-2) zone
Applicable Code Sections: 14-4B-3A: General Approval Criteria
14-4C-2K-3: Drive Through Facilities
2
File Date: August 8, 2025
BACKGROUND:
The owner, 1910 LLC, is requesting a special exception to allow a drive-through facility associated
with an alcohol and tobacco sales-oriented use at 1910 Lower Muscatine Rd. The site currently
contains an existing 1,800 square foot building and a site plan has been approved for a 1,075 square
foot addition.
In 2001, Hawkeye State Bank, received approval of a special exception (EXC00-00012) for the
expansion of a drive-through facility. The Board of Adjustment approved the special exception
allowing the construction of an additional drive-through lane and to reduce the number of stacking
spaces from six to four, provided that directional signs are installed at all vehicle access points to
the property and directional arrows are painted on the pavement in appropriate locations to
indicate traffic flow.
Hawkeye State Bank was purchased by West Bank in 2003. The subject property was purchased
by Malka 13, Inc. in February of 2022. In June of 2025 the site was sold to 1910 LLC, the current
owner. For several years this property has remained vacant. Construction has been intermittent.
In April 2022, the City approved a site plan (SPD22-0007) for the property for a 1,200 square foot
addition behind the existing building for a sales-oriented retail use. A building permit was applied
for in 2022 (BLDC22-0032), which was for a building addition. This building permit was issued in
May 2022; however, a hold was placed on the permit due to the need for trade (e.g. mechanical)
permits. This permit hold expired in June 2023.
In 2023, an application was submitted requesting a special exception to allow a drive-through facility
(EXC23-0006). This request was approved by the Board of Adjustment. Subsequent to the approval
of the special exception, the City received a building permit application for the addition and drive-
through (BLDC23-0141). No building permit was issued because the permit lacked detail that was
needed for approval. The building permit expired in March 2025. Since no building permit was
issued to effectuate the approval of the drive-through special exception, the special exception also
expired (see Section 14-8C-1E of the Iowa City Code). Therefore, the new owner applied for a
special exception and the request before the Board is for a drive-through use.
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 14-4C-2K-3, pertaining to special exceptions to allow drive-
through facilities in a CC-2 zone, 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.
3
Specific Standards 14-4C-2K-3: Drive Through Facilities
[Associated with a Retail Establishment]
a. Access and Circulation: The transportation system should be capable of safely
supporting the proposed drive-through use in addition to the existing uses in the area.
Evaluation factors include street capacity and level of service, effects on traffic
circulation, access requirements, separation of curb cuts, and pedestrian safety in
addition to the following criteria:
(1) Wherever possible and practical, drive-through lanes shall be accessed from
secondary streets, alleys, or shared cross access drives. If the applicant can
demonstrate that access from a secondary street, alley, or shared cross access drive is
not possible, the board may grant access to a primary street, but may impose conditions
such as limiting the width of the curb cut and drive, limiting the number of lanes,
requiring the drive-through bays and stacking lanes to be enclosed within the building
envelope, and similar conditions.
FINDINGS:
• The proposed drive-through lane will be accessible through a shared access drive on
the south side of the building and not directly off Lower Muscatine Rd, which is a
primary street.
(2) To provide for safe pedestrian movement, the number and width of curb cuts serving
the use may be limited. A proposal for a new curb cut on any street is subject to the
standards and restrictions in chapter 5, article C, "Access Management Standards", of
this title.
FINDINGS:
• No new curb cuts have been proposed with this application.
(3) An adequate number of stacking spaces must be provided to ensure traffic safety is
not compromised. A minimum of six (6) stacking spaces is recommended for drive-
through facilities associated with eating establishments and a minimum of four (4)
stacking spaces for banking, pharmacies, and similar nonfood related drive-through
facilities. "Stacking spaces" shall be defined as being twenty feet (20') in length and the
width of a one lane, one-way drive. The board may reduce the recommended number of
stacking spaces if the applicant can demonstrate that the specific business has unique
characteristics such that the recommended number of parking spaces is excessive (i.e., a
drive- through that is to be used for pick up only and not ordering).
FINDINGS:
• The proposed site plan shows one drive-through lane with one pick-up window. This
lane has existed since it was formerly a drive-through facility for banking purposes.
• The site plan shows six stacking spaces in the drive-through, meeting the minimum
requirements for stacking spaces as set forth in the recommended minimum stacking
spaces for non-food facilities.
(4) Sufficient on site signage and pavement marking shall be provided to indicate direction
of vehicular travel, pedestrian crossings, stop signs, no entrance areas, and other controls
to ensure safe vehicular and pedestrian movement.
4
FINDINGS:
• The site plan indicates directional pavement markings in the drive-through. A
pavement marking is also shown at the exit of the drive-through and reads “Do Not
Enter”.
• The site plan also shows an “Exit Only” sign at the exit of the drive-through facility.
• The site plan displays a pedestrian path between the existing building and the public
sidewalk to be installed towards the front façade of the building that is to be
demarcated with contrasting paint to the color of the pavement.
b. Location:
(1) In the CB-2 zone and in all subdistricts of the riverfront crossings district located
east of the Iowa River, drive-through lanes and service windows must be located
on a nonstreet-facing facade. In all other locations where drive-throughs are
allowed, this location standard must be met, 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.
FINDINGS:
• The proposed drive-through lane is located in the rear of a building which does not
face the street.
(2) Drive-through lanes must be set back at least ten feet (10') from adjacent lot lines
and public rights of way and screened from view according to the design standards
below.
FINDINGS:
• Per the site plan the proposed drive-through is set back exactly 10 feet from the
adjacent lot line.
• The site plan demonstrates the addition of S2 screening to screen the drive-through
from view of the neighboring property.
c. Design Standards: The number of drive-through lanes, stacking spaces, and paved
area necessary for the drive-through facility will not be detrimental to adjacent
residential properties or detract from or unduly interrupt pedestrian circulation or the
commercial character of the area in which the use is located. The board of adjustment
may increase or reduce these standards according to the circumstances affecting the
site.
(1) To promote compatibility with surrounding development, the number of drive-
through lanes should be limited such that the amount of paving and stacking space
does not diminish the design quality of the streetscape or the safety of the
pedestrian environment.
FINDINGS:
• The site plan proposes one drive-through lane that is designated for pickup.
5
• The drive-through will not impact the design quality of the streetscape because it is on
the rear portion of the lot, is adequately set back, and is screened from Lower
Muscatine Road and Mall Drive by buildings and landscaping.
• Pedestrian routes will be permanently demarcated where they cross internal drives,
which helps to ensure the safety of the pedestrian environment.
(2) Drive-through lanes, bays, and stacking spaces shall be screened from views from
the street and adjacent properties to the S2 standard. If the drive-through is located
adjacent to a residential use or property zoned residential, it must be screened from
view of these properties to at least the S3 standard. To preserve the pedestrian
oriented character of streets in the CB-2 zone and the riverfront crossings district,
the board may require the drive-through to be incorporated within the building or
be screened with masonry street walls and landscaping. Street walls shall be a
minimum of five feet (5') in height and shall be designed to complement the principal
building on the site.
FINDINGS:
• There is no residential zone adjacent to any side of the property, so the drive-through
will be screened to the S2 standard.
d. Multiple windows servicing a single stacking lane (e.g., order board, payment
window, pick up window) should be considered to reduce the amount of idling on
the site.
FINDINGS:
• The site plan shows a single drive-through lane with one pick-up window. The proposal
does not incorporate an ordering kiosk.
• The proposal does not incorporate an ordering kiosk, menu board, or an intercom
system. Per the applicant, the drive-through will be for customers to pick-up pre-
ordered items placed on the mobile app or website. Payment will be made in advance
of pick-up.
e. 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.
FINDINGS:
• The drive-through is accessed through the shared access side-street off Lower
Muscatine Rd where there is no sidewalk, therefore reducing vehicle and pedestrian
conflicts.
• The drive-through facility is clearly separated from the parking areas to avoid vehicular
conflicts.
• The drive-through is on the rear portion of the lot and is screened from Lower
Muscatine Rd and Mall Drive by buildings and landscaping which helps integrate it into
the landscape and streetscape design of the neighborhood.
f. 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 onto neighboring residential properties.
6
FINDINGS:
• Staff will ensure lighting meets the City standards to prevent light trespass and glare
onto neighboring properties during site plan review.
6) (Repealed by Ordinance No. 16-4685 on 11-15-2016)
7) 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.
FINDINGS:
• The proposal does not incorporate an ordering kiosk or an intercom system.
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:
• Onsite vehicular circulation and access are adequate to accommodate anticipated
users and drive-through traffic, and proposed signs and pavement markings will help
efficiently direct traffic.
• Properly paved and designated pedestrian walkways will increase pedestrian
awareness in the parking lot and on the property.
(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:
• 1910 Lower Muscatine Road is located in a CC-2 zone surrounded by other CC-2
zoning designations and one Industrial designation. The addition of this drive-through
is to be used for retail sales uses that are either permitted or provisionally allowed in
this zone. The tobacco sales oriented use is required to meet separation distance
requirements and these distances have been met per the City Clerk’s Office.
• All exterior lights must meet the relevant standards within the zone which seek to
prevent light trespass and glare onto neighboring properties.
• The proposed exception is not expected to affect the use, enjoyment, or values of
nearby uses any more that other development allowed within the zone.
(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 proposed addition of a drive-through for retail sales-oriented purposes aligns with
the uses of other commercial facilities within the area.
7
• All land surrounding the subject property has already been developed. The addition of
a drive-through use will not impede any potential future improvements of adjacent
properties.
(4) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
FINDINGS:
• As the proposed special exception is an extension of the already existing building,
utilities, drainage, and access roads are provided.
• A 24” by 24” storm sewer is located in the northwest corner of the existing parking lot.
• The site contains adequate space for vehicular circulation and parking to
accommodate the use.
(5) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
FINDINGS:
• The entrance to the drive-through lane is on a privately owned side-street with
sufficient stacking spaces to avoid traffic congestion.
• The drive-through exit from the property leads to Mall Drive.
• Adequate signage is present directing traffic flow to and from the property with Do Not
Enter signs at the exit and arrows in each entrance and exit.
• There will be no sizable traffic impact to public streets with the addition of the drive-
through lane.
g. 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 the requirements of the base zone.
• A site plan will be required prior to installation of the drive-through facility. Staff
recommends a condition that at the time of site plan approval, the site plan must
substantially comply with the site plan submitted with the special exception to ensure
the location of the pick-up window, pavement markings, and signage for the drive-
through facility.
h. The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the
City, as amended.
FINDINGS:
• The IC2030 Comprehensive plan highlights the importance of recruiting new
businesses to economically revitalize the city and provide services to its residents with
a goal to, “Increase and diversify the property tax base by encouraging the retention
and expansion of existing businesses and attracting businesses that have growth
potential and are compatible with Iowa City’s economy.”
8
• In the Southeast District Plan, Iowa City identifies the area’s need to, “Maintain and
update existing buildings, landscaping, and other site elements to create a distinct
identity and to be competitive with other commercial areas.”
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of EXC25-0006, to allow for the establishment of a drive-through
facility in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for the property located at 1910 Lower Muscatine
Rd. subject to the following condition:
1. At the time of site plan approval, substantial compliance with the site plan submitted with
the special exception to ensure the location of the pick-up window, pavement markings,
and additional signage for the drive-through facility.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Application Materials
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
ATTACHMENT 1
Location Map
Low
e
r
M
u
s
c
a
t
i
n
e
R
d
S1stAve
Mall Dr
µ1910 Lower Muscatine Road
EXC25-0006 Prepared By: Olivia Ziegler
Date Prepared: September 2025
0 0.02 0.040.01 Miles
An application requesting a special exception to allow a
drive-through facility for a sales-oriented retail use in a
Community Commercial (CC-2) zone.
ATTACHMENT 2
Zoning Map
S1stAve
Low
e
r
M
u
s
c
a
t
i
n
e
R
d
Mall Dr
I1
CC2
CC2
I1
CC2
CC2
CC2
CC2
CC2
CC2
CC2
µ1910 Lower Muscatine Road
EXC25-0006 Prepared By: Olivia Ziegler
Date Prepared: September 2025
0 0.02 0.040.01 Miles
An application requesting a special exception to allow a
drive-through facility for a sales-oriented retail use in a
Community Commercial (CC-2) zone.
ATTACHMENT 3
Application Materials
0'5'10'20'30'
N
S
E
W
EXISTING
CONCRETE CURB
"EXIT ONLY"
12" x 18" TRAFFIC SIGN
(3) TO
(3) TO
(3) VT
(3) VT
(3) SB
(3) SB
DIRECTIONAL
PAVEMENT
MARKING - TYPICAL
(3) VT
(5) SN
(5) SN
(3) VT
(5) SY
(5) SY
DRIVE THROUGH
WINDOW
2,875
2,875
2,875
2,875
15
10
26
19
10 SY TAXUS X MEDIA 'TAUNTONI'TAUNTON SPREADING YEW
A-001
SITE PLAN
SITE PLAN
SCALE : 1/16" = 1'-0"A1
UNAUTHORIZED COPYING, DISCLOSURE OR
CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION
BY THOMAS MCINERNEY, ARCHITECT, IS STRICTLY
PROHIBITED.
Liquor Store
1910 Lower
Muscatine Road
Iowa City, Iowa
52240
No.Description Date
1 10/23/2023Review
Architect :
Project :
Project number:23.07
Note:COPYRIGHT 2025
2 8/13/2025REVISED
M:\Documents-Mac's Data\_Projects\23.07_1910_Lower Muscatine\23.07_Plan_120.dwg, A-001, 9/4/2025 5:15:44 PM
Date: September 04, 2025
Re: 1910 Lower Muscatine Road - Special Exception for a Drive-Through Lane
Specific Approval Criteria:
A.Access And Circulation: The property, developed in the early 1960s for
Hawkeye State Bank with a multi-lane drive-through added in 1971, has safely
supported its traffic layout for over 50 years. Alley access serves the front
parking lot and drive-through, supplemented by an existing two-way drive for
exiting and Mall Drive entry. The proposal meets street capacity and service
levels without significant changes to circulation, access, curb cuts, or
pedestrian safety. This repurposed design not only minimizes impacts but
enhances site efficiency, supporting local economic vitality by improving
customer access in a walkable commercial corridor. The design for the drive-
through includes the following criteria:
(1)The drive-through lane is accessed only from the alley from the south.
(2)The proposal utilizes the existing curb cuts to minimize their number and
width, ensuring safe pedestrian movement without new disruptions to the
sidewalk.
(3)Adequate stacking spaces ensure traffic safety with the proposed six (6)
stacking spaces (120 feet total) as recommended for nonfood drive-
throughs. The one-lane, one-way drive uses existing pavement from prior
bank branch operations (per Section 14-4B-4.12.b).
(4)Directional arrows marked on the pavement are provided to indicate
direction of vehicular travel at each entrance driveway. A crosswalk
striping is provided for pedestrian crossing from the west sidewalk to the
sidewalk adjacent to the building. A “do not enter” pavement marking and
an “exit only” sign is provided at the end of the one-way drive-through
lane. These pavement markings, detailed in the attached site plan, ensure
safe vehicular and pedestrian movement.
Page of 1 3
1208 MARCY STREET, IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 331-0365
FROM THE DESK OF
THOMAS MCINERNEY ARCHITECT
B.Location:
(1)The drive-through lane and service window are located on a nonstreet-
facing facade.
(2)The drive-through lane is set back ten feet (10’) from adjacent lot lines and
screened from view according to the design standards listed below.
C.Due to the legacy of the property’s development and the history of the site
having a drive-through for over five decades, the surrounding commercial
character and pedestrian circulation were substantially developed after the
construction of the original building in the early 1960s. For example, the
sidewalk along Mall Drive was built around 2007 and the alley was built
originally to serve the drive-through in the 1970s. Therefore, the drive-
through lane, stacking spaces, and paved area necessary for the drive-
through facility will not detract from or unduly interrupt pedestrian circulation
or the commercial character of the area in which the use is located because
the layout maintains existing pedestrian paths and enhances them with
additional landscaping, preserving and improving the area’s walkable
commercial vibe. This also promotes stormwater management through
permeable elements, benefiting environmental sustainability.
(1)To promote compatibility with surrounding development, the proposed
drive-through lane has been reduced in size and scope from its original
use as a bank drive-through. The reduction to one lane ensures that the
amount of paving and stacking space does not diminish the design quality
of the streetscape or the safety of the pedestrian environment.
(2)The drive-through lane and stacking spaces are screened from views from
the street and adjacent properties to the S2 standard (Title 14, Chapter 5,
Article F) by utilizing native plantings (per Section 14-4B-4.12.a). This
screening enhances visual appeal and provides habitat benefits.
(3)One window servicing a single stacking lane is proposed.
(4)The stacking spaces, driveway, and drive-through window are located to
minimize vehicular and pedestrian conflicts, as they have for decades of
prior use as a drive-through. This use predates most of the surrounding
landscape and streetscape, making the current location the best way to
integrate it into the existing environment.
(5)Lighting for the drive-through facility is limited to recessed under-soffit
lighting and shall be designed to prevent light trespass and glare onto
neighboring residential properties (per Section 14-4B-4.12.d).
(6)Loudspeakers or intercom systems will not be provided. The operation of
the drive-through is facilitated by the use of online orders only.
Page of 2 3
In summary, the proposed drive-through repurposes existing infrastructure for
minimal impact, aligning with the city’s goals for safe, compatible development
while providing positive benefits such as improved accessibility and economic
support for the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Thomas McInerney, Architect
Page of 3 3
Date: September 4, 2025
Re: 1910 Lower Muscatine Road - Special Exception for a Drive-Through Window
General Approval Criteria:
1.The drive-through lane will be located where a multi-lane drive-through previously
existed for over 50 years as part of a bank operation. The proposed single-lane
drive-through represents a reduction in size and scope from the historical multi-
lane configuration. Therefore, the proposed single-lane drive-through will not be
detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare
(per Iowa City Zoning Code Section 14-4B-3.A.1). This design enhances safety by
minimizing vehicle conflicts and promotes community convenience in an
established commercial area.
2.The proposed area for the drive-through is currently paved, with prior use as a
drive-through constructed around 1971 for a bank. The proposed drive-through is
located at the rear of the building, and landscaping will screen the drive-through
lane from adjacent properties. The drive-through lane 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 (per Section
14-4B-3.A.2). Instead, it supports the area’s commercial vitality by repurposing
existing infrastructure without introducing new disturbances.
3.Establishment of the proposed drive-through will be similar in use to its prior
configuration before the building’s change of use. The development legacy of the
property with a drive-through predates most neighboring properties; therefore, it
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 (per Section 14-4B-3.A.3). This continuity aligns with the district’s
commercial character and encourages infill development.
4.The addition to the existing building is to be located over what was previously
pavement. Therefore, no significant changes are proposed that will affect the
location of existing utilities, access roads, drainage, and/or necessary facilities (per
Section 14-4B-3.A.4). Adequate utilities and facilities are already in place and will
be maintained.
Page 1
1208 MARCY STREET, IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 331-0365
FROM THE DESK OF
THOMAS MCINERNEY ARCHITECT
5.The prior use of the property included a multi-lane drive-through with entry access
from the alley. The proposed drive-through is now only one lane, which will reduce
the number of vehicles that can potentially use the service at the same time.
Likewise, the existing entrances and curb cuts to the parking lot are to remain.
These measures will minimize traffic congestion on public streets (per Section
14-4B-3.A.5).
6.The proposed drive-through lane shall maintain 10 feet of clearance from the
shared property line, as illustrated in the attached site plan. Also, the building
addition maintains the existing setbacks from Mall Drive and Lower Muscatine
Road. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the special
exception being considered, the specific proposed exception in all other respects
conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be
located (per Section 14-4B-3.A.6).
7.The property is located within the Sycamore Mall/First Avenue Commercial
Corridor. The proposed drive-through shall include landscaping screening along
the drive-through lane and surrounding the parking lot. The proposed exception
will be consistent with the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan of the City for the
Southeast District by maintaining and updating existing buildings and landscaping
(as noted in step 1 in taking further action in improving the district on page 28)
(per Section 14-4B-3.A.7). This also advances sustainability goals through efficient
land use.
In summary, the proposed drive-through leverages historical site features for minimal
impact while providing positive contributions to public safety, neighborhood
compatibility, and economic support, fully aligning with the city’s zoning and planning
objectives.
Sincerely,
Thomas McInerney, Architect
Page 2
Agenda Item 4:
APL25-0001
COVER SHEET
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: APL25-0001
Location: 305 N. Gilbert Street
Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Date: October 8, 2025
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Appellant: Prestige Properties V, LLC
329 E. Court Street, Suite 2
Iowa City, IA 52240
admin@prestigeprop.com
Property Owner(s): 305 N. Gilbert, LLC
Requested Action: To overturn a decision of the Building Official to
approve a minor modification (MOD25-0005) to
decrease the minimum required parking by 50% from
8 to 4 spaces for a proposed eating establishment for
the property at 305 N. Gilbert Street.
Purpose: To revoke the approval of a parking reduction.
Location: 305 N. Gilbert Street
Location Map:
Size: 6,000 square feet
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Auto Repair Business; Central Business Service
(CB-2)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: Residential; CB-2
East: Medical Office; Commercial Office (CO-1)
South: Community Service, CB-2 with a Historic
District Overlay
West: Residential; CB-2
Applicable Code Sections: 14-4B-1A-3 Minor Modifications
File Date: September 22, 2025
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location & Zoning Maps
2. Memo from the Building Official
3. Materials Submitted by the Appellant
4. Correspondence
ATTACHMENT 1
Location & Zoning Map
E Bloomington St
N
L
i
n
n
S
t
N
G
i
l
b
e
r
t
S
t
µ305 N. Gilbert Street
APL25-0001 Prepared By: Olivia Ziegler
Date Prepared: September 2025
0 0.01 0.020.01 Miles
An appeal to overturn a decision approving a minor
modification to decrease the minimum required parking
for a proposed eating establishment for the property at
305 N. Gilbert Street.
ATTACHMENT 2
Memo from the Building Official
Date: October 3, 2025
To: Board of Adjustment
From: Danielle Sitzman, Development Services Coordinator, Building Official
Re: Case APL25-0001- An appeal of a decision of the Building Official regarding the
decision to issue a Minor Modification MOD25-0005 at 305 N. Gilbert Street, Iowa
City, Iowa.
Introduction
This memo is to provide the Board information regarding the subject property, 305 N. Gilbert
Street. The property is currently zoned “CB-2” Central Business Service Zone and contains a
1,250 square foot building which the owners desire to restore and repurpose to convert the use
from auto repair to an eating establishment. A Minor Modification to the required minimum
parking standards to decrease the required minimum parking by 50% from 8 spaces to 4
spaces was granted on August 28, 2025. On September 22, 2025, Paxton Williams of Belin
McCormick, PC on behalf of Prestige Properties filed a notice of appeal.
Grounds for the Appeal
Per Section 14-8C-3B the appellant must specify the grounds for the appeal. In the notice of
appeal application to the Board of Adjustment filed September 22, 2025, the appellant itemized
five arguments in support of their appeal of the Minor Modification.
A. The modification requires a parking demand analysis
B. The modification should not have been considered as no parking demand analysis exists
C. The conclusions related to parking in the Decision are without basis
D. The record does not justify approval of the requested modification
E. The minor modification is not in conformity with the intent and purpose of the regulation
modified.
Building Official Analysis & Decisions
In support of the appealed action, staff is providing the following response to the appellants claims
in addition to the information contained in the recorded Decision Statement. [Attachment 1]
Relevant City Code Sections are also provided [Attachment 3].
A Minor Modification is an administrative approval decision authorized in the Municipal Code, Title
14 Zoning Code, Chapter 4 Use Regulations. The review and approval procedures are contained
in Chapter 8, Article B Administrative Approval Procedures. Other similar administrative approvals
include curb cut permits, design review, fence permits, floodplain development permits, home
occupation permits, level I sensitive area reviews, sign permits, temporary use permits and
reasonable accommodations requests.
The stated purpose of a Minor Modification is to empower the Building Official to grant minor
modification from certain specifically listed zoning code standards. Minor Modifications provide a
mechanism by which the specified regulations may be modified or waived if the proposed
development meets certain criteria and continues to meet the intended purpose of those
regulations. Minor modifications provide flexibility for unusual situations applicable to the property,
for which strict application of the regulations is impractical. A minor modification application may be
approved, in whole or in part, with or without conditions, if the criteria found in Municipal Code
Section 14-4B-1B are met.
Grounds for Appeal
The appellant provides two grounds for their appeal.
The first ground for appeal (including arguments A, B, C, and D) is that the “qualifying
standard” for granting this specific parking reduction Minor Modification under Section 14-4B-1A-3c
was not met. Specifically, they challenge the form, content, and conclusions of the parking demand
analysis.
As to the form: City Municipal Code neither defines nor specifies the exact form of a parking
demand analysis. The very nature of a Minor Modification is to allow an administrative review and
approval using a level of review appropriate to the minor nature of the request. The form of the
parking demand analysis should therefore be commensurate with the minor scope of possible
impact. The City Council in adopting a Minor Modification procedure into the City Code, endorsed
the idea of an undefined form to be determined as appropriate to the Building Official. In contrast,
major code waivers are not approved through a Minor Modification. They are instead approved
through review by an appointed Board or by the City Council itself. The form used to transmit the
parking demand analysis in this Minor Modification was email correspondence.
The appellant has provided two examples of what they would consider to be appropriate examples
of a parking demand analysis. The first is from Pacheco Koch Consulting Engineers Inc., now
owned by Westwood Company, of Dallas Texas. The appellant holds out the first example because
it’s prepared by a license engineering firm with professional staff skilled in parking, traffic, and
related fields.
In Iowa, the proper license for a traffic engineer is a Professional Engineer (PE) license,
administered by the Iowa Engineering and Land Surveying Examining Board. There is no separate
"traffic engineer" license. The parking demand analysis for the subject property on 305 N. Gilbert
Street was prepared by James Kincade, a licensed Civil Engineer (PE) working for Axiom
Consultants in Iowa City. Axiom Consultants provide civil, structural, mechanical, electrical,
environmental, survey, and specialty services including planning and project management.
Therefore, the form, a simple and straight forward email detailing the necessary information from a
license civil engineer (PE), was deemed appropriate by the Building Official.
As to the content: Again, City Code neither defines nor specifies the exact content of a parking
demand analysis instead leaving it to the discretion of the Building Official to determine the
appropriate parameters to review based on the minor nature of the proposed modification. The
content gathered by or submitted to the City included: location, zoning, existing parking code,
proposed use, surrounding public on and off-street parking, hours of operation, peak hours,
seasonal hour changes, service capacity, estimated travel mode split, and parking demand. The
building official also observed the site using the Johnson County Property Information Viewer,
Google Maps, Google Streetview and in person.
The appellant’s first example, a six-page report by Pacheco Koch Consulting Engineers of Dallas,
Texas of a 35,000 square foot shopping center with 147 parking spaces, is offered as though it
were a rigorous analysis of site-specific parking demand. In fact, the methodology consisted only of
three steps: citing the existing City of Dallas parking code, referencing the commonly available
Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Handbook, and asking the property
manager for a personal impression of parking use.
Further undermining their own argument that only licensed engineering firms with professional staff
can produce valid parking demand studies, the appellant relies on a second example: a student
class project from the University of Iowa School of Planning & Public Affairs. The methodology for
the 40-block downtown Waterloo study was simply to count parking spaces on Google Maps and
drive through the area twice to count cars.
Together, these examples merely demonstrate that a wide range of approaches may be
considered acceptable for parking demand analysis, and accordingly, the methodology accepted
by the Building Official should also be recognized as valid. Therefore, the information readily
available to the Building Official or provided by the applicant was sufficient to justify review.
As to the conclusions: City Zoning Codes set minimum parking requirements for different types
of land uses (e.g., .75 space per apartment bedroom, one space per 150 sq. ft. of floor area of
eating establishments, etc.). Those requirements are not a direct measurement of actual parking
use, but rather a theoretical estimate of how much demand a typical site is expected to generate,
often at its busiest time. In practice, zoning ordinances act as a proxy for expected parking
demand, since they are based on generalized studies, past standards, or policy judgments.
Parking demand is already theoretically represented by the minimum requirements in local zoning
ordinances, which serve as the standard benchmark for anticipated need.
The appellant mistakenly references information submitted in an email from James Kincade to
Cynthia Marx dated August 5, 2025, which was not used in the Building Official’s decision. They
also wrongly use the area of the patio which is not regulated by the minimum parking requirements.
Assuming all the 35-45 patrons expected between the peak hours of 5pm-9pm arrive separately,
and applying a 10% travel behavior of drive and park yields a demand for 3-4 parking stalls.
Additionally, the Building Official had information readily available about on-street and off-street
public parking facilities in the vicinity. Therefore, the applicant for the Minor Modification
demonstrated, through the submission of additional information in their parking demand analysis
including hours of operation, peak occupant load, and modal split, that smaller demand for parking
could be reasonably expected for their specific project, site and use and that most of the parking
demand could still be accommodated with the reduction in parking requested.
Therefore, the data provided is sufficient, from a credible source and was appropriate on
which to base a decision. Thus, the “qualifying standard” for granting this specific parking
reduction Minor Modification under Section 14-4B-1A-3c was met.
The second ground for appeal (argument E) is that the modification fails to meet the required
approval criteria of Section 14-4B-1B-4 such that the minor modification is not in conformity with the
intent and purpose of the regulation modified. Specifically, they challenge that the parking reduction
will lead to parking encroachment into on-street parking areas of adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
The relevant intent of the standard modified is Section14-5A-4A which states
“The minimum parking requirements are intended to ensure that enough off-
street parking is provided to accommodate most of the demand for parking
generated by the range of uses that might locate at a site over time, particularly
in areas where sufficient on street parking is not available. The minimum
parking requirements are also intended to ensure that enough parking is
provided on a site to prevent parking for nonresidential uses from encroaching
into adjacent residential neighborhoods.”
As explained in the Decision Statement, [Attachment 1] the applicants have provided parking
demand information demonstrating that most of the demand for parking (at least 50% or more) to
be generated by their proposed use will still be accommodated on site with the parking reduction.
The public parking system conditions in the surrounding area demonstrate that sufficient on-street
parking exists in this location. The small-scale commercial use is not expected to significantly
impact parking in the surrounding residential neighborhood. In addition, the City Code also provides
for ten acceptable alternatives to providing minimum parking. The intent of that is to allow flexibility
in satisfying the parking requirements. The proposed reduction is one of those ten acceptable
alternatives.
Therefore, the minor modification conforms with the intent and purpose of the zoning code
minimum on-site parking regulations which are intended to ensure the public good by managing
spillover problems that burden the surrounding neighborhood and protecting shared resources
such as the safety and use of public infrastructure but that allow flexibility for the adaptive reuse of
commercial sites with special or unique circumstances.
Attachments:
1. Recorded Decision Statement and Site Improvement Exhibit
2. Record upon which Minor Modification MOD25-0005 action was taken
3. City code references
ATTACHMENT 1 - DECISION STATEMENT
MINOR MODIFICATION – General Approval Criteria (14-4B-1)
•Site Address: _________________________________________
•Applicant: ____________________________________________
•Provide a separate page with names and addresses of neighbors within 200’ of the subject property
•Check the minor modification(s) requested:
___ 1. Commercial parking requirement reduced by 10%___ 13. Modification to driveway spacing standards *
___ 2. Commercial parking reduction of up to 50% ___ 14. Building addition/accessory building for accessory
shared parking uses within parks and open spaces
___ 3. Reduction of minimum parking requirement for
housing program or affordable housing units (CB-5
and CB-10) ___15. Building addition/accessory building for general
educational facilities or religious/private group use
___ 4. Height of wall or fence increased up to 25% but
no greater than 8’ in height ___ 16. Modifications of multi-family site development
standards *
___ 5. Height of building increased up to 10% ___ 17. Modifications to industrial/research zone site development
standard or public zone development standards *
___ 6. Wheelchair ramp setback
___ 18. Additional garage entrance/exit to structure parking
___ 7. Reduction of side setback up to 2’ leaving no less than
3’ of side yard
___ 19. Freestanding sign in CB-2 zone
___ 8. Front or rear yard reduction up to 15% of the
required setback ___ 20. Modification/waiver to non-conforming development
provisions
___ 9. One parking space for persons with disabilities
in a required front yard for commercial use ___ 21. Modification to driveway length single family zone
adjacent to an R zone
___ 22. Entranceway/gateway in R zone
___ 10. Freestanding sign height increase by up to 10 feet
___ 23. Modification to reduce open space requirement for single
___ 11. One non-resident employee for home occupation family and two family uses *
___ 12. One non-resident employee for bed & breakfast *indicates alternate/specific approval criteria
1.Indicate any special circumstances which create a need for minor modification, such as size, shape, topography, configuration of
lot, location or surroundings:
2.Explain why a minor modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be injurious to other property or
improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the property is located:
3.Explain how the minor modification does not exceed the minor modification standards or allow a use or activity not otherwise
expressly authorized by the regulations governing the property:
4.Explain how the minor modification requested is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the regulation modified:
5.Explain how the minor modification complies with other applicable statutes, ordinances, laws and regulations:
Any minor modification granted shall be subject to the requirements of, and in conformity with, the intent and purposes of the Iowa City’s Zoning Chapter. The applicant bears
the burden of proving that a minor modification is necessary and must exercise the minor modification within 180 days from the date of approval or the minor modification shall
become null and void. Minor modifications do not in any way alter an applicants’ obligation to comply with other applicable statutes, ordinances, laws or regulations.
305 N Gilbert Street, Iowa City, IA 52240
Nicholas Miller and Brad Temple
SEE ATTACHED WORKSHEET
SEE ATTACHED WORKSHEET
SEE ATTACHED WORKSHEET
SEE ATTACHED WORKSHEET
SEE ATTACHED WORKSHEET
ATTACHMENT 2 - RECORD
CIVIL STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL SURVEY SPECIALTY
300 South Clinton Street #200, Iowa City, IA 52240 | 319.519.6220 www.axiom-con.com
2330 12th Street SW, Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 | 319.519.6220 Page | 1
August 4, 2025
Cynthia Marx - Development Services Specialist
410 E Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
305 N Gilbert – Commercial Site Plan – Minor Modification
To Whom It May Concern,
See below for responses to the questions associated with the Minor Modification Application:
Minor Modification Criteria:
3. The building official, in consultation with the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services, may approve a minor
modification as specified in 14-4B-1 of this title to reduce the total number of parking spaces required by up to fifty percent (50%) if
it meets the following standards:
a. It must be in a CB-2, CB-5, CC-2, CN-1, CO-1, or MU zone;
b. Buildings must be limited to a footprint of 5,000 square feet;
c. A parking demand analysis must be submitted that provides evidence that the amount of parking proposed will be
sufficient to meet the parking demand, which depending on the complexity of the site, may require an engineered
study, as determined by staff.
d. The proposed development must not result in the demolition of a property that is designated as an Iowa City
landmark, registered in the National Register of Historic Places, or individually eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places.
1. Indicate any special circumstances which create a need for minor modification, such as size, shape,
topography, configuration of lot, location or surroundings:
This proposed project includes restoration and repurposing of the existing commercial structure located
on the 305 N Gilbert Street property, no new building construction is proposed. Proposed improvements
include restriping and the addition of site furniture to distinguish parking and outside patio areas. Due to
placement of the existing building, existing driveways, and interest in low impact improvements, we are
seeking a reduction in the required amount of parking stalls that more accurately reflects the needs of
the proposed restaurant use as well as layout needs for the pavement area. Additionally, along both N
Gilbert Street and E Blooming Street there is on-street packing available for patrons.
2. Explain why a minor modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be
injurious to other property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the property is
located:
The parking reduction does not impact public health safety or welfare, the proposed site plan layout
provided the ability for safe and protected vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic to access the
business. The proposed layout provides adequate parking for the proposed building uses during normal
operational hours as well as community activities outside of normal care facility hours.
300 South Clinton Street #200, Iowa City, IA 52240 | 319.519.6220 www.axiom-con.com
2330 12th Street SW, Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 | 319.519.6220 Page | 2
3.Explain how the minor modification does not exceed the minor modification standards or allow a
use or activity not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the property.
Minor modification for commercial reuse is presented as a possible reduction of 50% or required stalls, this
site plan layout is requesting a reduction of 50% (4 stalls). Additional public on street and metered
parking lots are close to the property allowing for additional parking capacity not immediately available
on site.
4.Explain how the minor modification requested is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the
regulation modified:
The proposed restaurant plans to utilize portions of the existing pavement area as outdoor patio space,
to be feasible a reduction in the required parking stalls I needed. Using existing driveways and existing
pavement areas four proposed parking spaces are included to maximize the needs of the business as
well as dimensional constraints based on existing driveway placement.
5.Explain how the minor modification complies with other applicable statutes, ordinances, laws and
regulations:
The proposed parking reduction allows the site to function within the needs of the proposed use during
peak operating hours. The modified reduction allows the parking lot to be brought into or maintain other
dimensional standards related to parking lot layout.
*Engineers note: The existing driveway located on the west property line providing access to the site from
North Gilbert is to be demolished and curb and gutter to be reestablished to sever any vehicle access to
the site. The Right of Way is to be established with green space following coordination with the City
Streets department as part of a site plan review of the proposed improvements.
Sincerely,
James Kincade, PE
0 5 10
Aug 04, 2025 - 10:47am C:\Users\jkincade\DC\ACCDocs\Ruekert & Mielke, Inc-\9087-10000 305N Gilbert\Project Files\Civil\02 - Design\Base\9087-10000 - Linework.dwg
DESCRIPTION DATE
SHEET NAME
ISSUED FOR
DETAILED BY
CHECKED BY
PROJECT NO.
DATE
DESIGNED BY
BT
&
N
M
30
5
N
G
I
L
B
E
R
T
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
IO
W
A
C
I
T
Y
,
I
A
NO
T
F
O
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
1 OF 1
REVIEW
08-04-2025
JDK
JDK
JDK
9087-10000
SITE
IMPROVMENTS
EXHIBIT
PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKINGS FOR FOUR PARKING STALLS AND DESIGNATION OF
PATIO AREA ON EXISTING PAVEMENT AREAS.
CITY, COUNTY, STATE:IOWA CITY, JOHNSON, IOWA
ADDRESS:305 N GILBERT STREET
PARCEL ID:1010163010
CURRENT ZONING:CB2 - CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE ZONE
PROPOSED ZONING:CB2 - CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE ZONE
LOT SIZE:.52 ACRES - 22,650 SF
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:HIGHLAND PARK ADDITIONS 70' LOT 12
PROPOSED USE:COMMERCIAL RESTAURANT
EXISTING BUILDING: 1,250 SF
TOTAL DISTURBED AREA: 0.01 AC (IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDES MAINLY PAVEMENT
MARKINGS AND SITE FURNITURE.)
BUILDING SETBACK INFORMATION
FRONT SETBACK 0'
SIDE SETBACK 0'
REAR SETBACK 0'
PARKING
EATING ESTABLISHMENT
1 STALL / 150 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA
10% BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED
TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING 8 STALLS
TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING 4 STALLS
PARKING REDUCTION APPROVED FOR 4 STALLS,
MINOR MODIFICATION APPROVAL -
(MOD25-00##/305N GILBERT STREET)
N
G
I
L
B
E
R
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
4
E BLOOMINGTON STREET
EXISTING
BUILDING
1,250 SF
PROPOSED 6 BIKE RACKS
NORTH PAVEMENT
AREA TO BE USED AS
PATIO SEATING AREA.
APPROXIMATELY 1,600 SF.
PROPOSED SIDEWALK ACCESS FROM
EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY SIDEWALK.
EAST DRIVE TO REMAIN AS ENTER ONLYWEST DRIVE TO REMAIN AS EXIT ONLY
NORTH PROPERTY BOUNDARY
TO BE SCREENED TO S2
SCREENING. PORTIONS OF EXISTING
PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVED AND
SCREENING INSTALLED.
9'
18'
24'27'
22'22'
4'
±41' LF OF
CURB AND
GUTTER
±580 SF OF DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
REMOVAL. CONTRACTOR TO ESTABLISH
GREEN SPACE PER CITY STREET DEPARTMENT
STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
WEST PROPERTY ADJACENT TO PARKING STALLS
TO BE SCREENED TO S2
SCREENING. PORTIONS OF EXISTING
PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVED AND
SCREENING INSTALLED.
ENTER ONLY SIGN
SIGN DESIGNATING
PARKING FOR PATRONS ONLY
EXIT ONLY SIGN
1
Cynthia Marx
From:James Kincade <jkincade@axiom-con.com>
Sent:Tuesday, August 19, 2025 3:35 PM
To:Danielle Sitzman
Cc:Brian Boelk; Danielle Cavanary; bradatthesummit@gmail.com; Nicholas Miller; Cynthia Marx
Subject:RE: MOD25-0005/305 N Gilbert
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. **
This message is from an external sender.
Danielle,
Ownership responses below in:
1. The general hours of operation. Operating hours of 2pm-Midnight, Seven days a week.
2. Expected peak hours Peak hours anticipated to be between 5pm-9pm
3. Expected parking demand during those hours. We expect to us the 2-4 parking spots during the time of those hours.
4. Expected mode split (drive, walk, bike, etc) of those patronizing the use. Between Nicholas Miller and Brad Miller, as owners and operators of similar establishments just a couple blocks away in the ped mall for
almost 20 years, expect to see foot traffic being the main mode of transportation, as it is for most establishments in this service area. There has been an increase in electric scooter transportation in recent
years and plan to have bike racks to accommodate those patrons. Vehicle traffic has been seen to be primarily patrons using rice share services, thus no long-term parking needs for drop off and pick up. An
estimated breakdown of different access modes: drive and park represent 10%, walking 60%, bike, scooter 15%, ride share 15%.
5. Occ load of the building or capacity for serving patrons (turnover). Intended occupancy for the building will be 35-45 at peak use.
6. Any seasonal differences in operation. Those decisions have not been made yet, but owners anticipate opening earlier in the day to be able to cater to the Hawkeye Football Game crowds and in the winter
during holiday breaks there might be reduced hours but that will be determined by how much business we are doing at the time.
Let us know if you need any additional information in regards to this process.
Thanks!
JAMES
KINCADE
,
PE
SR. CIVIL ENGINEER
m
319.400.6163
e
JKincade@axiom-con.com
Licensed in IA
A 100% Employee-Owned Ruekert & Mielke Company
1
Cynthia Marx
From:Gayle Dick <GDick@hacap.org>
Sent:Friday, August 15, 2025 12:56 PM
To:Cynthia Marx
Subject:Proposed changes to 305 N. Gilbert
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. **
This message is from an external sender.
Hi Cynthia,
I have heard from other businesses in the area that there are proposed changes to the corner gas station. My understanding is that it will become a restaurant with very limited parking of their own. Parking is a challenge for all
of the existing businesses that already occupy the area.
We rent the property at 318 E. Bloomington Street and have a Head Start Preschool housed within. Therefore, we have a number of staff and families that utilize our limited parking spaces. We oftentimes spill into the
Laundromania parking for brief periods of time, as do their customers to our parking. We also, at times, have issues with friends of the college students living in this area taking over our parking spaces. My concern is that
restaurant patrons will seek out our parking spaces that are free vs using metered parking and it will become a parking nightmare for all involved. We do not want to be placed in the position of having to police parking.
Thank you for understanding our concerns.
Gayle Dick
Gayle Dick
Comprehensive Services Supervisor
Head Start\Early Head Start
Phone Number: (319) 339-0632
Fax: (319) 339-0713
Cell: (319) 321-8091
Hawkeye Area Community Action Agency, Inc.
318 E. Bloomington
Iowa City, Iowa 52245
www.hacap.org
1
Cynthia Marx
From:Dwight Dobberstein <dwightdobberstein@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, August 19, 2025 8:23 AM
To:Cynthia Marx
Subject:Minor Modification Request for 305 N. Gilbert Street
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. **
This message is from an external sender.
We think this modification should be denied until the larger problem of street parking in the near Northside is addressed.
One solution would be to install meters near the restaurant similar to Linn Street near Pagliais Pizza and restrict street parking to permit only in the neighborhood.
Dwight Dobberstein and Nancy Parker
311 Davenport St.
1
Cynthia Marx
From:James Kincade <jkincade@axiom-con.com>
Sent:Tuesday, August 5, 2025 1:37 PM
To:Cynthia Marx
Cc:Danielle Cavanary
Subject:RE: 305 N Gilbert - Commercial Site Minor Mod
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. **
This message is from an external sender.
Cynthia,
Thanks for reaching out. Looks like the attached is parking analysis for a project with multiple uses. This project will be a single use eating establishment with the following breakdown provided on the site plan exhibit, similar to the attached
analysis.
Within the essay responses to the application questions, I tried to include explanation of the sites access to existing public parking spaces and pedestrian/bike access to the site for reasoning for reductions as well as site constraints.
One this we do not include on that document is occupancy load, we will get this from the owner.
As a document in response to the parking analysis would you like an additional letter stating this approach plainly? Something to the e ect of the parking reduction modification is required to allow this use to function based on existing bui lding
and site conditions but there exists excess / additional public parking in abundance in the surrounding area that serve this business/restaurant district.
Appreciate the help through this process as always, thanks!
JAMES
KINCADE, PE
SR. CIVIL ENGINEER
m
319.400.6163
e
JKincade@axiom-con.com
Licensed in IA
A 100% Employee-Owned Ruekert & Mielke Company
From: Cynthia Marx <CMarx@iowa-city.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 1:06 PM
To: James Kincade <jkincade@axiom-con.com>; Danielle Cavanary <dcavanary@axiom-con.com>
Subject: FW: 305 N Gilbert - Commercial Site Minor Mod
Caution:
Information Not Used by the Building Official to Take Action Upon Minor Modification
2
Good afternoon,
Thank you for the recent minor modification application. Currently a parking demand analysis is needed to consider the application complete. Please find attached a parking analysis that was submitted for a similar minor modification.
Best,
Cynthia Marx
Development Services Specialist
From: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2025 12:30 PM
To: James Kincade <JKincade@axiom-con.com>
Cc: bradatthesummit@gmail.com; Nicholas Miller <nicholasmiller6@yahoo.com>; Brian Boelk <bboelk@axiom-con.com>; Cynthia Marx <CMarx@iowa-city.org>; Danielle Sitzman <dsitzman@iowa-city.org>
Subject: RE: 305 N Gilbert - Commercial Site Minor Mod
Hi, James –
Thanks for sharing the concept.
As for the minor modification there are concerns with the location of the outdoor seating area in relationship with the existing driveway along N. Gilbert Street. Approval of the Minor Mod for the parking reduction will likely require the removal of this driveway for
safety and to clearly demonstrate that the four stalls are the only parking on the site.
Also, the required parking is 8 spaces (you round down when it’s below .5 – in this case it’s 8.33 spaces). The Minor Mod request you’ll be asking for is for this one, which maxes out at a 50% reduction:
3. The building official, in consultation with the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services, may approve a minor modification as specified in 14-4B-1 of this title to reduce the total number of parking spaces required by up to fifty percent (50%) if it
meets the following standards:
a. It must be in a CB-2, CB-5, CC-2, CN-1, CO-1, or MU zone;
b. Buildings must be limited to a footprint of 5,000 square feet;
c. A parking demand analysis must be submitted that provides evidence that the amount of parking proposed will be sufficient to meet the parking demand, which depending on the complexity of the site, may require an engineered study, as determined
by staff; and
d. The proposed development must not result in the demolition of a property that is designated as an Iowa City landmark, registered in the National Register of Historic Places, or individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
Lastly, we’ll probably want to see some landscaping between the sidewalk and the parking along N Gilbert Street.
Let us know if you have any other questions.
Thanks, Anne
From: James Kincade <JKincade@axiom-con.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 3:41 PM
To: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org>
Cc: bradatthesummit@gmail.com; Nicholas Miller <nicholasmiller6@yahoo.com>; Brian Boelk <bboelk@axiom-con.com>; Cynthia Marx <CMarx@iowa-city.org>
Subject: 305 N Gilbert - Commercial Site Minor Mod
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. **
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.
This message is from an external sender.
Anne,
Hope you’re you doing well. Following up on a phone call we had early last week regarding the Site located at 305 N Gilbert. Please review the attached site exhibit with the improvements intended for the proposed use.
3
Was hoping to get your eyes and opinion on this prior to a full Minor Mod Submittal hopefully by end of week.
I believe we are seeking a single minor modification for the reduction in parking stalls from 9 required to the 4 proposed, let me know if this follows your understanding of the needs to get this concept approved.
Thanks,
JAMES
KINCADE, PE
SR. CIVIL ENGINEER
m
319.400.6163
e
JKincade@axiom-con.com
Licensed in IA
A 100% Employee-Owned Ruekert & Mielke Company
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of
the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
City Code of Iowa City, Iowa
14-8C-3: APPEALS:
A.Initiation Of Appeal:
1.Where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or
determination made by the city manager or designee in the enforcement of this title or of
any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto, any person aggrieved by such order,
requirement, decision, or determination may appeal same to the board of adjustment.
2.Where it is alleged there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or
determination made by the city manager or designee in the enforcement of this title or of
any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto, any officer, department or board of the city
aggrieved by such order, requirement, decision or determination may appeal same to
the board of adjustment.
B.Appeal Procedures:
1.The appellant must file a notice of appeal with the city clerk on forms provided
by the city, specifying the grounds of the appeal. Such appeal must be submitted within
a reasonable time from the date of the action appealed from as provided by the rules of
the board. A duplicate copy of such notice shall be filed with the secretary of the board
of adjustment.
2.The city manager or designee shall forthwith transmit to the board all the papers
constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken.
3.At a public hearing, the board shall review all applicable evidence presented
regarding the subject appeal.
4.In exercising the above mentioned powers, the board of adjustment may, in
conformity with the provisions of this title or ordinances adopted pursuant thereto,
affirm, or upon finding error, reverse or modify, wholly or partly, the order, requirement,
decision or determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement,
decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end, shall have all the
powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken.
C.Stay Of Proceedings: An appeal stays all proceedings in furtherance of the action
appealed from, including, without limitation, the right of the permittee to proceed with
development or other activities authorized under a building permit, the issuance of
which is a subject of the appeal, unless the city manager or designee certifies to the
board after the notice of appeal has been filed that, by reason of facts stated in the
certificate, a stay would, in the city manager's or designee's opinion, cause imminent
peril to life or property. In such case, proceedings or development shall not be stayed
otherwise than by a restraining order, which may be granted by the board of adjustment
or by a court of record and on notice to the city manager or designee for due cause
shown.
ATTACHMENT 3 - CITY CODE
14-4B-1: MINOR MODIFICATIONS:
The building official or designee is empowered to grant minor modifications from certain
standards specifically enumerated below. Minor modifications provide a mechanism by
which the specified regulations may be modified or waived if the proposed development
meets certain criteria and continues to meet the intended purpose of those regulations.
Minor modification reviews provide flexibility for unusual situations applicable to the
property, for which strict application of the regulations is impractical. The minor
modifications listed below may be granted, provided the approval criteria as set forth in
subsection B of this section are met. The approval procedures for minor modifications
are set forth in chapter 8, article B, "Administrative Approval Procedures", of this title.
A. Applicability: The building official may grant the following minor modifications from
the requirements of this title, provided the approval criteria are met. Any requests for
modifications that exceed the limitations set forth below and all other requests for
modifications of the requirements of this title require the filing of a special exception or
variance application with the Board of Adjustment.
1. The number of required parking spaces for commercial uses may be reduced up
to ten percent (10%).
2. The building official, in consultation with the Director of Neighborhood and
Development Services, may approve a minor modification of up to fifty percent (50%) of
the total number of parking spaces required, if the uses sharing the parking are not
normally open, used, or operated during the same hours. However, this reduction is not
allowed for residential uses. To qualify for a reduction under this provision, a parking
demand analysis must be submitted that provides evidence that the amount of parking
proposed for the shared parking area will be sufficient to meet the parking demand.
3. The building official, in consultation with the Director of Neighborhood and
Development Services, may approve a minor modification as specified in 14-4B-1 of this
title to reduce the total number of parking spaces required by up to fifty percent (50%) if
it meets the following standards:
a. It must be in a CB-2, CB-5, CC-2, CN-1, CO-1, or MU zone;
b. Buildings must be limited to a footprint of 5,000 square feet;
c. A parking demand analysis must be submitted that provides evidence that the
amount of parking proposed will be sufficient to meet the parking demand, which
depending on the complexity of the site, may require an engineered study, as
determined by staff; and
d. The proposed development must not result in the demolition of a property that
is designated as an Iowa City landmark, registered in the National Register of Historic
Places, or individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
4. In the CB-5 and CB-10 Zones, a minor modification may be granted exempting
up to thirty percent (30%) of the total number of dwelling units contained in a building
from the minimum parking requirements; provided that those dwelling units are
committed to the City’s assisted housing program or any other affordable housing
program approved by the City.
5. The height of a wall or fence may be increased up to twenty five percent (25%),
but in no case shall a minor modification allow a fence greater than eight feet (8') high.
6. The height of a principal or accessory building may be increased up to ten
percent (10%).
7. In cases where, due to topography or other site characteristics, a wheelchair
ramp cannot meet the limitations placed on its allowed extension into a required
setback, this limitation may be modified.
8. Required setbacks from a side lot line may be reduced by up to two feet (2'), but
in no case shall a required setback from a side lot line be reduced to less than three feet
(3'), unless the subject side lot line abuts a public right-of-way or permanent open
space.
9. Other setbacks may be reduced by up to fifteen percent (15%) of the required
setback, but in no case shall a required setback from a rear lot line be reduced to less
than three feet (3'), unless the subject side lot line abuts a public right-of-way or
permanent open space.
10. One space for parking for persons with disabilities may be located in a required
front setback for commercial uses in a Commercial Zone, when adjacent to a
Residential Zone, where the topography or shape of the lot precludes compliance with
the location requirements for off street parking.
11. The permitted height of a freestanding sign may be increased by up to ten feet
(10') if the property is within one thousand feet (1,000') of a divided, limited access
highway, and there is a difference in topographical elevations between the property and
the highway, such that the visibility of the sign from the highway would be obstructed if
the sign were limited to the maximum height permitted by ordinance.
12. One nonresident employee may be approved for a home occupation use.
However, nonresident employees are not permitted under any circumstances for the
types of medical offices allowed as home occupations.
13. Modifications to the driveway spacing standards contained in section 14-5C-
4 of this title may be granted, provided there is no feasible alternative to the modification
requested, and vehicular and/or pedestrian safety will not be compromised due to the
modification. The building official must obtain approval from the City Engineer and the
Director of Planning and Community Development prior to granting any such
modification.
14. A building addition of less than five hundred (500) square feet or an accessory
storage building less than five hundred (500) square feet in size may be approved for
accessory uses within parks and open space uses without approval from the Board of
Adjustment. However, if any such building addition increases the occupancy load of the
building, a special exception must be obtained.
15. Modifications to the multi-family site development standards contained in
section 14-2B-6 of this title according to the alternate approval criteria set forth in that
section. The building official must obtain approval from the Design Review Committee
and the Director of Planning and Community Development prior to granting any such
modification. Such requests shall be reviewed and approved jointly by the Design
Review Committee, the Director of Planning and Community Development, and the
Building Official.
16. Modifications to the site development standards contained in section 14-2C-
6, 14-2C-7, 14-2C-8, or 14-2C-9 of this title according to the alternate approval criteria
set forth in section 14-2C-10 of this title. The building official must obtain approval from
the Design Review Committee and the Director of Planning and Community
Development prior to granting any such modification.
17. Modifications to the site development standards contained in sections 14-2D-5,
“Industrial And Research Zone Site Development Standards”, and 14-2F-5, “Public
Zone Site Development Standards”, of this title according to the alternate approval
criteria set forth in those sections, respectively. The building official must obtain
approval from the Director of Planning and Community Development prior to granting
any such modification.
18. One additional garage entrance/exit to structured parking may be granted
according to the provisions of subsection 14-5A-5F7, “Garage Entrances/Exits”, of this
title. The building official must obtain approval from the Director of Planning and
Community Development prior to granting any such modification.
19. Freestanding signs in the CB-2 Zone, according to the approval criteria and
specifications as stated in section 14-5B-8, table 5B-4 of this title.
20. Modifications or waivers of nonconforming development according to the
provisions set forth in section 14-4E-8, “Regulation Of Nonconforming Development”, of
this chapter.
21. A modification of the required driveway length in Single-Family Zones
according to the provisions set forth in subsection 14-2A-6C4 of this title.
22. An entranceway/gate more than four feet (4') in height in Residential Zones,
provided it is designed to be compatible with and enhance the surrounding
neighborhood. An identification sign no more than twelve (12) square feet in area
incorporated as an integral element of the entranceway/gate may be permitted as part
of the requested minor modification.
23. Modification to reduce the open space requirement for single family and two
family uses in certain qualifying situations and according to the specific approval criteria
as specified in sections 14-2A-4 and 14-2B-4 of this title.
24. For solar energy systems, modifications to the accessory mechanical structure
standards contained in subsection 14-4C-2N and other accessory development
standards contained in section 14-4C-3.
B. Approval Criteria: The building official may approve an application for a minor
modification, in whole or in part, with or without conditions, only if the following approval
criteria are met:
1. Special circumstances apply to the property, such as size, shape, topography,
location, surroundings, or characteristics, or preexisting site development, which make it
impractical to comply with the subject regulation or which warrant a modification and/or
waiver of the subject regulation.
2. The minor modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare or be injurious to other property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone
in which the property is located.
3. The minor modification does not exceed the minor modification standards or
allow a use or activity not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing
the subject property.
4. The minor modification requested is in conformity with the intent and purpose of
the regulation modified.
5. The requested minor modification complies with other applicable statutes,
ordinances, laws and regulations.
C. Burden Of Proof: The applicant bears the burden of proof and must support each
of the approval criteria by a preponderance of the evidence.
D. Precedents: The granting of a minor modification is not grounds for granting other
minor modifications for the same or differing properties.
14-8B-8: MINOR MODIFICATION:
A. Submittal Requirements:
1. An application for a minor modification must be filed with the department of
housing and inspection services on application forms provided by the city.
2. Supporting materials must be submitted as specified on the application form.
B. Approval Procedure:
1. Upon receipt of a complete minor modification application, an administrative
hearing will be set.
2. Ten (10) days prior to the administrative hearing, written notice shall be sent to
property owners within two hundred feet (200') of the exterior boundaries of the
property.
3. Following the administrative hearing, the building official will approve, in whole
or in part, the minor modification requested, with or without conditions, provided all
approval criteria as set forth in section 14-4B-1, "Minor Modifications", of this title are
met. The building official will issue a written decision listing the findings upon which the
decision is based.
4. The applicant or property owner shall record the decision in the office of the
county recorder. Evidence of such recording is required prior to issuance of a building
permit.
C. Expiration: A minor modification must be exercised within one hundred eighty
(180) days from the date of approval, or the minor modification shall become null and
void.
D. Time Extensions: For good cause, the building official may grant time extensions
not to exceed a total of twelve (12) months from the date of the decision. Prior to
granting an extension, the building official will ensure that the minor modification
complies with all current provisions of this title.
14-5A-4: MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS:
A. Purpose: The minimum parking requirements are intended to ensure that enough
off street parking is provided to accommodate most of the demand for parking
generated by the range of uses that might locate at a site over time, particularly in areas
where sufficient on street parking is not available. The minimum parking requirements
are also intended to ensure that enough parking is provided on a site to prevent parking
for nonresidential uses from encroaching into adjacent residential neighborhoods.
B. Minimum Requirements:
1. Table 5A-2 of this section lists the minimum parking requirements and minimum
bicycle parking requirements for the land use or uses on properties in all zones except
the CB-5, CB-10, Eastside Mixed Use and Riverfront Crossings Zones. For some land
uses, the minimum parking requirements differ based on the zone in which the property
is located.
D. Rules For Computing Minimum Parking Requirements:
1. Where a fractional space results, the number of parking and stacking spaces
actually required will be the closest whole number, with a half space rounded down.
2. Any use that is nonconforming with regard to the number of required parking
spaces is subject to the applicable provisions of chapter 4, article E, "Nonconforming
Situations", of this title.
3. In the case of mixed uses, the number of parking and stacking spaces required
is equal to the sum of the requirements for the various uses computed separately,
except for shopping centers, as specified in table 5A-2 of this section, and for reductions
allowed under subsection F, "Alternatives To Minimum Parking Requirements", of this
section.
4. When the parking requirement is based on the number of residents or
occupants, the number of residents or occupants shall be based on the maximum
occupancy of the use as determined by the City.
14-9A-1: DEFINITIONS:
FLOOR AREA: The total area of all floors of a building, or a portion of a building, measured
to the outside surface of exterior walls or to the centerline of walls of attached buildings or
uses. Floor area includes all space within the building, including space in the basement or
cellar, if such space is used for a principal or accessory use. However, floor area does not
include the area of porches, balconies and other appurtenances. When calculating the
floor area of a principal dwelling, the area of any attached garage is excluded. Floor area of
basements and cellars is excluded from the calculation of FAR.
BUILDING: Any structure with a roof and designed or intended to support, enclose, shelter
or protect persons, animals or property. Solar energy systems are not considered buildings.
STRUCTURE: Anything constructed or installed on the ground or which is attached to
something located on the ground. "Structures" include buildings, radio and TV towers,
sheds and permanent signs. "Structures" exclude vehicles, sidewalks and paving.
ATTACHMENT 3
Materials Submitted by the Appellant
1
September 22, 2025
To: Iowa City Clerk
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City IA 52240
From: Prestige Properties V, LLC
329 E. Court Street, Suite 2
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Re: Appeal of Minor Modification (MOD25-0005) for 305 N. Gilbert
(Decision dated August 28, 2025 and recorded September 4, 2025)
I. Introduction-Grounds for Appeal
This appeal is from the August 28, 2025 Building Official Decision (“Decision”) granting
Minor Modification MOD25-0005 for 305 N. Gilbert to decrease the minimum parking by 50%
from 8 spaces to 4 spaces for a proposed eating establishment. The Minor Modification Decision
was signed by the Development Services Coordinator, Building Official and the Neighborhood
and Development Services Director. The code section cited in the Minor Modification Decision
is Municipal Code Section 14-4B-1. The decision was recorded September 4, 2025.
The Minor Modification Decision is being challenged based on interpretation of the
following sections of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance: Municipal Code Section 14-4B-1 and
Municipal Code Section 14-5A-4(A). The desired remedy is the reversal of the Minor
Modification Decision.
II. Factual Background
The applicant sought a modification for 305 N. Gilbert Street to decrease the required
minimum parking by 50%, from eight (8) spaces to four (4) spaces. The applicant proposes to use
the existing structure at 305 N. Gilbert Street as an eating establishment. The site plan submitted
with the application shows that the building has 1,250 square feet, and the applicant is also
proposing approximately 1,600 square feet of patio seating area.
III. Argument
A. The modification requires a parking demand analysis.
Per Municipal Code Section 14-4B-1 on Minor Modifications, the building official, in
consultation with the Director of Neighborhood and Development Services, may approve a minor
modification to reduce the total number of parking spaces required by up to fifty percent (50%) if
it meets the following qualifying standards: a) it must be in a CB-2, СB-5, СC-2, CN-1, CO-1, or
MU zone; b) buildings must be limited to a footprint of 5,000 square feet; c) a parking demand
analysis must be submitted that provides evidence that the amount of parking proposed will be
sufficient to meet the parking demand; and d) the proposed development must not result in the
demolition of a property that is designated as an Iowa City landmark, registered in the National
2
Register of Historic Places, or individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
See also Decision at unnumbered 1.
B. The modification should not have been considered as no parking demand analysis exists.
Here, the minor modification must be reversed as there was no parking demand analysis
submitted, let alone one “that provides evidence that the amount of parking proposed will be
sufficient to meet the parking demand, which depending on the complexity of the site, may require
an engineered study, as determined by staff.”
The Decision addresses the requirement for a parking demand analysis, stating “[t]he
applicants' civil engineer has provided information on general hours of operation, peak hours,
seasonal variation, service capacity, estimated travel mode split, and parking demand. These
estimates are reasonable, do not significantly overlap with surrounding commercial uses, and thus
no additional parking concerns are anticipated.” Decision at unnumbered 2 (emphasis added).
The Decision further states “[t]he subject property is zoned CB-2, currently contains a
building which will not be demolished with a footprint of 1,250 square feet, and has provided a
parking demand analysis for review. Therefore, the qualifying standards are met for
consideration.” Decision at unnumbered 1.
Contrary to this conclusion, no parking demand analysis has been provided and the
qualifying standards have not been met for consideration.
“A [parking demand analysis] is an investigation of actual and/or published parking
demand characteristics for a specific site with specific land use(s).”
https://dallascityhall.com/government/meetings/DCH%20Documents/plan-commission/12-03-
20-plans/Z190-230(AU)%20_ParkingDemandStudy.pdf . A parking demand analysis can be
“designed to take into consideration any site-, project-, or use-specific factors that may affect
parking demand.” Id. “Therefore, the results presented in [an] analysis may or may not apply to
other similar projects.” Id.
Parking demand analyses generally include analysis by individuals with expertise or
insight in the areas of parking, traffic, and related fields. See, for example,
https://dallascityhall.com/government/meetings/DCH%20Documents/plan-commission/12-03-
20-plans/Z190-230(AU)%20_ParkingDemandStudy.pdf (“This PDA was prepared by registered
professionals from Pacheco Koch who are skilled in analytical studies of parking, traffic, and
related fields. Pacheco Koch is a licensed engineering firm based in Dallas, Texas, that provides
such professional services.”).
A parking study conducted for the City of Waterloo by the University of Iowa’s Iowa
Initiative for Sustainable Communities indicates the type of process and information required in
a parking study. See https://iisc.uiowa.edu/sites/iisc.uiowa.edu/files/2022-09/final_report_-
_waterloo_downtown_parking_study.pdf; see also
https://iisc.uiowa.edu/sites/iisc.uiowa.edu/files/2022-09/final_presentation_-
_waterloo_downtown_parking_study.pdf.
The Waterloo study explains the data collection methodology used. In Waterloo, the
parking utilization was completed using a mix of techniques; Google Maps and Street View were
used to get initial counts of spaces; and dashboard-mounted cameras were used to get more
accurate utilizations.
3
C. The conclusions related to parking in the Decision are without basis.
The Decision states “[t]he surrounding public parking system includes metered and non-
metered on-street parking as well as a municipal lot with approximately 50 parking stalls in the
immediate neighborhood. Surrounding residential, commercial, and office properties have
sufficient off-street parking as required by the Municipal Minimum Parking Requirements and
benefit from the shared on-street parking system. Thus, there is sufficient capacity in the parking
system.” Decision at unnumbered 2.
The Decision further states “[t]he applicants have provided parking demand information
demonstrating that most of the demand for parking (at least 50% or more) to be generated by their
proposed use will still be accommodated on site with the parking reduction.” Decision at
unnumbered 3. The conclusions finding sufficient capacity in the parking system are made without
basis.
Table 5A-2 of Municipal Code Section 14-5A-4 provides the minimum parking
requirements for all zones, except the CB-5, CB-10, Riverfront Crossings Zones and Eastside
Mixed Use District. For eating and drinking establishments, the following is required: one (1)
space per one hundred fifty (150) square feet of floor area, or parking spaces equal to one-third
(1/3) the occupant load of the seating area, whichever is less. Further, carryout/delivery restaurants
that do not have a seating area must provide at least 4 spaces.
The Decision allows the applicant to have the same number of parking spaces as
would a carryout/delivery restaurant that had no seating area. Given the applicant will have
1,250 square feet of indoor space and is proposing 1,600 additional square feet of patio seating
area, the parking demand analysis should clearly indicate “that most of the demand for parking (at
least 50% or more) to be generated by their proposed use will still be accommodated on site with
the parking reduction.” It does not.
Here, there appears to be two email communications that were used to comprise the
required parking analysis. The first document is the document titled “MOD25-0005 305 N
Gilbert parking study_v1 (4).pdf” uploaded on 8/19/25. The document is an email exchange. On
Tuesday, August 5, 2025 at 1:06 PM, Development Services Specialist Cynthia Marx wrote, in
relevant part, “Thank you for the recent minor modification application. Currently a parking
demand analysis is needed to consider the application complete. Please find attached a parking
analysis that was submitted for a similar minor modification.” At 1:37 PM, James Kincade, on
behalf of the applicant, wrote the following:
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 1:37 PM
To: Cynthia Marx
Cc: Danielle Cavanary
Subject: RE: 305 N Gilbert - Commercial Site Minor Mod
Cynthia, Thanks for reaching out. Looks like the attached is parking analysis
for a project with multiple uses. This project will be a single use eating
establishment with the following breakdown provided on the site plan
exhibit, similar to the attached analysis.
Parking
EATING ESTABLISHMENT
4
1 STALL / 150 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA
10% BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED
TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING 8 STALLS
TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING 4 STALLS
Within the essay responses to the application questions, I tried to include
explanation of the sites access to existing public parking spaces and
pedestrian/bike access to the site for reasoning for reductions as well as site
constraints.
One this we do not include on that document is occupancy load, we will get
this from the owner.
As a document in response to the parking analysis would you like an
additional letter stating this approach plainly? Something to the effect of the
parking reduction modification is required to allow this use to function based
on existing building and site conditions but there exists excess / additional
public parking in abundance in the surrounding area that serve this
business/restaurant district.
Appreciate the help through this process as always, thanks!
The second document is the document titled “305 N Gilbert.pdf” uploaded on 8/20/25. The
statement “parking analysis” is written under the “Notes” section. This document, which is also
an email exchange from August 19, 2025 at 3:35 PM, consists of the following (applicant’s
answers are below in bold):
From: James Kincade <jkincade@axiom-con.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 3:35 PM
To: Danielle Sitzman
Cc: Brian Boelk; Danielle Cavanary; bradatthesummit@gmail.com;
Nicholas Miller; Cynthia Marx
Subject: RE: MOD25-0005/305 N Gilbert
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system.
Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. **
This message is from an external sender.
Danielle,
Ownership responses below in:
1. The general hours of operation. Operating hours of 2pm-Midnight,
Seven days a week.
2. Expected peak hours Peak hours anticipated to be between 5pm-9pm
5
3. Expected parking demand during those hours. We expect to [use] the 2-
4 parking spots during the time of those hours.
4. Expected mode split (drive, walk, bike, etc) of those patronizing the use.
Between Nicholas Miller and Brad Miller, as owners and operators of
similar establishments just a couple blocks away in the ped mall for
almost 20 years, expect to see foot traffic being the main mode of
transportation, as it is for most establishments in this service area.
There has been an increase in electric scooter transportation in recent
years and plan to have bike racks to accommodate those patrons.
Vehicle traffic has been seen to be primarily patrons using [ride] share
services, thus no long-term parking needs for drop off and pick up. An
estimated breakdown of different access modes: drive and park
represent 10%, walking 60%, bike, scooter 15%, ride share 15%.
5. Occ load of the building or capacity for serving patrons (turnover).
Intended occupancy for the building will be 35-45 at peak use.
6. Any seasonal differences in operation. Those decisions have not been
made yet, but owners anticipate opening earlier in the day to be able to
cater to the Hawkeye Football Game crowds and in the winter during
holiday breaks there might be reduced hours but that will be
determined by how much business we are doing at the time.
Let us know if you need any additional information in regards to this
process.
###
The two email exchanges constitute the “parking demand analysis” considered by the
City. There is no indication that there was any data collected, any data collection
methodology used, or any actual study regarding parking utilization. All that was provided
was self-serving opinion from the applicant that would support a finding that parking would be
sufficient with the modification. This clearly cannot meet the requirements provided by the
Municipal Code.
Even taken on its own, it is clear the above email is insufficient as it indicates “decisions
have not been made” with respect to any seasonal differences in operation. Such information
must be provided and weighed to assess whether the requested modification should be granted.
D. The record does not justify approval of the requested modification.
One-third of the applicant’s estimated occupant load of 35 to 45 at peak use would suggest
a need of 11 to 15 parking spaces. While Table 5A-2 makes clear it is the lesser of one (1) space
per one hundred fifty (150) square feet of floor area, or parking spaces equal to one-third (1/3) the
6
occupant load of the seating area for eating and drinking establishments, the occupant calculation
should be considered to show how impactful the approved modification would be.
The site plan submitted with the application shows that the building has 1,250 square feet,
and the applicant is proposing approximately 1,600 square feet of patio seating area. Iowa City
Code Section 14-5A-4(B) requires eating establishments to provide one parking stall per 150
square feet of floor area. The applicant proposes to calculate the minimum parking requirement
solely on the interior floor area, disregarding the patio.
Patrons who sit outside are just as likely to drive vehicles to the establishment as those
sitting inside. The patio space undeniably generates the same parking demand as the floor area
within the building and excluding it understates the true need for parking and circumvents the
intent of Section 14-5A-4. As such, the patio space should be included for a total minimum parking
requirement of 19 parking stalls and a total allowable reduction to 10 parking stalls. At a minimum,
it is appropriate to require the engineered study to determine actual parking demand contemplated
in the minor modification provisions to ensure an independent consultant concludes a mere 4
parking stalls is sufficient to prevent parking issues for the area.
The evidence presented in the document tiltled “ltr-Response to Request for Minor
Modification (305 N. Gilbert Street) (signed)_v1 (1).pdf” should also be considered as it clearly
rebuts the information provided in “305 N Gilbert.pdf”, which purports to provide insight from
owners of neighboring properties. The “ltr-Response to Request for Minor Modification (305 N.
Gilbert Street) (signed)_v1 (1).pdf” document comes from the owner of multiple properties within
200 feet of 305 N. Gilbert Street, both directly and through wholly owned subsidiaries known as
Prestige Properties IV, L.L.C. and Prestige Properties V, L.L.C. This letter clearly rebuts the
claims made in the “305 N Gilbert.pdf” document.
At minimum, this and other letters from concerned residents and property owners should
have put the City on notice that quantifiable data and unbiased support should have been sought
for the assertions made in the “305 N Gilbert.pdf” document and used to justify the conclusions of
the Decision.
With respect to the applicant’s claim that “[w]e expect to [use] the 2-4 parking spots during
[the expected peak hours of 5pm-9pm],” there is nothing to support the claim that the business’
peak hours would be between 5pm to 9pm, nor, especially to support to the claim that the business
would use two to four parking spots during this time. This is nothing more than a self-interested
statement.
With respect to the claim that the business expects foot traffic to be the main mode of
transportation, with the estimated breakdown of different access modes to be: “drive and park
represent 10%, walking 60%, bike, scooter 15%, ride share 15%”, again there is no support for
this. Again, this is nothing more than a self-interested statement.
The applicant indicates insight was provided for this breakdown from two “owners and
operators of similar establishments just a couple blocks away in the ped mall for almost 20 years,”
but this opinion does not meet any standard for a parking demand analysis. There is no analysis
to suggest the same individuals who visit the referenced pedestrian mall would be the same
individuals, with the same mode of transportation, as those who would visit the applicant’s
business.
7
Further, the pedestrian mall is more than “just a couple blocks away.” It is more nearly
three-quarters of a mile away walking. There is also no support for the contention the
surrounding public parking system, including the municipal lot, indicates sufficient capacity
given the distance from the nearest municipal lot. If anything, all the above indicates, at
minimum, a professional engineering study should have been required as provided for at 4-
5A-4-F.3.
E. The minor modification is not in conformity with the intent and purpose of the regulation
modified.
Iowa City Code Section 14-4B-1(B) requires any minor modification to be "in conformity
with the intent and purpose of the regulation modified" and requires the applicant to provide
evidence supporting each of the approval criteria. Iowa City Code Section 14-5A-4(A) establishes
the purpose of the minimum parking requirements:
The minimum parking requirements are intended to ensure that enough off-street
parking is provided to accommodate most of the demand for parking generated by
the range of uses that might locate at a site over time, particularly in areas where
sufficient on-street parking is not available. The minimum parking requirements
are also intended to ensure that enough parking is provided on a site to prevent
parking for nonresidential uses from encroaching into adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
The applicant has provided no evidence—let alone persuasive evidence—that the proposed
50% reduction conforms to this intent and purpose. On the contrary, relying on on-street parking
shifts demand onto public streets and will inevitably lead to parking encroachment into adjacent
residential neighborhoods.
IV. Conclusion
The minor modification should be reversed. As no parking demand analysis has been
completed, the qualifying standards have not been met for consideration. Further, no evidence
exists to support a finding that the minor modification requested is in conformity with the intent
and purpose of the regulation modified.
ATTACHMENT 4
Correspondence
Agenda Item 5:
Consideration of Meeting Minutes
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAL MEETING
EMMA HARVAT HALL
SEPTEMBER 10, 2025 – 5:15 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Nancy Carlson, Mark Russo, Julie Tallman (via
zoom)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Paula Swygard
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: James Kincade, Audrey Wedemier, John Hagedorn, Del Holland
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 EXC25-0005:
An application submitted by the Iowa City Bike Library requesting a special exception to allow a
parking reduction in an Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for the property located at 1222
Gilbert Court.
Baker opened the public hearing.
Russett began the staff report with a map showing the location of the property on Gilbert Court.
She noted the property is zoned Intensive Commercial and the surrounding properties are also
zoned Intensive Commercial. In terms of background, the specific request is to reduce parking
by 50% on the site. The Iowa City Bike Library owns and operates the site, they purchased it in
2021 and have been operating from this site since then. Russett explained the existing land use
requires five parking spaces, so with the 50% reduction they would be required to provide two,
and the remaining area would be used for green space and bike parking. Staff found a building
permit from 1987 that shows that the City approved six parking spaces on this property, back
then all those spaces were located in the front of the building and they are all currently non-
conforming in that the way that they are designed because they required that cars back out onto
the street, and it would not allow any space for green space or bicycle amenities.
Russett shared some photographs of the property and the site plan that was submitted with the
application. She noted the property is paved from property line to property line so what they're
proposing is to repave the sidewalk, to do some repaving of the drive access, incorporate some
green space within the right of way between the street and the sidewalk and add additional
green space on the site, they would be providing a covered parking area and bicycle service
area, and then the two parking spaces.
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 2025
Page 2 of 13
The role of the Board is to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application based on
the facts presented. To approve the special exception the Board must find that it meets all
applicable approval criteria, the specific standards and the general standards. With regards to
the specific standard, a parking reduction for other unique circumstances where it can be
demonstrated that a specific use has unique characteristics, such that the number of parking or
stacking spaces required is excessive, the Board can approve a special exception to reduce the
parking by up to 50%. Staff finds that the property is owned and operated by the Iowa City Bike
Library and their vision is to empower people to make bicycling a primary form of transportation
in the community. Due to the work that they do, the use has unique characteristics that require
fewer vehicular parking spaces because primary patrons of the Bike Library travel on bike to
service their bicycles, trade in or participate in bicycling related activities. Russett reiterated in
1987 the City approved six parking spaces on the site however, they are not striped, and they
are non-conforming based on today's standards because they would require backing out onto
Gilbert Court, which is no longer allowed by the zoning ordinance. Additionally, the Bike Library
also needs space for bicycle parking and amenities, as well as green space. The current site is
paved from property line to property line, so they'd like to improve the site by removing some of
the paved area and replacing it with green space. The reduction in parking will allow the Bike
Library to provide some on-site parking, while incorporating these other amenities.
In terms of the general standards, the first standard is that the specific proposed exception will
not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort and general welfare. Russett
stated the proposed project will improve the site by incorporating additional green space and
bike amenities. Without this parking reduction, the property would not be able to incorporate the
amount of proposed green space and finding space for bike amenities would be a challenge.
She noted access to surrounding properties will not be affected and access to the subject
property will remain the same but improved with new pavement.
The second criteria is that the proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment
of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not diminish property values. Staff finds that
the proposed site improvements will not impact the ability of neighbors to utilize and enjoy their
properties, nor will it negatively impact property values in the neighborhood. The only changes
to the property are changes to the site, not the operations of the Bike Library. Therefore, no
increase in traffic to the site is anticipated.
The third criteria is that the establishment of the proposed exception will not impede the normal
and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties. Staff finds that the
surrounding property is already fully developed with a variety of commercial and semi industrial
uses.
Criteria four is that adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have
been/are being provided. Staff finds that the subject property is already developed and all
utilities, access roads, drainage and necessary facilities are already established in this
neighborhood. Russett noted there's pedestrian access provided by a sidewalk along Gilbert
Court and the closest Iowa City transit stop is at Gilbert Street and Kirkwood Avenue. She
reiterated that many visitors will utilize the City's bicycle infrastructure.
The fifth criteria is that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or
egress designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. The project includes
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 2025
Page 3 of 13
improvements within the public right of way, including repaving of the public sidewalk and
adding new pavement for the access drives. No changes are proposed to the existing street and
the on-street parking that's allowed on the western side of Gilbert Court will continue.
The sixth criteria is that except for the specific regulations and standards applicable for the
exception, the exception in all other respects conforms to the applicable regulations of the
zoning code. Russett stated the subject property meets the requirements of the base zone and
again, going back to that permit from the 1980s that was using the applicable codes at that time
regarding the use at that time, the number of spaces, size and location that was required by the
zoning ordinance at that time, which was six parking spaces, those spaces are now non-
conforming and do not meet current standards. With the approval of the proposed parking
reduction, all parking on the site would comply with current regulations.
The final criteria is that the proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
of the City. Russett stated the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for
general industrial land uses. The Comprehensive Plan also has goals to accommodate all
modes of transportation and encourages walking and bicycling so a parking reduction would
align with the Plan's vision to promote more bicycling in the community.
Staff did receive two pieces of correspondence from neighboring properties which were
provided to the Board earlier and copies were made available tonight.
Staff recommends approval of EXC25-0005, to reduce the onsite parking requirement by 50%
(from 5 to 2 parking spaces) for the Bike Library located at 1222 Gilbert Court.
Carlson asked for an explanation of the parking situation now with the six parking spaces and
where the parking spaces would be with the new plan. Russett showed that from the 1987 plan
there were six parking spaces, all were angled so that one would have back out onto the street,
which was allowable at that time. They could keep the parking as is, and let it continue as non-
conforming parking but the issue is that is the only area for parking on the site and they want to
use it for other things. So they're proposing two spaces, orienting them in a way where they
would not have to back out onto the street, and adding in green space and amenity space.
Tallman asked if there has there been any use of those six existing parking spaces. Russett
doesn’t believe so.
Baker asked for clarification on page two regarding these spaces are currently non-conforming
and to allow the Bike Library to remove parking for green space and bicycle amenities, is an
amenity different than parking and are bicycle parking racks, for example, considered an
amenity. Russett explained it's both bicycle parking spaces, but also things like bike pumps and
things that people can use to service their bicycle.
Baker noted it also states with the proposed request green space and amenities added, the
requested two parking spaces would meet current standards. Does that mean if this lot were
empty and someone built the same building on it, they would only be required to have two
parking spaces. Russett explained that current standards determine parking in terms of the
dimensions, the location and that type of thing, whereas the main thing with the parking from
1987 was orientation. Current standards are not just about how many spaces but also how the
parking is oriented.
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 2025
Page 4 of 13
Baker asked if there is a City regulation about when the requirement for a handicap parking
space kicks in. Russett confirmed there was when 10 spaces or more are required.
Carlson noted the current sidewalk is somewhat hazardous the way it is currently laid out.
Russo had a question concerning the language unique circumstances and the language in that
clause is pretty much devoted to historic structures so what makes this business any different
than any other business in terms of a unique circumstance. How did the City come to the
determination that this qualifies under that clause. Russett explained the standard is that they
have to demonstrate one of two things, one that the specific use has unique characteristics,
such that the number of parking spaces is excessive, or will reduce the ability to use or occupy
a historic property. In this case, it's not a historic property but it is a use that has unique
characteristics, where the parking is excessive.
Russo asked if they are setting any precedent. Dulek replied no, a special exception is specific
to the exception.
Baker noted however that one of the compelling factors in favor of the applicant is the current
use of the business is the bicycle use but if this business were to be sold and another business
went in there and it is allowed to have only two parking spots, now that's permanent. Russett
stated it would depend on what the new user was doing, staff would take a look at any site
changes and if it was to be something like an expansion that would trigger a zoning review.
Baker stated but if the same property, same building, just a new use takes over once they put in
place this two parking space exception it's going to stay unless there's compelling reasons on
the dramatic change of use. Russett confirmed that was correct.
James Kincade (Civil Engineer, Axiom Consultants) is representing the Bike Library and from
the staff discussion it sounded like there were some questions he hopes to answer sufficiently.
They find themselves seeking this exception because the Bike Library is interested in the
rehabilitation of the front area, which includes removal and replacement of a lot of the poor
condition pavement and replacing that with beautification in the form of green space. The
implication of wanting to do those improvements means anything proposed needs to be code
compliant. So if the Bike Library chose to do nothing and keep the poor condition out front, they
could rely on the 1987 site plan as their guiding document for what's allowable, even though
that layout could never be approved in the current code. Upgrading the site into nicer pavement
and green space means they now need to provide a code compliant parking lot, which means a
22 foot wide drive aisle with 18 by 19 stalls and a turning movement that doesn't cause patrons
to back out into Gilbert Court. They find themselves having to be code compliant as well as
address the historical use of the Bike Library. His understanding and conversation with staff is
that, although not delineated that way now, the two stalls is how it's functioning for patrons in
that area so that was the basis of the ask to get a reduction down from the required five spaces
in the code, as well as acknowledging it is the mission of the Bike Library to promote bike travel.
They know historically that a lot of the patrons do bike to the Bike Library and this beautification
is providing additional exterior bike parking to further encourage bike travel in lieu of vehicular
parking stalls. Another note Kincade wanted to address is the question about ADA because one
of the correspondents from a neighbor asked about ADA, and although they are not required to
delineate an ADA stall being only two stalls, they are providing both stalls as ADA design
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 2025
Page 5 of 13
compliant so if somebody found themselves parking in either one of the stalls they would be
able to function out of that stall in the same way they would a delineated ADA stall.
Carlson noted the Bike Library hours are from noon until 5:00pm, two days a week, and from
10:00am until 3:00pm on Saturdays, so on those days how many individuals come to avail the
Bike Library services via cars. Kincade replied it's a hard question to answer with a substantive
number, he knows through conversations that the orientation that is being proposed is how the
site is more or less being used now. The Bike Library wants to provide enough parking for the
use of the patrons so he would assume two spaces would be adequate and has traditionally and
historically been adequate. He noted there is an explicit ask for some additional bike parking on
the north area of the drive aisle, which is why they want to create some green space and have
very clear bike stalls there. However, the use of the site historically in normal nonevent
scenarios, two has been deemed adequate by the owners.
Carlson noted two days a week they have groups that come in, a teenage group and a women
group, do they all come at the same time and do they all usually ride bicycles.
Audrey Wedemier (Director, Bike Library) stated on Tuesday nights from 6:00pm to 8:00pm they
have 15 to 20 people showing up for Women Transform Night. She estimates about 75% of
people are arriving by bicycle, and they arrive at different times throughout the night. On
Thursdays, from 3:00pm to 5:00pm is Outspoken Teens, and as far as she knows none of the
teens are driving and they get dropped off by their parents. Most of the parents do not stay and
there are anywhere from 5 to 15 teens showing up to work on their “earn a bikes” that they get
to work on for a month before they get to take those bikes home for free. If their parents are not
able to drop them off, then they either arrive by bus or on a bike that they already have.
Russo asked if they have had any parking issues. Wedemier stated the way they use the
parking spaces now is really just the two spots that they try to encourage people to use. They're
not striped, and they have signs posted in three different places that say “please do not use
neighbors parking”. They have had Nancy Footner and Arnold Motor Supply come to them
previously and let them know that they don't want the Bike Library patrons or staff to park in
their parking lots, which is understandable so they asked Bike Library staff and patrons and
volunteers not to use that parking across the street or any neighbors parking and to just park on
the street. She talked to a customer today who showed up at about 3:30 and he said he didn't
have a problem finding any on street parking, and that when he can't find on street parking
within a few yards of the Bike Library he doesn't mind walking down the street a bit. Wedemier
noted they do have informal agreements with some neighbors, Advanced Electric and I Corps
(on Highland and Gilbert Court) that any overflow parking for after 5pm activities that happen,
either on a Friday night or a Saturday for a special event, they could use their parking lots for
overflow parking.
Russo noted the two letters of concern, in one the yoga person referred to something resilience.
Wedemier stated Nancy is a longtime friend of the Bike Library and she helped them find this
location when they were looking for a location to buy in 2021. Nancy also spearheaded an
effort a few years ago to get a sidewalk put in south of the facility because they do have people
in wheelchairs that are using South Gilbert Court as a thoroughfare to go to lots of different
social service agencies and also using the Bike Library. Regarding resilience, the City has
named the Bike Library as one of two resiliency hubs in Iowa City, The Neighborhood Centers
of Johnson County and the Bike Library have been named a resiliency hub and what that
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 2025
Page 6 of 13
means is that the Bike Library receives funding from the City of Iowa City to be an emergency
location in the event of a climate emergency. So if there is a situation where power is out, there
is a heat wave, there is a really cold snap, any kind of climate emergency people know to come
to the Bike Library to warm up, charge their cell phones, cool down, etc. They now have AC, for
the first time in 21 years, and have just installed 80 solar panels and will be fully running off of
solar power very soon. Wedemier noted they work with lots of different populations and the City
has named them a resiliency hub because they have closer contact with populations than the
City can. For example, they have a program off site that is specifically for Latina women to learn
how to ride bikes and they meet every Wednesday at Terry Trueblood, they have a very large
group of people that have been coming to that program for years now so they are easily able to
communicate with those populations in the event of emergency. While they won't serve as a
shelter, they do serve as a centralized location for getting information out to people quickly.
Russo noted concern about an increase in traffic or the parking pressure in such an emergency
situation. Wedemier noted in the event of an emergency situation that shouldn't matter and just
taking care of people is the biggest priority.
Russett added she spoke with the City’s sustainability coordinator about this designation too
and she agrees with what Wedemier is saying that the resiliency hub designation is not going to
be increasing traffic nor going to add more programming, it is a way to get information out to the
community.
Russo asked about the improvements to the parking. Kincade noted they would be adding in a
five foot wide sidewalk to replace the current narrow sidewalk and will be adding markings to the
ground to indicate area for movement through there for walking and discourage somebody from
parking there. There will be other pavement for the private access to get Bike Library vehicles
back to their overhead doors and where some gutters discharge on the north side of the
property. He noted these improvements would further ensure some security from rainwater
finding itself back into the structure and getting that rainwater into Gilbert Court’s gutter and help
push storm water more quickly.
Russo asked about the green space. Kincade stated it will be grass and some plantings. Iowa
City Engineering will definitely have some feelings about what those sections look like and how
they're planted and that will come during the site plan review.
Russo asked about the service pad area. Kincade noted that area will be covered but not
enclosed.
Carlson asked with regards to parking spaces, on an average day how many people are
working or volunteering at the Bike Library. Wedemier stated they have five staff that are there
four days a week, and two of them are there on Mondays. She stated more than 50% of the
time staff are biking to work, they all live in Iowa City within a three mile radius so it's easy for
them to bike there. When they are open for those 10 hours during the week when patrons are
arriving by foot or by bike or by car she estimates 25% to 35% of people are arriving in their car.
She added that does not include the people who are dropping off bikes for donations, which is
something different. On any given Saturday, they could have upwards of 35 bikes donated in
one day and people usually just park in front, unload their bike and they leave. Most people who
drop off donations are there for less than five minutes.
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 2025
Page 7 of 13
Carlson asked for the staff that do drive, where do they park. Wedemier stated they can park
anywhere on the property, or they can use on street parking when the Bike Library is not open.
During the times the Bike Library is open to the public staff will use on street parking and those
two spots will be dedicated for patrons.
Russo noted the landscape down there is a mess with undefined boundaries, overlaps, different
materials, and bringing some order to this is certainly an attractive prospect. However, one of
the major concerns as a Board is loss of parking, Iowa City is parking heavy and spots are
harder and harder to get so they are a reluctant group to give up any kind of parking. Wedemier
acknowledged that is understandable which is why it is their mission to empower to get more
people on bicycles. They all own cars, most people at the Bike Library own a car, but getting
more people to choose to bike for two to three miles, which is the majority of the trips that are
made around town, helps everybody because it reduces congestion, which is also good for
motorists because they want to drive and park in places that have reduced congestion, it's good
for pedestrians and cyclists because it makes it safer for people to walk and bike somewhere.
So their mission is to get more people on bikes and to empower people to make biking a
primary form of transportation and to encourage people to choose to bike for those short trips
around town to see a reduction in the number of people that are driving short distances in their
cars. 20 bikes can fit in an area where one car fits. The Bike Library’s plans are very much in
line with the City’s Strategic Plan to help reduce emissions and become net zero by 2050.
Baker asked for clarification on employee parking. Wedemier stated if this plan is enacted, they
will not allow employees to park in those two spots during the 10 hours the Bike Library is open,
however, outside of those 10 hours they do allow parking anywhere on the property, including
those two delineated parking spots.
Baker noted there is currently a bike rack blocking off the current access, making it really so
there are only two parking spots and wondered how long that has been there. Wedemier stated
they have really been operating with two parking spots since they purchased the building in
2021 and currently the non-delineated spots require people to back out onto Gilbert Court,
which is not ideal, but that is just the way it's set up. Otherwise, if they took away that bike rack
that sits in front, that's blocking where now they plan to have the entrance, the car parking
would get a little chaotic because there are no lines, and people will park any which way.
Baker stated the reason he asks is because of the concern about the consequences of
approving this special exception, but it appears they have been working with two parking spaces
since they opened the business for four years. So have there been any issues, neighbors have
sent a couple of letters, but how often do they get complaints about the parking situation from
neighbors or complaints from patrons or volunteers. Wedemier admitted there have been a few,
but it's not very often. She noted they have pretty good relationships with most of their
neighbors. For example, the City of Iowa City is right next door and they have great relationship
with them, in which the Bike Library has a three year lease with them to paint on their property,
and then the neighbors to the north, that building is owned by Sharpless, Brad Sharpless, and
they have a good relationship with him, he's currently looking for a renter for his building.
Baker asked how many bicycle racks they plan on having on that new pad area. Wedemier
stated more than just the one they currently have, one bike rack does not give enough range as
there are many types of bikes and they all take up different amounts of spaces. One bucket
bike probably takes up as much room as two and a half bikes and one recumbent bike takes up
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 2025
Page 8 of 13
maybe one and a half bike parking spots. Overall, they’d like to be able to park 20 bikes there.
Baker asked how many can park there now. Wedemier stated with the current rack that's there
maybe seven to 10 and with this new layout they will be able to facilitate more actual parking for
bikes available.
Carlson stated if the Bike Library’s busiest day is Saturday, how many of the other businesses
around there are open on Saturday. Wedemier stated Arnold Motor Supply is open on Saturday
and a couple of the auto shops might be open but is unsure if the yoga store is open.
Carlson also asked about the women’s night and what the time frame for that event was.
Wedemier said they meet on Tuesday night from 6pm to 8pm and that is a time frame when the
other businesses in the area are not open. Carlson asked about the teen event on Thursdays.
Wedemier reiterated that is from 3pm to 5pm on Thursdays but the teens don’t drive and usually
their parents drop them off. Carlson asked how many attend that event. Wedemier stated it is
5-15. Carlson asked if the Bike Library wanted to increase the number of people who use the
facility in the future, how might that affect the parking. Wedemier stated they do not anticipate
adding any more programming or any more open hours and will operate as they always have.
She noted they do a lot of work during the day when they're not open, lots of behind the scenes
work. If they were to plan to increase their hours it would be on Wednesdays and Fridays after
5pm but doesn’t anticipate a big increase in traffic because maybe more people are finding out
about the Bike Library because they want to bike more often.
John Hagedorn (Store Manager, Arnold Motor Supply) stated they sent an email earlier about
their concerns about the parking reduction. He stated their issue with the parking reduction is on
the donation of the bikes, because people are not riding there to donate or for the bike repair,
and they do have influx of people parking in the Arnold Motor Supply parking lot and that is their
concern.
Carlson asked about the congestion problem. Hagedorn there is already a problem with their
street being congested with people dropping off donations, dropping off repairs, stuff like that.
He noted they run a delivery service and need to get in and out of their parking lot frequently
and with all the on street parking during their times of business it does oppose safety concerns
for them because of going in and out, the influx of bike traffic, the influx of pedestrians coming in
and out of there as well.
Baker asked if the Arnold Motor Supply parking lot is marked as customer parking. Hagedorn
stated it is not, they have discussed about doing that and making it as Arnold's patrons only.
Carlson noted when she drove down to the area this morning, the Arnold Motor Supply parking
lot was pretty much filled with vehicles, do they have customers that come to the store as well
as delivery services. Hagedorn confirmed their parking lot is full mainly of employees that work
for them but they do have spots for the customer parking as well. Carlson asked about Arnold
Motor Supply’s Saturday hours. Hagedorn stated they are open on Saturdays from 7:30am to
1:00pm and the Bike Library has their donations on Saturdays and they do have people parking
in their spots, which is a safety concern with their delivery service. Carlson noted the major
concern is the conflict that can arise between the Bike Library and Arnold Motor Supply on
Saturday mornings. Hagedorn confirmed that is the main concern, they’ve had instances in the
past of bike patrons test driving a bike in the Arnold Motor Supply parking lot, almost hitting their
vehicles, or the delivery drivers almost hitting them because they're not paying attention.
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 2025
Page 9 of 13
Hagedorn stressed it is a very big safety concern for them because of liability and because it's
on their property.
Russo asked about the layout of their parking lot and how may parking spaces they have.
Hagedorn said they one just one access drive but was unsure of the actual number of parking
stalls.
Baker noted it seems like they are not talking about a future problem but rather some relief for a
current problem so this new exception doesn't change the circumstances that create the
problem. Hagedorn stated currently the Bike Library does not have designated parking, and the
overflow is the street, or wherever people park, which is in their parking lot when they are
donating bikes or bike repair. Baker asked if delineated spots in the future for their property
would affect or improve the problem. Hagedorn stated that they currently aren’t using the six
stalls they have for the Bike Library customers, they’re currently just using two so that is why
there is the issue of parking. Baker agreed and noted to remediate the current problem is going
to require something between Arnold Motor Supply and the Bike Library and that’s going to be
necessary regardless if the Board approves or doesn’t approve this exception, the Bike Library
is still operating with the same two spaces. Hagedorn stated his stance is the Board should
require the Bike Library to operate with the six stall because they are currently not and not in
compliance.
Russo asked if someone is dropping off a bike, what's the dwell time. Hagedorn stated it is a
very short dwell time, but it is the consistency. Wedemier explained usually people just drive
up, take the bike out, or someone will see them drive up, and then a staff person will come and
help them unload, and then they drive away, so they don't really need a parking spot.
Baker noted one of the concerns was that people actually using their bicycles on the other
property. Wedemier stated that one of the things that they've done this summer was installed a
bike skills test ride loop and that is on the area where they have signed an agreement with the
city of Iowa City to paint on their side of the property. So between 1222 and 1306 Gilbert Court
there is a shared courtyard area and that's where they tell everybody that they should be test
riding their bikes.
Carlson asked how long that has been in existence. Wedemier responded for two months.
Russo asked if Mr. Kincade was aware of the parking problem with Arnold’s Motor Supply.
Kincade replied he was just made aware of it this morning through the correspondence.
Kincade reiterated the use of the neighbors parking lots is not encouraged nor permitted
through any action of the Bike Library. In conversation with staff during high volume events
there is signage noting where to park and for overflow parking to be on the street. There is good
faith efforts and instruction from the Bike Library to get overflow parking into places where it's
permitted public parking. He acknowledged it's a tough effort to tell humans to do something
they're not supposed to if that thing is convenient. He has worked on other projects in the
capacity of an engineer where there are very concise efforts to delineate parking to own patrons
only. He works across from the Starbucks on Burlington and there's very clear signs that say
parking only for Starbucks customers under threat of towing. It is his understanding that neither
of the properties west of the Bike Library employ any of those efforts and it's not something that
the Bike Library can do for them. Again, there certainly have been efforts to alleviate that in the
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 2025
Page 10 of 13
same way that there might be some issues with individuals biking places they should not be
biking. The Bike Library will do every effort possible to get those individuals to be safe but they
can't control everybody. Kincade also wanted to point out, although the exception is framed as a
reduction, it’s not a literal reduction of parking stalls because the site exists currently with two,
what they are wanting to do is improvements, which means they have to be code compliant.
The request asking for a reduction is what the code demands, but the use of the site is not
going to change substantively based on this approval, they are not creating a problem, they just
haven't solved the current problem.
Wedemier reiterated that 10% of the people who are dropping off donations are there for more
than five minutes and if the Bike Library staff see them right away, they'll come out and help
them and expedite the process of unloading the bike, give them a receipt for their donation, and
then they leave. When people bring their bikes to work on if they drive their bike to the shop and
work on it, then they end up staying for longer and perhaps that is the source of the parking
issue for this gentleman. They do have three signs posted and would be happy to work with the
neighbors, Arnold Motor Supply, Advanced Electric, Friendship Yoga, to find a solution to this
current issue through signage. She thinks perhaps their signage could be improved, and maybe
the neighbors would want to have their own new signage to let people know that there's no Bike
Library parking allowed.
Del Holland (Board Member, Bike Library) acknowledged the Board of Adjustment is often put in
this position of that there's not enough parking in Iowa City, they need more parking, and yet
that's kind of in conflict with the City's goal to decrease the amount of vehicle traffic in town. One
of the things that they are trying to do is model where they can provide not only this new bicycle
parking that will be more parking, but it's going to be covered parking. They’re trying to model
not only for them, but for the community at large. There's a strong movement toward less
parking as seen at the new Roosevelt school development where there is actually no parking
required, and yet there's going to be 145 residents or something. They’re trying to encourage
people to ride bicycles, to walk, to take transit, and the Bike Library is trying to be a model of
how that can happen esthetically pleasing in a neighborhood.
Baker closed the public hearing.
Carlson moved to recommend approval of EXC25-0005, to reduce the onsite parking
requirement by 50% (from 5 to 2 parking spaces) for the Bike Library located at 1222
Gilbert Court.
Russo seconded the motion.
Tallman noted right now there is no delineated parking and that is creating problems so by
designating the parking, improving the planted barriers, restoring the sidewalk seems all
favorable. She stated in essence she feels like they're dealing with an existing situation and an
existing use, a use that is ongoing, that has effectively no parking. And this is an application with
an idea of how to establish parking, parking that is in compliance with design regulations.
Russo questions is this problem solvable, the Bike Library parking, and that seems to be the
issue, and the challenge. He has pretty high confidence that everyone can handle this, it’s just a
matter of logistics, communication, etc.
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 2025
Page 11 of 13
Carlson thinks there are two things that they have been discussing but what can they rule on,
they are supposed to rule on whether reducing the parking to two spaces, rather than the six
that are there now, make sense, and right now the six there are not in compliance with the
standards that the City has. If they approve the two spaces, and they put them in the right way,
then they will be in compliance with the current regulations. Keeping the current situation is not
in compliance and is dangerous because people back out onto the street and to approve the
exception provides a safer access and exit for the people using those parking spaces. She
acknowledged she is concerned about the congestion problem, but that's not what is before this
Board and that has already existed, changing these parking spaces to two is not going to make
any difference as far as that problem goes. Calson also noted the sidewalk on that side of the
street is abhorrent for anyone in a wheelchair or really anyone trying to walk on it. She was
there at 11:30 this morning and the Bike Library was not open and there were more parking
spaces available on that street than are available on her residential street at home. She went
back down there at 3:30 this afternoon when the Bike Library was open and there were still
more available parking spaces on that street than there were on her residential street at home.
Baker basically agrees with everything that the rest of the Board has said, he doesn’t think
they’re creating a new problem, but they haven't resolved a current problem, but that's out of
their domain and that's left up to the property owners.
Russo asked if this property were sold, could this property become a bar or would it have to be
rezoned. He asks because they don't want to set a precedent here. Dulek replied the special
exception does stay with the property but it's not precedential in the sense that if someone on
123 Main Street asks for a parking reduction, just because the Board granted it here they don't
have to grant it there if it is not right for that location. Russett stated regarding if a bar were to go
into the location, she would have to look into that, she is not sure if drinking establishments are
allowed in this zone or not. There are a couple down there so it might be an allowed use, but
there also is the 500 foot requirement too.
Tallman stated unless the rules change significantly, any change in use would require
compliance with current regulations and she doesn’t see how this building could be converted to
a bar. She stated they are approving a special exception for a warehouse use, so if someone
were to come in and say they want to change this building to a clothing store or a bar, they
would have to go through an entirely new and separate process for approval, including
compliance with parking regulations for a retail store or a bar. Russett stated that can get
complicated because a change in use doesn't trigger a zoning compliance review nor a site
plan. So unless they're doing something to the property that would maybe trigger a building
permit or improvements or something like that, the City wouldn't be aware of the change in use.
Carlson stated regarding agenda item EXC25-0005 she does concur with the findings and
conditions set forth in the staff report of September 10, 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.
Carlson believes that with the approval of the proposed parking reduction, all parking on the site
would comply with current regulations. The six parking spaces that are there now have been
non-conforming for some time and this use has unique characteristics that require fewer vehicle
parking spaces.
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 2025
Page 12 of 13
Russo seconded the findings of facts.
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 JULY 9, 2025 MINUTES:
Carlson moved to approve the minutes of July 9, 2025. Russo seconded. A vote was
taken and the motion carried.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Dulek noted there is a training for board and commission members at Terry Trueblood on
Monday, the 29th of September, at 6:00pm. More information will be coming. The training is for
open meetings and open records that Council wants all board members to attend. If you have
already completed the training online please send Russett the confirmation that it has been
completed.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 pm.
Board of Adjustment
September 10, 2025
Page 13 of 13
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2023-2025
NAME
TERM
EXP.
11/8 12/13 3/13 4/10 8/22 10/10 11/13 1/8 2/20 3/12 7/8 9/10
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 O/E O/E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
SWYGARD, PAULA 12/31/2028 X X O/E X X X X X X X X O/E
CARLSON, NANCY 12/31/2025 O/E X X X O/E X X X X X X X
RUSSO, MARK 12/31/2026 O/E X X X X X X X O/E X O/E X
TALLMAN, JULIE 12/31/2029 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X
Key: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
-- -- = Not a Member