Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-08-2025 Board of AdjustmentIOWA 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 STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Item: EXC25-0006 Date: October 8, 2025 1910 Lower Muscatine Rd. GENERAL INFORMATION: Owner/Applicant: 1910 LLC Crown retail714(a)_gmail. com Contact Person: Thomas McInerney Thomas McInerney Architects macarchitect(a)_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: Location Map: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Applicable Code Sections: 1910 Lower Muscatine Rd. 0.57 acres Community Commercial (CC-2) zone North: General Industrial (1-1) East: Community Commercial (CC-2) zone South: Community Commercial (CC-2) zone West: Community Commercial (CC-2) zone 14-413-3k General Approval Criteria 14-4C-2K-3: Drive Through Facilities 1 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-1 E 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 14-413- 3A. For the Board of Adjustment to grant this special exception request, each of the following criterion below must be met. The burden of proof is on the applicant, and their comments regarding each criterion may be found on the attached application. Staff comments regarding each criterion are set below. Specific Standards 14-4C-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. 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 fagade 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. 11 • 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. 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: 14-4113-3: 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. 0 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." 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: -I 6 sj+uw-��� Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services E3 ATTACHMENT 1 Location Map cost Prepared By: Olivia Ziegler Date ++1dD �. fr � lk ' x, a ,bNIMAL An application requesting a special exception to allow a — drive -through facility for a sales -oriented retail use in a r Community Commercial (CC-2) zone. �P�e _ 4 i ATTACHMENT 2 Zoning Map r _ Est err �� fit► - 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. CITY OF IOWA CITY j -- °CC2 �. P ATTACHMENT 3 Application Materials KEYNOTES NUMBER KEYNOTE CDPARKING INSTALL PARKING LOT PAVEMENT MARKINGS FOR STALLS, ADA PARKING AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTE. CDINSTALL 5" THICK PCC SIDEWALK PER CITY OF IOWA CITY STANDARDS. CDINSTALL 7" THICK PCC PAVEMENT PER CITY OF IOWA CITY STANDARDS. GDINSTALL 6" HT. INTEGRAL PCC CURB. GDINSTALL 1' X 1' BUILDING PERIMETER CURB. CDINSTALL SIDEWALK RAMP AT 12:1 SLOPE MAX. O7 PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION. O$ PROPOSED BICYCLE PARKING (4 SPACES) RELOCATED ADA PARKING SIGN AT NEW CDINSTALL LOCATION. EDPROPOSED DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE. INSTALL PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK, DENOTE ROUTE WITH 11 CONTRASTING PAVEMENT STAIN. REMOVE EXISTING PAVEMENT MARKINGS. C2D CD REMOVE EXISTING PAVEMENT, SAWCUT AT EDGE. 22 REMOVE EXISTING BUILDING CANOPY. 23 REMOVE EXISTING BUILDING COLUMNS (2) C2D PROTECT EXISTING BUILDING COLUMNS (4) SALVAGE AND REPLACE ADA PARKING SIGN AT NEW 25 LOCATION. DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS CURRENT ZONING IS CC-2 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS BUILDING SETBACKS: REQUIRED FRONT YARD 10 FEET SIDE YARD 0 FEET REAR YARD 0 FEET MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM LOT SIZE NONE LOT FRONTAGE NONE LOT DEPTH NONE LOT WIDTH NONE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 35 FEET LOT CHARACTERISTICS LOT AREA (0.57 AC) 24,642 SF (100%) BUILDING AREA - EXISTING 1,800 SF (07.3%) BUILDING AREA - PROPOSED 2,875 SF (04.4%) PAVING AREA - EXISTING 12,736 SF (51.7%) PAVING AREA - PROPOSED 1,283 SF (05.2%) OPEN SPACE 7,748 SF (31.4%) LAND USE INTENSITY CALCULATIONS FLOOR AREA(FA) / LAND AREA(LA) = FLOOR AREA RATIO(FAR) BUILDING SF(FA) = 2,875 SF LAND AREA SF = 24,642 SF (LA) SF(FA) / 24,642 SF(LA) = 0.12 (PROPOSED FAR) 2.0 (MAXIMUM FAR) BUILDING USE 2,875 SF LIQUOR STORE PARKING REQUIREMENTS RETAIL USE, SALES ORIENTED = 1 SPACE PER 300 SF OF BUILDING FLOOR AREA 2,875 SF(FA) / 300 SF = 10 SPACES REQUIRED 10 SPACES PROVIDED (1 ADA) BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS RETAIL USE, SALES ORIENTED = 15% OF REQUIRED VEHICLE PARKING (4 MIN.) 10 SPACES X 0.15 = (1.5 < 4) 4 BICYCLE SPACES REQUIRED 4 BICYCLE SPACES PROVIDED LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS 1 STREET TREE FOR EVERY 60 LINEAL FEET OF LOT FRONTAGE (2 FRONTAGES) 345.46 LF / 60 LF = 5 TREES REQUIRED 5 TREES PROVIDED (3 EXISTING) 1 LARGE TREE WITHIN 60 FT OF EVERY PARKING SPACE PROVIDED SEED ALL DISTURBED AREAS PLANT L 1ST — TREES qTY KEY WFANIGAL NAME COMMON NAME 1� E GCMMENT MATURE SIZE I LT LIRIODENDRON TULIPIFEPA T -IPTREE 2" GAL. B & B 8d X 40, 2 CAR QUEfZGUS RUBRA RED OAK 2" GAL B & B Gd X 60' PLANT LIST — s5-IRU�6, PERENNIALS, ORNAMENTAL GRASSES & GROUNPOOVER QTY KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME I TS 5PAGING MATURE 15 513 SPIRAEA x 13UMALPA 'GOLDFLAME' C2OLPFLAME SPIREA 15" HT. 5' O.G. 3' X 4' 10 SN SORGHASTRUM NUTANS INDIAN GRASS 24" HT. A' O.G. 5 X 3' 26 TO THUJA OGGIDENTALIS 'HETZ MIDGET' HETZ ARBORVITAE 15" HT. 5' O.G. 3" X A" 19 VT VIBURNUM TRILOBUM "GOMPAGTA" GOMPAGT AMERICAN CRANBERRY 1!5 511 VIBURNUM 24" HT. 5' O.(_ 5' X 5' 10 1 SY TAXUS X MEDIA 'TAUNTONI' TAUNTON SPREADING YEW 6' HT. A' O.G 5' x 3 CONTINUOUS BICYCLE LOOP N.T.S. 12" O.D. POWDER STEEL BIKE BAST -IN -PLACE CRETE WALK CRETE PIER ING kCTED ROCK (IF INCLUDED) PACTED )F BIKE LOOP PLUS 6' TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAIL N.T.S. NOTE: DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH MATERIALS COMPLIMENTARY TO THE EXISTING BUILDING OR WITH ROCKFACE BLOCK (COLOR: GRANITE BLEND) MATERIALS CONSISTENT WITH THOSE USED ON THE BUILDINGS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS. TOP OF MASONR BOND BEAM -SEE STRUC. 12" SPLIT FACE CMU (TYP. ) GRADE TOP OF FOUNDATION' CONCRETE FOUNDATION CONCRETE FOOTING WALL SECTION FRONT VIEW PLAN VIEW Eg � 30.00'. �, N67.23'03" 117.97' • 3'08"E 51.48 " EXISTING 410 ST/ I CONCRETE CURB NUM O 6 oo c�1,�s ..EXIT ONLY.. o 0 o cn 9�, 12" x 18" TRAFFIC SIGN o 0 TW Q F� 1 v R3.00' v MATCH EX o (3) TO (S� % o S o�1 y 30.00' 17'-1 1 " 0-) ) 2i31N3 " lON Oa B 20.00' /M y , 410 p�� 0�(3) SB 24.00' F` S sq T/N FR 01Cp_24��2 sF ��D DRIVE THROUGH T1" � WINDOW rn �o 1 � o J II aox oG� 0j (3)VT oc o o opn CD 18.00' . o S o CD 2 Q _- 1 j 9, o U 6.18 10.00' �® © ' -�P o o (3) SB (9 5 S N _ 8.67 O (3) VT 18.00' o - o a O T V J o 4/ Lp, (3) VT N j \� Ul (5) SN 4K -� m C. W� w 26.00' 20.00� C �\/h 7 41N. OWNER: MALKA 13, INC 301 IOWA AVE MUSCATINE, IA 52761 ('6) ro N f s 0' S 10, 20' 30' SITE PLAN Al SCALE . 1/16 = 1 -0 (3) VT EXISTINE) sHAREP A 6E6e DRIVE. 113.23' S67.23'03"W DIRECTIONAL PAVEMENT MARKING - TYPICAL P Architect Thomas McInerney A RRI C H � T E C T 3 1 9. 3 3 1. 0 3 6 5 1208 Marcy Street Iowa City, powa 52240 www.thomasarchitect.com thomas@thomasarchitect.com Project : Liquor Store 1910 Lower Muscatine Road Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Project number: 23.07 Note: ©COPYRIGHT 2025 UNAUTHORIZED COPYING, DISCLOSURE OR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION BY THOMAS MCINERNEY, ARCHITECT, IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. No. Description Date 1 Review 10/23/2023 2 REVISED 8/13/2025 SITE PLAN A-001 M:WDocuments-Mac's DataW_ProjectsW23.07_1910_Lower MuscatmeW23.07_Plan 120.dwg, A-001, 9/4/2025 5:15:44 PM FROM THE DESK OF THOMAS MCINERNEY ARCHITECT 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. 1208 MARCY STREET, IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 331-0365 Page 1 of 3 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 14-413-4.12A). (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 2of3 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 3of3 FROM THE DESK OF THOMAS MCINERNEY ARCHITECT Date: September 4, 2025 Re: 1910 Lower Muscatine Road - Special Exception for a Drive -Through Window General Approval Criteria: 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 14-413-3.A.1). This design enhances safety by minimizing vehicle conflicts and promotes community convenience in an established commercial area. 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 14-413-3.A.2). Instead, it supports the area's commercial vitality by repurposing existing infrastructure without introducing new disturbances. 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. 1208 MARCY STREET, IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 331-0365 Page 1 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 14-413-3.A.5). 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). 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 14-413-3.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 Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Item: APL25-0001 Date: October 8, 2025 Location: 305 N. Gilbert Street GENERAL INFORMATION: Appellant: Prestige Properties V, LLC 329 E. Court Street, Suite 2 Iowa City, IA 52240 admin(a)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: Location: To revoke the approval of a parking reduction. 305 N. Gilbert Street Location Map: T r gilt' Z s. - X. Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning Surrounding Land Use and Zoning I- I 1 E Eiaomington St 1 s g 6,000 square feet Auto Repair Business; Central Business Service (CB-2) 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: ATTACHMENTS: September 22, 2025 1. Location & Zoning Maps 2. Memo from the Building Official 3. Materials Submitted by the Appellant 4. Correspondence ATTACHMENT 1 Location & Zoning Map '• � �� �?!'� E Bloc Ask An appeal to overturn a decision approving a minor r modification to decrease the minimum required parking for a proposed eating establishment for the property at 305 N. Gilbert Street. - �r LE . ft •j - - - -' lington St • � ,�(�. � "+.ram . l '� 1 III "^tdf._ CITY OF IOWA CITY 9 j aN MI=ININ91111�111ya A nrM �C INOR __ - 305 N. Gilbert Street APL25-0001 1 EMPIRIC������A������A�A����� go a.a awewan i����������!®�����:►��������������������-4 i�ii�iNEir Mr �� k d I i .:• 41 - ? - - aw IT An appeal to overturn a decision approving a rninor modification to decrease the minimum required parking 32 for a proposed eating estab] I shment for the property at 305 N. Gilbert Street. y ♦1 _♦�< Prepared By: Olivia Ziegler Date Prepared: September 2025 uF � ATTACHMENT 2 Memo from the Building Official ► 1 r CITY OF MEMO Date: October 3, 2025 I OWA CITY 0 Ll I oil! 21UN I To: Board of Adjustment From: Danielle Sitzman, Development Services Coordinator, Building Official Re: Case API_25-0001- 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-1 B 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 Buildinq 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 protect, site and use and that most of the parking demand could still be accommodated with the reduction in oarkina reauested. 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 14-4113-1A-3c was met. The second ground for appeal (argument E) is that the modification fails to meet the required approval criteria of Section 14-413-1 B-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 Cc, �� IIIIIII{ilil{Illlll{111{IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIillllllllllliiill1111{{{illl ATTACHMENT 1 - DECISION STATEMENT Doc ID: 032560780003 Type: GEN Kind: MINOR MODIFICATION DECISION Recorded: 09/04/2025 at 01:53:13 PM Fee Amt: $17.00 Page 1 of 3 Johnson County Iowa Kim Painter County Recorder BK6689PG474-476 Prepared by and return to Cynthia Marx, Development Services Specialist, City of Iowa City, 410 E Washington St., Iowa City, IA, 319.356.5120 MINOR MODIFICATION DECISION Nicolas Miller 5685 Columbine Dr Johnstone, IA 50131 Brad Temple 1020 SE Pinecrest Circle Waukee, IA 50263 Re: MOD25-0005/305 N Gilbert Street Dear Nicholas Miller & Brad Temple, The minor modification requested to decrease the required minimum parking by 50% from 8 spaces to 4 spaces for a proposed eating establishment has been approved in whole with the condition that improvements substantially conform with the "Site Improvements Exhibit" dated 8-4-2025. Per Municipal Code Section 14-46-1 "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, 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; 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. The 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. 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 14-46-113 are met. A review of the application and criteria find the following: The applicants' desire to restore and repurpose the preexisting site development and building to convert the use from auto repair to an eating establishment with an outdoor service area. Special circumstances apply to the Pre ap red by and return to Cynthia Marx, Development Services Specialist, City of Iowa City, 410 E Washington St., Iowa City, IA, 319.356.5120 property, such as the small size and shape of the lot; it's location surroundings, and characteristics as a corner lot in the near downtown neighborhood, and preexisting site development. Therefore, these circumstances make it impractical to comply with the subject regulation and successfully reuse the property and therefore warrant a modification and/or waiver of the subject regulation. The 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. The location of the existing commercial building and small corner site limit off-street parking options. The proposed reuse includes the removal of the existing driveway onto North Gilbert Street thus -increasing the customer, pedestrian and vehicle safety by removing conflicts between them. The change also creates additional public on -street parallel parking. The small retail use, conveniently located near a customer base and with a small scale of development contributes to the neighborhood commercial character which encourages pedestrian and bicycle access thus limiting adverse vehicle parking impacts on nearby residential areas. The 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. Management of private off-street parking areas is already the responsibility of the property owner. The City does not oversee or enforce parking rules on private property, except in cases where the parking facility is operated as a commercial enterprise. Thus, no impact to existing private off-street parking is anticipated. Therefore, 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. The minor modification is for a 50% reduction in the required commercial parking standards for this use, therefore, it does not exceed the minor modification standards for the reduction of parking for commercial parking or allow a use or activity not otherwise expressly authorized by the regulations governing the subject property. The Municipal 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 Prepared by and retain to Cynthia Marx, Development Services Specialist, City of Iowa City, 410 E Washington St., Iowa City,1A, 319.356.5120 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 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 Municipal 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. The minor modification does not relieve the property owner from complying with all other applicable statues, ordinances, laws or regulations. This document must be recorded at the Office of the Johnson County Iowa Recorder. This modification must be exercised within (180) days for the date of approval or the minor modification shall become null and void. 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. Sincerely, Danielle Sitzman, AICP Development Services Coordinator, Building Official City of Iowa City Tracy Hightsh Neighborhood and Development Services Director City of Iowa City ATTACHMENT 2 - RECORD®� MINOR MODIFICATION — General Approval Criteria (14-4B-1) CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Site Address: 305 N Gilbert Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 Iowa 52240-1826 • 13`I 91C3t5y.6 Applicant: Nicholas Miller and Brad Temple `314 Cgo6 o S 9 FAX • 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% �2. Commercial parking reduction of up to 50% shared parking 3. Reduction of minimum parking requirement for housing program or affordable housing units (CB-5 and CB-10) 4. Height of wall or fence increased up to 25% but no greater than 8' in height 5. Height of building increased up to 10% 6. Wheelchair ramp setback 7. Reduction of side setback up to 2' leaving no less than 3' of side yard 8. Front or rear yard reduction up to 15% of the required setback 9. One parking space for persons with disabilities in a required front yard for commercial use adjacent to an R zone 10. Freestanding sign height increase by up to 10 feet 11. One non-resident employee for home occupation 12. One non-resident employee for bed & breakfast 13. Modification to driveway spacing standards * 14. Building addition/accessory building for accessory uses within parks and open spaces 15. Building addition/accessory building for general educational facilities or religious/private group use _ 16. Modifications of multi -family site development standards* 17. Modifications to industrial/research zone site development standard or public zone development standards * 18. Additional garage entrance/exit to structure parking 19. Freestanding sign in CB-2 zone 20. Modification/waiver to non -conforming development provisions 21. Modification to driveway length single family zone _ 22. Entranceway/gateway in R zone 23. Modification to reduce open space requirement for single family and two family uses * 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: SEE ATTACHED WORKSHEET 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: SEE ATTACHED WORKSHEET 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: SEE ATTACHED WORKSHEET 4. Explain how the minor modification requested is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the regulation modified: SEE ATTACHED WORKSHEET 5. Explain how the minor modification complies with other applicable statutes, ordinances, laws and regulations: SEE ATTACHED WORKSHEET 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. AxIOMCONSULTANTS CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • MECHANICAL • ELECTRICAL • SURVEY • SPECIALTY 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- I of this title to reduce the total number of parking spaces required by up to fifty percent (507o) 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 tc 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 1 319.519.6220 www.axiom-con.com 2330 12th Street SW, Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 1 319.519.6220 Page 1 1 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 300 South Clinton Street #200, Iowa City, IA 52240 1 319.519.6220 www.axiom-con.com 2330 12th Street SW, Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 1 319.519.6220 Page 1 2 r!! - 7% 4 EXISTING BUILDING 11250 SF PROPOSED 6 BIKE RACKS 7-T EXIT ONLY SIGN 24' NORTH PROPERTY BOUNDARY TO BE SCREENED TO S2 SCREENING. PORTIONS OF EXISTING PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVED AND SCREENING INSTALLED. -� - -. NORTH PAVEMENT AREA TO BE USED AS PATIO SEATING AREA. APPROXIMATELY 1,600 SF. It— a WEST DRIVE 1 E BLOOMINGTON STREET Yl 27' 2 2' PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT BUILDING SETBACK INFORMATION W W Ln ryo m J z ±41' LF OF CURB AND GUTTER ±580 SF OF DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT REMOVAL. CONTRACTOR TO ESTABLISH GREEN SPACE PER CITY STREET DEPARTMENT o STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. PROPOSED SIDEWALK ACCESS FROM EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY SIDEWALK. WEST PROPERTY ADJACENT TO PARKING STALLS TO BE SCREENED TO S2 _ SCREENING. PORTIONS OF EXISTING - — -- -- o PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVED AND SCREENING INSTALLED. ENTER ONLY SIGN SIGN DESIGNATING PARKING FOR PATRONS ONLY EAST DRIVE TO REMAIN AS ENTER ONLY .4 z 0 w J W 2 06 H W W D Q rvoo Lu J Q 1 cc - z V LU co z Q � co 0 U) v0 0 M ISSUED FOR REVIEW DATE 1 08-04-2025 DESCRIPTION I DATE PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKINGS FOR FOUR PARKING STALLS AND DESIGNATION OF FRONT SETBACK 0' PATIO AREA ON EXISTING PAVEMENT AREAS. SIDE SETBACK 0' REAR SETBACK 0' CITY, COUNTY, STATE: IOWA CITY, JOHNSON, IOWA DESIGNED BY JDK ADDRESS: 305 N GILBERT STREET PARKING DETAILED BY JDK PARCEL ID: 1010163010 EATING ESTABLISHMENT z CHECKED BY JDK CURRENT ZONING: C132 - CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE ZONE 1 STALL / 150 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA 0 PROJECT NO. 9087-10000 SHEET NAME PROPOSED ZONING: C132 - CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE ZONE 10% BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED u LOT SIZE: .52 ACRES - 22,650 SF D SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: HIGHLAND PARK ADDITIONS 70' LOT 12 TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING 8 STALLS F- IMPROVMENTS PROPOSED USE: COMMERCIAL RESTAURANT TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING 4 STALLS L" z EXHIBIT 0 U EXISTING BUILDING: 1,250 SF PARKING REDUCTION APPROVED FOR 4 STALLS, Or_ TOTAL DISTURBED AREA: 0.01 AC (IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDES MAINLY PAVEMENT MINOR MODIFICATION APPROVAL - O MARKINGS AND SITE FURNITURE.) (MOD25-00##/305N GILBERT STREET) u- 0 1 OF 1 z Aue 04. 2025 - 10:47am C:\Users\ikincade\DC\ACCDocs\Ruekert & Mielke. Inc-\9087-10000 305N Gilbert\Proiect Files\Civil\02 - Desien\Base\9087-10000 - Linework.dwe 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 of2pm-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 AXIOMCONSULTANTS @ V 0 A 100% Employee -Owned Ruekert & Mielke Company Neighborhood & Development Services Department Attn: Cynthia Marx 410 E Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 cmarx@iowa-city.org Re: Minor Modification Request for 305 N. Gilbert Street I own 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. I am writing to object to the request for a minor modification to reduce the minimum parking requirements for 305 N. Gilbert Street by 50%. 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. Iowa City Code Section 14-5A-4(B) requires eating establishments to provide one parking stall Iper 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 tt,' a 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 Ito 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. In addition, Iowa City Code Section 144B-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, including where my homes are located. For these reasons, the requested minor modification is not in conformity with the intent and purpose of Section 14-5A4, does not satisfy the approval criteria of Section 144B-I (B) and should be denied. �p Michael Oliveira cc: Anne Russett and Kelly Grace 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 i RISK ** 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 G 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 404 E. Bloomington St. 1 WE Famity Care Clinic Iowa City, to 52245 P: 319-351-1483 City of Iowa City Development Services Office 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 To Whore it May Concern; My name is Dr. Minyon Rittgers-Easton, and I am the owner of MRE Family Care Clinic, located at 404 E. Bloomington Street, where we have proudly served the community for the past five and a half years. During this time, we have valued our neighbors at Russ' Automotive and are saddened to see their business close. We were recently notified by Prestige Properties, the owners of our building, of the upcoming Administrative Hearing scheduled for Tuesday, August 19, 2025, regarding the requested modifications to the property located at 305 Gilbert Street. Specifically, we understand the Applicants are requesting a 50% reduction in required parking, decreasing the number of spaces from eight to four. We are deeply concerned about this proposed reduction in parking. Parking availability in this neighborhood is already extremely limited, On -street parking is nearly impossible to secure during business hours, as the majority of surrounding residences are rental units occupied by college students, in addition to the proximity of the U1HC Downtown Campus Hospital, which further strains available parking, On multiple occasions over the past five years, we have had to contact non -emergency dispatch due to vehicles blocking our driveway or parking in our lot without permission. Our clinic operates with limited parking as it is. We provide 10 total spaces —seven directly associated with our building, and three additional spaces we lease at a significant cost to accommodate our staff. This investment ensures that our patients and employees have the access they need. We believe all businesses should be required to provide adequate parking to meet the needs of their clientele and staff, rather than shifting that burden onto neighboring properties. Our primary concern is that approving this reduction will result in overflow parking from the Applicant's business impacting our operations. Specifically, we anticipate their patrons may use our private lot without authorization, ftirther congest nearby streets, block access to driveways,. and worsen traffic issues at the intersection of Bloomington Street and Gilbert Street. We respectfully urge you to take into consideration the broader impact on neighborhood businesses and property owners when making your determination on this request. Sincerely, Dr. Minyon Rittgers-Easton Owner, MIRE Family Care Clinic Neighborhood & Development Services Department Attn: Cynthia Marx 410 E. Washington Stret Iowa City, Iowa 52240 t mar` �''iowa-city.org e: Request for parking modifications .As the owner of lame property within 200' of the subject property that is requesting a parking modification, I stand firmly against the modification. A modification will ultimately affect my property in an adverse manner. Diminishing the parking requirement for this consideration will lead to customers at that property parking on street, thus causing increased demand for the always limited spats. That will 100% lead to those customers parking in the parking lot for my property. We have limited and clearly marked parking for "Customers Only' for Pagliais Pizza and the Laundromat businesses. We clearly foresee unauthorized use by non - customers dare to the decrease in parking for the new property use under consideration. I fully support the denial of the rollback/modification of the parking requirements for the new plan for 305 N. Gilbert Street, Iowa. City. Gary Skarda 302 E. Bloomington Street Iowa City, Iowa 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 IR j ;X ** 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. hia Marx Information Not Used bv the From: James Kincade <jkincade@axiom-con.com> Building Official to Take Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 1:37 PM To: Cynthia Marx Action Upon Minor Cc: Danielle Cavanary Subject: RE. 305 N Gilbert - Commercial Site Minor Mod Modification ARIK ** 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. 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 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 surroundingarea 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 AXIOMCONSULTANTS 0 91 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 ICaution: This is an external email of your Organization. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments. 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 AI ** 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. 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 KINCA©E, PE SR. CIVIL ENGINEER m 319.400.6163 e JKincade@axiom-con.com Licensed in IA AXIOMCONSULTANTS © 91 IM 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. ATTACHMENT 3 - CITY CODE 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. 14-413-1: 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 14-413-1 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 maybe 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 14-213-6 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 14-513-8, table 5134 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 14-213-4 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. 14-8113-8: 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. Table 5A-2: Minimum Parking Requirements For All Zones, Except The CB-5. CB-10, Riverfront Crossings Zones And Eastside Mixed Use District Use Categories Subgroups Parking Requirement Bicycle Parking Ealing and drinking establishments 1 space per 150 square feet of floor area. or parking spaces equal to 10 percent 1/3 the occupant load of the seating area whichever is less Carryout/delivery restaurants that do not have a seating area must provide at least 4 spaces 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 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) L 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 14-413-1. 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 14-413-1 and Municipal Code Section 14-5A-4(A). The desired remedy is the reversal of the Minor Modification Decision. II. Factual Back_rg ound 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. Ar ug ment A. The modification requires a parking demand anal Per Municipal Code Section 14-413-1 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, 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; 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. 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/govemment/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:Hiisc.uiowa.edu/sites/iisc.uiowa.edu/files/2022-09/final_report_- _waterloo_downtown_parking_study.pdf; see also https://iisc.uiowa. edu/ftes/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. PJ C. The conclusions related to parkins 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_vl (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 3 I 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 C! 3. Expected parking demand during those hours. We expect to Iuse] 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. n 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 9 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)_vI (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. [: 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 ation modified. Iowa City Code Section 14-413-1(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. rA ATTACHMENT 4 Correspondence WMWW Flex Brandstatter September 30, 2025 Amine Ruessett City,of Iowa City Planning Department Iowa City, Ili RE: 305 N. Gilbert Street Case: MOD25-0005 Dear Ann, I am the acknowledged real estate representative of Gary Skarda., owner of the property at 302 E. Bloomington Street, Iowa, 'City. On 'behalf of r. Skda, we are supporting the Appeal of the recent approval of reduced parking application for the subject property. We also contend that the reduced parking will cause customers to overcrowd the business and onsite parking, thus forcing customer's vehicles and delivery vehicles to purge onto street parking, and also neighboring parking lots as owned and used by neighboring, properties. e find no compelling reason to support the approval of the reduced parking, as in the end, the neighbors will feel the ongoing brunt of a parking issue on their properties due to this recent approval of reduced parking. We ask for a Parking Study at the minimum. Bes e pis, ex Brandstatter, Realtor, for Gary Skarda, 302 E. Bloomington Street. /MWlip AfiAates 845 Quarry bid. #120 Oraralvillte, 1QW0 52241 Cell. (319) 330-5534 Office: (319) 338-14.77 Fax_ (3191354-4479 rex@rexrb.com, wwwrexrb.mm d7 Each 0111ce IndepenctgntIV Owned and 6peraled �r 1 September 23, 2025 CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street RE: APL25-0001 Appeal regarding property at 305 N. Gilbert St Iowa city, Iowa 52240-1826 019) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX is VW icgov.org Dear Property Owner andlor Occupant: The Iowa City Board of Adjustment has received an appeal submitted by Prestige Properties. The appeal challenges 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. As a neighboring property owner and/or occupant, you are being notified of this application. If you know of any interested party who has not received a copy of this letter, we would appreciate it if you would inform them of the pending application. The Board of Adjustment will review this application at a public meeting tentatively scheduled for October 8, 2025, at 5:15 pm in the Emma Harvat Hall located at City Hall. Because the meeting is subject to change, you may wish to call 319-356-5251 or check the City of Iowa City's website, www.icgov.org/BOA, the week of the meeting to confirm the meeting agenda. You are welcome to attend this public .meeting to present your views concerning this appeal. You may also submit written information to me for consideration in advance of the meeting, and I will include your comments in the information to be considered by the Board. Please do not hesitate to contact me at arussettCaD-iowa-city.orq or 319-356-5251 if you have any questions or comments about this application or if you would like more information on the Board of Adjustment review process. Sincerely, G r r Anne Russett, Senior Planner Departm nt of Neighborhood and Development Services �! �r % r /MUMPS='. �•, / am Ve ltf Ad' s ent i nr rMa�e— �a ' ce grants a legal right to an p of Iowa City tizens pointed by owner to develop property in a manner Because most applications wit[ be the City Council. The board reviews and that deviates from a specific provision reviewed and decided upon at a single grants special exceptions and variances of the Zoning Code and for which a public hearing, it is important for and also considers appeals when there special exception is not expressly interested parties to respond in a is a disagreement about an allowed. In seeking relief from the timely and informed manner. Those administrative zoning decision made by restrictions in the Zoning Code, the who wish to speak for or against an the City. Members of the board act like property owner applying for the application are given an opportunity to judges, making decisions about variance must show that the strict be heard by the Board at the hearing, individual properties and uses that may application of the Zoning Code would but may also submit written comments have difficulty meeting a specific cause and unnecessary hardship such prior to the meeting. zoning regulation or to resolve disputes that the property in question is about administrative zoning decisions. unusable or that a literal interpretation Written comments must be delivered to The actions and decisions of the Board of the ordinance would deprive thee —the Department of Neighborhood lax of Adjustment are binding upon all applicant of rights commonly enjoyed Development Services at City Hall no parties unless overturned upon appeal by other properties in the zoning later than 5 days before the hearing in to District Court. district. In addition the circumstances order to be included with the Staff that create this hardship must be Report. All correspondence submitted What is a special exception? unique to the property in question and after that time will be delivered to the There two types of special must not be of the property owner's Board at the time of the hearing. are own makino. exceptions. 1. Within the zoning code a number of land uses are set apart as special exceptions that may be permitted in certain zones. Rather than permitting these uses outright, each is reviewed on a case -by -case basis to ensure that they do not negatively affect surrounding properties. For example, daycare centers are permitted in residential zones by special exception. The same is true of churches and private schools. All may be appropriate uses in residential zones, if certain criteria such as parking, screening, and other requirements are met. 2. Adjustments to specific zoning requirements in cases where there are unique circumstances. Again, the opportunity to adjust these requirements and the criteria for allowing such adjustments are described in the Zoning Code. For example, a homeowner may apply for a reduction in a building setback in order to accommodate an addition or other improvement to their property. The Zoning Code lists explicitly each use and standard for which a special exception may be considered. In other words, you can't request a special exception for everything —only those things called out as special exceptions in the Code. The Code also provides criteria specific to each request. Applicants must provide evidence that they satisfy each of these criteria, and the Board must consider these criteria when making a determination as to whether to grant a special exception. What is an appeal? The Board considers and rules on appeals from any citizen who believes there is an error in any decision, determination, or interpretation made by the City or its designee in the administration of the Zoning Code. As with their other decisions, the Board's ruling is binding on al[ parties unless overturned on appeal to the District Court. How does the review process work? An application requesting a special exception, variance, or an appeal is a request. The Board makes a decision on whether to grant a specific request only after City staff have provided a review of an application and the public has had an opportunity to make its concerns known. The Board not only has the right to approve or deny requests, but may also choose to approve request subject to certain conditions. In making decisions, the Board may only consider comments and evidence relevant to the specific standards provided in the code. City Development Staff provide reports to the Board for each application on the agenda. The Staff Report provides background information on the application, informs the Board of all the criteria in the Code that a particular application must satisfy, anq interprets whether and how an application has satisfied these criteria The Board considers the application, the recommendation of staff (in the staff report) and any additional information, correspondence, or testimony provided at the hearing. Board of Adjustment hearings are usually held on the second Wednesday of each month at 5:15 p.m. in Emma J. Harvat Hall in City Hall. You can find more information at the following website: www.icgov.org/boa. The Staff Report can be very useful to anyone who is unfamiliar with the BOA. process or with the Zoning Code and will provide an understanding of the criteria that the Board must consider in rendering its decision. Staff Reports may be obtained from the Department of Neighborhood Ft Development Services. E-mail klehmannCiowa- city.org to request a copy of a report. If you have questions about an application or if you simply want more information about issues related to the Board of Adjustment, please feel free to contact Parker Walsh at 319-356- 5238 or a -marl pwalsh@iowa-city.org. To submit comments to the Board of Adjustment write to the Board of Adjustment c/o the Department of Neighborhood &t Development Services, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City IA 1-2240 or e.-mail pwalshMowa-city.org. ,4qlv�� � �-&,Xw Agenda Item 5: Consideration of Meeting Minutes MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FORMAL MEETING EMMA HARVAT HALL SEPTEMBER 10, 2025 — 5:15 PM PRELIMINARY 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:OOpm, two days a week, and from 10:00am until 3:OOpm 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:OOpm to 8:OOpm 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:OOpm to 5:OOpm 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:OOpm 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:OOpm. 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 10/1011 /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