HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-10-2025 Board of Adjustment IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Wednesday, December 10, 2025 — 5:15 PM
City Hall, 410 East Washington Street
Emma Harvat Hall
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Request to Extend Special Exception Time Limitation:
EXC25-0004: A request submitted by the Evans Scholars Foundation to extend a six
(6) month expiration time limitation for a special exception to reduce the minimum on-
site parking requirements in a High Density Multi-Family Residential Zone (RM-44) for
the property located at 729 N Dubuque Street.
4. Variance Item:
VAR25-0001: An application requesting an area variance to reduce the rear (southern)
setback from 20 feet to approximately 7 feet to allow for an addition with an attached
garage in a RS-5 (Low Density Single-Family) zone for the property at 250 Lexington
Avenue.
5. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: October 8, 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: January 14 / February 11 / March 11
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
Agenda Item 3 :
Request to Extend Special
Exception (EXC25-0004)
From: Michael Welch
To: Anne Russett
Subject: Re: 729 N Dubuque St Board of Adjustment
Date: Wednesday,December 3,2025 8:45:02 AM
** 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.
Hello Anne
We are requesting the extension to allow additional time for the client and building
design team to finalize the interior building programming and renovation plans
necessary to secure a building permit.This will coincide with site plan, design review,
and flood plain development permit applications too.We'd like to get an extension that
is longer than six months to ensure there is adequate time to secure the approvals and
avoid a second extension request.
Thankyou
Michael Welch, PE
Civil Department Lead
Shoemaker & Haaland
Engineering 1 31)Scanning I Land Surveying
D: 319.383.7813 1 0: 319.351.7150
www.shoemaker-haaland.com
From:Anne Russett<ARussett@iowa-city.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 11:30:00 AM
To: Michael Welch <mwelch@shoemaker-haaland.com>
Subject: RE: 729 N Dubuque St Board of Adjustment
Mike—Just a reminder that we need a document or email from you outlining why you need the extension
and why you need it for more than 6 months. Let us know what extension you'd prefer. The agenda
packet for the BOA goes out on 12/5, so we need it next week.
Thanks!
From: Michael Welch <mwelch@shoemaker-haaland.com>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 12:01 PM
To:Anne Russett<ARussett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: 729 N Dubuque St Board of Adjustment
FISH
**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.
Hello Anne
On behalf of Evans Scholars Foundation, I would like to request an extension for the Board of
Adjustments decision on July 9, 2025 for case EXC25-004.
Thank you.
Michael Welch, PE
Civil Department Lead
Shoemaker & Haaland
Engineering 13D Scanning I Land Surveying
D:319,383.7813 1 0:319.351.7150
www.shoemaker-hocland.com
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.
Agenda Item 4 :
VAR25-0001
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: Lisa Schroer, Associate Planner
Item: VAR25-0001 Date: December 10, 2025
250 Lexington Ave.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Owner/Applicant: Hannah Thompson
319-480-5886
Vikingsch99(a)-hotmail.com
Contact Person: Kevin Hochstedler
Hochstedler Building & Development
kevin@builtbyhbd.com
319-631-8072
1434 Compton Place
Iowa City, IA 52240
Requested Action: Area variance to reduce the rear (southern) setback
from 20 feet to approximately 7 feet.
Purpose: To allow for an addition with an attached garage
Location: 250 Lexington Ave.
Location Map:
P
es 1
r.>
Size: 0.3 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5) zone
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: Low Density Single-Family Residential
(RS5)
East: Low Density Single-Family Residential
(RS5)
South: Low Density Single-Family Residential
(RS5)
West: Low Density Single-Family Residential
(RS5)
1
Applicable Code Sections: 14-413-2: Variances
File Date: December 10, 2025
BACKGROUND:
The owner of 250 Lexington Avenue is requesting an area variance to allow a reduced rear yard
setback from 20 feet to 7 feet and 1.5 inches. The subject property is located at the corner of
Lexington Avenue and River Street within the RS-5 Single-Family Residential Zone. The lot contains
an existing single-family home constructed in 1953 that faces Lexington Avenue. The lot originally
included the vacant lot to the east of the property, however, the lot was partitioned off and remains
vacant. Until recently, the property also included a detached garage located south of the home at
the end of the driveway extending from Lexington Avenue.
In the spring of 2025, a tree fell onto the detached garage, causing extensive damage and removal
of the garage. The owner wishes to rebuild the garage in its original location and construct a small
addition to attach the garage to the house. A detached garage rebuilt in the former footprint would
meet the setbacks required for accessory structures; however, the Owner wishes to attach the new
garage to the home through the construction of an addition. Attached garages are subject to the
same setbacks as principal buildings (e.g. the home). An attached garage within the same footprint
lies within the property's required rear yard setback for principal buildings.
Due to the property's corner configuration, the lot lines along River Street and Lexington Avenue
are both considered front lot lines. The Zoning Ordinance defines the rear lot line as opposite the
street frontage with the shortest length. In this case, River Street to the north is the frontage with
the shortest length, and the southern property line is the rear lot line. This area south of the house,
where the original garage was located, is therefore subject to the 20-foot rear yard setback for
principal structures. Reconstruction of the garage with an attached addition its original location does
not comply with the rear setback requirement. An area variance is requested to allow the garage to
be rebuilt in the same location as before, with a small addition added to connect the garage to the
house.
2
LOCATION MAP:
Figure 1 Aerial Map of 250 Lexington Avenue with a Depiction of the Required and Proposed
Rear Yard Setback Lines
• Riu�r St
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
!!E-6 u*�
f E it
A'
a
O -
X
1
7 ft 1.5 in PROPOSED
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 Title 14 to permit the full use and enjoyment of property
in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent properties.
In 2025, the State of Iowa adopted House File 652, which expands the authority of local boards
of adjustment to grant area variances in addition to use variances. Although the updated variance
standards have not yet been formally codified in Title 14, the City has developed interim review
criteria to comply with House File 652. Accordingly, this request is evaluated using those criteria,
which require the Board of Adjustment to determine whether the variance is not contrary to the
public interest and whether unique conditions make literal enforcement of the zoning requirements
3
unnecessarily burdensome. The Board may approve the variance only if all applicable criteria
established in response to House File 652 are met.
For an area variance, the Board must find that:
1. The proposed variance will not be contrary to the public interest;
2. Owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the code would result in practical
difficulties;
3. The practical difficulties are unique to the property and not self-created;
4. The spirit of the zoning code provision shall be observed; and
5. Granting the variance will not significantly alter the essential character of the
neighborhood.
The applicant's request has been evaluated against these criteria as follows:
1. The proposed variance will not be contrary to the public interest
The requested variance would allow the reconstruction of a garage in a location where a garage
has existed for many decades. The use of the property will remain residential, consistent with
the RS-5 Single-Family Residential Zone and the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed
garage and connecting addition will not alter traffic circulation, modify access to the public right-
of-way, or introduce new impacts on adjacent properties. Because the structure is being
replaced in the same location as the former garage, no adverse effects on public welfare or
public facilities are anticipated.
FINDINGS:
• Staff finds that the request is not contrary to the public interest.
2. Owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the code would result in practical
difficulties
Due to the property's corner-lot configuration and Title 14's definition of front and rear lot lines,
the required rear yard setback applies to the area south of the house where the detached
garage historically existed. The applicant wishes to rebuild the garage in its original location and
utilize the existing driveway, with a small addition attaching it to the house. Relocating the
garage to meet the 20-foot setback would require substantial reconfiguration of the property.
The garage would need to be shifted further to the north, require taking out the existing
driveway and constructing a new driveway, and not allowing for or significantly reducing the
ability to have an addition.
These limitations are related to the original placement of the house and garage in the 1950s and
the way current zoning regulations apply to corner lots. Literal enforcement of the setback
standard would prevent the replacement of a structure that has long existed on the property,
and a small addition that attaches to the house.
FINDINGS:
• Staff finds that strict application of the code would result in practical difficulties due
to these special site conditions.
3. The practical difficulties are unique to the property and not self-created
4
The difficulties stem from the property's corner-lot geometry and its historic development
pattern. The applicant did not create the lot configuration, driveway placement, the location of
the former garage, or the partitioned lot to the east. The need to rebuild the structure arises from
damage caused by a fallen tree, not from actions taken by the owner. These conditions are
specific to this lot and do not appear to apply in the same manner to nearby properties in the
neighborhood.
FINDINGS:
• Staff finds that the practical difficulties are unique to the property.
4. The spirit of the zoning code provision shall be observed
The intent of the rear yard setback is to ensure adequate open space, separation between
structures, and protection of neighborhood form. The proposed attached garage, rebuilt in the
location it has existed in for several decades, will not reduce usable yard area to a degree that
conflicts with the intent of Low Density Single-Family Residential zones. The overall lot is
significantly larger than the minimum lot size required in the RS-5 zone, and ample open space
will remain after reconstruction. In addition to the large amount of open space provided within
the front yard along Lexington Avenue and River Street, the Owner has received approval,
through the Minor Modification process, for the required rear yard open space. Specifically, the
approval allows the required on-site open space to be provided partially in the side (eastern)
yard.
Regarding separation between structures, there is an existing home with an attached garage to
the south of the subject property at 246 Lexington Avenue. The proposed configuration of the
proposed in relation to its neighbor to the south is similar to many of the new single-family
homes constructed in the city. Specifically, many new single-family homes are built with
attached garages and maintain a 5' side setback. This results in approximately 10' between
structures. The proposed project would maintain 12' between structures.
The proposed project will not impact neighborhood form. Single-family homes with attached
garages exist within this neighborhood, the closest example is directly to the south of the
subject property.
FINDINGS:
• Staff finds that the spirit of the zoning code will be observed with the proposed
garage.
5. Granting the variance will not significantly alter the essential character of the
neighborhood
The neighborhood consists of established single-family homes with garages or accessory
structures located in rear and side yard areas. Rebuilding the garage in its original location with
a small addition that attaches to the house will preserve the existing pattern of development and
will not significantly alter the essential character of the property from either street. The structure
will be similar in size and placement to what has historically existed and will remain compatible
with surrounding residential uses.
FINDINGS:
5
• Staff finds that granting the variance will not significantly alter the essential
character of the neighborhood.
CORRESPONDENCE
Staff received one piece of correspondence in support of the reduced setback.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of VAR25-0001, to allow for a reduced rear setback from 20 feet to 7
feet and 1.5 inches for the property located at 250 Lexington Ave.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Application Materials
4. Correspondence
Approved by: 1) •
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
6
ATTACHMENT 1
Location Map
CITY OF IOWA CITY
rWMr
n _
c
�. .I �'� all __ e .£-. � •i -tt.- q ti ai
An application requesting an area variance to reduce
il
the rear(southern) setback from 20 feet to r '
approximately 7 feet to allow for an addition with an
attached garage. u
ATTACHMENT 2
Zoning Map
r
' Lexington
' • _
I CITY OF IOI+VA �ITY
1 0.01 0.02 0.04 1 " Olivia Ziegler
Date 'repared:November 2025
aec -
RS5
RS5 r ��
at
RS5
- RS5
An application requesting an area variance to reduce Rs5
RS5
the rear (southern) setback from 20 feet to ? �>.
approximately 7 feet to allow for an addition with an RS5
attached garage. -
Rs5
RS5;`�
ATTACHMENT 3
Application Materials
250 Lexington Avenue
Approval Criteria
250 Lexington Avenue is located in an RS-5 residential zone.
The RS-5 zoning is primarily intended to provide housing opportunities for individual
households. The regulations are intended to create, maintain, and promote livable
neighborhoods. The regulations allow for some flexibility of dwelling types, and to
provide housing opportunities for a variety of household types.
In the RS-5 zone, the minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet.
250 Lexington Avenue has 11 ,250 square feet, nearly double the minimum required
size.
The front of the house faces Lexington Avenue, and is addressed to Lexington Avenue.
The front yard setback to Lexington Avenue is 23' 7".
The other front setback to River Street is 44' 10 '/2".
The side yard setback to the east is 7' 6".
The side yard setback to the south is 7' 1 '/2".
The City has deemed that the front yard must be off of River Street, because the
setback is larger than off of Lexington Avenue. Therefore, the rear yard is off of the
south lot line of the property. This rear yard setback does not conform. But had the front
setback been off of Lexington Avenue, the rear yard of 7'6" would not conform.
It is not financially feasible to tear down a house and garage, and rebuild it so it would
conform to meet today's zoning code,
The original house was built in 1953. The lot to the east has always been vacant, and
may have been owned by the original owner of 250 Lexington, which could explain the
positioning of the house on the lot. The open space yard area towards River Street, has
always been used as a "back yard" area, for the residents of this property. There are
fruit trees, raised garden areas, and this portion of the yard is fenced in.
In the spring of 2025, a tree fell onto the existing garage, and it could not be rebuilt.
The thought to rebuild the garage, and have a connecting roof to the house, is very
logical. The existing driveway and curb cut onto Lexington Avenue are planned to
remain and be utilized for the new garage.
If the garage were to be relocated to the front yard along River Street, either a curb cut
onto River Street would be needed, or a curb cut onto Lexington Avenue, near the
intersection with River Street, which is not good. This would also bring the concrete
driveway and garage into an area which is currently open space along River Street and
Lexington Avenue. To create a new entrance into the existing house from this location,
is not desirable with the floorplan layout. If connected to the house from this location,
this would require a variance from the board of adjustment.
The 1953 construction layout of the house on the lot, as well as the original detached
garage, are unique to this property. The placing of the house to within 7'6" of the east
property line, limits open space to what should be the rear of the house. The existing
garage had nearly the same setback to the east property line, and 8' 3" to the south
property line.
Any owner of this property requesting to add onto the house or garage, would need to
file for a variance with the board of adjustment. The setting of the original structures on
the land, have handcuffed the future generations. But with the lot size being nearly
double the minimum lot size required, there is ample open space on the property, to
allow for the covered walkway to the garage. The covered walkway will be a benefit to
all future owners of this property.
The current owner of the property loves the neighborhood, and plans to live there for the
next 50 years or so. With this being said, she wants to be the best neighbor possible,
and desires to uphold the character and marketability of this historic neighborhood.
Just to reiterate this point to the board of adjustment:
Any addition to either the house or garage on this property, would not meet city
code, and would require an application to the board of adjustment.
This is a unique property, not built to conform to today's requirements.
Thank you very much for your consideration of this matter.
Kevin Hochstedler
Black Chain Link Fence w
NO Pin
PIN y en
f'� Q E]6" Setback T-6" Setback Xa
EM
_4'0"r sc'' 01'
44'- 10 1/2" 7- 1 1/2"
� ,n a�,
Setback Set ck
u Iln,, LEL
0
3 W
y 7 �
4�4 rn�
' T
N
N F—
" z
Pile ac ain Link Fence 150'-0"Lot Line Pin
a rl
Pablie Sidewalk Public Sidewalk Public Sidewalk O U
Cd
>
O �
..............................................•-----.............Lexington Avenue...... - - ......,...................... z
Q
S �
w o
�" as
Manville Addition � a
Block 8 UO o
West 75'of North 150' x n
N
250 Lexington Avenue
House=1,786 Square Feet S 1
Existing House Garage & Covered Patio Addition
I�
I 1 -- -- — rpo�•r�n.g�\v lu —
—
rn ofgunflnor III I�i 1.1.Il'I i_l l -
-r—'— rap�fmnnaar �
f7Q
New Front Porch
a�
Front Elevation
z
Garage & Covered Patio Addition Existing House U
w �
Top ofOwgo Nulb ___ .... �..__ �.—. _
—_ _- —__ _-_ _ _— —Tup of Nnunc\Valk z A,
3
>
Cq
TapofSuhtloor ' Tnp N'Subliaor
LEI
II1I�`���✓^v11
Rear Elevation v o
O u�
x cv
Al
nm onm.se rvmis
T.Pnr Svbft
New Front Porch
Right Elevation
m �
........... .......... z I
o
w 3
> o
Exis 'n ouse
8 .a
Q
F- N
O to
x N
Roof Plan A2
�u
d°
Property Line Property Line
1
. r•
-. .--•.....�.. per{
...........................................................
y .
. 1
F Covered Porch Garage
20'x 24' °" 24'x 36'
Ceiling Hciyhi
Existing House
Block Down At Doors O
e
To Pour Floor Through Cd
..................................................... ................................................
O
:..:.......: ........................ .......... Overhead1 gDoor
WCa �
y�
'• I .. .......................iA..........................
,•
:0 T:.1.............................................. 4.'6�� 11"6• �.'°n 24'-0" O F�1
�Y t
Fronh Additio Covered Parch w
& r
Garage Addition o �
x N
Foundation Plan A3
Property Line
....................................................
Garage
24'x 36'
Existing House l.mnfc"I W("'IlMa
@
z
Covered Porch
0 U
20'x 24' Cd
................................................
Overhead Door w
.0............. n—.............
18'x 8'
Cie
L............... Covered Porch
& owl
Front Porch Addition Garage Addition
Main Level Plan A4
ATTACHMENT 4
Correspondence
Lisa Schroer
From: Craig Syrop <craigsyrop@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 12:43 PM
To: Lisa Schroer
Cc: craigsyrop@icloud.com
Subject: Variance for 250 Lexington Avenue
**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.
Good afternoon.
I am writing to support approval by the Board of Adjustment for the request for a setback variance for 250 Lexington
Ave.
It's important to note that the planned garage is replacing the one which damaged by a fallen huge oak branch from a
neighbor's tree. While I don't see a line indicating the South border of the prior garage,visually, I don't think this
replacement garage as representing any further encroachment upon the lot line to the South.
If this is true, please highlight that fact at the upcoming hearing. If not, please indicate the number of feet or inches of
additional encroachment requested and to hopefully be allowed.
I regularly walk by this house.This neighbor continually improves and enjoys her property.
I am fully supportive of her request for this variance.
Craig Syrop
719 McLean St and
117 Lusk Ave
Sent from my iPhone
1
Agenda Item 5 :
Consideration of Meeting Minutes,
October 8, 2025
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAL MEETING
EMMA HARVAT HALL
OCTOBER 8, 2025— 5:15 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Nancy Carlson, Mark Russo, Paula Swygard, Julie
Tallman
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Sue Dulek, Anne Russett, Danielle Sitzman
OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas McInerney, Dennis Cronk, Simran Singh, Paxton
Williams, Michael Oliveira, James Kincade, Brad Temple, Karl
Sigwarsh, Jared Carroll
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 EXC25-0006:
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.
Baker opened the public hearing.
Russett began the staff report showing an aerial of the property which is located at the corner of
Mall Drive and Lower Muscatine Road, the property is zoned CC-2 and the surrounding
properties are also zoned CC-2, with the exception of the properties across Mall Drive which are
zoned light industrial. In terms of background, this is a request to allow a drive-through facility
associated with an alcohol and tobacco sales oriented use. The site has had a drive-through for
several years when in 2001 the BOA granted an expansion of a drive-through for a bank which
previously occupied the site. Then a couple of years ago, the BOA approved a similar
application requesting a special exception for a drive-through facility however that application
expired because a building permit was never issued for the project. Therefore, this proposal is
coming back to the Board tonight for approval of a special exception.
Russett stated the site currently has an existing 1800 square foot building and the owners were
recently approved for an expansion of that building of a little over 1000 square feet. She shared
some photographs of the subject property that showed they're currently working on that
addition, she also shared the site plan that was submitted with the application. With regards to
the site plan they are proposing a pickup window at the far end of the building, closer to Mall
Drive but they are not proposing any type of order board or kiosk. The applicant has stated that
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 2 of 32
these will be online orders that people will order and pay for in advance and then come to the
pickup window to pick up their purchase. Identification will be required at the time of pickup. On
the site plan they're showing do not enter pavement signage at the far end and an exit only sign.
They're showing several stacking spaces. The access to the drive-through use is through a
private street, and then they'd exit off of Mall Drive. They're also showing screening between the
northern property and the proposed drive-through.
The role of the Board tonight is to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application
based on the specific standards and general standards that apply to this request. First are
specific standards with regards to access and circulation. The first standard is that wherever
possible and practical, drive-through lanes shall be accessed from secondary streets. In this
case, the proposed drive-through will be accessible through the shared access drive on the
south side of the property, it will not be directly off of Lower Muscatine Road, which is a primary
street.
The second criteria is to provide for safe pedestrian movement and the number and width of
curb cuts serving the use should be limited. With this application Russett explained they are not
requesting any additional curb cuts.
The third criteria is that adequate number of stacking spaces must be provided and for this
particular use the minimum is four. The proposed site plan shows one drive-through lane with
one pickup window. Russett noted the lane has existed since it was formerly a bank use. The
site plan also shows six stacking spaces in the drive-through lane meeting the minimum
requirements.
Fourth, sufficient on site signage and pavement markings shall be provided to indicate direction
of vehicular travel, pedestrian crossings, stop signs, etc. The site plan indicates directional
pavement markings in the drive-through lane, a pavement marking is also shown at the exit of
the drive-through that reads, do not enter, there's also an exit only sign at the exit of the drive-
through facility, and the site plan shows pedestrian paths between the existing building and the
public sidewalk.
Next is location standards and the first criteria is that the drive-through lanes and service
windows must be located on a non-street facing facade. Russett explained with this proposal
the drive-through lane is located at the rear of the building and does not face a street.
The second criteria is that the drive-through lanes must be set back at least 10' and the
proposed drive-through lane is shown that it's set back 10' from the adjacent lot and it's also
screened to the S2 screening standards.
In terms of design standards, the first criteria is to promote compatibility with surrounding
development and the number of drive-through lanes should be limited to not diminish the design
quality of the streetscape or the safety of the pedestrian environment. Staff finds that the site
plan proposes one drive-through lane that is designated for pickup and the drive-through lane
will not impact the design quality of the streetscape because it's at the rear portion of the lot and
it's adequately set back and screened from Lower Muscatine Road and Mall Drive by buildings
and landscaping. Additionally, pedestrian routes will be permanently demarcated where they
cross internal drives in the parking area.
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 3 of 32
Second is that drive through lanes, bays and stacking spaces shall be screened from views
from street and adjacent properties to the S2 standards. There are additional screening
requirements if it abuts a residential zone, but this property does not, and the applicant is
showing the required S2 screening.
The third criteria is that multiple windows servicing a single stacking lane should be considered
to reduce the amount of idling on the site. As Russett mentioned previously, the site plan shows
a single drive-through lane with one pickup window and the proposal does not include an order
board or a kiosk so there's no intercom system. Also, per the applicant the drive-through will be
for customers to pick up pre-ordered items that are placed on their website or a mobile app and
payment would be made in advance of pickup.
Fourth, stacking spaces, driveways and drive-through windows shall be located to minimize
potential for vehicular and pedestrian conflicts and shall be integrated into the surrounding
landscape and streetscape design. Staff finds that the drive-through lane is accessed through
the shared access side street off of Lower Muscatine Road, where there's no sidewalk, reducing
vehicle and pedestrian conflicts. The drive-through facility is clearly separated from the parking
area, which is at the front of the building and the drive-through is on the rear portion of the lot,
and it is screened from Lower Muscatine Road by the building and landscaping which helps
integrate it into the landscape and streetscape design of the neighborhood.
The fifth criteria is that lighting for the drive-through facility must comply with outdoor light
standards and staff will ensure that the proposed lighting meets the City standards to prevent
light trespass and glare.
Sixth, is that loudspeakers and intercom systems, if allowed, should be located and directed to
minimize disturbance. As previously mentioned, there's no intercom system incorporated into
this proposal.
Russett next reviewed the general standards that must be met for all special exceptions. The
first criteria is that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the
public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Staff finds that on site vehicular circulation and
access are adequate to accommodate anticipated users and drive-through traffic and the
proposed signs and pavement markings will help efficiently direct traffic. Also, properly paved
and designated pedestrian walkways will also increase pedestrian awareness in the parking lot.
The second criteria is that the specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. Russett reiterated that 1910 Lower
Muscatine Road is zoned CC-2 and most of the surrounding property is also zoned CC-2. The
addition of the drive-through is to be used for retail sales uses that are either permitted or
provisionally allowed in the zone. She did note 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 zoning standards, and the proposed exception is not
expected to affect the use, enjoyment or values of surrounding properties.
The third general criteria is the establishment of the drive-through will not impede the normal
and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property. Staff finds that the
proposed addition of a drive-through for retail sales oriented purposes aligns with the uses of
other commercial facilities within the area. All land surrounding the subject property has already
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 4 of 32
been developed and the addition of a drive-through use will not impede any potential future
improvements of adjacent properties.
Fourth is adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are
being provided. Russett explained since this is an extension of an already existing building,
utilities, drainage and access roads are provided. A storm sewer is located in the northwest
corner of the existing parking lot and the site contains adequate space for vehicular circulation
and parking to accommodate the use.
The fifth criteria is that adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and
egress. Staff finds that the entrance to the drive-through lane is on a privately owned side street
with sufficient stacking spaces to avoid traffic congestion, it exits the property and leads to Mall
Drive and adequate signage is present directing traffic flow to and from the property with do not
enter signs and the exit arrows at the entrance and the exit. Additionally, there will be no
sizable traffic impact to public streets with the addition of the drive-through lane.
Sixth, except for the specific regulations and standards applicable. Russett confirmed the
project will meet the requirements of the zoning code and the subject property meets the
requirements of the base zone. She stated the site plan will be required prior to installation of
the drive-through facility and staff recommends a condition that at the time of site plan approval,
the site plan must comply with the site plan submitted with the special exception to incorporate
the location of the pickup window, the pavement markings and the signage for the drive-through
facility.
Lastly, seven is the proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Russett stated the IC 2030 Comprehensive Plan highlights the importance of recruiting new
businesses to economically revitalize the City and provide services to its residents with the goal
to increase and diversify the property tax base. 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.
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.
Carlson asked if the tobacco sales oriented use is required to meet separation distance
requirements and if so what those are. Russett confirmed due to a recent change to the zoning
code, probably within the past year, in order to get a tobacco license to sell tobacco products a
business needs to be 500' from another tobacco sales oriented retail use and schools.
Thomas McInerney (Thomas McInerney Architects) stated as the lead designer he prepared the
site plans, approval criteria documents and operational details for this special exception request
to add a drive-through window to an existing convenience store, or soon to be convenience
store and will be operated as Crown Liquor and Smoke under the alcohol sales oriented retail
use classification. He noted this property has a long history of serving the community, it was
originally developed in the early 1960s as Hawkeye State Bank, with a multi-lane drive-through
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 5 of 32
added around 1971 so for over 50 years this layout has safely accommodated vehicle access
without significant issues. The proposal repurposes this existing infrastructure by adding a 1075
square foot building addition over the area where the old bank had a couple of drive-through
lanes, which allows them to reduce the drive-through to a single lane while minimizing paving
and stacking space and enhancing landscaping and screening. McInerney explained the drive-
through will function exclusively as a pickup window for pre-placed online orders via a mobile
app or website, no menu boards or speakers will be on site. Customers will confirm their orders
at the window with staff performing in-person ID verification for any age restricted items,
ensuring compliance with state and local regulations. If someone does not order ahead and tries
to order through the window they'll be asked to drive around and park in the lot and go inside
and order. In addressing the specific approval criteria, McInerney stated their design prioritizes
safe access and circulation with entry from the alley only and use of the existing curb cuts.
There is 120' of stacking space to prevent backups and clear pavement markings like directional
arrows and for crosswalks. The location is on the non-street facing facade with a 10' setback,
and it's S2 standard screening using native plants to minimize visual impacts. For compatibility,
they've limited access to just one window and one lane with recessed lighting coming from the
soffit above to avoid glare and no intercom systems. McInerney stated this aligns with the site's
legacy and surrounding commercial character. Regarding the general approval criteria, he
noted this project will not endanger public health or safety, there are no new utilities or drainage
changes required, it won't impair neighboring property values or enjoyment due to the rear
placement of the drive-through window and added landscaping will preserve the area's walkable
vibe. Instead, they believe this supports orderly development in the Sycamore Mall/First Avenue
commercial corridor and it's consistent with the Iowa City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals for
updating existing buildings and improving the Southeast District through efficient infill and
sustainability measures. Beyond compliance, this drive-through brings real benefits to the Iowa
City community, it enhances convenience for residents, especially those with mobility
challenges, busy schedules or preferences for contactless service by allowing quick pickups
without entering the store. The design minimizes traffic congestion through alley access and
reduced lane capacity, while added native landscaping and improves esthetics, stormwater
management and environmental quality, contributing to a greener, more vibrant neighborhood.
In summary, McInerney stated this special exception honors the site's history while meeting all
the criteria with a low impact, community focused approach. He respectfully requests the
Board's approval.
Tallman noted when looking at this plan there's a space at the northwest corner that's curbed
and there are call outs for curbing, so is that a loading area. McInerney stated they are not
cutting out a curb, they are building it, they needed to put the curbs in there because they didn't
have curbs before. Tallman asked if that'll just become one of the new parking spaces along
the west side. McInerney stated they originally had the parking along the west and people would
have to walk through the drive-through lane so they just flipped it over as they don't need that
many parking spaces and can accommodate the parking needs with just lining them up along
the other side of the parking lot.
Tallman stated there are notes on the plan referencing removing existing pavement markings
and pavement columns. McInerney stated originally, there was a mini foyer in front that was
built in 2011 that had two columns, and they are removing that and making it flat so it doesn't
become a tripping hazard.
Carlson asked if they are planning on most of their business being drive-through. McInerney
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 6 of 32
stated it's a convenience and a trend that's happening throughout the drive-through business,
ordering ahead and just driving up and picking up the orders. He has another client in Coralville
that would rather not have an ordering board because it takes extra staff, this way all a
customer has to do is show up and they are given their order and they already paid. That's the
convenience of having these online apps now, people just want to zoom and go with their orders
ready for them.
Carlson asked how much foot traffic do they think they will have and people actually coming in
the store. McInerney stated because the business is located along Lower Muscatine Road most
people will likely drive to this location however there will be some foot traffic, but not like
downtown.
Dennis Cronk (50 Rita Lyn Court) is one of the owners of the adjacent property at 1580 Mall
Drive and one of six partners. He's worked in this building for 25 years and has been asked to
present their concerns about the drive-through. First of all, he stated they're very pleased that
after staring at this eyesore for several years, that finally something is being done here, but do
have some concerns about some information in the application and in the staff report. First
thing is it states the intent of the ordinance is to provide full use and enjoyment of the property in
a manner that does not intrude upon the adjacent property. Cronk noted they regularly have
cars driving through their parking lot to get through the dry cleaners, which is immediately to the
south, and there's absolutely no question the drive-through here at this building is going to lead
to additional traffic through their parking lot, which will impact the safety of their staff and their
clients coming through the property. Therefore, he would disagree that it doesn't impact their
enjoyment of their property or the safety of their clientele. Cronk also noted there's a comment
about including street capacity in the evaluation. This property is going to be accessed from a
private alley, which is not really designed to accommodate significant traffic. He requested
information about how many vehicles they anticipate utilizing this drive-through and that
information is not available according to staff. Therefore, it's impossible to understand how
much this will impact, or how adequate the access is to this property, and how can they know if
the access from the private alley is adequate when they don't know how many cars there's
going to be. Cronk also stated the findings indicate the site plan for the proposed drive-through
is setback 10' feet from his property line and there's certainly room for a 10' drive that can be set
back from their property line but the current drive that exists is about 17' wide and it's 3' from
their property line. When he inquired about whether the applicants would be required to remove
a portion of that 17' wide drive he was told they would not so therefore the drive is not set back
10' from their property line, it's about 3' from their property line, which can clearly be seen in the
photos shown, it's clearly not a 17' distance between his property line and the paved drive that
goes by the building. With regards to the screening, the ordinance states drive-through lanes,
bays and stacking spaces, will be screened from views from the street and adjacent properties.
Cronk noted again looking at the site plan, the stacking extends two vehicles beyond where the
screening is proposed so clearly that screening is not complying with screening all the stacking
spaces on the property. Cronk urges the Board to not to consider in their decision the claim that
all orders will be pre-ordered. While he hopes this is accurate, because he was pleased to read
that they won't be pulling up to the window and ordering, but when he asked staff they told him
that was absolutely unenforceable, so people could pull up to the window and order which
would lead to longer wait times and potentially greater stacking. If there's not some
enforcement mechanism where they are absolutely not permitted to sell items at the window he
would encourage the Board not to consider that in their evaluation of this application. The
findings indicate the drive-through is accessed through a shared access side street off a Lower
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 7 of 32
Muscatine Road where there is no sidewalk and that's absolutely true, there is no sidewalk, but
there is definitely pedestrian traffic in that area so he disagrees that there's not a compatibility
issue with pedestrian traffic and vehicular traffic in this area. The findings also indicate that the
facility is clearly separated from parking areas but Cronk parks his vehicle right next to where
that drive-through is every single day, so it's separated from the parking on their site because
it's on the other side of the building but his building is 5' or 7' from where this drive-through is,
so it's not clearly separated from parking in the area. Cronk reiterated the public health and
safety concerns for their staff and clients, it is an issue and he disagrees that the access and
circulation is going to be adequate when they don't know how many vehicles are coming
through here so the proposed exception will affect the use and enjoyment of their property. The
last thing Cronk wanted to state was if the Board does approve this special exception, he would
request that there be some requirements for the property owner to do something to install
signage, or something to discourage traffic coming through their property because that's what's
going to happen when or if this is approved.
Baker asked Cronk to identify his business. Cronk stated there are three offices in his building,
he is the owner of Cook Appraisal, which has offices in the basement, and there are two
Ameriprise Financial offices on the upper level of the building. Cronk stated he is not here acting
as an appraiser, he is here acting as a property owner, but there's several comments have been
made that this won't affect the value of surrounding properties and he can say pretty definitively
there's nobody on staff that is qualified to make a determination about whether or not this will
impact property values. Cronk is an expert in property valuation and nobody at the City has
those credentials, so he doesn't appreciate that those comments are included in in the findings.
Carlson asked what the hours of business for the businesses in Cronk's building are. Cronk
stated they don't have set hours but there's usually somebody in the building from 7am until
6pm daily and frequently on the weekend.
Carlson asked if there are clients that come into the building. Cronk replied certainly, his
business has very few clients that come to the building and the two Ameriprise offices, which is
somewhere between 10 and 15 financial advisors, regularly have clients coming to the building
for meetings. Carlson asked how the clients gain access to parking, do they come off of Mall
Drive or from where. Cronk explained primarily they come off of Mall Drive and most of the staff
is parking at the back of the building. He noted there's really a one way drive on the west side of
the building and they have angled parking that's right up against this proposed drive-through.
From Mall Drive it's really a one way back to the private alley at the back of the building. Carlson
asked where the clients would park, would they enter on Mall Drive and then exit through the
private alley behind the building. Cronk stated there's a parking lot in front of the building so
clients would come and park in front of the building. They can exit either through Mall Drive or
through the private alley. He parks at the back of the building and generally enters on Mall
Drive, parks at the back of the building and exit through the alley.
Tallman noted when looking at the site plan she can see where the trees are planted on Cronk's
property so is that a grassed area and he parks up right next to the drive-through lane. Cronk
showed on the aerial photograph where the angled parking is further and where he parks at the
southwest corner of the lot, which is about 3' from that paved driveway.
Baker asked how long Cronk's business has been in that location. Cronk replied about 25
years. Baker noted Cronk was there when the bank was operating so was there a problem with
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 8 of 32
the drive-through at that time with the bank. Cronk stated there has always been traffic through
his lot and it's been six or seven years since the bank has been operating. He noted they've
never had an accident, thankfully, but there always has been traffic through his lot, more from
the dry cleaners. Cronk also noted his office is in the basement so he doesn't have windows
looking out but can say his partners, who are all on the on main floor, are concerned about
additional traffic coming through the lot.
Baker stated he is trying to visualize how people would be going through Cronk's property to
access the liquor store drive-through lane instead of just going directly into the liquor store lane.
Cronk replied he can't explain why vehicles do what they do but a lot of cars go through his lot
to get to the drycleaners so there's no reason to think the convenience store would not as well.
McInerney came forward to respond and stated the concerns are interesting because the
building's been there for 50 years in the same configuration. Cronk's building was built 25 years
after that drive-through was put in originally. His concern is that it seems that their properties
were approved for their parking lot and that's what they have, it is a legacy property and it's not
being modified in any real significant fashion. McInerney also pointed out it seems unreasonable
to blame the drycleaner's traffic on the applications property. Additionally, Cronk is not taking
into consideration that the property owner for this business, the applicant's business, owns half
that drive there, so that's their property and they're using their property to access. McInerney
noted the drycleaner's property is landlocked, it doesn't even have a drive that's off of a public
way, it just seems that this is an oddity of a property in general. But again, to remind everybody,
traffic can be accommodated here with more than enough possibilities of getting here in one
direction.
Baker asked about the issue of the drive-through setback. McInerney stated the setback is 20'
from the property line to the face of building which leaves 10' for the drive-through and another
10' for the buffer. Baker asked if the drive-through needs to be 17' wide. Baker stated a drive-
through is 10' per Iowa City standards. Baker asked about the 10' difference between Cronk's
property line and the drive-through, what is in that space right now. McInerney stated there's a
curb beginning at approximately 3' and there's 7' of existing curb and stormwater management.
He noted that's actually the benefit of having that extra amount of concrete as it allows people to
go around if there's someone in front, it's an asset and there is plenty of clearance to
accommodate a drive-through plus 10' of setback
Baker noted the 20' setback is from the face of the building to the property line but cars could
come as close as 3' to the adjacent property. McInerney stated it's been that way for many
decades.
Tallman noted in the area where their plantings are shown she assumes they'll have to break
out a certain amount of pavement to create a planting area. Russett stated there isn't anything
in the code that required more than 3' for the screening. Tallman stated the minimum buffer
isn't required to necessarily be green space. Russett confirmed the setback is 20' but that
doesn't mean it has to be grass. Tallman noted however the buffer between the driveway and
the adjacent property. Russett stated that has to be screened so it could not be paved. She
explained there's the actual portion of the drive-through lane, the 10, lane, and then there's
some additional area that's paved and will remain paved, and then there's the S2 screening.
Baker noted one of the things that Mr. Cronk mentioned was a sense of inadequate screening.
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 9 of 32
Russett stated staff will look at that through the site plan process, the approval of the drive-
through doesn't approve the site plan, so if there is additional plantings required, staff will review
that at the site plan stage.
Carlson asked what the hours are going to be of new convenience store on this lot because if
it's open later and not earlier it might not have as much of an effect on the other neighbors but
depend on their hours of operation and the hours that the other businesses are in operation.
Russett explained that was not a consideration in the review but if there's overlapping hours or
not overlapping hours, staff's findings are the same.
Simran Singh is a partner of this property and stated the hours are going to be 8am to 12
midnight.
Baker closed the public hearing.
Tallman moved to recommend 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.
Swygard seconded the motion.
Tallman stated she is a little concerned about the screening along the east side and the viability
of such a narrow space and really getting plants to thrive in there. If the applicant already has to
remove pavement to create a 3' wide planting area then why not remove up to 10' to create a
landscaped buffer.
Baker noted the issues is that 17' would still allow room to pass. Tallman stated if someone
was to pass wouldn't that be part of the drive then and then the drive wouldn't be separated 10'
from the adjacent property. A passing lane is part of the driveway. Baker stated if they only
allow 10' of a lane they are not allowing the ability to pass and somebody might want to go
around somebody who's in line.
Russo wondered if this were a different business, would the issues that the gentleman in the
back presented be any different. Baker stated any business using a drive-through here is going
to have the same issues, it's not this particular type of business.
Tallman added given the nature of the business, with the ordering ahead and just stopping by
and giving a number, as opposed to a fast food with the menu board and all that stuff, it seems
this is more efficient and would move traffic more efficiently for those using that pickup option.
Baker agrees but has an issue before of whether or not to require more screening area.
Swygard asked about screening, is it strictly about width or a difference from S2 to S3. Tallman
stated she is talking about width and not about any difference to the level of the vegetation, she
thinks that the neighbor brings up a good point about separation and it looks like it might be
possible to increase that buffer as a visual means of separating the drive-through from adjacent
properties.
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 10 of 32
Swygard thinks if it can be done without restricting the movement of vehicles that need to get
out of the stacking lane and move on that would be okay with her, but she would not like to see
the ability to get out of stacking lane and leave off the table.
Baker noted the applicant has talked about the change in the operation being a much quicker
pickup than so the likelihood of a stack up of cars is diminished by this new procedure.
Swygard stated the last time that this came through the Board the pickup window on the
previous rendition was further back and the concern was stacking up into the shared alley
space. This rendition has increased the stacking space with the movement of the window to the
far end but there are always people who get in line to pick up their order and realize they don't
have their wallet or an emergency arose and they can't wait. There are reasons why people
need to get out of line and need to leave the stacking space and she wants them to be able to
do that.
Carlson wondered if increasing the shrubbery between the two lots would help. Her concern is
the fact that they drive through the lot of the property next door to get to the private alley to use
the drive-through for this particular business. Yes, that is something that's been going on for a
long time, but if there's something that would help keep that down to a minimum, like putting
more screening in and help divide the two properties, maybe not as many people would think
about cutting through the property.
Baker stated to focus on the choices they have in front of them, one is to require additional
screening which might impede the ability of cars to move around. He acknowledged that
screening is a constant problem, so they're trying to anticipate how big of a problem would it be
if they reduce the width of the lane, and how often is that going to be a problem versus the
constant problem of the screening issue. His inclination is to say the screening issue is a
constant and the workaround issue is unpredictable and irregular. Baker questioned the
consensus of the Board, should they expand the screening area, or let the current proposal stay
as proposed .
Swygard asked if expanding the screening area reduces the ability to get out of the stacking
lane is that going to be a major issue to offset what is recognized as a legitimate concern about
screening. Swygard stated she can't support that, people have to be able to get out of line
safely if they need to.
Tallman moved to amend the motion to include a condition for a landscaped 10' buffer in
accordance with the S2 standards.
No one seconded, motion dies for lack of a second.
Carlson moved to amend the motion to recommend 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.
2. The S2 screening take up to 5' of the property on the east side of the lot between
the drive-through lane and the neighboring property.
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 11 of 32
Russo seconded the amended motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 3-2 (Baker and Swygard dissenting).
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.
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.
Baker introduced the rules of this discussion, first will be an introduction by the secretary of the
Board setting forth the administrative decision of appeal and appellants grounds for the appeal.
Then an opportunity for the appellant to speak, an opportunity for the staff to speak, an
opportunity for proponents and opponents of the appeal to speak, an opportunity for rebuttal by
proponents and then by opponents. The Board will discuss the issues and evidence, state its
findings and vote on a motion. Motions are always made in the affirmative.
Baker opened the public hearing.
Russett stated this is an appeal regarding a decision that the building official made for a minor
modification for a reduction in parking for the property at 305 North Gilbert Street. She shared
an aerial of the property, which is located at the corner of East Bloomington Street and North
Gilbert Street, the property is zoned CB-2 and the surrounding properties are commercial
properties. In terms of background, the building official approved a minor modification for a
proposed new eating establishment in this location. Minor modifications are a mechanism by
which specific regulations may be modified provided certain criteria are met and are reviewed
by the building official. Minor modifications must meet several approval criteria, one, that
special circumstances apply to the property; two, that the modification would not be detrimental
to the public health, safety and welfare; three, that it would not exceed the minor modification
standards or allow a use or activity not otherwise allowed; four, the minor modification
requested is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the regulation; and five, that the
requested minor modification complies with all other applicable ordinances.
Russett stated this specific request was one that was reviewed by the building official in
consultation with the director of Neighborhood Development Services that allows staff to reduce
the total number of parking spaces required by up to 50%. The standards that were reviewed
were that there are requirements on the zoning which is allowed in certain zones, the building
must be limited to 5000 square feet or less, evidence is provided that the parking proposed is
sufficient, and then there's a fourth criteria related to historic properties. The zoning code allows
appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in a decision made by the City Manager or
designee, by any person aggrieved by such a decision, those people may appeal.
Dulek stated the appeal procedure, again, is a little different than a special exception and the
important thing here is the Board's going to review everything that comes before them in this
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 12 of 32
hearing and the Board can affirm the decision, or if it finds an error was made can reverse the
decision or modify the order. So the question the Board has to consider in their deliberations
after they've heard everything is did the building official make an error.
Russett stated staff has received five pieces of correspondence related to this appeal. Two were
provided in the agenda packet and three were provided via email and made available tonight.
One letter expressed concerns with the parking reduction, the other five pieces of
correspondence supported the parking reduction.
Paxton Williams (Belin McCormick Law Firm) is representing Prestige Properties in this appeal.
As discussed, the applicant sought a modification for 305 North Gilbert to decrease the required
minimum parking by 50% from eight spaces to four spaces. The applicant also proposes to use
the existing structure at 305 North Gilbert as an eating establishment, the site plan submitted
with the application shows that the building has 1250 square feet and the applicant is also
proposing approximately 1600 square feet in a patio seating area. Williams stated the decision
that they're appealing states the subject property provided a parking demand analysis for
review, and that's one of the requirements that a parking demand analysis must be submitted,
and the decision stated that this analysis was provided, and therefore the qualifying standards
were met for consideration. Contrary to that statement, no parking demand analysis was
considered or conducted or provided by the applicant. The appeal references a parking demand
analysis from Pacheco Koch Consulting Engineers, not because of who did it, but because it
explains what a parking demand analysis is, including for example a parking demand analysis is
an investigation of actual and/or published parking demand characteristics for a specific site
with specific land use. Williams stated they also reference this because it indicates the form of
what an analysis might take. The University of Iowa study that they referenced in their appeal
for Waterloo also makes clear that both a study was conducted and one that included, for
example, the use of mounted cameras to get more accurate utilizations. Here there is no
investigation of actual and/or published parking demand characteristics for a specific site with
specific land use that was provided by the subject property. Also, to the City's statement that
was provided in response to the appeal they don't say that a professional engineer cannot
conduct a parking demand analysis but are saying that just because a person is a professional
engineer providing their opinions, that does not mean that an actual analysis isn't necessary,
which to them, seems to be the City staffs argument.
Williams stated to be clear, their appeal is based on the real harm that they believe will be seen
if this modification is upheld. The issue though today is that the applicant didn't provide
information required to be even considered for a minor modification, a conclusory email is not a
parking demand analysis and letters of support saying they won't be affected are also not a
parking demand analysis. For example, where is the basis for stating they won't be affected.
Williams might quibble with the statement of a few moments ago regarding the letters that
objected to this modification that were submitted, potentially there could have been one
submitted after the appeal, but in the record it is clear there are at least three letters that call into
question and raise issues for this minor modification. They're all in the record, but he briefly
wanted mention several of them. For example, there's a letter from the owner of 302 East
Bloomington, which is just 200' from the subject property and they support this appeal. They
contend that the reduced parking will cause customers to overcrowd the business's onsite
parking, thus forcing customers vehicles and delivery vehicles to purge onto street parking and
also neighboring parking lots owned and used by the neighboring properties. This letter
mentioned how they find no compelling reason to support the approval of the reduced parking
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 13 of 32
as in the end, the neighbors will feel the ongoing brunt of the parking issue in their properties
due to the recent approval of the reduced parking due to the modification. In that letter they
asked for a parking study at a minimum, which should be required. There's also a letter from
MIRE Family Care Clinic located at 404 East Bloomington and they provide several reasons for
concern if the modification is upheld, as did a letter from Hawkeye Area Community Action at
300 East Bloomington, they also expressed their concern. At minimum, William's clients believe
these letters should have put the City on notice that quantifiable data and unbiased support
should have been sought. They believe that with respect to a number of the claims made by the
applicant, that they believe that they're without basis. For example, the claim that they would
use two to four parking spots during the expected peak hours from 5pm to 9pm, there's nothing
to support this claim regarding both the peak hours and the fact that they would claim to use two
to four parking spots during this time, there's nothing but the self-interested statement. Williams
stated they also believe the same with respect to the claim that the business expects foot traffic
to be the main mode of transportation, they claim that they expect 10% to drive and park, 60%
to walk, bike or scooter and 15% ride share. Looking at all the numbers again, there's no basis
for this, there's no support for it again, it's just a self-interested statement. The applicant
indicates that insight was provided for their breakdown from two owners who they claim are
operators of similar establishments just a couple blocks away at the Ped Mall but looking at a
map this site is not just a couple blocks away from the Ped Mall so they believe all of this
information should have put the City on notice that if nothing else a parking demand analysis
should have been sought, as required.
Williams stated they believe that to agree to this minor modification is tantamount to saying
anything can be a parking demand analysis, no methodology is required, no facts that can be
checked are required, all that would be required is a self-serving opinion, and that can't be what
the ordinance means, and it can't be what citizens expect. He noted that the City's October 3
memorandum related to this appeal makes clear that the City misunderstands the information
that was provided in the appeal. Specifically, the memo states that the appellant wrongly uses
the area of the patio, which is not regulated by the minimum parking requirements. The
appellant did not wrongly use the area of the patio, they know how the ordinance is calculated,
but they also state in the appeal that patrons who sit outside are just as likely to drive vehicles to
the establishment as those sitting inside, and that the patio space undeniably generates the
same parking demand as the floor area within the building, and that excluding it understates the
true need for parking and circumvents the intent of Section 14-5A-4, and as such, they stated
that this dining space should be included in terms of the analysis and consideration to
understand what actually should be needed and should be done. Furthermore, to quote the
City's October 3 memo, the City makes clear that City zoning code set minimum parking
requirements and that those parking 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. So given that it's clear that the space that would be outside seating isn't used to
calculate the minimum requirement per the terms of the ordinance does weigh into the actual
amount of parking space that would be required, so that's what they reference. Williams
reiterated that there needs to be a parking demand analysis even though they believe there are
real issues in terms of whether or not a parking demand analysis would allow for such a
modification, they believe that at this stage it's not even appropriate to grant the minor
modification because of the lack of a parking demand analysis.
Baker referenced section 14-9A-1 of the definitions of parking on floor area, he want to get the
appellant's interpretation of this code, to quote "However, floor area does not include the area of
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 14 of 32
porches, balconies and other appurtenance", so is it their understanding that particular section
of the ordinance which seems to say they cannot count a patio. In other words, is their
understanding of the word appurtenance the same as the staffs. Williams stated he would say
to that term, a porch, depends on the type of business. People might sit outside on a porch, or
people might sit outside, but here the true purpose of that space is made clear, it's a patio
seating area. So what they're saying is, even if the ordinance doesn't require consideration of
that in terms of coming up with the minimum parking space number, it clearly goes to the intent
of this because they need to know how much use is going to be. If there is a building of 1000
square feet, but with a patio of 5000 square feet to be used as a restaurant, that 5000 feet will
be used for the same purpose as the indoor space and that is how the consideration and how
the calculation of the minimum parking number comes into play. In that example it should be
taken into consideration the fact that they are going to have five times as much space outside
that is being for the same the actual square footage of the restaurant.
Baker noted however looking at that part of the code it's very clear the City doesn't count that
area as part of the floor area for the applicant or for the developer so is this simply a matter of
subjective interpretation because one side says this clearly says the outside area cannot be
used in the calculation of the floor area, and Mr. Paxton is saying that they clearly should use
this as floor area. Williams stated the language from the City in the October 3 memo states
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. So in terms of an entity
that might use five times as much space outside as they would use inside the building for the
same purpose, and the fact that there is a difference between a porch and outdoor patio space,
it should be included.
Baker stated one of the definitions of appurtenance includes, from the Cornell Law Library, the
word patio as a legitimate appurtenance, so if they are going to call it a patio, it's exempt from
the floor space requirement, that's what the code seems to be saying.
Swygard questioned is a patio usable in Iowa 12 months of the year. Williams acknowledged
that's a great question, and would say generally probably not, but during times like the
pandemic people had coverings over patios, people had warming units over patios, so it's likely
not going to have the same use in December, potentially, as it might have in June or July.
However, Williams noted that's a question a parking demand analysis might actually help
everyone understand, that the type of use might be different certain times of the year and they
need more information from the applicant related to what that use might look like throughout the
year.
Russo asked has Iowa law addressed the definition of a patio compared to connected
structures. Is there is any case law that has refined the definition of outdoor structures. A patio
isn't really an attached structure unless they're planning on putting a roof on it that that ties into
the existing roof, but it's on the same site and it's generating the same amount of business as
the interior, except perhaps under weather conditions or seasonal conditions, so it seems
there's got to be legal precedent for this definition somewhere. Dulek stated it's a City code and
the City code is defining floor area. It's the total area of all floors of a building or a portion of a
building measured to the outside surface of the exterior walls or to the center line of the walls of
an attached building. Floor area includes all spaces within the building, including the spaces in
the basement or cellar, if it's a principal or accessory use. However, floor area does not include
the area of a porch, a balcony or other appurtenances. So the question before the Board is
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 15 of 32
whether they consider the patio an appurtenance. It's up to the Board to decide if floor area
does not include porch, balcony and other appurtenance, and whether a patio is included as an
appurtenance, as opposed to the earlier part of that definition, that talks about the inside of the
walls.
Tallman stated a patio could have a roof, but as long as it doesn't have walls, it's still a patio,
and the area is not considered.
Baker stated the code doesn't specifically use the word patio, but they can apply that to this
definition, because that is their prerogative, or is there some other precedent for applying that
word to it. Dulek stated that is for the Board to decide, they have to decide whether that would
be in appurtenances such as a porch and a balcony. Baker noted another point in the staff
report it's not referred to as a patio, it's referred to as an outdoor service area.
Carlson asked if in the appeal did they include the six page report by Pacheco Koch Consulting
Engineers of Dallas, did they include the report from the students in Waterloo, was that part of
the appeal document. Williams replied he did not include actual physical hard copies, but there
were links to both of those, at least he had two links to the Pacheco Koch because he reference
two things from that report and after he cited it he had the link to both of those and then he also
included the link to the University of Iowa Waterloo study.
Swygard asked if they were able to provide to the City any links or definitions of what the city of
Iowa City requires in the code for a parking analysis. Williams stated that they did not.
Baker suggested they listen to the staff report now and then Mr. Williams will be able to
incorporate any further analysis into his response to the staff report.
Danielle Sitzman (acting building official for the city of Iowa City) stated she has been the
building official since May 2018. The minor modification for 305 North Gilbert Street was
granted to allow a 50% reduction in the minimum off street parking requirement from eight to
four spaces to facilitate the adaptive reuse of a small 1250 square foot commercial building
being converted from auto repair to a restaurant. As the building official she determined that that
the request met the qualifying standards, the special circumstances and the approval criteria in
the City code, which empowers staff to administratively grant flexibility where strict application of
zoning standards would be impractical for small scale projects. Sitzman stated the applicant
provided a parking demand analysis, prepared by a licensed civil engineer, demonstrating that
the expected parking demand for the proposed use could be met largely onsite and
supplemented by nearby public parking. Sitzman independently verified the site conditions, local
parking supply and use intensity, concluding that the reduction would not result in significant
spillover parking into adjacent residential areas. The modification aligns with the purpose of the
City's parking regulations to ensure that most parking demand is accommodated while allowing
adaptive reuse and reinvestment in older commercial properties. The decision balances the
public interest in managing neighborhood parking with the City's policy objective to promote
small scale, pedestrian friendly redevelopment in the downtown transition area or the Central
Business service zone (CB-2). The appellant's arguments, as she understood them, centered
on two main claims. First, that the qualifying standards for granting the parking reduction were
not met because the parking demand analysis was inadequate, and second, that the
modification was inconsistent with the intent of the City's parking regulations. Sitzman stated
she believes both claims are without merit.
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 16 of 32
As to the first claim about adequacy of the parking demand analysis, the appellant asserted that
the modification should not have been granted because a formal parking demand study was not
provided. However, Sitzman stated the City code does not prescribe a specific form or format
for such an analysis. By design the minor modification process allows administrative discretion
and a level of review proportional to the minor nature of such requests, the parking demand
information submitted by email was prepared by a licensed Iowa professional engineer and met
the standard as it included all relevant data such as hours of operation, peak occupant load, and
travel mode. Sitzman and staff independently verified the information using site visits, aerial
imagery and the City's zoning code for parking. The examples provided by the appellant actually
demonstrate that a variety of approaches are acceptable for evaluating parking demand. One
was a brief consultant report for a much larger, 35,000 square foot Dallas shopping center along
a busy arterial street. The other was a university class project based on simple car counts.
These examples support rather than undermine the validity of the reliance on professional
engineering input appropriate to the scale of this project.
Second, consistency with the intent of the parking regulations. Sitzman noted the appellant
further claimed the modification violates the purpose of the parking requirements by
encouraging parking encroachment into nearby neighborhoods. In fact, the evidence shows the
opposite. The property can still accommodate at least half of its projected parking demand on
site. In addition, the City provides ample on and off street public parking nearby the site. The
small scale of the use, coupled with the downtown proximity and multimodal access, ensures
that most of the parking demand need will be met without negative neighborhood impacts. The
intent of the minimum parking standards is to ensure that most demand is accommodated while
allowing flexibility for unique or small scale properties. The granted modification satisfied this
intent by supporting adaptive reuse, efficient land use and reinvestment in the downtown area
without compromising public parking resources or neighborhood conditions.
Swygard asked if code 14-5A-4 define the requirements for what specific data must be collected
or what methodology must be used in a parking analysis. Sitzman confirmed it does not.
Swygard asked does the City have a form or a template that the City provides when asking for a
parking analysis. Sitzman explained when the City is asking for a parking analysis it depends
on the context in which they're asking. For an administrative review, such as a minor
modification, there is no template and there's no general pre-meeting to coach an applicant on
how to go about that, in a much more regulated or a much more intense review, where
something might be going through rezoning, going before the Planning and Zoning Commission
and eventually to City Council, the transportation staff and the Metropolitan Planning
Organization might meet with an applicant to go over what form of analysis they would like to
see. However, even in those much more intensive reviews, what analysis gets performed is still
very fluid.
Tallman noted looking at the parking requirements, and considering the area on the patio that
will be seating area that will have tables and chairs and bodies on them, it states the parking
requirement is one space for every 150 square feet of floor area, which is within the building or
space is equal to a third of the occupant load of the seating area, whichever is less. So the
definition establishes that floor area is included within the exterior walls of a building, which
excludes the patio but if they took the seating area of the interior plus the exterior and calculated
it at a third of that occupant load, it's still whichever is less. So even if the seating area between
the patio and the building exceeded eight, it would still be eight or if it was less than eight, then
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 17 of 32
the parking requirement would have been less than eight. They use whichever number is less
so it seems that the outdoor patio seating area simply is not a factor in this discussion. Sitzman
stated she would agree with that analysis. The standard is definitely whichever is less.
Sitzman also referenced table 5A-2, the parking requirement, that's a minimum parking
requirement based on the same kinds of analysis and some of these parking analysis also
reference the standard guidebooks that engineers use when estimating demand for parking
that's included into the parking minimums already, so they're already based, and they're already
a proxy for those kinds of generalized studies that have been performed nationwide, and past
standards and policy judgments the City has made. Parking minimums already account for
those kinds of estimates and that kind of analysis. In this case, this particular applicant, looked
at their site specific and land use specific needs and refined that further to prove that they didn't
need to meet that eight parking stall number, that they could function at a lower rate because of
their site specific and operational specific criteria.
Russo noted then in the assessment the patio area really does not play into this at all. Sitzman
confirmed that staff would not interpret the parking minimum as being based on a patio area, it's
based on a portion inside a building. Even if they wanted to think about the patio as a seating
area, it still reverts back to whichever is less and the parking standard is based on that but staff
would not have used the patio as a seating area calculation.
Russo noted for the first criteria was there issues with the site, or some peculiarities to the
structure, and how did that weigh into the assessment other than it was a completely different
use. Sitzman stated staffs analysis of the special circumstances that applied to this particular
property was that it's of a small size and shape, it's preexisting, the lot itself is small, the building
is small, it's a corner lot, it's an infill lot, it's already developed all around and it certainly is not a
modern size commercial lot. It's also in close proximity to downtown, which is a special
circumstance for itself, and all of the site is already developed. This applicant's not proposing to
change the building, they're not proposing much of a change to the parking lot, other than to
close one of those driveways, so those are the special circumstances that warranted the site
being eligible for a minor modification which can be found on page 34 of the agenda packet.
Baker noted according to the code, the building itself, the current building, would require eight
parking spaces. Sitzman confirmed that was correct. Baker stated then if there was no patio
involved in this would they have the ability to provide eight spaces on that lot if it was just the
building. Sitzman is not sure, the existing site is largely paved and if they changed nothing they
probably could fit more cars on there than four. Baker stated if they close off that curb cut on
Gilbert Street, for example, he can visualize eight parking places on that lot.
Baker asked is it the City's position that the special circumstances, the impracticality is the lot
itself, is regardless of the patio. Because his concern is the use of the patio area creates the
impracticality of providing eight parking spaces. Sitzman explained it's also a change in use. It's
going from an auto repair use to an eating establishment and the use is what drives the parking
code standards, it's not the site. The parking code anticipates parking demand based on use.
Baker asked so the use of the property as proposed as a restaurant all by itself, the 1250
square feet, would require eight parking spaces but the reason they can't provide eight parking
spaces is because of some other practical impediment and when he looks at this the only
practical impediment to providing the eight spaces is the patio area. Sitzman responded the
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 18 of 32
ownership might disagree and it is not her place to make the case for their business model, but
part of their decision to operate the use they are proposing is that it would be impractical to
expect a successful operation with that much parking and that they need to use the site in other
ways, whether it's an outdoor seating area for seasonal dining or not.
Baker noted they have mentioned that they have a identified a capacity of 35 to 45 which he
assumes means just internal space, is what they're predicting as the capacity. Sitzman stated
they indicated their maximum anticipated peak hour would be 35 to 45 customers. Baker asked
if that means customers served inside the building or coming to take something away. Sitzman
is unsure and that would be a question for the applicant.
Baker noted they are using the word patio here, but the staff reports description as outdoor
service area is better as that's a more precise definition than patio. And, the addition of an
outdoor service area which is much larger than the original building will increase capacity as the
whole purpose of having the outdoor service area is to increase the usage of the building, uses
of the business. Sitzman noted there are other ways to activate and use the outdoor area
besides seating for patrons, it might be where they put live entertainment for a short period of
time and it does not necessarily have to be seating. How they program that space would
probably change over the year and that was not part of the consideration.
Baker stated setting aside the question of a patio area, he is just trying to understand the logic
of reducing the parking requirement while facilitating an increase in the number of people using
the business, there seems to be a logical flaw in that. Sitzman stated as far as this decision
goes, it's a matter of how to prioritize the space, whether it's going to be prioritized for cars or for
people. Baker stated if they prioritize it for people, they're increasing the demand for parking.
Sitzman stated only if they all drive there. Baker noted that's another debatable issue. Sitzman
stated the engineer provided evidence that they thought the modal split between people driving
to the site and parking and people arriving at the site in other modes, was that the people that
would choose to drive to the site was lower in this location than the City's basic parking
minimums.
Baker stated going back to the patio service area issue, because it leads into another question
which is their findings report, he had a hard time finding which particular report they were talking
about, because there's a reference to an early report that was submitted, which staff says to
discount, because it was not part of the decision. Sitzman explained in page 40 of the agenda
packet is the information staff used, it is dated August 19. Baker noted the report then is a
string of fairly short emails and for him there's some empirical facts there, but there's also more
assertions than analysis in that report. Baker reiterated he is having a hard time understanding
why they are increasing the capacity of the business, but reducing the supply of parking.
Sitzman explained parking is about peak hour, in the August 19 email it states their expected
peak hours of operation to be between 5pm and 9pm, they also expect 35 to 45 patrons at that
time during those peak hours of use. They provide the modal split of 10% arriving in a car and
parking which can lead to the conclusion that 3.5 to 4.5 parking stalls is what their demand at a
peak hour would need to be, the rest of the time of the day they wouldn't even need that much.
She noted it's not uncommon for staff to gather data and have to kind of connect dots for
applicants when these are very minor applications.
Baker asked if staff asked the applicant where employees are going to park. Sitzman replied
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 19 of 32
no, they did not ask that question.
Baker noticed that part of the code says specific regulations may be modified or waived if
conditions are met, a minor modification may be approved in whole or in part, with or without
conditions. Was there any discussion of conditions applied to this. Sitzman explained there is
one condition on this approval and it's tied to the substantial compliance with the site plan they
showed, so closing that driveway and putting the parking stalls more or less in the location that
they indicated.
Baker asked if there was any discussion of perhaps reducing the size of the patio to supply
additional parking. Sitzman stated staff would not have had a great basis to demand more
parking of them than their parking demand analysis was saying they needed. Baker stated the
parking demand is based upon the conditions that they themselves impose on the site. Sitzman
reiterated their parking demand analysis was provided by a licensed engineer who has access
to the traffic manuals and estimates of how much parking would be generated. Baker reiterated
that is his basic assertion, this is a decision based upon an impracticality of the lot imposed by
the developer, not because of the lot itself. If the developer has chosen to take out 1600 square
feet of the lot for service and thus making the eight spaces normally required by the building
itself impractical. Baker also noted it is easy to talk about hours of operation and stating that's
what it's going to be but what if they then change it. Sitzman noted one of the things that was
used was the accessibility of a municipal lot that is just to the west of Bluebird on Market Street
with over 50 parking spaces operated by the City. It's currently underutilized, so that is
available. Then there's also on-street metered parking nearby, and on-street non-metered
parking.
Baker shared concern that the municipal parking area is irrelevant to this particular location and
a lot of staff decisions have a subjective factor. He doesn't see someone saying they want to eat
there but be willing to park a block away and walk back to that location. Also, there's a reference
to comparable business downtown and that is geographically irrelevant. The basis of the
demand is people want to go and get as close as possible to where they're going. If they are
going to park in the lot next to Bluebird they are likely going to go to the Bluebird. He doesn't
see those as factors justifying the reduction in parking on the lot itself here.
Sitzman stated with all due respect, that doesn't match current engineering practice. The
studies of walking behavior in cities like Iowa City and across the nation clearly demonstrate
that people will walk much farther and if they need to walk from a parking lot that's less than a
quarter a mile away, that's definitely within a walking distance. Additionally, Iowa City is
encouraging walkability in the community and she believes they do quite a bit more walking
here than the national average. So with all due respect, she would push back against that
assertion that is not an accurate representation of walking behavior.
Baker stated with all due respect accepted and extended as well, because he disagrees with
that assessment. The assumption that a patio area is there primarily to facilitate more business,
or is it just the current 35 to 45, what is the purpose of the patio that the City is approving for this
business, because it's contiguous and if they put a roof over this and screens in the wintertime,
it is not a patio, it is an outdoor service area also called an outdoor dining area. Can people sit
on the patio and have a waiter or waitress come out and take their order on the patio.
Sitzman stated the purpose of a minor modification is to allow flexibility for adaptive reuse of
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 20 of 32
existing properties. This is an existing property. They want to convert the use from an auto
centric use to a dining establishment. They've indicated that in order to be successful at that
they requested the 50% reduction in parking for which they met the qualifying standards for.
That was the analysis. About whether it was necessary or not for their business to be
successful they had to have an outdoor service area, even though the building itself supposedly
will accommodate 35 to 45, she cannot answer that. That analysis was not part of staffs
decision.
Swygard noted some of these questions are best directed to the business owners, because they
have to do with their analysis of how many people they need to serve at a time for it to work.
Dulek also reminded them to keep in mind what the Board's criteria are. They need to review
the special circumstances, not detrimental to public health, etc. set on in 14-131.
Baker stated they are talking about detriment to the public good. Parking is the issue here. Is a
reduction in parking here going to lead to any kind of detrimental impact on the public, would
eight spaces be less of a detriment than four. The Board can ask the property owner, but
basically, what they're dealing with here is a question of the staff so they have to understand the
process that led the staff to reach these decisions. And he wants to know what factors led in
and what factors did not lead into the decision. He does not yield in his assertion that the basic
problem with this decision is the fact that the problem with the property layout is a problem not
unique to the property, but created by the applicant itself, leading to the requirement, and
therefore he is not sure that satisfies the intent of the code.
Michael Oliveira (owner, Prestige Properties) stated they are a company that specializes in
student housing and some commercial development, not only in Iowa City but in Illinois
(Chicago, Evanston particularly), and in the Northern California Bay area. Their company is
unique in that they own and manage all their own buildings. He lives at 331 North Gilbert Street
and his company owns seven adjacent properties. The reason why he wanted to point out
where he lives is because he is right down the street where the old Shelter House was. That
was a property they purchased and remodeled and now own the supplicant buildings on North
Gilbert Street, the doctor's office right across the street from the proposed applicant, who by the
way has sent in several letters and emails against this application because of the problems with
the parking that they're having in that area. And then they have a rental units next door to the
subject property and 325 North Gilbert is one of their buildings to the north. Their properties go
all the way past the applicant's area to where the daycare center is. There is Pagliai's, the
laundry place and then there is the daycare and that's important because he is here to talk
about parking in this area and he believes he is a subject matter expert for living here and
dealing with the dynamics of what they are faced with in this neighborhood. Oliveira also asked
the other business owners to write letters, and they did, but it was misrepresented in the
packages because this last package should have included those letters to the Board.
Oliveira stated one of the things that has happened is at 5:00 on Gilbert Street parking is
allowed on both sides of the street, and so what happens on Gilbert Street is it's very
congested, meaning that in the mornings when the people are going to the daycare dropping off
their kids and going through the alley up to Gilbert Street it causes a little bit of problems. He
shared some pictures of a recent car accident that happened on October 1 at 7:20am when a
car pulled out of that alley onto Gilbert Street. A young lady hit an Afro American lady who had
just dropped off her child at the daycare center, smashed into that car. He stated that's the issue
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 21 of 32
they have going in the morning, and an issue at in the late afternoon, 4:30 and 5:00 when the
restaurant will be open, because at 5:00 the cars start coming there and parking on both sides
of the street. Oliveira asked the City some questions about the parking analysis, but one of the
things they didn't do is they didn't go over there and observe what is happening in this
neighborhood and one of the things that is happening when cars park on both sides of Gilbert
Street it's only 18 feet of space, he took a measurement. So from 5:00 at night until 8:00 the
next morning two cars can't get through Gilbert Street, they have to stop and one car goes and
then the another. That's just with the traffic and the people living in the area now, let alone
adding more congestion with a restaurant that doesn't have enough parking. Oliveira is all for
another restaurant in the area, but he doesn't want to endanger the people that are coming out
of the daycare with their kids because of the way they have the parking dynamics on both sides
of the street after 5:00. Also, the daycare does go after 5:00, he knows this because some of
his workers drop off their kids there. Additionally, the doctor's office across the street is worried
about their open parking space and having somebody come in there and park who is not visiting
the doctor's office. She services a lot of the Amish community and she does take people after
5:00 and has said parking is a problem. Oliveira stated they don't want to have the issue on the
northside like what is happening down there at Big Grove. Big Grove is a disaster of parking for
the businesses across the street. A parking analysis is needed to determine the impact. There
are people that work at the University parking up and down Bloomington Street and these guys
are 40-50 years old, they get out of their cars and they park there, get on their little scooters,
and they drive to the University. The University has assured everyone that they're going to build
more parking at the hospital, but he is not so sure that's going to help the impact of the
neighborhood. Oliveira stated what needs to happen is the staff needs to get out at different
times of the day. As a person that has a lot of consulting experience, he used to tell a lot of
corporations the best thing to do when they have a project like this is to get out there and walk
the neighborhood, go out the site to see what's really going on and what's going on here is a
parking problem in this area. Oliveira doesn't know how it can be managed better, but there's
just not enough space. Every morning the City staff from the parking department loves Gilbert
Street because they go out there and issue tickets because the kids don't move their cars right
away. He reiterated life safety issue is his concern for being here tonight and the issue is are
they going to add another restaurant that has limited parking spaces that is going to further
compromise the neighborhood. He doesn't want to be the parking police, but he has many
tenants in the area that have designated parking areas that they don't want people that want to
come into that restaurant and take the tenant's spots.
Oliveira also stated when he read that report, and read Brian Boelk profile, the engineer that
was here, he is a sewer specialist, not a parking specialist. The staff of Iowa City blindly used
their recommendation from that engineer. This is not going to say his qualifications are not
there, but that's not what his qualifications are on the website of the firm that was hired to give
that information to the City.
James Kincade (Axiom Consultants) is the licensed Iowa professional engineer that has been
referenced several times this evening. He works for Axiom Consultants, and was hired on behalf
of the owners for the minor modification application that's been talked about this evening. He
noted there's been a lot of discussion and he'll try to answer some of the questions that the
Board has, the engineering based questions, as well as just some brief statements regarding
the application. Kincade first wanted to preface all of this with saying one of the best parts about
working with Iowa City staff and the Neighborhood Development Services staff is they keep
engineers very on code, they are diligent in making sure that the application is compliant and
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 22 of 32
follows to the letter of the ordinances. So as staff explained, Kincade said they did as part of the
minor modification application a parking analysis report. He reiterated there is no template for
this through the ordinance and due to the nuance of the minor modification application process,
it finds itself in the form of an email provided by him as an answer to staff questions to help staff
understand the proposed use and how that aligns with the modification that the applicants are
seeking. The required stalls and the floor area conversation is all based on the requirements in
the ordinance, which are, as staff alluded to, derived from empirical data that's used all across
the country. Those numbers aren't pulled from feelings or anything else other than empirical
data understood with the use of the building and those peak hour calculations. Kincade
reiterated that the parking analysis, as provided both on the original site plan and with some
additional narrative in a follow up email by him, is typical to his experience at Axiom for
application of minor modifications, this is not a scenario that is atypical or different from other
applications. The analysis provided through some coordination back and forth is in line with his
experience with this sort of application.
To address the questions of the existing site and its possible ability to accommodate the entire
eight parking stalls Kincade stated the applicant (owner) who is here, can speak more to the
expected use of the patio area, but Kincade wanted to say through coordination and concepting
and the idea of this adaptive reuse, that's part of the minor modification application, they wanted
to use and seek modifications for a business model that fits all the needs as well as works in
with the understood framework of the code and what this business sees themselves needing.
That is how they ended up with proposing four and seeking the minor modification, to have the
eight, part of the eventual build out of this would be to go through a staff reviewed site plan that
would require them to install and stripe compliant parking stalls. The site as it exists now is a
complete sea of pavement and it may look as though they could accommodate an entire 24'
lane with up to eight stalls that are all 9' by 18' but with the desired use of the site being some
adaptive reuse of some of the nice outdoor area that was not feasible. Kincade also noted it will
not always be used for seating, but it will at least not be a sea of pavement in the form of an
automotive car and they proposed a plan to remove the driveway on Gilbert Street and to keep
the two drives on the south side. Also, part of the plan, contingent on the acceptance of the
minor modification, is to completely demolish and remove that pavement on the Gilbert Street
drive and then reestablish a curb and gutter along there, and through some initial buy in from
staff they have enough room to add two more on-street parking stalls onto Gilbert Street. Those
stalls aren't bespoke to this site, but there's a net gain on some on-street parking. Kincade also
wanted to state that in the criteria there is the language that the staff may require an engineered
study. In reference to a parking demand analysis, there have been projects that they've done,
large residential projects that require and ask for very large, very formal engineering traffic
studies. It's not something that is not done or refused to do. But by nature of the minor
modification process, they are very nuanced, very complicated, and in scale, much smaller so
that more of an open dialog that's seen via some of the email snips as use for a parking
demand analysis. Kincade acknowledged that it's not a formal report on letterhead or whatnot,
but it is not anecdotal information. It is based on the floor area calculations that are based on
empirical data that it's used all across the country.
Kincade next wanted to answer some of the last gentleman's concerns regarding neighborhood
parking and some issues that some of the private businesses are experiencing with their own
private parking lots. As a proposed site the applicant does not inherit the problems of their
neighbor's private parking lots, they have lots of avenues that they can take to mitigate non-
users or people who are delinquent to parking in their places. The parking demand analysis
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 23 of 32
does not rely at all on anybody's private parking lots, it is the on-street parking and the public
parking. Kincade reiterated how close that public lot is to the applicant's site.
Baker asked how the patio is going to be created, is it just simply going to be fenced off in an
area using the current concrete surface. Kincade replied the scope of the improvements to the
site will be some restriping on the south side to designate the parking stalls and the drive aisle.
The only pavement removal will be the public driveway onto Gilbert Street, and then whether it's
a pedestrian fence, ornamental in style, or striping, something like that, that's what the owner
has expressed their interest in using to designate that north patio area.
Baker asked if Kincade has any idea the people seating capacity of the 1600 square foot patio
area. Kincade deferred to the owner to answer that question.
Brad Temple (owner) is one of the owners of the new proposed business that's going to this
location. He began by stating he is not a parking expert and that is one of the reasons they
sought out Axiom Consultants in this situation. With regards to the entire scenario and this
appeal process when he was reading through the appeal, and it was mentioned a couple times
tonight, something in Dallas, Texas, something in Waterloo, Iowa, and he couldn't help but think
to himself that each of those two places are completely separate cities than Iowa City. The way
that they want to govern their city and run their city has no bearing on how Iowa City chooses to
write their laws, ordinances and enforce those. During this whole process he first started out
with couple people and walking over there, believe it or not they walked from downtown, the
Ped Mall area, over to this establishment one night when they heard it was for sale to take a
look at everything. At that time, they started putting the process together. They contacted the
City a couple different times asking them some questions as he'd never done this before. The
City gave them the lay of the land and how it would go. One thing Temple learned about that
process it not just put your presentation together and hand it to the City, it's a partnership where
they work back and forth with each other. So when they had a question the City staff helped.
Going through all of that they realized that they needed to hire Axiom Consultants as an
engineering firm to help them out with the process, put all the stuff together and then put
together the minor modification. Temple noted around that time one of his other partners and
himself stood in that parking lot for two hours a night, probably three or four nights in a row,
trying to figure out how they were going to come up with eight parking spots and that was
without even putting a patio anywhere. According to the code, a parking space needs to be 9'
wide and 18' deep, but then they also have to take into account the need for the space to back
up out of that parking spot and then being able to leave. They went out there with tape
measures and everything but didn't see how they would get to that many parking spots.
Temple next addressed the patio. The patio is something that they do believe is viable to the
success of this business, it's something that they don't believe the business will be successful
without. Their full intent from the beginning was what are the options with the City if they want to
change the use for this space into a restaurant space, and that's where they found out about the
minor modification process, and everything that they read in the City codes and ordinances
made perfect sense that these type of situations are meant for the minor modification process.
Temple then talked to the people at Axiom, got them all the information and met on site, Axiom
has been on site and doing site surveys on the property and Temple believes they've tried to
follow every part of the ordinance to its truest.
Temple stated this building was built in 1948 and was an AMACO gas station. He believes there
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 24 of 32
was three of them built in this town, one of them also currently houses a restaurant called Pops
Barbecue. Their intent is to leave that building the exact same as always has been and that is
one of the reasons that makes this a unique situation, it sits directly on the lot lines. He added
there are multiple things with this process that aren't normal and they've had to come up with
ways to work around and make it work. Additionally, Temple wanted to discuss the parking
situation and parking just in general. As he mentioned earlier he is no expert in parking but as
he also mentioned earlier he sat there for three, four or five nights in a row, for a couple hours
each of those nights, trying to figure out that parking situation. He has been in that parking lot no
less than 30 times in the last three months, trying to envision the new business, envision what's
going to take place, how it will all look. And not one time has he been there where he has not
been able to, with his own eyes, look around and see open street parking. Whether that is at
1:00 in the afternoon, 5:00 at night, 8:00 at night, or midnight. Again, he is not an engineer, he is
not a parking expert, but he can see with his own eyes.
Temple stated his partner and himself have been in the restaurant bar industry in this town for
over 20 years combined. They have places that are in downtown Iowa City, both of their
businesses have zero parking and they've never had a problem with zero parking at either one
of their businesses. He would also point out the City owned parking lot next to Bluebird, he
would respectfully disagree that it is not a viable parking space to then come into his business.
There are actually a multitude of restaurant spaces in that neighborhood that have zero parking,
the Webster that just opened a couple years ago has zero parking spaces, Paper Crane has
zero parking spaces, George's has limited parking spaces. Additionally, the walk distance from
the Hamburg Inn to that parking lot is the exact same walk distance from his location to that
parking lot, it just happens to be down an alley instead of through the other access. Temple can
say this because he has actually parked there and he eats consistently at those restaurants in
that neighborhood, and he has zero problems parking whenever he goes there. Just last week
he ate at the Webster, he parked next to Bluebird, walked up the Webster and when they left
the Webster they walked into George's and had a beer. Again, he would disagree with the fact
that there is no parking, or that parking does not service that whole community area, he actually
would say the opposite, it services it very well. Temple also stated when this appeal process
came through they took videos of them actually walking down through that entire neighborhood,
the four block radius of the entire neighborhood, at different times of the day, and that lot in
question that is next to Bluebird specifically was never over 50% full at any time, and that's
including all the street parking that was also available.
Temple also reiterated what Kincade mentioned that the driveway on the east side of the
property on Gilbert Street, part of the minor modification process was to agree to close that
driveway which will create more green space, and then also create two additional parking spots
on the City street. Obviously, they're not parking spots for his business or his property, but they
do produce more parking, which has been a concern in the situation. The last thing he wanted
to point out was as he read through some of the letters that people wrote, in either favor or not
of what he was trying to do in that location, one thing he found very interesting in this situation
was Mr. Oliveira pointed out he owns the two houses directly north of this property and he owns
seven properties in that whole neighborhood, and in one of the emails, sent by John
Englebrecht, the executive director of Public Space One, John noted that Mr. Oliveira and
Prestige Properties rents these single family homes with small driveways with in some cases up
to eight people per house. Temple would say that is there's no way they can park eight vehicles
in one parking driveway so while there might be concern to Mr. Oliveira that his tenants do not
have parking Temple would echo what someone previous said that a business owner or a
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 25 of 32
property owner's problem of not having enough private parking for their tenants is not a problem
of anyone else.
Temple noted he really appreciates the time and the ability to be here. Their intention is to open
a nice, little restaurant and they do not believe the parking is an issue whatsoever. He wanted
to also note the percentages that were put down for walking and biking and all of those things,
Iowa City has a long standing drive for a walkability city. He believes it was Mayor Brandt for
Iowa City, many, many years ago, who started the Ped Mall, pedestrian mall, and when he
started the pedestrian mall people lost their minds, and said it can't be done, people are not
going to be able to drive their cars, no businesses will survive here. Temple would point out that
all of these decades later, that pedestrian mall still thrives with businesses. Every weekend has
people in there, they have people in there from clothing stores to restaurants, and all of them
work together, and it's perfectly fine. At the end of the day, the percentages the City received
through the engineering firm are very spot on. Temple would invite anyone to walk around with
him. Additionally, Ride Share in this town is massive, Uber is the way to go. If one drives down
Clinton Street on any given day they will see all the Ubers, the food delivery cars parked
alongside the street, going inside to get stuff, that is real life, people are not driving. Statistics
came out that the lowest consumption of alcohol ever in history has just been reported this last
year. Drinking statistics for the city of Iowa City on DUls is lower this year than it has been
previous years. People drive less and if they are true to their word that this is a walkable city,
and he 100% believes it is, in all of those times he stood there trying to envision this business,
he noticed everyone is walking. He would see people walking back and forth, back and forth all
night long. So as far as any concerns about any of the other businesses around there Temple
doesn't believe anything that they will be doing will affect those businesses.
Finally, regarding questions about the patio, this infamous patio, Temple stated the patio will not
be operated 12 months a year, this in the state of Iowa. He also added both of their current
businesses have patios, one of the businesses is in the Ped Mall and City codes say when they
have to take that down, it's like six or seven months of the year they get to have a patio, which
makes sense that it's six to seven months maybe they will have viable outdoor seating areas.
The other thing he would note is that usually in patio season, when one walks into a restaurant,
a lot of the seats inside are empty, but the patio is full. So, he doesn't envision having a full
restaurant and then a full patio, they believe it's going to be more that people will want to be on
the patio, and that's why they need the patio just be a viable business.
Baker asked what the decision making process was in deciding the size of the patio. Temple
responded that they had to think about all the things that need to go into a patio, they're going to
need seating, maybe have a little bags area so people can throw some bags, if they have
seating on the patio the City code states there has to be a 3' walkway that doesn't get counted
into the occupancy. So while it's a 1600 square feet patio and in comparison, to the 1250
square foot of the building, the patio seems a lot bigger but isn't really. Temple also confirmed
the building is not viable to be an eatery if they don't have some sort of additional seating so
during those summer months that's where they think they can capitalize on the ability to be able
to make those numbers work.
Baker asked how much seating they envision. Temple stated they've met with the building guy
about a month ago or so to ask him some questions on how some codes work, one of the
questions was if they need a sprinkler system, because it's based off of square footage size and
if they are below a certain square footage they do not need that. They wanted to confirm that
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 26 of 32
with him. There were some other things Temple stated they wanted to confirm as well, that's
when during those discussion he had told them that their occupancy will be roughly 40 to 45
people inside and maybe 30 to 35 on the patio. So those were the numbers they are working
off, it would be about 80 people total if that whole space was completely full.
Baker asked if the people on the patio will be having service from the inside to the patio, or do
they have to order in and take it themselves out. Temple replied they could do either.
Baker noted so the patio is essential to the success of the business even if it's only going to be
open about six months a year. Temple confirmed it was,
Baker asked Temple when he was trying to visualize the parking layout on the lot that's there,
and couldn't see where they could get eight spots in that lot, did that take into account closing
off the curb cut on Gilbert Street. Temple said he had not. He stated the first few times they
went to this location they acknowledged the parking lot is massive and thought they could really
do something nice out here and have some parking. Then what they realized really quick when
they started doing the site survey and working with the engineers is the way it's laid out is not
feasible due to the property lines, if the previous owner had to go in and put the lines in they'd
realize probably 3' of the property isn't their property. So when they take that into account, the
reduction in that space, it tightens it up even more and he doesn't believe they can have parking
spots there. Temple added in addition to those things, by taking out the drive and adding the
green space on the east side they are also planning green screening on the west side.
Russett also added for parking they need 18' deep by 9' wide and they need to have a drive
aisle which if it's two way traffic, needs to be 22'. They also need some area for screening so it's
not just the size of the parking space that they're considering it's how the vehicles are traveling
through the site as well.
Temple stated by closing up the east side on Gilbert Street actually gives them the ability for
more parking spaces not less. If that was still open, they'd have to account for people being able
to pull in there and create the two way drive ability, if they close that they don't have to have a
two way anymore, and it can be a single drive through.
Baker asked where the employees are going to park. Temple stated their employees will park
at the parking lot next to Bluebird. However, he also highlighted that this is in the middle of a
neighborhood of mostly rental properties, and they plan on having a lot of people come to eat
from these properties and plan to hopefully have people working for them that are living in these
houses. Additionally, most of these people are students at the University of Iowa so he does
not believe there are going to be multiple employees that will drive cars.
Baker agreed about the parking study aspects, they don't need the two options that the
appellant offer, he thought that the local option was fine. The question for him is not whether the
parking standard was a viable parking analysis, what doesn't make sense to him that they think
they can get by with as little as two spaces. Temple stated they will have four spaces, that is the
minimum they can have.
Temple stated the other thing to go back to in this whole process, is reverting back to the City,
and when the city of Iowa City does a parking analysis and they have that information about the
City lot next to Bluebird, they have that parking information of what is it like at 1:00 or 3:00, etc.,
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 27 of 32
they have all that parking analysis, so it should be the belief that the city of Iowa City also used
that parking analysis, and the understanding of all of their parking analysis, to make the decision
on a minor modification.
Karl Sigwarsh (attorney, Bradley and Riley) is representing the business owners and wanted to
state as the City staff has already pointed out the term parking demand analysis is undefined in
the Iowa City Municipal Code, and the City conducted an analysis via a discussion with the
business owner's engineer regarding the rationale behind the request for a minor modification.
After that discussion in which the City did provide questions they wanted answered, they also
provided a template of questions that were answered by a prior minor modification applicant,
which were answered by the business owner's engineer, the City elected to grant that minor
modification. What the appellant is attempting to do here is substitute their judgment and a
judgment that is subjective and services the appellant's interest as the owner of a large number
of rental properties, which other neighbors have mentioned creates a large amount of traffic that
already overflows from the organic parking spaces for those rental properties. They're trying to
continue to externalize that burden onto the public parking available through the City, and
they're trying to protect that externality by mounting this appeal here. In this case, the studies
they've asked the Board to adopt, are for number one for a project in Dallas, a city of 30 times
greater size which the City staff pointed out, and a project that was conducted by a student
group at the University of Iowa. The City in this case is allowed to maintain and follow the rules
and standards that are clearly laid out in the municipal code and they did that in this case and
that also extends to their calculation of floor area, which in 14-A9 says all space within the
building, and that the building is defined as a structure having exterior walls, so in this case that
would remove consideration of the exterior area of the building. That's borne out in 14-A9 by
saying that things like patios and appurtenances are exempted from a floor area calculation. As
the City's alluded to, and as the business owner's engineer has alluded to, the minimum parking
space requirements are data based but they are estimates, and those estimates could be
lowered in the event that a special case exists. In this case, the business owners have
demonstrated that just such a special case exists, there's ample public parking that's available
within one block of the of the location, the site plan that they're submitting adds two public
spaces back to the City's parking roster, and what the business owners proposed to do is add
another restaurant and a walkable, friendly business to the northside neighborhood, enhancing
food options for that area as well. The City's considered all those factors when considering
whether or not to grant that minor modification and they elected to do so, their judgment should
be allowed to stand.
Paxton Williams wanted to clarify they are not asking the City to adopt the examples of the
parking demand analysis that they shared, they just wanted to give examples of what might
appear in a parking demand analysis, and to also illustrate that they contain facts, methodology
and things that can be tested. Williams noted there are many facts stated today about the
analysis, about what went into it, about what people did that his client did get to see. What they
saw was that email that had certain things. Yes, to clarify it actually did say they could get it
down to two to four parking spots, that is what that email actually says, they could have actually
gotten it down to two spots. Williams stated they also believe there was really a rush to
judgment. They're not saying what needed to be in a parking demand analysis, but it needs to
be something that can be analyzed, that could be tested. Those statements cannot be tested,
they're just statements that are self-interested. Even if City code says there aren't any standards
for a parking demand analysis, what is an analysis, there must be a definition for what an
analysis is. An analysis just can't be a statement without a basis providing that. Williams also
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 28 of 32
wanted to say to the extent that all of this represents a business decision by the applicant, and
the opposing counsel making a comment about William's client wanting to put out externalities
into the community, he stated his client has followed the rules. They've done everything to
follow the rules and are here to understand why it's possible. Because, again, this analysis, this
one page email, how is it tested. Additionally, the opposing counsel was questioned by the
Chair about getting it down to two spots and stated they didn't ever say that but it does actually
say two to four parking spots in the email. Again, Williams reiterated they believe there is a rush
to judgment, they believe there was no parking demand analysis in any sort of definition of an
analysis, and they also believe that the intent of the ordinance is clear that they're supposed to
take into the actual lay of the land. In closing Williams reiterated his prior example about having
a 1000 square foot building and a 10,000 square foot parking lot that he is going to use for the
same purpose, that's pertinent information that can be used to look at the health of the
community and the need for parking.
Carlson asked who does Williams think should be responsible for doing the parking survey.
Williams noted on the first page of the minor modification it references the rule where it says the
parking demand analysis must be done, so he believes two things, one, it's on the applicant's
responsibility to do so, but then two, also it should be tested by the City, and then tested by
anyone who would consider this is a matter. This is a modification that affects everybody so
everyone should be able to test whatever the results or conclusions of the parking demand
analysis that is required.
Mike Oliveira stated a point of clarification because some people had made some derogatory
things in a letter that was sent to the Board. In Iowa City, a rental permit and a building are
based on two things, the way the building is designed for meeting the requirements for housing,
bedrooms and parking. So with a four bedroom house, they must have at least three parking
spots. Oliveira noted all his buildings follow the strict guidelines that are set forth in Iowa City
with regards to parking. He finds it very slanderous for attorneys, business owners, and some
community members to say that landlords aren't following these requirements because they are.
The second thing he'd like to mention is they are in favor of a restaurant, they just think that
there's a parking demand analysis that needs to be done for the people that either rent or live in
the neighborhood. Additionally, in his neighborhood, on that the street, there's many single
family homes, one right to the left of his house, one two blocks down, the house across the
street is a single family and there are other single family house right up the road. It's all mixed in
there, and even going towards the University, those four homes are all owned by one owner,
have families and people living in them so it's not all students in this area. The issue they're
going to have here if they don't take a step back and look at this, it could cause irreparable harm
to the neighborhood and it's probably going to increase the number of accidents and the life
safety of the people that are living in this neighborhood, of which he is one and that's why he's
here today.
James Kincade wanted to clarify a couple points made by the appellant. First, a big point of
clarification here that he's afraid has been missed is that the email provided by him was a
response to a request to additional information, to parking analysis that was provided on the site
plan exhibit, that was more or less an appendix to the minor modification package as a whole.
On that exhibit, there exists the parking analysis required more or less for this type of project,
which is a proposed building, its associated use, the required parking stalls per square foot or
floor area of that building, the resultant requiring stalls, what they're providing and how they're
seeking a minor modification based on that reduction, that was the analysis that was originally
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 29 of 32
submitted as part of the process. The email that's been referred to this evening is auxiliary and
in addition to that original analysis, staff had some questions that they wanted to get answered
so to further understand and apply the nuance of the answers to the ask to eventually reach a
decision. That email and Kincade's responses are not the sole analysis that was provided as
part of this application. He also wanted to reiterate from his experience he often lends himself
to additional clarifications or questions or additional analysis as a request to the City. He is
always happy to answer questions or gather more information. It wasn't a malicious attempt to
hide information or use or anything of that sort. Lastly, with regards to a reference in his email
that he's claiming that they could have gotten away with two parking stalls. The full context of
that is a question from staff asking what the expected parking demand during those peak hours
is. So in coordination with the ownership, the response is they expect to use two to four of
those parking spaces during those peak hours, based on the parking analysis and the
understanding of the use and the operations of the business.
Jared Carroll stated he is one of the owners for the new establishment and has been a general
manager at multiple establishments for the past 15 years in downtown Iowa City. Carroll wanted
to attest to the fact of walkability, on any given night he can verify that at least 90% of his
employees will walk to work. They will walk from Dodge and Bowery, an eight block walk. He
also wanted to clarify that almost all of their customers are regulars, that they get to know, so he
knows none of them drive there, they all either walk or they ride share there. None of the
students drive to class every day, half of these kids don't even have cars, this whole city is a
walkable city, and like they've already reported the restaurants on the northside don't have any
parking spots at all. With regards to safety, by closing off that entrance exit on the east side of
the lot is going to do more for safety plus a net gain of two parking spots added to the street.
People pulling in and out of there, with the exits right across the street, and then the alley exit,
and then the four way intersection,just by closing off that exit is going to be an enhancement to
safety.
Paxton Williams wanted to point out the August 4, 2025, letter that was referenced as the
parking demand analysis is part of the packet and it's not a parking demand analysis. It's a
commercial site plan for a minor modification and it just speaks to the minor modification, the
other requirements, standards, the criteria, it's not a parking demand analysis, as was stated.
Danielle Sitzman wanted to close by saying to keep this in perspective this is about a minor
modification, this is one of 23 other types of minor modifications that the building official hears
all the time. There's staff administrative review, that's the level of review that this warrant. The
other types of things that are part of an administrative review are things like sign permits,
temporary use permits, fence permits, these are not complicated, intense discussions. Those
are the kinds of discussions that come to the Board of Adjustment or to the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Sitzman would encourage the Board to just keep in mind the scope of the scale of
this request and the scope of the intensity of the review of this request. They've seen the
applicant provide supply and demand information and taking the supply and demand
information and comparing it to itself. That's an analysis. If staff needed to connect the dots to
come out the other side with what they were telling it's perfectly appropriate in this situation for
staff to be involved in understanding the information that they were submitting. Staff does not
believe it needed an engineered multi page study written up. If they look at the example
provided by the appellant, the one in Dallas, that was an example of where they looked up the
zoning, they looked up the code book for the IT manual, and they asked the property owner his
opinion. That was their six page report. The City sees no value in asking an applicant for a
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 30 of 32
minor modification to engage an engineering firm to turn in something like that when staff is
perfectly capable of taking the supply and demand information given and making and drawing
conclusions from that and rendering minor modification decisions.
Baker asked if there is anybody on staff is qualified to do this analysis, or is that just not part of
the process, does the city of Iowa City staff have licensed civil engineers. Sitzman stated yes
staff is qualified to do the analysis. Baker asked what would staff requested from the business
owner that the City could not do. Sitzman explained that they don't typically engage in that kind
of activity, they review other firms analysis, they provide the study, and staff reviews it, that's
typically the role of staff. Baker asked who reviews minor modifications. Sitzman explained it is
herself and the department head.
Baker stated this is his third term on the Board of Adjustment in three different decades, and
one of the things that he has noticed is the workload of the Board of Adjustment is dramatically
reduced compared to what it was when he did his first term because of this minor modification
process. The Board used to have four to five to six items every month. So this is a very
important process and the City staff should be commended for that.
Baker closed the public hearing.
Tallman moved to affirm this decision made by the City because it was made following
administrative and procedural rules, and the decision conforms with the intent and
purpose of the zoning code, minimum onsite 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.
Swygard seconded the motion.
Tallman noted the City already made a decision to virtually close down all the parking on Linn
Street between Market Street and Bloomington Street for several months in support of
walkability and that's a multitude of so many more parking spaces than what they're talking
about here, here they are talking about four spots that disappear from this site whereas it is like
a dozen on Linn Street and nobody's brought that up. It seems to her that the addition, also the
arguments about public safety are relevant and important, and there are lots more big
discussions that they should have about parking, but this is a very small site, and those
discussions still need to happen. As to public safety, she agrees with the gentleman who
pointed out that closing off that driveway on Gilbert Street, limiting ingress and egress to
Bloomington, separating the pedestrian pathway from vehicular pathways there along Gilbert
Street, is going to do nothing but improve public safety and the staff decision was appropriate.
Baker stated he is very hesitant about this but not in the context of this by itself. What he has
noticed over time is that the City has certain rules, regulations, exceptions and variances that
are granted and the overall intent of the ordinance or the code or the specific regulation gets
sort of chipped away at in small increments. This is a very small increment but he can think of
other instances where a change in a use from commercial to residential, for example, is not a
big deal on that particular location, but it's a sort of sand shifting that bothers him about
development. Iowa City is working around the larger issue in favor of smaller increments. To be
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 31 of 32
diplomatic, he was not calmed down by the staff report but is very impressed with the
presentation by the owners of the business. For example Mr. Temple's discussion over time
was very helpful and appreciated. He is going to support this, but once again he's probably the
least adamant supporter.
Carlson stated a real problem with the parking demand analysis, that was one of the things that
was said that it needed to be done and when she looks at these things she doesn't see anything
that looks like a concrete parking demand analysis. When the Board makes decisions they are
supposed to base the decisions on facts. What are the facts that have been presented, this has
nothing to do with whether this project is a good one or not. What are the black and white facts
that were presented tonight.
Baker stated he is not comfortable saying that the decision to reduce parking actually is
grounded in hard facts, but he very subjectively thinks that this is a larger problem of parking in
general.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
Baker stated the motion was approved and the appeal is denied. Any person designed 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 SEPTEMBER 10, 2025 MINUTES:
Carlson moved to approve the minutes of September 10, 2025. Tallman seconded. A vote was
taken and the motion carried.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 8:35pm.
Board of Adjustment
October 8, 2025
Page 32 of 32
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2023-2025
12/13 3/13 4/10 8122 10/1011/13 1/8 2/20 3/12 7/8 9/10 10/8
NAME TERM
EXP.
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 O/E O/E ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
SWYGARD, PAULA 12/31/2028 X O/E X X X X X X X X O/E X
CARLSON, NANCY 12/31/2025 X X X O/E X X X X X X X X
RUSSO, MARK 12/31/2026 X X X X X X X O/E X O/E X X
TALLMAN, JU LIE 12/31/2029 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- X X X X X
Key: X=Present
O=Absent
O/E=Absent/Excused
----=Not a Member