HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-12-2017 Board of Adjustment�A
CITY OF IOWA CITY
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
April 12, 2017
5: 15 P.M.
Emma Harvat Hall
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Department of Neighborhood & Development Services
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Wednesday, April 12, 2017 — 5:15 PM
City Hall, 410 East Washington Street
Emma Harvat Hall
AGENDA
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consider the January 11, 2017 minutes
D. Special Exception Item
EXC17-00002: Discussion of an application submitted on behalf of Regina Catholic
Educational Center to allow the expansion of a General Education Facility in the Low
Density Single -Family (RS-5) zone at 2140 Rochester Avenue.
E. Board of Adjustment Information
F. Adjourn
NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING:
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
If you will need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting,
please contact Sarah Walz, Urban Planning at 319-356-5239 or at sarah-walz@iowa-
city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your
access needs.
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: Sarah Walz
Item: EXC17-00002 Date: April 12, 2017
Regina Catholic Education Center
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:
Regina Catholic Education Center
2150 Rochester Avenue
Iowa City, IA 52245
319-338-5436
Contact:
Doug Bottorff
2005 Rochester Court
319-430-5435
Requested Action:
Special Exception to allow expansion of a General
Education Facility in the RS-5 zone.
Purpose:
To allow the construction of a building to house an
accessory use —athletic training facility.
Location:
2150 Rochester Avenue
Size:
38.5 acres (approx.)
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
General Educational Use; RS-5
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Hickory Hill Park; P-1
East: Residential; RM-12
South: Commercial & Residential; CN-1, CO-1,
RS-5
West: Residential; RS-5
Applicable code sections: 14-4B-3A, (General Criteria); 14-4B-4D-11,
Specific criteria for general educational facilities in
the RS-5 zone.
File Date: March 10, 2017
BACKGROUND:
Regina Educational Center is categorized as a General Education Use, a use that is permitted
in residential zones by special exception. The school property consists of 38.5 acres of land
located on the north side of Rochester Avenue, just west of First Avenue.
The proposed location of the building is to the northeast of the school building. The specific criteria
for the special exception allow modifications (additions) of up to 500 square feet without a special
exception. Because the proposed facility exceeds the 500-foot limit a special exception is
required.
/]
The applicant proposes to construct a new 12,973 square foot (120 x 110 approx.) building to
serve as an athletic training facility. The two story structure will include bathrooms and weight
training and wrestling rooms on the first floor; the second floor will provide turf and a batting
facility. The applicant has anticipated the occupant load to be 20-30 people; the building is not
intended or designed for use by spectators.
The proposed building is a pre-engineered metal wall building on concrete foundation. The
structure will be built into the topography such that the average height (see elevation views on
sheet C2) is 34.28 feet. The maximum height allowed for residential structures in the single-family
zones is 35 feet.
As a point of information, Regina Educational Center is in the process of planning for an
expansion of the school building in the near future. Because that expansion is somewhat
complex —involving improvements and expansion of parking areas and stormwater handling —and
has the potential to generate additional traffic, staff recommended the organization move forward
with the request for this accessory use separate from the application for an expansion of the
school building and parking areas. The Board's review and decision regarding this application
does not set a precedent for any future application.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general
welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city, and to encourage the
most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and
enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may
grant the requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with
the specific criteria included for Section 14-4B-4D-11 pertaining to General Educational uses in
the single-family residential zones in addition to the general approval criteria for special
exceptions as set forth in Section 14-4B-3A.
The applicant's comments regarding each of the specific and general standards are included on
the attached application form. Staff comments related to the specific and general approval criteria
are set forth below.
Specific Standards: 14-413-4DA 1, General Educational Facilities in the RS-5 zone
According to the Iowa City Zoning Code, a general education facility is defined as elementary
and secondary schools below university grade (ordinarily grades one through 12), including
denominational and sectarian schools, kindergartens and military academies. Section 14-413-
4D-11 provides that a general education facility may be expanded in the RS-5 zone by special
exception according to the following criteria:
a. The following setbacks are required in lieu of the setbacks specified in the base zone.
However, the Board of Adjustment may reduce these setbacks, subject to the approval
criteria for setback adjustments as specified in subsection 14-2A-4B5, "Adjustments to
Principal Building Setback Requirements", of this title.
(1) Front: Twenty feet (20'7.
(2) Side: Twenty feet (20').
(3) Rear: Fifty feet (50').
FINDINGS: The proposed facility is located behind the main school building, more than 300
feet from Rochester Avenue and will not be readily visible from any street. The nearest
property lines are located 57 feet to the south and 66 feet to the east where the Regina
property abuts neighboring residential zones.
b. The proposed use will be designed to be compatible with adjacent uses. The Board of
Adjustment will consider aspects of the proposed use, such as the site size, types of
accessory uses, anticipated traffic, building scale, setbacks, landscaping, and location and
amount of paved areas. The board of adjustment may deny the use or aspects of the use
that are deemed out of scale, incompatible, or out of character with surrounding residential
uses, or may require additional measures to mitigate these differences. Additional
requirements may include, but are not limited to, additional screening, landscaping,
pedestrian facilities, setbacks, location and design of parking facilities, and location and
design of buildings.
FINDINGS: The proposed building will be located on a high point on the landscape (760 ft
elevation) with the tallest side of the building facing north where the topography is sloped.
Setbacks from the abutting residentially zoned property are in excess of the 20-foot side
setback requirement. The nearest residential structure is located more than 140 feet to the
northeast. A second structure is 280 feet to the southeast. Surrounding tree coverage
should minimize views from nearby roadways and adjacent residential properties. Mature
trees along the east property line will help to soften views of the large structure from
property to the northeast, where the residential structure is set at a much lower elevation
(730 ft. elevation). A line of existing trees on a neighboring property will reduce views from
the southeast, where residential structures are set at a similar elevation. Staff recommends
that some additional evergreen trees should be required along the southeast comer of the
building to soften views of the large building should the existing treeline on the neighboring
property be removed.
c. Given that large parking lots can seriously erode the single-family residential character of
these zones, the Board of Adjustment will carefully review any requests for parking spaces
beyond the minimum required. The board may limit the number of parking spaces and the
size and location of parking lots, taking into account the availability of on street parking, the
estimated parking demand, and opportunities for shared parking with other nonresidential
uses in the vicinity of the use.
FINDINGS: The proposed use is accessory to the school facility and is not anticipated to
generate additional traffic to the site. Therefore, no additional parking is required or
proposed as part of this application.
d. The proposed use will not have significant adverse effects on the livability of nearby
residential uses due to noise, glare from lights, late night operations, odors, and litter.
FINDINGS: The distance of the building from adjacent properties along with the existing
treeline and additional screening proposed will help to soften views of a large building. All
activities will occur indoors; any noise from its use would be quite limited.
e. The building official may grant approval for the following modifications to an educational
facility, without approval from the Board of Adjustment, upon written findings that the
modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to
the other property or improvements in the vicinity and in the zone in which the property is
located:
(1) An accessory storage building less than five hundred (500) square feet in size.
Not applicable.
(2) A building addition of less than five hundred (500) square feet, provided the addition
does not increase the occupancy load of the building.
Not applicable.
f. If the proposed use is located in a residential zone or in the central planning district, it must
comply with the multi -family site development standards as set forth in section 14-2B-6 of
this title.
FINDINGS: The proposed building is a pre-engineered metal building that serves an
accessory use. For properties that contain two or more principal buildings, buildings interior
to a lot must have entrances that are clearly visible from interior private streets/drives or
surface parking areas. The proposed structure does include a distinct entrance area located
near the private drive and parking area.
Given the location of the building to the rear of the school where it is not readily viewed
from the public street, the additional building design standards do not apply, however the
building is subject to design review.
General Standards: 14-413-3, Special Exception Review Requirements
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare.
FINDINGS: The proposed facility exceeds the minimum setback requirements from adjacent
residential property and is set back more than 140 feet from the nearest residential structure.
The building and the uses housed within it will not increase traffic to the site. The use and
structure are similar to those found on public high school campuses throughout the area.
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of
other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair
property values in the neighborhood.
FINDINGS: Given that all activities will take place inside the building, sound escape will be
minimal. No other aspects of the use or structure should be injurious to the use and enjoyment
of adjacent residential property.
3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in
the zone in which such property is located. See items 1. and 2 above.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
FINDINGS: All utilities, access roads, and necessary facilities are already provided to Regina —
no additional utilities or facilities are required to serve the proposed building and use.
However, the City has long encouraged Regina to establish a secondary access to its site.
Transportation Planning Staff have monitored traffic issues in front of the Regina Campus,
particularly during the morning commute. There are two driveways to Rochester Ave; one
functions as an entrance -only and the other functions as an exit -only for parents dropping off
their children in the morning. There is delay at the First Ave / Rochester Ave intersection and at
the entrance to the Regina Campus, particularly for east -bound vehicles turning left into the
Regina property. The traffic signal has been optimized to meet the traffic and pedestrian
demand from all quadrants of the intersection.
While the proposed accessory facility will not generate additional traffic to the site, Regina is in
the process of designing a new secondary access drive from First Avenue. This drive will help
distribute the traffic demand, reducing the number of vehicles at the First Avenue/Rochester
Avenue intersection. Staff is reviewing a traffic study and preliminary designs to ensure the
safety of the drive, which is planned for construction in the near future.
Additionally, there have been stormwater drainage issues on other portions of the Regina site.
City staff is working with the Regina to address those issues. Drainage for the proposed building
is directed to storm sewer facilities to the east.
6. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress designed
so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
FINDINGS: The applicant has received several special exceptions for previous projects, including
press box and restroom facilities for athletic fields and classroom additions and expansion of a
parking area.
While the proposed facility will not generate additional traffic to the site, Regina is in the process
of designing a new secondary access drive from First Avenue. A secondary drive, which was
encouraged by the City, will help distribute the traffic demand, reducing the number of vehicles
at the First Avenue/Rochester Avenue intersection. Staff is reviewing a traffic study and
preliminary designs to ensure the safety of the drive.
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being
considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the
applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located.
FINDINGS: The proposed project is subject to the design review. Given the placement of the
building on the property, staff believes some flexibility from the multi -family building design
standards is warranted.
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended.
FINDINGS: The Comprehensive Plan allows educational facilities in residential zones so long as
they are compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. The Central District Plan
designates this property as an institutional use because of Regina's historic use of the property.
Regina is, in many ways, a neighborhood school that contributes to the livability and walkability of
the Central and Northeast Planning Districts and expands the many educational options that exist
in Iowa City. Regina's continued operation within the centrally located neighborhood and its ability
to provide complementary facilities, including athletic facilities, similar to what is provided at other
area public schools is appropriate.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of a special exception for the expansion of a general educational
facility to construct a two-story athletic training facility subject to the following conditions:
a. Substantial compliance with the plans and elevations submitted with this application
b. Design Review approval
c. Additional landscaping (tall evergreen trees) at the southeast corner of the building
ATTACHMENTS:
Location map
Application materials
Approved by: -7 " ` Y "yam
John Yapp, Development Servig6s Co r inator,
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
i
i
RS5
=•'F. Wine..
F,
_el%
CITY OF IOWA CITY
I i y •�
RM12',�� F, TA
n
RM12
}
RM12
� 'RM12
RS5 ;! P1
An application submitted by
Regina Catholic Education Centei
for a special exception to allow
the addition of a principal structur(
with an accessory use at
2140 Rochester Avenue.
APPLICATION TO THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL EXCEPTION
DATE:
3/10/2017 PROPERTY PARCEL NO. 1011177005 &1011178001
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2140 Rochester Ave
PROPERTYZONE: RS-5
PROPERTY LOT SIZE: 0.57 & 37.9
APPLICANT:
Name: Regina Inter -Parish Catholic Education Center
Address: 2140 Rochester Ave
Phone: (319) 338-5436
Doug Bottorff
CONTACT PERSON:
Name:
(if other than applicant)
2005 Rochester Court
Address:
319 430 5435
Phone:
Jason Dumont
PROPERTY OWNER:
Name:
(if other than applicant)
2140 Rochester Ave
Address:
319 338-5436
Phone:
Specific Requested Special Exception; please list the description and section number in
the zoning code that addresses the specific special exception you are seeking. If you
cannot find this information or do not know which section of the code to look in, please
contact Sarah Walz at 356-5239 or e-mail Sarah-walz@iowa-city.org.
Purpose for special exception: Requesting that the proposed practice facility
Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: N/A
SHIVCFIAZTERY
ARC HITEC:TU RE -EN GI NEER.ING
2839 Northgate Drive
Iowa City, IA 62245
Telephone (319) 354-3040
Fax (319) 354-6921
TO: City of Iowa City
City Clerk's Office
_410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
ENCLOSED
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
DATE: March 10, 2017
PROJECT #: 116427-0
RE: Regina Inter -Parish Catholic Education
Center
COPIES
DATE
DESCRIPTION
1
Board of Adjustment Special Exception Application
METHOD
❑ Regular Mail
❑ Regular UPS
❑ Overnight
❑ Courier Today
® Hand Deliver
❑ Other
COMMENTS:
Enclosed please find the application requesting the proposed practice facility be classified as a principal
structure to have an accessory use. The building will operate as follows:
First Floor — hitting facility will be used after school for hitting and throwing. Currently multiple batting
cages will be installed for hitting and pitching practice. The netting is designed to be pulled back to allow
for long toss exercises. The 18' clear height to the net cabling is critical to allow for throwing
practice. Additionally the area may be used by soccer and football teams to run through practices in the
event of rain or wet fields. This area will likely be used most nights and weekends during the winter and
spring by baseball and softball teams.
Lower level weight room will be used before and after school all year long. The wrestling room will be
used by the wrestling team during the wrestling season and for a few select weeks in the summer for
wrestling camps. There is a small room for team meetings as well as storage.
In all cases a coach will be on site during the activities described above.
mas
Copy: Sarah Walz, City of Iowa City
Signed: I/ �
Douglas J. Bottorff, PE
When electronic files area part of this transmittal, upon opening the electronic file, the recipient agrees to Shive-Hattery's Terms and
Conditions For Use. A copy can be found at: http�/Avww.shive-hattery.com/pdf/EFF-TermsAndConditions.pd In the event that the
recipient does not have internet access or the link is not available, please contact the sender for a copy.
Transmittal -IC
® 11/14 Shive-Hattery, Inc.
-3-
D. General Approval Criteria: In addition to the specific approval criteria addressed in
"C", the Board must also find that the requested special exception meets the
following general approval criteria or that the following criteria do not apply. In
the space provided below, or on an attached sheet, provide specific information,
not just opinions, that demonstrate that the specific requested special exception
meets the general approval criteria listed below or that the approval criteria are
not relevant in your particular case.
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the
public health, safety, comfort, or general welfare.
This facility is a pre-engineered metal wall building on a concrete foundation.
Drawings will be signed and sealed by professional engineer and architect.
The building is situated over 300 ft from First Avenue on the eastern limits of the
Regina school parking lot. The building will operate as a non -spectator hitting
facility on the main floor, with weight lifting and wrestling rooms on the lower
level. Use will be year round, expected normal occupant load would be 20-30 in
hitting facility level and 20-30 in the lower level.
2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not
substantially diminish and impair property values in the neighborhood.
Proposed building is approximately 55' from Park Plaza Condominiums, a five
story building. Trees and the Park Plaza Condominiums parking garages will
separate the condominiums from the proposed facility.
Proposed building is 260' from Hickory Hill Overlook Condominiums, a 3 story
building.
3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal
and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for
uses permitted in the district in which such property is located.
Adjacent proprieties at 533 North 1st Ave & 463 N 1st Ave are already
developed into multi -story privately owned condominiums. This structure will not
impede development or improvements to adjacent properties.
2208 Rochester Ave to the south of the proposed building lot is a private home.
300 feet separate the existing home from the proposed building. This is a
greater distance than the existing Regina High School and adjacent 463 N 1 st
Ave Condominium.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have
been or are being provided.
Utilities will be provided by private utility companies, water and drainage will be
provided by Regina.
Necessary facilities required to operate the building and meeting building code
will be provided.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
The proposed facility will be built adjacent to an existing parking lot. Regina has
submitted a traffic study and site plan for a proposed access road from First
Avenue to the parking lot. The traffic study submitted previously showing the
impact of the new road to the City shows that measures have been taken to
minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Facility is adjacent to the existing
parking lot and is replacing existing facilities at the school.
Queue lengths during morning drop-off on First Avenue which backs up traffic
from Rochester Avenue approximatelv 1000 ft will be eliminated. III
6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the special
exception being considered, the specific proposed exception in all other
respects conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in
which it is to be located. [Depending on the type of special exception
requested, certain specific conditions may need to be met. The applicant
will demonstrate compliance with the specific conditions required for a
particular use as provided in the City Code section 14-413 as well as
requirements listed in the base zone or applicable overlay zone and
applicable site development standards (14-5A through K) J
Regina Catholic Education Center campus is zoned RS5. Properties immediately
adjacent to proposed structure are zoned RM12. Proposed structure is in direct
support of the principle use of the site as a K-12 education facility. No additional
parking will be required for its use, as only students on campus will utilize the
facility. Screening of the structure will be handled by existing mature trees.
Landscaping around the building will be minimal, but with a goal of minimizing
mowing and trimming needs. Outdoor lighting of structure will be as required by
code to light exits and sidewalks. There will be no decrease in performance
standards in the proposed structure versus what is existing throuqhout the
7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the
city.
The proposed structure and its use is in compliance with the City's
Comprehensive Plan. With duplicate/additional facilities during overlapping
athletic seasons, student athletes are able to stay on campus on a consistent
basis and are not required to leave campus and return at a later time or drive to
another facility.
'cK
........... ............. ------- ....... ....
Al
-
W.11,11IN,
iXFJmBlXLL
r i
IdJj
It
PXOAVmtPRY JI
SEEKING SPECIAL EXCEPTION
1 "83 TO CLASSIFY THE PROPOSED
Hn7M FACILITY BUILDING ASA
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND NOT AN
ACCESSORY BUILDING AS DEFINED
BY THE ZONING REGULATION.
a
O
F
O
Z
O
Z
Q
J
}
K
W
a
x�
us
=
1
�
�
COI LL�.6
NMII£4EL"OR '
im+ravneeee'.�n
`o
�
o
�
z
�...._
r
v
�J
O
- i
r z
z
a
�
�
a
�.
�
•• I
a
z
_�
W
�
a
� �
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
JANUARY 11 — 5:15 PM
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bryce Parker, Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Becky Soglin, Tim
Weitzel
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Susan Dulek, Sarah Walz
OTHERS PRESENT: None
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL:
CONSIDER THE December 14, 2016 MINUTES:
Goeb moved to approve the minutes of December 14, 2016. Weitzel seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0. (Parker abstaining)
NOMINATION AND SELECTION OF BOARD CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR:
Walz explained to the Board that usual process was to go in order of seniority on the Board but
that there was no requirement to do so.
Weitzel moved to follow board tradition and nominated Soglin for Board Chair and Chrischilles
for Vice Chair. Goeb seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0
REVIEW OF BOARD PROCEDURES
Walz reminded board members that the procedures had been updated by the Board in
December, 2015, in order to update various changes in departments and to make some
language more clear. Staff did not believe any additional changes were needed but invited the
Board to share any concerns or questions.
Chrichilles asked about the filing of decisions and how that was done. Walz explained that once
the Board meeting is over and a decision regarding an application is made, she types up any
pertinent facts that the Board referred to in making its decision. She noted that the Board often
adopts the staff report as its findings, in which case she summarizes those findings, adding
anything additional that comes up in the meeting. That is then provided to the Board Chair to
Board of Adjustment
January11, 2017
Page 2 of 5
approve and sign. This is then filed as a part of the permanent public record attached to the
property as special exceptions and variances run with the property.
Chrischilles asked why the Board does not review the written decision. Walz explained that she
tries to have these written and recorded before the next Board meeting since there are some
time sensitivities: anyone who wishes to appeal a decision (whether an applicant or a nearby
property owner) must do so within 30 days from the date on which the decision is filed. Often
applicants wish to move forward with establishing a use or building whatever has been
approved. If we put off the decision for 30 days and then there is another 30 days in which
someone can file an appeal, that delays the applicant's opportunity to get started. Also, if
approved the applicant typically has 6 months to begin making progress on the special
exception. Because of these time sensitivities it is best to move forward with filing within a
reasonable time. The City Attorney also reviews and signs all decisions. Dulek noted that
because decisions are filed at the county, anyone purchasing that property is on notice of what
changes the Board has approved.
Chrischilles asked about Article V—reconsideration. Walz explained that the Board itself must
approve a request to reconsider. She provided an example of how this might come about: if
someone, say, had provided either false or inaccurate information that the Board used in
making its decision. If someone, including the applicant subsequently found more accurate
information that could speak to a concern, they could ask for reconsideration. Also, someone
could ask for reconsideration if the Board had imposed a condition, based on either
misinformation or lack of information. Perhaps the condition was something that really imposed
a hardship for the applicant and they found information that they believed the Board might
reconsider in order to remove that condition. Dulek noted that a Board member who had voted
on the prevailing side would have to make the motion to reconsider.
Soglin requested that the new procedures be uploaded to the City's website. The site currently
has the old version.
REVIEW OF BOARD PROCEDURES:
Walz invited the Board to ask any questions it had about general board practice. Chrischilles
asked about the amount of time allowed for review. The Board typically has from Saturday
preceding the meeting until the Wednesday meeting to review, but has not had the opportunity
to hear from the public or other Board members. A decision then can feel rushed if there is
disagreement. Is the only option to defer.
Dulek, said the Board could meet the next day or two. The only exception with regard to time
limits is that decisions on cell towers need to be made in a certain amount of time.
Walz said the Board can always ask for additional information. If a case is controversial, in that
members of the public come to protest an application, the Board needs to determine whether
there is any pertinent information in their concern —any usable information. Walz explained that
special exceptions are written into the code and the criteria are directly from the code. The
Board needs to look at what is reasonable in terms of evidence. Has the applicant satisfied the
criteria? A variance is very different. A special exception is not someone asking to ignore the
zoning code or to be alleviated of review —the language of the criteria is right in the code. The
code acknowledges the need for flexibility and then gives us the criteria to look at in determining
whether flexibility is appropriate in the context being reviewed.
Board of Adjustment
January 11, 2017
Page 3 of 5
Chrischilles noted that the Board must rely a great deal on the staff report, so how can findings
be done that are different from what staff is reporting. Walz explained that usually something will
come up —either from the public or the applicant —or the Board has observed something.
Parking is often a sensitive issue and it is a hard one to balance. Often there can be reasonable
disagreement on how much parking demand is too much. Is the applicant offering something
reasonable to address parking demand or is there something in the neighborhood that is
happening that suggests to you that a tipping point has been met and there is too much demand
such that it affecting the quality of life or reasonable expectations of the neighborhood. A board
member might say, I don't find that the applicant's efforts are enough; the evidence is
insufficient.
Walz reminded them that no BOA decision is precedent setting. The Board may decide one way
on one piece of property and months late may decide differently on another piece of property a
block away.
Walz noted that the standards are always the same for same application: setback standards, for
example, have a set of specific criteria. The general criteria apply to all special exceptions. She
noted that when an application comes in, she walks through the criteria just the same way as
the Board does. There is no assumption that an application should be approved on denied until
staff goes through the criteria for itself. If there are problems, staff will point those out and offer
ways to address those issues if possible. Staff then looks at context. For example with parking,
different neighborhoods have different parking demands and different expectations.
Walz explained that the zoning code sets up rules but also it states what rules have some
flexibility. That flexibility is a special exception —say, a setback reduction. Then the code says
the specific criteria for determining whether to grant that flexibility. So there are criteria listed for
how to determine whether a setback reduction should be granted or whether it is appropriate to
allow a daycare center in a residential zone, for example. Each request is reviewed within its
own location context, but the criteria are always the same.
Walz noted that when the Board is truly conflicted, they can take extra time but that all
deliberations must be in public. Extra time can be 15 minutes or a day or a month, whatever the
Board needs to get the information or consider information provided during a public meeting.
The Board needs to be reasonable and it needs to be fair to everyone involved.
Dulek briefly explained ex parte communication as well as the difference between legislative
decisions as made by City Council and quasi judicial decisions as made by the Board.
Soglin wondered if applicants could do a better job filling out the criteria. Walz explained that
applicants have difficulty understanding the general criteria. While the applicant may not
respond to the general criteria —and she does always instruct them to do so —how they
demonstrate satisfaction with the criteria (or not) —really follow from the specific criteria. That is,
the site plan or building or business plans.
The Board can always email Walz with questions or requests for additional information and she
will provide will provide it at the meeting. In some cases it may make sense to provide it ahead
of the meeting, in which case she will also provide it to the applicant. The Board is allowed to
look at the zoning code or the Comprehensive Plan (district plan or Historic Preservation Plan)
whenever it wishes, but it should not do other research. Everyone needs to be working from the
same information.
Board of Adjustment
January 11, 2017
Page 4 of 5
There was a brief discussion of the amount of time that the Board has to review applications.
Soglin asked to add a sentence or two to the opening statement to make it clear that the Board
received the information recently and the meeting is the first opportunity they have had to
discuss the information. This would drive the point home that no outcome or decision is
predetermined —the public hearing is the actual review process.
Walz said that staff really does want to know ahead of time if there are public objections
because any issues can then be part of staff review. This may result in staff asking an applicant
to change aspects of their application or even, depending on the nature of the concern, staff
recommending denial of the request.
Walz summarized how the staff report is drafted using the criteria and consulting with all the
various departments providing input. Dulek explained that if the City Attorneys office is involved
in a recommendation (if there is a City interest) it would seek outside council for the Board as it
did for the appeal.
Soglin asked that the BOA Frequently Asked Questions for could be updated on the web. She
also asked for the various BOA guides be laminated and provided to all.
ADJOURNMENT:
Weitzel moved to adjourn this meeting.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0.
Meeting Adjourned 6:10.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
NAME
TERM EXP.
2117
319
4/13
6115
7113
8/10
9114
9121
9130
10/12
11/9
12114
1/11
PARKER, BRYCE
1/1/2022
-
_
X
GOER, CONNIE
1/l/2020
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
CHRISCHILLES, T. GENE
1/l/2019
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SOGLIN, BECKY
1/l/2018
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WEITZEL, TIM
1/1/2021
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
— = Not a Member