HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-27-2020 Board of AdjustmentIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Wednesday, May 27, 2020
Electronic Informal Meeting — 5:15 PM
Zoom Meeting Platform
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is
impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of
Commission members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19.
You can participate in the meeting and can comment on an agenda item
by joining the Zoom meeting via the internet by going to
https://zoom.us/'/97183103891 ?pwd=QU5KbmRvbVZQOWhGV1 dCe
XF1 K250UT09. If you have no computer or smartphone, or a computer
without a microphone, you can call in by phone by dialing (312) 626-
6799 and entering the meeting ID 971-8310-3891 when
prompted. Providing comment in person is not an option.
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Board of Adjustment Training
Training for members of the Board of Adjustment on their role and procedures.
4. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: May 13, 2020
5. Adjournment
If you will need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting,
please contact Kirk Lehmann, Urban Planning at 319-356-5230 or at kirk-Iehmann@iowa-
city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access
needs.
Upcoming Board of Adjustment Meetings
Formal: June 10 / July 8 / August 12
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 2/6/2020
TO: BOARD OF ADJUSTMNET Llve
FROM: SUSAN DULEIr, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNOEF
RE: PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION
INTRODUCTION
This memo provides guidance to the Chair and members on the public hearing process for applications
for special exceptions.
STANDARDS AND FINDINGS OF FACT
Many applications for a special exception are fairly routine and limited in terms of the evidence and
witnesses, but some are complicated and/or contentious.
The applicant has the burden to prove each and every standard. If you find yourself wanting or needing
more information or evidence on a particular issue during your dellberation, then you must ask
yourself —Has the applicant proven the standard? The burden, meaning the responsibility, to put forth
evidence sufficient to prove each and every standard by a preponderance of evidence (more likely than
not), Is on the applicant
Although you receive a packet in advance of the hearing, there is at times a tremendous amount of
information that is provided at the hearing. Undoubtedly, you may wish for additional time to read it,
study it and consider it
The Board is under no legal requirement to vote on an application at the time of the hearing. The
Board can vote by motion to dose the public hearing but defer the Board discussion until another
meeting. Also the Board can vote by motion to continue the public hearing to another meeting at which
time more evidence can be taken. Although the applicant may be In a °time crunch," that legally is of
no concern to the Board. If the Board needs more time, a motion should be passed to allow more time
to consider the application.
If you conclude that the applicant has not proven a particular standard, you should state why you
conclude that the standard has not been met If three members agree that a standard has not been
met, then the special exception will not be approved.
ff you conclude that the applicant has proven a particular standard but for reasons elther different from
or in addition to those in the staff report, you should state what fact or facts support your conclusion. If
you agree with a colleague's factual finding, you should state that you do. At least three members
need to agree on the fads that support each of the findings.
When a decision approving a special exception Is appealed to the district court, the Judge will review
the transcript of the hearing and will look for the facts given by Board members to support their
decision. The Judge reviews the hearing transcript and any written documents submitted at the hearing
to determine if there was substantial evidence to support the decision, not whether the Judge would
have made that same decision. When a decision denying a special exception is appealed to the district
court, the Judge will similarly look for the reasons given by the Board members for why they concluded
that a standard was not met. Again, the Judge does not substitute his or her decision for the Board's
but rather determines if there was substantial evidence to support the Board's decision. (I should add
that there are other bases to appeal but generally the issue Is whether there is substantial evidence.)
Up until the public hearing is closed, the process outlined below for "routine" applications is the same
as for °non -routine" applications. What is different is the "findings of fact" portion of the meeting.
"ROUTINE" APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION
CHAIR This is an application submitted by XYZ for a special exception to allow.....
CHAIR Will someone make a motion to approve the special exception? (The Chair may not make or
second any motion. This motion gets the matter on the tfoor for discussion.)
BOA: I move for the approval of EXC20->>......
CHAIR: Is there a second?
BOA: Second.
CHAIR: The public hearing is open.
(The Board should not discuss the merits or offer their opinions until the close of the public
hearing. The purpose of the public hearing is for the Board to gather all the information and then
make a decision.)
CHAIR: We will now hear from staff.
STAFF: This is a request for a special exception to allow ... at 123 Main Street....
CHAIR: Does the Board have any questions for staff?
CHAIR: We will now hear from the applicant.
APPLICANT: My name is ......
(Speakers should come to the podium, aign in, introduce themsetves with full name and
address, and speak into the microphone.)
CHAIR: Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak against the application?
CHAIR: Does the applicant wish to respond to any comments from the public?
CHAIR: Does staff have any additional comments?
CHAIR: Are there any Issues on which the Board wishes to have more clarl"ny final questions for
staff or the applicant before the public hearing is closed?
CHAIR: The public hearing is closed.
CHAIR: Any discussion from the Board?
CHAIR: Will someone make the findings of fact?
BOA: Regarding item EXC20.>>, I concur with the findings set forth in the staff report dated and
conclude......
CHAIR: Any other comments from the Board before we vote?
CHAIR: Roll call (City staff will call the roll)
CHAIR: The Motion is declared approved. Any person desiring 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.
"NON -ROUTINE" APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION
(As stated earlier, do not dose the public hearing N Board members want more information. A
Board member will need to move to keep the public hearing open and defer conalderebon of the
application to the next meeting, another member will need to second the motion, and there
needs to be 3 votes in favor of keeping the public hearing open and deferrtrhg the application to
the next meeting.)
CHAIR: The public hearing is closed.
CHAIR: Discussion from the Board.
BOA: (This is the time that the Board discusses the problematic standard(s). Again, it's usually one
standard that poses issues_ In order for the application to be approved, at least 3 members wIN
need to set forth the facts that support all the standards, including the problematic one. I advise
Board members to state one or two facts that you found to demonstrate why the particular
standard at issue was met in contrast, If three members conclude a standard is not met, even
for dflferent reasons, those 3 members will vote no on the application. AN 3 should state what
standard was not met. Far example, a member could state: "I concur wfth the findings set forth
in the staff report dated_ except for the specilk standard X' I conclude that specific
standard X was not met." If two other members agree that standard W1 was not met, the
application will be denied.
CHAIR: Any other comments from the Board before we vote?
CHAIR: Roll call (City staff will call the roft)
CHAIR: The Motion is declared denied (if one standard is not met) or approved (if all standards are
met). Any person desiring 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.
Copy to:
Anne Russett, Senior Planner
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MAY 13, 2020 — 5:15 PM
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
PRELIMINARY
An electronic meeting was held because a meeting in person is impossible or
impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members,
staff and the public presented by COVID-19.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gene Chrischilles, Ernie Cox, Zephan Hazell, Bryce Parker, Amy
Pretorius
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Susan Dulek, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Maxwell, Kate Maxwell, Mark Kennedy, Thomas McInerney
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL:
A brief opening statement was read by Pretorius outlining the role and purpose of the Board and
the procedures that would be followed in the meeting.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM EXC20-04:
An application submitted by Tom Maxwell requesting a waiver from the minimum 15-foot
building setback in the Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone to construct an
addition at 6 Melrose Circle.
Pretorius opened the public hearing.
Lehmann stated this is an application by Tom Maxwell regarding a waiver setback to construct
an addition on their property at 6 Melrose Circle. The exception is specifically to reduce the
setbacks from 15 feet to 12 feet.
Board of Adjustment
May 13, 2020
Page 2 of 10
Lehmann showed an aerial of the subject property which is located on the west side of the river,
south of Melrose Avenue and close to Kinnick stadium. The surrounding parcels are primarily
low -density single family residential, but the property to the north also has a historic overlay.
In terms of background, Lehmann stated this is a single-family home located on a private cul-
de-sac and the property was built in 1926. Both the house and garage are key contributing
structures in the Melrose Historic District. The district is only located on the National Register of
Historic Places, which is an honorary designation, so it is not part of a local historic district,
which means that there is no local review that would happen for improvements. If it were, the
project would be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission or historic preservation
planner depending on the nature of the improvement.
The property was developed prior to its current zoning designation and the principal building is
located within the front setback. The minimum front setback for a principal building in the RS-5
zone is 15 feet from the front lot line. The applicant is seeking to construct an addition on the
northeast face of the principal building and this addition would require a special exception to
reduce the front setback to 12 feet instead of 15 feet.
Lehmann showed the site plan with the full cul-de-sac and noted that the addition is
approximately 24'/z by 22 to 23 feet, and the house itself is approximately 9 feet from the street
lot line.
Lehmann stated the role of the Board of Adjustment is to approve the application, approve with
conditions or deny the application based on the facts presented. To approve the special
exception the Board must find that it meets all applicable approval criteria which includes both
specific standards pertaining to the waiver requested, in this case the front setback, and also
the general standards for all special exceptions.
Regarding the specific standards for the principal setbacks, this first criterion is that the situation
has to be particular to the property in question. Findings as laid out in the staff report note the
property was established before current zoning standards; the southeast building face fronts the
street and the principal building is around 9 feet from the front lot line; the northeast building
face where the proposed addition is contains a sunroom, and wooden deck and gazebo are on
the northwest building face, and the southwest face fronts the driveway; street setbacks vary
between properties in the area, the adjacent lot to the north, 629 Melrose Avenue, extends to
the middle of Melrose Circle, the primary building on the property to the east, 3 Melrose Circle,
is approximately 12 feet from the front lot line.
Criterion two is there is a practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements.
Findings for this criterion are that the house sits within the front setback; and the rationale for
the size and location of the proposed addition on the northeast face is based on accommodating
an aging -in -place strategy and the centered and northeastern placement of the proposed
addition allows connection to the primary building.
Third, the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations which are to
maintain light, air separation for fire protection and access for firefighting; provide opportunities
for privacy between dwellings; reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in
Board of Adjustment
May 13, 2020
Page 3 of 10
Iowa City's neighborhoods; promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and
between residences; and provide flexibility to the site so that it is compatible with buildings in the
vicinity. Staff finds that the building addition won't be any closer than approximately 30 feet to
any adjacent property which meets most of those requirements; also the reduction would be in
line with the general scale and placement structures in the neighborhood.
Fourth criterion states any potential negative effects resulting from a setback exception are
mitigated to the extent practicable. Due to the layout of the current structures in the area, staff
doesn't believe there are going to be any negative side effects.
Criterion five, the subject building will be located no closer than three feet to a side or rear
property line unless that property line abuts a public right-of-way or permanent open space.
Staff finds the proposal will be 12 feet from the nearest lot line.
Lehmann next moved onto the general standards that every special exception must meet. First
is this specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety or comfort or general welfare. Lehmann noted the use and intensity of the property will
not change due to the addition, nor will access to the property and surrounding properties be
affected; finally the proposed addition will not interfere with visibility on Melrose Circle.
The second general standard is the exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of
other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminished or impair property
values in the neighborhood. Staff doesn't believe that proposed addition will impact the ability of
neighbors to utilize or enjoy the property nor will it negatively impact property values. Lehmann
added staff has included some correspondence in the agenda packet from a neighbor that
speaks to this point as well.
Criterion three states that the establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede
the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for use as
permitted in the district in which such property is located. Lehmann noted the surrounding
neighborhood is already developed with a mix of residential and institutional uses; the proposed
building addition won't be too close to any adjacent property under private ownership.
Criterion four states adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and or unnecessary facilities
have been or are being provided. Staff finds the subject property is already developed and all
utilities, access roads, and drainage is established already. He noted there's pedestrian access
provided to the east of the proposed location and the addition doesn't have any underground
utilities, so that won't be impacted. Finally, there is green space surrounding the proposed
addition that should allow for stormwater to be addressed.
Criterion five states adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Lehmann noted no changes from this
addition are being proposed the driveway, sidewalk or streets and the property is at the end of
the cul-de-sac so traffic is mostly limited to residents and parking won't be impacted by the
addition either which is on the west end of the house.
Board of Adjustment
May 13, 2020
Page 4 of 10
Criterion six requires that except for 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 which is located. Staff finds the proposed
addition won't cause it to violate any other standards such as lot coverage, maximum height,
rear and side setback requirements, it's only the front setback that is being impacted.
Criterion seven is the final one and states the proposed exception will be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan of the City as amended and the property is consistent with the Future
Land Use Map. Lehmann noted the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive and
Southwest District Plans designate this area for Single Family/Duplex Residential. The current
land use of this property is consistent with the Comprehensive and Southwest District Plans and
will not change because of the proposed special exception. The Comprehensive Plan also has
a vision statement which includes the following "to preserve historic resources in established
neighborhoods" and that is carried out through a variety of methods, one of which is supporting
the Historical Preservation Commission and reinvestment in housing in existing neighborhoods.
Lehmann noted that the Comprehensive Plan guides decisions for planning and development
within the City and it includes vision statements and goals and strategies to help reach
decisions. Another vision statement from the Comprehensive Plan is to protect the community's
assets which is carried out by continuing to support the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan.
The Historic Preservation Plan includes the goals "Continue municipal policy of protection of
historic resources and implement this policy through... regulatory measures' and "...integrate
preservation objectives in related planning work undertaken by the City of Iowa City". Lehmann
reiterated the building is a contributing structure to the National Register of Historic Places on
the Melrose Historic District, but again is not a local landmark. The proposed addition would
require the demolition of the sun porch, which is original to the property. Staff doesn't want to
jeopardize the historic nature of the building so recommends a condition that any changes to the
exterior of the structure should undergo historic review. Again, that would mean either review by
the historical preservation planner or the Historic Preservation Commission depending on the
work to be done. Lehmann added that if the applicant decides to proceed but doesn't want to
work within the front setback they could still build an addition, it would just have to abide by the
setback requirements.
Staff recommends approval of EXC20-04, to reduce the required front setback requirement
along Melrose Circle from 15 feet to 12 feet for the property located at 6 Melrose Circle subject
to the following condition:
1. All changes to the exterior of the structure that encroach within the setback must receive a
Certificate of Appropriateness or a Certificate of No Material Effect following a Historic
Preservation Review in accordance with the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook.
The condition is added to try to incorporate those Historic Preservation objectives that are tied
into the Comprehensive Plan and prevent the historic nature of the property from being
jeopardized.
Hazell asked for some background on how it is that this this area is on the national registry, but
it doesn't have the local historic preservation zoning. Russett replied that is one of the only
districts within the City that has multiple University properties and the City doesn't regulate
University properties and it is her understanding that it wasn't designated as a local district
because of that.
Board of Adjustment
May 13, 2020
Page 5 of 10
Tom Maxwell (6 Melrose Circle) first thanked the members of the Board for their service in their
time on the Board as volunteers. This is his first time presenting before a board like this, but he
tried to organize some thoughts regarding his application. Maxwell stated his family has been in
this house for 11 years this June and when they moved in, they were the newest to the
neighborhood, and the only ones with kids in the neighborhood. They didn't even know this
neighborhood existed until they were looking for a home as it's kind of tucked back away but is
a gem of a location really. Fast forward 11 years and they are now the second oldest in the
neighborhood and there's been a lot of change, an upside has been a lot of new kids in the
neighborhood. Maxwell noted the folks that wrote in, the letter that is part of the packet (at 3
Melrose Circle), they would be the longest tenured folks in the neighborhood, and Maxwell
believes their brief email was in support of the application. Maxwell stated they have seen a lot
of change in the neighborhood and to those homes in the 11 years. His family loves the house
and loves the neighborhood and the neighbors, and they want to continue raising their family
there. Maxwell noted when they bought the house, they had one young child at the time and
one on the way and the footprint of the house is not terribly big. It's an older home so storage
and restrooms are all challenges especially now with a 13-year-old and a 10-year-old. The
upstairs is three bedrooms and theirs has a butler door to the one of the other rooms which
doesn't make it the most private sometimes and the only full bathroom is upstairs. So they
debated even through they truly love the house do they stay, or do they move. If they stay they
wanted to try and make some changes that would fit their family better. They debated for like
five years about whether they save up the money and try and make some changes or whether
they move away. Finally they decided to stay and try to make these changes and add on space.
On the first floor they want to add a master suite and so from their perspective the logical spot to
do that was to remove the sun porch. Their goal was to make that space look like it fit and was
natural to the respect of an older home. They looked around for contractors and architects and
they came across Mr. Kennedy because he's received some awards for historical preservation
and working with older homes. They worked together and came up with these plans, a few
different iterations, with the idea to be able to age in place and add space, so that kids would be
upstairs and parents would be downstairs. The plan also includes having laundry moved to the
first level and in the master suite, currently it's in the basement. The other part was to have
entrance off the back deck and have a ramp there so they could live here as long as passible,
as their health allows. So that was their vision.
Maxwell next discussed the City's recommendation is to approve this application with this
condition that it go through some form of a historical preservation committee or review. Maxwell
is asking the Board approve the application without that condition. As show by the pictures seen
earlier of the neighborhood, it's an old neighborhood, and with these more recent zoning
ordinances on top of it, it creates some pretty quirky scenarios. For example, he didn't know this
until going through this application process, but their neighbors to the north, it sounds like they
own half of Melrose Circle, and that doesn't make them solely responsible to build or repair the
street, but it's just interesting, for example, then that their entire house is within the setback and
their neighbors are within the setback. His point is it's hard for him to reconcile because what
they are asking for is not that much into the setback and shouldn't have to go through the
historical preservation process. The fact that there is this National Historic Registry, that existed
or was obtained prior to their moving there. Neighbors know they are part of the National
Board of Adjustment
May 13, 2020
Page 6 of 10
Historic registry but also they clearly knew that they were not a local Historic District and at one
time had the opportunity to ask the City to go through that process and didn't want to do that as
they didn't want to have to deal with going through the process when they wanted to make
changes to their properties. Maxwell added since when they moved in 11 years ago, a lot has
changed in the entire area. Probably the biggest thing is the University has bought more and
more properties on Melrose Avenue and Melrose Court, it's got to be over half are now rental
properties. However back in their little circle they are all still single family residential. The
neighbors of Melrose Circle all got together in the circle, all seven homes on Melrose Circle, and
entered into voluntarily covenants about how they would handle repair to the street, gameday
parking, etc. His point is if the circle wanted to get the protection and responsibilities that come
along with being a historic district they would have done that and they didn't. Maxwell stated it's
important along those lines to note that none of their neighbors have objected, a few may have
had some questions, but no one resisted this application.
Maxwell wants to emphasize again it is the neighborhood on the National Historic Registry not
this particular home and not necessarily Melrose Circle. Additionally it is not a local historic
district, and doesn't bring all those responsibilities and issues to bear. In the 11 years they have
lived in the neighborhood, it has transformed and adapted with the times. As new families have
moved in, they have made changes to update and modernize a little bit of their homes to make
them more 20th century and a little bit more enjoyable. The biggest examples would be at 1
Melrose Circle and also the neighbor right next to them at 5 Melrose Circle. They've done some
significant updates so it is a little bit of a challenge for him to understand the reason that this
condition is being requested by the City just because they are asking for this special exception
to come into the setback area slightly. He noted the sunroom is to be removed and replaced
but is minimal compared to the neighbors at 5 Melrose Circle, who have done a tremendous
amount of work to a beautiful house and pretty much transformed it into an almost whole new
house. That property also had a sun porch, on the south side of its property, that was
completely removed. Granted that remodel and sunroom was not in any setback or they weren't
asking to do anything in addition to it, but his point is it was part of the original structure and it's
no longer there. Part of their renovation also included completely taking down their garage, and
in the City report there was some mention about the garages of this area also being contributing
factors to the historic nature. The garages of Melrose Circle were called out by the City as
historical and the neighbors removed their entire garage and built a new garage, probably about
one and a half times the size, maybe twice, and added a mother -in- law apartment that wasn't
there before. Maxwell understands they weren't asking to build within any setback that would
have required an exception but his point is these properties have been transformed quite a bit
and they're different even from what they were whenever the historic registry designation was
obtained. He is just asking to not be inconsistent with what's been going on within the
neighborhood itself. He doesn't think it would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan of
preserving historic properties by approving this application without that extra condition.
Maxwell also noted the sunroom that they're asking to essentially take down may have been
part of the original home, but according to the blueprints it was supposed to be just a porch, it
wasn't really meant to be a sunporch. That room has been a challenge for them in how to use it
in the winter it's freezing, there's no insulation above and there's no basement below, and in
Board of Adjustment
May 13, 2020
Page 7 of 10
summer it's incredibly hot in there. They have used it as a guest space and try and make it as
comfortable as they can but it's really not all that functional. They have looked into insulating but
there's no real practical way to make it any more usable condition. The overall condition is
deteriorating and there's not a whole lot of functionality. He is not an historic expert, but it's hard
to see that the sunporch adds some huge value to the home itself.
Maxwell noted they love the workmanship and craftsmanship of this home and the plan with this
addition is to try and repurpose and reuse as much as they could have from material from the
sunroom, the trim that's in there, the original flooring, the French doors, those will all be part of
this new addition. He stated they are concerned if it goes through a historic review process
there going to be some suggestion that it be in a different location, for example off the back of
the house, which just simply wouldn't be practical for their budget. He understands the need for
consistency and ordinances and zoning and review processes like this but it's more of a
personal issue that has just added on and more compounded by the fact that they've been
looking to do this for quite a while and they've put so much thought into how they want it to be
and they want it to be in line with the homes that are around them.
In closing Maxwell reiterated they love their home, they love their yard, they love the
neighborhood, they love the location, it's a great place for raising kids. One of the big things that
they love about this area is each of the lots are about a half -acre so there's plenty of room
between everybody and he doesn't think adding into the setback is going to impact things really
at all. Maxwell noted he works downtown as a lawyer at a law firm, his wife is the board
secretary at Midwest One so it's easy for them both to commute to work. The location is great
and they could bike or bus if they didn't have kids to taxi around. They love the Hawks and like
going across the street to games, who knows what this fall will look like. As mentioned, they
considered whether or not to do this addition, they didn't think about these things even 11 years
ago when they moved in, but now decided if they could stay here as long as they can, this is a
wonderful location. It's close to everything, there's obviously a wonderful hospital across the
street, walking distance to a lot of things and that really drives why they want to stay here and
doing this addition will allow them all that plus in the meantime, while the kids are home, more
room for them. They don't want a huge home to take care of or a huge amount of square
footage to take care of. Again, in closing they are simply asking that the application be
approved, but without the condition of the historic review process.
Mark Kennedy started working with these folks on this project about a year ago. For the record
his company has received a half a dozen or plus awards from the Historical Society so they're
well aware of making the addition look like it's part of the original home. He also supports the
Maxwell's request to remove the condition of the extra Historical Society review.
Thomas McInerney (architect) shared an animation to show a little more about what they're
proposing to do. He began with the front elevation of the street and that shows the covered
deck and it is decorative and part of the original style, which in this particular case is the Dutch
colonial gambrel cottage style. They are not entirely sure when the existing sunroom was
enclosed and that's something that provides some context in the framework. It doesn't really
contribute to the primary building, it is a different style of roof and it's his opinion it doesn't
Board of Adjustment
May 13, 2020
Page 8 of 10
actually contribute to the building's historic fabric. McInerney noted what's not mentioned in the
staff notes in the findings on item seven, is that in the City's Historic Preservation plan, it states
that that there is an objective to encourage the designation of the Melrose Historic District as a
local historic district. However on the City's website it has that information about not being a
local historic district so it seems like there's some form of an inconsistency, maybe a double
standard of sorts that the interpretation of it may be a little stringent to the case. The concern
he has is trying to explain it to people that just saw the house next door tear down their garage
and build something that looks like the house. McInerney stated they feel that there is a certain
amount of perspective they need to put into the situation and that there should be a priority of
understanding the real nature of this is not to determine if this is historic or not but instead if this
can be a livable community where people can age in place. The concern is the less of those
places there are, the more likely the University will actually buy the area up. Therefore the
improvements that they are proposing here, will actually facilitate a better buffer between land
being acquired by the University to make it a use as a parking lot which is like next door.
Pretorius closed the public hearing.
Chrischilles stated it appears to him that the applicants intend to add on to their home in a
manner consistent with the existing structure and doesn't think that the three feet really makes a
difference. He would support the applicant's position that historical review is not necessarily
needed if they intend to make it look like the rest of the house, which they have said they do.
Hazell has similar thoughts that based on the current layout and look, and especially based on
the lack of local designation for the property. He doesn't think the applicant is going to change
the plan of what it looks like but they could add a condition that what is built is a version that
looks similar to what is currently presented and then it would be okay to remove that historic
review.
Pretorius stated she echoes the other's sentiments and personally feels a lot of setbacks are
excessive. Additionally the Historical Preservation Committee can make it often impossible or
incredibly expensive to meet their expectations even when half the time very good ideas are
being presented or smart ideas from installing things that are efficient and that makes sense for
once again people who are living in their homes to stay in their homes. She agrees she doesn't
see the need for the certification in accordance with the Historic Preservation.
Chrischilles asked if he is interpreting this correctly, that they are not in a local Historic District
so that any recommendations of the Historic Preservation Committee would not be binding
anyway and therefore, redundant.
Dulek stated if the BOA makes it a condition the HPC review would be binding but absent the
BOA making a condition HPC has no role or jurisdiction over the property.
Cox stated he is feeling about the same way as most of the rest of the Board and feels like
adding this as a condition is an attempt to find a way to engage the historic preservation
process, because there's no other way to do it in a binding way, and that just does not feel like a
Board of Adjustment
May 13, 2020
Page 9 of 10
good use of the Board's ability to put conditions on application. From everything he has heard
and seen it seems like the Maxwell's want to stay in this home. They've been in it over a decade
and have continued to maintain it. He drove through the neighborhood today, it's a beautiful
property and a nice neighborhood and don't see anything in the future plans that would
drastically change the look of that home. He feels that's the best they're going to do because it
is completely surrounded by University properties that they have absolutely no historic
preservation capability over and here they have an owner that's willing to keep doing that.
Hazell moved approval of EXC20-04, to reduce the required front setback requirement
along Melrose Circle from 15 feet to 12 feet for the property located at 6 Melrose Circle.
Chrischilles seconded the motion.
Hazell stated regarding agenda item EXC20-04 he concurs with the findings set forth in the staff
report of this meeting date, May 13, 2020, with the exception of the need for historical review,
and concludes that the general and specific criteria are satisfied unless amended or opposed by
another board member. He recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the staff report for
the approval of this proposal. Chrischilles seconded the findings.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0. (Parker arrived late and was not present to
hear all the public testimony so recused himself from this vote).
Pretorius stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision
to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk's
Office.
CONSIDER THE APRIL 8, 2020 MINUTES:
Chrischilles moved to approve the minutes of April 8, 2020. Parker seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 5-0.
ADJOURNMENT:
Hazell moved to adjourn this meeting, Chrischilles seconded, a vote was taken and all
approved.
Board of Adjustment
May 13, 2020
Page 10 of 10
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2020
NAME
TERM
EXP.
1/8
2112
418
5/13
CHRISCHILLES, GENE
12/31/2022
X
X
X
X
COX, ERNIE
12/31/2020
X
O/E
X
X
HAZELL, ZEPHAN
12/31/2021
X
O/E
X
X
PARKER, BRYCE
12/31/2024
0/E
X
X
X
PRETORIUS, AMY
12/31/2023
X
X
X
X
Key: X = Present
0 - Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
-- -- = Not a Member