Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 7-26-2017MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMES, IOWA JULY 26, 2017 The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 6:10 p.m. on July 26, 2017, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present: Amelia Schoeneman, Kyle Perkins, Shelby Ebel, Matthew Koehler, and Susan Bradbury. Assistant City Attorney Victoria Feilmeyer and City Planner Justin Moore were also present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Perkins, seconded by Koehler, to approve the minutes of the meeting of June 28, 2017. Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. CASE NO. 17-13 VARIANCE – Justin Greenfield/Classic Builders, Public Hearing on application for a Variance for rear yard setback on the property located at 426 Sunflower Drive City Planner Justin Moore displayed a site plan for the project. Classic Builders has constructed a single-family attached home located on two parcels at 426 and 430 Sunflower Drive. The home was approved in February 2017, and constructed on Lots 2 and 3 of the Southfork Subdivision, 9th Addition located in a Residential Low Density (FS-RL) zoning district. Classic Builders is seeking a Variance to the required 20-foot rear yard setback requirement at 426 Sunflower for the single-family attached home to obtain relief from rear yard setback requirements due to an approved building permit being issued and the home already being constructed. City staff discovered that the site plan submitted for the home did not indicate the proper rear yard setback for the home prior to approval and construction. The home was constructed 7.2 feet from the east rear property boundary of 426 Sunflower Drive, similar to that of the home at 430 Sunflower Drive. All other setbacks are met on the property, and the single-family attached home is an allowed use in the Residential Low Density (FS-RL) zoning district. The surrounding properties are zoned FS-RL or RL, both being Residential Low Density zones allowing for single-family attached and detached housing. The residence is located to the northeast of the intersection where Coy Street and Sunflower Drive intersect. Because of the adjacent intersection, 430 Sunflower Drive (Lot 3) is a corner lot, and 426 Sunflower Drive (Lot 2) is an interior lot. The corner lot has a front setback on two sides and a side setback from the property boundary on the east. The interior lot has a standard front setback of 25 feet and a standard side setback of six feet from the property boundary on the north. The interior lot also has a standard rear setback of 20 feet from the property boundary on the east. The common wall shared by the units has a zero setback lot line allowance. City staff discovered that the home had been approved with the incorrect rear yard setbacks during consultation between the Building Inspections staff and Planning staff. The consideration for the Board is to decide whether or not to grant relief from the required 20-foot rear yard setback at 426 Sunflower Drive instead to a 7.2-foot rear yard setback that has already been constructed. The site plan, project description, applicable law, and Findings of Fact and Conclusions were reviewed in detail by Mr. Moore. It was said that if the Variance from the rear setback is granted, the public interest in building separation to provide light and air will be compromised. Given the requirements of the ordinance, and the responsibility of the applicant to have such information and abide by the ordinance, it is not seen to be within the spirit of the ordinance to allow the rear setback to be shortened to 7.2 feet. The cost to demolish and reconstruct the property can be considered significant. However, based on staff’s review, the cost has been created by the applicant in not abiding b y the rear setback requirements found in the zoning ordinance. A financial hardship must be found to be pre- existing in order to be considered as criteria for granting a Variance. In this instance, the applicant had a duty to abide by the ordinance, and in not doing, created a self-imposed circumstance that could significantly add to the cost of construction on this property. Mr. Moore stated that based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, it is the recommendation of the Planning and Housing Department that the Zoning Board of Adjustment deny the request for a Variance for a reduced rear setback of 7.2 feet on the property located at 426 Sunflower Drive. However, the approval and issuance of the building permit by the City allowed for construction of the single-family attached home at 426 Sunflower Drive to take place. Staff acknowledges that an error was made in issuing the building permit for this property in that the incorrect rear yard setback was approved via the site plan attached to the building permit. Since the process of correcting the setback violation is substantial for the owner, the Zoning Board can decide if allowing a reduced rear yard setback is appropriate given the circumstances in this instance. Ms. Ebel asked if the neighbors located to the east had signed the Adjoining Property Owner Statement. It was said that they did sign, and had no objections. Mr. Moore clarified that the Variance is just for 426 Sunflower Drive. The single-family attached home is considered two separate parcels with an adjoining wall. There are no concerns with 43 0 Sunflower Drive. Keith Arneson, 4144 Cochrane Parkway, Ames, Iowa was sworn in and testified under oath. He stated that he is the developer of the subdivision in which 426 Sunflower Drive is located. He said that it has been difficult to incorporate the older homes in the neighborhood and the new ones being built due to the various ages of residents and price range of homes. Mr. Arneson stated that he hired an engineer to see what types of affordable homes could be built in the nine lots. Throughout the development process, the Planning Department was involved and had approved the final plat. The single-family attached home was built according to the approved plan. It was said that the property owners located at 3601 and 3515 Coy Street wrote a letter stating they do not believe 426 Sunflower Drive is an issue or presents a negative impact on their property. Mr. Arneson stated that the concern with the rear yard setback appeared when the construction of the deck was supposed to begin. At that time, the house had already been constructed. Ms. Bradbury asked if there had been any inspections of the home. It was said that inspections had been done throughout the process, and had been signed off on. Seth Moulton, 2874 NW 86th Place, Ankeny, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath. He stated that Classic Builders is the largest single-family home builder company in Iowa, and they were contracted to build the property. He said that each site plan submitted has to go through many hands to get approval, and it is expected that the City will look after their own ordinances when approving a site plan. Mr. Moulton stated that if the lot was zoned for duplexes rather than single-family homes, it would fit the ordinances. Mr. Moore replied by saying that would be correct if the lot was zoned properly and it was all one parcel. In the FS-RL zoning district duplex homes are only allowed if they are pre-existing, so in this case it is considered a single-family attached home. Mr. Moulton indicated that tearing down the structure and rebuilding would be a significant hardship for the owner. There are also several parties now involved including the seller, a renter who was supposed to move in August 1, and the buyer who cannot obtain financing without an occupancy permit. Mr. Moulton thanked the Board and the City for their time on the case, and he hopes that a decision will be made to keep the property a permanent residence in Ames. Ms. Bradbury asked if the property were to be demolished, would both units need to be taken down or just the one located at 426 Sunflower Drive. Mr. Moulton stated that only the one unit would be demolished since the other has met the setback requirements. Precise engineering would need to be done to ensure the other property is not compromised. Mr. Moulton said that it would be a very difficult process since walls are shared, and the basement would be affected too. Mr. Moore reminded the Board that the decision to grant or deny the Variance is ultimately in their hands. Ms. Ebel identified her Findings of Fact. She said there is adequate air and light for the property, and if it is acceptable for 430 Sunflower Drive, she believes criterion is met for 426 Sunflower Drive. Ms. Ebel also mentioned that due to the cost to demolish and rebuild, the unit would have to be sold for $500,000 - $600,000 to make up for the expenses. She believes that would not be a reasonable return; therefore, she stated criterion is met. Ms. Schoeneman agreed that it is reasonable to get back what is put in to the project. Ms. Ebel proceeded to her next finding, and stated this situation is a unique circumstance, so the criterion has been met. Ms. Ebel said that based on the statement of support provided by the adjacent property owners, criterion is met in regards to the spirit of the Ordinance. Lastly, Ms. Ebel said that substantial justice is met because it allows them to keep the structure that was approved by the City; building a new structure would be unjust. According to her findings, the criterion is met. Moved by Ebel, seconded by Perkins, to approve ORDER NO. 17-13, thereby approving the request for a Variance for 426 Sunflower Drive for a reduced rear yard setback of 7.2 feet, based on the findings the Board made to support the criteria that the Variance is necessary for a reasonable return on the property. Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. COMMENTS: There were no comments by the Board. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Perkins, seconded by Ebel, to adjourn the meeting at 7:01 p.m. _____________________________ _____________________________ Heidi Petersen, Recording Secretary Shelby Ebel, Chair