HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 5-27-2015MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AMES, IOWA MAY 27, 2015
The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 7:00 p.m. on
May 27, 2015, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present:
Shelby Ebel, Michael Davis, Kyle Perkins, and Matthew Koehler. Board Member Susan
Bradbury was absent. Staff members Ray Anderson, Charlie Kuester and Jessica Spoden were
also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Koehler, seconded by Davis, to approve the minutes
of the meeting of May 13, 2015, as written.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 15-11
SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION – Dawn Slining, 1603 Burnett Avenue
Public Hearing on application for Special Home Occupation Permit to allow a home hair
salon on the property located at 1603 Burnett Avenue*
City Planner Ray Anderson displayed a location map and site plan for the project. He noted that
the applicant has submitted a request to allow for a beauty salon located at 1603 Burnett Avenue.
There has been a beauty salon at this location for the past 35 years; the new salon will replace the
old in the basement of the home. The business will be by appointment only and will operate
Monday through Friday. The applicant has noted that the business will not require any exterior
additions to the home, and no major changes are proposed to the space to be occupied by the
salon. The workspace will occupy 690 square feet of the 874 square feet in the basement of the
house; the total amount of gross floor area in the entire house is 3,188 square feet.
The site plan, project description, applicable law, and findings of fact and conclusions were
reviewed in detail by Mr. Anderson. He explained that City staff has reviewed the request and
recommends that the Board approve the request for a Special Home Occupation Permit.
Dawn Slining, 526 West 5th Street, noted that her hours of operation would be from 9 a.m. to 5
p.m. with no weekend or evening hours.
Darrell Abel, 1603 Burnett Avenue, informed the Board that his wife has run a salon out of the
home at 1603 Burnett for 35 years and said that they never received complaints from the
neighbors regarding traffic or vehicles. He expressed that they are moving because they are
retiring and said that the sale of their home is dependent on the approval of the Special Home
Occupation Permit.
Ms. Ebel inquired if the applicant could change the hours of operation on their own. Mr.
Anderson replied that the applicant would need to come back to the Board for that approval.
Moved by Davis, seconded by Perkins, to adopt ORDER NO. 15-11, thereby approving the
request for a Special Home Occupation Permit to allow a beauty salon at 1603 Burnett Avenue,
based on the findings of fact and conclusions.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 15-10
VARIANCE – Clint and Jan Petersen, 2957 Monroe Drive
Public Hearing on application for Variance to allow for the construction of a garage
addition which would accommodate a third vehicle on the property located at 2957 Monroe
Drive*
City Planner Charlie Kuester displayed a location map and site plan for the project. The applicant
is requesting a Variance to allow the construction of an addition to a single-family home that
does not meet the minimum required setback of 6 feet from the side property line. The applicant
is proposing an addition with one corner having a side setback of one foot. Mr. Kuester
summarized the conditions that the applicant meets, as well as the two conditions which staff
feels the applicant does not meet.
The owner wishes to construct a third stall on the north side of the existing attached garage that
would be one foot from the side lot line to the north. The adjacent property is a 25’ leg of
Parkview Park, owned by the City. This leg is one of 14 City-owned access points to the 13.4
acre park located behind the homes in the Parkview Heights development. An additional access
is via pedestrian easement across privately owned land. The lot is also located on a bulb of
Monroe Drive which has three driveways off of it. The lot is wider at the rear of the lot and
narrower at the front as is typical for a cul-de-sac. In addition, the front line is irregular due to
the bulb.
Mr. Kuester also noted that in 2011 the current owner of the subject property sought a property
variance to allow the garage addition to come within 0.4 foot of the property line; the Board
denied that request. This application comes forward with a re-designed layout, increasing the
proposed distance to 1.0 feet.
Two responses were received as a result of this variance request. The owner who lives at 2969
Monroe Drive supports the request stating that it will not affect the entrance to the greenbelt. The
director of the Parks and Recreation Department has no objections but requests that, if approved
a number of conditions be placed on the approval. These conditions are found in the alternatives;
conditions would stem from concerns regarding an existing encroachment into the park property
at this address based on aerial photographs. The director would request that the property pins be
located and examined by City staff and that existing encroachments be removed and no
encroachments occur during construction.
The site plan, project description, applicable law, and findings of fact and conclusions were
reviewed in detail by Mr. Kuester. He explained that City staff has reviewed the request and
recommends that the Board deny the request for a Variance.
Clint Petersen, 2957 Monroe Drive, noted that they have done many renovations to their home
and expressed that after speaking with a realtor, the realtor noted that they would be in a different
price range if they were able to add on a third stall garage. Mr. Petersen expressed that he then
hired an engineering firm to give him some images of what would be possible by code. He said
that ideally he could add on to the existing garage; not right next to the lot line but a foot back.
Mr. Petersen said that he doesn’t want to close up the park access or disturb it in any way. He
disagrees with planning staff in that he feels he does have a unique property that needs a variance
in order to accomplish his goal of a three stall garage. He noted that a couple other properties in
his neighborhood have the same uniqueness and have been granted variances for their properties.
In conclusion, he informed the Board that eleven of the fourteen comparable homes in his
neighborhood currently for sale in the area have three stall garages and he feels that three stalls is
pertinent for the re-sale value and price range they want to be in.
John Elliott, 2963 Monroe Drive, informed the Board that he also has a three stall garage that
was built back in 1999 with a variance and noted he is closest to the applicant’s home. Mr. Elliott
expressed that even if the variance is granted, his home and Mr. Petersen’s home would never
have less than twelve feet between their homes because the City has 25 feet of park property
between the two homes. In conclusion, he expressed that he has no objections to the construction
of the addition and that the Petersen’s have the consensus of the other neighbors, as well.
Kevin Anderson, 2914 Monroe Drive, would like to note that he and his wife feel the variance
for this project should be approved by the Board.
Jeff Margrett, 2966 Monroe Drive, lives directly across the street from Mr. Petersen and has the
most direct view of his home. He would prefer to have a third stall garage built because it would
be the most aesthetically pleasing, and feels a garage would be best for the park access compared
to a slab of concrete or fence.
Mr. Kuester said that when Mr. Petersen applied for a variance a few years ago, they investigated
whether or not the Parks and Recreation Department would be interested in selling some of the
park property which would allow the garage to be built closer to the side yard setbacks but the
Parks and Recreation Department was not at all interested in selling any of their land.
Mr. Davis expressed his agreement with the applicant that the inclusion of a three stall garage is
pertinent to buyers, as well as to the uniqueness of their lot and how it sits on the property. He
also feels that properties with access ways create a more unique situation.
Mr. Koehler noted that he feels that precedence has been set with the two variances that have
already been granted in the same neighborhood, and agrees that it is a unique situation.
Ms. Ebel also agrees with the uniqueness of the property but has difficulty finding where there is
hardship for the applicant.
Moved by Davis, seconded by Koehler, to adopt ORDER NO. 15-10, thereby approving the
request for a Variance at 2957 Monroe Drive for an attached garage having a side setback of one
foot, based upon the site plan, project description, applicable law, and findings of fact and
conclusions.
Vote on Motion: 3-1. Voting Aye: Perkins, Davis, Koehler. Voting Nay: Ebel. Motion declared
carried.
CASE NO. 15-09
VARIANCE – Alpha Gamma Rho Eta Alumni Corporation, 201 Gray Avenue
Public Hearing on application for Variance for front yard setback for expansion of
principle building on the property located at 201 Gray Avenue*
City Planner Charlie Kuester displayed a location map and site plan for the project. The applicant
is requesting a Variance to allow the construction of an addition to a fraternity house that does
not meet the minimum required setback of 25 feet from the front property line. The applicant
proposes an addition with one corner having a front setback of 20 feet.
Mr. Kuester explained that the intention of the applicant is to expand its fraternity house on Gray
Avenue in order to provide more space for its Chapter members to study, to gather for meetings
and events, and other uses. Although the Chapter is not increasing in size, it finds that the
expansion of the spaces in the house is needed to retain current membership in an environment
that is increasingly competitive for Greek chapter membership.
The residence is located at an unusual intersection where Gray Avenue, Gable Lane and Sunset
Drive all intersect forming a semi-circle street frontage. The property is on the east end of a
block and has streets on three sides. Mr. Kuester noted that because of the street curvature it has
a front setback on three sides and side setback from the other property boundary on the west. The
on-site parking is located between the west property boundary and the building, which is the only
location that meets the zoning requirements for the location of parking. Only about 20 feet is
available between the north and south ends of the building and the setback. There is
approximately 40 feet for an addition to the east between the building and the setback line.
Mr. Kuester informed the Board that the proposed addition is 5,400 square feet on three levels.
The lower level will contain fixed seating for presentations and meetings, as well as an open,
level area for overflow and for more informal gatherings. The first floor of the addition will
provide a living room, replacing the existing living room, which is being renovated for a
conference room and circulation space. The second floor will add 14 study spaces.
In conclusion, the attached site plan has not yet been reviewed by the City Development Review
Committee to determine if it meets all of the codes and standards of the City. In this case, the
applicant is not able to proceed with the detailed design necessary to complete the Minor Site
Development Plan application, without first determining whether a variance will be granted. The
Board is only considering approval of the variance to locate the building footprint 20 feet from
the front property line not the final design or appearance of the building.
The site plan, project description, applicable law, and findings of fact and conclusions were
reviewed in detail by Mr. Kuester. He noted that the Board may approve the request for a
variance at 201 Gray Avenue for a building addition with one corner havin g a front setback of 20
feet if it makes findings that support the criteria that the variance is necessary for a reasonable
return on the property. However, staff recommends that the Board deny the request for a
Variance based on the findings of fact and conclusions.
Mike Nissly, 19989 135th Street, Iowa Falls, touched on the one criterion that staff finds they do
not meet. On page five of the staff report it notes that the applicant feels that in order to maintain
a reasonable return, the quality of the chapter house must continue to be competitive and provide
all of the proposed improvements and spaces. Then, the report says that staff does not feel the
improvements and spaces proposed will help make the house more competitive.
Mr. Nissly informed the Board that Iowa State University is adding on a dorm with 784 rooms
very close to their property and said that the construction of the dorm will definitely have an
impact on their housing. He noted that the cost quote per student space at Iowa State University
is $63,137 and for their fraternity it is $96,430 per student space. Mr. Nissly said that in Iowa
State’s literature of their new dorm, they boast that the new dorm has been designed with help
from students and will contain large rooms with informal and formal gathering spaces, spaces for
interactions among students, group and private study spaces, rooms that will house two students
each and will also accommodate modular furniture. Mr. Nissly noted that he brings up these
points of what Iowa State is doing to inform the Board of what their competition is doing to
bring in students. In conclusion, he expressed that they need this variance to keep up with their
competitors who have housing nearby.
Mr. Koehler asked Mr. Nissly about the alternative plan and why that plan isn’t their first choice.
Mr. Nissly said that they would really like approval for their preferred proposal in order to keep
with the existing architecture; the alternative option doesn’t keep with the roof lines and
aesthetics of the existing house.
Ms. Ebel noted that she has been on the Board for other sorority and fraternity variances that
have been adopted. She expressed her understanding of how difficult it must be to sustain
membership numbers with so many fraternities and sororities, as well as Iowa State dorms,
remodeling or building new. Ms. Ebel also expressed that she disagrees with staff and that the
fraternity is in a position that presents a hardship.
Mr. Davis asked Mr. Nissly to remind him of the cost per student space at Iowa State University
versus at their fraternity. Mr. Nissly said that the quote per student space at Iowa State is $63,137
and for them it is $96,430 per student. Mr. Davis expressed that he feels this is certainly a
hardship for the fraternity.
Moved by Koehler, seconded by Perkins, to adopt ORDER NO. 15-09, to allow for Variance for
front yard setback for expansion of principle building on the property located at 201 Gray
Avenue based upon the site plan, project description, applicable law, and findings of fact and
conclusions.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
COMMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Perkins, seconded by Davis, to adjourn the meeting at 8:07 p.m.
_____________________________ _________________________________
Erin Cain, Recording Secretary Shelby Ebel, Chair