Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 1-8-20141 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMES, IOWA JANUARY 8, 2014 The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 7:00 p.m. on January 8, 2014, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present: Patrick Brooks, Shelby Ebel, Elizabeth Erbes, and Gary Taylor. Vice Chair Sandra McJimsey was absent. Staff members Kelly Diekmann, Jeff Benson, Charlie Kuester, and Mark Lambert were also present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Erbes, seconded by Ebel, to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 13, 2013, as written. Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. CASE NO. 13-12 VARIANCE - ARNESON, 2811, 2817, & 2828 WEST STREET Public Hearing on application for Variance from building height restrictions on the properties located at 2811, 2817, and 2823 West Street City Planner Charlie Kuester explained that West Street Lofts LLC, represented by Keith Arneson, is the applicant for a height variance in the West University Impacted Overlay District. The project is an addition to an existing four-story apartment building located at 2811 West Street, which was built in 2009. The applicant also owns the two adjacent buildings located at 2817 and 2823 West Street. These buildings are single-family homes that have been converted to apartment dwellings. Mr. Kuester indicated that both properties are in disrepair and are operating under a one-year temporary Letter of Compliance under the City’s Rental Housing Code. A significant capital investment would be required to obtain a permanent Letter of Compliance. Mr. Kuester said that the applicant seeks to demolish the two single-family home buildings, combine all three lots into a single parcel, and construct an addition to the existing apartment building. According to Mr. Kuester, the height limit in the High Density Residential District is 100 feet. However, the West University Impacted Overlay District imposes a more restrictive 45-foot height limit because it was at one time characterized predominantly by single-family homes. Mr. Kuester explained that building height is calculated by measuring from the average grade around a building to a point halfway between the peak and gutters. The existing apartment building meets the 45-foot height limit, and if built separately, the proposed addition would also meet the height limit. However, because the grade on the proposed addition drops approximately 8 feet to the west, the average grade on the entire site would be lowered, resulting in a total measured height of 47 feet 9 inches for the existing building. Mr. Kuester reviewed the variance criteria from Municipal Code Section 29.1504(4) as detailed in the staff report. He stated that City staff has found the application to meet all of the standards, and approval is recommended. Keith Arneson, 4114 Cochrane Parkway, Ames, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath. He commended City staff for defining the technical aspects and issues associated with the project. Mr. Arneson gave a brief history of the changes in development standards in the subject area. He said that in the year 2000, he removed three run-down houses and built a new apartment complex near the subject property. At that time, there was a tax abatement program available for the redevelopment of dilapidated properties. That program has since gone away; however, when the West University Impacted Overlay district was created, the more stringent design guidelines associated with the tax abatement program remained in place. Mr. Arneson noted that parking requirements in the area have changed as well. When the other building 2 was built in 2000, two parking spaces were required for every three-bedroom unit. Currently the City Code requires 3.75 spaces per three-bedroom unit. Mr. Arneson pointed out that he has only recently acquired the two run-down properties. He said that he believes the new addition will fit well and will be an asset to the area. Moved by Brooks, seconded by Erbes, to adopt ORDER NO. 13-12, thereby approving the request for a Variance to allow an increase in the calculated height to allow a building of 47 feet 9 inches as shown on the elevation plan for the properties located at 2811, 2817, and 2823 West Street, based upon the findings and conclusions as stated in the staff report. Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Motion declared approved unanimously. CASE NO. 13-13 SPECIAL USE PERMIT - VILLAGE COOPERATIVE OF AMES, 2899 CEDAR LANE Public Hearing on application for Special Use Permit to allow construction of an independent senior living facility on the property located at 2899 Cedar Lane City Planner Jeff Benson stated that the subject property is located along Oakwood Road at the corner of Cedar Lane, in the Ringgenberg Park Subdivision. He explained that the subdivision was first approved in 2005 as collection of single-family detached homes and some 10-unit apartment buildings. During that time, the 17 acres on the north end was designated Suburban Residential Medium-Density (FS-RM) for small apartment buildings. The plan for the area was later changed, and some of the planned homes and apartment buildings have been removed. Mr. Benson explained that the subject property, addressed as 2899 Cedar Lane, is part of a Master Plan that was approved by the City Council in November of 2013. The Plan includes eight 10-unit apartment buildings, three single-family detached homes, and an independent senior living facility. Mr. Benson noted that a senior living facility is a use that is allowed in an RM zoning district if a Special Use Permit is approved by the ZBA. The Code allows an unlimited number of units and a building up to 50 feet in height. Mr. Benson explained that, by requiring residents to be 55 years of age and older, and requiring the Special Use Permit, the Land Use Policy Plan gives further assurance that the use will fit in with the zone. Mr. Benson explained that because the subject area is governed by a Master Plan, Preliminary Plat, and a Major Site Development Plan, many of the features that the Board would look for to mitigate impacts are already required by previous approvals given to this project. Mr. Benson noted that the Plan has approved of 149 units including the senior living facility, which is at the low end of the density that is allowed in the area, so the number of units is not an issue with this proposal. According to Mr. Benson, traffic is often a concern when considering a Special Use Permit. He said that when the subdivision was first approved, traffic impact studies were done. Improvements were required on Cedar Lane to accommodate all of the traffic from the subdivision, including the single-family homes and apartments. Those traffic improvements have either already been installed or are still required by a binding agreement signed by the developer in 2005. Since the time of the traffic study, the number of planned homes in the subdivision has decreased. Mr. Benson stated that traffic associated with the proposed independent senior living facility will be less than originally expected. The storm water plan for the area was reviewed by Mr. Benson. He said that the storm water runoff from most of the property will go to a series of detention ponds. The water is treated for quality through settling basins and vegetative swales. Mr. Benson explained that the capacity of the detention areas is such that the runoff rate after development is approximately 80% lower than before development. He noted that the storm water plan has been reviewed and approved by the City engineers. 3 Mr. Benson stated that another element of the plan that is important for this use is the distance of the development from property lines and surroundings. He displayed the site plan, noting that the senior living facility is significantly farther away from the property lines than required by Code. He said that, even though the building is large, it is well-separated from existing buildings and proposed future buildings. The building elevation drawings were reviewed by Mr. Benson. He explained that the Special Use Permit criteria also require the proposal to be architecturally compatible with the area. The building’s design features give it a residential scale and appearance, which is compatible with its surroundings. Mr. Benson noted that a large share of the parking for the facility is located underground beneath the building. He also explained that there is a 50-foot maximum building height in the FS-RM zone, and the proposed building is just under that threshold. Mr. Benson said that the building design and grade have been managed to reduce the visible appearance of the height as much as possible. The details of the landscaping plan and requirements were reviewed, and Mr. Benson advised that the site design provides landscape buffering to minimize its impact on the use of adjacent properties. He noted that the staff report lists the Special Use Permit criteria and staff’s findings of fact and conclusions with regard to the application. Staff has found that the request meets all of the standards in the Code. Mr. Benson emphasized that the use of the property as a senior living facility is important. When the project was first proposed as part of the Master Plan, the developer indicated that the facility would be owner- occupied. According to Mr. Benson, that was an important part of obtaining support from the neighborhood for this project. He explained that, while the proposed use is set up as a co-op ownership model, a senior living facility may be either a rental or owner-occupied as defined by the Zoning Code. He noted that a page from the cooperative’s articles of incorporation was included in the Board’s packet. Mr. Benson said that this particular project is financed through the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which requires that the facility be owner-occupied. According to the developer, the project could stay HUD- financed throughout its lifetime. Mr. Benson said that, in order for the use to exist in this location and zone, the City does require that all of the residents need to be age 55 and older. He said that there is some concern about enforcing that requirement because if the age of residents changes, the building is no longer permitted. Mr. Benson explained that all zoning codes are enforced on a complaint basis; if a person would have reason to believe that someone younger than 55 is living there, they would be able to ask the City to verify that the zoning ordinance is being followed. Mr. Benson said that City staff believes it would be helpful for the City to have some way of documenting and verifying that the residents are over 55 years. Staff is recommending a condition that would “require the permittee to provide proof upon request of the City to show or allow the City to verify the compliance with the age restriction on residents, including but not limited to, providing to the City the minutes of the annual meeting of the Corporation, of the Board and minutes of meetings of either that occur besides the annual ones.” Mr. Benson reiterated that the age limit is an important requirement for the project, and the City needs some assurance that the rule is being followed. Board Member Ebel inquired about the underground parking and its access. Mr. Benson indicated that there are 89 total parking spaces for the project, and 58 of those are in the lowest level of the building. He stated that the parking runs the entire length of the building and can be accessed at either end. Upon being further questioned by Ms. Ebel, Mr. Benson explained that Bobcat Drive is a private drive, but is named for emergency access purposes. He also noted that the City’s Traffic Engineer has reviewed and approved the site plan. Board Member Brooks asked for clarification regarding staff’s proposed condition. He is unsure that the minutes of the Corporation will assist the City in determining the age of the building’s residents. Mr. Benson said that the age restriction is in the articles of incorporation and the Municipal Code. The fact that the shareholders live there gives the City some degree of confidence of continued compliance. Mr. Brooks 4 stated that oftentimes this kind of association will have a requirement that the president of the board must file a certificate attesting to the fact that this rule has been complied with. He said that there are two possible situations: if no one needs to sign anything it will be overlooked, or if someone has to sign a certificate that says it’s being followed, they will police it. Mr. Benson said that he does not have any basis on the best approach, but he thinks that the City does need help in policing it. Mr. Brooks said that he knows of a number of situations where school age children and grandchildren are living in these kinds of units, and he does not doubt that something similar could happen here, especially in a college town. He stated that, as a Board member, he would be remiss in not creating a system that requires some form of self enforcement. Planning and Housing Director Kelly Diekmann asked if Mr. Brooks was suggesting an annual review of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Brooks said that the age restriction is something that shows up on the property’s abstract along with the corporate documents. Often the corporate board of directors and/or president is required to sign a certificate that is filed with the County Recorder. He suggested that the ZBA require something similar in this case; it would be official and become public record. With that kind of system, people would be more apt to follow the rule. He is hesitant to vote on anything less than that, as he does not think that the City will get much policing. Mr. Brooks noted that the applicant will be out of the picture at some point down the road. He is not swayed by assurances in this kind of situation. Options for the reporting requirement were discussed by the Board. It was noted that staff and Board members were unaware of an instance when the ZBA has required documents to be filed with the County. Upon being questioned by Board Member Erbes, Mr. Benson explained that the age requirement is enforced by the City, and anyone is eligible to file a complaint. He said that the Code is set up so that a facility of this size and scale is compatible with its surroundings and the impacts can be mitigated as long as the residents are 55 and older. The people around it have an interest in making sure that the zoning is followed. Director Diekmann said that this type of facility is self-policing to a great degree. It is not intended to be a burden on the City staff to review and manage its occupancy. He said that, while there is always a chance of compliance issues, it seems to be more limited in this situation because of the arrangement of ownership that is proposed by the applicant. The occupants will look after their own interests as owners of the cooperative. Shane Wright, 1400 Corporate Center Curve, Eagan, Minnesota, was sworn in and testified under oath. He stated that he was representing Real Estate Equities Development (REED), Village Cooperative, and the pre-qualified buyers who wish to move in to the development. He said that REED is a multi-family residential developer that has been involved with co-op housing for about 11 years. The proposal in Ames is a limited equity owner-occupied market rate senior housing cooperative. Mr. Wright clarified that the project involves a HUD-insured mortgage, but it is not financed by HUD. He explained that HUD insures, underwrites, and puts restrictive covenants (fair housing, architectural design requirements, financing review) on the project, but it does not provide any financing. Mr. Wright indicated that the co-op is restricted by the bylaws and articles of incorporation to be a 55 and older facility. He said that there would never be a circumstance when that would change. He noted, however, that there could be a situation where a resident is 75 and the spouse is 45, and that would be allowable under the HUD guidelines. Mr. Wright emphasized that the age restriction is with the project forever. He said that it is not self-policing - it is actually a restriction. Anyone who wants to move in has to be approved by the co-op, and in order to be approved they have to age-qualify. He said that he is not aware of any co-op anywhere that has to do a reporting for the 55-plus requirement, because it is already internally covered in their documents. He requested that the Board not impose a reporting requirement. 5 With regard to the underground parking, Mr. Wright clarified that the driveway underneath is one way in and one way out, with an entrance on the southeast and exit on the northwest. Kurt Friedrich, Friedrich Land Development,100 6 Street, Ames, Iowa, was sworn in and testified underth oath. He stated that he is the property owner, and that they have worked diligently with City staff, Mr. Wright and his company, and with neighbors to go through the process of approving the Master Plan, Major Site Development Plan, and Preliminary Plat. He said that the addition of the Village Housing Cooperative in the Ringgenberg Park Subdivision will provide diversity and enhance the neighborhood. Chair Taylor asked how the issue of spouses under age 55 fits with the provision in the zoning code. Planner Benson indicated that the issue had not come up or been discussed. Mr. Wright advised that this project is between 85 and 90 percent pre-sold, and the average age of the buyers is 77, the youngest being 69. He said that no one under the age of 55 has expressed interest in the project, but he wanted to point out that a spouse under 55 was allowable under the HUD guidelines as it could potentially create an issue if someone is 90 and their spouse is 54. Mr. Taylor asked if it is a conflict that the bylaws limit all tenants to 55 and over but the HUD guidelines make an allowance. Mr. Wright stated that he could not quote the HUD statute, but the guidelines are under Section 213 of the Housing Act, which specifically states 55 and over. He is unsure how the spouse provision is worded. Board Member Brooks said that Federal law takes precedence, and if HUD has a rule it would need to be followed. Mr. Taylor noted that the articles of incorporation state “to provide housing on a cooperative basis to persons 55 years of age or older in the manner and for the purpose provided in Section 213,” so the language on its face is consistent with the Municipal Code. Mr. Diekmann said that because HUD acknowledges that there could be a difference in age between spouses, the City’s zoning ordinance is more restrictive in its definition of senior housing. He does not think that the City is in conflict with Federal law or that Federal law would preempt the City’s zoning code; it is a program run by a Federal agency versus the City’s standard. Mr. Diekmann said that the subject of spouses under age 55 had simply not come up in discussion prior to the meeting. Assistant City Attorney Mark Lambert said that he has reviewed the HUD rules, and HUD requires that the facility conduct a survey of the occupants to determine that they are over age 55. The survey has to be done every two years, and it must be made available to anyone who asks for it. Mr. Brooks suggested that the survey could be delivered to the City every two years, which would help provide some assurances. Board Member Ebel disagreed; she does not think it seems necessary since it is already happening at the HUD level. Mr. Lambert clarified that the survey is not reported to HUD, it simply has to be made available upon request. Chair Taylor suggested that the survey requirement is in the articles of incorporation by reference to the HUD regulations. Mr. Wright said that the requirement likely falls under the HUD regulatory agreement, which is an instrument that is recorded with the mortgage. After noting that the City’s zoning ordinance specifically places a threshold of 55 years old, which is more restrictive than HUD, Mr. Taylor asked if City staff was comfortable going forward with this project still being defined as a senior living facility. Director Diekmann said that the “senior living facility” label is important; the project does not fit in the zone without that definition. While the City’s ordinance is more restrictive, he does not think that it is in conflict with Federal law. He said that the Board can move forward with the local definition, which should not preclude the project from getting HUD financing; both components can work together. Mr. Diekmann stated that it may be an issue down the road if someone tries to buy in thinking they meet HUD regulations but do not meet the local Code requirement, which could be a difficult enforcement issue. He said that it may be helpful if the cooperative makes potential buyers aware of the local definition. Mr. Diekmann suggested that it may be more important to make buyers aware of the applicable compliance terms than to require an annual reporting from the cooperative. 6 Moved by Brooks to adopt ORDER NO. 13-13, thereby approving the proposed construction of an independent senior living facility at 2525 Bobcat Drive, with the condition that City staff be placed in possession of the HUD survey every two years. Motion failed for lack of a second. Moved by Ebel, seconded by Erbes, to adopt ORDER NO. 13-13, thereby approving the request for a Special Use Permit to allow the proposed construction of an independent senior living facility at 2525 Bobcat Drive, with no additional conditions. Vote on Motion: 3-1. Voting Aye: Ebel, Taylor, Erbes. Voting Nay: Brooks. Motion declared approved. COMMENTS: There were no comments by the Board. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Erbes to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m. _____________________________________________________________________ Emily Burton, Recording Secretary Gary Taylor, Chair