Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 11-12-2014 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMES, IOWA NOVEMBER 12, 2014 The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 7:01 p.m. on November 12, 2014, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present: Sandra McJimsey, Susan Bradbury, Shelby Ebel, and Matthew Koehler. Staff members Jeff Benson, Charlie Kuester and Mark Lambert were also present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Bradbury, seconded by Koehler, to approve the minutes of the meeting of October 22, 2014, as written. Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. CASE NO. 14-23 VARIANCE – Kum & Go, LC, 2801 E. 13th Street Public Hearing on application for Variance to rear minimum setback requirement on the property located at 2801 E. 13th Street Moved by Bradbury, seconded by Ebel, to defer ORDER NO. 14-23, to allow for Variance to rear minimum setback requirement on the property located at 2801 E. 13th Street, per the applicant’s request. Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. CASE NO. 14-26 VARIANCE – Kum & Go, LC, 2801 E. 13th Street Public Hearing on application for Variance to eliminate 5-foot parking lot perimeter setback and landscaping on the property located at 2801 E. 13th Street Moved by Bradbury, seconded by Ebel, to defer ORDER NO. 14-26, to allow for Variance to eliminate 5-foot parking lot perimeter setback and landscaping on the front line on the property located at 2801 E. 13th Street, per the applicant’s request. Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. CASE NO. 14-28 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – Brent Haverkamp, 1204 S. 4th Street Public Hearing on application for a Conditional Use Permit for an Alternate Method of Elevating a Residential Structure in the Floodway Fringe for two apartment buildings proposed on the property located at 1204 S. 4th Street City Planner Charlie Kuester displayed a location map and site plan for the project. Mr. Kuester explained that much of the proposed site lies within the Squaw Creek 100-year flood plain (Floodway Fringe). The property owner intends to build two buildings for construction of multi - family apartments. One building would include 62 units with 176 bedrooms and the other 72 units with 200 bedrooms. Mr. Kuester noted that parking will be provided at the south end of the lot, within the Floodway, and is allowed by the underlying RH zoning subject in conformance 2 with the City’s development standards. Mr. Kuester explained that the requested Conditional Use Permit is for an alternative method of meeting the Floodway Fringe requirement of adding fill to a site to construct the lowest floor of the building three feet above the 100-year flood level (Base Flood Elevation + 3 feet). Mr. Kuester further explained that the City of Ames requires that the lowest floor of a structure be at least BFE +3; this building is proposed as BFE +4. For a residential structure, this elevation must be extended to 18 feet around the perimeter of the building. He noted that the reason for this requirement is often cited as allowing a place for the residents to await evacuation in the event of a flood. Commercial buildings do not require an 18 -foot perimeter at BFE +3. Mr. Kuester informed the board that the applicant is requesting an alternative method of compliance for elevating the building to the BFE +3 requirement by meeting the elevation requirement for the building but will only meet the 18 foot perimeter requirement on three of the four sides of each building and plan to build a retaining wall for the fourth side of the building. Planning Staff have reviewed the site plan and the applicant has received approval of the initial site plan. Mr. Kuester further discussed the site plan and specifications of the request at hand. He noted that in this case, the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit in the floodway fringe is based on twelve criteria that the board must consider against the request and decide whether or not it is in the best interest of the City to approve this request. Ms. Ebel asked if this case would be before the board if not for the flood wall issue and Mr. Kuester replied that if the applicant did not need the alternate method, it would have been approved by staff. This case is appearing in front of the Zoning Board because it is a residential property and does not meet the 18 foot elevation requirement. Ms. Bradbury inquired if there was a site plan that showed the whole property, as well as the existing building, the manor, and how these new buildings would relate to the manor. Mr. Kuester gave an overview of the floodway line, the existing Riverside Manor building, and showed where the proposed buildings at hand would lay including buildings, parking, and driveways. Ms. Bradbury noted that 90% of the first building would have the 18 feet but it appears that building two would have one major side without the 18 feet. Mr. Kuester noted that there will be exits at both ends of the property, as well as in the center section. Ms. Bradbury inquired if Riverside Manor flooded in 2010 and Mr. Kuester said that yes, it did flood and there was considerable damage to the basement; a wall collapsed in and the basement was completely flooded. Mr. Koehler asked if Riverside Manor would be remaining at its current location and Mr. Kuester said that yes, it will remain at its current location because the damage done in 2010 was not at the substantial damage level so they were able to re-build the building as it originally was. Ms. McJimsey inquired if there was record of how many times Riverside Manor has flooded. Mr. Kuester noted that there were a lot of difficulties evacuating the Riverside Manor facility in 3 2010. However, development is allowed and expected to occur, even in floodways. Mr. Kuester then further explained the site plan and attachments connected with the staff report. Ms. McJimsey noted that if one side is filled or barricaded, then the floodwater would be going one direction and there has been no discussion on how additional water or debris would be taken care of. Mr. Kuester replied that if the fill only occurred in one spot, the water would not raise the full foot and, depending on the topography, the water could go to the other side. Mr. Kuester expressed to the board that it is important to consider all of the factors and pointed out the two emails that he had provided for the board around the dais which he received from concerned neighbors since completing his staff report. He said he has heard from neighbors who have great concern about the project while others have very little concern with the project. Ms. Bradbury noted that tonight we are looking at the retention wall and whether or not we would permit that or not. If the board turns down this request, the applicant would then need to have the 18 feet around the south side of building two. She questioned what that would do to the parking lot and the other requirements of the site. Mr. Koehler noted that they cannot fill in the flood plain and that the building would need to be moved back to provide the 18 feet. Mr. Kuester said they would need to move the building back and provide the 18 feet but they could still put the retaining wall up. However, they probably couldn’t push the future property line any farther away from the building without a major re-design to the project so the applicant would need to decide whether or not they would like to move forward with the project at that point. Ms. McJimsey asked Mr. Kuester to give a brief summary of the emails given to the board, as there was not enough time to read the emails prior to the start of the meeting. Mr. Kuester summarized the emails that he had laid out on the dais for the board members. He summarized them by noting that residents are concerned about the development of the flood plain and the impact of the project on the surrounding neighbors and neighborhood. Ms. Bradbury asked to see the flow of Squaw creek on the map. Mr. Kuester pointed out that it flows southward and bends to the east towards the South Grand extension, the Skunk River, and north of southeast 16th street. Scott Renaud of FOX engineering represented the applicant, Brian Hoyle of American Healthcare Investment. He noted that the intent of the project is to provide flood protection to Riverside Manor. He noted that Riverside Manor was flooded in the basement very badly in 2010. The basement actually collapsed and it cost 1.5 million to fix the basement and make it structurally sound so that it could withstand flood waters. The applicant is trying to prevent any potential for flooding; this plan was put together to protect the manor from flooding again. Mr. Renaud explained that the applicant has an agreement with Maple Wood apartments which allows alternative emergency access to the building regardless of flood water. They have also looked at trying to surround Riverside Manor so that water can’t get to the building. He expressed that the 2010 flood didn’t come primarily from Squaw Creek but from Hazel and Maple streets. He noted that the way the project has been developed is a comprehensive way to provide flood safety for Riverside Manor and is being developed in a way that follows the code. Lastly, he informed the board that they are also putting in a concrete flood wall to help prevent flooding as opposed to an earthen, grass structure. Mr. Renaud also mentioned that there would 4 be no access or emergency access issues with the design they have laid out for this project. Mr. Renaud emphasized that this is a very simple, technical request to approve either an earth embankment with 18 extra feet or a concrete embankment right on the flood line. Ms. Ebel inquired if they have researched how many units they could fit on the site if their case is not approved. Mr. Renaud replied that the number of units is based on the parking and the parking wouldn’t change, the height of the building and the number of floors is what would be different and would change. He noted that the first floor has to have the 18 feet requirement but the other floors do not have to have that requirement. Ms. Bradbury expressed her concern about the impact of the project off site. She noted that the concrete wall is a very impervious surface which would speed up the water compared to an earthen structure which would slow down the flow of the water. Mr. Renaud explained that they can still build a retaining wall as an option to an earthen structure in the same place and same location; they would just back the building up 18 feet. He also explained that he feels the water has more of a flow in the floodway where water is mostly stored and not moving in the floodway fringe, although there are 30 or more variables that can impact the flow on a specific site. Mr. Renaud indicated that the debris is mostly sand and floating trees and that the debris would probably get caught up at the bridge at south 4th. He said that this project has little to do with the effect of the stream upstream and expressed that there are several ways to accomplish the 18 feet; it’s just a matter of what kind of retaining wall is approved and how they want to maximize the site and set the building properly. He expressed the applicants’ interest to do as much as they can with the site to prevent possible future flooding. Ms. McJimsey asked Mr. Renaud to speak on criteria numbers six, seven and eight because she does not feel there’s any information to satisfy those criteria. Mr. Renaud’s interpretation is that the property is designed for a flooded condition and that it must be able to withstand flood waters and the debris that goes with it which embodies the structural design they have created. Mr. Renaud noted that the building is allowed by zone and will be built one way or another; the matter tonight is a technical issue regarding the structure. Ms. McJimsey expressed that there are many other places to build this project and Mr. Renaud disagreed and said it is difficult to find places to build in Ames that are properly zoned to build on. He said that this site is zoned properly for RH but that it can’t be used because it is in the flood zone; however, following City code they can elevate it and build on it. Mr. Renaud noted that there is very little ground zoned RH in Ames. He also said that Mr. Hoyle is the developer and has the primary interest in Riverside Manor and is fully aware of the proximity of the two buildings to each other. Ms. McJimsey inquired how the residents of Riverside Manor feel about the proposed project. Mr. Renaud asked Ms. McJimsey if she has been in Riverside Manor and noted that the residents are like many other nursing home residents in other facilities; they are in a state of life where they do not always know what’s going on. 5 Ms. Ebel inquired about access from Maple to Riverside Manor and whether or not this was a permanent access. Mr. Renaud said that it is a permanent access point. Ms. Ebel also inquired about fencing or separation between the two structures. Mr. Renaud explained that Riverside Manor is a controlled access facility with fencing so that residents cannot go off site. He said there would be two paved access exits from the apartment building, which is what is allowed by the code. Michael Peterson, 3302 Morningside Street, voiced his opposition for construction in any flood plain in Ames. His concern is that the City ordinances should not be dealing with 100 year flood events but 500 flood events; he lives in a floodway fringe and cringes when there is prediction of heavy rain. He thanked the board for listening to his concerns. Judith Lemish, 327 South Maple, lives in the neighborhood with the proposed development. Her neighborhood has been affected by flooding several times from Squaw Creek; some of her neighbors’ homes were very severely damaged and even removed. Judith expressed her concern for the water storage area, which is precisely where the new development will be located, as well as for the people who live in the manor and future apartments. She noted that the City advises her to purchase flood insurance; however, she wonders if she should build a retaining wall similar to that being discussed for this project. Unfortunately, that is a cost that neither she nor her neighbors can bear the burden of the cost of. In conclusion, Judith presented pictures of the proposed neighborhood flooding from the 2010 flood to the board. Susie Petra, 2011 Duff Avenue, raised several questions to the board inquiring why the City would approve a variance such as this. She noted that citizens are tired of seeing buildings going up in areas of great concern and they are crying out to the board for common sense. Erwin Erickson, 3115 Sedwick Street, wanted to make two points. He noted that with each successive flood, levels get higher and higher. In 2008, the water touched the back of his property line and in 2010 it was in the corner of his backyard. The watershed is changing and he is concerned about the impact on the neighborhood. He also discussed how the floods have affected the neighborhood; a couple of houses go up for sale after every flood occurrence. Mr. Erickson believes the proposed development won’t see issues from Squaw Creek but rather from the channel coming out of the north from the foot bridge (northeast into the Riverside Manor area). Mr. Erickson also showed several photos of the flooding from 2010, including Riverside Manor. His pictures showed that people had to be evacuated by boat, which costs the taxpayers money. He believes the development is opening up the possibility for more damage, such as the damage in the pictures that he presented to the board, as well as putting more residents at risk. Sue Ravenscroff, 455 Westwood, noted that insurance companies can’t keep up with the climate changes and that flooding will be happening more frequently and more drastically. She said that after living in Ames for 16 years, she’s noticed a trend that poor, lower income housing is being surrounded by student housing which turns the neighborhood into less of a family oriented neighborhood and more of a ghetto. Debbie Lee, 214 South Maple, informed the board that she is a 28 year resident of the neighborhood. She said that south 4th was a roaring stream in 2010 and does not believe it is accurate to say the water problem is to the west because in 2010, the water was roaring to the 6 east. She asked that the board look at the big picture. Ms. Lee expressed her concern for the proposed project being so very close to the creek and noted that although approval of this request may be within the law, is the location request for this project really the best that Ames citizens can do. Michael Peterson, 3302 Morningside Street, indicated that he feels that any time a developer builds on a flood plain there will be negative impacts downstream and upstream. Mr. Peterson noted that in a previous conversation with Mr. Renaud, Mr. Renaud tried to assure him that the Breckenridge development would have very little impact on flooding in his neighborhood and Mr. Renaud told him that he would need to worry about what has been done upstream. Mr. Peterson expressed that his main point is that the proposed development is definitely going to have negative impact downstream. He would like the board to consider impacts both downstream and upstream. Tam Lorenz, 311 South Maple, explained that she has lived at her residence for 34 years and has seen several floods. Ms. Lorenz expressed her concern and believes that it is not in the residents’ best interest to continue on with this project. Scott Renaud, FOX engineering, noted once again that the issue being voted on tonight is a very technical issue and the applicant is just trying to do something that makes sense for this building and this site. He expressed that everything they are doing with their project would only improve the flood situation, not make it worse and they want to build a flood wall out of concrete rather than grass to help improve conditions. Mr. Kuester reminded the board that Council was asked to address many of the flood plain issues back in February. He noted that the applicant is not asking for a variance, but rather they are asking for an alternate method of elevating which requires a Conditional Use Permit for this type of issue; the applicant has taken the appropriate steps for this permit. He informed the board that the site plan has almost been approved by the Development Review Committee and that the committee has looked at all the issues of traffic, landscaping, pedestrian traffic, etc. He also expressed that there should not be an increase in water leaving the site; however, he cannot speak of the impact that the new project would have on flooding in the neighborhood. He said that it makes it difficult to predict where floodwaters will go because of the bridge and he is not claiming that this is floodway protection for Riverside Manor. Lastly, he explained that staff pondered this request quite considerably and based on the technical issues, they have recommended approval. He advised the board to look at the criteria to decide whether or not the Conditional Use Permit should be approved and to look at what is best for the community based on the criteria, not on the proposed use of the site. Moved by Koehler, seconded by Bradbury, to approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Alternate Method of Elevating a Residential Structure in the Floodway Fringe for two apartment buildings proposed on the property located at 1204 S. 4th Street. Mr. Koehler expressed that he believes they have met the twelve criteria and that it is a better option to put the wall there than to move the building back 18 feet and build the grass embankment. He also appreciates that they are enclosing Riverside Manor and taking positive 7 strides to prevent flooding again by mitigating exits and raising the parking lot to have the extra exit. Ms. McJimsey does not believe the concrete wall will really do much good as far as preventing flooding. She also doesn’t think the concrete wall will be able to prevent or slow down the velocity but rather increase the velocity of the water and debris. Ms. Bradbury noted her concern that the concrete wall would make it more likely for debris to go downstream and increase the velocity of the debris and water. Mr. Koehler expressed that the project will move forward whether the board approves the wall or not so it wouldn’t make sense to have them build the grass embankment along with a wall. He noted that financially, it would cost much more to move the building back 18 feet and do the grass embankment along with the concrete wall and he doesn’t feel that they should put the applicant through that financial hardship. Vote on Motion: 2-2. Voting Aye: Koehler and Ebel. Voting Nay: Bradbury and McJimsey. Motion declared failed. Moved by Bradbury, seconded by McJimsey, to deny the request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Alternate Method of Elevating a Residential Structure in the Floodway Fringe for two apartment buildings proposed on the property located at 1204. S. 4th Street. Vote on Motion: 2-2. Voting Aye: Bradbury and McJimsey. Voting Nay: Koehler and Ebel. Motion declared failed. Due to a tie vote, this item will continue to be heard and deferred to the Wednesday, December 10 meeting. CASE NO. 14-31 SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT – Victoria Keinert, 619 8th Street Public Hearing on application for a Special Home Occupation Permit for a massage business on the property located at 619 8th Street City Planner Jeff Benson displayed a location map and site plan for the project. Mr. Benson explained that the applicant would like to operate a professional massage therapy business from the residential property which the applicant owns. The property is two -story with a basement and includes an accessory building/single car garage near the alley in the rear. He noted that c lients will park on 8th Street in front of the residence and hours of operation would be from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday. The applicant has also indicated that no more than one client vehicle would be on the premises in a given hour. Victoria Keinert, 619 8th Street, noted that she lost her previous employment in February of 2014. She explained that the massage room itself would be less than 7% of her home’s square footage. She informed the board that she will have a very non-intrusive sign placed close to the home itself for advertisement. Ms. Keinert also said that she made an information sheet for her surrounding neighbors letting them know of her massage business. She noted that she does not use the parking in front of her residency, so she feels it is fair for her clients to use that space. 8 Ms. McJimsey inquired if the sign would have reflective materials and Ms. Keinert replied that the sign would not include reflective materials. Moved by Bradbury, seconded by Koehler, to adopt ORDER NO. 14-31, thereby approving the request for a Special Home Occupation permit to allow a massage therapy business at 619 8th Street, based upon the findings and conclusions. Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Motion declared adopted unanimously. COMMENTS: Mr. Koehler noted that the Board received a letter from William Marion. Ms. McJimsey informed the board that she called the Mayor’s office and asked that the letter be forwarded to Kelly Diekmann, Director of Planning and Housing, because the letter was not in the board’s purvue to make a decision on. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Koehler, seconded by Bradbury, to adjourn the meeting at 9:16 p.m. _________________________________ _________________________________ Erin Cain, Recording Secretary Sandra McJimsey, Chair