Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 11-14-2012MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMES, IOWA NOVEMBER 14, 2012 The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 7:00 p.m. on November 14, 2012, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present: Patrick Brooks, Shelby Ebel, Sandra McJimsey, and Gary Taylor. Board Member Eliz Erbes was absent. Staff members Jeff Benson, Charlie Kuester, Karen Marren, Bob Kindred, and Judy Parks were also present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by McJimsey, seconded by Brooks, to approve the minutes of the meeting of October 24, 2012, as written. Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. CASE NO. 12-23 EXCEPTION FOR MINOR AREA MODIFICATION - KOENIG, 2125 POLK DRIVE Public Hearing on application for an Exception for Minor Area Modification to allow a two- foot encroachment in the side setback at 2125 Polk Drive City Planner Jeff Benson was sworn in and testified under oath. He reported that on August 8, 2012, the Zoning Board of Adjustment approved an exception for a minor area modification encroachment for this property. He presented the site plan and explained that the setback allowed for a garage addition that reduced the setback from eight feet to six feet on the east side. He further explained that since that time, the owner has had the property surveyed, and it has now been determined that the current distance between the property and the neighbor’s house is two feet greater than previously thought. Mr. Koenig, the property owner, now proposes a four-foot addition to the garage. Mr. Benson referred to additional information provided by the owner at tonight’s meeting, and he reviewed the explanation of why the applicant’s first application was for a two-foot encroachment rather than a four-foot. Mr. Benson said that staff had initially informed the owner that it would be very difficult to receive a four-foot encroachment, and it would be best to apply for a two-foot exception, which was granted at the August 8 Board meeting. Mr. Benson reviewed the following three criteria as presented in the staff report: 1) the previous exception was for a two-foot wide addition to accommodate a single 18-foot garage door, and the current application is for a four-foot wide addition to accommodate two nine-foot garage doors; 2) under the previous exception, the distance between the east wall of the garage addition and the existing west wall of the adjacent house would be no less than 21 feet, and now that distance will be no less than 19 feet; and, 3) previously the neighbor to the east did not comment on the application, however, now the neighbor has cited issues regarding drainage and shade. He advised that this is a judgment that the Board has to make, and ascertain whether or not the neighboring property is substantially impacted. Upon questioning by Vice Chair Taylor with regard to the neighbor’s proximity to the lot line, Mr. Benson responded that if the neighbor wished to build onto his house, it would still result in there being 14 feet between the two structures. 2 Bill Koenig, 2125 Polk Drive, was sworn in and testified under oath. Mr. Koenig reviewed his original plan to expand the garage two feet to the west. He stated that, initially, he was wanting a four-foot addition in order to replace the 16-foot garage door with two 9-foot doors. However, after discussing his plan with City staff, he was advised that it would be too difficult to get approved. Therefore, he felt that the two-foot addition and 18-foot wide garage door were better than nothing. Mr. Koenig indicated that the reasons for wanting a larger garage addition are as follows: wider doors to accommodate vehicles, garage-level storage space for lawn/garden equipment/bicycles, and attic storage. According to the applicant, he is not able to build a yard shed in the back due to underground utilities. Initially, he had planned to construct a 22-foot by 36-foot addition. However, after locating the corner lot pin and discovering there were two more feet on the sideyard setback, it resulted in more options. He felt that a two-door garage would have a nicer appearance, and the sunroom located on the back of the house would have a better view to the east if the garage dimensions were 24 feet wide by 32 feet deep. He noted that the roof line and the narrower width trusses would make the garage look smaller. Mr. Koenig reported that before he originally applied for the two-foot garage encroachment, he discussed the issue with his neighbors. They were in total support of that two-foot extension, however, with the four-foot encroachment, there is some concern with drainage. He explained how he would remedy the drainage issue by installing tile that would run along side his house and drain water into his back yard. Mr. Koenig reported that the neighbors also had some concerns regarding the lack of sunshine in between the two houses. He advised that both houses face to the south and have full sun. Also, there used be a tree between the houses, so there was an issue of sunlight. However, he felt that the neighbor will have more sunlight due to the lower peak height of the roof. Board Member Brooks stated that he has made the following observations: 1) the two-foot encroachment seemed to serve the applicant’s needs initially; 2) the Board should not grant an exception as a mere convenience to someone; and, 3) the neighbor has a legitimate interest in protecting his rights. Upon being questioned by Board Member Ebel, Mr. Koenig said that the garage portion of the house is single story. Planner Benson explained that if the house was single story, then the sideyard setback would be six feet. However, since the house itself is two stories, the setback requirement is eight feet. Moved by Brooks, seconded by McJimsey, to adopt ORDER NO. 12-23, denying the request for an Exception for Minor Area Modification to allow a two-foot encroachment in the side setback on property located at Polk Drive. Board Member Brooks stated that these sideyard distances are reflected in property values, and it could be argued that it might diminish the value of neighbor’s property, if invaded. While the applicant is not getting an additional four feet, he will be able to extend the width of his garage by two feet. He believed that it is important to be sensitive to the needs of the neighbor. Vice Chair Taylor was troubled with the criterion of “the minor area modification is the minimum necessary to achieve the desired result.” There had been conversation during the last hearing of what the desired result was, which was to accommodate two vehicles and an 18-foot garage door. Mr. Taylor indicated that the applicant can achieve the desired result, with the two feet which he now has with that right to expand his garage. 3 Upon questioning by Board Member McJimsey, Planner Benson explained that by denying this request, the property owner does not need the previous Exception and that it will just “go away.” Board Member Ebel stated that she disagrees with the Board. She believed that since the garage is single story, it is a good use of this type of application. Ms. Ebel further stated that the property owner has indicated he will correct the drainage, and the shading concern is not much of an issue. Roll Call Vote: 3-1. Voting Aye: Brooks, McJimsey, Taylor. Voting Nay: Ebel. Motion declared carried. CASE NO. 12-24 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - HICKORY PARK, INC., 530 AND 900 SOUTHEAST 16TH STREET Public Hearing on application for a Conditional Use Permit in the Floodway Overlay District to allow for excavation in the floodway at 530 and 900 Southeast 16 Streetth City Planner Charlie Kuester testified under oath. He reported that the application for a Conditional Use Permit is being made by Hickory Park, Inc. The applicant proposes to remove soil within the floodway and deposit it adjacent to the floodway in order to develop a commercial site. He presented an overhead of the site plan. Mr. Kuester described the details and dimensions of the excavation area. The purpose of this excavation is to provide more fill to the site that is being developed to the west, which will raise the site above the base flood elevation. He explained that the excavated area will retain water only as the groundwater rises and falls. The Board is being asked to determine if Performance Standards are met. The applicant has provided an “Engineering No-Rise Certificate,” which states that because the project is excavation only, it will not result in an increase in base flood elevations in the floodway. Planner Kuester reviewed each of the Floodway Performance Standards as listed in the staff report. He stated that staff believes the proposed development meets all criteria for approving the Conditional Use Permit, and recommends approval with the following conditions: 1) the applicant obtains a Flood Plain Development Permit prior to excavation and complies with any conditions imposed therein; 2) the applicant obtains a COSECSO permit prior to excavation; and, 3) the applicant places stakes or other visible markers along an arc that lies 1,000 feet from the City of Ames water supply well prior to any excavation, maintains the markers until the excavation is complete, and ensures that no excavation occurs within that protected area. Scott Renaud of FOX Engineering Associates, 1601 Golden Aspen Drive, Ames, was sworn in testified under oath. He stated that he is representing Hickory Park, Inc. Mr. Renaud indicated that the applicant is in agreement with the City’s report, and is willing to comply with the aforementioned conditions placed upon the Conditional Use Permit. Moved by McJimsey, seconded by Ebel, to adopt ORDER NO. 12-24 approving the request for a Conditional Use Permit in the Floodway Overlay District to allow for excavation in the floodway at 530 and 900 Southeast 16 Street, based upon staff’s analysis and conclusions, and subject to theth following conditions: 1) that the applicant obtains a Flood Plain Development Permit prior to excavation and complies with any conditions imposed therein; 2) that the applicant obtains a COSECSO permit prior to excavation; and, 3) that the applicant places stakes or other visible markers along an arc that lies 1,000 feet from the City of Ames water supply well prior to any excavation, maintains the markers until the excavation is complete, and ensures that no excavation occurs within that protected area. 4 Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. CASE NO. 12-25 EXCEPTION FOR MINOR AREA MODIFICATION - FERRIS, 2520 TYLER AVENUE Public Hearing on application for an Exception for Minor Area Modification to allow a two- foot encroachment in the side setback at 2520 Tyler Avenue City Planner Karen Marren, was sworn in and testified under oath. Ms. Marren explained that Harold Pike of HPC, LLC, was present on behalf of the applicant, Roger Ferris. She said that the applicant is requesting that the Board allow a reduction of the side setback from six feet to four feet on the north side of his home. This would allow the homeowner to widen the garage by 10 feet and install a second garage door. The house is considered as a one story, therefore, the required minimum side setback is six feet. Planner Marren showed overheads of the current and proposed site plans. The addition would extend the entire depth of the garage. She explained that, in looking at properties along Tyler Avenue and 25 Street, there are a total of 26 homes on single-family lots, and a total of 22 homes have attachedth 2-car garages. Four of the lots, including the subject property, still have single-car garages. Ms. Marren indicated that the neighbor to the north is in support of the application. She showed the footprint of what is proposed. The new addition of the garage stall will be smaller than the one that currently exists. Board Member McJimsey inquired about staff’s concern over the proposed driveway material. Ms. Marren stated that staff was not familiar with the usage of what is referred to as “hog slats,” therefore, staff contacted the builder to verify Code compliance. She explained that the slatted panels are made of pre-cast concrete. Buffalo grass is planted in the slats to stabilize the pre-cast panels. These panels are 4 feet by 10 feet, and are used to reduce rain run-off. Harold Pike, 2715 Valley View Road, Ames, was sworn in. He said that he was representing the homeowner, and was there to answer any questions. Moved by Brooks, seconded by McJimsey, to adopt ORDER NO. 12-25 approving a request for an Exception for Minor Area Modification to allow a two-foot encroachment in the side setback on the north side of a single-family detached residence at 2520 Tyler Avenue, based upon the findings of facts and conclusions as stated in the staff report. Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. CASE NO. 12-26 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - SOUTH MEADOW HOUSING COOPERATIVE, 301 SOUTH 5 STREETTH Public Hearing on application for a Conditional Use Permit for an Alternate Method of Elevating a Residential Structure in the Floodway Fringe Overlay District Assistant City Attorney Judy Parks advised that since Case Nos. 12-26 and 12-27 both pertain to the property at 301 South 5 Street, it would be appropriate for the Board to hear testimony for bothth simultaneously. 5 CASE NO. 12-27 SPECIAL USE PERMIT - SOUTH MEADOW HOUSING COOPERATIVE, 301 SOUTH 5TH STREET Public Hearing on application for the Restoration of a Damaged Nonconforming Structure Planner Charlie Kuester stated that the multi-family structure at 301 South 5 Street was heavilyth damaged by fire in July of this year. The building contained 56 units on the upper two floors. The ground level floor contains the garages and some mechanical equipment. He reported that, since the structure received damage greater than 70% of its assessed valuation, the structure must be rebuilt in accordance with current zoning regulations or with a Special Use Permit approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Kuester said that there is no previous site plan on file for this property. The apartments have survived several flood events with minimal damage since the garages were built underneath the living quarters. He explained that the applicants would like to rebuild the structure essentially the way it was, and has filed for the two permits being discussed tonight. Mr. Kuester addressed the application for a Special Use Permit. There are two nonconformities – those being the number of parking spaces needed and landscaping. He explained that the previous structure required 102 parking spaces, although it provided only 78. The rebuilt structure, because of the reconfiguration of unit types and the introduction of the breezeways, would require 84 parking spaces. However, it will provide 77 spaces, thereby creating a 7 parking-space deficit. Planner Kuester indicated that the parking did not seem to be an issue. In relation to the landscaping and screening, Mr. Kuester explained that the Zoning Ordinance requires that parking and driveway areas be screened from adjacent property lines and public streets. He advised that the mechanical units will be wall-mounted in the garages. The dumpster will be screened and relocated to the northwest corner of the building, therefore, one parking spot will be lost. Planner Kuester reported that based on staff’s analysis, it is concluded that the standards have been satisfied. Staff found that the number of nonconformities on the existing site have been reduced to the greatest extent possible. Mr. Kuester reviewed the application for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit. The owner proposes to reconstruct the apartments and to reuse the existing foundation and ground level parking structure. Because the damage exceeded 50% of the value of the structure, the Code requires that any reconstruction be done to meet the current flood plain regulations. The flood plain regulations require that residential structures be elevated to three feet above the base flood elevation; the regulations further require that the elevation extend 18 feet beyond the perimeter of the structure. Planner Kuester advised that because of the building design with the garages underneath, it is not practicable to place ground fill 18 feet around the perimeter of the building without impacting the existing parking arrangement. He noted that all mechanical units and electrical wiring will be elevated to three feet above the base flood elevation. Planner Kuester summarized the performance standards regarding the structures’ uses and the need to minimize flood damage. He further reviewed the findings of facts and conclusions. The design of the structure predates the adoption of the City’s flood plain regulations in 1980. He presented an overhead of the site plan which showed the proposed reconstruction. Because of the redesign of some of the apartments, there will be open breezeways, so opportunities will exist to improve upon rescues and evacuations during flood events. Construction techniques will also be 6 used to minimize low damage potential. Planner Kuester stated that as an alternative to the perimeter elevation requirements, the owner proposes that the existing garages be allowed to provide the necessary elevation. Mr. Kuester indicated that the garages place the finished floor of the structure at more than three feet above the base flood elevation. Planner Kuester stated that staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit, which will allow the reconstruction of the multi-family structure based upon the findings and conclusions as presented in the staff report. He further reported that staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit, based upon staff’s findings of facts and conclusions, and the site plan as submitted by FOX Engineering and Roseland Mackey Harris Architects dated November 8, 2012. Board Member Ebel questioned the previous nonconforming parking situation and why it was allowed to exist. Mr. Kuester responded that the structure was built prior to the existing Zoning Code; there had been no site plan on file, therefore he could not explain why it was allowed. Vice Chair Taylor indicated his surprise that the entryway is allowed to be below base flood elevations. He felt that a couple of the criteria addressed relate to safety of access and safety of the occupants. Discussion ensued regarding the reconfiguration of the apartments which will create an access to the breezeways. The landing area will allow the residents to safely wait for rescue vehicles to get to the site. Mr. Kuester indicated that the landings are within the base flood elevation. Chuck Winkleblack, 105 South 16th Street, Ames, was sworn in and testified under oath. Mr. Winkleblack stated that he was representing the owners of this property. He explained that these structures will become as close as is practical in meeting all of the current codes. The applicants have owned the property for many, many years, and the applications have met with 100% of City staff approval, as well as support from all of the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Winkleblack advised that the owners have sustained a terrible loss over this last year, and all they are asking for is to allow the structures to be rebuilt. He noted that this housing project was built way ahead of its time, in that it has been through three or four horrific floods, and there has never been any water within the units. Mr. Winkleblack reported that no flood waters had even approached the landing areas that have been discussed. Most of the apartment buildings that surround these structures have had three-to-four feet of water in them. He urged the Board to support this project. Vice Chair Taylor noted that in looking at the site plan again with regard to the landings, he agreed that it is at the base flood elevation. Moved by Brooks, seconded by McJimsey, to adopt ORDER NO. 12-26 approving the request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the alternative method of elevation for the reconstruction of the multi-family housing at 301 South 5 Street, as shown on the site plan updated and submitted onth November 8, 2012, by FOX Engineering and the architectural drawing updated and submitted on November 8, 2012, by Roseland Mackey Harris Architects, based on the findings and conclusions of staff. Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. 7 Moved by McJimsey, seconded by Brooks, to adopt ORDER NO. 12-27 approving the request for a Special Use Permit to allow the reconstruction of the multi-family housing at 301 South 5 Street,th as shown on the site plan updated and submitted on November 8, 2012, by FOX Engineering, based upon the findings and conclusions of staff. Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. COMMENTS: There were no comments by the Board. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________ Jill Ripperger, Recording Secretary Gary Taylor, Vice Chair