Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 12-07-2011MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMES, IOWA DECEMBER 7, 2011 The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) met, pursuant to law, in special session at 7:00 p.m. on December 7, 2011, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present: Bruce Calhoun, Elizabeth Erbes, Gary Taylor, and Thomas Weber. Board Member McJimsey was absent. Staff members Ray Anderson, Charlie Kuester, Sam Perry, and Judy Parks were also present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Weber, seconded by Taylor, to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 9, 2011, as written. Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion carried unanimously. CASE NO. 11-24 - SPECIAL USE PERMIT - 2811 HYATT CIRCLE Public Hearing on application for an elevation plan revision to an existing Special Use Permit to allow a retail business to exceed 3,000 square feet in an area zoned General Industrial City Planner Sam Perry explained that a Special Use Permit was granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment on August 24, 2011 for the proposed Ames Pet Resort on this property, but it was not acted upon. The same owner has revised the exterior materials of the proposed building. This revision requires another hearing by the ZBA due to the fact that the original materials were listed in the Decision and Order. Mr. Perry stated that the original permit was needed because the Ames Municipal Code does not allow retail businesses over 3,000 square feet gross floor area in a General Industrial (GI) zone unless the ZBA reviews and approves a Special Use Permit application. Mr. Perry noted that the August staff report analyzed all of the applicable criteria regarding this application. Although the applicant has revised the exterior design of the building, there are no exterior design requirements in the GI zone. Mr. Perry indicated that there were conditions listed on the August approval, most of which have already been met. The only condition not yet met is an operational condition regarding the cleaning of the outdoor pet areas. He concluded that City staff recommends approval of the revised application. In regards to Mr. Perry’s statement that there are no exterior design requirements in the GI zone, Chair Calhoun inquired as to why this matter needed to be heard by the Board. Mr. Perry clarified that the original design plans became part of the written record and went into the Board’s official Decision, which made it binding. Randy Duncan, 207 Morningside Street, Boone, Iowa, explained that when he came before the Board in August, he had only a design and no cost estimate. The cost ended up over the budget that was given to the architect, so he opted to change builders. The new design was put together in order to stay within the budget. Moved by Taylor, seconded by Erbes, to adopt ORDER NO. 11-24, thereby approving the request for a revision to the elevation plans of the Special Use Permit that was previously approved by the Board on August 24, 2011, based on the findings of fact and conclusions stated in the staff report dated December 1, 2011, under the condition that ou tdo or pet areas are cleaned after each d ay of use, and as often as necessary to av oid any detectable odo rs beyon d the prem ises. Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared approved unanimously. CASE NO. 10-20 - SPECIAL USE PERMIT - 616 BILLY SUNDAY ROAD Public Hearing on application for extension of existing Special Use Permit to allow a wireless communication antenna City Planner Ray Anderson explained that, on December 8, 2010, a Special Use Permit was approved by the ZBA for construction of a cellular antennae, consisting of a 120-foot-tall monopole and associated equipment on the subject property. Section 29.1503(5) of the Municipal Code requires that a building permit be issued and construction started within 12 months of the date that the permit is granted. Since that date, the applicant, US Cellular, has been working diligently to obtain the necessary signatures for the lease of the land. According to the applicant, 25 different people must approve and sign the lease; these signatures are still being pursued. The applicant has requested a 60-day time extension, which would give them an opportunity to complete the lease and get a building permit to commence construction. According to Mr. Anderson, an extension is allowed if the Board finds that there are unusual circumstances that have prevented the applicant from commencing the work within 12 months. Staff believes that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence of unusual circumstances. Board Member Taylor asked for clarification regarding the granting of an extension; he understands that the Board may grant no more than one 60-day extension, and if the project has not begun after the extension expires, the Special Use Permit process would need to start over. Assistant City Attorney Judy Parks concurred. Rich Kotite, Site Acquisition Agent for US Cellular, 25837 Highway 2, Keosauqua, Iowa, stated that they have been working on this project for almost two years. When he came before the Board a year ago, everything was moving as smoothly as possible. Now a year later, they are still struggling to get the lease signed. He is confident, however, that it can be completed within the next two months. Board Member Weber asked if the 120-foot-tall monopole will be an annoyance for anyone in the area; he wonders if it can be located elsewhere. Mr. Kotite said that they explored many options before arriving at the proposed location. He noted that the Board had already approved the location of the tower a year ago. Chair Calhoun asked what the specific problem was that caused a year-long delay. Mr. Kotite indicated that there have been communication challenges with the landlord, despite aggressive attempts to get them focused on the project. There are other legal issues that they are working through, including the need to execute a Subordination and Nondisturbance and Attornment Agreement. Mr. Kotite said that once the “legal hurdles” are overcome, things will come together. Mr. Calhoun clarified that this extension can only be granted once. Mr. Kotite said that they are well aware, and are prepared to start the process over if need be. Moved by Taylor, seconded by Erbes, to adopt ORDER NO. 10-20, thereby approving the request for a 60-day time extension, beyond the 12 months granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment on December 8, 2010, for the required start of construction of a cellular antennae on the property located at 616 Billy Sunday Road. Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared approved unanimously. CASE NO. 11-22 - VARIANCE - 2957 MONROE DRIVE Public Hearing on application for Variance to allow a side setback reduction from 8 feet to 0.4 feet Planner Perry stated that the subject property is located in the Parkview Heights Subdivision in Ames. The request is to reduce the side setback to 5 inches; the minimum required side setback for this property is 8 feet, because it is a 2-story house. This neighborhood has an area unique to the city, referred to as Parkview Park, which is a green space for the neighborhood to enjoy. In addition to the green space behind the homes, there are 14 accesses to the park from the public street. The subject property is located next to one of these accesses. The proposal is to build an addition to the north, which would appear as a third garage door from the street. The addition is to be used as a hobby woodworking shop. Mr. Perry indicated that variances have very strict criteria. The application cites Parkview Park as a unique circumstance for this property, and City staff used that as a basis for research. There are 98 homes that are adjacent to the park, 28 of which have park accesses next to the house. Staff determined that the access is unique from a city-wide perspective, but not unique for the area. The application does not meet the unique circumstances criterion. The Code states that the use authorized by the variance shall not alter the essential character of the area. Mr. Perry indicated that although there are only 11 other 3-car garages among the 98 lots researched, an additional garage stall would not alter the essential character because the proposed building design would be harmonious with the surrounding homes. Mr. Perry noted that the granting of the variance would reduce the gap between the subject property and the house to the north. A similar variance was approved by the ZBA in 1999 for the house to the north. The proposed variance would narrow the gap between these two houses from 36 to 27 feet. The public interest is to maintain openness between buildings. The purpose of the setback is for fire safety and to promote access to air and light that is not inhibited by buildings. Reducing the gap between the houses by another 7.5 feet would not be contrary to the public interest, as it would be hardly noticeable from the street. The public interest would be maintained if the variance were approved. According to Mr. Perry, the reasonable return criterion is difficult to meet. The criterion states that the land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in the zone. Mr. Perry noted that this applies even if the use is not being changed. In looking at the 98 properties adjacent to the park, 2-car garages are more common than 3-car. The proposal would create the largest garage space of the 98 properties. Even though the design fits in well with the essential character, there are many other homes without this size of garage that are successful. The reasonable return criterion was not met. The Code also states that substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting the variance. City staff has determined that there are other options for this addition which may be less desirable for the applicant but would minimize or negate the need for the variance. For example, the addition could be moved to the rear of the house within the setback boundaries. This would affect the view of the park from the home, but would not require a variance. Because there are other solutions that would not require a variance or require less of a variance, the substantial justice criterion was not met. Mr. Perry noted that the applicant submitted a list of signatures from all of the property owners within 200 feet of the subject property who are in support of the variance. Staff has not received any calls in favor of or opposition to the request. He concluded that because not all of the criteria have been met, staff is recommending denial of the application. Board Member Erbes asked if the square footage of the wood shop was counted as a garage space in staff’s analysis; she wonders if there is a separation between the wood shop and garage. Mr. Perry said that he was not sure what the interior design would look like. Upon being questioned by Mr. Calhoun, Mr. Perry clarified that the park access next to the house is City-owned property, not private property with an easement. The intent of these areas is to provide access to the green space behind the houses. Several of them have paved approaches, but the main goal is to allow pedestrians access to the park without having to cross private property. John Lott, Benjamin Design Collaborative, 823 Douglas Avenue, Ames, Iowa, stated that he was representing the applicant. He indicated that many options have been explored for this addition. Mr. Lott said that zoning laws are in place to create liveable and usable neighborhoods that can evolve with the people who live there. This is a multi-level home, and it is important to the owners to get most everything on one level. It is also very important to have view of the park from their living areas. If the addition was built in the rear of the home it would block the entire view of the park, which was one of the main reasons for the owners buying the property. Mr. Lott said that setbacks are a way to separate homes for fire safety, openness, etc., and the park access between the two homes accomplishes that by itself. The idea of having a setback on the side next to the access seems moot. If the addition was built as proposed, the distance between the subject property and the house to the north would still be greater than the distance between homes to the south. The proposal is the best way for the owners to use the property to the best of their ability for many years to come. John Elliott, 2963 Monroe Drive, Ames, Iowa, stated that he lives in the house that received a variance in 1999, to the north of the subject property. He has lived in his home for 20 years. Most of the homes were built in late 70s, and some properties are beginning to show wear and tear. He sees it as a benefit to the entire neighborhood anytime someone wants to put money into their house and make it more enjoyable. Mr. Elliott said that most new houses built today have three-car garages. The street parking in the cul-de-sac is not good, especially when it snows. He thinks that the applicant has presented the best aesthetically pleasing addition; to build behind would look out of proportion. He noted that with an 8-foot side yard setback, there should be 16 feet between structures; with this proposal there will still be at least 25 feet. He asked the Board to approve the variance request and improve the neighborhood. Mr. Perry added that the reasonable return criteria was met in the 1999 variance because the ZBA determined that if the house could not add a third garage, it would not be able to compete with new houses that had a three-car garage. Board Member Taylor asked if the 8-foot side yard setback is consistent throughout development whether or not a lot is adjacent to one of the park access points. Mr. Perry said that it is; an 8-foot setback is required for 2-story homes, and a 6-foot setback for single-story homes. Mr. Taylor asked if there has ever been consideration for a different setback standard for lot lines adjacent to the access points. Mr. Perry said that he is not aware of any such consideration. Ms. Erbes asked if there is signage to indicate that these areas are an access to the park. Mr. Elliott stated that there is a sign by the sidewalk. Moved by Erbes, seconded by Taylor, to deny ORDER NO. 11-22, thereby denying the request for a Variance to allow the proposed addition at 2957 Monroe Drive to encroach into the side setback by 7.6 feet, based upon the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report dated December 1, 2011. Ms. Erbes said that there may be a way to make the reasonable return criterion work in regards to the need for a third garage. She thinks that the unique circumstances criterion could fit for this property, depending on the scope of the area in question. Of the 28 accesses to the park, there are only 10 that are on cul-de-sacs, which could be seen as a unique circumstance. However, she finds it difficult to prove the substantial justice criterion. Mr. Perry said that the Board could attach conditions to an approval if it finds that it would help prove substantial justice. Assistant City Attorney Parks noted that the substantial justice criterion applies to the public-at-large, not just substantial justice for the applicant. Mr. Calhoun believes that the park accesses are a critical part of the essential character of the area. He surmised that the width of the accesses were purposefully sized in conjunction with side setbacks to produce a visual line into the parks. The accesses are not primarily just for access to the park, but for a visual appeal as well. He thinks that it is a shame that the other variances were granted to occlude the visual features in these areas. Losing the width would diminish the essential character of the neighborhood. Mr. Taylor said that he appreciates the situation and the efforts by the owner to add value to the property; however, the purpose of a variance is to prevent a hardship. He does not think that the Board would consider creating a near zero lot line if this were on a property that does not border the public access. The applicant’s request is to take advantage of the benefit of having the public access between the properties. He agrees that the width of the accesses in conjunction with the setbacks is purposeful to allow a visual line to indicate that it is an access. Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared approved unanimously. CASE NO. 11-23 - EXCEPTION FOR MINOR AREA MODIFICATION - 3127 GREENWOOD ROAD Public Hearing on application for Exception for Minor Area Modification to allow a rear setback reduction from 20 feet to 18 feet City Planner Charlie Kuester explained that the request is to allow an addition on the rear of the subject property to extend 2 feet into the required 20 foot setback. Like the previous case, this house is adjacent to a public green space, a walking path owned by the homeowners association to the north. The depth of the lots abutting the walkway area are somewhat reduced. During the platting of this area, it was intended that the reduced depth would be made up for by the public green space behind the lots. Mr. Kuester described the project as detailed in the application and staff report, as well as the various criteria. One of the criteria deals with special circumstances or practical difficulties that apply to the property. City staff determined that the reduced lot depth because of the green space and walking path helps the subject property meet this criterion. The remaining seven criteria were reviewed. Mr. Kuester concluded that all eight criteria have been satisfied, and approval is recommended. Board Member Taylor asked how City staff makes a distinction between a variance and a minor area modification and how an unnecessary hardship differs from a special circumstance. Assistant City Attorney Parks indicated that in the past, there were a number of situations that involved variance requests which were minor in area and did not involve a use change. In these situations, even though a person may only want to encroach minimally into a wide setback, it was almost impossible to meet the unnecessary hardship variance criterion. The standard was relaxed somewhat to allow these smaller encroachments. Mr. Perry added that minor area modifications have a limit to how much one can encroach into the setbacks. A reduction of no more than 5 feet is allowed in the front and rear setbacks, and no more than 2 feet in side yard setbacks. Any request beyond that threshold would be a variance request. Steven Peters, 3127 Greenwood Road, Ames, Iowa, presented the Board with signatures of support from nearby property owners. He stated that he tried a number of different layouts to make the addition work without needing an exception. Apart from obtaining the desired square footage, the important part of the design is to maintain light coming into the family room and dining area. With the extra 2 feet, they are able to accomplish this. Mr. Peters stated that the extra bedroom will be used as a living space for his father, and it may turn in to a master bedroom someday. Chair Calhoun noted that ADA standards require wider doorways and larger open areas, which contributes to the need for more space. Mr. Peters agreed; the extra 2 feet will help them to build the space to accommodate his father’s needs. Moved by Erbes, seconded by Weber, to adopt ORDER NO. 11-23, thereby approving the request for an Exception for Minor Area Modification to the rear setback from the required 20 feet to allow an 18-foot setback on the north side of the single-family dwelling at 3127 Greenwood Road, based on the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. Mr. Taylor said that the owners’ special circumstances come from the fact that the lot depth is smaller than most in the area. Others in the neighborhood could build the same addition with the exact same dimensions without having to ask for an exception. He agrees with Mr. Calhoun that the need for wider access in the rooms makes the extra 2 feet necessary. Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared approved unanimously. COMMENTS: There were no comments by the Board. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:34 p.m. ______________________________ _____________________________ Emily Burton, Recording Secretary Bruce Calhoun, Chair