Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 8-25-2010MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMES, IOWA AUGUST 25, 2010 The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 7:00 p.m. on August 25, 2010, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present: Bruce Calhoun, Elizabeth Erbes, Gary Taylor, and Thomas Weber. Staff members Jeff Benson, Sam Perry, and Judy Parks were also present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Erbes, seconded by Calhoun, to approve the minutes of the meeting of June 23, 2010. Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion carried unanimously. CASE NO. 10-07 EXCEPTION FOR A MINOR AREA MODIFICATION - RANDALL CARTER, 1127 ARIZONA AVENUE Public Hearing on application for Exception for a Minor Area Modification to allow construction of an attached garage City Planner Jeff Benson explained that the subject property is zoned Low Density Residential. The properties on north, south, and east are single family homes, and there is an elementary school to the west. The residence is considered a single story home, and the required side setback is six feet. The applicant would like to build a two car attached garage on the south side of the house, and proposes that the garage intrude 14 inches into the side setback, leaving a 4 foot 10 inch side setback. Mr. Benson showed the Board a photo of the property. He noted that there is a projection on south side of the house, which contains a set of stairs that goes from upper level to the lower level. This projection would be inside the proposed attached garage, and thus creates a practical difficulty. If the south wall of the garage complied with the six foot setback, there would be approximately 18 feet 6 inches of clear space for two cars to park side by side in the garage, which the applicant does not feel is adequate. Staff believes that no other immediate house in the area has this projection, which is a circumstance that causes the need for a minor exception. The request meets the standard for special circumstances or practical difficulties. According to Mr. Benson, one of the most important of the standards is that the request should not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare. With only 14 inches of the garage projecting into the side yard setback, staff does not believe that the actual difference between what he could build under compliance or with an exception will even be detectable. Mr. Benson indicated that the impact on the neighboring property is also important. The neighboring property to the south side is another single family home with a garage on the south side. On the north side of that house, there are two standard size windows that face out towards the driveway of the applicant’s home. The difference between what the neighbor would see if the garage is built according to the setbacks or if it were built with an exception is minor; the garage wall would be 14 inches or 10 percent closer with the exception. Mr. Benson does not believe that the 10 percent difference would be detrimental to the neighboring property. Mr. Benson explained that City staff found that the project meets the rest of the criteria for an exception, and recommends approval of the application. Board Member Calhoun asked if staff had considered the effect of the project on drainage between the two properties. He is concerned that there won’t be adequate drainage because of the narrowing of space. He asked Mr. Benson if he thought that could be a problem if the Board were to grant the exception. Mr. Benson stated that a building permit would be required with this project, but there is no requirement for a grading plan. He noted that the applicant was unable to attend the meeting because he had a pre-scheduled meeting out of state; however, his contractor was available to answer questions. Paul Jackson, 202 South 1st Street, Boone, Iowa, stated that he was the contractor for the project. He indicated that the subject property has a natural grade that goes down to the front of the property and to the road. He stated that the adjoining property is higher up on the foundation, and the only thing that they could do is make a swale so that water would run to Arizona Avenue. Mr. Calhoun encouraged him to do that. Mr. Jackson stated that the driveway does have a natural sway to it, which would be preserved. Mr. Benson noted that the property owner to the south is aware of the project. Moved by Taylor, seconded by Calhoun, to adopt ORDER NO. 10-07, granting an Exception for a Minor Area Modification to the side setback of the Zoning Code from the required six feet to 4' 10" on the south side of the single-family dwelling at 1127 Arizona Avenue. Role Call Vote: 4-0. Motion declared approved unanimously. CASE NO. 10-08 VARIANCES - NATHAN EASTER, 1202-1204 BURNETT AVENUE AND 319 12TH STREET Public Hearing on application for Variances from minimum lot size and setbacks to allow the splitting of a single family residence and two-family residence into separate parcels City Planner Sam Perry explained that the request for variances is to allow a subdivision plat to divide the property into two parcels. There are two structures on the property; one was built as a duplex, the other is a single-family dwelling. He showed the Board photos of the two structures. He indicated that the property address is what derives all of the setback regulations for the yard locations. The subject property sits on the northeast corner of 12th Street and Burnett Avenue. Mr. Perry said that it is the only property in the vicinity that has two buildings on it that hasn’t already been divided. Other properties have already been divided, likely with conveyance deeds without plats. Mr. Perry explained that the request is for minimum lot size variances. There is a total of 10,800 square feet on the property, and in order for it to meet the lot size requirements, it would need to be 13,000 square feet. The applicant is not proposing any construction or demolition; the request is being initiated by the division of the land, in order for a plat to be recommended by staff for approval by the City Council. Mr. Perry explained that the applicant wants to get the variances approved prior to a subdivision approval by the City Council. Mr. Perry showed the Board the proposed property line between the two buildings. The new lot line would create lots that are 6,600 square feet for the duplex and 4,200 square feet for the single-family home. In order to comply, the lot sizes would need to be 7,000 square feet and 6,000 square feet, respectively. Mr. Perry explained that the other requested variances are all setback variances. He noted that both the duplex and the single-family dwelling have existing non-conformities. He reviewed the details of the setback variance requests, and explained that because of the orientation of the lot, the list of non-conformities would increase if the applicant’s request was granted. The different variance criteria were reviewed with the Board. Mr. Perry indicated that City staff found that the application meets five out of the seven criteria. The first criterion is that the granting of the variance shall not be contrary to the public interest. Mr. Perry stated that the two dwellings have never had rental licenses, and have never been recognized by the City as rental properties. The public interest would be to maintain the property value and existing condition. Mr. Perry believes that the proposal may actually increase the property’s value. He explained that owner-occupied situations are desirable for neighborhoods, and those properties tend to be better maintained than rental properties. Staff believes that this criterion has been met. Mr. Perry explained the unnecessary hardship criterion. He said that, with some potential investment, both homes could be successful rental properties. Mr. Perry noted that the difference with the subject property may be that rental homes which have been used as rentals all along have been making incremental upgrades, versus bringing a property into full compliance all at once. Although significant investment may be involved, there was not adequate evidence at the time the staff report was written to suggest that all reasonable use would cease if the variance was not granted; therefore, staff found that the application does not meet the unnecessary hardship requirement for a reasonable return. The next standard states that the plight of the owners should be due to unique circumstances and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood. Mr. Perry stated that two homes on one lot is a unique circumstance. Similar situations that existed prior to the Zoning Ordinance have already been divided, generally with only a text deed conveyance and no graphical plat. The application does meet this standard. Mr. Perry stated that the use to be authorized by the variance should not alter the essential character of the locality. He said that creating a new property line would be consistent with the pattern of parcel lines in the area. Because there are many similar situations in this locality that have already been divided, this would be a continuation of the essential character, and therefore would not alter it. Mr. Perry explained that the spirit of the Ordinance should be observed whenever a variance is granted. He stated that it is important to note that there are not any ordinances that would force the splitting of these lots; the use of two houses on one lot could continue without a variance being granted. Mr. Perry said that the Ames Zoning Ordinance is very generous to non-conformities, and does not seek to phase them out in a given time frame. The Ordinance allows non-conformities to continue to exist, and in some cases allow marginal expansions, as long as building setbacks and lot coverage requirements can be met. Staff believes that two houses on one lot is a more significant non-conformity than setback non-conformities which would only be created because of a change of lot address; therefore, the application does meet the spirit of the Ordinance criterion. Mr. Perry stated that the application did not meet the substantial justice criterion. Staff did not have adequate evidence to see that it met all of the other criteria, and substantial justice is difficult to interpret if all of the other criteria aren’t already met. If the other criteria were met, then if the Board felt like there are conditions that are necessary to ensure substantial justice, it could add conditions. For example, if the Board believed that substantial justice could be done by creating at least one conforming lot or by minimizing the amount of lot size variance for each one by adjusting the line, that could be a condition of an approval. Mr. Perry reviewed photos of the property and buildings with the Board. Chair Weber asked if the property meets current zoning standards. Mr. Perry replied that there are at least three non-conformities. Mr. Weber asked what else the applicant could do besides split it. Mr. Perry stated that if the lot was split, at least one if not both dwellings could be owner-occupied. Mr. Perry said that there would be at least one rental in the duplex, unless it was converted to a single-family home. If it was converted, it would reduce the required lot size by 1,000 square feet. Mr. Weber asked for clarification regarding the subdivision/platting process. Mr. Perry explained that lots used to be divided through conveyance deeds, with only a text description of the area. The City adopted subdivision regulations that require a graphical plat to be reviewed by the City before it is recorded by the County Recorder. If the applicant were to submit a plat for this property to the City Council for approval, City staff would recommend denial because of all of the non-conformities, unless the applicant was planning on demolishing the buildings. Granting of the variances would bring the subject property into conformity, and thus City staff would be able to recommend approval of the plat. Board Member Calhoun asked if the property could be owned as a condominium, so the property could remain as one piece but each person would own a volume of space within the lot. Mr. Perry said that this option was not discussed, but he thinks that it might not be financially feasible. Assistant City Attorney Judy Parks agreed. Mr. Calhoun thinks that subdividing is being viewed as the only way to go, and he is just trying to find another way; a subdivision would make very small lots, and he would like to avoid that. Board Member Taylor suggested that if the proposed line were moved seven feet to the east, then there would be at least one conforming lot for the duplex. The line would need to be moved substantially farther to the west to make the single family lot conforming. Lot lines and setbacks were discussed at length. Mr. Perry stated that a minimum of one lot will end up being non-conforming if they are split. Mr. Taylor asked what options the applicant would have if one of the buildings were damaged, and new construction was necessary. Mr. Perry described a clause that provides for non-conformities to be repaired within a certain time period. Mr. Calhoun stated that there is a beautiful house near the subject property that has been on the market but will not sell, because it is on a small lot and does not have room for a garage. He thinks that the subject property is big enough to build one nice house with a garage on it. It concerns him that this usable lot will be divided into two really small lots that have a limited value and limited space. Even though this has been done before, he is not sure that it is a good solution for this part of town in the long run. Assistant City Attorney Parks said that there are multiple options with this property, and perhaps the applicant could find out what it would cost to raze one of the structures. Looking at the cost data might be a good way of determining reasonable return with one option or another. Board Member Erbes said that if the Board grants the request, it would be creating a property line that no one could see. She said that the houses could be bought and remodeled; she does not think that simply creating a property line would really impact the neighborhood. She agreed with Mr. Taylor’s idea of moving the property line to bring the duplex’s lot into compliance. Nathan Easter, 26114 520th Avenue, Ames, Iowa, addressed the question of the property line determination. He explained that the proposed line was determined by mirroring the property line of the neighboring lot to the east. He is willing to move the line if the Board wishes to do so. In regards to the reasonable return criterion, Mr. Easter said that it would be difficult to invest what is needed to bring the single-family home up to the new rental code standards. He provided the Board with an inspections report from the City’s Inspections Division, which detailed the various updates needed to bring both buildings into rental code compliance. He also provided a cost estimate from a plumber in relation to the required updates from Inspections. He indicated that the duplex does not have as many issues as the single-family home. Mr. Easter noted that he received a call from an adjoining property owner, who stated that she was in favor of splitting the lot. She would prefer that the properties be owner-occupied versus rentals. Mr. Taylor asked if the property was for sale. Mr. Easter indicated that he has signed a purchase agreement to buy the property, contingent upon the approval of the variances. The assessed value of the property was discussed. Mr. Perry stated that the total assessed value was $183,000, $144,000 of which is the buildings’ value. The duplex is valued at $105,000, and the small house is $39,000. Mr. Taylor asked about the differentiation in resale value as a single lot versus the resale value of two lots. Mr. Perry said that the City Assessor’s Office stated that the value would increase if the lot was split. Mr. Easter added that it would open up more financing opportunities if there was one building on each property; banks will not offer as low of interest rates for two dwellings on one lot. Mr. Taylor asked Mr. Easter if the proposed lot line was set in stone. Mr. Easter indicated that he would be willing to move it, and that the proposed line was just a “starting point”. The reasonable return criterion was discussed at length. Mr. Easter explained that the single-family home has two bedrooms as an owner-occupied dwelling, but as a rental, the upstairs bedroom would not be able to be used as a bedroom. Assistant City Attorney Parks noted that she was hearing discussion about moving the proposed lot line. She reminded the Board that it needs to either give an applicant what they have asked for or deny it; it is important to get confirmation from the applicant that he is agreeable to any proposed changes before making a motion. She explained that each variance would need a separate motion. The Board discussed whether it would need to approve every variance in order for the project to move forward. Ms. Parks explained that the variances would give the property the right to exist in apparent violation of the ordinance - it would bring conformity. This would give City staff the ability to recommend approval of a plat to the City Council. Mr. Taylor proposed that a motion be made to create a conforming lot size for the western lot by moving the lot line approximately seven feet to the east. Ms. Parks clarified that the applicant has requested a lot size variance of 400 feet for the duplex; if the Board wishes to move the lot line, it should deny that variance. The Board would then move to approve a new variance for the single-family lot, provided that the other lot is a conforming size. Mr. Easter stated that he would agree to those terms, and would agree that the west (duplex) lot be a minimum of 7,000 square feet. Moved by Taylor, seconded by Calhoun, to deny the lot size variance of 400 square feet for 1202-04 Burnett Avenue. Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Motion declared approved unanimously. Moved by Taylor, seconded by Calhoun, to approve the lot size variance for 319 12th street, the size of the variance being dependent upon leaving a minimum of 7,000 square feet for the lot located at 1202-04 Burnett Avenue. Mr. Taylor stated that creating at least one conforming lot does do substantial justice for the applicant and the neighborhood. He further feels that the evidence shows that a reasonable return will be made by splitting the lots and making them more marketable. He agrees that all of the other findings in the staff report are consistent. Mr. Calhoun said that he foresees the lot sizes being a big issue, especially when it comes to a future owner wanting to build a garage. Mr. Perry and Mr. Calhoun discussed this issue at length. Mr. Calhoun stated that he would be opposed to granting anything if it would not be reasonable to put a functional garage on the properties. Mr. Perry said that he does not have enough information to be sure that a garage could or could not be built on either property. Mr. Taylor stated that he appreciates Mr. Calhoun’s observations about the other house in the neighborhood having difficulty selling, but to him this is an invisible change. The Board is not allowing someone to build closer to a lot line or to create a structural non -conformity. It will look exactly the same and the neighborhood will operate the same. He does not think that it is a perfect solution, but it provides a little more flexibility and higher resale value. Roll Call Vote: 3-1. Voting Aye: Erbes, Taylor, Weber. Voting Nay: Calhoun. Motion declared approved. Moved by Taylor, seconded by Erbes, to approve the front setback variance of 15 feet for 319 12th Street, based on the aforementioned findings pertaining to substantial justice and reasonable return. Roll Call Vote: 3-1. Voting Aye: Taylor, Weber, Erbes. Voting Nay: Calhoun. Motion declared approved. Moved by Taylor, seconded by Weber, to approve the rear setback variance of 8 feet for 319 12th Street, based on the aforementioned findings pertaining to substantial justice and reasonable return. Roll Call Vote: 3-1. Voting Aye: Taylor, Weber, Erbes. Voting Nay: Calhoun. Motion declared approved. Moved by Taylor, seconded by Erbes, to approve the side setback variance of 2 feet for 1202-04 Burnett Avenue, based on the aforementioned findings pertaining to substantial justice and reasonable return. Roll Call Vote: 3-1. Voting Aye: Weber, Erbes, Taylor. Voting Nay: Calhoun. Motion declared approved. COMMENTS: There were no comments by the Board. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. ______________________________ _____________________________ Emily Burton, Recording Secretary Thomas Weber, Chair