Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 1-14-2009MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMES, IOWA JANUARY 14, 2009 The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 7:00 p.m. on January 14, 2009, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present: Bruce Calhoun, Denise Link, Lucy Martin, Bradley Miller, and Thomas Weber. Staff members Jeff Benson, Steve Osguthorpe, Sam Perry and Judy Parks were also present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Martin, seconded by Weber, to approve the minutes of the meeting of December 10, 2008. Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion carried unanimously. CASE NO. 09-01 VARIANCES - JILL AND OREN GEISINGER III, 201 WASHINGTON AVENUE Application for Variances to side yard setback requirements to allow construction of a new detached garage at 201 Washington Avenue Planner Jeff Benson stated that the property in question is located in the South Lincoln Mixed-Use District (S-SMD), in which the Land Use Policy Plan allows both residential and small commercial uses. This applicant would like to remove an existing garage and build a new one and he is seeking Variances to allow the new structure to extend into the setbacks on the north and south sides of his property. Mr. Benson said that the east-west dimension of the lot on the Washington Avenue side is 41.5 feet and the north-south dimension along South 2nd Street is approximately 170 feet. Since the lot is on a corner, the building setback on both of the streets and the alley is 25 feet. The required setback on the south side is eight feet. This creates a situation in which any new structure could only have a north-south dimension of 8.5 feet or less. The applicants’ house was constructed before the current regulations were established, and the north wall already encroaches 16 feet into the present required setback. In 2007, the Zoning Board of Adjustment granted variances to allow the construction of an open deck on the rear of the home (west side) and to allow enclosure of the front porch. The applicants would now like to demolish the garage in the rear yard and build a new 27-foot by 33-foot one. The result would be that the north wall of the garage would be 9 feet from the north property line and extend 16 feet into the required 25-foot setback. The south wall would be three feet from the property line, encroaching five feet into the required setback. Both the north and south walls of the garage would extend approximately the same distance beyond the setback lines as do those of the existing house and deck. Mr. Benson reported staff’s findings and conclusions on the Variance criteria: · The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. The proposed improvements will not negatively affect visibility and will not have a significant impact on the appearance of the neighborhood or the neighbors’ use of their own properties. He said that there is a four- or five-unit apartment building on the lot to the south, and the applicants’ 2 new garage will be immediately adjacent to the garage for the apartments, the north side of which is a blank wall. The new building will have no impact on public facilities. · Staff believes that a literal enforcement of the city’s ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship because it is not be feasible to build any structure for residential use that is only 8.5 feet wide. · The plight of the owners is a unique circumstance because of the combination of the narrow (41.5 foot) north-south lot dimension and the corner location where the 25-foot setback is required adjacent to both streets. · The use to be authorized by the variances will not alter the essential character of the locality. A garage is a common accessory building in this zoning district and it will extend no further into the required setbacks than does the existing house. All design standards for the district will be adhered to. · The spirit of the ordinance will be observed even when the variances are granted. · Substantial justice shall be done by allowing this property owner to have the same opportunity as neighbors who don’t have such limiting setback requirements to make improvements to his property. In summary, Planner Benson stated that staff believes all the standards for approval of these variances are met; the proposed improvement is consistent with the area and in accordance with the Land Use Policy Plan of the City. Board Chair Miller asked if the proximity of the proposed new structure to the existing apartment building garage would create any concern about access for fire fighters. Mr. Benson stated that there would be about six feet between the buildings and there is an alley along the west property line of both lots, and as long as a fire truck can get within 150 feet' on both the east and west sides, it will meet the fire code. Oren Geisinger III, 201 Washington Avenue, stated that he and his wife would like to improve their parking and storage situation, as well as the appearance of their property. He believes the new building will be an improvement to the neighborhood. In order to meet the fire code, he will put fire-retardant board on the inside and outside walls and fire-treated plywood on the roof of the new garage. Responding to questions from the Board, Mr. Geisinger stated that he plans to remove the existing driveway and install curbing; a new driveway will be installed for access to the new garage. The new structure will be one story with attic trusses designed to create storage space. He said might heat the space, but will not be creating living quarters. He also stated that he plans to install a ten-foot-wide garage door, which is one foot larger than the standard single stall door, so they might be able to pull two cars inside, if necessary. He said it would be possible to install a 16-foot garage door, but his preference is to create more storage space. Board Member Calhoun wondered if on-street parking would be better preserved if the new garage was accessed from the alley. The applicant said he had not considered that, but it could be possible. Mr. Calhoun also asked about drainage in the back yard. Mr. Geisinger said that right now the grassy spot is lower than the alley and the curb. He will build it up so that water will drain toward the alley. Mr. Calhoun said he wanted to make sure that water 3 off the roof of the new garage doesn’t go into the garage next door. Mr. Geisinger assured the Board that there will be gutters on the new structure. Board Member Weber questioned whether the proposed structure was really a garage or whether it was more like a shop or storage area. Mr. Benson stated that it wouldn’t really matter. While 201 Washington is a residential property, it is located in a mixed-used district that also allows commercial activity. The standards for the amount of lot area that may be occupied by buildings are different than those for “regular” residential neighborhoods and this proposal is in keeping with the zoning district. Mr. Geisinger said that the City code allows an accessory structure of 900 square fee and he wanted to get the maximum size so he can use it as a shop and for storage, as well as for parking vehicles. Regarding access to the garage from the alley, Mr. Benson said staff had no recommendation either way. The curb cut for a new driveway will have to be approved by Public Works, and they will apply standards for its distance from the alley. Alley access might allow more parking on the street, but might also a security issue if the door is not visible from the house. Board member Link pointed out that the old driveway will be removed when the new one is installed, so on-street parking will be gained in the existing driveway area. Mr. Geisinger stated that he would not want the garage door on the alley side because he and his wife would have to walk a long way from the back door of the house to get to their vehicles and it would be harder with the children. When Mr. Calhoun noted that alley access would create more room to park additional vehicles, the applicant stated that he had already considered installing a hard surface so that vehicles could be parked on the west side. Mr. Calhoun raised a concern about the amount of impervious surface. He thought he had heard something about a culvert that became overloaded in that general vicinity and wondered if there was adequate infrastructure to support additional run off. While he did not see anything in the zoning ordinance that addressed this, Mr. Calhoun said he would not want a permit granted by the ZBA to contribute to flooding elsewhere. Planning Director Osguthorpe said that stormwater issues had not been looked into, but the Board could add restrictions to the permit if they wished to. Planner Perry remarked that Ames does not presently impose any taxes based on the percentage of impervious area. The applicant said that he would leave the concrete out if it made a difference in approval of the Variances. Board Chair Miller agreed that increasing the amount of impervious surface raises a concern, but since there is nothing in the code that addresses it, he did not feel the Board had the power to impose restrictions now. He would, however, like to encourage the use of surface materials that allow water to soak in. Moved by Miller, seconded by Link, to ADOPT ORDER NO. 09-01, granting a sixteen-foot (16') Variance to the required building setback on the north side of the property, and a five-foot (5') Variance to the required setback on the south side of the property at 201 Washington Avenue to allow construction of an accessory structure extending north to 4 match the location of the north wall of the house and south to within three (3) three feet of the south property line. Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared approved unanimously. CASE NO. 09-02 APPEAL OF DECISION - AG LEADER INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES LLC, REPRESENTED BY AL MYERS; FOX ENGINEERING, REPRESENTED BY SCOTT RENAUD, 2201 NORTH LOOP DRIVE Public Hearing on an Appeal of a Decision of the Zoning Enforcement Official with respect to interior landscaping requirements in a surface parking area at 2201 North Loop Drive Planner Perry stated that the site being discussed lies just northwest of the airport, where Ag Leader is proposing to build a training facility just west of its existing building. He said that when staff reviewed the company’s site plan application last fall, they found the interior landscaping of the parking lot to be deficient because a full-length, fifteen-foot wide, landscaped median is required when three (3) contiguous double-loaded drive aisles are present. Mr. Perry said the code also requires a nine-foot by sixteen-foot landscaped island for every 20 interior parking spaces, but islands are not a problem because they appeared on the proposed plan. Mr. Perry provided the Board with some background on the case, noting that a minor site plan was actually submitted before the lots in question were properly platted. A plat application was filed to consolidate some lots, and was later resubmitted to include a portion of the outlot, but it did not represent the lot shown on the site plan; the application was therefore denied. Planner Perry also explained that the Development Review Committee (D.C.) meets with applicants to make sure their plans meet the code, and to indicate any changes that need to be made so that the site plan can be approved. In this particular case, there is no active site plan application, and the board is not being asked to approve a specific plan. Since the staff and the appellants disagree on the interpretation of the interior landscaping requirements, the Zoning Board’s decision will provide direction that will allow them to work toward agreement on a new plan. The future plan is likely to be submitted once the subdivision is properly platted. Planner Perry proceeded to explain the difference between staff’s and the appellant’s readings of the code. The appellant believes the language implies that the median requirement is triggered after three double-loaded parking aisles exist; staff believes there is an instantaneous requirement whenever three double-loaded parking aisles exist. This is because Section 29.403(4)(c)(I) states that interior landscaping shall “at a minimum, include (...) a landscaped median, a minimum of 15' wide, running the full length of the drive aisle for every 3 contiguous double loaded parking aisles.” Staff argues that the appellant’s interpretation is incorrect because the code says “for every three” and does not use the words “before” or “after” anywhere. Board Member Link commented that, based on the wording, it appears that there is nothing to prohibit all the medians from being together. Mr. Perry agreed, saying the total number of 5 contiguous double-loaded drive aisles dictates the number of medians that must be installed, but is silent as to where they are placed; that is a decision for the designer. All the medians could be at one end, if they wanted to build the lot that way, as long as the correct number were built. When questioned as to the definition of an interior parking space, Mr. Perry stated that it is one that does not abut the perimeter of the parking lot. Board member Link questioned whether the parking spaces abutting the exterior should then be considered interior parking. Assistant City Attorney Parks noted that this was a matter of interior landscaping, and directed the board to look at the entire subsection. She said that the first sentence establishes the general rule and it dictates whether or not the second sentence applies. Therefore, if the parking lot itself includes 16 or more spaces and three or more rows of parking spaces separated by two or more drive aisles, then the requirements for the islands and medians described in the second sentence pertain. When asked if he could explain the purpose of the requirement, Mr. Perry cited Section 29.403(4)(a) of the Municipal Code, “Landscaping Requirements For Surface Parking Lots:” The purpose of this section is to protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare by requiring the landscaping of surface parking lots in such a manner as will serve to reduce the effects of wind and air turbulence, heat and noise, and the glare of automobile lights; to preserve ground water strata; to act as a natural drainage system and ameliorate stormwater drainage problems; to reduce the level of carbon dioxide and return oxygen to the atmosphere; to prevent soil erosion; to conserve and stabilize property values and to otherwise facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community; to relieve the blight of the appearance of surface parking lots; and to generally preserve a healthful and pleasant environment. Attorney Parks added that Section 4.6 of the Iowa Code, directs how courts are to determine the intention of the legislature if a statute is ambiguous. She suggested that the Zoning Board of Adjustment, as a quasi-judicial body, could use the same guidelines by considering: 1. the object sought to be attained; 2. the circumstances under which the statute was enacted; 3. the legislative history; 4. the common law or former statutory provisions, including laws upon the same or similar subjects; 5. the consequences of a particular construction (as opposed to the way staff interprets it); 6. the administrative construction of the statute (that is, how this has been applied when other site plans have been submitted); 7. the preamble or statement of policy (part of which Mr Perry just quoted). On the other hand, if the Board thinks the code language is clear, it should simply be followed. 6 Mr. Perry asked the ZBA to uphold the staff’s decision in determining that a full-length landscape median is required to meet the surface parking area interior landscaping requirements of the City Code, based on the existing wording of Section 29.403(4)(c)(I). Board Member Calhoun inquired about the kind of trees that are usually installed in medians and wondered if the intent was to cast shade. Planner Perry stated that the trees can be deciduous and must have trunks at least 1.5" in diameter at four feet above the ground and be at least 6' tall, but the landscaping requirement is not related to species. Board Member Miller asked if the median had to be curbed and Mr. Perry said that a curb may not be required, but usually assists in the control of storm water and may serve as a parking stop. He remarked that sometimes bumpers are now used, instead, and the parking area will have an inverted edge so that the water will drain off the lot into the median. Mr. Miller said it seems a big difference to him if the median is receiving water from the impervious area of the parking lot. If it is curbed, all they are doing is adding a small strip that will accept water falling from above, but does not add much infiltration area and may not accomplish the City’s intent, especially since there are landscaping requirements on the perimeter. Planner Osguthorpe stated that interior landscaping is also a matter of aesthetics, as medians break up the parking lot. Planner Perry added that there would probably have to be two trees on the median, so it provides a combination of green space and a tree that gets larger. Mr. Miller asked if a lot with nine double-loaded parking aisles would require three medians and staff replied in the affirmative; an example is the Wal-Mart Supercenter. Responding to other questions, staff explained that a required island is similar in size to a parking space, but emphasized that both islands and medians are called for. The Board had many questions about the number of medians that are required under various circumstances, and how the end results would appear. Mr. Miller pointed out that staff’s reading of the code results in a lack of balance, since a lot with nine double-loaded aisles would need three medians, but two-thirds of the lot would end up with two sets of double-loaded rows. He felt that it would be more logical to require only two medians in a lot with nine aisles; only once you have 10 aisles does a requirement for three medians make sense. The three double-loaded aisle scenario is the smallest end of the interior landscaping requirement. Mr. Calhoun pointed out that this is a common requirement. Ms. Link stated that she feels the code is not well written. Allen Myers, 9083 W 190th Street, Ames, stated that he owns Ag Leader Technology and the lots for which site plans will be needed. He stated that he does not like the staff’s interpretation of the requirements, in part because constructing another median would be a little more expensive, but also because it makes snow removal much more difficult and does 7 not net any additional green area, since his design includes more landscaped area than required at the south perimeter and also on the north end adjacent to the building. Mr. Myers stated that the meaning of the words used in the zoning code is not as clear as it could be. It says a median is required for every three contiguous double-loaded parking aisles, but there are not three contiguous ones in this proposal. He agreed with Miller’s assessment that the logical interpretation is that if there is a large parking lot you would want a median after every three double-loaded aisles. If you don’t do that, there is a loss of symmetry. Scott Renaud, Fox Engineering, 1601 Golden Aspen Drive, stated that it seems very clear to him that the first median is required after every three aisles. He also commented that 15 feet of space is needed for viable landscaping and rearranging the space into one 10-foot area and one five-foot area doesn’t help anything. In essence, the proposed design has an edge median with a wider landscape area. Mr. Renaud went on to say that medians can break up the mass of a parking lot and also prevent cut-through traffic, but those issues don’t apply in this instance. Mr. Osguthorpe stated that staff’s interpretation is based on the language as written – one median for three double-loaded drive aisles, just the same as one dollar for three apples. You don’t pay one dollar only if you take the fourth apple. Also, median, by definition, divides something in half, so there is no basis for identifying an “edge median.” Mr. Miller commented that the apple analogy was not quite exact, because we don’t ask for partial medians when there are two aisles or five. Board Member Calhoun said it did not seem as if the first part of the code section said the same thing as the second part. It seems as if you want three double-loaded bays before you get a strip. If you apply one median for every three aisles, you start to see a pattern emerge, and the intent of code seems to be for intermittent medians between every three double-loaded bays. Yet, here there are three drive aisles and staff wants a 15-foot-wide median, and if you apply the median requirement instantaneously, you may get an odd pattern. Staff said the code does not get that detailed. The code sets the minimum requirement for the number of medians; it does not dictate that they be installed in any specific way (such as one for each specific set of drive aisles, for example). Our code requires five -foot landscaping around the outside of the lot plus medians, when the size corresponds to conditions set forth in the first sentence of the section. Board Member Weber said he felt the language was very clear: one median when there are three double-loaded aisles. Mr. Miller remarked that, by requiring a median in this size lot, all that’s happening is that the green space is being moved from the exterior of the lot to the interior. 8 Mr. Renaud returned to the podium and asked the Board to consider a situation in which there was a lot with five double-loaded drive aisles. He assumed it would need one median and staff agreed, so he maintained that the question is, “At which point is it required?” Should there be two aisles, then a median and three more aisles, or vice versa? Which direction of counting triggers the need? Planner Osguthorpe said it was a simple matter of rounding. With one or two aisles, no median is needed; if there are three, one is needed; if there are four or five, round down and you still only need one median; with six double-loaded aisles, two medians are required (along with the prescribed number of islands). He emphasized that the code doesn’t call for one median per set of three double-loaded aisles; any random installation of the medians satisfies the intent. The City has a quantity requirement, not a design requirement –the design is flexible. Planner Perry pointed out that there are some parts of the landscaping code that require a certain quantity (of shrubs, for example) based on the area, but islands and medians are matter of design. He also mentioned that if the Board chose not to grant the appeal, the appellants could still seek a Variance for relief from the requirements, if they believe there is hardship or some other grounds to satisfy the standards. Mr. Miller asked counsel if a decision could be based on practicality. Attorney Parks said it could. Consideration of “the consequences of a particular construction” allows them to look at what is going to happen if a decision is made one way in lieu of another way. Mr. Miller said he understood the interpretation of a median for every three aisles and the staff’s argument, but every example he can see in which the instantaneous requirement is applied makes for an impractical situation where the intent of the code is not met. He said he can understand either interpretation of the language, but, practically, it makes sense to him to interpret that after the third double-stacked aisle there would be a median required, not an instantaneous requirement for one. Moved by Miller, seconded by Martin, that the Zoning Board of Adjustment ADOPT ORDER NO. 09-02, granting the appeal because the city staff did not make the correct decision in applying the City Code to the proposed minor site development plan. Board Member Weber objected. He stated that the language was very clear that for every three double-loaded aisles there should be a median. He argued that the addition of a median does add green space – in addition to the five feet of landscaping around the outside, there would be a 15-foot landscaped area inside the lot. There was discussion about various parking lot designs, the definition of contiguous double-loaded aisles and whether or not they are still contiguous once a median or a curb is installed. Mr. Osguthorpe reminded the Board that the aisles needed to be considered, not the rows of parking stalls. Board member Calhoun said he felt the Ames Code was very confusing because usually the wording refers to “bays,” which consist of three aisles and two 9 rows of parking and he felt that is the way most designers would look at this. He said that if the Code is to be enforced the way staff is looking at it, the language needed to be improved. Attorney Parks again pointed out the configuration under which interior landscaping is required, according to paragraph (I): “parking lots containing 16 or more spaces, that include three or more rows of parking spaces separated by two or more drive aisles in a single location.” She emphasized that this defines the minimum threshold that triggers the requirement for interior landscaping. Mr. Calhoun wondered if someone could draw a picture of that, and how it would compare to what is said at the bottom. Ms. Link referred back to a scenario in which there were five drive aisles. If this sample layout occurred in one end of the five-aisle lot where there were three contiguous aisles this proposal would be legal, but in a lot with only three aisles it is not. Martin agreed that the code did not address three-aisle lots very well. Roll Call Vote: 4-1, Calhoun, Link, Martin and Miller voting in favor; Weber opposed. Motion in favor of the appellant declared approved. COMMENTS: None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m. Karen C. Thompson, Recording Secretary Bradley Miller, Chair The next meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment will be a Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 11, 2009, in the Council Chambers of the Ames City Hall at 515 Clark Avenue.