HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 7-08-2009MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AMES, IOWA JULY
8, 2009
The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 7:00
p.m. on July 8, 2009, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present:
Bruce Calhoun, Elizabeth Erbes, Gary Taylor, and Thomas Weber. Board Member Denise Link
was absent. Staff members Jeff Benson and Judy Parks were also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Calhoun, seconded by Taylor, to approve the minutes of
the meeting of May 27, 2009.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 09-13
VARIANCE - JEFF BRYANT, 220 & 224 SOUTH RIVERSIDE DRIVE
Public Hearing on Application for Variance from the side yard setback requirements
for accessory structures for the properties located at 220 and 224 South Riverside
Drive.
City Planner Jeff Benson explained that the two properties on South Riverside
Drive are zoned Urban Core Residential Medium Density. He stated that the
applicant wishes to remove an existing 18' by 18' garage and replace it with
a 26' by 30' wide garage to make the garage more practical for the size of modern
vehicles.
Mr. Benson pointed out that the subject properties were built in the 1920s,
and that a subdivision built in the ‘20s is much different from one built today.
He said that the Board should think about how the granting of the variance would
relate to the overall character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Benson explained that setback requirements are a common tool for protecting
from fire damage, providing adequate light and air circulation among buildings,
and preventing excess massing of buildings that create the appearance of
overcrowding. He said that there is a public interest established by the zoning
ordinance to preserve the quality of the neighborhood. He also stated that the
applicant pointed out the aspect of aesthetics, which Mr. Benson agreed was
a factor in public interest as well. He concluded that Staff found that the
public interest would not be protected without setback requirements, and if
they allowed bigger garages in a neighborhood with small lots and small houses,
that could impinge upon the character of the neighborhood. He stated that there
was no compelling public interest that would be served by granting the variance.
Mr. Benson stated that there was nothing intrinsically unique about the subject
property lots when compared to the rest of the neighborhood. He explained that
it was not the lot size or shared driveway that necessitated a variance; rather,
it was the desire to expand the non -conforming garage. He stated that the need
to build a bigger garage was more of a general condition, not a unique
circumstance.
Mr. Benson showed a sketch created by the applicant, which illustrated current
and proposed conditions. He explained that he wanted the Board to think about
the visual character of the buildings as well as scale and proportions, and
he pointed out that gables and elements of roofs are dominant visual features
in a neighborhood. He said that the gable of a small two car garage fits in,
but that of a garage almost as big as a house does not, especially when, as
proposed, the gable is facing another direction and is not visible from the
street. Mr. Benson stated that Staff found that the proposal was not in keeping
with the essential character of the locality. He offered the Board Members the
idea of requiring the gable to face the street, if they did in fact decide to
grant the variance, which would help it to fit better into the character of
the locality.
Mr. Benson explained the “substantial justice” criteria relating to variances,
and said that the Board should ask itself if the applicant would lose a benefit
that all other properties in the neighborhood enjoy if the variance is not
granted.
He concluded that it was Staff ’s recommendation to deny the request based on
the findings that the application did not meet any of the criteria for granting
a variance.
Board Member Calhoun asked how the City regulates attached buildings and how
they are maintained in good condition. Mr. Benson stated that he was not aware
of any legal requirements other than the Building Code. He said that there is
a private agreement between two parties, but it is not regulated by the City
at all.
Mr. Calhoun asked if the pitch on the proposed garage ’s roof was the same as
the houses on either side. He also asked about the size of the garage in relation
to the houses if the gable was turned to face the street, and Mr. Benson replied
that the width of the proposed garage would be 30 feet, and one of the bordering
houses is 32 feet wide.
Board Member Taylor asked if there were still a fair number of shared garages
in the neighborhood, since a number of shared driveways still exist, and Mr.
Benson replied that there are. Mr. Taylor inquired whether the issue of a
three-foot side yard setback was consciously discussed when it was written in
the Code. Mr. Benson stated that, to his knowledge, it was not specifically
discussed. He explained that when the three-foot side yard setback requirement
was put in place, it created non-conformities to garages that had been built
already or platted around, so variances are requested from time to time. He
said that the Code has a very forgiving approach to preexisting situations and
non-conformities, and that they are able to be maintained and preserved so that
the property maintains a reasonable value.
Mr. Weber asked if it would be acceptable to replace the existing garage with
a new one of the same size. Mr. Benson replied that once the garage is torn
down, it would be subject to the current zoning standards. Assistant City Attorney
Judy Parks added that it could be maintained or repaired, but not enlarged,
and if it was torn down it would no longer be a non-conforming structure.
Ms. Parks addressed Mr. Taylor’s question about the three-foot setback
requirement, and said that it was added to the Code somewhere around the 1950s.
Mr. Taylor surmised that at some point, because shared driveways and structures
were so popular, a specific discussion was had to create or maintain a three -foot
side yard setback. Ms. Parks agreed that it must have been consciously discussed
and decided upon.
Jeff Bryant, 220 and 224 South Riverside Drive, Ames, said that in the past
20 years that he has owned the properties, the arrangement of the shared driveway
and garage has worked very well. He also mentioned that there is a maintenance
agreement for the shared driveway and structure. He explained that the roof
and siding of the garage need to be repaired, and he felt that it made sense
economically to start over and make the garage bigger for modern vehicles and
modern use.
Mr. Bryant said that he first looked at replacing the existing structure with
two separate garages, which adhered to side yard setbacks; however, given the
narrow width of the driveway and width between houses, they would need to be
placed much farther back on the property to accommodate the entry angle of a
car. He explained that there would be several problems with that scenario,
including the loss of yard to concrete and structure, and the loss of a mature
tree in one of the yards.
Mr. Bryant said that he looked at the original intent of the properties and
how they were designed, and thought that a shared garage worked well and seemed
reasonable to duplicate. He emphasized that it was his goal to match the original
character of the neighborhood with the proposed garage. He pointed out that
a detached structure could legally be up to 900 square feet, but that the proposed
garage would be only 780 square feet, with half belonging to one property and
half to the other. He felt that his proposal was minimal when using that
perspective.
Mr. Bryant stated that he had also sought the professional opinions of a realtor
and a real estate appraiser, and said that both concluded that a common garage
best serves both properties in lieu of two separate garages taking up green
space in the backyard. He explained that they also provided their opinions on
maintaining and improving the property values. He provided the Board and Staff
with letters from the two parties, and explained that both letters basically
reiterated his arguments.
Mr. Bryant also stated that cost was a factor, and since the value of the two
properties was not high to begin with, it would not take much investment or
improvement to significantly change that. He said that losing green spaces and
a tree would not be acceptable, so he would either succeed with the variance
or leave the structure that they currently have.
Mr. Bryant stated that it was a conscious decision to orientate the gable away
from the street to look less obtrusive and less massive from the street. He
explained that they could best match the roof pitch of the houses, put in
additional storage, and more easily construct a firewall if the gable was
orientated as proposed.
Mr. Calhoun asked Mr. Bryant why they needed such a large garage, and what type
of vehicle would need that much space. Mr. Bryant said that he had researched
various vehicles and found some to be quite long. He also said that he would
like a work space in the garage, and did not feel that the proposed width was
excessive. Mr. Calhoun said that the width was causing the problem, and if the
intent of the garage is to park vehicles in it, it should not have to be very
wide. He suggested that Mr. Bryant could add a workshop in his dwelling. Mr.
Bryant explained that though they would never be able to enjoy a two -car garage
per home, he wanted to get somewhat close to that feel with the proposed size.
Board Member Erbes asked Mr. Benson if more individual driveways have been added
as the community moved away from shared garages. Mr. Benson discussed more about
the setback requirements, but said that he did not know if adding individual
driveways was a trend.
Mr. Calhoun asked if the applicant had considered making the garage deeper instead
of wider. Mr. Bryant stated that he did not want to lose square footage, and
mentioned suggestions that Staff had made. Mr. Calhoun said that the applicant
created his own problem by designing a garage that is too wide. Mr. Bryant
reiterated the idea of looking at the width per individual property, and 15
feet per property did not seem unreasonable.
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Calhoun to grant the variance to three foot side
yard setback requirements to allow construction of a detached garage straddling
the property line between 220 and 224 South Riverside Drive.
Mr. Taylor stated that he has to agree that the alternative proposed is better
than what the law allows in this circumstance, and that he understands where
the applicant is coming from, but did not think the Board should grant the
variance.
Roll call vote: 0-4. Voting Aye: None. Voting Nay: Taylor, Weber, Calhoun, Erbes.
Motion failed.
CASE NO. 09-14
SPECIAL USE PERMIT - JOHN BURDINE, 1432 BURNETT AVENUE
Public Hearing on Special Use Permit for Functional Family Application to allow
five unrelated people to occupy a residential dwelling unit at 1432 Burnett Avenue.
City Planner Jeff Benson stated that on March 11, 2009, the Zoning Board of
Adjustment granted a Special Use Permit for a Functional Family, and explained
that the permit allowed occupancy of a single -family dwelling by five unrelated
people.
Mr. Benson reviewed the criteria for a Functional Family, and said that the
group of people must share a commitment to a common purpose, some permanency
in location, and establish legal domicile. He explained that the Functional
Family was granted to five particular individuals, one of whom got married.
Mr. Benson reminded the Board that at the time of the original application,
the group informed the Board that this individual was to be married. He stated
that the applicants were aware that they would need to re -apply with a new
member.
Mr. Benson said that Staff found that only a few of the criteria were relevant
to replacing one individual in the Functional Family with another, and the same
rationale was used as with the previous application. He told the Board that
it was, however, a new application, and the Board could do what it felt was
best.
Mr. Benson went over the criteria that were most relevant, including: sharing
a strong bond or commitment for a single purpose, sharing a single household
budget, preparing food and eating together regularly, and sharing in work to
maintain the premises. He explained that these criteria were all covered with
a household covenant signed by the applicants, including the new member.
He also pointed out that the applicants were not legally dependent on others
not part of the functional family, which was evidenced by letters from their
parents. Mr. Benson concluded that Staff recommended approval, since the
application still complied with the one new individual.
John Burdine, 1432 Burnett Avenue, stated that it had been nice living together
as a family and it had been going very well. Board Member Calhoun asked how
the group paid their bills, and whether or not they had a common checking account.
Mr. Burdine replied that they settle their checking accounts at the end of the
month. Mr. Calhoun pointed out that there is an exception listed in the ordinance,
which says that a group does not qualify if its association is temporary or
seasonal in nature. He stated that it seemed clear that since a member already
left, the association was temporary, especially because it had been agreed upon
that this member would be leaving. He said that the household covenant was
admirable, but that he felt that the application was in conflict with the
ordinance. Mr. Burdine pointed out the word “association,” and said that John
still lives in the neighborhood, is still serving with them in ministry, and
that they are still very much associated with him even though he has moved out.
Mr. Burdine and Mr. Calhoun continued discussion about whether the group ’s
association was temporary. Mr. Weber interjected that it is very difficult to
find something permanent in life.
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Erbes, to adopt ORDER NO. 09 -14, granting a Special Use
Permit for occupancy of a dwelling unit at 1432 Burnett Avenue by John Burdine, Jonathan
Ostermann, Jonathan Williby, Anthony Ashley, and Kyle Colson as a functional family with
the following conditions:
1. The two spaces in the garage be made available for parking
2. The permit expires on July 31, 2010 and a new permit applied for at that time
3. No “regularly” scheduled meetings that include more than two non -residents of the
house
Roll call vote: 3-1. Voting Aye: Weber, Erbes, Taylor. Voting Nay: Calhoun.
Motion declared approved.
COMMENTS: Board Member Weber commented that a Decision and Order from a previous
meeting was difficult to understand, and asked Ms. Parks for a revision.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
__________________________________ ___________________________________
Emily Burton, Recording Secretary Thomas Weber, Chair