Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 5-28-2008MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMES, IOWA MAY 28, 2008 The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 7:02 p.m. on May 28, 2008, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present: Bruce Calhoun, Denise Link, Lucy Martin and Bradley Miller. Thomas Weber was excused. Staff members Charles Kuester, Jon Nelsen, and Judy Parks were also present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Link, seconded by Martin, to approve the minutes of the meeting of April 9, 2008. Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion carried unanimously. CASE NO. 08-07 EXCEPTION FOR MINOR AREA MODIFICATION - 1524 DUFF AVENUE - THERESA FISCHER Public Hearing on application for an Exception for Minor Area Modification to allow construction of an addition to the home at 1524 Duff Avenue Planner Nelsen stated that the applicant’s home was constructed approximately 60 years ago with six-foots sideyard setbacks on both sides. Eight-foot side yard setbacks are now required, so the structure is non-conforming. The owner would like to construct a 40-square-foot addition by enclosing a notched-out portion of the rear facade adjacent to the kitchen. The Ames Municipal Code does not allow expansion of a non-conforming structure; therefore, she has requested an Exception to the setback regulations. Nelsen summarized staff’s findings, based on review criteria for Exceptions found in Code Section 29.1506(5)(c), and concluded that all standards were met. 1. In this situation, practical difficulties apply in meeting the terms of the current ordinance because the house was built before the eight-foot setback requirement was in place, and it would be impractical to move the entire structure. The proposed addition will not encroach further into the setbacks. 2. The proposed addition will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 3. It will not have a substantial negative impact upon neighboring properties. The expansion will be minimal in size and barely be visible from other yards. 4. The two-foot encroachment into the sideyard setback is exactly as much as allowed by Section 29.1506(4)(c)(ii), so it falls within the defined limits. 5. No uses or activities outside of those normally allowed in this zoning district are being requested or authorized. 6. Except for the setback encroachment, the Minor Area Modification conforms with intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 7. The Minor Area Modification is the minimum necessary to achieve the desired result. 8. The Exception would not alter the applicant’s obligation to comply with any other laws or regulations. Planner Nelsen stated that staff recommended approval of this request. There was discussion about why an expansion of this type required an Exception, when the proposed construction does not even involve the sideyard setbacks. Mr. Nelsen explained that the Code does not allow expansion of the structure unless the structure is brought into conformity. Attorney Parks added that there are differing schools of thought on this matter. One holds that expansion of a non-conforming use should be difficult to do, so that it doesn’t perpetuate the nonconformity. The other allows expansion, as long as the new portion of the building conforms to the existing code. This does nothing to change the non-conforming portion of a structure, and can possibly result in further diminishing the value of properties around it, especially those which have been constructed to standard. Board member Calhoun asked if granting this Exception would actually change the setback from eight feet to six feet, thereby allowing them to come back at a future date and expand along the sides. Mr. Nelsen said no, that the setback requirement for the low density residential zone is still eight feet for a two-story home, and serial exceptions are not allowed. Attorney Parks added that the Exception does not actually change the setback or the regulation; its function is to allow the construction of the addition without requiring the entire structure to conform to the current zoning code. Theresa Fisher, 1524 Duff Avenue, was present but had no further comments. Moved by Link, seconded by Miller, to ADOPT ORDER 08-07 granting an Exception to the side lot line setbacks for a Minor Area Modification to allow the construction of an addition to the rear of the home at 1524 Duff Avenue, based on staff’s findings and conclusions. Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Motion declared approved unanimously. CASE NO. 08-08 SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT - 3010 GROVE AVENUE - STEPHANIE BENN Application for Special Home Occupation Permit to allow the operation of a family day care at 3010 Grove Avenue Planner Kuester stated that the applicant would like to care for five children in her home between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. He said that she provided a copy of her Certificate of Registration from the State of Iowa, which states that she is allowed to care for a maximum number of six children at any one time plus two school-age children for less than two hours, but the definition of a family day care home in the Ames Municipal Code will actually restrict her to caring for up to six preschool children or five school-age children. Mr. Kuester reviewed the criteria which must be met in order for the Zoning Board to approve the Special Home Occupation Permit. The applicant stated that no changes to the premises will be made and there will be no increased emissions; the noise that may be created by children playing outside is allowed. He said that the neighbors to the south expressed concern that the 3 children might move onto their property to use their play equipment, and they have indicated in writing that they don’t want any liability. Staff supports the neighbor’s request for a fence between the two yards so that the children will be contained on the applicant’s property. The applicant’s husband stated that he will build a fence and Mr. Kuester observed that the materials were already present on the site. With respect to other criteria, staff found that: no more than 25% of home will be used for the daycare area; no on-site signage is intended; there is no need for specialized equipment or the sale of merchandise; the only employees will be the applicant and her husband; no delivery vehicles or service vehicles are anticipated; and this will be the only home occupation. Planner Kuester stated that most home occupations are limited to 10 vehicular visits per day, but the Ames Code allows up to 12 per day for day cares. There is adequate parking on site, as there are four spaces on the driveway, and parking is also allowed on both sides of the street. The applicant has indicated that pick-up and drop-off times will be staggered to allow 15 minutes between each one. The neighbors to the south referred to a large number of vehicles at this home in their letter, and Mr. Kuester said it is important to keep traffic off the street, especially when children are present. Staff would like at least two spaces to be available in the driveway during the pick-up and drop-off times. The applicant’s husband indicated that that could be done. The Planning Staff’s recommendation was that the Board approve the requested permit, with conditions pertaining to parking for clients during pick-up and drop-off of the children and with the requirement to fence the play area. Responding to a question about parking, Mr. Kuester stated that the applicant’s husband says he now owns only two cars and a boat. When he visited the home, Mr. Kuester noticed the boat in the garage and saw that the parking recommendations could be met. When asked how evidence could be provided that only 25% of the home’s floor area was being used, he acknowledged that it is a hard thing to monitor. He said the physical equipment needed for a day care will not occupy a lot of space and children only occupy two to three square feet of space each, but they move around within the structure. Board member Calhoun also wondered how the City will know that the drop-off times are being met or what age children are being cared for three years from now. Mr. Kuester stated that the code defines home day care in terms of the number of persons being cared for rather than their ages, and the ordinance does not require staggering of vehicles. Stephanie Benn, 3010 Grove Avenue, stated that the family only has two vehicles and a small S-10 truck now and there are always three spaces available in the driveway. She noted that tenants of the apartments across the street sometimes park in the street. Moved by Miller, seconded by Link, to ADOPT ORDER 08-08, granting approval of a Special Home Occupation Permit to allow a family day care home at 3010 Grove Avenue by adopting staff’s findings and conclusions, and subject to the following conditions: 1. that during pick-up and drop-off times, space for at least two cars shall be available in the driveway and that all clients picking up or dropping off children shall be instructed to park in the driveway; 4 2. that a minimum four-foot fence be constructed so as to be an effective physical barrier to prevent children of the day care home from accessing the southern neighbor’s back yard; and 3. that the hours of operation be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Motion declared approved unanimously. COMMENTS: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 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, June 11, 2008, in the Council Chambers of the Ames City Hall at 515 Clark Avenue.