Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 6-25-2008MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMES, IOWA JUNE 25, 2008 The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 7:00 p.m. on June 25, 2008, 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 Charles Kuester, Jon Nelsen, Steve Osguthorpe and Judy Parks were also present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Link, seconded by Calhoun, to approve the minutes of the meeting of June 11, 2008. Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion carried unanimously. CASE NO. 08-10 MINOR AREA MODIFICATION EXCEPTION - CLEVE & JENNY THOMAS, 1112 BURNETT AVENUE Public Hearing on Application for a Minor Area Modification Exception to the side yard setback requirement to allow the construction of an addition to the home at 1112 Burnett Avenue Planner Kuester stated that the home at 1112 Burnett has a six-foot sideyard setback on the south and a five-foot setback on the north. The current code requires sideyard setbacks of eight feet for two story homes in the Urban Core Residential Medium Density District; therefore, the house is a non-conforming structure. The applicant wishes to add a 20- by 24-foot dining room addition to the rear of the home by extending the south wall toward the rear of the lot. The Municipal Code does not allow expansion of a non-conforming structure unless the entire structure is brought into compliance with current regulations, so a Minor Area Modification Exception is being sought to cure the home’s existing encroachment on the south side. He stated that an Exception is also necessary for the proposed addition, if it is built flush with the existing structure, since it would also encroach two feet into the required setback. He stated that legitimizing the three-foot encroachment of the home into the north sideyard setback requires a Variance, and said he would address that later. Planner Kuester explained staff’s findings on the criteria to be considered for approval of an Exception. While six of the standards appeared to be met for both the existing structure and the proposed addition, staff believed two of them are not met for the proposed addition. He said special circumstances apply to the existing structure because it was built in 1945, and moving the existing walls to comply with the current eight-foot setback requirement would be impractical; however, there are no special circumstances or practical difficulties that would prohibit building the proposed addition according to code requirements. Based on the same reasoning, the request also does not represent the minimum modification necessary to achieve the desired result. Therefore, he said staff recommended that an Exception be granted for the south side of the existing structure, but not for the proposed addition. Planner Kuester stated that Section 29.307(3)(d) of the Ames Municipal Code currently reads: “A nonconforming structure may not be enlarged, expanded or extended unless it conforms to the requirements of this ordinance.” He said that previous interpretations of this section have been that if an addition is proposed for a structure that does not currently meet setbacks, the addition could be allowed as long as it met the current requirements. However, it has now been determined that the word “it” refers to the nonconforming structure, not the addition. Whether or not that was the intention at the time the zoning ordinance was crafted, that it what it says, so even if a structure were legally built at one time, it would needs to be brought into conformance with the existing regulations before any addition could be added. In this case, it means that the applicant’s dining room addition may not be built at all unless both an Exception to the setback requirements on the south side and a Variance to the setback requirements on the north side of the house are obtained. Mr. Kuester stated that staff has started the process of amending the language in the code, so that the word “it” will be replaced by a reference to the addition or expansion. He said that the City Council referred the matter to the Planning and Zoning Commission, and that body will consider it on July 2. Mr. Kuester said that, if the text amendment were approved, the applicants would not need a Variance for the north side and would not need an Exception for the existing building; they would only need the Exception for the proposed addition if they wanted to build within the required setback. (They would need no permit at all from the Zoning Board, if the addition were built at least eight feet from the lot line.) At present, however, the applicants must bring the home into compliance before a building permit may be issued, and their only options for the north side are to obtain a Variance or wait for Council to change the wording in the ordinance. There was considerable discussion among the members of the Board and the staff about zoning law. Certain issues were clarified, including these: · setbacks are established with matters such as fire safety, ventilation, sunlight and aesthetics in mind, and the sizes often correspond to the scale and mass of buildings in the zone; · an Exception does not change the setback requirements for a particular lot, it simply legalizes the existing structure so that expansion may take place; · if an existing house is legitimized by Exceptions or Variances, any additions must still comply with the code (unless other Exceptions or Variances are obtained for the addition); · an Exception applies to a specific structure; if it is torn down, any new structure built must meet legal requirements. Jenny Thomas, 1112 Burnett, stated that she wanted further clarification because she didn’t understand exactly what was needed. She said the addition could be built with an eight-foot setback, but they would prefer to have it flush with the existing wall of the house. When she filed the application, she thought the Exception would apply to the entire structure and was glad she didn’t need a Variance because she understood they were harder to get. Later, she was told she did need a Variance, even though they have no intention of doing anything to the north side of the house. Also, she didn’t want to apply for a Variance because she assumed it would be turned down. She wanted to know what she could do that would not include a Variance. She also wondered when the text amendment would be approved and what kind of time frame they were facing. She said they had contractors on hold and the construction season is advancing. 3 Attorney Parks explained that an ordinance has to be approved on three readings by the City Council, so after the Planning and Zoning Commission reviews the proposal next week, the matter will be presented to the Council – sometime in July. She said it was possible for the Council to suspend the rules and approve all three readings at once. If that were to happen, it would still probably take four-and-a-half or five weeks for the ordinance change. Mr. Kuester explained that if they waited until the text amendment was approved, the next step would simply be to get a building permit. If they wanted to build only six feet inside the lot line, they would still need approval of the Exception for the addition. However, staff cannot guarantee that the law will be changed and if the law is not changed, the only practical option is to apply for a Variance. Planning Director Osguthorpe pointed out that decisions on Variances do not depend on staff’s opinion. He wanted to make it clear that it is difficult to obtain a Variance, but staff couldn’t say one would not be approved. Board Chair Miller asked Mrs. Thomas if there was any unusual hardship in applying an eight-foot setback to the addition. She said she had just not understood the situation and had the drawings done the way they were because she thought the Exception would apply to the entire side. She said going from a twelve-foot-wide dining room to a ten-foot-wide one would be difficult because they have seven children, but she had not been able to reach the contractor that day. She noted that the area to the south is completely open because the neighbor’s driveway is next to the lot line. She added that the dining room addition would only be one story. When asked, Mrs. Thomas said if they have to wait for the Council to change the law, anyway, she would like to be able to meet with the architect to talk about other options for the addition, as well as the practical difficulties, costs, resale value, etcetera. Motion by Link, seconded by Miller, that further discussion be postponed until July 9. Vote on motion: 5-0. Motion declared approved unanimously. CASE NO. 08-11 SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT - KATHY CHOI, PROPERTY OWNER; AMY REID, TENANT AND APPLICANT, 1422 ARTHUR DRIVE Public Hearing on Application for a Special Home Occupation Permit to allow the operation of a family daycare home at 1422 Arthur Drive Planner Nelsen stated that this applicant recently moved to Ames from Indianola, where she previously operated a home daycare. He said she has four children living in the home on a full-time basis, and a fifth child, age 11, who stays at the home during the summer. Her request is to open a daycare for two to five children, primarily infants. The Municipal Code allows her to care for up to six children preschool-age or younger. Planner Nelsen reviewed the staff report and stated that all standards for approval were met. He said the Planning Department recommended the Board approve the request, subject to the condition that space be made available in the driveway for parents to park during the pick-up and drop-off times. 4 Attorney Parks mentioned that the Iowa Smokefree Air act will go into effect on July 1. She wanted to take the opportunity to make the Board aware of the fact that while smoking is allowed in a private residence as a general rule, it is not allowed in a home used for childcare. Also, business owners are required to post “No Smoking” signs at all entrances. Because this is a City-issued permit, the City needs to make sure the applicant is aware of the rules and obligations and the Clerk’s Office has information for this applicant. She also noted that the City only has to make persons aware of the rules at the time they apply, but it does not have to notify those who already received permits; they are obligated to make themselves aware of the law. Amy Reid, 1422 Arthur Drive, stated that she is registered with the State as a day care provider and has applied to transfer her registration to Story County. She said it was her understanding that daycare homes already had to be smoke-free and she is a non-smoker. She said she wants to primarily care for children ages three and under and had no objections to the suggested conditions. Moved by Martin, seconded by Miller, to ADOPT ORDER 08-11 granting a Special Home Occupation Permit to allow the operation of a family daycare home at 1422 Arthur Drive, subject to the following conditions: 1. that the hours of operation be 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday; 2. that during pickup and drop-off times, space for at least two cars be available in the driveway; 3. that the applicant be a State-certified child care provider; and 4. that the applicant comply with all requirements pertaining to the Iowa Smokefree Air Act going into effect on July 1, 2008. Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared approved unanimously. COMMENTS: Board member Weber asked about the Collegiate United Methodist Church on Lincoln Way. He recalled that they were required to put brick on the facade but were allowed to use a less expensive finish inside the courtyard; however, when he passed the building recently, he thought he saw concrete and a patio in the front and wondered if construction was finished yet. Mr. Osguthorpe said that staff would check into the matter. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 p.m. Karen C. Thompson, Recording Secretary Bradley Miller, Chair 5 The next meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment will be a Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 23, 2008, in the Council Chambers of the Ames City Hall at 515 Clark Avenue.