Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-13-2010 Board of AdjustmentCITY OF IOWA CITY IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Wednesday, October 13, 2010 5: 15 P.M. Emma). Harvat Hall STAFF REPORT CITY OF IOWA CITY Department of Planning & Community Development AGENDA IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Wednesday, October 13, 2010 — 5:15 PM CITY HALL — EMMA J. HARVAT HALL A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Consider the September 8, 2010 Board Minutes D. Special Exceptions: EXC10-00009: Discussion of an application submitted by Theresa Tranmer for a special exception to reduce the principal building setback (front) located in a Medium Density Single -Family (RS-8) zone at 1610 Center Avenue to allow construction of a front deck. E. Board of Adjustment Information F. Adjourn NEXT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING: November 10, 2010 STAFF REPORT To: Board of Adjustment Item: EXC10-00009 1610 Center Avenue GENERAL INFORMATION: Prepared by: Sarah Walz Date: October 13, 2010 Applicant: Theresa Tranmer 3911 Hensleigh Drive, NE Iowa City, IA 319-337-8592 Requested Action: Reduction of the front setback requirement for uncovered decks and patios in the residential zones. Purpose: To reduce the front setback requirement for an uncovered patio or deck in the RS-8 zone from 10 feet to 5.5 feet. Location: 1610 Center Street Size: 3,150 square feet Existing Land Use and Zoning: Single-family residential (RS-8) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential (RS-8) South: Residential (RS-8) East: Residential (RS-8) West: Residential (RS-8) Applicable code sections: 14-413-3A, General Criteria for special exceptions; 14- 4C-2J-1 Specific Approval Criteria for Uncovered Decks and Patios in the Residential zones; 14-4C-3B-4b, Adjustments to Setback Requirements for accessory use, building, or structure. File Date: September 14, 2010 BACKGROUND: This subject property is located along Center Avenue in the RS-8 zone. The property is roughly square (50 x 63 feet), leaving shallow front and back yards. At 75 feet, the Center Avenue right-of- way is wide for a residential street —the standard residential street width today is 60 feet. The majority of homes along Center Avenue have shallow building setbacks, and most have front entrances set several feet above the grade of the sidewalk, requiring stairs up from the sidewalk. Properties in the surrounding area mostly front on the long side of the block with vehicle access from rear alleys. The subject property, along with several others on Center Avenue, fronts on the short side of a block, with vehicle access from Center Street. The subject property is 3,150 square feet; approximately half the size of typical lot in this neighborhood. The current minimum lot size for homes that provide vehicle access from the street is 5,000 square feet. The right-of-way line is located 4 feet inside the sidewalk, and the house is established with a 10 foot setback (10 feet from the ROW line). This is in compliance with the required principal building setback, which is determined through setback averaging. The entrance to the attached garage bumps out slightly and is set approximately 7-8 feet from the right-of-way line. The applicant wishes to construct a 41/2 foot x 10 foot uncovered deck to replace the existing 3 x 3 foot front stoop. The additional space is intended to allow for a small amount of seating. While stoops are allowed to extend up to 8 feet into the front building setback, uncovered decks are subject to a minimum 10-foot setback in all residential zones. Because the proposed structure provides space beyond what is necessary for access, it is considered a deck and is therefore subject to the to the 10-foot setback requirement. The existing stoop extends 3 feet into the required 10-foot building setback. The proposed deck would extend 4.5 feet into the required setback'. The applicant seeks to reduce the required setback from 10 feet to 5.5 feet in order to allow the proposed deck. The subject house is located in a Historic Conservation District, which requires that any changes to the exterior of the house be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. The Commission recently granted a Certificate Aerial view of the property at 1610 Center Ave. of Appropriateness for a front deck subject to the final design being approved by staff. The applicant has yet to submit a final design. Approval for a setback reduction to allow a front deck would not remove the condition of the HPC approval the applicant would still need to submit a final design for the deck for staff approval to satisfy the historic preservation requirements. An example of the sort of rail design that would be acceptable according to historic preservation guidelines is included in the attachments. Photo of the house at 1610 Center Ave. ANALYSIS: The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city, and to encourage the most appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the specific criteria included for Section 14-4C-3B-4b pertaining to setback requirements for decks and patios in the residential zones in addition to the general approval criteria for special exceptions as set forth in Section 14-413-3A. The applicant's comments regarding the specific and general standards are included on the attached application form. Staff comments related to the specific and general approval criteria are set forth below. Uncovered decks are regulated as accessory uses and are subject to a minimum I 0-foot setback in all residential zones. In this situation the required setback for the house and the deck are the same 10 feet. The established house is set at the required 10 feet, which is determined through setback averaging. The current stoop is in compliance with the setback standards as stoops may extend up to 8 feet into the required front building setback. Specific Standards (14-4C-2J-1). 1. The situation is peculiar to the property in question. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • The 3,150 square foot lot is about half the typical lot size for this neighborhood and significantly smaller than the current minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet allowed by code. • The subject house is set 10 feet from the street right-of-way line with the front door several feet above grade, making a raised structure (stoop or deck) necessary for access. • The Center Avenue right-of-way is 75 feet wide, which is unusually wide for a residential street of its length and traffic volume. The current standard residential street width is 60 feet. The setback line is located 4 feet inside the sidewalk. 2. There is practical difficulty in complying with the setback requirements. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings : • The subject house is established with a 10-foot setback. • The existing stoop, which is approximately 3 feet deep, is failing and, according to the applicant, provides awkward access to the house. • The property is small in comparison with most other in the neighborhood, and much smaller than what would be allowed under the current zoning ordinance. This limits space for outdoor recreation or seating. 3. Granting the exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations. The minimum setback requirements are intended to: a. Maintain light, air, separation for fire protection, and access for fire fighting. b. Provide opportunities for privacy between dwellings. Staff believes the application satisfies these criteria based on the following findings : • The proposed setback reduction is for the purpose of an uncovered front deck only and will not bring the principal building (the house itself) any closer to the street. • The proposed uncovered deck will have side setbacks that exceed the 5 feet required by the zoning code. • As mentioned above, the Center Avenue right-of-way is unusually wide for a residential street. This provides additional space between buildings that are on the opposite side of the street, as well as space between the buildings and the street. c. Reflect the general building scale and placement of structures in the City's neighborhoods; Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings : • Other homes along this frontage are set 10 feet or less from the right-of-way line, which is located 4 feet inside the sidewalk. All have entrances several feet above the grade of the street, which require stoops or decks. • At least two other houses along this same portion of Center Avenue have retaining walls established within the right-of-way. d. Promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and between residences; and e. Provide flexibility to site a building so that it is compatible with buildings in the vicinity. 4 Staff believes the application satisfies these two criteria based on the following findings : • The neighborhood is already fully developed and is characterized by densely built housing. • The 75-foot Center Avenue right-of-way is unusually wide for a street of this length and traffic load. • The proposed setback reduction is for the purpose of creating an uncovered deck only; the house itself will not expand further toward the street. • Most houses that front onto Center Avenue are set close to the street, many having setbacks of less than 10 feet. In addition, at least two properties have retaining walls that extend into the right-of-way. • The proposed deck will satisfy the 5-foot side setback requirement The property abuts an alley to the east, and is partially screened from the neighboring property to the west by the garage entrance and its shed roof. 4. Any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • The proposed setback reduction is for the purpose of constructing an uncovered deck only; the house itself will not extend further toward the street or toward neighboring properties. • The final design of the deck must be reviewed by Historic Preservation staff to ensure it is compatible with the historic conservation zone in which it is located. • The proposed 41/2 x 10 foot deck will extend approximately 1.5 feet further out toward the right-of-way line than the existing 3x3 stoop. 5. The subject building will be located no closer than 3 feet to a side or rear property line, unless the side or rear property line abuts a public right-of-way or permanent open space. The deck will be set back more than the required 5 feet from the side and rear property lines. General Standards (14-46-3) 1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings provided above with regard to the width of the right of way and compliance with the side setback requirements as well as the following. • The proposed deck will be located more than 91/2 feet back from the sidewalk and will not obscure the visibility for vehicles accessing the alley to the east. 2. The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the findings provided under specific criterion "e" above. 3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the zone in which such property is located. Staff believes the application satisfies this criterion based on the findings provided under specific criterion "e" above. 4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. This neighborhood is fully developed with all necessary access roads drainage and other necessary facilities, including sidewalks and alleys. 5. Adequate measures have been or will betaken to provide ingress or egress designed so as to minimize traffic congestion on public streets. Staff believes that the application satisfies this criterion based on the following findings: • The proposed deck will be located more than 91/2 feet back from the sidewalk and will not obscure the visibility for vehicles accessing the alley to the east. • The subject property is a single-family residence and does not generate significant traffic. The proposed deck will not increase vehicle trips to the area and thus will have no impact on ingress or egress to the area. 6. Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located. To satisfy this criterion the applicant must submit a plan to be reviewed by the staff Historic Preservationist showing compliance with preservation guidelines. The applicant must also submit a final plan to be reviewed by the Building Official to ensure compliance with any aspects of the zoning code not specifically addressed in this report. 7. The proposed use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as amended. The Comprehensive Plan encourages re -investment in older neighborhood.. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of an application submitted by Theresa Tranmer to reduce the front setback from 10 feet to 5.5 feet in order to allow construction of an uncovered deck at property located in the Medium Density (IRS-8) zone at 1610 Center Avenue, subject to the following conditions: • Compliance with the site plan submitted —the deck shall not exceed 4 feet, 5 inches in depth or 10 feet in width. • The applicant must get staff approval for the final design of the deck in accordance with the Historic Preservation Commission decision. • The underside of the deck must be screened with lattice or other material to be approved by historic preservation staff. • The setback reduction is for the purpose of an uncovered deck only and the deck may not be covered or enclosed at any time in the future without an additional special exception. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map. 2. Aerial views of the subject property. 3. Rail design proposed by Historic Preservation staff. 4. Site plan and deck footprint provided by the applicant. 5. Application materials. Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development -3AV H1L Aerial view of the neighborhood. Note most properties front along the long side of the blocks. Properties along Center Avenue are characterized by smaller lots with houses set close to the right-of-way, which is located 4 feet inside the sidewalk. 1610 Center Avenue 1618 Center Avenue. 1630 Center Avenue 1610 Center Avenue � a f { Tlei 1618 Center Avenue 1617 Center Avenue FR 6 7-1 a t-- fx �i G (on n 605� ko- I kcj Elevation scale: 1/2" = V-0" Section scale: 1" = V-0" txl IV -- ODO o-1 APPLICATION TO THE. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL EXCEPTION DATE: , ?13 Io PROPERTY PARCEL NO. i �' L4 `1 001 S- PROPERTY DDRESS: Iwo d CC 4t ✓— PROPERTY ZONE: S� PROPERTY LOT SIZE: �0 APPLICANT: Name: Address: Phone: :r&6rAa5,y 3*1 3�! 4'� 7,4.gic!/nza, #etV5ee1&i4 &y Aa 331- 2r3 r,;Z CONTACT PERSON: Name: (if other than applicant) Address: Phone: _rt PROPERTY OWNER: Name: (if other than applicant) Address: Phone: Specific Requested Special Exception; please list the description and section number in the zoning code that addresses the specific special exception you are seeking. If you cannot find this information or do not know which section of the code to look in, please contact Sarah Walz at 356-5239 or e-mail sarah-walz@jowa-city.org. R*-ddr_+iev� u.. -li t_ flvinr-iea I bIA& . c.a-bQrdr-14"VA Purpose for special exception: TO Date of previous application or appeal filed, if any: -2- In order for your application to be considered complete, you must provide response to all -of the information requested below. Failure to provide this information may delay the-li0aring,date for your application. A pre -application consultation with Planning staff is' STRONGLY f recommended to ensure that your application addresses all of the required criteria. As the applicant, you bear the burden of proof for showing that the requested exception should be granted. Because this application will be presented to the Board of Adjustment as your official statement, you should address all the applicable criteria in a clear and concise manner. A. Leaal description of property (attach a separate sheet if necessary): You can find the legal description and parcel number for your property by doing a parcel search for your address on the Assessor's website at www.iowacity.iowaassessors.com/ or by calling 319-356-6066. B. Plot Plan/Site Plan drawn to sole showing all of the following information: 1. Lot with dimensions; 2. North point and scale; 3. Existing and proposed structures with distances from property lines; 4. Abutting streets and alleys; 5. Surrounding land uses, including location and record owner of each property opposite or abutting the property in question; 6. Parking spaces and trees- existing and proposed. 7. Any other site elements that are to be addressed in the specific criteria for your special exception (i.e., some uses require landscape screening, buffers, stacking spaces, etc.) C. Specific Approval Criteria: In order to grant a special exception, the Board must find that the requested special exception meets certain specific approval criteria listed within the Zoning Code. In the space below or on an attached sheet, address each of the criteria that apply to the special exception being sought. Your responses to these criteria should just be opinions, but should provide specific information demonstrating that the criteria are being met. (Specific approval criteria for uses listed as special exceptions are described in 14-46-4 of the Zoning Code. Other types of special exceptions to modify requirements for the property are 5(, { listed elsewhere in the Code.) IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHERE TO FIND THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT MUST BE �i� ADDRESSED, please contact Sarah Walz at 356-5339 or e-mail sarah-walz@iowa- city.org. Failure to provide this information will constitute an incomplete application and may lead to a delay in its consideration before the Board of Adjustment. 1416- n"cQ M NOTE: Conditions. In permitting a special exception, the Board may impose appropriate conditions and safeguards, including but not limited to planting screens, fencing, construction commencement and completion deadlines, lighting, operational controls, improved traffic circulation requirements, highway access restrictions, increased minimum yard requirements, parking requirements, limitations on the duration of a use or ownership or any other requirement which the Board deems appropriate under the circumstances upon a finding that the conditions are necessary to fulfill the purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter. (Section 14-8C-2C-4, City Code). Orders. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, all orders of the Board shall expire six (6) months from the date the written decision is filed with the City Clerk, unless the applicant shall have taken action within the six (6) month period to establish the use or construct the building permitted under the terms of the Board's decision, such as by obtaining a building permit and proceeding to completion in accordance with the terms of the permit. Upon written request, and for good cause shown, the Board may extend the expiration date of any order without further public hearing on the merits of the original appeal or application. (Section 14-8C-1 E, City Code). Petition for writ of certiorari. Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the Board under the provisions of the Zoning Chapter, or any taxpayer or any officer, department or board of the City may present to a court of record a petition for writ of certiorari duly verified, setting forth that such decision is illegal, in whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of the illegality. (Section 14-8C-1 F, City Code). Such petition shall be presented to the court wi 'n thirty (30) days after the filing of the decision in the office of Clerk Date: q115_ 20 L Date: ppdadmin\application-boase.doc 20 Signature(s) of Applicant(s) Signature(s) of Property Owner(s) if Different than Applicant(s) :; -f MINUTES PRELIMINARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 — 5:15 PM CITY HALL, EMMA HARVAT HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Anderson, Barbara Eckstein, Will Jennings, Caroline Sheerin MEMBERS ABSENT: Le Ann Tyson STAFF PRESENT: Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen, OTHERS PRESENT: Marty Roth, Jean Walker, Kristin Breaux, Marinda Tuttle RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: Anderson, Sheerin, Jennings and Eckstein were present. A brief opening statement was read by the Chair outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed in the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF THE AUGUST 11, 2010 MEETING MINUTES: Eckstein noted a missing "not" on page 6. Anderson motioned to approve the minutes as amended. Eckstein seconded. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Tyson excused). SPECIAL EXCEPTION: EXC10-00007: Discussion of an application submitted by Marty Roth on behalf of First Mennonite Church for a special exception to allow expansion of a church facility located in a Medium Density Single -Family (RS-8) zone at 405 Myrtle Avenue. Board of Adjustment September 8, 2010 Page 2 of 14 Howard shared a location map and aerial view of the church property, noting that there had been a special exception for an addition to the First Mennonite Church in 2009. Howard explained that the site plan for the church proposes a 1,600 square foot addition on the west side of the property. She said the proposal calls for closing a portion of the driveway and sodding that area with grass. Howard said that there are specific criteria for church additions. The church is required to have access to a collector street, an arterial street or a street with pavement equal to or greater than 28 feet in width. Howard explained that the streets involved in this expansion are only 25 feet in width, but are both designated as collector streets. This specific criterion is therefore met. The second specific requirement is the setback requirements for institutional uses. Howard said that a front setback of 20 feet, a side setback of 20 feet, and a rear setback of 50 feet are required. Howard explained that the church exceeds the setback requirements. The third specific criterion is that the use is compatible with the neighborhood. Howard said that the staff report prepared by Sarah Walz addresses the various aspects of neighborhood compatibility that the Board can take under consideration. She said that staff feels that the application satisfies these criteria because the addition is a small one-story addition of only 1,600 square feet which will not be particularly visible from neighboring properties due to the topography of the site. Howard said that the addition has been designed to complement the existing church building and will fit in with its architectural style. She noted that there will not really be any additional capacity or parking issues resulting from the addition so there should not be additional impacts on neighboring property owners. Howard noted that the staff report identifies a number of other possible considerations for neighborhood compatibility but that she was not going to go through all of them. Howard said that the general standards require that the specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Staff noted that the addition does not expand the sanctuary space so there is no additional traffic or other effects on the neighborhood. She said that the fire department did note that there will need to be a designated fire lane now that access to the site will be somewhat more restricted. She said the Building Official will assist in establishing the best way to do that. Howard noted that this is an existing property and the surrounding areas are fully developed so all utilities, access roads, drainage, etc., are already in place. The transportation planners have reviewed the site plan and believe that the remaining access drive is appropriate and adequate to serve this use. The staff report notes that the site is in compliance with all other aspects of the zoning code, as it was required to be updated for a special exception granted last year. Howard noted that at the time of site plan review any outstanding or additional matters will be brought into compliance. Howard said that the Comprehensive Plan encourages institutional uses such as churches within residential neighborhoods so long as they meet the requirements of the zoning code and are designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; as already noted, staff believes this is the case for this project. Board of Adjustment September 8, 2010 Page 3 of 14 Staff recommends approval of EXC10-00007, a special exception to allow a 1,600 square -foot addition to a religious facility in the Medium Density, Single -Family residential (RS-8) zone at 405 Myrtle Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1) Substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted with this application; 2) The remaining drive providing access to the rear parking area must be assigned as a fire lane. Howard offered to answer any questions the Board might have. There were none. Sheerin invited the applicant to present the proposal. Marty Roth, 134 12th Avenue, spoke on behalf of First Mennonite Church. He said that they do not believe that their addition will have any adverse impact on the neighborhood. He said they are looking to make their space more functional for the activities they have going on from day to day. Jennings asked the applicant if it is correct that the Phase #1 addition indicated on the plat has actually been completed, and Roth said that was correct. Jennings noted that there is a handicapped accessible area on Myrtle Avenue as well as the existing wrap -around entry which the applicant proposes reducing. Roth said the driveway would be changed to function as basically a drop-off spot for the front entrance. Jennings asked if there might be a safety problem at busy functions with this new drop-off configuration. Roth said he understood the concern, but that he believed the drop off location in question would be used only on occasion and that the one with the handicap access would be the primary one. Roth noted that there is also handicap access from the back of the building. Jennings said he was just wondering about the rationale behind keeping that drop-off site. Roth said that he did not really know. Jennings noted that it was likely a self-limiting drop-off site, and Roth said that was correct. Roth noted that the two other drop-off sites would be far more widely used. Anderson said that it appears from the rendering provided to the Board that there are no points of entry on the addition. Roth said that there actually is one very small point of entry on the southeast corner, and agreed that it was not very clearly indicated on the site plan. Jennings asked if there might need to be some adjustments made and some parking spaces removed in order to accommodate the designation of a fire lane. Howard said that she believed code requires a 20 foot wide drive for a fire lane and that this meets that requirement. Anderson said that the staff report indicates there is currently sufficient parking on site to meet the needs of the facility. He asked how many extra spaces there were in the event that the Board wished to cut back on the number of parking spaces. Howard said she did not know if the church exceeds the parking requirements or not. She said the parking requirement is based on the size of the largest meeting room in the facility, in this case, the sanctuary. She said there is no additional parking required for the addition because the sanctuary size is not being expanded. She noted that the parking requirement for churches is generally quite low. Howard pointed out that the fire department can of course fight fire from the front of the building as well. She said that the goal of the new fire lane designation was to make for adequate circulation. There were no further questions for the applicant and Sheerin opened the issue for public discussion. She invited anyone who wished to speak in support of the application to come Board of Adjustment September 8, 2010 Page 4 of 14 forward. Jean Walker, 335 Lucon Drive, said she was not opposed to the addition, but that she did have concerns about the cul-de-sac being closed off. She said her concern was about cars backing up into the street. She said that cars come hurtling up Greenwood Avenue which could pose a hazard to someone backing out of the drop-off area. Walker asked if there was a way that the drive could be connected to the other entrance in some way to allow for a turn around, thus avoiding altogether the issue of cars backing out of the drive. Walker said that she is the neighborhood representative and that she was just curious on the neighborhood's behalf what the actual use of the new addition would be. There was no one else who wished to speak for or against the application, so Sheerin invited the applicant to respond. Roth said that the fellowship hall is being renovated and part of the current space is being incorporated into new restroom facilities. Roth said the additional space is intended to compensate for the gathering space lost by the addition of the restrooms. Sheerin asked if staff had additional comments. Howard said that in regard to Walker's concern about the turnaround, she was not privy to the discussions that took place between Walz, the applicant, and the transportation planners, but it is her belief that some sort of turnaround will have to be provided for as the city will not allow cars to back out into the street. Howard said that it might be wise to add a condition to the approval of the special exception that requires the drop-off point to either be eliminated or designed in such a way that there is adequate turnaround space. She said the turnaround space would then be reviewed at the site plan review. Sheerin asked how the Board would characterize that driveway if they were to place a condition on a turnaround for approval. Greenwood Hektoen suggested calling it the northern Greenwood entrance. Sheerin asked if anyone cared to discuss the possibility of adding an additional condition to staff's recommendations prior to making a motion. Eckstein said that was a wise suggestion. She said that she herself was aware that the traffic there can sometimes be intense. She said it makes perfect sense to her that a condition of approval be that there be adequate space for all vehicles to turn around, or that the drive be closed. Eckstein said that whichever option was preferable to the church was fine with her. Anderson said his preference would be to get rid of the drive altogether. He said his initial understanding of the staff report was that the driveway was in fact going to be eliminated. Anderson said that given the complexity of the potential traffic patterns of the site it really makes sense to get rid of the drive altogether. Sheerin said she agreed with that assessment. She said that with two other entrances she did not see that the function a third drive would provide could outweigh the potential safety hazards it poses. Jennings said that it seems as though most potential uses would be ones in which a fair amount of people arrived and or departed at the same time, and so there could be a bit of congestion involved. He said that it is not unlikely that in such an instance the drive may be self-limiting and therefore not much use. He suggested that it makes the most sense to have the drive eliminated entirely, or given full turnaround status. Sheerin said that she is fine either way: Board of Adjustment September 8, 2010 Page 5 of 14 closing it off or making it a turnaround. She asked if calling it the northern Greenwood entrance was sufficient. Howard suggested calling it the northeast drive. Jean Walker suggested making the driveway swing around to connect to the handicap entrance and then designate it as a one-way to help the circulation. Walker said that she would like to add that the church has been a truly wonderful neighbor to the neighborhood. Jennings said he is not interested in adding or putting undue burden on the church so he does not want to require them to do more at greater expense. He said that connecting the drives per Walker's suggestion might actually further complicate matters. Jennings asked the applicant if he had a preferred course of action. Roth said he preferred having the option of considering a turnaround and thoroughly discussing the matter with staff. Roth said they would appreciate that flexibility. Anderson asked for clarification on the traffic flow Roth had in mind and Roth explained. Jennings said that as he understands it one goal of the entrance at that end of the building is to facilitate use of the handicapped entrance and people being dropped off. Jennings asked if it was correct that as it is now that entrance sometimes has the backing -out issues being discussed. Roth acknowledged that it sometimes did. Jennings said city staff might have suggestions as to what direction a one-way drive would flow. Anderson said he would be fine with either option. Sheerin said she was okay with the northeast entrance being closed off but was concerned how the other option could be worded. Anderson suggested saying that the drive would be connected to the handicapped drop-off site subject to transportation planning staff approval. Roth said that a common thing for folks in his neighborhood to do was to maneuver so that they can use church property to launch an illegal right turn. Sheerin suggested language that requires the northeast Greenwood entrance to be closed off or connected to handicapped parking off the Myrtle entrance subject to staff approval. Greenwood Hektoen clarified that the Board was saying they would not support a cul-de-sac bulb on the drive, and the Board indicated that was correct. Eckstein said that the two options on the table are to either close it or to make it a u-shape drive connected to the handicapped entrance off of Myrtle. Howard asked if the Board was sure that they wished to eliminate the option of having a simple turnaround. She noted that the turnaround option would actually be the one that generated the least amount of traffic, which seems favorable for an entrance that seems to be most problematic from a traffic standpoint. Howard said that it may be good to give the transportation planners all three options to look at. Anderson said that he would prefer the idea of a turnaround over a through -way because it would result in less traffic; however, it seemed to him that if the idea was to discourage use it made more sense to just get rid of it altogether. Jennings said that the quandary seems to be that making the drive a through -way changes its fundamental use, but making it a bulb would be self-limiting; however, Jennings said, his opinion would be to connect it if that was deemed safe by traffic planners, or, if it was not deemed safe, to just eliminate it. Eckstein said that Roth knows the property so having heard from him she is willing to take the risk that the two proposed options are sufficient. Eckstein said the third option seems far less attractive to her. Anderson suggested moving the entrance of the drive further up Greenway to avoid being so close to the intersection of the two streets. He noted that this could be more trouble and expense than it was worth. Anderson asked if the church would have to remove the tree that appears to be in the most obvious route for connecting the two drives. Howard said she was not sure but that it looked like there was room for the connection without removing the tree. The Board members indicated that they wished to provide only the two options for dealing with the drive. Board of Adjustment September 8, 2010 Page 6 of 14 Eckstein motioned to approve EXC10-00007 to allow a 1,600 square foot addition of a religious facility in the Medium Density, Single -Family residential (RS-8) zone at 405 Myrtle Avenue subject to the following conditions: 1) Substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations submitted with this application; 2) The remaining drive providing access to the rear parking area must be assigned as a fire lane; 3) The northeast Greenwood entrance be either closed off or connected to the handicapped parking area off the Myrtle entrance, subject to staff approval. Jennings seconded. Sheerin closed the public hearing and invited findings of fact Eckstein stated that the addition does not affect compliance with the setback requirements and that Greenway and Myrtle, while only 25 feet wide, are appropriate as collector streets. She said that the addition requires no change to the parking amount or configuration as it does not affect the number of congregants able to gather in the sanctuary. Anderson stated that the neighborhood compatibility requirement is met because the size of the addition and the proposed materials are compatible with the area. He added that it is important to note that the addition does not expand the assembly area of the church. Anderson said that the site plan and the proposed conditions for approval address the conflict points in the traffic circulation along Greenway and Myrtle Avenue. Jennings found that the proposed addition does not expand the assembly sanctuary area of the church, so it will not generate additional traffic to the facility. The principal parking area is located to the rear of the building and all required screening for parking areas is already in place. Jennings noted that the establishment of the specific proposed exception does not impede the normal and orderly development of property in the zone. Eckstein added that the topography of the site is such that the addition will not be visible from the front. Sheerin agreed with the findings stated and added that the proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because the Comprehensive Plan encourages the location of institutional uses within residential neighborhoods. Sheerin said that a member of the public has stated that the church is a good neighbor. Sheerin said the conditions placed on approval will help reduce traffic conflicts in the area. Sheerin called for a vote. A vote was taken and the motion was approved 4-0 (Tyson excused). EXC10-00008: Discussion of an application submitted by Steven Breaux for a special exception to allow a reduction to the principal building setback (front) for property Board of Adjustment September 8, 2010 Page 7 of 14 located at 1122 E. Washington Street, a Medium Density, Single -Family (RS-8) zone. Howard explained that the application is for a setback reduction for an existing porch for which the property owner wishes to change the roofline. Howard explained that setbacks are in three- dimensional space, and include any encroachments above the first floor. Howard said that the location map shows that this property is in an older part of the city in which there is some variation to the setbacks for frontages. Howard pointed out that there are a lot of buildings on the street that sit closer to the street than the minimum required setback of fifteen feet. In such a case, Howard explained, if 50% or more of the buildings are closer to the street then the required minimum setback, the property owner can average the two buildings on either side of the subject property to establish their setback. Howard said this is a case where averaging could apply; however, the buildings on either side of this particular building do not sit closer than the fifteen foot setback. Howard shared photographs of the structure. She noted that the slope of the current porch roof is quite flat which has led to some drainage problems. Howard said that the applicant is proposing putting some pitch on the roof to improve drainage. She said the proposed height and design of the structure has been reviewed by staff, and that staff has recommended making the eaves the same height to unify the roofline. Staff suggests this slight modification in order to help the gabled roof design fit in better with the design of the existing structure. Staff also suggests requiring a minimum pitch of 312 for the roof in order to ensure improved drainage function, with a maximum height of thirteen feet at the roof's apex. Howard said that the specific standards for a setback reduction require that the situation is peculiar to the property in question. Howard said that the building is already in existence and the purpose of the change is to improve the design and function of the building. She said that there is practical difficulty in complying with the setback standards because of the drainage problems and the age of the structure. Howard said the existing roof is leaking and needs to be replaced to function properly. Howard stated that granting the exception would not be contrary to the purpose of the setback regulations as they are intended to maintain light, air and fire separation, access for fire fighting, and privacy, and this setback reduction does not change that because it is a roofline adjustment. Howard said that this exception reflects the general scale and placement of the structure in the city's neighborhoods. She noted that there are other homes along the frontage that do extend into the fifteen foot setback so this would not be particularly out of character for that particular neighborhood. Howard said that any potential negative effects of the reduced setbacks are mitigated to the extent possible as staff has made specific recommendations for the height and design of the eaves and pitch of the roof. The subject building is set back farther than the required three feet from the property line. Howard noted that the general standards repeat a lot of the information she used to support the specific standards, and said that the Board had carefully read the staff report and could make their findings accordingly. Board of Adjustment September 8, 2010 Page 8 of 14 Staff recommends approval of EXC10-00008, an application to reduce the required front principal setback from fifteen feet to eight feet for a property located in the Medium -Density (RS- 8) zone at 1122 E. Washington Street, subject to the following conditions: 1) The setback reduction is for the purpose of altering the roof of the existing porch only and no other portion of the existing porch should be enlarged; 2) The proposed roof will be no taller than 13 feet at its apex; 3) The proposed gable will have a minimum 312 slope to ensure proper drainage; 4) The height of the eaves of the porch must match the height of the eaves of the house. Eckstein asked if staff has discussed with the applicant the recommendation that the eaves should match the height and design of the house. Howard said she did not know for sure but noted that the applicant may be able to answer that question. Eckstein asked if the neighborhood was in a Conservation or Historic District and Howard said it was not. There were no further questions for staff and Sheerin invited the applicant to present the proposal. Kristin Breaux, 1122 E. Washington Street, spoke on behalf of the application. Breaux stated that she believed the original drawings simply had an error on them and that it had been their plan all along to match the new eave to the existing eaves. There were no questions for the applicant and Sheerin invited anyone wishing to speak in favor or against the application to come forward. Marinda Tuttle, 1126 E. Washington Street, said that she owns a home adjacent to the subject property. She said she appreciated the opportunity to provide input on the project and said she was excited for Breaux because she has a wonderful home that they have worked very hard on. Tuttle said she did have some questions and concerns that she wanted to address. Tuttle said that it was correct that the neighborhood is not in a Historic or Conservation District, and that the issue of whether to attempt to designate the neighborhood as such has been brought up before. Tuttle said that in just the one block there are eleven older homes that could have historic or conservation characteristics. Tuttle said that one of her concerns is that when nearby duplexes were built they were granted an exception to allow for the encroachment of their porches into the setback area. Tuttle said that her property is adjacent to one of those duplexes, and at the time that the special exception was granted she did not think the setback issue was a big deal. Tuttle said that one of her concerns with this project is the height of the porch. She said she agrees with the fact that something needs to be done on their property to improve runoff from the roof. She said she would like to see the height of the roof be as minimal as was possible. She said that she would be in favor with tying in the design of the eaves with that of the house as that ties in well with the rest of the neighborhood. Tuttle said that there are a lot of concerns in the neighborhood with maintaining a certain characteristic of the area. She said that it is important to incorporate and control the runoff at the subject property in such a way as to improve the structure but maintain the look and feel of the adjacent properties. She said that the change in the roofline to more than double its current height is problematic. Tuttle said that she herself has been affected greatly by the runoff from this property and has experienced property damage because of that runoff. Tuttle asked if the Board considered whether the addition matches the older section of the house or the newer section of the house. Eckstein said that the documents that the Board had been give do not indicate that the two roofs will Board of Adjustment September 8, 2010 Page 9 of 14 necessarily have the same pitch. Howard noted that there is an additional diagram in the staff report that shows the minimum pitch necessary, the 312 pitch. Howard said the height of the gable is three feet instead of five on that diagram. Howard asked Tuttle if she was requesting a lower pitch or height to lessen impact. Tuttle asked if she was correct in her understanding that the Board does not necessarily require the addition to be an exact match to the existing house. Greenwood Hektoen said that while the Board could include that as a point of consideration, it was not a factor the Board was required to satisfy. Tuttle said she was just trying to gain an understanding for the project. She said she had attended previous special exception hearings and in an effort to get along with her neighbors agreed to things which she had not believed at the time would have a great impact on her neighborhood. She said that she had been very wrong about the impact of those special exceptions, and did not want to make the same mistake this time. She said her concern was the height of the eaves and she would like to see something worked out so that the property owners are able to benefit structurally and the neighbors are able to benefit from an appearance standpoint. Tuttle said that her primary concerns are the amount of runoff she will get from the roof, and the appearance of the home based on the height of the eaves. She said she had been greatly affected by the height of the property on her other side and had not thought she would be. Sheerin asked Tuttle how she felt the special exception might affect her. Tuttle said that when something gets taller it is hard to visualize it from a diagram, and it is difficult to foresee how much your view will be shut obstructed. She said there is a beautiful old woods behind her home and when the next door structure was allowed by special exception to project three feet farther forward and to the rear, it really shut out her view in a way that she had not foreseen. Tuttle added that she did want to see something positive happen for the Breaux family, so she hoped there was a way to benefit them while keeping the height of the eaves down. Anderson asked Tuttle if it was her preference to have the shallowest pitch possible, or to match the roof pitch of the existing addition. Tuttle said that if the Board cannot consider matching the pitch to the existing roof then she would propose something that still assists the property owner with their drainage issues, matches the gutters and the property, but is kept at a 312 height. Tuttle said she did not know if that was feasible or not. Greenwood Hektoen noted that the recommendation is that the roof is no taller than thirteen feet at its apex. She asked if that meant from grade to the point of the roof and Howard said that was correct. Howard said that the 312 pitch would be the least intrusive. Sheerin asked if this meant that the 312 minimum pitch could be changed to a maximum of 312. Anderson noted that the thirteen feet spelled out in the recommendation allowed for a five foot height. Eckstein said that she was hearing three concerns from Tuttle: 1) drainage concerns, 2) aesthetic concerns, and 3) view corridor concerns. She said that these three concerns are within the general purview of the Board, as the Board are asked to consider the special exception's impact on the well-being of the neighborhood. Sheerin said she was not sure that a view could be considered within the Board's purview. Greenwood Hektoen said that it could be if it was considered to be injurious to the use and enjoyment of the surrounding properties. Anderson said that the Board could also consider the need to maintain light, air, and fire separation and Sheerin said that would be more to the point in her opinion. Greenwood Hektoen said that the general purpose of having setback requirements is to allow a certain space and view between structures. Eckstein said she was inclined to prioritize Tuttle's concerns. She said that for her the drainage issue is one that she would want to think through. Eckstein said that as she lives in an older neighborhood surrounded by older homes she is aware that any changes to her property result in drainage changes to the neighbors' properties. Eckstein said there is not much information in Board of Adjustment September 8, 2010 Page 10 of 14 the staff report telling the Board what happens to the water in this neighborhood when the pitch of the roof is changed. She said that one can only assume that without considerable downspout work the water will go toward the neighbor's rather than toward the front. Howard said she assumed there would be gutters attached to the eaves to direct the water. Sheerin suggested that the applicant address the question. Breaux said there is a plan for extensive gutters on the side of the house and they have set up throughout the yard a lot of drainpipes. The gutters will run down into the drainpipes and will go out through the back toward the ravine at the back of the house. Breaux said that a lot of the drainpipes are already in place, they need only to connect the new gutters to the existing pipes. Sheerin asked if there was anything else Breaux wished to respond to. Breaux said that in regard to the pitch, their proposal to staff had not been set in stone and had been understood to be open to suggestion. Jennings asked if the homeowners had a preference for the pitch. Breaux said that the preference would be to have the roof at the highest allowable pitch for effective drainage. She said that the aesthetics are not as important to them as the drainage. Anderson asked what the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) would recommend for the pitch if the matter were before them. He asked if HPC would prefer to see slightly different pitches for the eaves or a straight match. Howard said that because the home had been considerably altered from its original structure it would be difficult to say. Jennings said that his understanding is that the applicant's main concern is that the roof be able to adequately address drainage to protect the integrity of the house. He said that it sounds as though the property owner has attempted to address the problems of where the water will go once it has left the roof. Jennings asked if the property owner had worked with a landscape architect to come up with their drainage plan. Breaux said that they had used standard black drain the wrapped in cloth all along their sidewalk and driveway. Eckstein said she too had a porch with a slight pitch somewhat like theirs, so she wondered if they had considered fixing the drainage problem with the gutters and the downspouts rather than changing the structure of the roof. Breaux said the main problem with the drainage comes in where the porch roof attaches to the house. She said that is where a lot of the leakage is coming from, not necessarily from leaky gutters. Jennings noted that it sounds like the water is not making it to the gutters. Breaux said that was correct and that there was nothing structurally wrong with the roof itself other than its shape which does not allow the water to come off the roof. There were no further questions from staff and Sheerin invited discussion from the Board. Eckstein suggested including in the motion a clear statement that the downspouts and drainage will flow away from the house. She said it is what the applicant intends, but the drawings do not indicate that the drain tiles will be in place. If the drain tiles were not in place then the water would flow toward the neighbor's property, which would be a significant problem for the neighbors as has been expressed by Tuttle. Greenwood Hektoen asked Eckstein to clarify what the actual language for that condition might be. Eckstein said that it is important not just to assume but to articulate that a part of this plan is to include these drain tiles that will run the water from the roof to the back ravine. Greenwood Hektoen asked if she meant that the condition would be that the downspout is connected to the drainage tile. Jennings said that would probably fall under the specific standards that state that any potential negative effects resulting from the setback exception are mitigated to the extent practical. Greenwood Hektoen said that Eckstein's point could certainly be a finding of fact, but if the Board wants as a condition of approval the requirement of a physical connection between the roof and the drainage then that is what would need to be articulated. Eckstein said that the condition could Board of Adjustment September 8, 2010 Page 11 of 14 state that the proposed altered roof be connected to drainage tile that conducts runoff to the back of the house and away from neighboring properties. Howard noted that the topography of the site cannot be changed and the nature of water is that it drains downhill, so she suggested a condition that states that the change should not increase the rate of drainage onto the neighboring property. Howard said there may be drainage that is happening on the neighboring property right now, so it would reasonable to say that the change itself should not increase the drainage onto it. Eckstein said that makes sense. Sheerin clarified that this would change the proposed condition to state that the changes would not increase drainage to the neighboring property. Eckstein said that would leave it to staff to negotiate just what that would look like. Jennings asked if the Board was expressing a preference in regard to pitch. Anderson said that his understanding of Tuttle's comments was that she felt as though some of the projects of neighboring properties had intruded upon her view. He said that the logical solution would be to require the pitch to be the minimum that would satisfy drainage concerns. He said the additional two feet of clearance would allow for some extra light and decrease the mass near the sidewalk. Sheerin asked if Anderson was proposing changing the second condition to state that the roof would be no taller than eleven feet at its apex, and Anderson said he was. Greenwood Hektoen asked Howard if a 312 slope could be anything other than eleven feet. She said she was wondering if the second condition could just be eliminated and then the word "minimal" could be removed from the first condition. The Board seemed to agree that was a good course of action. Sheerin noted that the Board also wanted to require that the eaves would be at the same height. Eckstein expressed concern that the Board could be requiring things that are architecturally impossible. Greenwood Hektoen said that was part of the reason she wanted to eliminate the second requirement, because she was not entirely certain how the math would work out. Eckstein said that she was afraid that if the Board stipulated that the eaves must match and that the slope must be 312 then there could be a conflict between those two requirements. Jennings said that the drawings show that it is possible to have both of those requirements fulfilled; however, what is unknown is what the maximum apex at grade would be; that is why the second condition should be removed. Sheerin closed the public hearing and invited a motion. Jennings motioned to approve EXC10-00008, an application to reduce the required front principal setback from fifteen feet to eight feet for a property located in the Medium - Density (RS-8) zone at 1122 E. Washington Street, subject to the following conditions: 1) The setback reduction is for the purpose of altering the roof of the existing porch only and no other portion of the existing porch should be enlarged; 2) The proposed gable will have a 312 slope to ensure proper drainage; 3) The height of the eaves of the porch must match the height of the eaves of the house; and 4) The changes should not increase drainage to the neighboring property. Anderson seconded. Sheerin invited the findings of fact. Greenwood Hektoen advised board members to include comments made in the public hearing in addition to those given in the staff report. Board of Adjustment September 8, 2010 Page 12 of 14 Anderson addressed the specific standards. He said that the situation is unique to the property in question. The house was erected prior to the establishment of the zoning code and the setback requirements, so it is already within the fifteen foot required setback. This creates a situation where the homeowners cannot benefit from setback averaging and are left with a structure clearly within the fifteen foot front setback. He said there is practical difficulty with complying with the front setback because of this. Anderson found that the granting of this exception will not be contrary to the purpose of the setback requirement because there remains sufficient separation for light, air and fire protection. He said the potential negative effects resulting from the decreased setback are mitigated to the extent practical. Anderson said that concerns about drainage expressed by the neighbor and the solution offered by the applicant during the public hearing spoke to that issue. The subject building will not be located closer than three feet from the property line at the side or rear of the property, Anderson said. The distance at which the roof encroaches into the setback area is not being changed, only the pitch of the roof is changing. Jennings stated that regarding the peculiarity of the situation to this property, it should be noted that changing the roof angle of the porch does not extend the house any further into the setback; however, the change to the roof is considered an enlargement of the nonconformity. Greenwood Hektoen advised the Board to include a finding about its decision to change the height of the pitch. Anderson found that the determination to limit the pitch of the roof to 312 will maintain the maximum amount of light and air separation for neighboring properties while allowing for the drainage resolutions the property owner is seeking. Eckstein said that the decision to limit the pitch of the roof is also consistent with a desire to promote a reasonable physical relationship between buildings and residences while providing flexibility so that the building is compatible with other structures in its vicinity. Sheerin said that this is also true in regard to the requirement that the eaves match the existing eaves. Sheerin invited findings on the general standards. Sheerin noted that the special exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare because it does not bring the structure any closer to the street and will not reduce the amount of separation between the subject house and the adjacent properties. The exception is limited to the porch roof and the height of the roof has been limited to maintain separation of light, air and fire protection. Sheerin said that the special exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially reduce or impair property values in the neighborhood because the height has been limited and a condition has been added to ensure that drainage issues are not exacerbated. The normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties will not be impeded by this special exception for the same reasons. Adequate utilities and access roads are in place for this property and the drainage issues are addressed by the plans for implementing this special exception. Board of Adjustment September 8, 2010 Page 13 of 14 Sheerin said that this change will have no effect on ingress or egress because it involves only the roof. The property does comply with all other applicable standards to the zone in which it is located. The applicant must submit a final drawing to the Building Department in order to obtain a permit to begin construction. Sheerin stated that the proposed exception is not addressed by the Comprehensive Plan. A vote was taken and the motion carried 4-0 (Tyson excused). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Eckstein motioned to adjourn. Anderson seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 4-0 vote (Tyson excused). E lw V Q W 0 M b 0 m 0 0 N 0 v W v W 4J L s O w N O — M O x x x x+► C% V x x o x x x O O x x x x x x x N_ x x x x o x x x x x d' x x x x x M Z x x x o x N M x O x x x — a o 0 0 0 0 ~ K W Cl O O O O C 0 •0 L 4J VI C ° = s 0 C `� N ll z a •o c 1% o0 H u Ln C C C v V) N x o o z 6 w