Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOA Packet 8.10.16.pdfMINUTES PRELIMINARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JULY 13, 2016 – 5:15 PM EMMA HARVAT Hall, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Gene Chrischilles, Connie Goeb, Becky Soglin, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Susan Dulek, Karen Howard OTHERS PRESENT: Pat McArtor CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM. ROLL CALL: A brief opening statement was read by Baker outlining the role and purpose of the Board and the procedures that would be followed the meeting. CONSIDERATION OF THE JUNE 15, 2016 MEETING MINUTES: Soglin moved to approve the minutes of June 15, 2016. Weitzel seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. SPECIAL EXCEPTION ITEM (EXC16-00005): Discussion of an application for a special exception submitted by Pat McArtor to reduce the rear principal building setback from 20 feet to 10 feet for property located in the Neighborhood Stabilization Residential (RNS-12) zone located at 1031 E. Market St. Howard began the staff report showing some images and photographs of the property. The property is fairly square and located at the corner of Clapp and Market Streets. The area is characterized by fairly small lots. The property in question is a corner lot that known as a small reverse corner lot that fronts onto Clapp Street. The rest of the homes on this side of the block front onto Market Street. This property is unique in that it is nearly square, the house sits on the back southwest corner of the lot, which leaves a larger front yard than a lot of the other properties in the neighborhood. The rear yard of the subject property abuts a side yard of the neighboring property. With corner lots, both street facing portions of the yards are considered front yards, and with a corner lot the rear lot line is the opposite of the shorter of the two front lot lines. In this case since it is a square lot, either front lot line can be used in determining where the rear lot line and rear yard are located. Required side yard setback is 5 feet and required rear yard setback is 20 feet in this zone. So for this particular property, the side yard is on the west side, because the existing house is located only about four or five feet from the adjacent Board of Adjustment July 13, 2016 Page 2 of 7 property line so has a setback that is more similar to a side setback, and the larger setback area is on the south side of the property, so is considered the rear yard. Soglin asked about the garage located on the property, and if that location of the garage defines the yard differently. Howard explained not necessarily. Garages are allowed within rear or side setback areas, so the garage is compliant with required rear setback standards. There was a special exception that reduced the front yard in May 2015 so the garage could be located closer to the street. The house just happens to be setback further in the yard than many houses in the neighborhood. The front setback requirement in this Zone is 15 feet, and in this case it is averaged along Clapp Street based on the other properties in the vicinity. So when the special exception for the garage was granted, the garage cannot be any closer to a front yard line than any other buildings on the frontage. Howard next showed a rough drawing of what is being proposed. The applicant is now requesting to build a new addition to the rear of the house. Right now there is a small room that projects from the main house, which is already non-conforming because it extends into the required 20 foot rear setback area. The rear yard setback is being asked to be reduced to 10 feet to allow construction of the new addition, which will replace the room projecting off the back of the house as well as the rear deck that is on the house. If the addition is approved, it will leave a rear yard of 10 feet from the back of the new addition to the property line to the south. There would also be about 13 feet between the new addition and the property line to the west, which meets the setback requirements for the west property line. Howard stated that the request is to reduce the rear setback requirement from 20 feet to 10 feet. The setback from the main portion of the house to the property line now is 20 feet. The non-conforming room on the rear protrudes into that setback 6 feet, so the applicant is asking for an additional 4 feet. Howard also noted there is a storage shed on the property that Staff is recommending be removed and the applicant has agreed, that will increase the usable yard space. Howard also clarified what clerestory windows are, clerestory windows are just windows that are at the top of the wall, that ware used to bring light into a space but above eye level. Howard identified the findings regarding setback requirements (as listed in the Staff report). She noted that Staff is recommending some conditions because the space is quite tight in the back yard of the property. And while the applicant will not be exceeding the lot coverage for buildings or accessory buildings, because all of the buildings on the property are clustered in a small area of the lot, it makes for a smaller rear yard space between neighboring houses. Staff recommends approval of special exception EXC16-00005, to reduce the required rear principal building setback from 20 feet to 10 feet to allow a one-story, 20' x 10' foot home addition for property located at 1031 East Market Street, subject to the following conditions: • Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted; • Only clerestory windows are allowed on the south-facing wall of the addition; • No other structures may be located within the rear yard except for the privacy fence and existing garage. The existing deck and storage shed must be removed; • No additional paving or impervious surface may be established between the house and the rear property line. (The existing patio between the house and garage may remain in its current location as shown on the site plan). Goeb asked if it is confirmed that the neighbor’s house is actually 9 feet from the property line. Howard said the measurements are coming from the Johnson County GIS system, there hasn’t been an official site plans submitted yet. Howard also said the neighboring yard is the side yard for the neighboring house, so the required setback for a side yard is only 5 feet. Board of Adjustment July 13, 2016 Page 3 of 7 Baker opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward to address and answer questions of the Board. Pat McArtor (1031 East Market Street) came forward to answer questions. Goeb stated there was a letter from the neighbor to the south who is not in favor of allowing the setback reduction. When the garage was built this neighbor lost a lot of visual green space. McArtor acknowledged that he spoke with this neighbor, and the property is actually a rental property and has been for at least 15 years, and the owner is rarely around. There was a situation where a large walnut tree was encroaching onto his property and another neighbor’s property so they all worked together to get that tree removed, but that was one of very few times he has had interactions with the owners of the property. Therefore the person lodging the complaint of losing visual green space doesn’t actually live on the property. Baker asked if the wooden fence is an accurate property line marker. McArtor stated it was not, the fence is actually about 5 feet from the property line into his yard space, so the neighbor was actually using a portion of his yard that is on the other side of the fence. Weitzel asked if McArtor would put up a new fence when the addition was built. McArtor said eventually but he had other projects he needed to work on first. Baker asked about the addition stating the high windows will be on the south side, and wondered about the windows on the other sides of the addition. McArtor said there would be one small window on the west side and a set of one or two windows on the east side facing the patio. Baker asked if there were any plans for a sliding or door for an entrance to the addition from the outside. McArtor replied yes, on the east corner of the addition there will be a doorway and a landing that will open to the north. The addition will extend about 4 feet past the length of the house and that is where the door will be placed. Soglin noted that the applicant wrote in the letter that he was originally considering a 14x20 addition and after speaking with Staff it was reduced to 10x20, and asked if the applicant considered any size smaller. McArtor said that when he was first considering the 14x20 option he was trying to make it a nice dining room area, with the reduction to 10x20 he felt he could still have a nice dining area, going any smaller would make the dining space they want unattainable. Soglin asked how wide the property was along the rear yard. McArtor believes it is 65 feet wide. Soglin asked about the size of the garage, McArtor said it is 20 foot wide and 22 feet deep. Soglin asked what the roof height of the addition will be. McArtor said the plan is to do a shed roof, building off the existing roof line of the house. The 10x20 foot structure will be sitting on pillars, but the foundation of the existing room will be maintained to allow for water lines to run to an interior wall for the laundry room. Baker closed the public hearing. Goeb commented that she always takes very seriously letters or comments from neighbors regarding objections to special exceptions, so she has concern about this application because of the neighbor’s objections. Soglin shares Goeb’s concerns regarding the neighbor’s objections. She also noted her concern about the drawings submitted and how it was not apparent how the addition will appear on the property and from a neighboring view. Soglin stated her concern in terms of standards regarding privacy. Board of Adjustment July 13, 2016 Page 4 of 7 Chrischilles stated that the garage is already closer to the property line than this addition will be, so is unsure if the addition will cause that much more of a problem in terms of view. He also noted that the windows on that side of the neighbor’s house are located in-between where the addition and the garage are, so there will still be a view out those windows. Chrischilles also remarked that the neighbor’s house is 9 feet from the property line and the addition on the applicant’s house will be 10 feet from the property line. Howard also noted that the applicant’s garage is in compliance with the setback standard, the special exception for the garage was to reduce the front setback requirement. Weitzel stated that the Staff report lays out every reason as to why this special exception can be approved, it is not asking for something that is outside the allowances in the Zoning Code so he is in favor of granting the special exception. Baker agrees with the Staff report and noted that the letter from the neighbor has to be taken into consideration but does the concern have enough merit to overturn what is a reasonable application. The potential negative effects are mitigated to the extent possible and this exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. Baker feels this will be an improvement on the property without any sort of negative effect to the adjoining property. Weitzel moved to approve special exception EXC16-00005, to reduce the required rear principal building setback from 20 feet to 10 feet to allow a one-story, 20' x 10' foot home addition for property located at 1031 East Market Street, subject to the following conditions: • Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted; • Only clerestory windows are allowed on the south-facing wall of the addition; • No other structures may be located within the rear yard except for the privacy fence and existing garage. The existing deck and storage shed must be removed; • No additional paving or impervious surface may be established between the house and the rear property line. (The existing patio between the house and garage may remain in its current location as shown on the site plan). Chrischilles seconded the motion. Chrischilles stated regarding agenda item EXC16-00005 he concurs with the findings set forth in the Staff Report of July 13, 2016 and conclude the general and specific criteria are satisfied unless amended or opposed by another Board member he recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the Staff Report as our findings with acceptance of this proposal. Weitzel concur with the findings and added that the situation is peculiar to this property, that there is practical difficulty maintaining the required setbacks and allowing any sort of development to continue on this property, and firefighting and air protection are maintained sufficiently. A vote was taken and the motion passed 3-2 (Goeb and Soglin dissenting). Baker stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk’s Office. Board of Adjustment July 13, 2016 Page 5 of 7 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION: Materials requested by the Board regarding amplified sound and Rooftop Service Areas. Baker noted this was requested because the Board was not clear as to what the rationale was for the Board of Adjustment to not, as part of its special exception review, consider sound mitigation. Baker stated that the Board should have been informed of the policies and had this clarification prior to the meeting in which the Rooftop Services Areas was discussed. Weitzel stated that absent of a problem in the Code he does not feel it is necessary to ask Staff or the Planning and Zoning Commission for a review of the policy. Baker said the advantage of reserving the special exception of amplified sound to a Staff decision is the flexibility of terminating a permit immediately. Baker asked if that could be part of the special exception condition, that sound mitigation is part of the review for special exception, but the Board of Adjustment could set the same sort of criteria that Staff could deny or repeal the permit based upon complaints. Dulek stated that she understood Baker’s question but is unable to answer it without some research. She stated however that a special exception and a permit are two different matters. A special use permit is granted by Staff for a specific purpose. A special exception is an exception to an ordinance which the Council has given the Board of Adjustment authority to vary from those ordinances under certain circumstances. Chrischilles believes the policy makes sense as is and should stay that way because the amplified sound permits are on a case-by-case basis. The Code now states they cannot have amplified sound, and if they want amplified sound they must bring the request to Staff for that specific event. Howard explained that the Board has powers granted by the State of Iowa to deny an application or approve with any conditions the Board deems reasonable to address externalities caused by the proposed exception, including noise, hours of operation, etc. However, since the ordinance does not allow amplified sound as a permanent right, the Board does not need to address it in the decision. To give an example, if the Board imposes more restrictive conditions, such as hours of operation, the City cannot issue a permit that would allow the RSA to operate with or without amplified sound outside those hours. The Board can also require certain sound mitigating features such as walls that absorb sound, etc. Temporary uses are different than special exceptions because there is not a permanent right established for a temporary use. Similar to other temporary uses, the City can issue permits for limited use of amplified sound as long as it is within the bounds of any conditions established by the Board of Adjustment and provided that it meets the approval criteria for this specific temporary use. No permanent right is granted, so the permit can be rescinded or modified if the amplified sound becomes a nuisance. There is a lot more flexibility to rescind or modify the conditions with a temporary use permit than if amplified sound were to be allowed as part of a special exception. Baker noted however that the amplified sound permit allows a Rooftop Services Area to have amplified sound for a whole season, not just for one specific event. Howard agreed that the ordinance allows issuance of temporary use permit for a whole season (for example for a summer garden center at Hy-Vee), but noted a temporary use can only be issued for a period not to exceed 180 days and they must re-apply every year and can be revoked if there are complaints or they do not comply with the conditions of approval of the temporary use permit. A majority of the Board agreed that no additional discussion of the issue was needed at this time. Board of Adjustment July 13, 2016 Page 6 of 7 ADJOURNMENT: Weitzel moved to adjourn. Chrischilles seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ATTENDANCE RECORD NAME TERM EXP. 8/12 9/14 10/14 12/16 1/13 2/17 3/9 4/13 6/15 7/13 BAKER, LARRY 1/1/2017 X X X X X O/E X X X X GOEB, CONNIE 1/1/2020 X X X X X X X X X X GRENIS, BROCK 1/1/2016 X X O/E X -- -- -- -- -- -- CHRISCHILLES, T. GENE 1/1/2019 X X X X X X X X O/E X SOGLIN, BECKY 1/1/2018 X X X X X X X O/E X X WEITZEL, TIM 1/1/2021 -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member