MINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
December 18, 2007
1. CALL TO ORDER.
Chairman Kent called the regular monthly meeting of the Marion Zoning Board of Adjustment to order at 7:00 PM.
2. ROLL CALL.
Members Present: Kent, Barnes, Gibson, Van Note
Members Absent: Sylvester
Staff Present: Hockett, Kaiser
3. MINUTES –
Zoning Board of Adjustment – November 20, 2007
Motion by Barnes, seconded by Gibson to approve the November 20, 2007 minutes as submitted.
All “ayes” motion carried.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR.
a. Motion to receive and file all correspondence from applicants and staff reports regarding the variance requests on the December 18, 2007 Marion Zoning Board of Adjustment agenda.
Motion by Barnes, seconded by Gibson to receive and file documents related to variance request.
All “ayes” motion carried.
5. APPEALS -
a. Skogman Homes, Midwest Development Co., 3057, 3077, 3097, 3117, 3137, 3157, 3177 and 3197 Brookfield Drive, Marion, Iowa – Requesting a variance from Section 176.10-3(E) of the Marion Code of Ordinances to allow less than the required 25 foot rear yard setback for the principal structure in the R-2, Medium Density, Single-Family Residential zoning district.
ZBA Resolution No. 07-10 approving variance request.
ZBA Resolution No. 07-10 denying variance request.Hockett presented the staff report regarding the proposed variance request and familiarized the Board with the subject property. Hockett gave a brief history of the property noting that the property had previously been platted with 150 foot deep lots, with the rear of the lots within the floodplain. Hockett stated that although not advised by the City, at the time the developers were allowed to have floodplain areas on residential lots. However, after final approval, the property was not developed within the two-year requirement. He stated within the last year, the developer resubmitted a new preliminary plat which included the floodplain areas designating them as separate outlots and minimizing the proposed lots to a depth of 105 feet. Hockett stated the separation of the floodplain will make the lots easier to finance and save the homeowners thousands of dollars each year in flood insurance, while still allowing the appearance of a large rear yard. He noted that Outlot A has been dedicated to the City as a stormwater detention area and will be maintained by the City as such.
Hockett stated that several weeks ago, the developer had applied for a building permit to build a house on one of these lots. At that time there was no problem fitting a house on the lot, but the placement of the deck was an issue. He stated that because of the shallow lot size, the developer would not be able to build the desired size of deck off the back of the house and that such a deck would have to be placed on the side of the house to meet the required setbacks. Hockett then referred to his handout which showed the requested setback for each lot included in the variance request.
Hockett noted that with traditional developments, you would typically see homes backing up to other homes, therefore requiring the 25-foot setback. In this case, the lots will back up to Outlot B, which gives the appearance of an additional 40 feet to the rear yard. He stated these lots will also be separated from the properties to the east with the floodway located in Outlot A.
Hockett stated that in previous years the Board had considered two similar variances requesting a reduction in setback for new construction projects. Both the Copper Construction request in 2004 and the Copper Construction request in 2003 were denied due to lack of a hardship.
Hockett presented photographs of the current site showing the lots and their distance from the properties to the east. He noted that one house is currently under construction and should the variance be granted, the house will be able to have a deck attached to the back of the house. He stated the principal structure will easily meet all setback requirements should a deck not be built. Gibson asked if this subdivision includes Lots 1173 through 1197. Hockett replied that he was correct and that this subdivision is a portion of a much larger plan (about 130 lots total). He stated that this section was approved a few months prior to the variance application.
Gibson then asked about the comment that staff was aware that there would be setback issues with the size of these lots. Hockett replied that any lot with a depth under 120 feet is considered a shallow lot and the developers’ engineer was made aware of this issue. He indicated any lot measuring less than 120 feet in depth will be noted as shallow during the review process and this is a standard comment for smaller lots.
Kyle Skogman, Skogman Homes, stated he was in favor of the variance request. He noted that the developer had re-graded the floodway to better accommodate the properties to the east, including moving the floodway to the west. He stated at the time of grading, flood insurance was not the issue that it is today. He further stated that Skogman is attempting to save potential property owners from paying for expensive flood insurance by keeping the residential lots out of the floodplain, but have the appearance of a deep lot because of Outlot B.
Gibson asked why this issue was not dealt with when the plan was up for final approval. Skogman said he was under the assumption that since the property owners would own the adjacent outlot, there would be no problem building up to the east lot line. He stated he only learned of the required setback when he applied for the building permit a few months prior.
Gibson then noted that he calculated that the applicant would have 59 feet in which to build a home after the setback requirements had been met and asked if that was that not sufficient space to build a home? Skogman replied that the homes they wish to build are over 45 foot deep and if smaller houses were required to be built, they would not fit in with the surrounding houses. He stated that because of the grade of the lots, walk-out decks will be desired, which will also add to the total depth of the house. Skogman stated the issue does not occur with the building of the house, the issue is with the addition of a deck.
Kent then asked for clarification that if the deck were not attached, then the applicant would not have this problem. Hockett replied that was correct, but the deck would have to be offset from the house by at least 3 feet, making it a freestanding deck.
Hockett then mentioned that Sherri Evans from 2980 Newcastle Road had called in earlier that day to voice her opposition to the request. Gibson asked if anything in writing had been submitted? Hockett replied that no written correspondence had been received to date.
Sherri Evans, 2980 Newcastle Road, then addressed the Board regarding her issues with the variance. She noted her concerns with the floodway that had come within feet of her patio during severe floods. She commented on the numerous truckloads of dirt that had been moved around on the adjacent property to build up the lots. She was worried about the potential runoff not only from the lots, but the large houses/roofs that are proposed to be built on the adjacent lots. She noted that she could not justify a hardship in this case due to the fact that the applicant was aware of this issue at the time of platting. She stated that she has purchased flood insurance as a result of the previous flooding.
With no further comments from the audience the public hearing was closed.
Kent asked about the restrictions on developers for drainage off of properties. Hockett replied that the developers engineer’s are required to provide an engineered plan showing that no additional runoff with be drained to the floodway, but rather detained on premise and released at a slow rate. These calculations are then approved by the City’s Engineer.
Kent asked what the neighbors’ recourse would be if their lot did flood as a result of poor drainage plans. Hockett replied that the developer, the contracted engineer and the City’s engineer could be held responsible. Skogman commented that since the large flood that Evans referred to took place, much re-grading has been done to the adjacent floodway, and a large regional detention basin has been built to the north of these properties to manage flooding.
Gibson then asked about the location of Brookfield Drive and if it was required to come to a “T” at East Robins Road? Hockett replied that the City advises that roads come to a T intersection for traffic safety purposes. He noted the significant grade change between this road and Mulberry Drive; therefore, not allowing a direct connection. Gibson then asked if the road could have been moved 15 feet to the west prior to approval of the plat? Hockett stated he was not certain of that answer.
Gibson asked if any lots had the floodplain covering them? Hockett replied that the floodplain is not located on any of the residential lots, and although it may come up to the property line, the floodplain only covers Outlot B. Hockett noted the City desires to keep the residential lots out of the floodplain so that the City can better regulate any accessory buildings or fences that might otherwise be built in the floodplain without permission. He stated ideally, the City would like to have Outlot B in the City’s possession for regulation purposes, but the developer is not required to dedicate outlots to the City.
Barnes then asked that if the variance were allowed, could the Board allow only a deck to be placed past the original setback, but only the deck. Hockett noted that specific conditions can be required by the Board. Barnes noted that the reason that setbacks are put in place is to deter the encroachment on adjacent properties, which is not an issue with this case and it is in the City’s best interest to allow this variance because of the larger house size, and conformance with surrounding neighborhoods.
Barnes stated she did not feel that this case would set precedence because of the numerous issues in favor of this variance. She noted previous variances dealt with encroachment on neighboring properties which is not an issue with this case.
Barnes made the motion to approve the variance with the stipulation that the setback cannot be encroached by the structure of the house itself, but only for decks. The motion died for a lack of a second.
Gibson made the motion to deny the request of the petitioner based upon the failure to show a substantial hardship as required by the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Van Note.
Ayes: Van Note, Gibson
Nays: Barnes, KentMotion failed due to a lack of votes.
Barnes made the motion to approve the variance with the stipulation that the setback cannot be encroached by the structure of the house itself, but only for decks. The motion was seconded by Gibson.
Ayes: Barnes, Kent
Nays: Van Note, GibsonMotion failed due to a lack of votes. Therefore the request was denied.
6. OTHER BUSINESS-
Hockett noted that Van Noted has expressed interest in continuing his term on the Board for an additional 5 years. He stated elections will be held at the January Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting.
6. ADJOURNMENT-
There being no additional business to come before the Marion Zoning Board of Adjustment the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 PM.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gordon Gibson, Secretary