MINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
February 19, 2008
 

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, Sylvester
Staff Present:  Hockett, Steigerwaldt

3. MINUTES –

Zoning Board of Adjustment – December 18, 2007

Motion by Gibson, seconded by Van Note to approve the December 18, 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 February 19, 2008 Marion Zoning Board of Adjustment agenda.

Motion by Sylvester, seconded by Van Note to receive and file documents related to variance request.

All “ayes” motion carried.

5. APPEALS -

1. Jon and Suzanne Fitch, 1175 Valley Park Street, Marion, Iowa – Requesting a variance from Section 176.10-3(D) of the Marion Code of Ordinances to allow less than the required 7 foot side yard setback for an addition to the principle structure in the R-2, Medium Density, Single-Family Residential zoning district.

ZBA Resolution No. 08-01 approving the variance request.
ZBA Resolution No. 08-01 denying the variance request

Hockett presented the staff report and noted that the zoning code currently requires a 7-foot side yard setback. This property was originally platted in 1970 and the existing dwelling was built in 1975 according to assessor records.  He stated that looking at previously adopted zoning codes, the side yard setback for this property has always been 7 foot. Hockett noted that at the time this house was built, Linn County was performing the building inspections for the City of Marion which could have been the reason for lack of information on this property.  This property does appear to be standard compared to the other lots in this subdivision.

Hockett noted that the applicant wishes to build the addition flush with the existing house, not only for aesthetic purposes, but for structural purposes as well.  He stated as proposed, the addition will meet all fire code setbacks with regard to the detached garages and will also meet all other setbacks on the lot.

Jon Fitch, 1175 Valley Park Street, spoke as the applicant for the case. He commented that he had nothing more to add to what Hockett previously stated.  He noted that he was unaware that the previous setback had always been 7 foot; he assumed the regulations had changed with the newly adopted Zoning Code in 1979.  Fitch noted his inability to move the addition to the east or the south because of the encroachment on the garage.

Gibson asked if there had been any written communication regarding this case.  Hockett replied that no written on verbal comments had been received.  Gibson noted that this addition will be greater than 50% of the existing house.  Barnes stated that tying the addition into the existing house will aesthetically look better.  Sylvester noted that it makes sense to place the addition where proposed because it can easily be tied into the existing foundation.

Motion by Sylvester, seconded by Van Note to approve ZBA Resolution No. 08-01 approving the variance request based on a finding that the building addition would conform to the existing residential layout of the house and keep form with the existing neighborhood.

All “ayes” motion carried.

2. 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. (Revised Request)

ZBA Resolution No. 08-02 approving variance request.
ZBA Resolution No. 08-02 denying variance request.

Hockett presented the staff report noting that this is essentially the same request that came before the Board in December.  He noted that typically when the Board denies a variance, the applicant cannot bring the same case back to the Board within a year.  However, Hockett stated that this application differs from the previous request enough that staff felt that this case could be brought back to the Board within the year.

Hockett indicated that current zoning code requires a 25 foot rear yard setback.  He referred to the staff report that had a detailed list of each property and the associated variance being sought for each lot.

He further explained that this property was preliminary platted in 2001, was not developed within the two-year timeframe and was required to be replatted in 2007.  He noted the revised plat was essentially the same except that the lots became smaller within the subdivision.  He stated the original plat allowed for 145-150 foot deep lots with the floodplain covering portions of each lot.  However, over the years, the requirement of flood insurance made it more difficult for buyers to purchase lots containing floodplain.

Hockett stated to make it easier for buyers, the developer created an outlot containing the floodplain which would allow the residential lots to be adjacent to the open space without carrying flood insurance.  He stated ideally, the large outlot would be commonly owned by the adjacent property owners to impose maintenance requirements, but it was agreed that the best solution would be if it they were City-owned and maintained.

Hockett explained that the new subdivision created an additional outlot. He stated this outlot is also covered by the floodplain and that outlot was enlarged at staff’s request.  Hockett stated that a detention pond is proposed to the south of this development.

Hockett noted that at the previous month’s meeting, the request was denied due to lack of “yes” votes.   He stated since then, the applicant has amended his request to allow a 15 foot rear yard setback for the principal structure and a proposed 6 foot rear yard setback for a deck or unenclosed structure.   He stated typically decks, enclosed or unenclosed, are considered a part of the principal structure if they are attached.  Hockett again reminded the Board of the original intent of the setback, which is to allow for open space in between homes backed up to other homes.  He stated that 25 foot setbacks are typical which would allow for 50 feet of open space in between neighboring homes and this development, including the separation by outlots, the adjacent homes would be over 200 feet away.

Hockett familiarized the Board with the most recent variance requests similar to this application.  He noted the Robert Copper request in 2004, the Jim Copper request in 2007, and the Skogman request this past December; all had been denied.

Hockett noted that he had spoken to Sherri Evans, 2980 Newcastle Road, Marion and Dan Oakley, Cedar Rapids regarding the request.

Kent asked for clarification between what is being requested now and what was previously requested in December.  Hockett explained that the request in December was for a 5 foot rear yard setback that did not differentiate between deck and principal structure.  He stated the current request is for a 6 foot deck setback and a 15 foot enclosed/principal structure setback.   Hockett explained that if the variance were approved, it would be for a 15 foot rear yard setback variance; and a 6 foot setback variance for the enclosed structure.

Gibson asked how this was approved by the Council a few months prior with these limitations and now needs a variance.  Hockett replied that the question before the Council was whether houses could be built on these lots, which they can.  He stated there are very nice homes in the neighborhood and very nice homes can still be built on these lots, but are limited.  He explained when the initial building request came in, the developer was under the assumption that the setback would include Outlot B which is included in the plat of survey and was not dedicated to the City.

Kyle Skogman, Skogman Homes, thanked the Board for hearing this case again.  He noted that at the request of Mr. Gibson, he had spoken to his engineer regarding the option to replat the subdivision back to the original deep lots.  He then discovered it is very difficult to replat lots after all easements and lot records have been filed.  Skogman noted that he changed his request to what his previous discussions had reflected.  He noted his initial plans would have allowed for the 150 foot deep lots, but would not have provided the flood protection downstream that now exists as a result of decreasing the size of the residential lots.  He noted that he worked with the City to provide a regional detention area and to slow the drainage that will flow to the east of this property.  He stated that he felt that any engineer who looked at this plat would feel that the reconfiguration of lots for the inclusion of the flood management is a bonus for the City.  He also felt that this was a positive impact on the residents along Newcastle Road as well.

Skogman noted that his company is not trying to develop larger houses than previously proposed, but he is simply trying to develop what he originally thought he would be able to market before all of the flood management was set in place.  He specified that the encroachment is not on another residential lot, but on an outlot that the neighborhood owns

Sherri Evans, 2980 Newcastle Road, spoke in opposition of this request. She noted that she was grateful for the reconfiguration of the floodplain on behalf of the applicant, but noted that runoff is still a huge concern of hers.  She stated she felt the additional runoff created by the development of large houses across the floodway could create a public hazard.

Evans stated that she felt that the applicant has not proven a hardship because of the recently platted land.  She asked whether a building permit would differentiate between a deck and principal structure.  Hockett replied that typically with new construction everything is constructed under one permit.  He stated this variance is for a 15 foot reduction in the rear yard setback.  If approved, the Board would have the digression to regulate the separate setback for the principal structure.

Kent asked if there was anyone else in the audience opposed to the variance. There being none, he closed the public hearing.

Van Note asked if the front yard setback was being changed as well. Hockett replied that is was not.  He stated the original request asked for a 16 foot rear-yard variance for all structures and this request asks for a 15 foot rear-yard variance for unenclosed decks and a 6 foot variance for enclosed structures.

Kent asked if the applicant would not have problem building a house if he did not want a deck.  Hockett replied that this variance has the stipulation of a 6 foot variance for enclosed structures as well, including houses.

Kent asked if there had been any flood studies done as a result of the water concerns surrounding these properties.  Todd Steigerwaldt, Marion Engineering Department, noted that that Engineering Department looked closely at this area regarding stormwater and runoff that may be a result of this development.  He noted that the developer had done extensive work to the floodway to minimize the effects of stormwater on the properties along Newcastle Road.  He stated that the City of Marion, the City of Cedar Rapids and the developer got together and came up with a plan for a regional detention pond in the southeast corner of the proposed subdivision.  Steigerwaldt stated that by creating the additional detention area, the developer was able to re-channel the existing stream and minimize the impacts of a heavy rain.

In addition, Steigerwaldt indicated a regional detention area north of East Robins Road was completed last fall which will also minimize the previous stormwater problems faced by the neighbors.  He stated numerous studies have been done regarding the stormwater in this area. Steigerwaldt noted that he had previously had conversations with Sherri Evans regarding the new water management solutions in her area.

Sylvester noted that his absence at the December 18th meeting led him to study the case history.  He stated that he had seen the previous flooding in this area which was not a pleasant sight.  He noted that limiting the size of the buildable area, therefore lessening the size of the roofs, will not greatly affect the flood way due to the nature of the extensive flood management work that had previously been done.

Barnes noted her support of the additional stormwater management practices that resulted in the additional outlot to the east of these properties.  She stated had it not been for the need to create the additional outlot, the properties would not be facing a variance request. The purpose of setbacks is to alleviate encroachment on the property owners behind you, which is not a problem with this case due to the separation by floodway.

Gibson stated his opinion that this case should be a Council decision because it is such a new subdivision.  He then referred back to the issue that if the request comes before the Board, there is no substantial hardship.  He stated hardships should only be seen if the lot cannot be used for any other economic use, in which these properties do allow for houses to be built on them.  Gibson then went on to disagree with treating the eight significantly different lots as the same in this variance request. He stated the hardships vary greatly from lot 1173 to 1178.  He stated the developer made the choice to develop those lots at their current size and it is his responsibility to fit the houses on these lots.  Gibson commented that he would be much more willing to listen to an individual property owner of one of these lots that was seeking a variance for one specific lot or project.

Barnes noted her reasoning that it was the City that asked the developer to create the additional outlot and; therefore, requiring the developer to seek a variance based on that hardship. Gibson responded that just because the City asked the developer to manage the stormwater in this area, did not create a hardship for the developer.

Barnes noted that the reason the outlot was created was to help the buyers avoid having to buy flood insurance. She indicated she did not feel that the setbacks should be reflectant on the property boundaries, but how much of a setback there is between these properties and the neighbors.  Gibson replied that setbacks are something that should be decided on by the City Council, not to be set by the Board of Adjustment. Gibson stated he felt that the Board’s mission should be to deal with setback variances on a case-by-case basis.

Kent asked if the developer could essentially do away with the outlot and add the extra depth to the individual lots.  Hockett replied that the developer could re-final plat the property to do away with the outlot, but it would be a very timely and costly process for something that could be resolved with a variance.  He stated it is very difficult to re-final plat lots that have already been recorded. He indicated that it might be a different story if the improvements to the land had not been done, but in this case the streets and utilities have already been put in place.

Motion by Barnes, seconded by Sylvester to approve the variance based on the finding that:

Hardship was created to by the applicant working with the City to create a better stormwater management system that enlarged the flood plain on the applicants property thus creating less land to adequately site a home to meet the setbacks as established in the Marion Zoning Ordinanace.

Strict compliance with the Marion Zoning Ordinance will create an undue hardship upon the applicant.

Ayes: Barnes, Kent, Sylvester
Nays: Van Note, Gibson

3. OTHER BUSINESS-

a. Gibson made the motion to hold elections and to keep the same officers as 2007 (Kent as Chair, Barnes as Vice-Chair, and Gibson as Secretary).  Motion was seconded by Sylvester.

All “ayes” motion passed.

4. 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