Zoning Board of Appeals

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Regular Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 31, 2016 City Commission Chambers - City Hall 1. Introduction & Roll Call Acting Chairman Rise called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Regular members Jan Rise & Julie Ulman; Alternate members Charles Congdon & Lonnie Dowd. Members excused: Regular members Dier, Darbee & Greenleaf Others: City Staff Liaison Scott McKillop, Community Development Planner & Terry Moultane, AICP, Planning & Zoning Manager; City Commission Liaison Larry Elliott. 2. Approval Minutes No minutes to approve. 3. Public Comments No public Comment. 4. New Business - Public Hearing Case Z16-10 - 900 N. Madison - Westbrook Center, LLC Westbrook Center, LLC has filed a request for a variance from the zoning regulation at Section 122-304 of the city code limiting the height of buildings located in the O-1 Office zoning district to 2 ½ stories, or 35 feet. Westbrook wishes to construct a three-story multi- family apartment building at the subject property and have requested the variance from the 2 ½ story height regulations to do so. John Dupont, presented the request for the variance on Westbrook’s behalf. He described the building subject to the request as a three-story, 47-unit multi-family apartment building for senior citizens aged 55 and older. The building would be a state of the art barrier-free and energy efficient apartment facility having a full-time management and maintenance staff. Rent will be lower than the market rate. Mr. Dupont mentioned the ½ story terminology in the ordinance is hard to find and only found in historic information when an attic was used as a living space. The design he would like is a three story design and that complies with all the multi-family codes. 1 Neal Frank, Westbrook’s architect, was present and stated they are not asking for an increase in height. He mentioned there is no definition of a “story” in the zoning ordinance. Historically, ½ story is from the rafters of the roof until the trusses. Given there is not a definition of “story” we look at 35ft as a limit of height and 2 ½ story. He stated residential construction can get 3.5 stories to fit in 35 feet and that 2 ½ story height limit should be changed to make more sense. He stated the project is designed to comply with parking and landscaping regulations. We have met the requirements for parking from a site plan review standpoint and met the landscape requirements. The greenspace requirements have also been met. The parcel is currently a parking lot. Mr. Frank reiterated the appellant’s statements pertaining to the city non-use variance standards verbatim as included with their application for a variance. 1. Strict compliance with applicable zoning regulations makes compliance with them unnecessarily burdensome for the applicant. The proposed development, medium density multifamily residential, is a special use permitted within the O-1 district but based on the size of the parcel, three stories of dwelling units has been deemed appropriate based on the allowable density for the site (site area vs. building footprint and area available for parking to meet the proposed dwelling unit density.) The site would be underdeveloped if the building were limited to 2-1/2 stories. 2. Granting the variance as requested, or granting one lesser than requested, is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right similar to that proposed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the neighboring area. Several parcels to the east of this parcel area are zoned RM-1 Medium Density Residential and the parcels to the north and south are currently zoned O-1 Office which allows medium density residential by special use so the proposed use is within the intent of the current zoning and Master Plan. 3. The need for the variance is due to physical circumstances unique to the property such as odd shape, narrow lot width or shallow lot depth, the presence of large trees, etc. and not to general conditions in the surrounding area. As stated in Item #1, based on the lot size, a building of 3 stories would allow for the appropriate balance of site area vs. building footprint and required parking for the proposed number of dwelling units. 4. The conditions or circumstances generating the need for the variance have not been self-created by the applicant. The hardship has been created by the lot size and the limit to the number of stories. Given that the proposed building will be less than or equal to 35 feet in height, the limit to the building height is not a hardship, only the number of stories. Ms. Rise asked Mr. McKillop to explain the height story restriction in an O-1 district. Mr. McKillop indicated the subject zoning regulation limits O-1 zoning district building to two and one half stories in height regardless of use. General discussion of that regulations and the zoning designation of nearby properties followed. 2  Mrs. Rise asked for comments from the audience. There were none. Business Session Mrs. Rise stated the regulation in question does not preclude use or development of the property at the density proposed by the appellant. Ms. Ulman concurred. Mr. Congdon stated his belief that the appellant’s request is reasonable and no harm would come from granting the variance. Mrs. Rise stated the property can be developed as proposed by the appellant without the need for a variance. Mss. Rise stated the appellant has not shown compliance with the height regulation would be burdensome. She added that the 2nd and 3rd standards have not been met. The appellant can develop the property in accordance with O-1 zoning district regulations without need for a variance. Ms. Ulman concurred with Ms. Rise’s comments and indicated the standards had not been met. Mr. Rise stated the conditions or circumstances generating the need for the variance have been self-created by the applicant. The need for the variance is not due to physical characteristics unique to the property such as odd shape, narrow lot width or shallow lot depth, the presence of large trees, etc. and not to general conditions in the surrounding area. The property is not unique and the need for a variance does not result from the physical layout of the property. Mr. Dowd agreed and sees no need for the variance. Ms. Rise added the applicant's need for the variance is self-created because they may develop the property without one. Their desire to build a three-story building is a self-created need. Ms. Ulman concurred. Motion Motion by Ms. Rise, seconded by Ms. Ulman, to deny the variance to Madison Place Senior Apartments to increase the height of the building to three stories based on the zoning ordinances non-use variance standards. She added she appreciates what Madison Place Senior Apartments does, but the project doesn’t meet the zoning for that location. Mr. Dowd they have not met the criteria to grant a variance. Ms. Ullman stated the standards have not been met. Vote 1 No; 3 Yes. Motion carried. 5. Other Business No other business. Prepared by Scott McKillop, Staff Liaison, Neighborhood Services Department 3