Coralville Board of Adjustment

City of Coralville Board of Adjustment Meeting April 25, 2011 Staff: Jim Kessler, Building & Zoning Official, Kevin Olsen, City Attorney Dee Marshek Administrative Assistant Item #1: Meeting called to order @ 6:00 PM (recorded minutes) Item # 2: Roll Call: Members present: Snyder, Shannon, Rice, and Szcech. Absent: Wells Others present: Jeff Edberg with Skogman Realty, Jim Jacob with VJ Engineering, Attorney Kristen Frey and residents Brian and Bessie Ho, Melody Peer, and Younghee Baek. Item # 3: Minutes from March 28, 2011 meeting approved. Motion by: Rice 2nd by: Sczech Motion carried: 4-0 Item # 4: Public Hearing requested by Jimmy John’s for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive up facility @ 2451 2nd Street. Public Hearing opened: Jeff Edberg with Skogman Realty representing Jimmy John’s states that originally extra parking was provided, so no required parking would be lost. The traffic pattern fit well and shouldn’t interfere with traffic flow around the building. Members and Edberg briefly discuss the traffic flow and possible signage for the drive-up facility. Public Hearing closed: Motion to approve Jimmy John’s drive-up facility by: Rice 2nd by: Shannon Motion carried: 4-0 Item #5: Public Hearing requested by Brian and Bessie Ho for a Variance to the City’s Code of Ordinance section 160.19 from the Flood Plain Regulations for the property located at 103 2nd Avenue. City Attorney Olson: Updates the members on this property, and explains that this a request for a variance from the Flood Plain Ordinance section 160.19 Subsection 3, the Board of Adjustment may authorize upon request in specific cases such variances from the terms of this chapter that will not be contrary to the public interest, where owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in unnecessary hardship. This is the carwash property at 103 2nd Avenue that the board deemed substantially damaged following the flood. The property owner has the burden to show why there should be a variance granted. This is a little different situation than a regular zoning variance. Public Hearing Open: Attorney Kristin Frey is representing Brian & Bessie Ho and she explains that the party is not arguing the substantial damages; this request is for a variance from the Flood Plain Ordinance, which would allow Mr. and Mrs. Ho to obtain a building permit to make repairs, and enable the use of the property as a carwash again. She has review the Code of Ordinances, her understanding is that it allows the Board of Adjustment to grant a variance, where such a variance would not be contrary to the public interest, and the literal enforcement of those regulations would constitute an unnecessary hardship. The Board would have to determine three things; (1) Show good and sufficient cause for variance. (2) Determine that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the property owner. (3) The requested variance would not increase flood heights, resulting in public safety, expense, or create a nuisance. In summary increase the risk of a flood. Frey elaborates on these three causes, and believes that the owner can establish each of the three referenced elements. (1) Sufficient cause, the structure of the buildings and use is in essence built to get wet and the owners have designed modification to the building so that all the offices, electrical, and plumbing equipment are placed on the upper level. All coin machines will also be mounted above the flood elevation. The improvements to the structure would all be located in an area not within the 100 year flood plain. This car wash would be compliable with existing development and is appropriate use of zoning in that area. The plans for improvements have been developed by Jim Jacob with VJ Engineering. In conjunction with this variance the applicants worked with an Iowa Department of Natural Resources Engineer. (a copy of the DNR approval in file folder) (2) Determination of hardship, the lot is small, the structure would require 4 to 5 foot of fill to elevate the building above the flood level, which is economically cost prohibited. The City of Coralville along with the owner would like to see this area redeveloped, the Ho’s own several properties in the area, but because of the previous 2008 flood and present economic conditionals it has been difficult to redevelop the area at this time. Granting this variance would allow the Ho’s to utilize the property until such a time that the area can be redeveloped. The property was purchased three years prior to the flood, there’s a mortgage and taxes occurring and a loss of income since the flood has caused a hardship to the owners.  (3) Flood risk, the repairs to the car wash building would not increase any chances of potential flooding in the area or endanger the City’s infrastructure. In working with the DNR, a backflow preventer valve has been design to improve and protect the city’s sanitary and storm sewer system ( a diagram is included in the packet). Jacob: VJ Engineering explains the system or lift station which is designed to operate by the coin machine equipment. The designed gravity flow submersible pump system would be below the flood level and then pumped up and out and this is the only connection to the city sewer system. Snyder: Questions the coin machines and the flood level. Kessler: 654 feet is 100 year flood level. Frey: Discusses the coin machines, office, electrical and plumbing elevations of the building. Kessler and Olson: Question Jacob with VJ Engineering as to the activation of the coin machine, power to the pump and about who designed the plans for this system. Kessler states that the DNR doesn’t approve any variances and can’t design any plans, this would have to be done through and by the City. Frey: States that Muller Plumbing designed the concept drawing for the automatic pump lift station in the handout. Jacob: Specific designed drawing will be prepared and submitted for approval this would be part of the application and permitting. Kessler: This is a schematic drawing, I asked for an engineered drawing to be provided for review and we’d also need an oil and sand separator built into this system. Frey: Explains that detailed and specific plans are extremely expensive, and these would be done upon submitting for a permit, it’s her understanding that the Board has the authority under the Code of Ordinances to make the request for a variance with conditions. The City has the final authority as to whether or not variances are granted, but the Ordinances also states that any variances should have approval from the Iowa DNR, and we have that approval. If there are concerns, it would be appropriate to make any grant of a variance, conditional bases on the certification of those plans and specifications. Members, staff, and Frey continue to discuss the design of these schematic plans and whether it is the Boards job to approve this variance based on concept plan. It was discussed that this is a federal ordinance and this is the proper procedure being followed for this variance request. Rice: Questions other concerns that the City might have in granting this request. Frey: Summarizes that it goes back to the fact that the property was determined substantially damaged following the 2008 flood, we can’t leave the building where it is. The building would have to be torn down and rebuilt above the flood plain elevation. The unique request and situation of this property, and its particular use as a car wash, and given that it was substantially damaged, we are asking for a variance from the Flood Plain Ordinance, and recognize that we have tried to address the city’s concerns, is the reasoning for this variance request. Brian Ho: Thanks the commission, he expresses the hardship since the flood because of the loss of income, mortgage and taxes on the property. Frey: Again asks that the Board grant this unique variance, she believes that cause exists to award this variance, that won’t cause risk of flood to the community and that it has cause hardship to the property owner. Public Hearing Closed Olson: Explains the Flood Plain Regulations section 160.19; Sub 3A, Conditional Uses, Appeals and Variances. Variances shall only be granted upon (1) a showing of good and sufficient cause, (2) a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and (3) a determination that the granting of the variance will not result in increase flood heights, public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, fraud, or victimization of the public or conflict with existing local codes or ordinances. We go back to the hardest part to be granted, unnecessary hardship. Unnecessary hardship described as land in question can’t yield a reasonable return, unique circumstances and general conditions of the neighborhood, not to alter the characteristics of the locality. Olson references back to the zoning codes, he reads to the Commission a portion of the zoning codes pertaining to variances, exceptional and unnecessary hardship, and the property owner’s financial burdens. Kessler: Expresses other issues, that being conflicts with existing local codes or ordinances. Safety and access to the property is limited in times of emergencies. This is a non-conforming building, it was substantially damaged, it can only go back as a conforming use, the building sets on the property line, ( site plan handout) current zoning codes require a 40 ft. setback. Members continue to discuss location, this and other non-conforming substantially damaged buildings in the area, zoning code regulations, future development possibilities and the undo hardship on the property owner. Sczech: If this variance is granted, it could be with conditions. The fact that they can’t operate the business is a hardship, and they’re willing at this time to invest money to bring it up to code. Snyder: Are they bringing it up to code, they’re a non-conforming use.  Olson: The Board is the fact finder for all three of those items (160.19 3A), you have to find it affinitive on all three items in order for the variance to pass. There are three alternatives here, Council could overturn this, it could go to court, or we can let it go, and it could be appealed by either side. The property owner has presented facts that it has been a hardship; it’s the Board’s decision to determine what they have presented as a hardship. We all agree that the building was substantially damaged and non-conforming before the flood, and now it’s non-conforming by both zoning and flood plain regulations. Members agree their previous substantially damaged decision as not the current issue, and continue discussing this variance decision before making a motion. Kessler: It is a substantially damaged which is a non-conforming building, it would have to be put back conforming; this is the zoning ordinance. In the federal flood plain ordinance, it states it has to meet the local codes and ordinances. Motion to Grant, Flood Plain Variance contingent on meeting all City permitting: Szcech Olson: For the record, your motion includes compliance of all three conditions of the flood plain regulations 160.19 3A. Motion: Dies for lack of 2nd. Item # 6: Motion to Adjourn. Motion by: Shannon 2nd by: Snyder Motion carried: 7:15pm Meeting Adjourn: Respectfully Submitted, Dee Marshek