Zoning Board of Appeals

Zoning Board of Appeals AGENDA April 24, 2017 7:00 P.M. 118 Hillsboro Ave. – Council Chambers I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. March 27, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes. III. ZONING CASES A. Case 2017-06 - Variance Jill M. Griffin has petitioned the City for a variance. The purpose is to allow construction of an addition to the residence that will match the existing setback of the residence with a rear yard of 25 feet rather than 30 feet per the ordinance. The site is zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District, addressed as 514 Chapman Street and more specifically identified as PID 14- 2-15-11-08-201-010. B. Case 2017-10 - Variance Michelle & Kelly Cobb have petitioned the City for a variance. The purpose is to allow construction of a new residence with a front setback of 20 feet in lieu of 25 feet and a side yard setback of 8.49 feet in lieu of 10 feet on the east side of the property which is adjacent to the “Commons Storm Water Detention Basin”. The site is zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District, addressed 704 Autumn Forest and more specifically identified as PID 14-2-15-13-05- 103-035. IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ADJOURNMENT`  EDWARDSVILLE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Meeting Minutes 3/27/17 7:00 PM Approved: ___________________ I. ROLL CALL: Present Absent M. Pierceall, Chairman J. Couch B. Hotz, Vice Chairman J. Krebs C. McCaskill A. Robertson A. Stevenson S. Hanson, Staff C. Porter, Staff T. Kehrer, Staff D. Lisinski, 3015 Salena St., St. Louis, MO M. Harr, 7508 Triple Lakes Rd., East Carondelet, IL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the regular meeting for February 27, 2017 are hereby approved and passed. III. ZONING CASES A. Case 2017-05 – Special Use Permit David Lisinski, Killeen Studio Architects, representing Harco Properties, LLC, has petitioned the City of Edwardsville for a Special Use Permit. The purpose is to allow a drive-thru lane for a new building to be constructed at 1501 Troy Road. The site is zoned B-2 Commercial Business District, addressed as 1501 Troy Road and more specifically identified as PID 14-2-15-14-16-401-025. Scott Hanson gave staff’s report regarding the petition. This property is located along Troy Road across from the Montclaire shopping center. It’s at the intersection of Troy Road and Second Ave. and is zoned B-2 Commercial/Business District. The current site plan features the drive-thru with five stacking spaces. The SUP is issued to the commercial building tenant and does not run with the property or the property owner. The business would be Smoothie King. The Comprehensive Plan shows this property as Commercial District. The existing zoning is in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan. The property to the North, East, and South is zoned B-2 Commercial/Business District and the property to the West is zoned M-1 Light Manufacturing District with a vacant parking lot with a nonconforming accessory structure. Special Use Permits are called out in the ordinance that says, in some cases, the zoning board needs to review Special Uses when they may have impact upon neighboring properties or public facilities. David Lisinski of Killeen Studio Architects spoke on behalf of Michael Harr of Harco Properties, the property owner. He stated they are excited to be taking this lot and putting it to good use again and have a tenant ready to go. It is planned to be a two tenant space.  2 The Smoothie King would be about 1200 square feet and an additional tenant would be about 1600 square feet. Anne Stephenson spoke regarding her concern with the parking lot circulation pattern. There are dual entry points but if you come in one entrance, you can only use the parking in the front and the other entry point, you can only use the parking on the side, David Lisinski stated there are special considerations for this site which may be why it has been difficult for others to develop. They wanted different options for parking so it would serve people driving in off of different areas. The single direction of each of the drives is an aspect of the site and the square footages and clearances. They want to meet the typical drive and required zoning dimensions for safety and clearances. They needed to bring those in and make them all work as well as respect the setbacks and the Illinois Conservation Act. They could meet those requirements with two entry points and an exit point onto Troy Road. Scott Hanson stated there is a series of questions that the ordinance calls upon the Zoning Board to answer and staff assists with that. Requirements for Authorization (of Special Use Permit): (1) Existing uses and zoning of nearby property and relationship to Edwardsville’s adopted comprehensive plan. As previously noted. (2) Extent to which property value diminishes adjacent to the zoned parcels. Value decrease to be supplied by the petitioner and made by professional appraiser. No property value information provided by petitioner. However, as the subject tract has had a duel drive-through facility for many years as a Rally’s Hamburgers in the 1990 to 2000’s and more recently as Redz Rib Shack, Planning staff anticipates no negative property value impact to nearby properties as a result of issuing a special use permit, provided the drive through queue lane is confined to the subject tract and does not extend onto Second Avenue. (3) Extent to which the proposed change alters or promotes the public health, safety morals or general welfare. None noted (4) The relative gain to the public as compared to the hardship imposed upon the property owners, and there is a need for the proposed special use. The Special Use Permit would allow the proposed drive-thru use in conformance with zoning district regulations under the special use category. (5) The suitability of the subject property for the zoned purposes indicated by ordinance. -The relatively small lot size for this development (14,500 sq ft) presents a challenge for the applicant. -A balance between sufficient tenant space, adequate parking, and a drive through has resulted in trade-offs  3 -The developer is only meeting a 1 space/300 square feet of gross floor area (GFA) (which is usually used for one tenant “stand-alone” buildings) rather than the 6 spaces/1,000 square feet of GFA, used for “strip” shopping centers. -As a result, there may not be enough parking without continual monitoring of the tenant mix by City staff as building tenants change. -However, the applicant has worked to accommodate the drive through by reducing the building footprint and the drive through stacking queue adheres to the 5 car minimum required by the ordinance. -The applicant understands that certain commercial tenants (those with a parking ratio greater than 1 space/300 sq ft) may not be accommodated by the subject tract. Conditions: The Board may provide such conditions or restrictions upon the construction, location and operations for a special use, including, but not limited to: provisions for the protection of adjacent property, the expiration of such special use after a specified period of time, off-street parking and loading, as may be deemed necessary to secure the general objectives of this Zoning Code, and to reduce injury to the value of the property in the neighborhood. Expiration: In the event the Board establishes no time limitation within which the proposed use is to be exercised, then the permit shall expire in one year. Nothing shall preclude an applicant from reapplying for the same special use permit upon expiration. STAFF DISCUSSION: In December of 2015 the applicant initially applied for building variances and a special use permit for a drive through for this site. The applicant withdrew the application for a special use and variance due to “lot density” concerns in January 2016, returning in May 2016 with a new site layout. In May 2016 , the applicant redesigned the site and requested only a building setback variance with no drive-thru for the site. The requested setback variances were a 10 foot side yard setback from the north property line and a 12 foot three inch setback from the west property line. The requested variances were approved with the following contingencies: 1) The building will meet the following exterior façade treatments on all sides of the building excluding window glazing: a.) Primary Materials (any combination of the following, on seventy percent [70%] of façade or greater): 1. Brick or tile masonry 2. Native stone or synthetic equivalent 3. Pre-cast masonry 4. Stucco or cementitious finish b.) Secondary Materials (any combination of the following on twenty-five percent [25%] of façade or less): 1. Siding (wood, composite, or HardiePlank) 2. Curtain Wall Systems should only be used for limited areas, such as connections between buildings, entrance lobbies, etc. 3. Concrete Block (split faced block only) 4. Poured-in-Place Concrete: options in terms of formwork, pigments, and aggregates should be explored to create rich surfaces.  4 c.) Accent Materials (any combination of the following on five percent [5%] of façade or less): 1.Gypsum Reinforced Fiber Concrete (for trim elements only) 2.Metal (for beams, lintels, trim elements and ornamentation only) 3.Split-faced block (only for piers, foundation walls and chimneys) 4.Ceramic Tile 2) At the time of application for a building permit, the applicant will provide a building elevation plan that shows how the building meets the above requirements, including a color code percentage breakout of materials used, per the parameters noted above. 3) The dumpster location should be designed to ensure that commercial trash haulers can readily access the trash bins. Dumpsters greater than two (2) cubic yards in size are required to be enclosed per city ordinances. The applicant has returned with a modified site plan that shows a drive-thru lane for this site. Building footprint size has been modestly reduced and parking is accommodated for “commercial/ retail” uses at a maximum of 1 space/300 sq feet of GFA. The building would use the approved variance allowing a 10 foot setback from the Northern property line and would not utilize the entirety of the setback variance granted from the Western property line. The applicant was approved to building the structure 12’3” from the rear property line without a drive-thru lane and has now requested to add a drive-thru lane and set the building 20’ from the rear property line. This greater setback does not require the full variance previously approved for the building. The addition of ingress drive on the western side of the property also requires a 3 foot setback from the building which has been provided. The site is currently showing 13 parking spaces with a note “per section 1250.13 of the Edwardsville, IL Zoning Ordinance parking table for: ‘All retail and commercial services not denoted below’ and states 1 space per 300 square foot of gross floor area which calculates as: 1636 S.F./300 S.F. per space = 6 spaces for non-drive thru/commercial tenant As a result the non-drive-thru tenant could not include any type of “personal services” use i.e. Hair salon, Nail Boutique etc. or any type of “office” use i.e. insurance office. The use associated with drive-thru lane is a “restaurant” type use and requires 1 parking space per 2 seats. An interior seating plan has not been submitted for review to determine if the 7 parking spaces reserved for the use associated with the drive-thru are adequate. However, based upon the 7 parking spaces provided for the tenant space associated with the drive-thru, a maximum of 14 seats would be allowed for this use. ” In short, the property owner is striking a compromise that essentially “trades-off“ other potential building tenants to accommodate the drive through being sought. Planning staff has recommended that the parking calculations which would best serve the site would be the “Shopping Center” ratio (6 spaces per 1,000 GFA). This designation is preferred because individual tenant uses are not reviewed or calculated. Based upon this use type, it would be 18 parking spaces; however, 13 parking spaces are provided. Approving the special use permit for the drive-thru with contingences will place the City in the position of monitoring the user type and seating capacity for the life of the building, making sure that a 1:300 parking requirement is adhered to.  5 It should also be noted, the current free-standing sign location shown on the site plan is not consistent with current ordinance requirements. It is viewed as “grandfathered” and can remain so long as it is not removed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the drive-thru lane provided the following contingencies are met: 1. The end user of the drive-thru stated during the public hearing and added to the application to eliminate the issue of “transfer “ of the SUP. (This end user is Smoothie King) 2. The end user of the “speculative” portion of the proposed building cannot exceed the parking ratios of 1 parking space per 300 square foot of gross floor area; 3. Interior seating for the restaurant/drive-thru use shall not exceed a total of 14 seats; 4. If moved or replaced, the free-standing sign location is to be adjusted and brought into compliance with current signage required setbacks of 13 feet behind the front property line and 5 feet from the side property line; and 5. Exterior building materials as noted above and previously stipulated with approval of the setback variance are required. Bob Hotz asked if they had enough time to stay within the one year time period that was established for them. Scott Hanson stated the Zoning Board has granted brief extensions in the past. David Lisinki said it is their intent to begin as soon as possible and he feels a twelve month period from now is more than adequate, given that the variance itself is not going to undercut the efforts due to it not having a timeframe. With regard to the parking adequacies, there are two seats for Smoothie King outside, 5 stacking spaces for the unit itself, and a number of spaces for the second unit. As a result, there will be 13 spaces provided. Since two of these spaces will be dedicated to Smoothie King, there would be a number of the other spaces dedicated to the other tenant. Scott Hanson gave an explanation of how parking would work if the spec portion of the building needed to utilize the parking that Smoothie King isn’t using. He also discussed the scenario of the Smoothie King leaving and another spec user coming in there and borrowing spaces from the Smoothie King portion of the site. David Lisinski stated under the circumstances that are being proposed now, the parking that is actually assigned for Smoothie King is relatively modest and, therefore, the parking available for the second tenant is a little less than modest beyond what the requirement would otherwise be. Hanson said staff doesn’t want to be in the position where they are trying to work with the building owner and potential tenant in order to try to figure out parking and not have enough. Mike Pierceall asked about verification of the square footage of the building. He then closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. MOTION: McCaskill SECONDED: Robertson Hanson discussed the access to the site and that their options are limited. He feels both the City and applicant have found a reasonable solution.  6 MOTION: Robertson. Recommendation to approve staff recommendation items # 1,2, 3, and 5 SECONDED: Hotz VOICE ROLL CALL: 6 Ayes, 0 Nays, 0 Abstains. IV. OLD BUSINESS None. V. NEW BUSINESS There will be 2 cases next month. VI. NEXT MEETING Next meeting will be Monday, April 24, 2017 at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 118 Hillsboro Ave. VII. ADJOURNMENT  ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT Case 2017-06 Variance - 514 Chapman April 24, 2017 APPLICANT: Jill M. Griffin LOCATION: The subject property is addressed as 514 Chapman Street, and more specifically identified as 14-2-15-11- 08-201-010. VARIANCE REQUEST The variance request is to reduce the required rear setback for an addition to the existing residence from 30’ to 25’ to match the existing building setback. AREA LAND USE AND ZONING The subject property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District. The surrounding property zoning and uses are as follow: North R-1 Single Family Residence District Single family residence South R-2 Multiple Family Dwelling District 4 Unit Multi-family building East R-1 Single Family Residence District Single family residence West R-2 Multiple Family Dwelling District Grandfathered nonconforming single family residence ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT ZBA Case 2017-06, Variance Request, Page Two APPLICABLE PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS The Comprehensive Plan shows this property as Neighborhood District. The existing zoning is in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan. LIMITATIONS OF VARIATIONS: 1244.02.3 (c) Limitations of Variances (2) To permit any yard of less dimension than the minimum as stated by the applicable standard. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS STANDARDS FOR VARIANCE: (1) The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a particular hardship upon the owner, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience or loss of revenue, if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. This residence was initially constructed with a ±34 foot front yard setback comparable to the surrounding residences along the south side of Chapman as it makes a sweeping curve to the south. While the front yard setback exceeds the 25 ft minimum, it also reduces available footage for the rear yard setback. This is through no fault of the property owner as this was how homes in this area were built prior to the adoption of a zoning ordinance in the 1950’s. According to the Madison County Assessor’s website, the residence was built in 1939. The city adopted its first a Zoning Code in 1957 so setbacks were based on voluntary / self-imposed standards common at the time, not on any municipal zoning requirements. (2) The condition upon which the requested variance is based would not be applicable, generally to other property within the same zoning classification. This lot is irregular in shape and contains ±5,850 sq ft in area and was platted when smaller lots were allowable. However as a smaller lot with a residence that has a generous front setback, the rear setback is 25.6’ rather than the required 30’ setback and the corner (street) side yard is 6.2’ rather than 15’ as allowed by ordinance. In addition the existing garage is separated 7.2’ from the residence rather than 10’ per the ordinance. These are common issues on select properties within areas of the older part of the community. (3) The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The residence and accessory garage were in the current configuration at the time the applicant acquired the property. (4) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. If the applicant is granted a variance to construct a small addition to her residence, it would continue to maintain the existing 25.6’ rear setback and would not further impact the 7.2’ setback to the accessory garage. Granting the requested variances will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT ZBA Case 2017-06, Variance Request, Page Three (5) The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase congestion in the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed variance would not. The requested rear yard variance would continue/extend the existing (non-conforming) rear plane of the residence in relation to the rear property line and would not encroach into any other required setbacks. (6) The proposed variance complies with the spirit and intent of the restrictions imposed by this code. The applicant has requested a minimal deviation that extends the rear plane of the residence in relation to the rear property line along the existing nonconforming setback. (7) There is no self-imposed hardship. This may be considered a self-imposed hardship because the applicant was aware of the size and configuration of the lot, residence and garage at the time the property was purchased. However, the applicant is trying to work within the confines of the existing rear setback on this site. STAFF DISCUSSION: The applicant has requested the variance to reduce the required setbacks for rear yard in order to construct an addition the existing residence. This addition will allow for the property owner to provide support and care for her mother. The rear yard for the existing residence is currently a 25 foot 6 inches rather than the required 30 foot rear yard setback. The proposed residential addition would extend the existing rear plane of the house and not encroach any further than the existing residence. The addition would be constructed with a 7.5 foot interior side yard per the ordinance. The requested variances increase upon the bulk and extend the rear yard non-conformity of the residence. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is Planning staff’s opinion the variance request does not meet the Zoning Board of Appeals “Standards of Variance” as noted above in #7. However the Zoning Board of Appeals may determine the variance for a reduction of the rear yard from 30’ to 25’ be granted as the requested variance is in character with the surrounding area and is of minimal impact.  ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT Case 2017-10 Variance 704 Autumn Forest April 24, 2017 APPLICANT: Michelle & Kelly Cobb LOCATION: The subject property is addressed as 704 Autumn Forest, and more specifically identified as 14-2-15-13- 05-103-035. VARIANCE REQUEST The variance request is to allow construction of a new residence with a front setback of 20 feet in lieu of the required 25 feet and a side yard setback on the east side of the property of 8.49 feet in lieu of the required 10 feet. AREA LAND USE AND ZONING The subject property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District. The surrounding property zoning and uses are as follows: North R-1 Single Family Residence District Single family residence South R-1 Single Family Residence District Single family residence East R-1 Single Family Residence District Commons – Stormwater Detention Basin West R-1 Single Family Residence District Single family residence ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT - ZBA Case 2017-10, Variance Request, Page Two APPLICABLE PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS The Comprehensive Plan shows this property as Neighborhood District. The existing zoning is in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan. LIMITATIONS OF VARIATIONS: 1244.02.3 (c) Limitations of Variances (2) To permit any yard of less dimension than the minimum as stated by the applicable standard. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS STANDARDS FOR VARIANCE: (1) The particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved would result in a particular hardship upon the owner, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience or loss of revenue, if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. There are topographical challenges associated with the development of this lot. Specifically, there is a grade change of 30 feet from the Autumn Forest street right-of-way to the lowest point near the south property line of the subject tract. Distance from the front property line to the rear property line is approximately 100 feet. The significant grade limits the usable horizontal area of the lot, impacting the ability to place a structure on the subject tract. (2) The condition upon which the requested variance is based would not be applicable, generally to other property within the same zoning classification. In addition to the steep grades on the subject tract, this lot is irregular in shape and contains 9,640 sq ft in area with approximately 1,320 square feet of the lot within a permanent “Conservation Easement”. There are limited lots in the community that contain a Conservation Easement. (3) The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. The lot was platted in October 2006 and has remained vacant. (4) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. While the setback distance for the property to the East will be reduced it is the “Commons Stormwater Detention Basin” for this subdivision and will remain a vacant parcel. The reduced front yard setback would also be internal to the “Autumn Forest” development and will not affect other properties outside this development. (5) The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase congestion in the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Planning Staff’s opinion is the proposed variance will not have any of the above effects on adjoining properties or neighborhood. (6) The proposed variance complies with the spirit and intent of the restrictions imposed by this code. The applicant has requested a minimal deviation that reduces the front setback allowing for better utilization of the largest horizontal portion of the lot. The requested side yard variance would allow a 1.51 foot reduction to the required side yard adjacent to the Commons Stormwater Detention Basin and would not impact another residence. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT - ZBA Case 2017-10, Variance Request, Page Three (7) There is no self-imposed hardship. This may be considered a self-imposed hardship because the applicant should be aware of the topography, conservation easement, size and configuration of the lot. However the topography in particular makes this lot very difficult to develop. STAFF DISCUSSION: The applicant has requested the variance to reduce the required setbacks for front yard and side yard in order to construct a residence on a lot that is difficult to develop and may be considered of minimal impact to surrounding properties have limited impact to those within the same development. The physical/topographical limitations of this lot are viewed by planning staff as commonly accepted instance where a variance should be approved. While the building foundation will remain clear of the 15 foot wide utility and conservation easement at the rear of the yard (along the south property line) and will have no impact upon it, it is worth noting the following statement on the final plat: The plat contains the following language: “CONSERVATION EASEMENT A permanent easement is hereby reserved in, upon, across, over, under and through the areas of the property shown by dashed lines and labeled “Conservation Easement” for the purpose of preserving and protecting stands of trees, streambeds, and wetlands areas. It shall be the responsibility of the owner(s) of the lots numbered 3 through 6 and the commons area and all future owners of the underlying property subject to this conservation easement to preserve the natural vegetated area and to maintain the existing natural flow, storage, and absorption of surface storm water. It shall be maintained in its natural condition and free of man-made structures such as gazebos, play equipment, sheds, dams, fill, berms, fences, bridges, downspout extensions, drain pipes or culverts, except for erosion control measures that have been designed by a licensed Professional Engineer and accepted by the City of Edwardsville. It shall be unlawful to remove or destruct standing healthy trees, garden, operated motorized vehicles upon or remove the natural ground cover, root structure or tree buffer within the conservation easement except as necessary to trim or mow, to remove vines, underbrush and noxious weeds, to remove fallen, leaning, rotted, diseased or dead trees, or to install or maintain approved erosion control measures. Violators shall be subject to municipal citation and fine as prescribed by city code and ordinances.” In instances where lot topography is challenging, it is common for property owners/developers to seek ways to reduce erosion and secure building foundations. One way of doing this is via tiered walls or retaining wall. Due to the presence of the Conservation Easement, however, no encroachment into this easement shall be allowed. Support of the front yard setback reduction is one way to help ensure that the Conservation Easement remains as anticipated in the paragraph noted above. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff has no objection to the variance for a reduction of the front yard from 25’ to 20’. Similarly, planning staff has no objection to the requested side yard variance to reduce the side yard on the east side of the property from 10’ to 8.49’.