Loading...
Minutes_Zoning Board of Adjustment 5 2 19 Copyrighted May 20, 2019 City of Dubuque Consent Items # 1. ITEM TITLE: Minutes and Reports Submitted SUMMARY: Airport Commission of 4/22; City Council Proceedings of 5/6, 5/13; Civil Service Commission Minutes of 5/10; Community DevelopmentAdvisory Commission of 4/17; Human Rights Commission of 4/8, 4/25, 5/1; Transit Advisory Board of 5/9; Zoning Advisory Commission Minutes of 5/1/19; Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes of 5/2/19; Proof of Publication for City Council Proceedings of 4/15; SUGGESTED DISPOSITION: Suggested Disposition: Receive and File ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Airport Commission Minutes of 4/3/19 Supporting Documentation City Council Proceedings of 5/6/19 Supporting Documentation City Council Proceedings of 5/13/19 Supporting Documentation Civil Service Commission Minutes of 5/10/19 Supporting Documentation Community De�lopmentAdvisory Commission Minutes Supporting Documentation of 4/17/19 Human Rights Commissoin Minutes of 4/8/19 Supporting Documentation Human Rights Commission Minutes of 4/25/19 Supporting Documentation Human Rights Commission Minutes of 5/1/19 Supporting Documentation TransitAdvisory Board Minutes of 5/9/19 Supporting Documentation Zoning Advisory Commission Minutes of 4/17/19 Supporting Documentation Zoning Board of Adjustrnent Minutes of 5/2/19 Supporting Documentation Proof of Publication for City Council Proceedings of Supporting Documentation 4/15/19 �u6uque tHec�rvor �ii�� Dm��� DUB [JE '������ � a Mnster'�iere mi fhe Missis=i� � %om��mv F ip so��zm� MINUTES CITY OF DUBUQUE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION 5:00 p.m. Thursday, May 2, 2019 City Council Chamber, Historic Federal Building Board Members Present: Chairperson Jonathan McCoy, Board Members Keith Ahlvin, Jeff Cremer, Bethany Golombeski, and Joyce Pope; Staff Members Guy Hemenway and Wally Wernimont. Board Members Excused: None. Board Members Unexcused: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson McCoy at 5:00 p.m. AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE: Staff presented an Affidavit of Compliance verifying the meeting was being held in compliance with the lowa Open Meetings Law. MINUTES: Motion by Cremer, seconded by Ahlvin, to approve the minutes of the March 28, 2019 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting as submitted. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye — Ahlvin, Golombeski and McCoy; Nay — None; Abstain - Cremer. Docket: 07-19/Sian Variance (Reconsiderationl: Application of Core Investments Group, Inc/ Jamie McDonald, 40 Main Street, to install one, 31.2 sq. ft. wall-mounted sign, 16 sq. ft. maximum permitted, in an OC Office Commercial zoning district. Jamie McDonald, 40 Main Street, said that a 16-square foot sign wnuld be difficult for passersby to see. He asked to be granted the same size sign as another business in the building. He said that they designed a sign to fit the charader and scale of the building. Staff Member Hemenway presented the staff report. He noted the size of the sign and the approval of a former sign variance request for the same building. He discussed the OC Office Commercial sign regulations and the location of other OC properties in the community. He noted the large scale of the building and the distance of the building wall from the adjoining streets. He said that the sign will be individually cut letters affixed to the brick wall. He said that the building is located in a commercialized area. He said the size of the sign and its location will not be out of character with the building or the adjacent commercial properties. Chairperson McCoy asked for clarification regarding the former sign variance request. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 2 May 2, 2019 Board Members discussed the request. Board Member Golombeski said that since the business owner will remove the window sign, she is prone to approve the request. Board Member Ahlvin said that he does not object to the sign because of the building's scale and its distance from the highway. Board Member Cremer said that the sign appears to be tastefully done and in scale with the building. Motion by McCoy, seconded by Ahlvin, to approve the sign Variance request with the condition that no window graphics or other signs be permitted for the business. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye — Cremer, Golombeski, and Ahlvin; Nay — McCoy. Chairperson McCoy referenced criteria 2, 4 and 5 established in the Unified Development Code regarding reasonable use, special privilege, impact on adjacent properties and neighborhood harmony as reasons for his denial. Docket 08-19/Special Exception: Application of Sophia Heim, 1700 W. 3�d St., to construct a 22' by 26' detached garage 2' from the rear property line, 6' minimum required, in an R-1 Single-Family Residential zoning district. Bill Heim, 930 Arrowhead Drive, said he represents his daughter, Sophia. He said that she wants to build a detached garage to create off-street parking for the property. He said that the yard is small and meeting setbacks would be difficult. Staff Member Wernimont outlined the staff report. He referred to an aerial photo noting the alley configuration and design of the house, stating that it is a raised bungalow. He said there is no visibility issue at the intersection of the two alleys. Staff Member Wernimont said that there had been a letter received from Molly and Jason Figgins, 275 North Grandview, opposed to the request. He said that they mentioned safety, alley maintenance and snow removal, potential increase in traffic and blockage of the alley. Staff Member Wernimont said that where the garage is located it would not inhibit sight visibility or increase traffic in the area. He clarified that the garage would be a side load. Chairperson McCoy asked about runoff from the garage's roof. Staff Member Wernimont said that it would fall into the yard or the alley. Board Members discussed the request and felt that the storm water should be sequestered on the subject property. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 3 May 2, 2019 Motion by Cremer, seconded by Golombeski, to approve the Special Exception with the condition that storm water be directed onto the subject lot not onto the alley or adjacent properties. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye — Cremer, Ahlvin, Golombeski and McCoy; Nay — None. Docket 11-19/Special Exception: Application of Stephen Graham to construct a 480- square foot detached garage at 2520 Elm Street for a total of 1 ,200 sq. ft. of accessory structures, 1 ,000 sq. ft. maximum permitted, in an R-2 Two-Family Residential zoning district. Stephen Graham, 2523 Pinard Street, said that he would like to improve his property and add a 24' by 20' detached garage to give him additional storage space. No one spoke in opposition. Staff Member Hemenway presented the staff report. He said the proposed detached garage, when coupled with an existing detached garage and storage building, would total 1 ,200 square feet of detached accessory structures on the property, when 1 ,000 square foot maximum is permitted. He described the location of the garage, noting that it would take access from Elm Street, but that the subject house and adjacent houses front on Pinard Street. He said that, if approved, the detached garage could not be used for commercial storage purposes. Board Members discussed the request and felt it was appropriate. Motion by Golombeski, seconded by McCoy, to approve the Special Exception request for 2520 Elm Street as submitted. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye — Cremer, Ahlvin, Golombeski and McCoy; Nay — None. Docket 12-19/Special Exception: Application of Cory McClain, 2662 University Ave., to build a 14' by 50' detached garage 2' from the east side property line, 6' minimum required, in an R-1 Single-Family Residential zoning district. Corey McClain, 2662 University Ave., said that he would like to build a 14' by 50' garage to replace a deteriorating garage next to his neighbor's garage. He said he cannot place the garage on the other side of the property because an addition blocks his access. Staff Member Wernimont outlined the staff report, discussing an aerial photo, indicating the garage location and adjacent garage on the neighboring property. He noted that the applicant wants to remove the existing detached garage. He discussed potential fire requirements based on the building's proximity to the neighboring structure. He recommended that, if approved, the Board require that a gutter be placed on the north side of the building to direct storm water back onto the subject lot. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 4 May 2, 2019 Board Member Ahlvin asked for clarification on the garage location. Mr. McClain said that it will start 2 feet forward of the existing garage. He said he is working with the neighbor to manage storm water along the driveways and between the garage structures. Board Members discussed the request and felt that storm water should be managed and that the garage should be placed in approximately the same location. Motion by Ahlvin, seconded by Golombeski, to approve the Special Exception request with the conditions that: 1) Storm water be directed onto the subject property; and 2) That the detached garage be built no farther than 2 feet in front of the existing garage. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye — Cremer, Ahlvin, Golombeski and McCoy; Nay — None. Docket 14-19/Special Exception: Application of Chanse Beuchle, 1404 Jackson St., to build a 6' high fence along the Jackson & 14�h Street frontages, 4' high maximum permitted, in an R-2 Two-Family Residential zoning district. Maddie Zalaznik, 723 Wilson Avenue, said she represents Mr. Beuchle. She said that they would like to confine their dogs and that a six-foot high fence was necessary. Staff Member Wernimont said that the applicanYs intent is to replace an existing 4-foot high chain link fence with a 6-foot high privacy fence. He said the property is a corner lot and stated that the fence will not impact the visibility triangle because the applicant will cut the corner. He said that a neighbor, Ben Jacobson, submitted a letter of support. He said that there is no visibility issue from the street intersections or from the adjacent residential properties. Board Member Ahlvin said that he felt that the fence should be neighbor-friendly with the finished side facing the street and neighboring property. Motion by Ahlvin, seconded by Golombeski, to approve the Special Exception request with the condition that the fence be neighbor-friendly with the finished side facing the street and neighboring property. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye — Cremer, Ahlvin, Golombeski and McCoy; Nay — None. Docket 15-19/Special Exception: Application of George Nauman, 2050 Deborah Dr., to build a 12' x 30' detached carport 6' from the front property line, 20' minimum required, in an R-1 Single-Family Residential zoning district. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 5 May 2, 2019 George Nauman, 2050 Deborah Drive, said he would like to extend his carport 10 feet from the sidewalk. He said it will be a wooden frame structure with metal roof and open design. Staff Member Wernimont explained the request, distributing an aerial photo and street view of the site. He said the former attached garage had been enclosed and made into an addition. He that as the proposed carport will be of an open design it should not pose any sight visibility issues. He said that it will be approximately 10-11 feet back from the sidewalk. He said that if the Board was prone to approve, he recommends the carport remain an open design. Chairperson McCoy asked about for potential issues with snow removal. Staff Member Wernimont said as the carport will be approximately 10 feet from the sidewalk, it should not pose any snow removal issues. Board Member Golombeski asked why the carport needed to be 30 feet deep. Mr. Nauman said that he would like to stack two vehicles in the carport. Motion by McCoy, seconded by Cremer, to approve the Special Exception request as submitted. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye — Cremer, Golombeski and McCoy; Nay — Ahlvin Board Member Ahlvin referenced criteria B and E established in the Unified Development Code regarding the structure's potential impact on neighboring properties and conformance with existing district standards as reasons for his denial. DOCKET 18-19/Special Exception: Application of Paul Paxton, 1451 Mt. Pleasant, to build a 14' by 22' detached garage 16" from the south side property line, 6' minimum required, in an R-1 Single Family Residential zoning district. Paul Paxton, 1451 Mt. Pleasant, said that he would like to build a 14' by 22' garage accessed from the newly created green alley. He said that the existing garage is 14' by 10', but it is deteriorating, and would like to remove it. Chairperson McCoy expressed concern with the proximity of the garage to the property line. Staff Member Wernimont said the proposed garage will replace an existing garage with a 14' by 22' garage roughly the same distance from the property line. He said that the existing garage is grandfathered, but once removed, it would lose said status. He said that if the Board were prone to approve, he recommends that a gutter be placed on the south edge of the garage to direct storm water away from the adjacent property. He also said that as the applicant proposes to be 16" from the property line, it is contingent upon him to adequately identify the property line location. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 6 May 2, 2019 Board Members discussed the request and felt that it was important to establish the location of the subject property line. Motion by McCoy, seconded by Ahlvin, to approve the Special Exception request with the conditions that: 1 . The eaves not extend beyond the property line and that a gutter be placed along the south edge directing storm water away from the adjacent property; and 2. The applicant establish the property line location to the satisfaction of the Building Official, or obtain a property survey. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye — Cremer, Ahlvin, Golombeski and McCoy, Nay — None. Docket 19-19/Special Exception: Application of Chris Baethke, 928 Mt. Loretta, to build an 8' by 30' attached porch 7' from the front property line, 20' minimum required, in an R- 1 Single-Family Residential zoning district. Chris Baethke, 928 Mt. Loretta, said that he bought the property last fall, and is in the process of doing a complete renovation. He said he would like to add a front porch to an American Four-Square style residence. Staff Member Wernimont discussed photos of the property. He said that the applicant is renovating an American Four-Square structure and that it was typical for these buildings to have a full length front porch. He noted the porch's proximity to the property line and the adjacent driveways. He said that if the porch remains of an open design, it will not cause sight visibility issues from adjacent driveways or front yards. Board Members discussed the request and felt it was appropriate provided that the porch remain open. Motion by Golombeski, seconded by Ahlvin, to approve the Special Exception request with the condition that the porch remain of an open design. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye — Cremer, Ahlvin, Golombeski and McCoy; Nay — None. Docket 09-19/Variance: Application of James Steiner/University of Dubuque, 2180 Grace St., to install a 293-sq. ft. University of Dubuque sign,100 square foot maximum allowed, in an ID Institutional District. James Steiner, Vice President of Finance, University of Dubuque, 2000 University Avenue, explained the University's South Commons project. He said that the university is currently allowed a 100-square foot sign. He said that the sign will be placed atop a limestone retaining wall and that it will advertise the 1 .5-acre commons area. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 7 May 2, 2019 No one spoke in opposition to the request. Staff Member Hemenway noted the University of Dubuque would like to install a 293- square foot sign. He described the proximity to the adjacent streets and discussed surrounding land use, stating that the sign would be located at the center of the university's campus. He noted that the applicant had submitted a rendering showing a difference between a 100-square foot and a 300-square foot sign. Board Members discussed the sign size, material, and location. Chairperson McCoy asked about the sign's intent. Mr. Steiner said that the sign will be visible from the south to the campus, which he said is the intent. Board Members discussed the request, and felt that the sign would be appropriate given some conditions. Motion by McCoy, seconded by Cremer, to approve the Sign Variance request with the conditions that: 1) The sign be built in accordance with the submitted rendering; and 2) No other large freestanding signs face the southern end of the campus. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye — Cremer, Ahlvin, Golombeski and McCoy; Nay — None. Docket 10-19/Conditional Use Permit: Application of Shenith Leatherwood, 1993 Asbury Rd., to open a child care center with 27 children and 5 employees. Chairperson McCoy noted that Ms. Leatherwood had withdrawn her request. Docket 13-19/Conditional Use Permit: Application of Shota 2, Inc., 1450 Loras Blvd., to expand an existing gas station/convenience store in a C-1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Jeff Hyall, 2080 South Park Court, stated he is the attorney representing the applicant. He noted the applicant would like to construct a 10' by 20' cooler addition. He distributed renderings of the proposed cooler addition and landscaping treatments. He said that some landscaping has been installed on the property and the exposed soil has been seeded. He said that a quote has been provided to indicate the time frame for project completion. Jane Schmitt, 1377 Wood Street, said that her back yard overlooks the proposed cooler addition area. She said that the compressor would be noisy and that she does not want to view a commercial-looking installation. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 8 May 2, 2019 Larry Hoelscher, 1330 Nowata Street, said that he would like a screening fence to prevent car lights from shining toward his property. He said that mud from the construction activity flows over the sidewalk. He said that the current pad that was poured by the applicant has no footings and is already undermined. Chairperson McCoy asked if there was some way to mitigate the compressor noise. He asked about potential screening. Mr. Hyall said that the applicant is open to doing anything to help mitigate the compressor noise. He said that the addition, when completed, would improve the subject property. He said that construction of a privacy fence is part of the bid the applicant received. He said his client is not opposed to installing screening and fencing to block vehicle headlights and the view of the cooler. Chairperson McCoy asked about potential construction design. He expressed concerns with the mud on the sidewalk and its effect on the access to the adjacent properties. He asked Staff Member Hemenway about storm water. Staff Member Hemenway noted that the rear yards of the adjacent properties drain into a swale between the subject lot and the adjacent house on Nowata Street, and flows to Nowata Street. Mr. Hyall noted that the cooler pad would be rebuilt to the specifications required by Building Inspector Jeff Zasada. Board Members discussed the location of the proposed screening fence. Staff Member Hemenway described the previous conditional use cases for the subject property. He referred to the renderings submitted by the applicant, noting the location of the screening fence, site signage and landscaping. He said the new cooler is smaller in size than what was formerly approved; however, it is located on the south side of the building instead of the west side of the building, closer to the adjacent residential properties. He said that the renderings submitted show no landscape screening around the south side of the cooler where it is closest to the adjacent property. He recommended that the existing signage on the west side of the building be removed, that the dumpster be enclosed, and that a screening fence be placed along the parking lot on the west side of the property to reduce the impact of vehicle noise and headlights. He recommended that more landscaping and screening be placed between the proposed cooler addition and the adjacent residential property. He said that the existing concrete pad will not likely accommodate a heavy structure such as a cooler. The Board discussed the location and height of the cooler with respect to the adjacent grades. Board Member Ahlvin asked Mr. Hyall why the applicant did not place the cooler on the west side of the building as was originally approved. Mr. Hyall said that placing the cooler on the west side was no longer an option. He said that the applicant is willing to comply with all building regulations regarding the concrete slab and footings. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 9 May 2, 2019 Chairperson McCoy asked about the fence installation. He said that he would like a fence on the south side of the lot in addition to the proposed landscaping. He recommended that the compressor be located away from the neighboring residential properties at the northwest part of the building. Board Member Golombeski discussed potentially cladding the cooler's exterior with a material that would hide the hammered aluminum surface. Board Members discussed the landscape plan that had been submitted to the City. Board Member Ahlvin said expressed concern with reducing the buffer area between the residential development and the gas station, which he said would move the commercial building closer to the neighboring residential properties. Board Members discussed the privacy fence and compressor locations. The Board asked to have the compressor located atop the other cooler on the west side of the building and partially screened to help direct noise up and away from the neighboring properties. Board Members felt a building permit should be applied for immediately, possibly within 60 days. Motion by McCoy, seconded by Cremer, to approve the Conditional Use Permit request with the conditions that: 1) The conditional use permit would expire within 60 days unless a building permit is issued. 2) That the exterior of the building and coolers be painted with a similar color. 3) That the compressor for the new cooler be placed atop the existing cooler on the building's west side and acoustically screened. 4) That a privacy fence be installed based on Exhibit A. 5) That a screening fence be installed that will block vehicle headlights that shine south along Nowata Street. 6) That the property be seeded and landscaped, and that the vegetation be established and well maintained. 7) That runoff from the south side of the building be properly sequestered and directed to the street and not flow over adjacent residential properties or over the sidewalk. 8) No lighted signage will be allowed on the south, east, and west walls of the building. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 10 May 2, 2019 9) That the dumpster shall be fully enclosed as per City of Dubuque standards. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye — Cremer, Golombeski, and McCoy; Nay — Ahlvin Board Member Ahlvin stated concerns with reducing the buffer area between the commercial structure and the adjacent residential properties. Board Member Pope entered the meeting at 6:55 p.m. Docket 16-19/Appeal: Application of David Stuart to appeal the Zoning Enforcement Officer's Notice requiring removal of all items of personal property "stored" within the dwelling as storage for property located at 1589 Bluff Street. Chairperson McCoy described the appeal procedure. Stuart Hoover stated he is the attorney representing David Stuart and Jade Engineering, LLC. He said that the City had sued Jade Engineering and lost for the very same issues the Board is reviewing this evening. He distributed two previous cases heard at the lowa District Court and the lowa Court of Appeals. He said that the cases are germane because the very same issue was reviewed and the court(s) found in favor of Mr. Stuart. David Stuart, 1470 Locust Street, said that he is a member/manager of Jade Engineering, LLC, and that he has authority to make decisions for the company. He said that the City has ordered him to remove all of his personal property from the building at 1589 Bluff Street. He discussed the International Building Code definitions of buildings. He said that the subject building was originally designed as an owner- occupied single-family dwelling. He said it is currently a dwelling. He said that the dwelling has a kitchen, bathroom, and is located in a high density, multi-family residential zoning district. He said that the property was slated for demolition by the previous building owner, but he purchased the building intending to rehabilitate to save it from destruction. Mr. Stuart said that the Unified Development Code (UDC) defines storage, and he read said definition. He said that the UDC is silent on what personal property may be stored in a dwelling. He said the UDC only regulates vehicle storage on residential lots. He said people keep many things within their property and that keeping things on the property is considered storage. He said that in the past storage his father had stored airplane parts in the back yard of his property. He said that he has thousands of hours of carrier flight line experience and keeps much aviation memorabilia in his home. He said that the Zoning Officer's Notice of Violation requires all personal property be removed from the building at 1589 Bluff Street. He said that he has 30 antique radios on his property. He discussed the definition of dwelling noting that it references living Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 11 May 2, 2019 purposes. He said that some people do all of their living in one building. He said that he can cook and do other things in his buildings. He said that he has hobbies, and that there are lawful materials kept in the building. He said that he keeps personal property in the subject building and sometimes takes his meals there. He said that he cannot use his building properly if he cannot store materials. Chairperson McCoy asked the appellant to only focus on issues that are directly related to the Notice of Violation and the UDC code sections that he is being challenging. He said he is only interested is what is going on at 1589 Bluff Street. Mr. Stuart said that he has antiques and other materials stored in the residence. Staff Member Hemenway said that the Board is not the lowa District Court, the lowa Court of Appeals or a civil court. He said that their decision should be based simply on the code language outlined in the Unified Development Code and in the Notice of Violation that was issued to Jade Engineering, LLC for the property at 1589 Bluff Street. He said that Mr. Stuart is correct in that the UDC is silent regarding what materials may be stored in a residence. He said that; however, said materials are required to be accessory to the principle permitted use, which he said is residential. He said that these materials must be incidental, subordinate, and customary to the residential use of the building. He said that the building, to be considered a principal residential use, should have residential occupancy. Staff Member Hemenway said that the building currently does not have a principle use; therefore, an accessory use is not permitted. He said that the material inside the building needs to be clearly residential in nature and subordinate to the principal use of the property. He said that as there is no principal use within the building currently no accessory use is permitted. He said that the general intent of the ordinance is that the building is to be used for residential purposes. He said that storage is an accessory to the principal use. Mr. Stuart referred to the principal permitted uses in the R-4 Multi-Family Residential District. He described the principal permitted use and said that the current accessory use is subordinate. He said that the stored materials constitute an accessory use and are subordinate. He said that there is no detached garage; therefore, there are no accessory uses on the property. He said that the current use of the building is a principal permitted use. He said he cannot use the property if he does not have the ability to store anything within the structure. He said there are no accessory uses, only the principal use of the structure. Mr. Stuart said that the UDC does not say what he can use inside the building. He said that there is personal property currently in the building. He said his storage is not an accessory use and that the principal permitted use is a dwelling. He said that he has some air conditioners and roofing materials in the building that he said can be normally found in any building that is being rehabilitated. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 12 May 2, 2019 Chairperson McCoy asked if the roofing material is for the subject building at 1589 Bluff Street. Mr. Stuart said the material is for the building but may be used on other properties. Mr. Stuart said that his property does not have an accessory structure. He said that he is permitted to place materials within the buildings and that there are currently trim and roofing materials inside. He said he the City is trying to compel him to remove all the materials from the building. He said that keeping personal property in a residential structure is not an accessory use. He said that the UDC does not limit the activities that can occur within or what he can do with his dwelling. Staff Member Hemenway said that Mr. Stuart has made it clear that the building is being used as a storage building. He said a building permit for this property has not been obtained since 2006. He said that the Board should uphold staff's interpretation that the building is being used for storage and is absent a principal residential use. Staff Member Hemenway noted that staff has been asked to make interpretations regarding what materials can be stored inside of a residence. He said that the Zoning Enforcement Officer was called to a residence where lawn mowers were being stored. He said that lawn mowers are considered customary and subordinate to a residential use; however, the officer discovered there were 18 lawn mowers on the premises. He said that staff, at that time, determined that this was not customary, incidental or subordinate to the principal use which was residential, and there was clearly a business being undertaken there. He said that staff is often called upon to determine whether stored materials are typically accessory to a residential use. Staff Member Hemenway recommended that the Board affirm Planning staff's interpretation that storage of construction materials, old furniture, antiques, and other miscellaneous materials not accessory to a residential use, is not permitted in residential districts, including the property at 1589 Bluff Street, and is a violation of Section 16-5-6.1 of the Unified Development Code. Board Member Ahlvin discussed the materials that were stored in the building. He said that it is a bit of an overreach to require someone to remove all their personal property. He said that if the personal property were to be removed, the building would still be the same. Chairperson McCoy noted that the principal use of the property is a dwelling. He said he felt the property was not being used as a dwelling. Board Member Golombeski discussed the materials stored in the building. She said as they are not being sold, she felt that they were appropriate. She said that it is not uncommon for a historic structure to have building materials inside. Chairperson McCoy said that he felt the property was not being used as a home. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 13 May 2, 2019 Board Member Golombeski said that although someone may not continually reside in the building, people can go there and hang out anytime they would like. She said that she felt that the building qualified as a residence. Board Members discussed why the materials were located inside the structure. Board Member Pope asked if the building had a principal permitted use. Staff read the definition of dwellings and dwelling unit. Board Member Pope said her concern is not what is in the building, but that the property is not being used as a residence. Board Members disagreed if the property was a residence. Several Board Members felt that residential occupancy did not require that a resident be there full-time, and others said that there should be someone living inside the building to qualify as a single-family residence, not as an accessory structure for storage. Board Members discussed the length of time since a permit was pulled for the building. Board Member Cremer said that he is going to support staffs interpretation with the issuance of a Notice because he agrees with the City's interpretation regarding accessory structures. Motion by McCoy, seconded by Pope, to affirm Planning staffs interpretation that storage of construction materials, old furniture, antiques, and other miscellaneous materials not accessory to a residential use, is not permitted in residential districts, including the property at 1589 Bluff Street, and is a violation of Section 16-5-6.1 of the Unified Development Code. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye — Cremer, Pope and McCoy; Nay — Ahlvin and Golombeski. Docket 17-19/Appeal: Application of David Stuart to appeal of Zoning Enforcement Officer requiring removal of all items of personal property "stored" within the dwelling as storage for property located at 1591 Bluff Street. Stuart Hoover, Attorney representing David Stuart and Jade Engineering, LLC., asked that the Board include all of the information from the previous appeal (Docket 16-19) in the record for the current appeal. He asked that the Board include at 1589 Bluff Street case information. The Board and Planning Staff agreed to include the information in both appeals. Mr. Hoover stated that Mr. Stuart had been addressing the issues regarding maintenance and renovation of the buildings. He said that the City has been harassing his client regarding his buildings and properties. He said this building is being used residentially as it is designed and used. He said that the UDC does not require that one must live in a building for it qualify as a residence. He said the property is used for human occupation. He said that Dave Stuart would like to save these buildings. He said they are being used for their intent. Mr. Hoover said that if it was up to him, he would have bulldozed the buildings long ago, but he said the material within the buildings is to be used for upkeep, maintenance and renovation of the buildings. Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 14 May 2, 2019 Dave Stuart said that he disagrees with staff's contention that the building is not occupied. He said that occupation can take several forms, and that the term vacant means that it does not have materials in it. He said unoccupied means that there is no one in the building. He said that Jade Engineering, LLC is buying properties and working to rehabilitate them. He said that there are no accessory uses within the building. He said that the personal property does not need to be related to anything detailed in the UDC. He said that no one is currently sleeping in the building. He said that he and others own 10 properties within a seven-block area with a total of 50 units. He said that he does not need to live in the building for it to be occupied. He said it is undisputed that he is rehabilitating the property. Mr. Stuart said that every time the City fights him he has to stop his rehabilitation projects. He said that he puts items in the building that are useful for his business. Staff Member Hemenway said that it is not the City's intention to harass any citizens, but to see that all codes are complied with in an effort to maintain neighborhood integrity, character, safety and sanitation. He said that the property has been designed as a residence but is being used as a storage building. He said that the intent of the ordinance is to permit a residence and not a de facto storage building. He said the building is being used for storage. He noted that the building has not had a building permit active since 2006. Mr. Stuart said the UDC allows principal permitted uses with conditions. He said there are no accessory uses on the property. He said that it is not being used for storage; he said that everything in the building is being kept until it is needed. He said the building cannot be considered vacant because it has things in it. He said the UDC does not tell a property owner what he can store on his property. Staff Member Hemenway explained he was addressing the accusation of harassment raised by the appellant and his attorney. He said that the building is being used primarily to store goods and materials. Staff Member Hemenway asked that the Board affirm Planning staff's interpretation that storage of construction materials, old furniture, antiques, and other miscellaneous materials not accessory to a residential use, is not permitted in residential districts, including the property at 1591 Bluff Street, and is a violation of Section 16-5-6.1 of the Unified Development Code. Chairperson McCoy directed staff to include all the information discussed at the previous appeal (Docket 16-19 for 1589 Bluff Street) with the current appeal. Board Member Ahlvin said that he feels this is a misuse of City authority. He said that since the City has lost several court cases regarding these issues, it appears that the motive is retribution. He said that he feels that; although the violation charged may be Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 15 May 2, 2019 based on an interpretation, there is also an ulterior motive for the City's issuance of a Notice of Violation. The Board discussed an off-premise residential garage as a conditional use in residential districts. Board Members discussed what they felt was the principal use of the building and property is. Board Member Cremer said that he does not feel the renovation project is moving in the right direction. Motion by McCoy, seconded by Pope, to affirm Planning staffs interpretation that storage of construction materials, old furniture, antiques, and other miscellaneous materials not accessory to a residential use, is not permitted in residential districts, including the property at 1591 Bluff Street, and is a violation of Section 16-5-6.1 of the Unified Development Code. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye —Cremer, Pope and McCoy; Nay — Golombeski and Ahlvin. ITEMS FROM STAFF: Staff asked the appellants if they would be willing to provide a copy of the transcript from the court reporter so that they could more accurately reflect the discussion of the appeals. ITEMS FROM BOARD: None. ITEMS FROM PUBLIC: None. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Pope, seconded by Cremer, to adjourn the May 2, 2019 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye —Cremer, Ahlvin, Pope and McCoy and Golombeski; Nay — None. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kyle L. Kritz, Associate Planner Adopted