HomeMy WebLinkAboutA021 - Letter from Ed Stout dated March 25, 1997 opposed to be included in overlay Mar 25, 1997 Ed Stout plans to read the following at city council. W 25 IQW
We own the duplex located at 918 Duff. - ---We have owned this property for about 20 years. There was a small house on the lot that we
rented. In Oct. 1992 the small house was replaced by a ranch style duplex; the duplex was put
into service in February 1993.
As you know this lot is zoned R-3. This lot is a "pieces and parts" because a narrow strip was
sold off one side early this century. Because of"pieces and parts"the site plan had to be
presented to the zoning board of adjustment. We chose to build a duplex rather than a larger
unit because this design seemed to fit the lot the best. We did our best to have this design fit the
lot and yet save the most trees. Our plan was approved with no adverse comments from the
zoning board or from anyone else.
This design has several features not consistent with SFCOD including:
• The garage is attached on the front side of the house; this saved a very large Norway
spruce, reduced the need for a very long driveway and helped shield the house from the
noise of Duff Ave. traffic.
• The parking spaces are on the side of the garage.
• The front of the house faces the side of the lot.
• The roof slope is 4:12 instead of 6:12
Sec. 29.86 (4) Permitted uses states that "structures conforming ... that exist in the SFCOD on
the effective date of the amendment .... are hereby deemed conforming...." Sec. 29.86 (9) (r)
States that "It is only required that the addition or remodeling comply."
• Question: If there is disaster from fire or storm and major repairs are required can the
reconstruction be the same as the original design? The city planners told us that
reconstruction must conform to SFCOD.
• Does that mean that if only one unit is destroyed, the roof slope for that unit will have to be
different than that of the undamaged unit? How much time and delay will there be and how
many committees and bureaucracies will have to be endured to get the decisions made?
(For example, the Ames Historic Preservation Commission spent 3 hours last night to decide
they did not have the authority to allow vinyl siding for H. Newell and passed the problem to
city council.)
• If the unit is totally damaged, the rebuilding needed to conform would be a complete
redesign. The house basement and infrastructure would have to be moved toward the
street in order to have space for the garage and parking in back. Who pays for the redesign
and building cost? Insurance pays for value of what is damaged and not for redesign and
total rearrangement.
Summary
• We have owned the property about 20 years.
• We never have had an interest in historical preservation. (Twenty years ago there was no
historic preservation district.)
• We are not opposed to historical preservation nor those who want the restrictive statutes on
their property but strongly object to having it forced on us.
• No one objected to our duplex in 1993.
• SFCOD is confiscatory and opens us to subjective bureaucratic and committee intervention.
• We do not want to be involved with SFCOD.
• We request that you move the SFCOD line to the west of Duff Ave. We want out!