HomeMy WebLinkAboutA003 - Council Action Form dated July 15, 2008 ITEM #��_
DATE 07/15/08
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURES
BACKGROUND:
The Ames Municipal Code, Section 29.307(3)(d) currently reads:
"(d) Enlargement and Expansion. A nonconforming structure may not be
enlarged, expanded or extended unless it conforms to the requirements of this
ordinance."
This section describes when "nonconforming structures" may be allowed to expand. A
nonconforming structure is one that does not meet the current zoning ordinance, such as
required setbacks, lot coverage, height limits, etc. Limits are generally placed on
expansions of nonconforming structures so that improvements and additions do not
increase the degree of non-conformity, thus impacting adjacent properties and the
neighborhood.
In a recently proposed development, the City legal department has given the opinion that
the word "it" in the current ordinance refers to the nonconforming structure, rather than to
any enlargement, expansion, or extension of the nonconforming structure. This
interpretation has the effect of requiring the existing structure, even if legally built at one
time, to be brought into conformance with the existing code before any addition can be
added. As a result, homeowners must now seek a variance (or physically alter the existing
structure) if the structure fails to meet current zoning requirements, even though the
proposed addition does meet them.
Previous interpretations of this section of the Code have been that if an addition is
proposed for a structure that does not currently meet setbacks, the addition would be
allowed as long as it meets the required setbacks.
As an example: a house that was built in 1945, prior to the current Zoning Ordinance, has a
6-foot setback on the north side (the requirements at the time it was built). Since then, the
zoning code has been rewritten and side setbacks now require 8 feet. The homeowner
wishes to place a deck on the south side of the house. The south side of the house and the
proposed deck meet all the required setbacks. Under this current legal interpretation, she
would need to seek a variance for the encroachment on the north side before being issued
a building permit for the deck on the south side. If the proposed amendment were
approved, she would be allowed to build the deck without seeking a variance since the
deck itself would meet all current zoning regulations.
The proposed text amendment would amend Section 29.307(3)(d) to read:
"(d) Enlargement and Expansion. A nonconforming structure may not be
enlarged, expanded or extended unless it the enlargement, expansion, or extension
conforms to the requirements of this ordinance."
This proposed text amendment restores what staff assumes was the City Council's original
intent when dealing with nonconforming structures.
Since this interpretation was released, it has been incorporated into the site review process
resulting in several projects being delayed or abandoned. The Zoning Board of Adjustment
has been addressing about one case every meeting due to this interpretation. Most of the
requested variances or exceptions have been granted, but have added additional delays
and costs to the project. Many of the projects are small residential projects proposed by
homeowners, although a couple have been larger, commercial redevelopments.
In a continual effort to reduce delays and costs to homeowners as they seek to improve
and invest in their homes, while still protecting the intent of the zoning code, staff has
formulated the proposed text amendment as a means to restore what staff believes was
the City Council's intent when the zoning ordinance was adopted and to restore what has
been previous practice and interpretation.
The proposed text amendment would have an impact on customer service and
development costs. Since December 2007, there have been at least five cases referred to
the Zoning Board of Adjustment to resolve the nonconformity of an existing structure prior
to an addition being approved. There are currently four cases on hold pending adoption of
this text amendment. Most of these cases have been homeowners who wish to make an
improvement to their homes yet have found that there is a pre-existing encroachment into
the setbacks. This has also impacted commercial developments. Staff is asking that the
City Council waive the rules and pass the ordinance on third reading.
Recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission. At its meeting of July 2,
2008, with a vote of 4-0, the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended that the City
Council adopt the language to amend Section 29.307(3)(d) to allow nonconforming
structures to be enlarged provided the enlargement conforms to the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council can adopt the language to amend Section 29.307(3)(d) to allow
nonconforming structures to be enlarged provided the enlargement conforms to the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The City Council can deny the language as proposed by staff to amend Section
29.307(3)(d).
3. The City Council can refer this back to staff for additional analysis.
2
t
MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This proposed text amendment would bring the language concerning nonconforming
structures back in line with previous understandings and practices. This would better serve
the customer and the City's interests. The customer is better served by reducing time
delays and costs for minor home improvements. The City is better served by reducing
barriers to continuous improvements to neighborhoods and investments in private property.
Therefore, it is the City Manager's recommendation that the City Council act in accordance
with Alternative #1, which is to amend Section 29.307(3)(d) to allow nonconforming
structures to be enlarged provided the enlargement conforms to the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance. And because there are a number of home-owner projects in the queue
awaiting approval of this text amendment. It is further recommended that the City Council
suspend the rules and pass on third reading.
3