The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutA4 Page 1 of 1 2304 Knapp Pleasants, Barbara [EEOBS] to: Erin Cain, kmarren@city.ames.ia.us 06/20/2016 08:37 AM Hide Details From: "Pleasants, Barbara [EEOBS]" <pleasant@iastate.edu> To: Erin Cain <ecain@city.ames.ia.us>, "kmarren@city.ames.ia.us" <kmarren@city.ames.ia.us> History: This message has been forwarded. 1 Attachment I Final, final ZBA letter re 2304 Knapp 1.doc Good Morning, We would like you to please distribute the attached letter regarding the property at 2304 Knapp to members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment in preparation for their meeting on Wednesday, June 22. Sandra McJimsey will be calling Karen this morning about some questions regarding her testimony at the meeting summarizing our objections to the Appellant's request. We are concerned that the required sign on the property notifying neighbors of the pending action was still not on the property as of 7:30 this morning (Monday). We have had to attempt to notify neighbors (beyond those in the radius to receive notification by letter) ourselves, having only learned about this situation by happenstance last week. Thank you for your assistance, Barbara Pleasants, President South Campus Neighborhood Association file:///C:/Users/erin.cain/AppData/Local/Temp/notesFFF692/—web3466.htm 6/20/2016 SCAN South Campus Area Neighborhood TO: Members of the Zoning Board of Adjustment FROM: The South Campus Area Neighborhood Association(SCAN) DATE: June 19, 2016 RE: Opposition to ZBA Appeal from David Duncan-2304 Knapp Street, Ames, Iowa SCAN is an organization recognized by the City of Ames. The neighborhood's northern boundary is Knapp Street. This area is a low-density, historic neighborhood. It is already facing tremendous infrastructure and nuisance pressures from high-density construction to its north in the wake of increased student enrollment at Iowa State University. SCAN residents have lived compatibly with the nonconforming subject property on Knapp Street for decades with few issues. However,we object to Appellant's proposal and strongly support the justifications for denial of a building permit as set forth by city staff. We offer the following information and observations: Intensification of Use: Language throughout the code makes it clear that intensification is not permitted to a structure whose use is nonconforming. The purpose of this limitation is set forth in Zoning Ordinance §29.307(1)(a)(iii)"The regulations of this Section are intended to . . . place reasonable limits on the expansion of nonconformities that have the potential to adversely affect surrounding properties and the community as a whole."The reconfiguration proposed by Appellant increases the likelihood that this property will house more tenants. A reconfiguration having more bedrooms enables more individuals to have private quarters within a unit. The proposed redesign is clearly intended to increase the capacity of the structure,thereby expanding the nonconformity. If one examines the submitted floor plans,we believe that, in reality,the first floor(like the second floor) will have a studio and a three-bedroom apartment. In addition to the space labeled as a"bedroom,"there is one space labeled "den/living," and one labeled"living." We believe, however,that all three rooms on the east side would in reality be rented as bedrooms because they appear to be large enough to legally qualify as such. This being the case,the actual intensification could be even greater than the staff report suggests. Despite the specious argument(see Appellant's email dated 4-20-16)that three unrelated tenants could legally reside in each of the four existing one-bedroom apartments,to our knowledge,this has never occurred and, given the size of the units, it is unlikely in the future if the bedroom count remains at four. Clearly,the spirit, if not the letter of the law would be violated if the new configuration were allowed, as it would expand the nonconformity and have a"greater impact on the surrounding area than the existing nonconforming" design. (See Zoning Ordinance §29.307(2)(b)(iii).)Housing more occupants in the same square footage is intensification. Parking: The City's Zoning Ordinance bases its parking standards for rental units on number of bedrooms. This is an essential factor to consider in determining the intensity and day-to-day impact that the proposed interior reconfiguration would have. The proposed alteration has an impact far beyond the likely and/or permissible number of residents in this particular dwelling. If allowed to add even three bedrooms to the dwelling,the most lenient reading of the code would require the landlord to provide 8 on-site parking spaces (3 for the two studio apartments and 5 for the remaining five bedrooms)to serve his tenants sufficiently. (A minimum of 9 on-site spaces would be needed if indeed the landowner were to rent all three bedrooms in the first-floor apartment.) We doubt that the property has space for a lot to accommodate 8-9 vehicles. SCAN letter,page 2 If the landlord provides insufficient on-site parking,tenants will park on the street. One of the problems faced by residents of Lynn Avenue, which runs along the east side of the subject property, is increased parking on this street(as well as adjacent streets)throughout the daytime and at night. On most weekdays when ISU is in session, there is not a single open parking spot from Knapp Street to Storm Street for residents' visitors. Streets in residential areas are intended to accommodate short-term parking, rather than to serve as substitute parking lots. Students' use of street parking in the South Campus has already placed an undue burden on residents and city enforcement staff, so the adequacy of on-site parking for Appellant's property needs to be a consideration in your deliberations. To approve the Appellant's request without requiring sufficient on-site parking, would grant Appellant a privilege that owners of conforming rental units within the SCAN area and throughout the city do not have. The unintended consequence of approving Appellant's request would be to grant Appellant an unfair advantage. We believe this is contrary to the intent of the nonconforming designation. Additional Adverse Effects on Surrounding Properties and Community: An increase in the number of tenants and/or vehicles is incompatible with the well-maintained owner-occupied properties(many of which are equal in size or larger than the subject property) immediately adjacent on Lynn Avenue and on neighboring streets. Staff Report Attachment A shows how close the subject property is to its neighbor to the south on Lynn Avenue. There is no way to buffer the adjacent neighbors from the ill effects of a more intense utilization of the property. More tenants,who are likely to be students, may well lead to more noise, more trash, and more late-night parties, in addition to more vehicles. All of these issues place an undue burden on the neighborhood and highlight why this four-plex is a"nonconforming"use in a residential low-density neighborhood in the first place and why the current limits and bedroom count must be enforced. Dangerous Precedent: While this particular proposal impacts the south-campus neighborhood, approving Appellant's request would set a dangerous precedent for other low-density residential neighborhoods that contain nonconforming structures or uses. Appellant's plans for the subject property exploit the nonconformance granted decades ago to this once single-family home instead of continuing to harmonize the property's nonconforming rental use with the attributes of the conforming properties—rental and owner-occupied—within the zone. Appellant appears to desire a maximum rental intensity for this Knapp Street property. This would conform more closely to those properties on the north side of the street,where higher intensity is permitted,rather than to those properties in the zone where the subject property is in fact located.And yet,Appellant believes the standards and requirements that apply to owners of rental property in other areas cannot be imposed on the subject property because as a nonconforming use in a low-density zone the property should be exempt. If Appellant's request is approved,the nonconforming designation in fact becomes a special privilege, excusing the owner from complying with standards that other owners of rental property within the same zone and elsewhere in Ames must comply with. It also increases the probability that the property will not revert to low-density in the foreseeable future,thereby subverting the original intent of the designation. Thank you for your careful consideration of our testimony. Barbara Pleasants, President And Members of the Board of Directors South Campus Area Neighborhood Association