HomeMy WebLinkAboutA002 - Staff Report dated April 12, 2023 ITEM #: 3
DATE: 04-12-2023
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REQUEST: A Request for a Variance to allow use of the existing structure at 112 High
Avenue as Single-Family Residence in the "HOC" (Highway Oriented
Commercial) zone.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Richard Kasperbauer, is requesting a variance to allow use of the
structure at 112 High Avenue as a single-family home (Attachment A— Location Map).
Built in 1896, the structure was used as a home before being converted to office use by
prior owners of the property. The Highway Oriented Commercial "HOC" zoning district
does not allow for any type of residential use to be established. The applicant is
requesting to return the use of the structure and the property to single-family
residential, from commercial.
This area has been zoned commercially in some form as far back as 1956. In 2000, Ames
rewrote its Zoning Ordinance, and the subject block of High Avenue was zoned HOC
(Attachment B). The subject property was previously zoned General Commercial District,
"G-C", which also did not permit single-family residential development, only living area
above commercial area. (G-C no longer exists.)
The exact date of the conversion from residential to office is unknown. In 1996, the City
approved a site plan for 112 High Avenue along with the two properties to the north for
Gibbs Plumbing, Heating, and Cooling. The approved site plan shows the subject building
as "Exist. Office" (Attachment C). Staff believes the property has been used as
commercial since at least the approval of the Site Plan. Additionally, in 2010, Ames Police
responded to a complaint at the address regarding someone living on premises. The
Police report documents that an individual on the site indicated that no one lived at that
address. (Attachment D).
Records from Ames Electric show that from 2006 to 2018, the utility account was
registered to KB Cleaning. In 2018, the account was briefly changed to Triplett (the
property management company). Later in 2018, the account was changed to Mayfair
Cleaners.
Below is the ownership history for the paster several owners-
- The property was owned by Katherine and Monte Gibbs, who transferred
ownership to K & M Real Estate, LC on January 4, 2018.
- The property ownership was transferred from K & M to Richard J. Kasperbauer
and Laura L. Kasperbauer on November 11, 2018.
- The property ownership was transferred from Richard and Laura to MF Lincoln
Way LLC on August 26, 2019.
1
Mr. Kasperbauer, the applicant, communicated with the Ames Inspections Division about
work to the property. The applicant states that he was told by the inspector that it was
permissible to proceed with renovation of the structure as a residence. Since April of
2021, the applicant has pulled building, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical permits for
the property. Of those, only one has been finalized. The remainder remain outstanding,
pending the outcome of this variance request.
According to the Inspections Division, the applicant described the property as residential,
which is why he was advised to proceed. Since the structure was built as a residence
initially, Inspections Division staff gave renovation information to Mr. Kasperbauer based
on that description. Staff later determined that the property had formerly been used as
office.
The applicant requests a variance to establish a residential use because the
property is not considered to have a legal nonconforming residential use, despite
its original construction as a residence. The Ames Municipal Code, Chapter 29,
Zoning, details how to address nonconformities, including nonconforming uses. Sec.
29.307(f) states that a "nonconforming use may be changed only to a use that conforms
to the Ordinance. Once changed to a conforming use, no use may revert to, or be
re-established as a nonconforming use."
Sec. 29.307(g)(i) further states that "[o]nce abandoned, a nonconforming use shall not be
reestablished or resumed. Any subsequent use or occupancy of the structure or lot must
conform with the regulations of the district in which it is located." Sec. 29.307(g)(ii)
elaborates that a "nonconforming use shall be presumed abandoned when any of
the following has occurred:
a. The owner has in writing or by public statement indicated intent to abandon the
use;
b. The building or structure has been removed through the applicable procedures for
the condemnation of unsafe structures;
c. The owner has physically changed the building or structure or its permanent
equipment in such a way as to clearly indicate a change in use or activity to
something other than the nonconforming use; or
d. The use has been discontinued, vacant or inactive for a continuous period of at
least one year.
As the former nonconforming residential use, in the eyes of staff, changed in the
1990s to commercial with the approved Site Plan and that no rental certificate or
other residential approvals have existed for the site for over the past 20+ years, the
use cannot be established.
STATEMENT OF APPLICANT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant has provided the attached application including statements as to how the
proposed use meets the standards for a variance (Attachment E).
2
APPLICABLE LAW:
The Board shall determine, pursuant to Iowa law, whether all the standards for granting
of a variance are satisfied by the Variance Request. Findings of Fact for each standard
are included in the Addendum.
Pertinent Sections of the Ames Municipal Code, Chapter 29, Zoning, include the
following:
Sec. 29.1504. VARIANCE
(1) Purpose. This section is intended to allow for variances from the terms of this
Ordinance pursuant to Section 414.12 of the Iowa Code as will not be contrary to the
public interest, where owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of the
provisions of the Ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit
of this Ordinance is observed, and substantial justice done.
(3) Procedure. Review of an application for variance shall be conducted by the Zoning
Board of Adjustment and shall be in accordance with the following:
(c) Review and Disposition.
(i) The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall act upon all applications for a variance
in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Iowa Code.
(ii) In granting any variance, the Zoning Board of Adjustment may prescribe
appropriate conditions and safeguards to promote the purposes and protect
the integrity of this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions and safeguards,
when made part of the terms under which the variance is granted, shall be
deemed a violation of this Ordinance.
(4) Standards. Pursuant to Iowa law, a variance shall be granted only if all the following
standards are satisfied:
(a) The granting of the variance shall not be contrary to the public interest.
(b) That without granting of the variance, and due to special conditions, a literal
enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. Unnecessary
hardship exists when-
(i) The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a
purpose allowed in the zone.
(ii) The plight of the owners is due to unique circumstances and not to the
general conditions in the neighborhood.
(iii) The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character
of the locality.
(c) The spirit of the ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is granted.
(d) Substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting the variance."
The pertinent zoning regulations of the Iowa Code are included in Chapter "414 (City
Zoning), Section 414.12(3)" which states the following-
3
414.12 Powers.
The board of adjustment shall have the following powers:
1. To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order,
requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official in the
enforcement of this chapter or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto.
2. To hear and decide special exceptions to the terms of the ordinance upon which such
board is required to pass under such ordinance.
3. To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance from the terms of the
ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, where owing to special
conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result
in unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be
observed, and substantial justice done.
BASIS OF PETITION:
The applicant has submitted responses to the variance criteria. See the attached
supporting information prepared by the applicant as part of the "Variance Application
Packet." Staff findings and conclusions are summarized in the Addendum.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
Notification was made to all owners of property within 200 feet. A notice of public hearing
was placed on the property and published in the newspaper.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny this request for a Variance to establish a
residential use for 112 High Avenue by finding there is not evidence that supports the
explicit finding of consistency with all the Variance criteria.
2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment, with findings of consistency for all Variance criteria,
may approve a Variance to establish a residential use for 112 High Avenue.
3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may table this Variance Request and seek further
information from the applicant or from staff.
PLANNING AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Zoning Ordinance outlines that when a nonconforming use ceases and changes to
a conforming use, the previous nonconforming use cannot be reestablished outside of
certain criteria. The property does not meet these criteria for establishing a
nonconforming use. As a result of this determination, the owner has applied for a use
variance to establish a residential use.
4
The applicant has made it clear to staff that his desire is to use the building as a residence
and that a significant amount of money has already been invested in renovations. His dry
cleaning and laundry business is immediately to the north and the location is desirable
for him.
Staff reviewed the application materials and applied the variance criteria to the request.
The findings of fact and conclusions were made by staff for each of the variance criteria,
as described in the Addendum. Staff determined that not all of the criteria for the granting
of a variance are met by the request. Staff did not find that, per the legal criteria for a
variance, the applicant had met the threshold for approval of a variance.
Without approval of the variance the applicant will need to comply with regulations
pertaining to the property for commercial use. The applicant will work with Inspections to
finalize the previously issued permits and address commercial use of the property.
Inspections indicated that the wiring installed in the structure was installed to commercial
standards already.
The City has consistently determined, over the course of many decades, that the best
use for High Avenue and the surrounding area to meet City objectives is to see it transition
to commercial uses. The area has not been considered primarily a residential
neighborhood for many decades and the City has planning and zoned for the logical
transition, near the busy intersection of Lincoln Way and Duff Avenue, to commercial
use.
The City's comprehensive plan, Ames Plan 2040, identifies High Avenue as `Redirection'
in its Future Land Use Map. The Redirection category includes goals for increased density
and a mix of uses. However, City Council will consider at a future date if there should be
a change for existing uses and zoning to potentially different uses. Those uses do include
residential but are envisioned as being multifamily and part of mixed-use development.
Single-family residential is not an encouraged use in Redirection this particular area.
If the variance is not granted, the applicant could ask for City Council to consider rezoning
and area of amending the HOC zoning district to allow for residential uses. This would
involve a request from the applicant to Council. If City Council was interested in the
proposal, it would be followed by a referral to staff. Staff would then come back to the
Council with a report, and Council would then give direction on if a rezoning or text
amendment was desirable for the area overall regarding residential uses, not for one
specific property.
It is the conclusion of staff that the variance be denied. This is based upon an analysis of
the Variance Request and the applicant's information requesting a variance to allow the
building at 112 High Avenue to be used as a dwelling in the Highway Oriented
Commercial Zoning District. The Planning and Housing Department recommends
Alternative #1 to deny the Variance Request.
5
ADDENDUM
Staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions for each of the Variance criteria:
(a) The granting of the variance shall not be contrary to the public interest.
Findings of Fact: The Variance Application proposes to use the existing structure
as a single-family dwelling. The property had not been in use for several years and
the current owner indicates that he invested heavily in renovating the old building,
bringing it back into use. The renovation included tearing out the interior,
reconfiguring the rooms, installing a new kitchen, installing new bathrooms,
installing new windows, putting on a new roof and new siding, installing a new
HVAC system and ductwork, and replacing wiring and plumbing.
On the 100 block of High Avenue, there are five buildings, not including the subject
property, that appear to be used as residences. Across the street is the Community
Choice Credit Union and to the south of the site is a small, single-story commercial
building. To the north and adjacent to the subject property are one of the five
houses and a property being developed as a dry cleaner (the new building is close
to completion). The properties to the north are both owned by the same entity as
the subject property, M F Lincoln Way, LLC.
Zoning Ordinances, including Chapter 29 in Ames, are written with nonconformities
in mind. It is generally acknowledged that there will be properties, particularly in
older parts of town, that do not conform to the present regulations. The intent with
creating and applying a zoning district that creates a nonconformity (the house
existed prior to the Zoning Ordinance) is that, over time, the property will be
brought into compliance. Zoning is a crucial part of city planning, in that the code
looks to the future and anticipates future development. It is anticipated that, at
some point, a property with an old building will redevelop and will comply with the
code at that time. The code acknowledges the existence of nonconformities and
allows them to stay, so long as the nonconforming use does not cease. This is a
standard provision in zoning ordinances.
The applicant states:
This request will enhance the other properties in the area that this house
(112 S. High Avenue) is located[sic].
Prior to the complete renovation, the house, garage, and grounds
surrounding the structures was [sic] in severe disarray. The roof was
leaking, the porch was caving in, and the inside was completely a mess.
The house as it sits now is completely as a new house would be. New roof,
new siding, new plumbing, new electrical. The unattached garage is all new
as well. The lot has been cleared of many overgrown volunteer trees and
weeds. 2 very large, very old trees remain and are majestic.
6
This home (by far) is the nicest house in the entire area.
Conclusions: Public Interest is commonly discussed for variances in reference to
the City's Comprehensive Plan, surroundings, and zoning. These policies and
ordinances generally define public interest for a city. The Zoning Ordinance is
designed to allow existing, nonconforming uses to remain. However, once those
uses cease, the property must be used as prescribed in code. This property has
been used for commercial purposes consistent with the zoning for the site for many
decades. Although there are other existing nonconforming residential uses in the
area, permitting the single-family residential use to return to this does not align with
the commercial zoning of the area and intent of replacing nonconforming uses over
time as the public interest of the City.
Therefore, the Board can conclude this criterion is not met.
(b) That without granting of the variance, and due to special conditions, a literal
enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship.
Unnecessary hardship exists when:
(i) The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for
a purpose allowed in the zone.
Findings: The property was originally built as a home and was converted into an
office. This structure could continue to be used as an office subject to conformance
to commercial building codes. The types of improvements made to the structure
are not precluded from being within commercial space, but Inspections would need
to verify the building still meets commercial occupancy requirements. The office
could then be rented out, yielding a return. The land itself has no features that
would prevent it from being used commercially.
The applicant states that:
This home was completely remodeled in order for me to live in. If the
variance is not granted, the structure would yield no return since it is set up
as a home, not a commercial structure.
Very early in the remodel project, and inspector on site stated to me that it
is OK to remodel this home to live in as a residence.
That is the basis for me continuing with the project and finishing it.
Conclusions: A reasonable return does not ensure a profit, maximized gain, or that
no loss on an investment may occur because of owning a property and using it in
a manner consistent with City ordinances. The question of hardship applies to
whether the property can be used in any manner consistent with the City's zoning
standards and yield a reasonable return.
The property was previously used as an office. The applicant has not provided
evidence that the property cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a
purpose allowed in the zone, such as an office.
Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is not met.
(ii) The plight of the owners is due to unique circumstances and not to
the general conditions in the neighborhood.
Findings: Unique circumstances may include such things as location of the
property, size or shape of the lot, topography, or water features on the site.
Hardships that result from personal circumstances may not be the basis for
granting a variance.
The area is a mix of older single-family homes and businesses. The property could
be used as an office, in keeping with uses across the street and immediately to the
south.
The applicant states that:
Most other properties in the vicinity are used as homes. There is only one
structure in the vicinity used as a business (currently).
My property is by far unique compared to the other properties in the vicinity
because it is literally a brand new home, even though the house was built
in the 1890s.
My property adds very much value to the neighborhood, and adds to the
property tax value in the area.
Conclusions: The age of the home and the renovation are not a consideration for
whether or not a property is due a variance for use when allowable use within the
zoning district are feasible. The property is located in an area that can and does
have commercial uses. The lot is rectangular in shape: 66 feet side and 132 feet
deep. The total area is 8,712 square feet. The Assessor shows the building at
1,464 square feet: 732 square feet on each floor. There is a detached garage at
the rear of the property.
There is no minimum lot area for commercial uses in HOC and the minimum
frontage is 50 feet. The maximum building coverage is 50% (4,356 square feet)
and the minimum landscaped area (which includes grass) is 15%. The maximum
floor-area-ration (FAR) is 0.5. The property appears to be in compliance with all of
the HOC requirements. The property would need to be operated in a manner and
maintain improvements consistent with the 1996 site plan or current code
requirements as they apply.
No circumstances unique to the property itself could be identified.
Therefore, the Board can conclude this criterion is not met.
8
(iii) The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential
character of the locality.
Findings: The building was built as a home. Despite being used as an office,
alterations were not made to the structure to make it look like an office building.
After the applicant's renovations, the property still looks like a home. In addition to
new siding, new windows, and a new roof, the porches on the front and rear are
no longer enclosed.
The applicant states that:
This home is compatible with the character of the surrounding area by being
a beautiful, preserved home surrounded by older homes that are also lived
in by families.
The character of the surrounding area could be described as older homes
with a few businesses in between, but nearly all of the area is filled with
older homes lived in by families.
Conclusions: There are give other single-family homes on the block. After the
extensive renovation, the building still resembles a single-family home. Its design
is not out of character with the surrounding area. It is also unlikely that the use of
the property for residential purposes would impact any nearby commercial uses.
Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is met.
(c) The spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is
granted.
Findings: The Zoning Ordinance allows for nonconforming uses to continue. Once
those uses have ceased, they are not to resume.
The comprehensive plan, Ames Plan 2040, does designate this area of Ames as
`Redirection', a category that allows for residential use. This use, however, is
intended to be dense and mixed with other uses, such as multifamily units on top
of a ground-level commercial use. Detached, single-family residences are not
considered dense, and the property only has one use.
The applicant states that:
The Zoning Ordinance for this area states that it is OK to live in these homes
as long as there is no gap in the nonconforming use. Apparently there is
confusion as to whether this home was used commercially.
This variance is consistent with the Sign Ordinance since it will be used as
a private residence with no signs.
9
This variance is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance since the ordinance
does allow homes in the zone to be lived in, and all of the homes in the zone
are lived in and used as residences.
This variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan since the plan
allows the use for residences, with the option of commercial use. This will
not change.
Conclusions: The applicant contends the spirit or intent of allowing continuation of
nonconforming uses would be met by establishing a residential use on this stie.
Having the use return to a nonconforming use once it has been a conforming use
is not the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The code is written to, gradually and over
time, bring all properties into compliance. There is no provision for a use to revert
to its original use, regardless of how the structure was constructed or the
structure's intended use.
Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is not met.
(d) Substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting the variance.
Findings: Substantial justice speaks to the requirement that the hardship must be
peculiar to the property or that an issue of equity in use of property exists. The
hardship must be peculiar to the property and not shared by the community.
The applicant states that:
Substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting this variance since
I conducted and completed this project based on the advice given to me
(twice) by Ames inspectors.
I was told twice by inspectors that it was OK to use this as a residence, so
that is the basis for investing many hours and a lot of money into preserving
a 1890s[sic]home and turning it into a beautiful and proud residence.
It would be a terrible injustice to not allow this home to be used as a
residence.
The applicant does not point to a unique aspect of the property, nor could staff
identify one. From the perspective of the zoning code, the age and condition of the
home are not relevant, nor are the surrounding uses. The argument relates to his
investment in the property with the permits that he applied for and the City issued.
However, the investment has not been established in relation to a hardship as
described in criterion b.
Conclusions: The Inspections Division has issued permits as submitted without
consideration of the potential nonconforming status of the building or its prior use.
The work that was approved can be allowed within a commercial building and does
not render the site usable only as a residence. Although the applicant indicates
10
that he would not have proceeded with the type of work that was done if the use
of the site as a dwelling had been stated to him earlier in the process, staff does
not find that that establishing a residential use contrary to the nonconforming and
HOC zoning provisions would be substantial justice when the property still could
be used for a commercial use.
Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is not met.
11
Attachment A— Location Map
- — 1 110 -
205
109 Uj
w >
Q 305 -a, 307 -
n F
a of w
Iry
6 WNCOLN WAY
306
202
� 318 fi
212 h
1 108
L{
112 y
UU >
S >
W C
� Y
Q �
l
119 118 115 Z
Y
- ' 121 ..- -. - 121
a
P -
SE-2ND S7
220
204- r 320
Variance Request
112 High Avenue
April 12, 2023
1771 112 High Avenue
Other Properties Owned by Applicant 0 25 50 100
Feet
12
Attachment B — Zoning Map
„o
205 w
10y 305 307 4
� w
Q ~
w Z
w
U
ELINCOLN,WAY
30 ti
202
�18
212
1C8
112 N
w
w r
M
,19 z 118 115 Z
Y
122
21 121
12'
127 129
130
SE 2ND ST
214 22G
20�
Variance Request
112 High Avenue
April 12, 2023
112 High Avenue 0 25 50 100
Feet
13
Attachment C — 1996 Site Plan
IE
3 {
- gig agg �" �r o m 30
W o �z
cc
Jt
AA
I
- I
c
i1
F
16. 8;£E¢ r,r.:I i�7,Oz a^-bz
j� g f q
.•III a -� I � q up,
5 .a
£B F�
I
a,
14
Attachment D — 2010 Police Report
Date: 10/18/10 AMES POLICE DEPARTMENT Page: 1
Time: 11:34:36 Incident Report Program: CMS301L
-------------------------- -
Case Number 1-10-023088 Occur From Date: 10/15/10 10:14
Occur To Date 10/15/10 10:14 Report Date 10/15/10 10:14
Day Of Week Friday
Case Classification
Dept Class . . : DEPARTMENT INFORMATION Case Status Report taken
Case Status Dt : 10/15/10
Location Information
Common Name . : CITY PLUMBING & HEAT, 112 HIGH AV
City . . . . . AMES, IA 50010
Map Reference 2
Employee Information
Report Officer : CRIPPEN, CHRISTINE Entry Date LOVE, LAURA 10/15/10
** r********c*r***c*r****r*** N A R R A T I V E # 1 ****r******tr******c*r*r**r
CAD: DISPATCH INFORMATION Reported By: CRIPPEN, CHRISTINE 10/15/10
GENERAL INFO/CITIZEN ASSIST/CITIZEN COMPLAINT FOOT - FOOT
PATROL/COMMUNITY POLICING
***************r******t***** N A R R A T I V E # 2 rr**t** *rtt**r*rr*********
CAD: CM LOVE Reported By: CRIPPEN, CHRISTINE 10/15/10
112 HIGH. PROPERTY IS BEING RENTED FOR KB CLEANING THROUGH TRIPLETT.
SPOKE WITH RON BELZ 515-232-1309. THIS WAS AN OVEROCCUPANCY CHECK.
***r*r* r*r*r******r******r*r N A R R A T I V E # 3 r*************c* c******r***
NARRATIVE Reported By: CRIPPEN, CHRISTINE 10/18/10
Report
Case #: 10-23088
Incident: Overoccupancy/Inspections Dept. Follow-up
Location: 4NA2 High
Mentioned ALT-
Belz, Ron
Phone: 515-232-1309
KB Cleaning
Details:
On October 15, 2010, I went to 112 High to make contact with a
resident. I spoke with Ron Belz with KB Cleaning. He said he rents the
house from Triplett but it is owned by Monte Gibbs. He said no one
lives there; they just use it for office space and storage. There were
several vans parked in back. We walked around the first floor briefly
and he said I could look around upstairs, but I told him that was not
necessary. He assured me no one lives at the house. It looked like an
office.
End of Report
15
Attachment E — Application
Effective Date:December 14,2022
Variance
Supporting Information
(This form must be filled out completely before your application will be accepted)
The Zoning Board of Adjustment can grant a Variance only if all of the following standards
are satisfied. In order to facilitate review of this application for a Variance, the applicant must
address each of the Variance Standards set forth in Section 29.1504(4)of the Zoning Ordinance,
which are listed below.
(Note: The applicant's explanation of how the request meets each standard may be attached on a
separate sheet if sufficient space is not provided.)
1. Variance Standards The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall review each application for the
purpose of determining that the Variance Standards are satisfied. Pursuant to Iowa law, a
variance shall be granted only if all of the following standards are satisfied:
(a) The granting of the variance shall not be contrary to the public interest.
Please present information to indicate that the Variance will not result in injury or
endangerment to other property or persons,nor will it devalue nearby property.
Explain how the request meets this standard:
tA-
�-kf ,,reA- +ka+ -44,s kohse-(ilk Stli�b ��¢), i`5 yoca�ecl
pr;or 4,1, 4ke Gorgle+f- yeHo✓,Jtov% 6'se , 4� 4!a9e>
ctnd Gro,-AdS 5WCO-nd,�,n +- e 31!✓e�c(H/e WqS i SP✓e✓e_
�fss�rya y -rA t? Roo,( was Leak,'•9 t.2 i?aec-k "Jas cc,
�,S,'de WAS Lo,na /�Y a Mess .
,74e 1,0-se As Now i'S eo""elekely Qs g
New 40.92 Wok4 ,ke N4�, Roo NQo✓ Src(�'•t�l N2cJ
Pl, � Alai.! -�ler4r,'t41. Tke uNA-F�ac�.ec���4r4ye i s
ail 0eu2 as ije l I "Tke La E kat bee- Ilea,-ed of Maw v
Jay C,Id ' fV-es I a.no{' I-e tit jesfA--
h 4t,.e M-e s� G.ows e i. -Flee ex4 r'r
5
16
Effective Date:December 14,2022
(b) That without granting of the variance, and due to special conditions, a literal
enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. Unnecessary
hardship exists when:
(i) The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a
purpose allowed in the zone;
To meet this standard, please show that all beneficial use and/or enjoyment of the
property will be lost if the Variance is not granted. Supporting evidence from a
professional appraiser,realtor,or other professional, may be necessary to support
your appeal. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may require documentation of loss
of value in order to grant this variance.
Explain how the request meets this standard:
kvwte oo-5 Co tp(e4eltt i:., ofde,
�or Atie -fo LYJe A. .L� _+ke Vgrie�,rtce is Nod qra'�-di
rye- 54/,Lt4�As'e WoA of y�p-(o( NO 5fAce 'k+
'ts 5e-4- .Pas ek Noi a. cOw.IIlerCk'a( Sfr uc(K�c�.
fiery early rtmodel ef�ieci 0.h
't h S f p C-E Or O n S j+e- $-�,aL+ee( 4o ,Me +kA - i �- j_f
DV-, +& Re-od of - kLs L6-,,e Ao Lwe iw Oag a crnc 'deter
` y'Ok i s -I C, Gass /w.
(ii) The plight of the owners is due to unique circumstances and not to the
general conditions of the neighborhood;
Please show that the physical circumstances on the subject property are unique
and unlike other properties in the vicinity.
Explain how the request meets this standard:
mpa'+ OAkef gso der¢�'�s i-
a It e_ "e d as Haut eS T►,e r e i s ex,
�Or-,c' K14 In fke used cAs a 641I-e-55
My Pro e_!!Y r5 i]N �alr 11 v1 i y v�2 Gt .^ecF
An 4keo4�er�rot°er};es i� Fl.e y�ci�,?�y 6ec��s e r'f
't< 2,4-Fem a l ee New (- e, eueK -F�ous� fie
j 5e 1"a4 RLk;(4 }a +" /S°)O's
Ntyproee✓�`y Adds very VC11-Ag -6 4ke-
Nt-' t'6or ac(4s -fo 41,e �co(e.r'4y +a-)e VaIH&- iK ki-ve Arent.
6
17
Effective Date:December 14,2022
(iii)The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential
character of the locality.
Please show that the proposed use is compatible with the character of the
surrounding area.
Explain how the request meets this standard:
Gam,,ctc4ee o; �k--Si Pr9` Ylct v—a aeea
of bea,4 ,'kvtl ?—,r2seeved Yoh b'�_
Dker kone,4-k&+ c,r@ -.150
/fin . �, lag dPJiG/��ed 4`T,. pj!'.C✓ W�WiC�i bJl+{� �.
#'en► bv\siKe�yS�S iK be(�.1Qeh, b�} �.lear(y all 01 +�.e
ct e c-t ( -L'Iledw r G� er ors I i✓ed « 0 �M�'1�'P�•
(c) The spirit of the ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is granted.
Please show that the Variance is consistent with the intent of the Sign Ordinance,Zoning
Ordinance, and the Comprehensive Plan. A Variance would not be consistent with the
intent if alternatives for development exist that do not require a Variance.
Explain how the request meets this standard: 1
rke
Zpti�tin� O✓cti�avtGQ �oT +f Qraa s �,vt2s t�
i;� is OIC. 40 L;d e. i r +yes e Ko.,A e s e s �oY.' as 44,,,c,-e i s Alo
�n t�R Nast•-`oh�irrK��.g 1u.se-• g��are�.k'l' �I•t�re iS
f Ova �S i Oh wed (or-Ieor c-" �
-ik'c l�wf«-cc is Co-SiS�a w'}k +he- C,tp Ordivtartt
N'tk be LASed' AS APr1 vgke res tdeAe--e wi+G, ,Vv St9 KS,
Ta i s t/c.r:ag(e i s COWS i S4-A"k W i 4 ti -{- e Zovk 1-1 orb i.4a n c,e
A.e o{d i^&w-e c? d,o e S q 11 o w ho,-+e( i--K.-e 1-7� 4o
hP L�t)ac( fri , at ct all&4- flee { o,"ey i,A4k- tie 4-e Lbted ivt�
4 d u ems. as
TI. V4r'akte i5 CO i 1. ✓ekL'n5��% �RK
�jJy.ce }y.a ,Q OLK otticy.�t fk2 uSt (or ►^e4i e„�S� vJi Ft. fie
pQic(on 0+ Go,,Awte✓'cic.( uSe , 7kuf w 11 nb¢ cGtaK'e.
7
18
Effective Date:December 14,2022
(d) Substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting the variance.
Explain how the request meets this standard:
�e �Orle ag resu(f o
J-eo'd�cfee( a w�
4ke
pg IR use 4k,s cLs a r�s'c�e ex So - kA+ ;s 41,e 6cLsi C
ttay5 a, to+ 04 A owes
R^�g2/✓� R /8`fUS bt e dL-Cf ;k ink a bLOAtA+iAll
0.�G1 fr' AJ
I.j wotda 6e c? '{Pdvri pie -l-w No+ a((ow ft%S
8
19
Applicant Photographs
., YY
LO
20
.►
_ -..
eke ,
•fir���,i �� •( � j 1
1 - --pow
�r
I
i ,
yl
i I` � �
_ ��
.-
,, / � ,
. . ,