HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - D&O for Variance to allow existing structure for residential use in HOC zoning district,. 'Fill
Ls
CASE NO. 23-03
t DECISION R
This application came before the Zoning Board of Adjustment to allow for a variance on an
existing structure for single-family residential use located in a Highway Oriented Commercial
(HOC) Zoning District.
City Planner, Benjamin Campbell, presented the Staff Report to the Board and stated that the
Applicant, Richard Kasperbauer, is requesting a variance to allow use of the structure at 112 High
Avenue as a single-family residence. The subject property was built in 1896 and used as a home
before it was converted to office use by prior owners of the property. This area has been zoned
commercially as far back as 1956. In 2000, the City of Ames revised its zoning ordinance, and
the subject block of High Avenue was zoned HOC. The :HOC zoning district does not allow for
any type of residential use to be established. 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, and G-C no longer exists.
The exact date of conversion from residential to office is unknown. In 1996, the City of Ames
approved a site plan for 112 High Avenue along with two separate properties to the north for Gibbs
Plumbing, Heating and Cooling. The approved site plan shows the subject building as "Exist.
Office". It is believed that this property has been used commercially since at least the approval of
the Site Plan. The records indicate that from 2006 to 2018 the property's utility account was
registered to KB Cleaning and in 2018 briefly changed to Triplett property management and then
later to Mayfair Cleaners.
The applicant is requesting 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. Chapter 29, Section. 29.307(f) states that a "nonconforming use may be changed only
to a use that conforins with the Ordinance. Once changed to a conforming use, no use may revert
to, or be re-established as a nonconforming use. " As the former nonconforming residential use
changed in the 1990s to commercial with the approved Site Plan and no rental certificate or other
residential approvals have existed for the site for over twenty years, the nonconforming residential
use cannot be established.
The Applicant, |<iobund KasperbaUer, spoke in front ofthe Board. Mr. KasperbaUerotatcd he
purchased the abandoned property in 2018 and it sat for a year before he decided he was going to
renovate the Structure to be used as his primary residence. Mr. Kasperboucr is also the owner of
Mayfair C|cnocrn and purchased this lot together with the |nta his business oovv occupies. M,.
|{asporbuucru1o1cd be was told verbally by City of Ames inspectors dwas permissible toproceed
with the renovation ofthe structure usa residence on nou\dp|ooccaaions. Mr. &oxpe,bouurdid not
present any written documentation o[this approval. Mr. l{osycrbuuergave auoverview ofall the
renovations fie made 10the property and stated that his project vvao issued permits and inspected
every step ofthe way. ltwas not until the issuance nfabuilding permit for adetached garage for
the property that City of Ames Planning Department got involved and informed him that lie cannot
use the structure uauresidence.
DECISION
The Board considered the facts uodetailed above and provided inthe Stuff Report, the testimony
presented at the hearing, and found the following:
l. Granting the variance would not bocontrary k/the public interest.
There exist some special conditions and unique circumstances based nothe Applicant's
no|iunuc on staff information. Bov/cvec eofbrocnocn1 of the ordinance vvnu|d not result in
unnecessary hardship hoouusc it does not prevent the applicant from yielding reasonable
return if it is used only for the purpose u|)ovvnd iuthe zone.
3. The spirit nfthe ordinance would bemet ifthe variance were granted because ofthe other
residences located in the same vicinity.
4. That subskautbd 'us|iozvvou|drcsubi[dxevariance were granted hccouacofU)o Applicant's
reliance on staff information.
ORDER
WHEREFORE, 0CKS ORDERED that the Applicant's request 10allow for avariance
for the existing structure )oou\od at 112 High /\voouo be used tor single-family residential use in
the Highway Oriented Commercial (UDC) Zoning District isDENIED.
Any person desiring toappeal this decision toucourt ofrecord may dosowithin thirty O0days
after the filing of this decision.
Dated this l2" day ofApril 2O23.
N 4ai I i eyer
Secretary to the Board
L'21
Chad Schneider
Chair