Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 01/13/2021 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMES, IOWA JANUARY 13, 2021 The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 6:01 p.m. on January 13, 2021, via Zoom communication with the following members present: Amelia Schoeneman, Leila Ammar, Ronald Schappaugh, Rob Bowers and Chad Schneider. Also present were Assistant City Attorney Victoria Feilmeyer and City Planners Eloise Sahlstrom and Benjamin Campbell. Board Chair Schoeneman stated that it is impractical to hold an in-person meeting due to the Governor of Iowa declaring a public health emergency because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, limits have been placed on public gatherings, and this meeting is being held as an electronic meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Ammar, seconded by Bowers, to approve the Minutes of the meeting of November 12, 2020. Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried. CASE NO. 21-01 SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT – ANITA & ROBERT HOWARD, IMPRESSIONS SALON, 2101 BUCHANAN DRIVE Public Hearing on application for a Special Home Occupation Permit to allow a hair salon at 2101 Buchanan Drive City Planner Eloise Sahlstrom introduced the request stating that the applicant applied for a Special Home Occupation permit to allow for a hair salon located at 2101 Buchanan Drive. The workspace would occupy a portion of the basement. The applicant stated that the business would occupy no more than 200 square feet which is about 7 percent of the total floor area of the home. Clients will park in the driveway and enter through the front door of the home. Ms. Howard will be the only employee. The hair salon would accept customers Thursdays 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; Fridays 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and Saturdays 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. It would be closed Sunday through Wednesday. The business will be by appointment only, and the applicant indicates that there would be one guest at a time with a 15-minute gap between guests for sanitizing. The business will require only typical salon equipment. The applicant indicated that no interior or exterior upgrades or alterations are needed in order to run the business. There are no active home occupation permits currently at this location. Notification was made to all owners of property within 200 feet. A notice of public hearing was placed in the front yard of the property. Three letters from neighbors were received in opposition to the request. Ms. Howard’s residence at 2101 Buchanan Drive is located at the northwest corner of Buchanan Drive and Eisenhower Avenue. Both are local streets flanked by sidewalks with low density residential homes. The property is located just one block south of Bloomington Road. Access is available from Bloomington Road to the north and Hoover Avenue to the east. Connection to the south from 24th Street via Hayes and Eisenhower avenues is available but less direct. There are 2 multiple ways to get to the property although the most direct is to come from the north and travel one block south to the intersection of Buchanan and Eisenhower. An expansive 36-foot-wide driveway is available for side by side parking of up to four vehicles in addition to the three-car garage parking. Clientele will have space in the driveway for parking and will not need to park on the street. Ms. Howard will not have any signage. Due to the nature of the business as described in the application, it can be concluded that the proposed use will not alter the normal residential character of the area. Based upon the application as described herein, the ZBA may conclude that the application meets the requirements Ames Municipal Code Section 29.1304(3). Ms. Sahlstrom read the following Findings of Fact: a. There is a large parking area on the property in front of the garage area where clients can park. The driveway area will accommodate up to four vehicles (side by side) in addition to the garage area. b. No changes will be made to the premises. c. A maximum of 200 square feet of the 2880 square foot home will be used for the business, which is just less than 7 percent of the total floor area of the home. Well below the 25 percent maximum allowed. d. No signage is proposed. e. The activity at this location will consist of a one-chair hair salon which will require only typical salon equipment (i.e. sink, hood hair dryer, blow dryers, curling irons) such as may also be found within a residence. The applicant has indicated that no interior or exterior upgrades or alterations are needed in order to run the business. e. Deliveries will be typical of those servicing residential properties. f. The applicant will be the only employee. g. The hours of operation will be Thursdays 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; Fridays 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and Saturdays 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., by appointment only. The applicant states that there will be no more than eight to 10 appointments per day, resulting is less vehicular trips per day than allowed per code. h. There are no other home occupations at this location. Ms. Sahlstrom stated that it is the recommendation of Planning and Housing that the Zoning Board of Adjustment act in accordance with Alternative One to allow a hair salon at 2101 Buchanan Drive subject to the home occupation being operated as described herein. Approval will allow the applicant to proceed with a hair salon business at this address subject to the home occupation being operated as described on the application. Based on her application, she will be limited to the days and hours of operation listed, the number of employees which is just herself, the 200 square foot area of the business used within the home, and other details included in the application. If any changes are needed in the future to the operation of the business that are different than what was requested in the application, she would need to come back to the ZBA for approval of those changes. She was only asking for what she has stated which is well below what is allowed under code. Board member Schoeneman asked if clients are required to park in the driveway. Ms. Sahlstrom stated that on-street parking is available, but the applicant will request that clients park in the driveway. 3 Applicant Anita Howard, 2101 Buchanan Drive, Ames, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath. Ms. Howard stated that there would never be more than one client car at the home or on the street at one time unless a client comes early. Ms. Howard said she schedules 10 to 15 minutes between clients in order to sanitize appropriately. The parking would be in her driveway only and would not create more traffic than would be on a usual day as she only takes one client at a time with 45minute to 3-hour intervals. She stated that the salon she ran previously from her home was also located on an unprotected intersection and one block away from an elementary school. There was never an incident though many children walked past her home. Living in a family-centered neighborhood then and now, her clients are aware of what a residential neighborhood entails and are respectful of the children and neighborhood that she lives in. Most of her clients are from Ames and are familiar with her current neighborhood and the Ames community. She stated that her clients are concerned for their health and safety and feel more comfortable in a small one-person salon rather than space in a mall or a larger-scale salon with multiple employees and clients. The benefit of a salon in the neighborhood would be that there would be a place for neighbors and their families to come within walking distance and enjoy a necessary service as well as supporting a neighbor. Ms. Howard stated that she had never and would never have a salon employee in her home. She stated she would be willing to sign paperwork that she would never have another employee working for her. Ms. Schoeneman asked the applicant if she sells any products. Ms. Howard stated that she does sell products but only when a client is there for an appointment. Ms. Schoeneman also asked the applicant if the 10 to 15 minutes between clients is due to Covid or something that she has always done. Ms. Howard said she started spacing clients due to Covid, and would continue to do so going forward. Ms. Schoeneman asked Ms. Howard if she understood that she could not make any changes to her business unless she were to present those changes first to the Zoning Board for approval. Ms. Howard stated that she understood. Ms. Schoeneman asked the Zoning Board members if they had all reviewed the emails received from Ms. Howard’s neighbors. All Board members stated that they had. Kate Sherrard, 1127 193rd Street, Boone, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath. Ms. Sherrard stated that she had been Ms. Howard’s neighbor in Boone for the past 17 years. She stated that there were never any issues with Ms. Howard running a business out of her home. Ms. Sherrard said she loved having Ms. Howard as a neighbor, friend, and hair stylist. John Sawyer, 2114 Buchanan Drive, Ames, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath. Mr. Sawyer stated that he is not in support of the home occupation. He said his major concern is that the home is located on the corner of Eisenhower and Buchanan, and there are no traffic control signs at this intersection. Mr. Sawyer stated that he was concerned that an increase in traffic would affect the safety of children who may be playing in the neighborhood. Carroll Elliott, 1425 14th Street, Boone, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath. Ms. Elliott stated that she had been Ms. Howard’s neighbor for nine years, and there had never been an issue with traffic in the neighborhood. She stated that Ms. Howard’s clients had always been respectful and conscious of the neighborhood setting. 4 Sarah Byrd, 1403 14th Street, Boone, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath. Ms. Byrd stated that every client had to drive past her house to get to Ms. Howard’s previous salon. Ms. Byrd had lived next door to Ms. Howard for 20 years, and never had any issues with safety. Dorothy McClure, 3305 Eisenhower Avenue, Ames, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath. Ms. McClure stated that she would remain neutral on the issue, but that she, like Mr. Sawyer, was concerned about the uncontrolled intersection that Ms. Howard lives on. She stated that there is a population difference between Boone and Ames, and that there is potential for traffic issues in the neighborhood. She also expressed concern for the chemicals that Ms. Howard uses in her salon. Debra Johnson, 981 230th Street, Ogden, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath. Ms. Johnson stated that Ms. Howard had been her hairdresser for 17 years, and that Ms. Howard and her husband would be a great addition to the neighborhood. David Byrd, 1403 14th Street, Boone, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath. Mr. Byrd stated that there had been no disruption to the quality of life in having Ms. Howard’s business in the neighborhood. He said that sometimes on the front end, these things can seem overwhelming, but that Ms. Howard is not opening a Great Clips with 100 people coming and going. She is one person serving one client at a time working from home. Matt Carney, 2108 Buchanan Drive, Ames, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath. Mr. Carney stated that he and his wife had a nice visit with Ms. Howard prior to the hearing. He stated that he has nothing against Ms. Howard, but that he bought his home in a residential area to raise his children. He expressed his concern with traffic increasing. He stated that he had asked Ms. Howard about dropping Saturday business, so that the neighborhood would still have the residential feeling on the weekends. He asked the Board to consider this as an option. Kate Sherrard stated that she had lived next to Ms. Howard for close to 20 years. She stated that in all of those years, it was impossible to have known whether Ms. Howard had a friend or a client in her home. Her home business had never caused a noticeable increase in traffic. Ms. Sherrard stated that Ms. Howard communicated well when necessary regarding parking concerns. Ms. Howard stated that she is asking for less than what is allowed for an in-home business per city code. She also stated that there is no special disposal for chemicals as those can all go down the drain. She said that she did tell Mr. and Mrs. Carney that she would be willing to sign paperwork stating that she would not have additional employees. She discussed with them that she requested three days to work, so that she had the option to choose which of the three days she would work. She planned to use one of the three days as an office day, with Friday likely being the selected day. Ms. Howard stated that Saturdays are one of her busier days with clients as many of them are working professionals. Mr. Schappaugh asked Staff if the Zoning Board should suggest that the city review the intersection of Buchanan and Eisenhower due to the complaints regarding traffic at this intersection. Ms. Sahlstrom stated that the determination of whether an intersection needs signage is the determination of the City’s Traffic Engineer and that Planning and Housing would have 5 nothing to do with that procedure. As far as the allowance of traffic for a home-based business, the City’s zoning code allows a home-based business. The only criteria that it gives for the Board to consider is the frequency of deliveries to the home and the number of vehicular trips per day generated by the business. Ms. Howard is well under the maximum 10 clients per day and wouldn’t have a significant amount of deliveries to her home. Ms. Sahlstrom stated that the applicant is within the criteria under the zoning ordinance requirements for a home-based business. Mr. Schappaugh asked if the neighbors would need to voice their complaints to the Traffic Engineer regarding this intersection. Ms. Sahlstrom stated that they could do that. Ms. Schoeneman stated that in the past, the Board had directed staff to reach out to the corresponding department or the Chair had reached out to the department regarding concerns. Ms. Sahlstrom stated that she did touch base with the Traffic Engineer, Damion Pregitzer, and that he is aware of the intersections. Ms. Sahlstrom stated that the Board could make a condition stating that the applicant’s clientele park in the driveway rather than on the street. Moved by Bowers, seconded by Ammar, to adopt ORDER NO. 20-32, thereby approving Alternative One as written by staff. Mr. Schneider asked if the Board needed to incorporate the self-imposed restrictions that the applicant had suggested. Assistant City Attorney Feilmeyer stated that Alternative One, which was moved, says “Subject to the home occupation being operated as described herein,” which she believed was in the Findings and description on page three of the Staff Report. Ms. Schoeneman noted that the report stated, “where clients can park,” not “where clients shall park.” Mr. Schneider stated that based upon the discussion about traffic, if clients park in the driveway, that would alleviate some concerns regarding traffic. Ms. Schoeneman asked Ms. Feilmeyer if the use of the word “can” is OK or if the Board should make a requirement for clients to park in the driveway. Ms. Feilmeyer asked the Board if they are intending to limit parking to the driveway. Ms. Schoeneman stated that Mr. Schneider suggested that parking should be limited only to the driveway. Mr. Schneider proposed a friendly amendment to accept Alternative One with the added requirement that clients shall park on the driveway of the residence. Mr. Bowers and Ms. Ammar accepted the amendment. Roll Call Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Schneider, seconded by Bowers, to adjourn the meeting at 7:01 p.m. _____________________________ _____________________________ Jacque Higgins, Recording Secretary Amelia Schoeneman, Chair