Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 07/28/2021 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMES, IOWA JULY 28, 2021 The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment met, pursuant to law, in Regular Session at 6:00 p.m. on July 28, 2021, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present: Amelia Schoeneman, Chad Schneider, Ronald Schappaugh, Rob Bowers, and Leila Ammar. Also present were Assistant City Attorney Jane Chang, City Planner Justin Moore and City Planner Ray Anderson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Bower, seconded by Schneider, to approve the Minutes of the meeting of June 23, 2021. Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. CASE NO. 21-09 An application for a Special Use Permit to operate a Daycare Center at 2009 Burnett Avenue in Residential Low-Density Zone. City Planner Justin Moore explained that the property at 2009 Burnett had applied for a Special Use Permit to operate a daycare center in a house formerly used as a single-family home. The property is located in the Residential-Low Density (RL) zone and contains a 2400 square foot house that the owner currently does not reside in. The owner has applied for a Special Use Permit in response to a zoning enforcement inquiry from City staff as to whether the daycare operator/owner lived at the home while operating their daycare after a complaint was received from a nearby resident regarding the operation of the daycare business at the site rather than as a Special Home Occupation. Mr. Moore stated that daycare operations are permitted as Home Occupations in situations where they are incidental to a resident living in a home. There are daycare centers that can be permitted through permitted Home Occupations (staff level review) and there are also Special Home Occupations which allow daycare centers, but those require the operator to live at the residence. The previous owner at this address was issued a Special Home Occupation Permit for a daycare. The applicant inherited the business and has been continuing to operate the daycare, but does not live in the home. Planner Moore mentioned that there were two inquiries from neighbors about what the case was for tonight, and there was one letter of support for the applicant. The findings were from Chapter 29, Section 29.1503(4)(a), (b), and (e) of the Municipal Code. In the criteria staff looked at the General Standards and after staff reviewed what the applicant submitted, they did find that there were two General Standards that did not meet the General Standard criteria and those had to deal with being harmonious in the surrounding neighborhood and processes and activities with the production of traffic. In the Residential Zone Standards staff found two standards that did not meet the Residential Zone Standards. Those were not creating excessively higher levels of traffic than the predominant pattern in the area and also the Standard that dealt with the daily predominant traffic pattern. Mr. Moore commented that staff reviewed the 2 rest of the Standards and felt those could be met; however, given the four standards that were listed above did not meet the General and Residential Standards staff recommended denying the request for a Special Use Permit. Planner Moore gave more background information on parking standards and explained that the City does not have a specific parking standard Ordinance for daycare centers. What the Ordinance directs staff to do is to go to the parking table and find the closest use-type and use that. In this case the Zoning Standard that staff used was 29.406 for schools, which serve children under the age of 16. That standard is two spaces per classroom, or one space per four seats in an auditorium. Based on the floor plans of this location, staff determined there was one main classroom. There are two parking spaces in the driveway, and this would satisfy the parking standard. Mr. Moore stated that at any given time during drop-off or pick-up traffic could accumulate on either side of Burnett. Board Chair Schoeneman asked if there were any questions for staff. Board Member Schneider asked if the Special Home Occupation Permit that was issued in 2004 was for a maximum of six children. Mr. Moore stated that was correct and the current license from the State would allow 8-14 children, depending on if it was during the school-year or the summer. The current owner is licensed as a C2 provider with the State. It was then asked what the limit was for traffic for a Home Occupation Permit. Mr. Moore noted he didn’t have the numbers in front of him, but believed it was ten trips per day. Jessica Lawson-Clipper, 2550 Deere Street, Ames, stated that she had made a packet to show how amazing her daycare was, but she didn’t want to waste time and wanted to focus on the issue at hand. She noted the main issue was parking and she wanted to offer a couple of solutions. Ms. Lawson-Clipper commented that she can care for 16 children per her State license. There are currently 16 children enrolled and typically there are only 14 children there during the day. Typically, the children arrive between 8:15 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. with a total of 12 families. She noted that some of the families are dropping off multiple children, which leads to less vehicles. There are two parking spots available and per the parking standard of one classroom the daycare meets that standard. Ms. Lawson-Clipper stated she believed the issue is when there may be an extra car stopping to drop off a child prior to one parent leaving. Her suggestion was to have her clients come at a specific time to make sure they use the two parking spots she has, which will help avoid any parking on the street. She also mentioned she could provide an alternate pick-up and drop-off location as she does have a ten-person van to travel with the children. She explained that her mother had been the original owner of the daycare and when her mom retired, she took over the business. Ms. Lawson-Clipper mentioned she had moved to the area about two years ago and didn’t realize she needed to get a permit for not living in the home. It was noted that the main reason they moved was due to accessibility as her husband is an amputee and it was going to cost too much to redo the home to make it accessible for him. Board Member Ammar asked when Ms. Lawson-Clipper’s mom ran the program if there were just as many kids or had the program grown. Ms. Lawson-Clipper stated the program has grown due to the need in Story County. She noted she continues to get calls daily asking for daycare and she 3 has to turn them away. In May 2021, they became a C2 home, which allowed them to take on more children. It was asked if Ms. Lawson-Clipper had any plans to reduce the size of her daycare. Ms. Lawson-Clipper commented that it wouldn’t be feasible due to the needs of the community and she wouldn’t want to. Board Chair Schoeneman opened the public hearing Brian Keat, 3106 Stockbury Street, Ames, was sworn in and testified under oath. He read a statement from his 9-year old son Max Keat that stated he has gone to Explore N More Daycare for the past eight years and he wanted to continue going there. Mr. Keat explained that his children have attended this daycare since 2013. He noted they have had many wonderful friends come and go while attending this daycare. They have seen neighbors come and go in this area and since 2004 the daycare has been compatible and harmonious with the neighborhood. It was explained that the only two differences are that Jessica and Jermain do not sleep in the house and that someone new has moved to the neighborhood who has decided that something that has been happening for 20 years does not fit with the neighborhood. Mr. Keat stated he had read the Code and understands the criteria. The main concerns in the Staff Report were parking, harmonious nature of the activity, and the residency requirement. Regarding the parking he stated that the Report assumes the conditions rather than observing and he would argue that it is not as bad as people think. As to the nature of the activities, you will hear the sound of children playing. Mr. Keat mentioned regarding the residency requirement, he understood the concept of not having a commercial operation in a residential neighborhood, but this is a daycare run out of single-family residence, not a commercial facility. He argued that Jessica and Jermain do a lot of living in the home without sleeping there at night. Mr. Keat urged the Board to find a pathway to approve the Permit. Matt Woodworth, 2004 Burnett Avenue, Ames, was sworn in and testified under oath. Mr. Woodworth explained that he has lived across from this daycare center for the past 16 years. He mentioned that he knows Jessica, Jermain, and Jessica’s mother very well. It was stated that the daycare is a fantastic residence and business that supports the community. Childcare is a huge problem in Ames. Mr. Woodworth noted that for parking issues it seemed silly to upset 12 families because the neighborhood can’t talk and communicate about parking. He mentioned that he could be a part of the problem because if he parks his truck incorrectly he could be taking up too much space. Mr. Woodworth mentioned that if the neighborhood talked about where they are parking it would help the daycare operate. He noted that no one lives there at nighttime, but the property is taken care of. Mr. Woodworth gave an example of a time where he needed to contact Ms. Lawson- Clipper at night and she answered her phone right away to help solve the issue. He asked that the Board consider communication over staunch rules. Kris Gross, 2303 Clark Avenue, Ames, was sworn in and testified under oath. She explained she wanted to speak on behalf of the childcare providers in the area, regarding the need for childcare. She stated that there is a tremendous need for more childcare centers. As a provider herself she gets calls from parents that are begging her to take on their children as there are no other options. There is a need for this daycare and if a Special Permit is not granted then it will displace 12 families and make them suffer. As it was previously mentioned regarding traffic, she has neighbors that come and go about 20 times a day and that exceeds the ten trips. Ms. Gross commented that Ms. Lawson-Clipper is more than willing to work on a solution for the traffic and believed that 4 working on communication in the neighborhood should be done first. She urged the Board to work with Ms. Lawson-Clipper to allow her home-based daycare to continue. Brenda Barton, 1389 W Avenue, Ames, was sworn in and testified under oath. Ms. Barton stated she is in support of the Explore N More learning center. She was grateful to have found affordable quality childcare for her grandson. Finding a daycare in Ames is not an easy task. Ms. Barton commented that she is grateful that her grandson attends a progressive and diverse childcare. She mentioned that there needs to be more childcare options similar to Explore N More in Ames, especially if Ames is truly trying to build a more diverse and inclusive community. Her first day of taking her grandson to the daycare she had a hard time finding Explore N More, and this was only because the house looks like all the other properties. The home has served as a childcare center for the past 20 years and has been in the neighborhood. The daycare provides a vital service for many families in Ames. Ms. Barton noted that Ms. Lawson-Clipper runs a tight ship and maintains all of her certifications necessary for running an in-home daycare. The City of Ames needs to encourage and even make exemptions for these types of businesses that provide an invaluable community service. Ms. Barton hoped that the Board used their authority to see the benefit of the daycare to the neighborhood and the community. John Misra, 2606 Northwood Drive, Ames, was sworn in and testified under oath. Mr. Misra mentioned that his son and daughter have been with Ms. Lawson-Clipper for the past five years. When they moved to Ames, they had a hard time finding somewhere to place his kids while he and his wife went to work. He explained that the past five years have been wonderful, and Ms. Lawson-Clipper is great at what she does. Mr. Misra stated that Ms. Lawson-Clipper always follows the rules and has a QRS score of 4, which is the Iowa daycare quality rating system. He noted she has a great touch with the kids, and it would be a real shame to lose this daycare. Another benefit was that Meeker Elementary is just down the road and he noted that this may contribute to the traffic. Janett McCurry, 1819 Douglas Avenue, Ames, was sworn in and testified under oath. She explained that she lives close to the location and will walk her son to daycare to help eliminate parking. She lives next to Meeker Elementary and knows how bad the traffic can be when parents are trying to pick up their children. Ms. McCurry commented that communication is key and asked that everyone be adults and work together to focus on proper parking. She noted that there are times she or her husband may drop off their son so there may be two different cars seen, but still only coming from one family. Alyssa Heffron, 450 E. 7th Street, Ames, was sworn in and testified under oath. Ms. Heffron stated her son goes to Ms. Lawson-Clipper’s daycare. She noted that her son even talks about Ms. Jessica during the evening. Ms. Heffron mentioned that her son would be devastated if the daycare was forced to close. Her son loves it there and has learned a lot. Board Chair Schoeneman closed the public hearing when no one else came forward to speak. Applicant Jessica Lawson-Clipper stated she wanted to thank everyone who spoke on her behalf as she appreciated their support. She didn’t think she would close her daycare, but she would have to turn more kids away that need childcare if the Board was to deny her request for a Special Use 5 Permit. Ms. Lawson-Clipper mentioned that she hoped that from her testimony and her clients the Board will see that everyone is willing to work within the guidelines of the permit. Board Member Schneider asked how many kids were at the daycare for before and after school care only. Ms. Lawson-Clipper stated that they did one full-year of virtual learning in her program due to COVID. She explained that in the fall there will be one child going to Meeker Elementary and four or five kids will be going to Northwood in the morning. She explained that the bus drops the kids off directly to her house after the morning program. Typically, the parents will drop the students off at school, thus reducing the traffic in the morning. In the fall, all students will walk over to Meeker Elementary and will play at the school for a little bit. Board Member Schappaugh clarified that the business has been in effect for 20 years and wanted to know if there were any repeat customers from parents that have grown up in the program. Ms. Jessica stated she has not had any yet, but there have been some from the time she worked with the Youth and Shelter Services. Board Member Schneider inquired if Ms. Lawson-Clipper had been approached by any neighbors that gave negative feedback. Ms. Lawson-Clipper stated that she had not, and she wished that they would have come to her first to help fix the problem. Board Member Bowers commented that he had driven by the house today and he could not see where the house was any different from the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Bowers asked if the garage was operable. Ms. Jessica noted that currently they are utilizing that space for each of the kid’s personal cubbies and use that space for eating as well. Ms. Jessica explained that they spend most of their time outside and if needed they can use that space to park the van. There was clarification that the van is parked in the driveway all day. The Board asked staff if the parking on Burnett was on both sides of the street or just one. It was noted that it has dual side parking. Moved by Bowers, seconded by Schappaugh, to approve Alternative 2, which was that the Zoning Board of Adjustment can approve the request for a Special Use Permit to allow a daycare center at 2009 Burnett Avenue by finding that the project meets all the standards of a Special Use Permit in Section 29.1503(4). The Board discussed General Standards No. 2: “Be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing and intended character of the general vicinity and that such a use will not change the essential character of the area in which it is proposed.” Board Member Schneider commented that from reading the Staff Report it was as if staff was looking at this daycare as more of a commercial operation opposed to an in-home daycare. He noted that if there was any serious concern about the daycare then there would be some feedback, but there was nothing negative in the Report and no negative feedback from testimonies. If there is no change in the nature and no strong objections by the neighbors, then the default would be that the daycare is harmonious. It was discussed that if someone did make a complaint then they should have been present to speak regarding their concerns and that was not done. Board Member Bowers reminded staff that when he drove by the house it was a 6 residential house in a residential neighborhood and there were no distinguishing factors that made the property stand out. Board Member Ammar mentioned that if someone lives in the house or not should not be regarded. It was noted that the language stated the daily operations and based on testimonies someone is at the daycare during business hours. The lack of a resident has not changed the character of the house. Board Member Schoeneman stated that in-home daycare centers directly support residential uses and are needed in neighborhoods, especially with a school a block away. Board Chair Schoeneman clarified that the Board’s findings were: 1) based on testimony, 2) appears to be a house and looks like a house, 3) the lack of a resident has not changed the character of use, and 4) the use directly supports the area’s residential character. The Board then discussed General Standards No. 6: “Not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, and equipment or conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any person, property, or general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors.” Board Member Schneider stated that the Board does not have any concrete evidence that this General Standard is an issue. His only concern was the van as it does limit the ability of parents to park in the driveway without blocking the sidewalk. Board Chair Schoeneman stated she is concerned about creating conditions as there is no way to enforce it. Board Member Bowers explained that he was taking a different approach and that when you look at the traffic that backs up from Meeker Elementary, would this house really cause that much more traffic than what the neighborhood is already seeing. He commented that he doesn’t see a finding of fact that there is a problem. There was a conclusion in the Staff Report, but Mr. Bowers disagreed with it. The Board discussed that they didn’t believe the number of cars dropping or picking up children at the house would cause any excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glares, or odors. It was pointed out that in the staff’s conclusion it says “may” cause problems and this does mean that it does. Board Chair Schoeneman found the Boards findings were: 1) given the area has a school, but it is not excessive traffic, 2) based on testimony the morning peak is around 8:00 a.m., and the afternoon peak is 12:00 p.m., but pick-up does not occur at the same time, 3) based on testimony it did not sound as if all the parents dropped off at the same time, and the provider was willing to offer a staggered schedule. The next area of discussion was the Residential Zone Standards that staff indicated were not met. In Standard No. 1 it states: “Not create excessively higher levels of traffic than the predominant pattern in the area and not create additional traffic from the proposed use that would change the street classification and such traffic shall not lower the level of service at area intersections.” Board Chair Schoeneman stated she did not believe a traffic study was done to find that the daycare was affecting the level of service at the intersection. Board Member Ammar explained that given the predominant pattern in the area involved Meeker Elementary, this daycare would not come close to the levels of traffic that Meeker Elementary provides. The Board found that given the predominant pattern with the school proximity that this was met. The testimony did not indicate that the backup occurred at an intersection. Discussed next was Residential Zone Standard No. 2: “Not create a noticeably different travel pattern than the predominant pattern in the area. Special attention must be shown to deliveries or service trips in a residential zone that are different from the normal to and from work travel pattern in the residential area. Board Chair Schoeneman commented that peak pick-up and drop-off times correspond with to-and-from work patterns in the area along with the school’s pick-up and drop- 7 off times. It was noted that there was no evidence of any deliveries. The Board found that given the school pick-up and drop-off is during normal hours it creates the same pattern. The traffic meets the regular travel pattern. The Board discussed the staff’s conclusions, and none were concerned about parking based on the finding of one classroom there could be two parking spaces. Board Member Ammar commented that it didn’t matter as the requirement is two parking spots and they meet that requirement. Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared approved unanimously. CASE NO. 21-10 A request for a Variance to allow a wall sign on a building with no street frontage in the South Lincoln Sub Area Mixed Use District at 119 Washington Avenue. City Planner Ray Anderson mentioned that this is a request for a Variance to allow wall sign at 119 Washington Avenue. The property is in the “S-SMD” (South Lincoln Sub Area Mixed-Use District) which allows one wall sign per street frontage. This property does not abut a public street. It does abut an alley on the north and west sides; however, an alley is not included in the definition of “street” in the zoning ordinance. Therefore, a wall sign is not allowed since there is no frontage on a street. The property was converted from an auto repair business to a banquet hall. The banquet hall is intended to serve as a place where family and friends can gather following funeral services at Grandon Funeral and Cremation Care directly across the alley, and as a venue for other occasions. Mr. Anderson stated this is a unique case as most places have street frontage. The Board was not being asked to approve any of the content for the sign, but to install a sign only. The sign would go on the north side of the building. Planner Anderson explained that the Findings of Fact and Conclusions are in the Report and staff believes that the applicant meets all the criteria and staff is recommending approval of the Variance. Board Chair Schoeneman asked if there were any questions for staff. Board Members Bowers asked if the applicant wanted to do a mural to reflect their message would the mural be controlled by City Code. Planner Anderson commented that he would have to verify that with the Inspections Division as they are the ones that administer the sign regulations. It was discussed regarding the size of the sign and Mr. Anderson explained that the Zoning District states it would be 16 square feet maximum. Applicant: Timothy Grandon, 2851 Monroe Drive, Ames, was sworn in and testified under oath. He explained that he and his wife own the funeral home to the north and have purchased the property to the south. Mr. Grandon mentioned that when he had to go before the City Council for shared parking if they would have known this would have been a challenge, they would have asked for Council’s approval then. He noted that there is not another interior lot in the district, and they have removed about 60 feet of signage on the north, west, and east of the building. They want to put up a sign so if there is an emergency, the Fire and Police Departments know where to go. 8 Board Chair Schoeneman opened the public hearing. No one requested to speak, and the hearing was closed. Moved by Ammar, seconded by Bowers, to approve Alternative 1, which states that the Board of Adjustment, with finding of consistency for all Variance criteria, may approve a Variance for 119 Washington Avenue based upon the proposal to install a wall sign on the building for this address. Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared approved unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Schneider, seconded by Ammar, to adjourn the meeting at 7:15 p.m. _____________________________ _____________________________ Amy L. Colwell, Recording Secretary Amelia Schoeneman, Chair