Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA002 - Council Action Form dated January 8, 20251 Item #: 2 Date: 01/08/25 CITY OF AMES DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DATE PREPARED: January 3, 2025 MEETING DATE: January 8, 2025 APPLICATION: APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER REGARDING THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S ROLE FOR ADVISING THE CITY COUNCIL ON A PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT FOR USES WITHIN THE “O-SFC” SINGLE FAMILY CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT. APPELLANT: David Carter, property owner within the Old Town Historic District Appellant information is included as a separate document with the report. The Appeal is regarding provisions of Chapter 29 (Zoning) and Chapter 31 (Historic Preservation) of the Ames Municipal Code regarding the role of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). The appellant asserts that procedurally the HPC was required to review a proposed zoning text amendment before City Council held a public hearing for the zoning text amendment. An Historic Overlay applies to a subset of properties subject to the proposed text amendment where the HPC has authority over certain types of alterations to historic resources and historic district processes. The Zoning Enforcement Officer, the Planning Director, determined that a recommendation of the HPC was not required for the proposed zoning text amendment to the Single-Family Conservation Overlay list of uses and City Council then acted to approve the ordinance for the zoning text amendment concurring with staff’s determination that a recommendation of the HPC was not required. The Appeal is not based on a specific property and is not about the zoning text amendment’s merits, only the process of requiring a recommendation by the HPC. BACKGROUND: City Council authorized on July 9th the Romero House, a non-profit organization, to submit an application for a zoning text amendment to allow for Social Service Provider Uses with approval of a Special Use Permit within the O-SFC Single Family Conservation Overlay District. The change would apply to all properties within the O-SFC, not just for one property. The Romero House filed their application on August 15, 2024. The proposed amendment is to change the uses allowed to include “Social Service Providers, through the approval 2 of a Special Use Permit by the Zoning Board of Adjustment within the O -SFC. The Old Town Historic District is an additional Overlay (O-H) that applies to a subset of properties within the O-SFC. The proposed amendment changes no development standards or historic review standards, only the allowed uses within the O-SFC. Staff processed the application when it was received per the Zoning Amendment procedures of Chapter 29 Zoning Ordinance and referred it to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation at their September 4 th meeting and then noticed the matter for a public hearing with the City Council on October 8th. Council continued its deliberations until November and then to December 10th. The application is under consideration by the City Council at this time, with first reading of the ordinance already approved by the City Council. At the October 8th meeting, the appellant provided comment to the City Council that he believed the process of considering the proposed zoning text amendment was flawed and needed to have an HPC recommendation. Staff noted to Council at the meeting that it had determined that a recommendation was not required since the ordinance did not “affect” any element of the Historic District within the purview of the HPC related to Chapter 31. On October 22, 2024, the City Council requested a memo from the City Attorney in response to a letter from Mr. Carter, dated October 8, 2024 (see Attachment C). The City Attorney concurred with the Planning Director that a recommendation was not required. On November 27, 2024, the Planning Director (Zoning Enforcement Officer) provided a determination, in writing, of the applicability of Section 29.1102 to two questions of interpretation by the Appellant. The first question, addressed in this report, is regarding the Historic Preservation Commission’s role in making a recommendation on all zoning text amendment changes that affect the Historic Overlay (O-H) zoning district. The second question, addressed in a separate report, is whether review of a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for uses is required within the Historic Preservation Overlay (O-H) zoning overlay district. Based on the decision by the Planning Director, David Carter filed an appeal of the decision with the City on December 5, 2024, within 30 days of the decision by the Planning Director. BASIS OF DEPARTMENT DECISION: The determination by the Planning Director, in the letter dated November 27, 2024 (see Attachment A), reads as follows: “Per Section 29.1403(7) and (8), I am providing a determination in writing of the applicability of 29.1102 to the two described situations from October 22 nd. As the 3 administrative authority for determining the meaning and interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance, I have concluded that the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) does not have a role for advising the City Council on a proposed text amendment of a general nature for uses within the Single Family Conservation Overlay (O-SFC), including the subarea that is part of the Old Town Historic District. Within Chapter 31, the HPC responsibilities are defined and the standards of their review authority related to changes within a Historic District are for external alterations and new construction, as defined with Chapter 31. Additionally, the City has no precedence of taking al [sic] types of zoning text amendments to the HPC that do not directly relate to Chapter 31 review responsibilities. Additionally, I have concluded that any future request to establish or modify a use in the O-H that does not otherwise require a COA for alterations or new construction as defined in Chapter 31, does not require an HPC review. The review authority of Chapter 31 does not provide authority for consideration of use on its own and as the more specific ordinance it is controlling over 29.1102. The relevant Sections of Chapter 29 (Zoning) and Chapter 31 (Historic Preservation) are described below. Section 29.1102. “O-H” HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY. (1) Purpose. The Historic Preservation Overlay (O-H) Zone is intended to recognize the establishment of the City’s local Historic Preservation Districts (see Section 31.1 et seq. of the Municipal Code) and to promote the public interest in having the full and informed participation of the City’s Historic Preservation Commission in the hearing of zoning applications potentially affecting the City’s historic resources. To fully meet this objective, the Historic Preservation Overlay Zone may include properties that are proximate to, but not within, one of the Historic Districts established by the Municipal Code. The procedures established by this Section are intended to ensure that the City’s Historic Preservation Commission is specifically notified of all applications before the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Zoning Board of Adjustment respecting property within or proximate to the City’s local Historic Districts. (2) Notice. With regard to zoning applications and proposed zoning ordinance amendments that affect proposed or designated landmarks and historic districts, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider such applications and/or amendments prior to consideration by the Zoning Board of Adjustment, or by the Planning and Zoning Commission. (3) Certificate of Appropriateness. As provided by Section 31.10 of the Municipal Code, and notwithstanding any uses otherwise permitted under an applicable Base Zone classification, no building or structure within an Historic District established pursuant to Chapter 31 of the Municipal Code may be erected, altered, demolished, or removed, and no area within such Chapter 31 Historic District may be used for industrial , commercial, business, home industry or occupational parking until a certificate of appropriateness has been issued for such activity by the Historic Preservation Commission. The requirement applies only to properties within the City’s Historic Districts. 4 Section 31.6. POWERS AND DUTIES OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. The Commission shall have the following powers and duties: … (7) To review proposed zoning amendments that affect proposed or designated landmarks and historic districts. Staff finds that the proposed zoning text amendment does not affect the Historic Preservation Overlay zoning district. It is a general zoning change affecting an area that includes the overlay but is not specific to the area in the overlay or specifically regarding the overlay’s purpose itself. The language in Section 29.1102(2) and Section 31.6(7) only apply to zoning changes that would affect the historic overlay . Therefore, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) did not need to review the proposed zoning changes. In support of the Planning Director’s decision, staff offers that other ordinances of a general nature have not been sent to HPC previously. Such as recent changes to non-conforming buildings for garages, sheds, etc.; changes to setback encroachment allowances; and for allowing vacation lodging use within the O-SFC. The HPC has reviewed changes that impact Chapter 31 standards, such as the recent allowance for Accessory Dwelling Units citywide, including within the Historic District that resulted in amendments to Chapter 31. In addition to staff’s original determination to proceed with the application for a zoning text amendment without referring it to the HPC, the City Council took its own independent action to approve the ordinance on first reading determining that the referral requirement does not apply. This decision by City Council is independent of any staff determination or recommendation and itself is not appealable to the ZBA. BASIS FOR APPEAL OF DECISION: The appellant’s ability to appeal a decision of the Planning Director is given in Chapter 29.1403(8)(a) as an aggrieved party. The appellant is a resident of the Historic District. In this case, the appellant believes the Planning Director has incorrectly interpreted Chapter 29 (Zoning) and Chapter 31 (Historic Preservation) by determining that the Historic Preservation Commission does not have a role for advising the City Council on a proposed text amendment of a general nature for uses within the O-SFC, including the subarea that is part of the Old Town Historic District. The appellant asserts, see Page 9 of the application, that the requirements of Section 29.1102(2) of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 31.6(7) of Chapter 31 (Historic Preservation) have not been followed by the City. The appellant believes the requirements of these sections of the Zoning Ordinance and Historic Preservation regulations apply to the proposed zoning text amendment. (See supporting information from the Appellant included as a separate document with the report.) 5 DETERMINATION BY THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: The Zoning Board of Adjustment is authorized to consider an appeal of an administrative decision per 414.12 of the Code of Iowa to determine if there was an error. The appeal process is not an exception or variance process, it is an interpretation of zoning standards that apply uniformly across the City. The Board must determine there was an error in the interpretation by the Planning Director that the Historic Preservation Commission does not have a role for advising the City Council on a proposed text amendment of a general nature for uses within the O -SFC, including the subarea that is part of the Old Town Historic District. The decision of the Planning Director relied upon past precedent and the context of the ordinances in question. At issue is not the appropriateness or adequacy of the standards, only if staff made an incorrect interpretation. ALTERNATIVES: 1. As an appeal, the ZBA would need to approve the appeal with three affirmative votes that the Zoning Enforcement Officer erred in his interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The Zoning Enforcement Officer decision will stand as is with ZBA denial of the appeal or with less than three votes to overturn the decision. STAFF COMMENTS: The appellant asserts that there is an error by the City of Ames administrative official for determining the meaning and interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance in the enforcement of Chapter 29 and Chapter 31 of the Ames Municipal Code. Specifically, in the enforcement of Section 29.1102(2) and Section 31.6(7). The Planning Director has determined that the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) does not have a role for advising the City Council on a proposed text amendment of a general nature for uses within the O-SFC, including the subarea that is part of the Old Town Historic District. Within Chapter 31, the HPC responsibilities are defined and the standards of their review authority related to changes within a Historic District are for external alterations and new construction as defined with Chapter 31 . Additionally, the City has no precedence of taking all types of zoning text amendments to the HPC that do not directly relate to Chapter 31 review responsibilities. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Planning Director that the Zoning Board of Adjustment deny the appeal. 6 Attachment A Planning Director’s Determination 7 Attachment A Planning Director’s Determination (Page 2) 8 Attachment B City Attorney’s Memo to City Council 9 Attachment B City Attorney’s Memo to City Council (Page 2) 10 Attachment B City Attorney’s Memo to City Council (Page 3) 11 Attachment B City Attorney’s Memo to City Council (Page 4) 12 Attachment C Letter from David Carter, Dated October 8, 2024 13 Attachment C Letter from David Carter, Dated October 8, 2024 (Page 2)