Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Property Maintenance Appeals Board Minutes 11/18/2018Property Maintenance Appeals Board Meeting November 1, 2018 Call to Order The regular meeting of the Property Maintenance Appeals Board was called to order by Chairman Gary Denner at 4:00 PM. Mr. Denner read the opening statement. Present from the Property Maintenance Appeals Board were Gary Denner, Dustin Mason, Delores Ball, Rachel Norem, and Richard Lepper. Present from the City of Ames staff were Sara Van Meeteren, Jane Chang, Vikki Feilmeyer, Natalie Herrington, and Ben Lievens. Approval of Minutes Minutes from the June 7, 2018 meeting were approved pending minor changes by City staff. A motion was made by Dustin Mason to approve the June 7, 2018 minutes; Delores Ball seconded the motion. Motion passed 5-0 Old Business No old business was discussed. New Business A. Hearing on Appeal of the owner at 1501 Summit Avenue regarding the required amount of parking spaces, asking for appeal due to strict compliance with the code is impractical/not reasonable and propose an alternate method to meet the intentions of the code. Sara Van Meeteren, Building Official, stated that the appeal property is a new rental applicant. The current code requires two off-street parking spaces for new rentals. The terrain at this property makes having two, or even one, off-street parking space difficult. Ms. Van Meeteren continued that the Appellant is hoping that the Board finds the strict compliance with the code is impractical and they will not be required to adhere to the two off - street parking space requirement. Testimony from Appellant Adrian Kalambokidis, Appellant, said currently the property does have a single space. It is actually a double space, but one side is for the neighbor adjacent to the property. This area is currently not paved. This is how it was when they purchased the property. The primary obstacle with adding an additional parking space is that the grading of the terrain drops significantly. In order to comply with current code, the Appellant would have to build a massive retaining wall. The construction to create an additional space would most likely cost more than what the property is worth. He is hoping the Board and himself can find a compromise so he may list the property as a rental. Board Discussion Rachel Norem asked where a second car is currently parking at the property. Mr. Kalambokidis responded that it was very unlikely that there would be a second car. The property is very small and only suitable for one person. The current spot could be expanded to the south if necessary. Mr. Denner noted that expanding to the south would create additional parking in the front yard, which is against City Code. Ms. Van Meeteren concurred and stated that current code does not allow a parking stall to be placed in the front yard. A parking space must le ad to an area behind the front of the house. In this particular situation, the space would essentially have to go all the way down and would be approximately the entire length of the home. Delores Ball asked if the neighboring property was also a rental property. Mr. Kalambokidis said both neighboring properties were registered rentals. Both of those properties do not meet the new code standards. Mr. Denner clarified this is because they have been rentals prior to the issuance of this code. In Mr. Kalambokidis’s situation, it was once a rental but he allowed the letter of compliance to expire while his sons lived in the home. Thus, he must now register as a new property and comply with the two off-street parking standards. Mr. Denner asked staff if they had any other options beyond just enforcing the current code. Ms. Van Meeteren stated that the only other option would be for the Appellant to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustments and request a variance to allow front yard parking. This would allow them to not pave as far, but the rental code still does require two spaces. Richard Lepper asked if parking in the space in front of a garage counts as an additional space. Ms. Van Meeteren said yes. The garage would count as one space and the space in front of it would count as a second. Mr. Denner asked the Appellant if he had considered putting in a garage. Sharon Johnson, Associate of the Appellant, stated that it would still be impractical. Constructing a garage would be a similar issue to extending the driveway. Mr. Kalambokidis elaborated that the steep decline of the yard would basically push the garage all the way to the backyard. Additionally, if they had to get dirt and/or a retaining wall, the expense to comply would be more than what the house is actually worth. Ms. Ball and Ms. Johnson discussed some of the pictures provided and discussed the layout of the property. Mr. Denner stated the only really options he could see is either the Board deny the appeal or table the appeal and refer the Appellant to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Vikki Feilmeyer, Assistant Attorney for the City, explained that it would up to the Appellant to address the Zoning Board of Adjustments. She also stated that it may be important for the Board to note the language of the appeal. The Appellant has to provide the Board proof that complying with a code restriction would be impractical for the property. Mr. Denner asked the Appellant if they have gotten estimates on how much it would cost to pave or to put in a retaining wall. Mr. Kalambokidis stated they had not. Mr. Denner asked what sort of rent they were looking to charge. Mr. Kalambokidis responded with $500 per month. Ms. Johnson added that the assessed value of this property is currently $65,000. It has no bedrooms, its one room, and is incredibly small. About 90% of those who look at this property are doing so as an investment. If it doesn’t have a letter of compliance, they will lose interest. It is surrounded by other rentals within the neighborhood. Mr. Lepper asked for clarification on their options at this time. Ms. Van Meeteren reiterated that they could deny the appeal or table it to receive more information. If they wanted to refer the Appellant to the Zoning Board of Adjustments that would essentially be a denial. Mr. Lepper stated he would rather see someone improve a property. His interpretation of the code is to have as little cars parked on the street as possible. He felt if the Appellant could get approval to create a second parking space in the front yard that would be the best solution. Mr. Mason motioned to table this issue until the Board meeting held in January 3, 2019. This will allow the Appellant time to apply to the Zoning Board of Adjustments. Ms. Norem seconded the motion. Passed 5-0. Board/Staff comments Ms. Johnson asked City staff what the process is to apply for a temporary let ter of compliance while this is in-process. Ms. Van Meeteren stated a transitional letter of compliance would not require the additional parking space. Adjourn Delores Ball moved to adjourn. Richard Lepper seconded. Motion to adjourn passed unanimously at 4:28 PM.