Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 1-10-2018MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMES, IOWA JANUARY 10, 2018 The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 6:00 p.m. on January 10, 2018, in Conference Room 235 of City Hall with the following members present: Amelia Schoeneman, Kyle Perkins, Matthew Koehler, and Susan Bradbury. Board Member Shelby Ebel was absent. Assistant City Attorney Victoria Feilmeyer, Director of Planning and Housing Kelly Diekmann and City Planners Justin Moore, Charlie Kuester, and Eloise Sahlstrom were also present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Perkins, seconded by Bradbury, to approve the minutes of the meeting of December 13, 2017. Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. Mr. Koehler stated that an adjustment has been made to the order of the agenda. The public hearing on application for an Appeal of a decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer regarding Nonconforming Uses, Section 29.307(2), for the property located at 2304 Knapp Street will be discussed first. CASE NO. 17-28 APPEAL – Ames 2304 LLC, Public Hearing on application for an Appeal of a decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer regarding Nonconforming Uses, Section 29.307(2), for the property located at 2304 Knapp Street Ms. Feilmeyer stated the following: “It is our advice that the Board Move to Lay on the Table this matter indefinitely. As set forth in the staff report, the Applicant herein, Ames 2304, filed an appeal dealing with the same subject matter and same property that the Zoning Board of Adjustment denied on June 22, 2016. The Applicant then filed an appeal with the District Court for Story County, which upheld that determination made by the ZBA on June 16, 2017. After the District Court’s decision, the Applicant then appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court, which transferred this matter to the Court of Appeals for consideration. The Applicant’s appeal is currently pending with that court. For these reasons, we recommend that the Board ‘Move to Lay on the Table this matter indefinitely.’ A motion to ‘Lay this matter upon the Table’ is not subject to debate, though it must be seconded and voted upon. Moved by Koehler, seconded by Perkins, to table ORDER NO. 17-28 indefinitely. Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. Debra Hulett, the applicant’s attorney, said the following: “Excuse me. I understand it is not subject to debate, to a debate, but I would like to at least make a record for on behalf of my client since I came all the way to this hearing and was not notified that there would be, this would be considered as tabled. I would simply like to state that the issue presented currently is not the same issue that was previously considered. It’s also not the same issue in, on the Appeal because this very Board is actually argued on Appeal that the Court of Appeals should not consider the key definition within the City’s zoning ordinance. That is the issue that actually will , um, materially impact the outcome of this app, this uh, application, and therefore, the issue being presented here given that this Board is arguing the Court of Appeals that the definition of intensity in the City’s ordinance, zoning ordinance, was not considered, is something this Board has never considered before because the Board didn’t consider it the last, with the last permit that this applicant submitted. And, I am Debra Hulett, the attorney for the applicant.” Mr. Koehler stated that Ms. Hulett’s record was heard, and it is not part of the agenda to argue the previous case. Ms. Hulett said the following: “And I am not arguing the previous one, I’m arguing the issue presented in this one which has to do with the definition of intensity in the City ordinance, which this Board didn’t consider in the prior application. That’s why they’re different.” Mr. Koehler stated he understands, and the item has been tabled. CASE NO. 17-26 VARIANCE – Dana Thomann, Public Hearing on application for a Variance to allow front yard parking on the property located at 233 Washington Avenue City Planner Justin Moore displayed a location map for the request. He explained that the owner of 233 Washington Avenue is applying for a Variance to allow for three front yard parking stalls with access directly from Washington Avenue. The reasoning for this request is that the owner intends to sell the property and is asserting that it is difficult to sell this property for its current residential use. The owner desires to sell the property to a buyer interested in it for a commercial office use. The three additional parking stalls in the front yard would allow for a total of five parking stalls on-site, which is the minimum required parking ratio for commercial offices based on the total square footage of the house. The minimum size for a commercial or single-family residential parcel in this district is 6,000 square feet which makes the 5,280 square foot parcel nonconforming. Nonconforming parcels can be developed provided that current zoning standards can be met. The owner proposes no changes to the physical layout of the home with the Variance request; however, it is likely additional changes to the property for accessible access to an office space will be required at the time of building permit review. The house is situated with the front door facing Washington Avenue, and it is setback from the front property line approximately 25 feet. Two existing parking stalls are located on the west side of the home accessed from South 3rd Street. It is not physically possible to add three additional stalls to the west side of the home due to dimensions of the property and location of structures. The proposed Variance is to locate 19-foot deep parking stalls in front of the building. Required parking between a building and the street is not permitted in this zoning district. The site plan, project description, applicable law, and Findings of Fact and Conclusions were reviewed in detail by Mr. Moore. He explained that the zoning standards in the South Lincoln Sub Area Mixed-Use District, which apply to both residential and commercial properties, state that front yard parking is not allowed between buildings and streets. While some properties within the district contain front yard parking, such allowances were permitted prior to the existing zoning standards being put into place. The zoning standards now in place are meant to discourage the further proliferation of parking areas between buildings and streets. Additionally, the dimensional challenges of placing the parking stalls into the front yard with such limited area could pose hazards for vehicles and pedestrians in the Washington Avenue right-of-way given the lack of area available between the proposed parking stalls and the right-of-way as well as with any necessary improvements near the entryway to the building for accessibility design standards. The proposed front yard parking stalls would be located less than 60 feet to the intersection of Washington Avenue and South 3rd Street. Current SUDAS design requirements discourage entrances and exits this close to intersections such as Washington Avenue and South 3rd Street. The current use of the property as a residential home is in compliance with standards within this zoning district. The applicant asserts that the only acceptable offer made for this property is for commercial office space, and that the neighborhood is quickly transitioning to a more commercial feel in support of the desire of the intended purchaser. Further, the applicant claims that the location, size, and layout of the building lend to its best use being commercial office space. Dana Thomann, 208 Fairchild Street, Iowa City, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath. Ms. Thomann, the current property owner, stated the staff report is deeply flawed and disagreed with the reasons for denial. She believes the home is located in an area that is unlike others in the neighborhood, as it is surrounded by cement and has a view of a business and apartment complex. According to her, most of the homes in the neighborhood are newer, and most of the residents are students who desire modern luxuries that the home does not offer. She said families do not want to live on a corner lot, so she put money into the property with hopes of it becoming a rental property. Ms. Thomann described her recent hardships which led to her putting the home on the market in September. She said the current offer on the property is the only one she has received so far, and it is conditional on the granting of the Variance. Joyce Hatfield, 1204 N 3rd Street, Ames, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath. Ms. Hatfield stated that she owns four houses in that area, and she does not want to see parking permitted in the front yard. She believes it will be unsightly and will bring the neighborhood down. She questioned the location of the properties that have front yard parking because she was unaware of those that do. Ms. Hatfield requested that the Board deny the request. Mr. Moore displayed a map to locate the properties that have front yard parking. Balinda Ellsworth, 312 Washington Avenue, Ames, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath. Ms. Ellsworth stated she is against this request, and would like to keep the feel of a residential neighborhood. She would not like to see more commercial uses in this area. Ms. Schoeneman asked if there is off-site parking that can count towards the required five spaces. Mr. Moore stated that street parking cannot count towards the required amount. Remote parking is permitted for commercial uses in this zone, but it has to be conforming. Moved by Koehler, seconded by Perkins, to deny ORDER NO. 17-26, thereby denying the request for a Variance for 233 Washington Avenue to allow the construction of three front yard parking stalls to meet commercial office parking standards based upon the above findings and conclusions. Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. CASE NO. 17-27 SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT – Ning Truitt, Public Hearing on application for a Special Home Occupation Permit to allow an Airbnb Bed & Breakfast on the property located at 2323 Suncrest Drive City Planner Eloise Sahlstrom displayed a location map for the request. She explained that the home located at 2323 Suncrest Drive is a single-story home with four bedrooms, and is approximately 3,210 square feet. Two bedrooms are on the main floor and two bedrooms are in the basement, according to City Assessor records. The home is located in a low-density residential zone which allows for a maximum of two guest rooms for Bed & Breakfast (B&B) establishments. The home currently provides off-street parking for a maximum of six vehicles, three within the attached garage and three in front of the garage. According to the applicant, guests of the B&B will be required to register upon their arrival and provide their name, current address, and license plate number. The length of stay of any guest will not exceed two weeks from the time of registry. Based on the applicant’s statement, no meals will be served. The site plan, project description, applicable law, and Findings of Fact and Conclusions were reviewed in detail by Ms. Sahlstrom. It was said that no exterior changes are proposed, no signs will be posted on the property, no additional employees or additional parking will be required, and there will be no other home occupations at this location. Of the six total off-street parking spaces available, two off-street parking spaces will be provided for guests, and the remaining four spaces will be available for use by the owner. The applicant states that approximately 725 square feet of the principal building will be used, out of a tot al area of 3,210 square feet (23%), which is within the maximum (25%) area. Notification was made to all owners of property within 200 feet, and a few phone calls were received requesting more information. One resident was concerned about regulations. Ms. Sahlstrom confirmed that the request is for an Airbnb. She said the reason why a homeowner must be present when a guest is visiting is to ensure the property is overseen and all is in compliance. One cannot rent the entire home for a visit. Ms. Sahlstrom explained that information on Airbnb rentals is to be taken to City Council soon. She mentioned that Airbnb will work with local government to establish regulations. Currently, if there are complaints that cannot be resolved with the property owner, one would need to contact the City. Lawrence and Ning Truitt, 2323 Suncrest Drive, Ames, Iowa, were sworn in and testified under oath. Mr. Truitt stated that this was his wife’s idea for a way to occupy her time. She is a housewife, so this will provide another source of income. He stated that they have already had several guests, and both the homeowner and guest can evaluate each other so they know what to expect. Mr. Truitt said they are applying for this permit because they thought they should, even though other residents in Ames who run an Airbnb have not. Ms. Schoeneman asked if it is common for the homeowner to be present during an Airbnb visit. It was said that in other cities, there are Airbnb rentals that are not owner-occupied, but in this case, they do live in the home. Mr. Diekmann stated that, in Ames, if the owner does not live in the home, it is not considered a bed and breakfast. That is not permitted. Ravindra Singh, 2320 Suncrest Drive, Ames, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath. Mr. Singh said he has seen a significant increase in traffic, specifically since the Truitt’s have been operating the Airbnb. He believes Airbnb will have a negative impact on the neighborhood, and stated the City should regulate guests. He mentioned that some cities have reduced Airbnb rentals because it is difficult to monitor guests. He recommended the City send notice to all current Airbnb properties in Ames to ensure they are registered and permitted, since most are not. Ms. Bradbury questioned the noticeable increase of traffic, and whether it had to do with the Airbnb. She said that if a larger family lived in the home, there would potentially be more vehicles causing more traffic. Mr. Singh informed the Board that new groups are visiting the Truitt’s Airbnb quite often, and if more are approved for the area, it will be difficult to determine who actually lives in the neighborhood. Mr. Singh said his family would move if there is an increase in Airbnb rentals in the neighborhood. Ms. Bradbury said she understood Mr. Singh’s frustrations, but reminded him that the Truitt’s are trying to do it legally which is why they are requesting the permit. She stated there are many Airbnb rentals in Ames that are not legal right now. Mr. Truitt suggested the traffic might have increased due to the holidays, as they have not had any guests for about two months. Vinita Singh, 2320 Suncrest Drive, Ames, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath. Ms. Singh said that the Truitt’s have been illegally running an Airbnb since May. She believes the business is altering the character of the neighborhood due to the number of guests. She mentioned that many homes in the neighborhood are similar in size, which could lead to other Airbnb rentals. Ms. Singh expressed her concern for safety in the neighborhood because there is no monitoring system, and believes the City should do more when complaints are received. Natalia Singh, 2320 Suncrest Drive, Ames, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath. She stated that a Bed and Breakfast sounds nice, but an Airbnb is different. There is no way of screening who is coming into town as a guest. Ms. Sahlstrom read the Special Home Occupation purpose statement from the Municipal Code as requested by Ms. Schoeneman. Mr. Truitt stated he wasn’t aware the Airbnb was an issue, but he understood the concerns. The Board agreed that the applicants comply with all criteria that have been established for a home occupation, in particular a bed and breakfast, and part of the criteria regards traffic, in which no more than 10 vehicular visits per day shall be allowed. They agreed that standards have been met. Moved by Bradbury, seconded by Perkins, to approve ORDER NO. 17 -27, thereby approving the request for a Special Home Occupation Permit to allow a two bedroom Bed and Breakfast as proposed by the applicant at 2323 Suncrest Drive, subject to staff’s findings and conclusions, with the following conditions: a. A homeowner must be present during rental of bed and breakfast bedrooms. b. Occupancy of the two permitted bed and breakfast rooms is limited to two persons for each room. c. The applicant will keep a register of guests that will include the following information for a record: name, current address, and license plate number. Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. COMMENTS: There were no comments by the Board. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Perkins, seconded by Koehler, to adjourn the meeting at 7:22 p.m. _____________________________ _____________________________ Heidi Petersen, Recording Secretary Matthew Koehler, Acting Chair