HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 6-22-2016MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AMES, IOWA JUNE 22, 2016
The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 6:00 p.m. on
June 22, 2016, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present:
Shelby Ebel, Kyle Perkins, Matthew Koehler and Amelia Schoeneman. Board Member Bradbury
was absent. Staff members Karen Marren and Mark Lambert were also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Perkins, seconded by Schoeneman, to approve the
minutes of the meeting of May 11, 2016.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 15-05
SPECIAL USE PERMIT – Verizon Wireless, 600 South Maple Avenue
Board action to grant 60 day extension of Special Use Permit for a cell tower on the
property located at 600 South Maple Avenue*
City Planner Karen Marren explained that the Board approved a Special Use Permit for a
proposed Verizon cell tower at 600 South Maple Avenue on June 24, 2015. The Board also
approved a Conditional Use Permit in the Floodway on that same date.
Ames Municipal Code, Section 29.1503(5) states that Special Use Permits shall expire 12
months after the date of approval unless a building permit is issued and actual construction has
begun. The Board may grant a 60-day extension upon written request. Verizon provided a
written request on June 7, 2016. If the Special Use Permit expires, the applicant would need to
submit a new application.
Verizon has obtained a building permit but has not yet received all of the other regulatory
reviews; specifically, a finding from the Federal Communications Commission of no significant
impact for being in the flood plain. They anticipate receiving this within 60 days and then plan to
mobilize for construction.
The applicant has made progress on obtaining the required permits of their project and there has
been no change in conditions with the site or project since granting of the original approval. Staff
believes a 60-day extension is warranted and would recommend that the Board grant it.
Jerod Hanaman, 5464 Butternut Circle, Minnetonka, Minnesota, was sworn in and testified under
oath. He noted that federal approvals are taking longer than planned but that nothing has changed
since they received the approval of the Special Use Permit in June of 2015.
Moved by Perkins, seconded by Ebel, to approve the 60-day extension request for the Special
Use Permit approved on June 24, 2015 for the property located at 600 South Maple Avenue.
Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
2
CASE NO. 16-04
APPEAL OF THE ZONING ENFORCEMNT – Duncan, 2304 Knapp Street
Appeal from a decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer regarding Nonconforming Uses,
Section 29.307(2), for the property located at 2304 Knapp Street*
City Planner Karen Marren displayed a location map and site plan for the project. The applicant
is seeking an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer that the intensity of a
non-conforming residential apartment use is increased with the addition of number of bedrooms
for such use, and an interior remodel of a non-conforming use shall not increase the intensity of
the use based on Section 29.307(2)(a)(i).
Ms. Marren noted that 2304 Knapp Street was originally built in 1910 as a single family
structure. The single family home was converted to a four unit apartment building in 1928, as
determined from a building permit record, to allow for four one-bedroom apartment units.
The property is currently zoned Low Density Residential (RL) which permits only single family
detached residential dwellings with one dwelling per lot. Under the current Zoning Ordinance,
the property is determined to have a legal non-conforming use, as the apartment use was
established prior to the current ordinance, and therefore must comply with the regulations of
Section 29.307 of the Zoning Ordinance for any modifications to such nonconforming use.
The home is currently configured as four one-bedroom apartment units, with two units
occupying each of the floors in the two-story home. The proposal is to remodel the first floor of
the home into one studio unit and one two-bedroom unit (by definition in the zoning ordinance
staff views the den/living room in this unit as the second bedroom). The second floor would be
remodeled into a studio unit and a three bedroom unit. While there is no increase in the number
of units proposed for the property, a net increase in 3 bedrooms is proposed from the existing 4
bedrooms within the home.
Ms. Marren said that being the property is currently located in an RL zone and an apartment
building would not be permitted in such a zone, staff requested floor plans of the proposed
remodel to determine compliance with the nonconforming use section of the zoning ordinance,
29.307(2). Planning staff responded to the remodel request that the property was an existing legal
nonconforming use permitted in the zone; however, the nonconforming use could not be
increased in intensity of use, meaning the addition of units or bedrooms to the site from what was
currently permitted as legal non-conforming. The applicant was notified of this code
interpretation via email on April 19, 2016.
After a response back from the applicant regarding their reading of the ordinance, the applicant
was notified via email communication on April 26, 2016 of the appeal process and was also
notified that the proposed new unit configurations may also require additional parking under the
current parking code requirements for larger residential units. Staff has not reviewed any existing
or proposed parking layouts for the project. If the ZBA decides, based on information submitted,
to approve the requested appeal, the review for compliance with parking standards will be
completed as part of the building permit review for the remodel.
3
The applicant has requested an appeal of the staff interpretation of the code which would allow
them to get a building permit to remodel the home to the new apartment unit configuration.
Ms. Marren noted that there has been a recently issued building permit for the property for
interior remodel; however, the current permit does not allow the increase in any additional
bedrooms for the property, but does allow for the renovation of the unit layouts. The property
owner would need to apply for an additional building permit to carry out their desired remodel
for the increase in bedrooms.
The general policy of the City, as noted in the purpose statement of Section 29.307, regarding all
nonconformities is to allow uses, structures, and lots that were existing prior to the current code
regulations to exist legally and in conformance with then-applicable requirements at the time the
use was established. The general nonconforming section of the code goes on to explain that the
regulations of section 29.307 are intended to “recognize the interest of the property owners in
continuing to use their property, promote reuse and rehabilitation of existing building, and place
reasonable limits on the expansion of nonconformities that have the potential to adversely affect
surrounding properties and the community.”
Section 29.307(2)(a)(ii) of the code identifies the allowances for exterior and interior remodel or
improvements to a structure containing a nonconforming use. The ordinance allows for such
remodeling and renovation of the structure which contains the use however; as indicated, the
nonconforming use and the proposed renovation to such use must also comply with the
“provisions set forth in the above paragraph” which would be S ection 29.307(2)(a)(i). That
sections details that “a nonconforming use may not be increased in intensity” and continues on to
explain that it also may not be enlarged, expanded or extended based on the additional
regulations noted for such enlargement, expansion or extension.
Ms. Marren explained that the current home is divided into four one-bedroom apartments. The
remodel of the units is to revise the layout of the units or to upgrade the finishes of such units as
permitted under the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the existing nonconforming units to be
maintained. However, the addition of bedrooms has been in the past, and is still considered, to
be an intensification of such use. The change in the type of units going from a one bedroom to a
two or three bedroom unit intensifies the site requirements for the property requiring that
additional parking be provided. Based on section 29.406(2), once an apartment unit is revised
from a 1 bedroom unit to a two bedroom unit parking increases from 1.5 parking spaces per unit,
to one parking space per bedroom, increasing the site parking requirements for the property.
As explained previously by Ms. Marren, the intended purpose of this section of the code
regarding non-conforming uses is to allow for a use and building to continue to be used and to
provide the purpose in which it was originally approved. It is not the intention of these
provisions to allow for nonconforming uses to be increased in the degree of their nonconformity,
which could have the potential to adversely affect surrounding properties. As with any Zoning
Ordinance change it is intended that eventually, through future redevelopment, that property
again becomes compliant with the current standards for the zoning district.
Ms. Marren stated that the applicant is basing their appeal on two things. The applicant does not
4
feel that an increase in bedrooms changes the amount of required parking. And, they believe that
subparagraph 29.307(2)(a)(i) should be read in isolation from subparagraph 29.307(2)(a)(ii).
Ms. Marren concluded that staff disagrees with both contentions of the applicant. As described
earlier, an increase in bedrooms for an apartment does change the amount of required parking.
Additionally, the subparagraph of 29.307(2)(a)(ii) specifically references compliance with the
preceding paragraph of 29.307(2)(a)(i) is required for remodel, therefore it cannot be read in
isolation from the first section.
Mr. Koehler inquired if the Board is only looking at the change in bedrooms and interior and not
the parking, at this time. Ms. Marren noted that parking does come into play because the parking
requirements could change as a result of the decision that is made by the Board.
Mr. Koehler questioned if the applicant would have to come back for parking requirements. Ms.
Marren explained that the Planning Department has not reviewed existing parking and whether
or not they comply with what the new parking ratio would be. At this time, the Board is only
deciding whether or not they will allow the applicant to increase the number of bedrooms in a
nonconforming use.
Ms. Schoneman inquired, for clarification, that staff isn’t arguing that because the parking lot
would need to be expanded that the bedrooms would also need to be expanded because it could,
potentially, be considered an expansion on top of the intensification. Ms. Marren replied that it
could be considered an expansion on top of the intensification but she’s not sure if they comply
with current code and she’s not sure what was allowed under a previous approval.
Ms. Schoneman also said that she drove by the property and saw that it’s a gravel parking lot;
she expressed that that makes it difficult to count the number of parking spaces. She inquired if
the procedure would be to measure out the spaces. Ms. Marren replied that the parking lot would
be studied as a part of their site plan review. They would look at parking improvements that
would need to be done as a part of the remodel project.
Ms. Ebel asked how studio units are counted towards parking requirements if it’s based off of
bedrooms. Ms. Marren replied that it is looked at as a one bedroom unit.
Seth Dodge, 409 Duff Avenue, of Hastings, Gartin & Boettger was sworn in and testified under
oath. Mr. Dodge noted that he was attending as a representative of the applicant. The applicant is
trying to remodel the four current units into four updated units.
Mr. Dodge explained that the applicant is basing their appeal on two things. The applicant feels
that Section 29.307(2)(a)(ii) applies expressly to interior remodeling and that interior remodeling
or improvements to a structure containing a nonconforming use shall be permitted, proved that
any proposed enlargement, expansion, or extension shall be subject to the provisions set forth in
the above paragraph. Additionally, the applicant feels that because the remodeling does not
enlarge, expand, or extend the structure, the remodeling must be permitted because the above
paragraphs of Section 29.307(2)(a)(i) do not apply to this particular interior remodel.
5
Mr. Dodge went on to state that even if the Board found the intensity limitation of the ordinance
to apply to this renovation of the property, the number of units are not changing and therefore not
impacting the occupancy or parking for the units. Mr. Dodge said the applicant is implying that
the number of bedrooms are not significant to this determination because the number of
bedrooms could be revised to any number of rooms and still only require the existing amount of
parking, as provided today, therefore not increasing the intensity of the use.
In conclusion, Mr. Dodge noted that if the applicant had never proposed the remodel, the City
could still require the eight parking spaces when applying the residential low density standards
because the applicant does not meet those standards; they currently have six parking spaces, not
the required eight.
Ms. Schoneman asked how the code defines a single family unit. Ms. Marren said that it is
defined as any building consisting of no more than one dwelling unit, designed for and occupied
exclusively by one family. Mr. Dodge noted that twelve unrelated individuals living in the three
bedrooms could be defined as one family.
Sandra McJimsey, 2236 Storm Street, was sworn in and testified under oath. Ms. McJimsey
spoke as a representative of South Campus Area Neighborhood (SCAN). SCAN feels the
owners’ reconfiguration is an attempt to house more occupants. The proposed configuration
enlarges bedroom capacity from 546 square feet to 745.5 square feet and the increased square
footage would add three bedrooms. The total square footage use would increase to 909 square
feet which would be a 36.5% enlargement. Ms. McJimsey noted the abundant enlargement of
bedroom space and number of bedrooms and expressed that if the home were located in a
different residential zoning, more parking would be required.
Ms. McJimsey said that a nonconforming property in a residential low density zone may not be
able to comply even after the appeal is granted. She informed the Board that there is alternate
side parking on alternating days of the week for four hours at a time. Ms. McJimsey displayed
pictures of the parking issues that already occur on Knapp Street, Baker Street, Storm Street,
Lynn Avenue and other surrounding streets. Parking issues the past school year generated many
phone calls from the neighborhood to the Police Department to enforce the parking issues. Ms.
McJimsey, and SCAN, feel that more occupants would intensify the negative impacts for the
people who live in the neighborhood as many of the homes are owner occupied. She stated that
the Ames Police Department informed SCAN at their April meeting that the occurrence of large
parties are more of a problem at rental properties than at large apartment buildings. Finally, she
said that more bedrooms mean more occupants which could turn Knapp Street into a real
problem for the neighborhood and the people who live there. Other than an increase in income,
there is no other benefit to the property owner. Ms. McJimsey concluded that surrounding
property owners are strongly opposed.
Aaron Keller, 407 Lynn Avenue, was sworn in and testified under oath. Mr. Keller expressed
that he feels the compelling reason to do this for the applicant is purely financial. To grant this
decision would be degrading the neighborhood and the property value of housing for
surrounding neighbors. He stated that more bedrooms mean more vehicles; he urged the Board
not to allow it.
6
Kim Moss, 430 Lynne Avenue, was sworn in and testified under oath. Ms. Moss first spoke on
behalf of Fern Kupfer, 2304 Knapp Street. Ms. Kupfer urges the Board not to permit the owner
to add more bedrooms, as the increased occupancy will only further deteriorate the south campus
neighborhood. She also feels that the increased occupancy would only add to the parking
problems that already exist on overly congested streets. Lastly, Ms. Kupfer understands that
there would be a monetary benefit for the landlord but that there is no legitimate reason to accept
the appeal. Ms. Moss spoke on her own behalf and told the Board that she wants to see the
character and integrity of the neighborhood maintained. She feels the increase in occupancy
would be a degradation of the neighborhood and that it would add on to the parking issues that
already exist.
Amanda Hillman, 2322 Baker Street, was sworn in and testified under oath. Ms. Hillman
believes in the integrity of the neighborhood. She feels the south side of Knapp Street plays an
important role in keeping the integrity of the neighborhood intact.
Sheila Coudy, 3004 Ross Road, was sworn in and testified under oath. Ms. Coudy informed the
Board that she has lived in the neighborhood for many years. She noted that there have never
been high density properties on the south side of Knapp. She feels that allowing this appeal in a
south campus neighborhood would only cause more degradation to the neighborhood. Ms.
Coudy said that she has seen four cars, maybe five maximum, parked in the gravel lot on the
property and it was very tight. She pleaded with the Board that they not make the south side of
Knapp high density property. Ms. Coudy concluded that the property is not well maintained , and
never has been, which likely won’t improve with a landlord from South Carolina.
Steve Hardy, 519 Lynn Avenue, was sworn in and testified under oath. He lives two blocks south
of the property. He is against the accommodation of an out of state landlord at the expense of
those who live in the neighborhood.
Mr. Dodge noted, for clarification purposes, that numbers given in regards to occupancy are
based off of classifying the den and family rooms as bedrooms on the site plan. He added that the
applicant wants to put money into the property so that it does increase in value and attract better
tenants. He concluded that the ordinance is phrased as a shall ordinance which doesn’t leave any
room for discretion if you fall into that category for interior or exterior remodeling which is the
issue before the Board.
Ms. Marren reiterated to the Board that the appeal tonight is regarding a code standard which
could be applied across the City for any non-conforming use of this nature based on the current
code that was approved in 2000. She concluded that this appeal could change how properties like
this are viewed across the city.
Mr. Perkins stated that this section of the Code needs to be clarified by the City. Mr. Perkins said
that without the reference to the first subparagraph, the second subparagraph is mute. He feels
the intent was to link the two together so that anything going through exterior or interior
remodeling would also have to be followed for the enlargement portion. Ms. Ebel concurred with
Mr. Perkins’ comments.
7
Ms. Schoneman noted that the intensity aspect of the first subparagraph is not repeated for
interior or exterior remodeling so it’s clear that it is only reflecting back on just the enlargement,
expansion, and extension requirements. However, she feels they are separated out in the first
subparagraph where it states nonconforming use may not be increased in intensity and may not
be enlarged, expanded or extended. She also believes the third subparagraph is reflecting back on
to the second clause. Lastly, driving by the property she noticed there are some definite nuisance
issues and she doesn’t want to create more issues on the property by allowing this appeal.
Ms. Ebel stated that, in her opinion, it’s clear that it says any proposed enlargement, expansion,
or extension shall be subject to the provisions set forth in the above paragraph which would
mean it needs to meet all three criteria in the above paragraph.
Mr. Perkins said that he initially interpreted it the same as Ms. Ebel, but also feels that in this
case the enlargement, expansion or extension could be the expansion of the number of bedrooms.
Mr. Koehler stated, for the record, that he has separate business dealings with Hastings, Gartin
and Boettger, but that they are not the applicant in this case; David Duncan is the applicant.
Mr. Perkins noted they hadn’t discussed parking yet and that when looking specifically at
parking, it is definitely an increase in intensity.
Ms. Schoneman informed the Board that she looked up the parking on GIS (geographic
information system) and found there’s about 40 feet of parking in the gravel lot. In her opinion,
she feels that would only allow four to five parking spaces; parking is a concern for her moving
forward.
Moved by Ebel, seconded by Perkins, to approve ORDER NO. 16-03, thereby finding that the
Zoning Enforcement Officer made the correct interpretation of Section 29.307(2) in determining
that the interior remodel of a nonconforming use cannot be increased in intensity and that the
increase in bedrooms for a nonconforming residential apartment unit is an increase in intensity of
such use.
Roll Call Vote: 3-1. Voting Aye: Ebel, Koehler, Perkins. Voting Nay: Schoneman. Motion
declared carried.
COMMENTS: There were no comments by the Board.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Koehler, seconded by Perkins, to adjourn the meeting at 7:00
p.m.
_____________________________ _________________________________
Erin Cain, Recording Secretary Shelby Ebel, Chair