Ames Zoning Board affirms planning director, denies appeals over historic-preservation review

The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment voted on Jan. 8 to affirm the planning director's interpretation that a proposed zoning text amendment affecting the single-family conservation overlay district would not "affect" historic resources and therefore did not require review by the Ames Historic Preservation Commission.

Planning and housing staff presented the appeal, explaining the decision turned on the word "effect," which staff said means a change to historic resources or development standards. "I did not find that it would affect an historic resource or designated landmark," the planning staff explained during the hearing, saying the proposed amendment would allow an additional general use but would not change development standards or directly alter structures.

The decision drew extensive public comment. David Carter, the appellant, argued the overlay's notice and purpose language requires HPC notification for zoning amendments that apply to properties in the Old Town Historic District. "This applies to zoning amendments that affect the historic district," Carter said, urging the board to sustain the appeal so the HPC would have notice and an opportunity to advise.

Former council member and preservation advocate Sharon Worth told the board her long involvement establishing Old Town protections showed the HPC was intended to be a partner in planning beyond certificates of appropriateness. "Historic preservation and HPC are not only about reviewing and issuing a certificate of appropriateness," Worth said, urging the board to preserve the commission's broader advisory role.

Representatives of Romero House and its supporters urged deference to staff. Frank Filmyer, representing the Oscar Romero Trust, said his client had not applied to alter any structure and supported the planning director's legal interpretation. "Your only decision is about whether the planning director's legal interpretation of the zoning code is correct," Filmyer said.

After public comment and staff rebuttal, board member Hiles moved to deny the appeal (thereby affirming the planning director); McDaniel seconded. The motion passed on a roll-call vote and the board's action affirmed the planning director's interpretation. The chair advised that anyone wishing to challenge the board's decision may file a writ of certiorari in Story County District Court within 30 days.

The board then considered a related petition asking whether any future requests to establish or modify a use within the historic-preservation overlay (when no certificate of appropriateness for alterations or new construction would be required) must be reviewed by HPC. Staff characterized that issue as premature because no permit or application had been filed; the planning director's November written determination had prompted the procedural appeal.

Applicant counsel and members of the public argued about statutory language and whether chapter 31 (historic preservation) should be read to require broader HPC review. Staff reiterated that chapter 31 primarily gives HPC authority over physical alterations, new construction, demolition and certificates of appropriateness, and that a straight change of use without exterior alteration would not necessarily trigger an HPC review.

The board ultimately found the second appeal not ripe for decision because there was no concrete application before the city to trigger HPC review. The board voted to deny that procedural appeal on that basis.

Meeting minutes show the board took both actions formally and closed the session. The board's votes do not decide the merits of any future permit application; staff said specific permit filings with proposed physical changes would still be evaluated for HPC involvement as required by chapter 31.