The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutA001 - Staff Report dated November 9, 2011 ITEM#: 2 DATE: 11-9-11 CITY OF AMES DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE FILE NO.: ZBA 11-20 DATE PREPARED: November 4, 2011 MEETING DATE: November 9, 2011 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE: To allow parking between a building and a major thoroughfare street for the property located at 2900 University Boulevard APPLICANT: Denny Sharp, FEH Associates, Inc. LOCATION: 2900 University Boulevard (ISU Research Park) BACKGROUND: WebFilings is a software company located in the ISU Research Park. They are experiencing growth in their business and need to expand. They have chosen to consolidate three lots (13, 14, and 15) located in the southwestern corner of the Research Park for phase 1, a 60,000 square foot facility with 245 parking spaces. Their approach to the site layout is sensitive to the natural features such as streams, trees, and topography. Therefore, the first phases of parking and building are situated in locations that respect the natural features while also facilitating the potential for the most efficient future expansion. In 2000, the Planned Industrial Zone Development Standards were revised to not allow parking spaces to be located between buildings and streets along "major thoroughfares." The code change occurred after most of the existing development in the area. Existing sites were developed with a significant parking setback(50') but nonetheless were located between buildings and major thoroughfare streets. Airport Road and University Boulevard are considered to be major thoroughfares in the Land Use Policy Plan';therefore, City staff is not able to approve a proposed Minor Site Development Plan showing a 17-stall parking area located between the building and the two streets. Additionally, no curb cuts are allowed on Airport Road, which limits options for parking location. The overall 18-acre site is bordered by three streets and is bisected by a stream, running west to east along the southern third of the property. The proposed building site naturally slopes to the south, toward the creek; therefore, because of the building setback, the location of the subject parking area is approximately seven to nine feet lower than the two adjacent major thoroughfares. The majority of the proposed parking is located on the south side of the creek. Employees will cross the proposed bridge and enter the rear of the 'Chapter 3, Mobility, Major Thoroughfare Plan, Land Use Policy Plan building. Both the Ames Municipal Code (Zoning) and the Americans for Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that handicap-accessible parking stalls be located as close as possible to the main entrance of the building. Therefore, the applicant proposes to combine required ADA parking with visitor parking. Visitor parking for this use would be for courier services or occasional deliveries. A zoning text amendment to remove this parking location restriction is currently in process through the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council. APPLICABLE LAWS: The Development standards for the Planned Industrial Zone impose a restriction on parking location as shown in Table 29.902(3) Ames Municipal Code, below: Table 29.902(3) Planned Industrial(PI)Zone Development Standards DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PI ZONE Maximum FAR 0.35 Minimum Lot Area One Acre Minimum Lot Frontage 100 ft. Minimum Building Setbacks: Street Lot Line 50 ft. Side Lot Line 20 ft. Rear Lot Line 30 ft. Lot Line Abutting an R Zoned Lot 50 ft. side 50 ft.rear Maximum Building Setbacks: None Street Lot Line Landscaping in Setbacks Abutting an R Zoned Lot 20 ft. P,U. See Section 29.403 Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage 70% Minimum Landscaped Area 20% Maximum Height 100 ft. Parking Allowed Between Buildings and Streets Yes,except along major thoroughfares Drive-Through Facilities Permitted No Outdoor Display Permitted No Outdoor Storage Permitted Yes,See Section 29.405; Screened per Section 29.403(1)(c) Trucks and Equipment Permitted Yes VARIANCE CRITERIA: The variance criteria may be found in the Ames Municipal Code, Section 29.1504(4)and is as follows: (a) The granting of the variance shall not be contrary to the public interest. 2 (b) That without granting of the variance, and due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. Unnecessary hardship exists when: (i) The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in the zone. (ii) The plight of the owners is due to unique circumstances and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood (iii) The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. (c) The spirit of the ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is granted. (d) Substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting the variance. BASIS OF APPEAL: The applicant has submitted full responses to the variance criteria. See the attached "Supporting Information" prepared by the applicant, part of the"Variance Application Packet". FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS: Staff makes the following findings of facts and conclusions: (a) The granting of the variance shall not be contrary to the public interest. FINDING: The proposed parking between the building and street is head-in parking directed away from the streets. The subject parking area is landscaped and located hundreds of feet away from the streets. Additionally, all of the development in the vicinity has occurred with parking being located between the buildings and streets. CONCLUSION: The proposed location, orientation, and landscape buffering of the front parking mitigates its visual impact from the major thoroughfares, consistent with the code provisions intent. (b) That without granting of the variance, and due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. Unnecessary hardship exists when: (i) The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in the zone. (ii) The plight of the owners is due to unique circumstances and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood. 3 FINDING: The site is encumbered by three street frontages and a bisecting stream. This is not a common characteristic of sites in the area. These site conditions leave only one side of the building that does not face a right-of-way. They also compel the applicant to design parking and building layouts around the stream location, which further limits the site's design options. CONCLUSION: The special site conditions create an unnecessary hardship if the parking location criteria are strictly adhered to. Therefore the Zoning Board of Adjustment can find that these two criteria are met. (iii) The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. FINDING: Existing sites in the area have been developed with parking between the buildings and streets along major thoroughfares set back at least 50 feet. CONCLUSION: Because of the existing development pattern, the granting of the variance would not alter the essential character as long the parking was no closer than 50 feet to the streets. Therefore,the Board can conclude that this criterion has been met as long as a condition not allowing parking closer than 50 feet is imposed. (c) The spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is granted. FINDING: The applicant proposes perimeter landscaping for all parking areas. The amount of parking between the building and street is a small proportion of the overall number of parking stalls. The design of the parking area includes head-in parking to minimize headlight glare, and is landscaped around its perimeter. Finally, the parking is located to allow an additional building closer to the street, which will then place the proposed parking behind the future front building, as the code otherwise requires. CONCLUSION: The appearance of the proposed parking is minimized by design, and will therefore achieve the desired effect of minimizing the appearance of parking from the street. Therefore, the Board can find that the spirit of the ordinance is observed, and the criterion is met. (d) Substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting the variance. FINDING: The applicant proposes parking that is no closer than 50 feet to the streets. There is nothing in the Municipal Code to ensure this setback for future phases. CONCLUSION: Although the applicant proposes placing parking no closerthan 50 feet to the street in the current phase, future phases of development could allowthis 4 without ZBA intervention. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion can be met if a 50-foot parking area setback from the street is imposed for this site. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve this request for a variance to allow parking between buildings and major thoroughfare streets with the condition that there is a 50-foot setback from streets for all parking areas. 2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny this request for a variance. 3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may table this variance and seek further information from the applicant or from staff. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: The Findings of Fact and Conclusions above provide the necessary evidence to allow the Board to conclude that the criteria for a variance required by Ames Municipal Code Section 29.1504(4) have been met. Therefore it is the recommendation of the staff that the Board act in accordance with Alternative #1, which is to approve the request for a variance to allow parking between buildings and major thoroughfare streets with the condition that there is a 50-foot setback from all streets for all parking areas on the site. S:\PLAN_SHR\Council Boards Commissions\ZBA\Variances\2900 University Boulevard WebFilings parking Variance 11-09-11.doc 5