HomeMy WebLinkAboutA003 - Staff Report dated November 14, 2012 ITEM #: 6
DATE: 11/14/12
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
DATE PREPARED: November 9, 2012
MEETING DATE: November 14, 2012
REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO REBUILD A NON-CONFORMING
STRUCTURE: To allow the reconstruction of a multi-family apartment at 301 S. 5m
Street.
PROPERTY OWNER: South Meadows Housing Cooperative
APPLICANT: Chuck Winkleblack
LOCATION: 301 S. 5th Street
ZONING: High Density Residential
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: On July 16, 2012, fire heavily damaged the apartment
building at 301 S. 5th Street. The building contained 56 units (a mixture of one-, two-,
and three-bedroom units) on the upper two floors. The lowest floor contains garages
and some mechanical equipment. The owners now seek to rebuild the structure with 24
one-bedroom and 16 three-bedroom units. Since the structure received damage greater
than 70 percent of its assessed valuation, the structure must be rebuilt in accordance
with current zoning regulations or with a Special Use Permit approved by the Zoning
Board of Adjustment under the terms described below.
APPLICABLE LAW:
The laws applicable to this case file are as follows:
Chapter 29, Section 29.307(3)(c)(ii) of the Ames Municipal Code states:
(ii) Any nonconforming structure damaged to the extent of more than 70% of its
assessed value may not be rebuilt, repaired, or used unless the rebuilt structure
conforms with all regulations of the district in which it is located or unless the
Zoning Board of Adjustment approves the reconstruction by granting a Special
Use Permit after determining that restoration will be made to the fullest extent
possible in conformance with applicable zoning regulations.
Chapter 29, Section 29.1503(4)(a), (b) and (e) states:
(4) Review Criteria. Before a Special Use Permit application can be approved, the
Zoning Board of Adjustment shall establish that the following general standards,
as well as the specific standards outlined in subsection (b) below, where
applicable, have been or shall be satisfied. The Board's action shall be based on
stated findings of fact. The conditions imposed shall be construed as limitations
on the power of the Board to act. A mere finding that a use conforms to those
conditions or a recitation of those conditions, unaccompanied by specific findings
of fact, shall not be considered findings of fact for the purpose of complying with
this Ordinance.
(a) General Standards. The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall review
each application for the purpose of determining that each proposed use
meets the following standards, and in addition, shall find adequate
evidence that each use in its proposed location will:
(i) Be harmonious with and in accordance with the general principles
and proposals of the Land Use Policy Plan of the City;
(ii) Be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be
harmonious in appearance with the existing or intended character
of the general vicinity and that such a use will not change the
essential character of the area in which it is proposed;
(iii) Not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future uses in the
same general vicinity;
(iv) Be served adequately by essential public facilities and services
such as highways, streets, police, fire protection, drainage
structure, refuse disposal, water and sewage facilities, and/or
schools;
(v) Not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for
public facilities and services;
(vi) Not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment or
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any person,
property or general welfare by reason of excessive production of
traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors; and
(vii) Be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zone in which it is
proposed to locate such use.
(b) Residential Zone Standards. The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall
review each application for the purpose of determining that each proposed
use in a residential zone meets the following standards, as well as those
set forth in Section 29.1503(4)(a) above and, in addition, shall find
adequate evidence that each use in its proposed location will:
(i) Not create excessively higher levels of traffic than the predominant
pattern in the area and not create additional traffic from the
proposed use that would change the street classification and such
traffic shall not lower the level of service at area intersections;
(ii) Not create a noticeably different travel pattern than the predominant
pattern in the area. Special attention must be shown to deliveries or
2
service trips in a residential zone that are different than the normal
to and from work travel pattern in the residential area;
(iii) Not generate truck trips by trucks over 26,000 g.v.w. (gross vehicle
weight) to and from the site except for waste collection vehicles and
moving vans;
(iv) Not have noticeably different and disruptive hours of operation;
(v) Be sufficiently desirable for the entire community that the loss of
residential land is justifiable in relation to the benefit;
(vi) Be compatible in terms of structure placement, height, orientation
or scale with the predominate building pattern in the area;
(vii) Be located on the lot with a greater setback or with landscape
buffering to minimize the impact of the use on adjacent property;
and
(viii) Be consistent with all other applicable standards in the zone.
(e) Conditions. The Board may impose such additional conditions it
deems necessary for the general welfare, for the protection of individual
property rights, and for ensuring that the intent and objectives of this
Ordinance will be observed.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS:
Staff makes the following findings of facts:
General Standards
FINDING 1. The Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP) map designates this site as High Density
residential (RH). This is an area of the city characterized by large multi-family
structures. The existing use is consistent with that designation.
FINDING 2. The owner proposes to rebuild the structure similar to the pre-damaged
structure and the two adjacent apartments that the housing cooperative owns to the
west. However, the structure will differ slightly in that the central wing will be separated
from the two side wings by an open breezeway. However, the proposed changes will
not be out of character for this zoning district.
FINDING 3. The owner proposes to reconstruct the same use as was there previously.
FINDING 4. No public utility or infrastructure improvements will be needed.
FINDING 5. The reconstruction of the building site will not generate additional traffic,
noise, or fumes in the area.
FINDING 6. The use of the site as an apartment building is allowed within the High
Density Residential zoning district. Only because it wishes to rebuild does it require a
Special Use Permit.
3
Residential Zone Standards
FINDING 7. The proposed reconstructed apartment building will contain fewer units
than the previous apartment, thus likely reducing traffic impacts. No additional truck
traffic is anticipated after reconstruction. There is adequate capacity on S. 5t" Street to
accommodate the rebuilt use.
FINDING 8. No negative impacts in the traffic patterns will occur as the structure will be
rebuilt in the same location, with the same access points, and with fewer units.
FINDING 9. Heavy traffic to the site will be typical for a high density use—waste
collection vehicles and moving vans.
FINDING 10. The rebuilt apartment will operate the same as previously.
FINDING 11. Not applicable as the proposed use will also be residential use.
FINDING 12. The rebuilt apartment will have the same massing as previously, although
it will have internal breezeways, reducing the overall volume of structure. It will have the
same footprint as previously and matches the setbacks of the sister structures to the
west.
FINDING 13. The owner proposes to rebuild in the same footprint, taking advantage of
the surviving garages and foundation. Improved landscaping will be installed to reduce
the nonconforming perimeter landscaping.
FINDING 14. The owner has reduced or removed a number of nonconformities on the
site. These nonconformities relate to landscaping and parking.
Specifically, the previous structure required 102 parking spaces, although it provided
only 78. The rebuilt structure, because of the reconfiguration of unit types and the
introduction of the breezeways, requires 84 parking spaces and provides 77. The
parking deficit is reduced from 24 spaces to 7 spaces. Many of the parking spaces are
undersized, not meeting the required 9 feet by 19 feet size. However, attempts to
enlarge them to meet the standards would reduce the ability to get the 77 spaces. The
parking spaces are proposed to remain as previously striped.
The zoning ordinance requires that parking and drive aisles be screened from adjacent
rights-of-way and residential properties. Very little perimeter landscaping exists on the
site. Staff looked at locations that could accommodate this perimeter landscaping. The
applicant proposes screening the north side of the eastern drive aisle and one side of
the western drive aisle.
The east side of the east drive aisle abuts the property line, making installation of
landscaping infeasible. Reducing the drive aisle width to accommodate the landscaping
would reduce the drive aisle below the minimum width of 24 feet. The north side of the
parking area lies within a storm water easement. Placing landscaping is this type of
4
easement is discouraged in general.
The dumpster location will be screened and relocated to the northwest corner of the
building. This results in the loss of one parking space.
In order to accommodate the requirements of the flood plain ordinance, the new
condenser units are mounted on the wall of the building, rather than in the first floor
parking area. New arborvitae and lilacs will serve to screen these units.
CONCLUSION: Based on the staff's analysis and the findings above, staff finds that the
General Standards of the Ames Municipal Code Section 29.1503(4)(a) and the
Residential Standards of Section 29.1503(4)(b) have been satisfied. Staff finds that the
number of conformities of the existing site have been removed or reduced to the
greatest extent practicable.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: Notification of the proposal and the public hearing was sent
to property owners within 200 feet of the site. One phone call was received from a
neighboring property owner who had no objections. No negative comments were
received. The owner submitted the attached "Adjoining Property Owner Statement" with
the signatures of nine adjacent property owners indicating their support.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . The Zoning Board of Adjustment can approve the Special Use Permit to allow the
reconstruction of the multi-family housing at 301 S. 5th Street as shown on the
site plan updated and submitted on November 8, 2012 by FOX Engineering
based upon the findings and conclusions of staff.
2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment can deny the Special Use Permit to allow the
reconstruction of the multi-family housing at 301 S. 5th Street as shown on the
site plan updated and submitted on November 8, 2012 by FOX Engineering if the
Board determines that the site plan does not comply with the criteria of Section
29.1503(4).
3. Action on this request can be postponed and referred back to City staff and/or
the applicant for additional information.
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions above, it is the recommendation of
the Department of Planning and Housing that the Zoning Board of Adjustment approve
Alternative #1 to approve the Special Use Permit to allow the reconstruction of the multi-
family housing at 301 S. 5th Street as shown on the site plan updated and submitted on
November 8, 2012 by FOX Engineering based upon the findings and conclusions of
staff.
5
SAPLAN_SHR\Council Boards Commissions\ZBA\Special Use Permits\301_S_5th_Rebuild_SUP-11-14-12.docx
6
3
p ,
�v
i
E °
�q
„a-
3
{
3
er•,
Ames
Aerial Photograph (2008)
�I Feet
(7 25 50
7
Adjoining Property Owner Statement
(Completion of this form by the applicant is optional.)
To Whom It May Concern:
We,the undersigned, own property adjoining Ames, Iowa.
It is our understanding that50041-) I 01JCW has filed an
appeal with the Zoning Board of Adjustment to allow r{ -G OtAl(
As adjoining property owners, we would have no objections to the issuance of this building
permit for the purposes stated above.
NAME ADDRESS DATE
tz--
N,
'V
7-
8