HomeMy WebLinkAboutA9 ITEM#
DATE: 05/27/15
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CASE FILE NO.: ZBA-15-09
DATE PREPARED: May 20, 2015
APPLICATION
FOR VARIANCE: To allow the construction of an addition to a fraternity
house that does not meet the minimum required
setback of 25 feet from the front property line. The
applicant proposes an addition with one corner having
a front setback of 20 feet.
APPLICANT: Alpha Gamma Rho Eta Alumni Corporation
511 Washington Ave., Cedar Falls, Iowa
LOCATION: 201 Gray Avenue (See Attachment A)
ZONING: Residential High Density (RH)
East University Impacted Area (O-UIE)
BACKGROUND:
Alpha Gamma Rho Eta Alumni Corporation intends to expand its fraternity house on
Gray Avenue in Ames, in order to provide more space for its Chapter members to study,
to gather for meetings and events, and other uses. The chapter currently has 89
members, who all live in the residence. Although the chapter is not increasing the
number of members, it finds that the expansion of the spaces in the house for these
purposes is needed to retain current membership in an environment that is increasingly
competitive for Greek chapter membership.
The residence is located an unusual intersection where Gray Avenue, Gable Lane and
Sunset Drive all intersect forming a semi-circle street frontage. (See Attachment A
Location Map) The property is on the east end of a block and has streets on three sides.
Because of the street curvature it has a front setback on three sides and side setback
from the other property boundary on the west. The on-site parking is located between
this west property boundary and the building, which is the only location that meets the
zoning requirements for the location of parking. Only about 20 feet is available between
the north and south ends of the building and the setback. There is approximately 40 feet
for an addition to the east between the building and the setback line.
The proposed addition is 5,400 square feet on three levels. The lower level will contain
fixed seating for presentations and meetings, as well as an open, level area for overflow
1
and for more informal gatherings. The first floor of the addition will provide a living room,
replacing the existing living room, which is being renovated for a conference room and
circulation space. The second floor will add 14 study spaces, which the applicant has
stated relieves overcrowding of existing study spaces, where three students use space
designed for two students. (See Attachment C Proposed Floor Plans)
The current main entrance is in the approximate midpoint of the east fagade of the
building. The addition is to north of the entrance, about 43 feet wide and extending east
a distance of 47 feet from the current east face of the building. The northeast corner of
the addition will be 20 feet from the front property line, or five feet closer than the 25-
foot minimum front setback. (See Attachment B Proposed Site Plan and Attachment E
Existing Building Images)
The attached site plan has not yet been reviewed by the City Development Review
Committee to determine if it meets all of the codes and standards of the city. In this
case, the applicant is not able to proceed with the detailed design necessary to
complete the Minor Site Development Plan application, without first determining whether
a variance will be granted. The Zoning Board of Adjustment is only considering approval
of the variance to locate the building footprint 20 feet from the front property line and it's
not approving the final design or appearance of the building, which ultimately may vary
from what is presented at this time.
APPLICABLE POLICIES AND LAWS:
Pertinent portions of the Land Use Policy Plan and the Sub-Area Plan for the
University-Impacted Area are as follows. The Sub-Area Plan designates the area of
Greek houses within which the subject property is located as the East RH District.
• The University-Impacted Area will be a distinct, unique area within the community
with a great a deal of variety in activities and appearance. It will be made up of
districts, each with a distinct character, well defined by building use, type, scale,
setting, intended activity level, and other characteristics.
• The East RH District is distinctive, with attractive front landscapes, stylized
architecture, enduring materials, variety in form, and richness of detail. A few
newer buildings here and there are similar in scale and architectural quality.
• To make good use of resources, land uses within the UTA will be intensified,
while also conserving and preserving its existing valuable characteristics by
assuring compatibility between existing and new development.
• Demolition of structures originally built as Greek houses should only be allowed
where the original intended use or any other permitted use could provide no
economic return, as determined by the City Council.
2
• The East RH District is one of the most likely locations of historically and
architecturally significant structures, due to the historical pattern of development
of housing for students and faculty and the route of the historic Lincoln Highway:
Pertinent Sections of the Ames Municipal Code:
Chapter 29, Table 29.704(3) of the Municipal Code establishes the minimum principal
building setback from a front lot line of 25 feet.
Ames Municipal Code, Section 29.1504(4) states that "a variance shall be granted only
if all of the following standards are satisfied:"
(a) The granting of the variance shall not be contrary to the public interest.
(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 PETITION:
The applicant has submitted responses to the variance criteria. See the attached
supporting information prepared by the applicant as part of the "Variance Application
Packet". Portions of this information in addition to the staff findings are summarized
below.
FINDINGS OF FACTS & CONCLUSIONS:
Staff makes the following findings of facts and conclusions for each of the six criteria:
(a) The granting of the variance shall not be contrary to the public interest.
FINDING: Front setbacks provide a space without buildings along a street with a
minimum and often consistent width. Thus front setbacks preserve access to light
and air for properties and for required fire protection measures to meet safety
3
requirements. Because of the location of the subject property where three streets
intersect, the open space between the front of the Apha Gamma Rho house and
the buildings and front setbacks to the east is wider than is found along most
blocks with straight street alignments and 25-foot front setbacks, such as Ash
Avenue one block west. (See Attachment A Location Map)
Setbacks also often create a uniform alignment of the front faces of buildings
along each side of the street. This East UTA area recognizes front yards as an
important character attribute of the area overall. Due to the curved alignment of
the streets surrounding this property, a uniform alignment of the front faces of
buildings is not apparent on this site compared to rectangular sites.
Because of the curvature of the street right-of-way line and setback line, the front
face of the proposed building will exceed the minimum setback requirement with
the exception of only one corner. (See Attachment B Proposed Plan)
CONCLUSION: If the variance from the front setback is granted, the public
interest in building separation to provide light and air, emergency access, and a
uniform appearance of building faces down the street will not be compromised.
Therefore the Board can conclude that this criterion is met.
(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.
FINDING: The application states that a reasonable return can be expected only if
the Greek residence remains at or near capacity. This statement is consistent
with financial documentation provided in the past few years by other Greek
chapters. The applicant also states that competition among Greek houses, as
well as with University housing and private apartments, to attract residents
creates the need to "constantly strive to update facilities to maintain occupancy
by increasing the quality of living."
Another design option was considered for providing the proposed study rooms
and community spaces while maintaining the required setback. (See Attachment
C Alternative Plan) The applicant has provided cost comparison information
showing that option provided 4,400 square feet at a total cost $1,100,000, and 8
study rooms or $137,500 per study space. The proposed plan provides 5,400
square feet at a total cost of $1,350,000, and 14 study spaces or $96,430 per
space. (See Attachment E Cost Information)
The applicant and architect explained to city staff that another option of reducing
the east-west dimension of the addition to comply with the minimum setback was
considered. Providing nearly the same floor area as is desired by increasing the
4
north-south dimension is likely not possible due to constraints of the existing
building and of the building code. Therefore, only eight additional study spaces
could be provided if this approach is used to comply with the minimum setbacks
without expanding the area to the south.
CONCLUSION: This property has been providing a reasonable return with the
current building. In order to maintain that return, the quality of the chapter house
must continue to be competitive. The applicant has demonstrated that the
proposed plan is best way to provide all of the proposed improvements and
spaces. However, the applicant has not demonstrated that anything less than all
of the improvements and spaces proposed will not be competitive. It may be
possible to add 14 study spaces in a smaller addition by reducing the size of
other gathering and living spaces in the addition, and thus continue to provide a
reasonable return. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is
not met.
(ii) The plight of the owners is due to unique circumstances and not to
the general conditions in the neighborhood.
FINDINGS: Due to its location and shape, the subject property has a 25-foot
setback on three sides of the principle building. The north-south dimension of the
existing building also limits the space available on the north and south of the
building.
CONCLUSION: Although several other Greek houses are located on a corner
with a curved front setback line, the subject property is the only one with this
condition on three sides and only one lot line with a smaller setback. Therefore,
the Board can conclude that unique circumstances exist in this case that
present a hardship from the literal enforcement of the ordinance and this
criterion is met.
(iii) The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential
character of the locality.
FINDING: This neighborhood is characterized by large Greek houses in a wide
variety of styles, many historic, using brick and stone as a primary material and
with large, landscaped front yards. The front yard is the only location on this
property where the building desired additional space can be provided. The
proposed addition will intrude into the front setback at only one corner and thus
not obscure the view of other Greek houses.
Although the design of the proposed addition may change, the zoning
requirements for this zoning district include architectural standards that promote
compatibility with the existing architecture of the neighborhood.
CONCLUSION: A variance to allow one corner of the addition to extend to 20
feet from the front property line will not obstruct the view of other Greek houses.
5
A visually prominent addition with appropriate and compatible design can
strengthen the essential character of the neighborhood. Therefore, the Board
can conclude that this criterion is met.
(c) The spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is
granted.
FINDING: Among other purposes, the East University Impacted Area zoning
district ordinance seeks to maintain Greek housing opportunities. (Ames
Municipal Code Section 29.1110(1)). Through its architectural standards and tax
incentives, City policies support preserving the historic architecture in this
neighborhood. The spirit of the front yard setback standard is described under
the intent in Criterion 1, the minimal amount of encroachment with a corner does
demonstrate consistency with the intent of keeping open front yard space.
CONCLUSION: Approving this variance helps preserve the existing building and
allows an addition that will continue and improve its use for Greek students at
Iowa State University, which is the intent of the zoning ordinance and city
policies. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is met.
(d) Substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting the variance.
FINDING: Because of increasing student enrollment and interest in the Greek
system, many of the other Greek residences in this neighborhood have been
improved, including a new Greek house next door to the subject property and
another new Greek house one block north. Other than the front yard, the only
other portion of the subject property where the building can be expanded
significantly is the only location where the zoning ordinance allows parking.
CONCLUSION: The variance in this case will provide substantial justice in
expected use of a site consistent with the land use policies of the city, the intent
of the high density residential zoning and the design standards of the overlay
zoning without detriment to the neighboring properties. The variance supports
equitable investment to meet the evolving needs of its members as other local
chapters have done as well. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this
criterion is met.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve this request for a variance for 201
Gray Avenue for a building addition with one corner having a front setback of 20
feet, if it makes findings that support the criteria that the variance is necessary for a
reasonable return on the property.
2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny this request for a variance for 201 Gray
Avenue for a building addition with one corner having a front setback of 20 feet,
based upon the above findings and conclusions.
6
3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may table this variance and seek further
information from the applicant or from staff.
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:
It is the conclusion of City staff, based upon an analysis of the applicant's proposal to
construct an addition to the Greek residence at 201 Gray Avenue that the findings
support five of the criteria that must be met for the Zoning Board of Adjustment to grant
a variance to the minimum required front setback. However, staff concludes that
evidence has not been provided that an addition confined by the front setback will not
support continued reasonable return on the property.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Planning and Housing Department that
the Zoning Board of Adjustment act in accordance with Alternative #2, which is to
deny this request for a variance for 201 Gray Avenue for a building addition with
one corner having a front setback of 20 feet, based upon the above findings and
conclusions.
7
Attachment A
Location Map
oo m d�.
7zl
l ��" � ,y ,RIC HFRDSON CT
Subject Itm 4
My�p
Z Area
41,
! r
pia
4 t' $ GABLEpLN 1° P4 t Wa
SUNSET DRY i a
It _ �"
Yp77,
,fin '
p
Os'�ele
xyP Y ° .az
4 � a
N/
ol
15
77.7
r i OWN=
91m, a TIT
w 5 ` KNAP ST €o
x
........ ��� _,,,, _. _, _.. _
Location Map
201 Gray Avenue
13
Attachment B
Proposed Site Plan
n
o
f
Extension into
Front Setback
,$ I l
-
°o
z�
u ,
9
Attachment C-1
Proposed Floor Plans
- - - - --- --- -r - - --- ------
�1
i
F-i
.................. .-------------------- -----------------
t i
I € ❑ ❑ I
s � -
fJ-
� I
Lower Level
-------------- --- -- - --- - - - ------------- -----
i . ; i
it ul i
III
€ i
r r �
�.
u m
lf/ I i
I
First Floor
10
Attachment C-2
Proposed Floor Plans
-
— ---
1
. i
�. - .....
- I
.!'. ..
I
IL'
I —____—_ — _---
I�
IW I
li II
3............................. ........ -- tl
I �
II i i
- - - - -------- - --- - - - - - - - - - -
;F
i.
Second Floor
All
i; 4 it
.t!
A
of
IN
r. £ Al
i11111 Ill iil IN11i1
Ire 1 ! 1 13 fill
_ 8. � 1 !S
{E��,1®®p r'ryyy � f �asqq
..r4l �iN3B�p+�i,,l7tt4i�� ;, Bb Fit
t
M. li
t i -1 pl ilt�Il}
tilt
lot
air no oil
"I'll
9 onA!
n
I
iii0 fti i111 F't1
16A19iY
V I P-N FRC-),•,,E?,ST VIE''s'FROM So!JTH',E,AST
11
Attachment D
Alternative Plan
013
� e
f
1
i`..L:VvER
S
u5 ,? \b�3 �•7 EE,
iIII pills ull f19's
HIS si"
w.
foil Ili ewi ��ii
a
{
,,,rrrr rr1"r rtlr rllr MINEfill 111UNIll
Ilil
,....�q villa"
>
VIEW FROM EAST
12
Attachment E
Existing Building Images
lot
t s
3r
�N
s
' ON
Ae ,
e
View from Gray northeast of the property
1v2-W,
�..i..q.... ��. �� .... E^'�/ ..33 3� "� / ,/ ryyT� �u.� •� k i 5 � fle ,�
Ir
w
�s
t� jf ,vr J s, t axsary s''
w
AN
�" •Via, •,,,• ,. �, � .� �;ic� � �E �"�.,"."
K
View from Sunset southeast of the property
13
Attachment F
Cost Information
Correspondence received from applicant on May 4, 2015:
201 Gray Variance Application
Michael Nissly to: Jeff D Benson
Jeff,
If we look at the total cost on a per student study space basis the cost looks like this:
• The preferred design has 5400 sq ft and adds 14 study spaces. Figuring $250/sq
ft gives a total cost of$1,350,000, or 96,430 per space
• The other design which includes the one story room has 4400 sq ft but only 8
study rooms. Total cost $1,100,000, or 137,500 per space
While we are certainly getting more space than just study space, this is a metric that can be
used to show the difference in cost and the impact the variance has on our project.
Michael J. Nissly, AFM
PO BOX 606
Iowa Falls, IA 50126
641-648-4285 (w)
515-689-3412 (c)
14