HomeMy WebLinkAboutA8 t
ITEM#
DATE: 01-13-16
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CASE FILE NO.: Z BA-15-24
DATE PREPARED: January 8, 2016
APPLICATION
FOR VARIANCE: A variance to Section 29.406(7)(c) prohibiting parking
within the front yard, due to a proposed enlargement
of the building.
APPLICANT: Alpha Gamma Rho Eta Alumni Corporation
511 Washington Ave., Iowa 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 desires to expand its fraternity house on
Gray Avenue in Ames. The current driveway and parking is considered non-conforming
by the City in its location and configuration. The proposed site plan and building
elevations indicate that there will be an expansion of space along most of the front of
the building where the existing parking exists. Doing so requires the relocation of the
front yard drive aisle and parking about 15 to 20 feet closer to the sidewalk. However,
parking is not allowed in front of a building in this zoning district and the removal of this
non-conformity would preclude replacing it anywhere in the front yard. To accommodate
the replacement, the fraternity is seeking a variance.
The residence is located at 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 property line on the west. Most of 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. The existing front yard drive way is
shown on a 1993 approved site plan, although the driveway predated that approved
plan. (Historic aerial photographs do not show the driveway in 1970.) It also appears
that between 2008 and 2013, the driveway was widened, lessening the distance to the
sidewalk by about 4 feet.
1
The fraternity sought and was granted a variance in May, 2015. The variance was to
allow a corner of a new addition to encroach 5.8 feet into the front setback. The addition
has a footprint of 1 ,645 square feet and 5,348 square feet of floor space over four
floors. In that design, the existing parking was to remain untouched and therefore could
be maintained as a conforming improvement on the property. Subsequent to the Board
granting a variance, staff approved the Minor Site Development Plan for the project.
However, the fraternity has reconsidered their desires for an expansion and that
approved project has not proceeded. The fraternity now seeks to enlarge the building in
a different scenario that fully meets the 25-foot front yard setback, but displaces existing
parking on the site. The proposal to replace the parking results in relocating the
driveway and parking spaces about 20 feet closer to the sidewalk.
The attached site plan has not yet been formally 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 allow the reestablishment of parking in the front yard
once the existing parking is removed for the building expansion.
An unofficial submittal of building plans accompanied this request for a variance. It
appears that the purpose of the enlargement is similar to that of May, 2015—to add
amenity space, such as an improved living room, conference room, and study spaces. It
is clear from the applicant that no additional bedrooms or bed space will be added.
Capacity will remain at 84 beds, necessitating 28 parking spaces (1 per 3 bedrooms)
that staff has previously accounted for on the subject site.
APPLICABLE POLICIES AND LAWS:
The following laws and policies are meant to provide context for reviewing the variance
criteria as some of the criteria relate to the character of the area and the spirit of the
ordinance. 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.
2
• 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.
• 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:
The applicant seeks a variance to the City's prohibition on front yard parking, that is
parking between the primary fagade of a building and the street for Group Living uses.
Chapter 29, Section 29.406 (7) (c) of the Municipal Code states:
"For Group Living uses in any "RL," RM, "RH," "UCRM," "FS-RL," or "FS-RM"
zone, no parking shall be permitted between the primary fagade and the street
on an interior lot. In addition, any parking between a recessed fagade and the
street shall require a setback of 50 feet. Parking is permitted in the side or rear
yard. On a corner lot, no parking is allowed between the street and any
secondary fagade.
Ames Municipal Code, Section 29.1504(4) states that "Pursuant to Iowa law, 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.
3
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: Zoning standards address minimum parking requirements and front
yard area requirements. The restriction on front yard parking is intended to
reduce the over-display of automobiles—parking is intended to be in the side or
rear of the lot only. In this case, the parking has been there for about five
decades, but is non-conforming under current standards. The 1993 site plan
shows it having 9 spaces along the north edge. The 2015 site plan is the same.
Because of the curvature of the street right-of-way line, the existing driveway is a
prominent feature on this lot. It has two access points on the street and arcs
toward, then away from, the building. The furthest point of the arc is about 45 feet
from the sidewalk. The proposed realignment places that point about 30 feet from
the sidewalk. The bulk of the drive is pushed to the south, creating a squashed
arc. In addition, the parking is proposed to be along the south side of the
driveway. This puts some of the cars 30 feet closer to the sidewalk than under
the current situation.
CONCLUSION: The public interest for this area is to maintain the aesthetic
character of the neighborhood and to lessening the appearance of vehicles as
viewed from the street and adjacent properties. The current parking is non-
conforming. If the variance to allow the front yard parking is approved, it would be
viewed as increasing the degree of non-conformity compared to the existing
situation, giving the parked vehicles much more prominence than they currently
have. Therefore the Board can conclude that this criterion is not 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
4
e
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. To that end, the fraternity sought an expansion of
their house in May, 2015 that met their desires at that time.
CONCLUSION: The applicant has already demonstrated that their desires to
increase amenity space have been met—it being the approval of the site plan for
the expansion consistent with the front setback variance that was granted in May,
2015. There is certainly a reasonable return with the currently approved site plan
and if this variance was denied there would be no hardship on expanding the
home. As was the case with the previous variance request, staff does not believe
the applicant has demonstrated satisfactorily that the only way to have
reasonable return on their investment is with approval of this variance and that a
smaller addition or remodeling would not meet most of the interests. 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: There is no doubt that the site is relatively rare—having a front
setback along three sides of the lot. However, the remedy was the site plan
approved in May, 2015 with an expansion that did not affect front yard parking.
That site plan kept all the existing front yard parking and allowed one corner of
the building to encroach 5.8 feet into the required setback.
CONCLUSION: With this lot being unique in its situation, the issue of complying
with zoning standards is complicated. Staff previously believed the variance for a
front yard setback encroachment by the building did meet this standard for a
unique circumstance due to the three sides of the lot with a 25-foot setback
where a standard lot would not have as large of a setback. However, for parking,
RH zoning always prohibits parking between the building and the street,
regardless of the configuration of the lot. Therefore, the Board cannot
conclude that unique circumstances exist in this case that present a
hardship from the literal enforcement of the ordinance and this criterion is
not 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. Part of the purpose for the East Impact
Overlay is to maintain the aesthetic value and landscape appearance of the
properties as viewed from the street. In many instance, parking in the front yard
occurs on various sites in this area. However, with the adoption of the current
zoning ordinance in 2000, such parking is considered non-conforming and is
5
removed whenever practicable. For parking variances granted for Delta Tau
Delta and Sigma Chi, the approvals were to maintain existing conforming parking
lots rather than relocate them to different locations a lot that were closer to the
street.
CONCLUSION: Moving the non-conforming front yard parking about 15 to 20
feet closer to the sidewalk will have a significant aesthetic impact. While staff
found that the previous variance to allow one corner of the building to extend
nearly 6 feet into the setback did not alter the essential character of the locality,
the relocation of the driveway and its 9 parking spaces would alter that character.
Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is not met.
(c) The spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is
granted.
FINDING: The ordinance is explicit in denying front yard parking. It also seeks to
eliminate non-conformities whenever practicable. However, it also supports the
continued viability of Greek houses and seeks to allow them the ability to make
improvements consistent with their needs.
CONCLUSION: Approving this variance would exacerbate an already non-
conforming parking location and reduce open space and green space on the
property. While it would also allow the expansion of the existing Greek house, the
fraternity has another demonstrated and approved method of meeting their
needs—the May, 2015 site plan. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this
criterion is not 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. Staff understands that this fraternity
has a desire to improve its facilities, even if it does not seek to increase
residents. However, the fraternity has already received approval for a site plan
that provides them the ability to meet their stated needs.
CONCLUSION: The previously approved site plan provides bed spaces for 84
men, increased study space, and enlarged living and meeting areas. Granting of
an alternative variance does not provide substantial justice in use of the property.
Additionally, the city does not require that the parking be relocated, it is the
proposed design by the property owner that causes the displacement to the
degree that is proposed. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this
criterion is not met.
6
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny this request for a variance for 201 Gray
Avenue to allow front yard parking, based upon the above findings and conclusions
that none of the criteria are met.
2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve this request for a variance for 201
Gray Avenue to allow front yard parking, if it makes explicit findings that support the
variance criteria.
3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny this request for front yard parking
variance and direct the applicant to seek a variance for reduction of nine parking
spaces on the property to replace the non-conforming driveway with front yard
landscaping.
4. 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 that there are competing interests on this site due to
non-conforming improvements on the property. The City has an interest in promoting
aesthetically pleasing site designs with open front yards and to provide for the minimum
number of required parking spaces. However, the City has no current policy about
favoring a non-conforming landscaping issue or parking issue over another standard.
We find that the circumstances of the site, the prior approval of variance for expansion,
and the intent of the city's ordinance do not support a variance for front yard parking.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Planning and Housing Department that
the Zoning Board of Adjustment act in accordance with Alternative # which is to
deny this request for a variance for 201 Gray Avenue to allow front yard parking,
based upon the above findings and conclusions.
S:\PLAN_SHR\Council Boards Commissions\ZBA\Variances\201_Gray_front_yard_parking_variance-01-13-16.docx
7
ATTACHMENT A; LOCATION MAP
�' g^t^—
G2 4f�
�b � tt'
pm
,�a Xf
r�'"a a
RICHARDSON[ T
w� .. .�:
sF `5 .3`3a'3Y
LINCOLN VJ i
In
Subject Q3 � �
y v Area
f 3�� � by y � � m •L �y�� � fa 9� �.
S L `
kaw
14,'�"+a
RLF
Sm. We
Location Map
I
201 Gray Avenue {
i
I
i
8
ATTACHMENT B: PROPOSED SITE PLAN
GABLE LANE PARKING STALLS
I:XIS I tFIG.26
L;'FRONT YARD -
'� SL I LACK ..
PROPOSED 8UILDING ADDITION
I I
L, �
11 CONFIGURED--'- '� . I.. ..
v,
CO GAIN AUD_ �
STALI.
-FRONT YARD
PARKING
COMPACT-
STALL ?
I
7.
Af
J
BCL-ror,1 c& IVIE=NK, INC. ALPHAGAMMARHO
11^:1 Enyir,r.,-,r- & S,-vayors
M CHKSKA.MN RAMSEY.M,MN SLEEPY EYE.MN aV k'IMN R WILtMAM MN
PROPOSED ADDITION
CNASKA,MN RAMS A MN CERLIA OES MN S,X AMN NOCNFSTER,MN VARIANCE:APPLICATION-SITE FLAN
1' AMES,IA SPENCER,IA OF.MOINCS,IA FPRGO NO
...... ..........:. .�. aa.:,+. .�:::...�. .........
. �. .....,...:., N()',:IF.AI!I li.)"I'
IIfiII12V
9
ATTACHMENT C: EXISTING SITE AND DRIVEWAY [2013 AERIAL PHOTO]
rj
'_ ,.
�\� � ..:•
7-7
� x
Mq.,;
yAsk
} \ £^ y 0.0
� F
41
oij
04
a
? ,1 IF
„ 3 ,.. ate+ p W,
via
cC- a s 1A tits
i Y
�U 1C i rn le s.
.-� Feet
10
ATTACHMENT D: EXISTING BUILDING IMAGES
goal
WE`
3' ~
V
t f.Y
� � f
a
� w
y � S—mtH®q ,ypja�A
� glltt
f �
ZU,A17
g c
vk
'
0.
View from Gray northeast of the property
z:
Rat.aW yy� � b Olt
-
m
• 1'' �a ?+.}R. •t t:§w t+: t � tt�^. c�S"� m�4 1R�k � # �2v�t
3AlL
a
4.
`1
i
View from Sunset southeast of the property
11