Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Variance to allow front yard parking at 201 Gray Avenue [) L E, CITY OF AMES, IOWA PEFEEB - 8 2016 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMEN CITY QLEGK IN THE MATTER OF THE OF AMES, IOWA APPLICATION OF ALPHA GAMMA CASE NO. 15-24 RHO ETA ALUMNI CORPORATION FOR A VARIANCE, §§29.406(7)(c) GEOCODE NO. 09-09-227-020 & 29.1504(4), AMES MUNICIPAL CODE, TO ALLOW FRONT YARD PARKING DECISION & ORDER ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 201 GRAY AVENUE FACTS The subject lot is located in the "RH" (Residential High Density) zoning district and in the "O-UIE" (East University Impacted Area) zoning overlay district. The lot is located at an unusual intersection where Gray Avenue, Gable Lane, and Sunset Drive all intersect, forming a semi-circle street frontage. The site is used by the Alpha Gamma fraternity. The property is on the east end of a block and has streets on three sides. Because of the street curvature, the property has a front yard setback on three sides and a side yard setback from the other property boundary on the west. The Applicant desires to expand its fraternity house. 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 existing front yard driveway is shown on a 1993 approved site plan, although the driveway predated that approved plan. Historical 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. The Applicant 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. 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 Applicant has reconsidered their desire for an expansion and that approved project has not proceeded. The Applicant 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. Staff presented evidence that all of the criteria for a variance have not been met. Specifically, staff noted that the unnecessary hardship criterion was not met because the property could still yield a reasonable return if the variance was denied. Also, staff found that the plight of the owners was not due to unique circumstances because parking is always prohibited in RH zones. Staff added that granting the variance would violate the spirit of the ordinance. Lastly, given that there is a lack of evidence of a significant disparity in fairness for this fraternity verses others, the substantial justice standard is not met. The Applicant presented contrary evidence that the criteria for a variance have been met. Specifically, the Applicant stated that the number of front yard parking spaces would be reduced by one, maintaining the spirit of the ordinance. There is an unnecessary hardship without the granting of the variance because fraternity members want off street parking; therefore, the more parking the fraternity can provide the more members they will attract, which will result in more revenue. This property is on an unusual lot, which makes it unique meeting the unique circumstances requirement. The locality is a Greek housing neighborhood and members have parked in the front yard for some time; therefore, maintaining the front yard parking would not alter the character of the locality. Lastly, allowing the fraternity to renovate and maintain the Greek house in this neighborhood will improve the Greek house neighborhood. DECISION The Board considers the standards applicable to variances from the provisions of the zoning ordinance. In this case, the Board finds that all the criteria for a variance required by Ames Municipal Code section 29.1504(4) have not been met. First, denial of the variance would not cause an economic hardship that would effectively take all beneficial use of the property from the owners. Second, the plight of the owners is not due to unique circumstances. Third, it appears there are practical alternatives to a variance. Although the requested variance would not alter the essential character of the area, the spirit of the ordinance would not be observed if the variance was granted. ORDER WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the applicant is DENIED a variance from the prohibition of front yard parking, sections 29.406(7)(c) and 29.1504(4) of the Ames Municipal Code, to allow front yard parking at the property located at 201 Gray Avenue. Any person desiring to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the filing of this decision. Done this 13t' day of January, 2016. &i4 6'� 0— Erin Cam Matthew Koehler Secretary to the Board Vice Chair