Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Restoration of a Nonconforming Structure at 301 S. 4th StreetCITY OF AMES, IOWA FEB - 8 2011 10 CITY CLERK IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF LINCOLN PARK CO- CASE NO. 16-15 OP, INC. FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR REBUILDING OF A DAMAGED GEOCODE NO. 09-11-175-070 NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, § 29.1503 and § 29.307(3)(c)(ii) AMES DECISION & ORDER MUNICIPAL CODE, TO OPERATE AN APARTMENT BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 301 S. 4" STREET. FACTS Mr. Anderson displayed a location map and site plan for the project. The request by the applicant is for approval of a Special Use Permit to Rebuild a Damaged Nonconforming Structure in a Residential Zone, located at 301 S. 4th Street. The property is zoned Residential High Density (RH). The property at 301 S. 4th Street is the site where, on June 6, 2016, a three-story, 33-unit apartment building was severely damaged by fire, and was subsequently demolished by the property owner, due to the extensive fire. The prior building was constructed in 1984 within a GC (General Commercial) zoning district that no longer exists. The site is now zoned RH (Residential High Density), reflecting the use of the site, but the site does not meet a number of current development standards related to site layout for the building location and site improvements for parking and landscaping. This Special Use Permit application is specifically in relation to the reconstruction of the apartment building in relationship to the nonconformities related to the structure itself, this includes the rear setback, total parking spaces, side yard setback, and location of parking in the front yard. In the event the Special Use Permit is denied, the property owner would be required to redevelop the site in conformance with all of the current development and building standards of the City. Additional nonconformities are to be minimized and improved as practical in addition to the approval of the reconstruction of the structure City planner Ray Anderson noted a correction to the report. He said that, in the report, there is a condition stating to add more trees east of the building. The three trees mentioned were said to be on the property, when in fact they are on the adjacent property. It was said this condition would not -apply. Also, the developers intend to plant five more trees on the property. Mr. Anderson also mentioned that the addition described as being 10 feet by 22 feet is actually 30 feet by 22 feet. The applicant wishes to rebuild the apartment building, Oakridge Apartments, on the foundation of the former building, which was salvaged during demolition of the above -ground portion of the building. An expansion of the original building is also proposed with its reconstruction. The addition is a 30 foot by 22 foot (a 660 square foot addition to the building footprint), next to the southwest corner of the existing foundation. The mix of one, two, three and four bedroom units would change in the proposed apartment building. There is a proposed reduction in the total number of dwelling units from 33 previous units to 24 units in the new building. The total number of bedrooms would be reduced, as well, from 69 to 67 bedrooms. The number of parking spaces would also be reduced from 65 to 59 total spaces. Both buildings are three-story, with a basement level exposed on the south side of the building. However, the proposed apartment building is designed with a flat roof. The former apartment building was constructed with a 4/12 pitched roof supporting a more residential appearance with its very basic design and material treatments. The pitched roof is more in keeping with the smaller, multi -family and single family structures that exist along S. 4th Street. Proposed Site Changes: Minimal changes are proposed on the remainder of the site. The existing parking lot and fences on all three sides of the parking lot will remain. It is the intention of the applicant to resurface the existing parking surface, without removing the entire existing asphalt surface. Sections of the parking surface, in need of repair, will be completely replaced. Interior parking lot landscaping includes two medians, 7.5 feet wide, planted with shrubs and trees. The applicant proposes to remove one of three trees on each median, and to replace all of the existing shrubs with vines as the ground cover. The existing foundation plantings, next the front of the building, including understory trees and shrubs, are planned for removal. A mix of coniferous and deciduous shrubs are planned as replacements for the foundation plantings. Three new parking spaces are proposed on the lower level of the site, accessed from S. 5th Street, and the number of handicap -accessible parking spaces would be increased from one to three, including one that is van -accessible, to meet the current ADA requirements. History of Site Development: The original site plan was approved, and a building permit was obtained for construction of the apartment building in 1984. The site plan was later revised in 1986 to add landscaping along the north perimeter of the parking lot. Zoning at the time of approval of the site plan was G-C (General Commercial), which allowed 'residential' as a permitted use. The site was later rezoned to RH (Residential High Density) in May 2000, which allows apartment buildings as a permitted use. Zoning & Land Use of Surrounding Properties: The surrounding neighborhood is a mix of zoning and land uses. Zoning of property to the north, east and west is S-SMD (South Lincoln Sub Area Mixed -Use District). Properties to the south and southeast of the site are zoned as RH (Residential High Density). Land use consists of single-family dwellings along both sides of S. 4th Street. Commercial service and retail uses are located north and east of the site. South of the site are large apartment buildings that line the north side of S. 5th Street. Nonconforming Structure: In accordance with Section 29.307(3)(c)(ii) of the Ames Municipal Code: "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 standards." The following nonconforming site features, are directly related to the proposed apartment building: • Rear Yard Setback. The distance between the building foundation for the apartment building that was destroyed and the rear (east) property line, varies from 11.75 feet at the northeast comer of the site to 11.20 feet at the southeast comer. At the time of site plan approval, the property was zoned as G-C, which required a minimum rear yard setback of 10 feet. The current zoning, RH, requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. Since the rear yard setback of the existing building foundation is less than the required 25 feet minimum, the rear yard setback is nonconforming for a new apartment building constructed on the existing building foundation. - Side Yard Setback: The distance between the building foundation for the apartment building that was destroyed and the side (north) property line varies from 10,10 feet at the northwest comer to 9.3 feet at the northeast comer. At the time of site plan approval, the property was zoned as G-C, which required a minimum side yard setback of 5 feet. The current zoning, RH, requires a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet for three-story buildings. Since the side yard setback of the existing building foundation is less than the required 10 foot minimum, the side yard setback is nonconforming for a new apartment building constructed on the existing building foundation. - Front Yard Parking: The original approved site plan for the apartment building placed parking for the apartment building in the front yard, which is the open space in that portion of a yard between the street and the face of the structure. At the time of site plan approval, the G-C zoning of the site permitted front yard parking. The current zoning, RH, prohibits front yard parking for new apartment buildings. Given the fact that the parking lot for the site currently exists in the front yard and the developer proposes to leave the parking at its current location, the front yard parking on the site is nonconforming for a new apartment building constructed, on the existing building foundation. Total Number of Parking Spaces: The total number of parking spaces required for the original building was 62 spaces for 33 units with a total of 69 bedrooms. A total of 65 spaces (including three off -site) were provided with the original building. The current zoning ordinance would require a total of 74 parking spaces, which is a difference of 9 (74-65=9) fewer spaces provided than what would be required by the current standards. The total number of parking spaces required for the proposed apartment building is 67 spaces for 24 units configured with two, three, and four bedroom units that total 67 bedrooms. A total of 56 parking spaces are proposed on the new site plan with the continued use of three remote parking spaces that exist immediately to the south of the site, which is a difference of 8 (67-56-3=8) fewer spaces provided than what is required by the current zoning standards. The three off -site parking spaces are also considered a nonconformity as remote parking is not permitted within the RH zoning district. Therefore, the number of parking spaces provided with the approved site plan, and with the proposed site plan, does not meet the current zoning standards, which means the number of parking spaces provided on site is nonconforming. Other Nonconforming Site Features and Efforts to Bring into Compliance: There are a number of other nonconforming site features, which were part of the approved site plan. These nonconformities have been documented, and the applicant has eliminated some of the I' i I f Ionconformities, while others remain in the proposed site plan. The nonconforming site features include the following: - Parking Space Dimensions: The length of parking spaces is 0.5 feet to 2.0 feet less than required by current zoning standard, meaning the stall depth is as low as 17 feet where 19 feet is currently required. No changes are proposed by the applicant. • Compact Parking Dimensions: Of the 12 compact parking spaces, only two meet the minimum required dimensions. No changes are proposed by the applicant. - Handicap -Accessible Parking: One space was provided in the approved site plan. Current zoning standards require three spaces. The applicant is proposing three handicap accessible parking spaces in the proposed site plan, which meets the current zoning and ADA requirements. - Drive Aisle Dimensions: The width of the drive aisle between the end of two parking lot medians and the west edge of the drive aisle is 10 feet less than the minimum required width of 24 feet. No changes are proposed by the applicant. • Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping: Landscape strips along the north, south, and west perimeters of the parking lot do not meet the minimum requirements for a minimum width of 5 feet, and for the numbers of trees and shrubs required. No changes are proposed by the applicant. • Sidewalk Between the Main Building: Entrance & the Street: An on -site sidewalk, a minimum of 5 feet wide, is to connect the main entrance of the building to the street. No changes are proposed by the applicant. - Remote Parking: At the time of approval of the site plan, three parking spaces located on the property adjacent to the site were approved as part of the site plan. An agreement was signed by the two property owners agreeing to use of the three remote parking spaces. Remote parking is not permitted in the current RH zoning of the site. The three remote spaces are included in the total of 59 spaces in the new development. No changes are proposed by the applicant. • Stacked Parking: The approved site plan included eight parking spaces located under the apartment building and accessed from S. 5th Street. Four of the eight parking spaces meet current zoning standards. The other four parking spaces under the former building were designed for stacked (tandem) parking, where one car would be parked in front of another. The two stacked spaces measured 40 feet in length to accommodate two cars in each 40 foot space. No parking spaces are proposed under the building in the proposed building and site plans. The site plan, project description, applicable law, and findings of fact and conclusions were reviewed in detail by city planner Ray Anderson. He explained that City staff has reviewed the request and recommends that the Board approve the request for a Special Use Permit for Reconstruction of a Damaged Nonconforming Structure at 301 S. 4th Street with the following conditions: A) That a Plat of Survey be approved by the City Council, and copies of the recorded documents be received by the City Clerk's Office, prior to approval of the Minor Site Development Plan and B) Maintain the three existing trees in the rear setback, east of the building, and add four additional trees. Approval of the location and species of the trees by the Planning & Housing Department is required, prior to finalizing revisions to the Landscape Plan. Since there was a change in Condition B in the original staff report, the condition was said to be eliminated or amended to be clear of landscape expectations. Mr. Anderson mentioned that City Council will have to approve the property as a "parcel" before the site plan is approved. The legal description will be finalized as well. Mr. Anderson pointed out where the three off -site parking spaces were on the site plan. He clarified that the spots are from a previous agreement and would be counted towards the total number of required parking spaces in the new development. DECISION The Board considers the facts as detailed above, and the relevant standards in Ames Municipal Code section 29.307(3)(c)(ii) and 29.1503(4)(a)(b) and (e), and finds that the application meets these standards and that the Special Use Permit shall be granted with the following conditions: A) That a Plat of Survey be approved by the City Council, and copies of the recorded documents be received by the City Clerk's Office, prior to approval of the Minor Site Development Plan; and B) the landscaping is done in accordance to the landscape plan submitted at the Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting on October 12, 2016. WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the applicant is GRANTED sections 29.307(3)(c)(ii) and 29.1503 of the Ames Municipal Code, a Special Use Permit for Reconstruction of a Damaged Nonconforming Structure of for the property located at 301 S. 4th Street, subject to the following two conditions: A) That a Plat of Survey be approved by the City Council, and copies of the recorded documents be received by the City Clerk's Office, prior to approval of the Minor Site Development Plan; and B) the landscaping is done in accordance to the landscape plan submitted at the Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting on October 12, 2016. 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 121h day of October, 2016. 4wj- rvl�[U) Heidi Petersen Secretary to the Board