HomeMy WebLinkAboutA1 ITEM# 5
DATE: 04/12/17
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CASE FILE NO.: VAR-000131-2017
DATE PREPARED: March 29, 2017
APPLICATION
FOR VARIANCE: Variance from the maximum 3/4" rock size permitted in
the East University Impact Overlay (O-UIE) Zone
APPLICANT: Iowa Farmhouse Association, Inc.
LOCATION: 311 Ash Avenue (See Attachment A)
ZONING: Residential High Density (RH)
East University Impact Overlay (O-UIE)
BACKGROUND:
In February of 2015 a Minor Site Development Plan was approved for an addition to the
existing Farmhouse Fraternity House at 311 Ash Avenue. The site plan included a large
building addition with parking lot modifications. The changes to the site triggered
improvements to the existing parking lot layout and landscape screening and new
required areas of front yard landscaping relating to the building addition. It was noted on
the Landscape Plan, approved with the site plan application, that hardwood much would
be used around the base of new plantings within the revised screen areas and
landscape beds around the building addition. These notes were necessary to comply
with the City's landscaping standards of the Zoning Ordinance and the prohibition of
large rock within the University Impact area.
In March of 2015 a revision to the Landscape Plan was submitted for approval to revise
some of the proposed plant materials for the project. It was also noted on the plan as
part of that revision that river rock would be used for the plant beds instead of the
previously approved hardwood mulch. Staff noted that the landscape plan must note
that any rock used on the property would need to meet the maximum 3/4" size limitation
for the overlay. The revised landscape plan approved for the property does state that
the river rock shall not exceed 3/" in size. (Attachment B).
The General Development standards of the Zoning Ordinance (Article 4) for all
properties in the city states that rock generally may be used in landscape areas, except
for required landscape areas (typically considered parking lot screening or front yard
landscaping) which requires a living ground cover. Mulch may be used in landscape
areas under shrubs or trees when living ground cover would not be sustainable. The
1
East University Impact Overlay zone more specifically states that for properties in the
overlay, "No rock, brick fragments or other hard, loose material over 3/4-inch in size
shall be used."
At the time of final inspection for the addition in August of 2016, the Planning Division
noted that the rock placed in the new front yard landscape areas and required parking
lot screen areas exceeded the maximum 1/4" size allowed by the zoning ordinance. It
was noted by the applicant that some areas of rock on the property which exceed the
1/4" allowance around the original house existed prior to the construction of the addition
and new site work. Staff worked with the owners representative to identify those areas
of existing rock which could remain as it was unclear when those areas had been
installed or last modified; however, all new and amended landscape areas around the
addition and the parking lot approved by the new landscape plan needed to be
compliant with current code. The City could require all rock to be removed or replaced
on the site as removal of a nonconformity with the project work that was done. The
attached map (Attachment C) shows where the non-compliant rock was placed on the
property during construction, and what areas needed to be replaced with another
compliant ground cover material to make the property comply with the current zoning
ordinance.
The property was issued a temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO) in August of 2016,
which has been extended 4 times through March 24t" of 2017 to allow the applicant to
finalize the landscaping to comply with the approved site plan and current zoning
ordinance. At this time the TCO has expired for the property. Rather than comply with
the approved site development plan and the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant has
requested a variance from the standards. Enforcement of the approval has been stayed
while they pursue the variance application.
The applicant is requesting a Variance to the City's standard that limits the size of
landscape rock allowed to not exceed 1/4" in size. The City adopted this standard in 2006
when the East University Impacted Overlay zone was created. It is believed the
regulation was in response to previous concern for safety due to previous issues with
events in the Campustown Area. The applicant's request is to keep the landscape rock
in place with the approval of a variance to allow 1" landscape rock in the required front
yard and parking lot screen areas of the property.
APPLICABLE POLICIES AND LAWS:
Pertinent Sections of the Ames Municipal Code:
Chapter 29, Section 29.1110(5)(b) of the Municipal Code establishes Per the Zoning
Code for landscaping in the East University Overlay District, "No rock, brick fragments,
or other hard, loose material over 1/4-inch in size shall be used".
Ames Municipal Code, Section 29.1504(4) states that "a variance shall be granted only
if all of the following standards are satisfied:"
2
(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 unnecessaryhardship. Unnecessary
P
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: The applicant notes that installation of smaller rock or mulch in areas
along the property lines of abutting properties which already contain the larger
rock will cause a nuisance for foot traffic or surface drainage which may carry the
landscape materials onto other properties. While this may cause an unsightly
condition or maintenance issues for the property owner, staff believes this is a
minor concern when considering the reasoning for the original regulations.
The purpose of the rock size requirement for the University overlay area when
adopted in 2006 was for safety purposes. This area is typically student living and
more specifically Sorority and Fraternity houses along Ash Avenue. At the time of
the ordinance for the O-UIE there had previous been student related incidents in
Campustown which lead to the concern for safety in the University area overall.
The maximum rock size is regulated for all properties within the overlay zone and
not specific to any specific use or location. The requirement for mulch in required
landscape planters is a best practice for landscaping. The applicant could
3
choose to plant a living ground cover rather than mulch to help stabilize the
planting areas.
CONCLUSION: Based on the response submitted to this standard staff does not
feel the applicant has proven that larger rock than what is permitted by ordinance
is in the best public interest based on the believed purpose of the original
ordinance regulations. Landscape edging is an option for the property to lessen
the effects of runoff and unsightly maintenance issues with surrounding property
owners. 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 applicant does not address this standard in the application. There
is no evidence that the property cannot continue to be used or that it would not
provide a reasonable return unless the variance was granted. The original
approval specified conformance to the standards and the project was undertaken
and completed knowing the requirements.
CONCLUSION: The legal standard for a hardship is that the property does not
have value if it conforms to the standards, not just a lower return on investment,
loss of potential value, or greater cost in meeting the standard. The applicant has
not and probably cannot demonstrate that the property has no value without the
granting of the variance. 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: The applicant states that rock in excess of the 3/4" code allowed size
already exists on the property and on many others in the neighborhood. Staff
agrees that it may be the case that some of the surrounding properties are not in
compliance with current standards but are likely nonconforming based upon
previous allowances prior to the current ordinance from 2006. Under the current
regulations all properties in the overlay need to comply with this landscape
requirement for any new or modified areas of a property for approval of a site
plan.
The proposed site is similar in layout to many of the other Greek houses in the
area and does not provide a unique circumstance as to why the property cannot
comply with the current ordinance for the areas of new or modified site work as
outlined by the site plan in Attachment B. The applicant had submitted and
4
received approval for a code complaint Landscape plan for the property showing
that compliance with the code could be met, therefore staff does not see any
unique circumstance for the requested variance.
CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff finds that the plight of the
owners does not constitute unique circumstances in comparison to surrounding
properties within the neighborhood. Therefore, the Board can conclude that
unique circumstances do not 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: The applicant has noted that many of the surrounding properties have
the larger landscape rock which is assumed to have been installed under the
previous ordinance allowances. Staff does agree that rock or mulch used in
required landscape areas which will be hidden once the plant materials mature
and cover a substantial portion of the landscape bed will not alter the character of
the neighborhood. However, as surrounding properties are improved, areas of
improvements much like Farmhouse, will be required to improve the landscape
areas to meet current codes. They too will then need to meet the same standards
that the Farmhouse project was approved under.
CONCLUSION: Based on the information above, staff finds that the magnitude of
the requested variance to allow a 1" rock over a '/4" required rock size would not
be such that it would alter the essential character of the locality or current
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: The applicant states that the granting of the variance will allow the
Farmhouse residents to install and maintain a consistent landscaping medium on
the property while reducing the maintenance time and costs for the residents.
Staff finds that, given the ease in which landscape edging could be installed to
help maintain the smaller rock or mulch in the landscape beds and still meet the
standard of the code, there is adequate ability of the owner to maintain the beds
as any other property owner would be required to do. Thus, the request for a
revision to the allowed landscape rock is not within the spirit of the ordinance to
provide for safety in the area of student living. Further, altering the design of the
landscape bed to include a living ground cover could eliminate some of the
maintenance concern and would still be within the parameters and spirit of the
Zoning code.
CONCLUSION: The alternative(s) available to the applicant are sufficient as
such that a variance as requested would violate the spirit of the ordinance.
5
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: The applicant was aware of the requirement at the time the project
was approved and before they carried it out. In considering the nature of the
property in question, staff finds that the granting of a variance would work against
substantial justice which is characterized by a standard of fairness. Staff finds no
justice in granting a variance in this case as no harm to the individual is readily
apparent by applying the City's zoning standard and the standard as written is
based on an allowance for all Greek houses in the East University Overlay.
CONCLUSION: Given that there is a lack of evidence of a significant disparity in
fairness for this Greek House versus others in the area that are restricted to the
same landscape requirements, staff finds that this criterion is not met. Therefore
the Board can conclude that this criterion is not met.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Notices were sent to all property owners within 200 feet of the subject property. In
addition, a sign was placed on the property as notice of zoning action. As of this writing,
no comments have been received. The applicant included a petition in support of the
request.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny this request for a variance 311 Ash
Avenue to exceed the maximum allowed size for landscape rock in the East
University Impacted Overlay Zone, based upon the above findings and conclusions.
2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve this request for a variance for 311
Ash Avenue to exceed the maximum allowed size for landscape rock in the East
University Impacted Overlay Zone, with findings articulated by the Board in support
of the variance.
3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may table this variance and seek further
information from the applicant or from staff.
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:
Approving a variance is a case of applying the law to the set of facts presented for a
property. The Board it not asked to suppose its judgment of the merits of the zoning
standards themselves, but instead is asked as to whether the criteria for a variance from
the standard have been met as defined by State Law and case law.
6
Staff does not find the evidence presented for this project to support a conclusion of
granting a variance from the landscape rock requirement for the East University
Impacted Overlay. While the proposed change in the rock may not have aesthetic
impacts, the request does not satisfy the other criteria related to hardship, unique
circumstances, or substantial justice with granting of the variance. It has also been
noted that the costs associated for changing out the current incorrect rock material was
the result of the installation not meeting the original approved landscape plan.
Additionally, the property owner can simply change out the landscape rock for mulch or
other acceptable bed cover for the areas within the new site plan as identified by staff.
The owner can also use landscape edger or other landscape options to help elevate
any unsightly aesthetic or nuisance concern raised by the applicant as part of this
request. If the applicant is denied their request, they can request the City Council to
consider a text amendment to allow for alternate options for landscape ground cover for
the overlay zone.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Planning and Housing Department that
the Zoning Board of Adjustment act in accordance with Alternative #1, which is to
deny this request for a variance for 311 Ash Avenue to exceed the maximum
allowed landscape rock size for the East University Impacted zone, based upon
the above findings and conclusions.
7
tt
VXA
-
�,�i �/ter �. /,,, �► -r
f`
Pr �� �. . f• '� � / yak _;�' - '�
Y ♦• err..��� •� ..Y Nr, . � �`i• f
A �
L.
r � �
Attachment B
Revised Landscape Plan, approved March 4, 2015
113
It
lilt
Y � Z
D
D
no ig i e
A i-
i
'4 '9 4 a D
�
I � y
• �.
11
So
s �
ASH AVENUE
9
Attachment C
Existing conditions and requested revisions for the property
A
Ettyl Ml♦N,j"1IMr 13 LCFELs Cl,t•]ilrlfRJFIFIY 1ML
C,ESC nI>11Cf1 nECUPED E?1,iNti, FnCFCSL[IrCm W
Ffci 0
sPUE In U 41, �+
mulr.NCP.
raFla ,;i
F; IA II. 114,1, ..a 1,4 IAF IIi -P•I4 A 7
FMr rA,)WMh lLyn3
• �ETx�EF ,•rl r:
onooa oa _
I
� .N.USC.•iF ALL
nCFEM TOOF«I.3
ENs'pl]reinI-PEE4 TFEE
AWA
w
ATE �
H', 3�p� rzCl'IIY.i r•m.Syl r.l?1
TIFF
Q\Il
1 FG I• ' ECGIN_,
1
\'E 13,
1
ly`F I Q
p•V Nl Ntrll eF'6,N � � �
•Tfl I nM 1 t l.Y`T,.Y
04 PI nnf ff!...n.,. c
Tw
Aoft CAN BE
Q.w;r P
\\9 � Uti.1 •N i, n
la•• RFFiF IC[f'NLS
\
iTyPi
T.
FCflh.i. r•. N�IV
V.%-UFF TFEE:Y. A-EA /�.�
/'
NEw RjcK j jr aE
IgnFCFPUA'T',M
FCA C EFFER((:f.:.:tl
F�-R CE i.ai 4 V
.l SC%EE%CII SCUp1 PFCPE9rr LEIE --
:AP'ICN %IC�UHII F}ISTnG FAUFCSfC TCTFI L>`T S'DJO
TFEFs 2 T
GPV99 P
10