HomeMy WebLinkAboutA7 ITEM# 3
DATE: 09/27/17
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CASE FILE NO.: VAR-000274
DATE PREPARED: September 22, 2017
APPLICATION
FOR VARIANCE: To allow the construction of an open porch with
columns on a sorority house to extend into the front
yard 12 feet where 8 feet is permitted.
APPLICANT: Shirley Knipfel, Chapter Advisor of Alpha Omicron Pi
2007 Greeley Street, Ames, Iowa
LOCATION: 2007 Greeley Street (See Attachment A)
ZONING: Residential High Density (RH)
East University Impacted Area (O-UIE)
BACKGROUND:
Alpha Omnicron Pi Properties, Inc. proposes to construct a large open porch addition to
the front facade of the sorority house at 2007 Greeley Street. The proposed porch
ranges in depth from between 8 feet to approximately 16 feet due to the curvilinear front
property line and existing placement of the structure. A portion of the porch deck
projects 12.2 feet into the minimum front yard setback of 25 feet. An open porch is
allowed to extend into the required front yard by no more than 8 feet. The proposed
design of the porch exceeds the maximum allowed projection by 4.2 feet at its forward
most point for a total porch depth of approximately 16 feet. Without approval of the
variance, the porch could be between 8 and approximately 12 feet in depth. (See the
Alpha Omicron Pi Addition Site Plan Sheet C1.01, as prepared by Roseland Mackey
Harris Architects). The addition of a porch into the front setback is permitted by the
zoning; however, the variance is necessary to extend the porch beyond the permitted 8
feet for an additional 4.2 feet into the front yard.
The sorority chapter currently has 51 members that live in the house, and a campus
total of 125 members, who live in residence halls on campus, and apartments off
campus, in addition to the sorority house at 2007 Greeley Street. The Iowa State
University Greek System has established 172 as the number of members that the
sorority chapter is to achieve and maintain. In order to achieve the campus total of 172
members, Alpha Omnicron Pi believes that the addition of the proposed front porch is
needed to retain current membership, add new members, and to maintain their
members in an increasingly competitive environment for Greek chapter membership.
1
The sorority house is located on the north side of Greeley Street northwest of the
intersection of Beach Street and Greeley Street. The property is on the south end of the
block and has streets on two sides, Greeley Street on the south and Beach Street to the
east (See Attachment A - Location Map). The RH (Residential High Density) zoning for
this corner property requires a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet from the south and
the east property lines, and a minimum side yard setback of 8 feet from the other two
property boundaries (See Attachment B — Zoning Map). The on-site parking is located
north and west of the building, which meets zoning requirements for parking lot location.
No changes in the on-site parking is proposed, nor will the parking lot be affected by the
porch addition.
The proposed open porch addition extends across the entire south fagade of the
building for a distance of 88 feet, at a width of 8 feet. The curved portion of the
proposed porch deck extends out an additional 9 feet from the building toward the
street, and is centered along the 8-foot wide portion of the porch deck for a distance of
approximately 31 feet. There are 8 columns planned for the 8-foot wide portion of the
porch deck, and 4 additional columns to support the roof on the curved portion of the
porch deck.
The enclosed site plan has been reviewed by the Development Review Committee
(DRC) 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 proposed front porch closer to the front property line than is
allowed by the Zoning Code. If the variance is approved, the applicant may proceed
with the Minor Site development Plan application process.
APPLICABLE POLICIES AND LAWS:
Pertinent Sections of the Ames Municipal Code are described as follows:
Chapter 29, Table 29.704(3) of the Municipal Code establishes the minimum principal
building setback from a front lot line of 25 feet.
Chapter 29, Section 29.402(2)(a)(iii) of the Municipal Code establishes extension of
porches into the required building setbacks, and states that: 'A porch may project into
the required front yard not more than 8 feet, the required side yard not more than 3 feet,
and the required rear yard not more than 8 feet, provided that the portion of the porch
extending into required yards is fully open except for support columns and
baslustrades."
2
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: The zoning standards for front yard setbacks provide a space, with a
minimum width dimension, between buildings and public streets. Building
setbacks preserve access to light and air, emergency access, and a uniform
appearance of building faces down the street. The construction of an open porch
on the front of the structure is allowed by the zoning standards provided the
porch does not project more than 8 feet into the minimum required front yard
setback of 25 feet.
CONCLUSION: In general, it is in the public interest to ensure that the use of
property does not infringe on the rights of the neighbors, predictability in
appearance and to allow room for lawns and trees. It is possible to construct an
open porch (with columns) on the front of the existing structure, without
encroaching into the setback by more than 8 feet (See Attachment A - Location
3
Map). The proposed size of the porch is for aesthetic purposes and does not
directly relate to use of the property for a principle use.
Porches are considered to be a positive architectural feature for buildings and
are desirable in the East University Impact Area Overlay zone. However an 8-
foot encroachment allowance is considered the appropriate balance of
preserving front yard area and allowing for a desirable feature. The range of 8 to
12 feet in porch depth is adequate for meeting functional and architectural
objectives without a variance. If the variance from the front setback is granted,
the public interest in separation between buildings and streets, preserving front
yard area, and having proportional building sizes and setbacks will not be met.
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 the house is a single purpose structure as
a sorority house. As such it has to be visually competitive with other sorority
houses. If it isn't, it can be seen as "uncompetitive." Once a house is seen as
such the property affects the ability to recruit new members into the sorority. If
that happens, it will affect the organization's finances and the ability to keep the
property properly maintained.
The property has served as the location for a sorority, since it was constructed in
1968, which is a permitted use in the RH (Residential High Density) zone. The
property is currently occupied and used as a sorority house. Use of the property
as a sorority may continue, regardless of whether the variance is granted for the
porch projection. Additionally, a porch is a allowed, but not at the proposed size.
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 asserts that the proposed plan for
the addition of the proposed open porch is best way to provide the amenities
necessary to remain competitive for new members. The applicant has not
demonstrated that anything less than proposed open porch design and
dimension would directly affect the allowed use of the property. Therefore, the
Board can conclude that this criterion is not met.
4
(ii) The plight of the owners is due to unique circumstances and not to
the general conditions in the neighborhood.
FINDING: Due to its location and shape, the subject property has a 25-foot
setback on two sides of the principle building. The north-south dimension of the
existing building also limits the space available in the front yard on the south side
of the building.
CONCLUSION: Other Greek houses are located on a corner with a curved front
setback line. The subject property is not the only one with this condition. There
is room to project into the front yard setback by the allowed 8 feet, and the
design and dimensions of the proposed porch could be altered to locate within
the allowed 8-foot projection into the setback. The permitted projection for a
porch allows for a porch dimension of approximately 8 to 12 feet, without
approval of the variance. The allowed porch size provides for a usable front
porch dimension. 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: 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 a large open porch can be provided. The front yard provides
adequate space to construct a large open porch across the entire front fagade,
including columns to support a roof, without intruding any further than permitted
into the minimum required front yard setback, as is the case for other Greek
houses in the neighborhood. Although the design of the proposed porch addition
may change, the zoning requirements for this zoning district includes
architectural standards that promote compatibility with the existing architecture of
the neighborhood.
The single-family homes located across Greeley have an extra large front yard
setback that exceeds 50 feet. The other Greek houses along Greeley are
compliant with the front yard setbacks and the majority of the building areas are
setback greater distances than the minimum 25-foot front yard requirement.
CONCLUSION: Although adding a porch is consistent with the zoning
requirements for this area, and it is a common feature for Greek homes, the
additional encroachment is inconsistent with the general area. Therefore, the
Board can conclude that this criterion is not met.
5
(c) The spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is
granted.
FINDING: If it can be determined that alternative options exist to allow for the
construction of an open front porch that meets the allowed projection of 8 feet
into the required front yard building setback, the variance would not be needed
and the strict regulation of the zoning ordinance can be enforced.
CONCLUSION: The front yard of this property provides adequate space to
construct an open porch that extends along the entire width of the building,
without further encroaching into the front yard setback than is allowed by the
current zoning regulations. The allowed dimensions for this site of between 8 and
12 feet provide for a usable porch area. 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: Substantial justice speaks to the requirement that the hardship must
be peculiar to the property. The Board must determine if the applicant is asking
for the least relief from the zoning law that is possible to allow a reasonable use
of the property. The Board must also determine if there is a hardship attributable
to the property that results in lack of equal use of property compared to others
subject to the same regulations. The applicant has not provided a rationale of
equity or justice for granting of the variance.
CONCLUSION: Granting of a variance for the proposed open front porch
addition does not provide substantial justice in use of the property as there is not
hardship of providing for an open porch addition in a manner that complies with
the zoning ordinance. There is another way to accomplish the purpose without a
variance. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is not met.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny this request for a variance for 2007
Greeley Street to allow the construction of an open porch with columns to extend
into the front yard by more than the allowed 8 feet to a maximum of 12.2 feet, based
upon the above findings and conclusions.
2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve this request for a variance for 2007
Greeley to allow the construction of an open porch with columns to extend into the
front yard by more than the allowed 8 feet to a maximum of 12.2 feet, if it makes
explicit findings that support the variance criteria.
3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may table this variance request and seek further
information from the applicant or from staff.
6
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:
It is the conclusion of City staff, based upon an analysis of the applicant's proposal to
construct an open porch on the existing structure at 2007 Greeley Street, that the
evidence provided for the variance does not support approval of the a variance. None of
the criteria have been met by the proposal.
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 2007 Greeley Street to allow the construction
of an open porch with columns to extend into the front yard by more than the
allowed 8 feet to a maximum of 12.2 feet, based upon the above findings and
conclusions.
7
Attachment A
Location Map
J
W
m
SUPS
uT`.
w
9
a•
8
O -
5�
- `:.
2007 Greeley Street
LU
PPI
rt�
c �
vt`
Location Map
2007 Greeley Street
0 25 50 100 150
Feet
8
Attachment B
Zoning Map
UNCO LN WAY LINCOLN WAY LINCOLN WAY LINCO LN WAY
S-G A a
'a
C7 w
7
U
a
w
m
GABLE LN yl
yL w SUNSET DR
m GRAYAVE ¢
aQ- �
2
5
2 w
w �
G <
V
O w
_ m
aS�sP� 2007 Greeley Street
SJ -
SONSEz OR SUNSET OR
2 �
CENTER DR
aP�
O
�y �o
® PARCELS selection 3 p
y
RL w Residential Low Density Zone'RL"(sec29.701) A
a � a
H ® Residential H igh Density Zone"RH"(sec 29.704) God
a Govern mentlAirport District"S-GA"(sec 29.1002) W
m
Location & Zoning Map N
2007 Greeley Street
0 70 140 280 420
Feet
9
Attachment C
Lot Layout & Legal Description
150.06'
' � a
106"
1 ,
J 1 1 \
,
0,
NE NE
GR�f�FY a r
GREELEY 9T 0��� >
r _ U
< N
� m
25CENTER-DR'
Parcel ID 0909229080 Alternate ID 0909229080 Owner Address ALPHA OMICRON PI PROPERTIES INC
5ec/Twp/Rng 09-83-24 Class R-Residential 539OVIRGINIAWAY
Property Address 2007 GREELEY ST Acreage n/a BRENTWOOD TN 37027-7529
AMFS
District 01001-AMES CITY/AMES SC H
Brief Tax Description COLLEGE HEIGHTS ADD LOTS 12 3&4 BLK 5
(Note:Not to be used on legal documents)
10
Y
•-
yf
E�,. ,;,�,i�ce t t � qua A.'� �s � _ 4�, )�� r'�•-•
74
IL
T
- mq --
r
Lpw
IVL
\"'•� z_
FrontAttachment C-3
• View from - • the West
(( f
O
i.
13
` r a=
Attachment
I
Front Yard View from Greeley Street to the East
Ii��llulll� � _
14