HomeMy WebLinkAboutA5 ITEM# 3
DATE: 01/10/18
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CASE FILE NO.: VAR-000323
DATE PREPARED: January 3, 2018
APPLICATION
FOR VARIANCE: To allow the construction of three parking stalls in the
front yard of property located at 233 Washington
Avenue.
APPLICANT: Dana Thomann
LOCATION: 233 Washington Avenue (See Attachment A)
ZONING: S-SMD- South Lincoln Mixed-Use District
BACKGROUND:
The owner of 233 Washington Avenue is applying for a variance to allow for three front
yard parking stalls with access directly from Washington Avenue. The reasoning for this
request is that the owner intends to sell the property and is asserting that it is difficult to
sell this property for its current residential use and desires to sell the property to a buyer
interested in it for a commercial office use. The three additional parking stalls in the front
yard would allow for a total of five parking stalls on the site, which is what is required to
meet the minimum parking ratio for commercial offices based on the total square
footage of the house.
Two existing parking stalls are located on the west side of the home accessed from S
3rd Street. It is not physically possible to add three additional stalls to the west side of
the home due to dimensions of the property and location of structures. The parcel is a
non-conforming 5,280 square foot parcel. The minimum size for a commercial or single-
family residential parcel in this district is 6,000 square feet. Non-conforming parcels can
be developed provided that current zoning standards can be met. The owner proposes
no changes to the physical layout of the home with the variance request. It is likely
additional changes to the property for accessible access to an office space will be
required at the time of building permit review.
The house is situated with the front door facing Washington Avenue. The home is
setback from the front property line approximately 25 feet. The proposed variance is to
locate 19-foot deep parking stalls in front of the building. Required parking between a
building and the street is not permitted in this zoning district. Only parking upon a
driveway that leads to required parking spaces behind the front of a building is
permissible.
1
APPLICABLE POLICIES AND LAWS:
Pertinent Sections of the Ames Municipal Code are described as follows:
Chapter 29, Table 29.406(2) of the Municipal Code establishes the minimum parking
requirements for commercial 'office' uses as well as single family residential uses.
Chapter 29, Section 29.1003(3) of the Municipal Code establishes that parking is not
allowed in the South Lincoln Sub Area Mixed-Use District between buildings and streets
except when already pre-existing.
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.
2
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: Both residential and commercial uses are permitted within the zoning
district subject to conformance to zoning standards. The zoning standards state
that front yard parking is not allowed between buildings and streets in the South
Lincoln Sub Area Mixed-Use District. The zoning standards for this district were
developed in order that the neighborhood maintain its character both in terms of
the design of structures and general property design. Front yard parking stalls
will likely come within less than 5 feet of the front of the building and will provide
virtually no distance between the right of way and the edge of the parking stall.
Driveway parking spaces are typically a minimum of 25 feet of depth to ensure
extra space between a parked vehicle and a sidewalk. The placement of three
parking stalls for a commercial business will also trigger a minor site
development plan which will require a review of landscaping. Front yard parking
will make the placement of required front yard and parking lot landscaping
difficult to accomplish and trigger a second variance request.
CONCLUSION: Providing for uses consistent with the zoning district is in the
public interest. The South Lincoln Mixed Use District allows for both the existing
single-family home use as well as commercial uses.
The South Lincoln Mixed-Use district does not permit parking between buildings
and streets. This standard applies to all properties both residential and
commercial. Only pre-existing parking between buildings and streets is allowed.
This standard helps to ensure that a predictable residential appearance is
observed throughout the district with regard to front yards. This design standard
intends that yard areas between buildings and streets consist of lawns, trees and
shrubs leading to the front facades of homes and buildings thereby avoiding
expanses of impervious surface and vehicles in front yards. While some
properties within the district contain front yard parking. such allowances were
permitted prior to the existing zoning standards being put into place. The zoning
standards now in place are meant to discourage the further proliferation of
parking areas between buildings and streets.
Additionally, the dimensional challenges of placing the parking stalls into the front
yard with such limited area could pose hazards for vehicles and pedestrians in
the Washington Avenue right-of-way given the lack of area available between the
proposed parking stalls and the right of way as well as with any necessary
improvements near the entry way to the building for accessibility design
standards. In general, it is in the public interest to ensure that the use of property
provides adequate safe maneuvering area off of public rights of way,
predictability in appearance and to allow room for lawns, shrubs and trees.
Therefore the Board can conclude that this criterion is not met.
3
(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 property is currently a residential use with adequate parking for
the existing single-family residential use. The property has contained a
residential use since its creation in the late 191h century. The home is a single
family detached structure that resembles numerous other similar sized single
family detached structures in the area with a similar structure on abutting
property to the west. The property most recently sold in 2013 to the current
owner as a residential use. Additionally, there were 3 previous property
transactions between 2003 and 2013 with buyers utilizing the property as a
residential use. The home has been for sale since September according to the
applicant. The property was purchased in July of 2013 for approximately S77.000
and listed for sale in the fall of 2017 for approximately $95,000. The sale history
includes a sale at $84,000 in 2004 and S86.000 in 2008.
CONCLUSION: The applicant asserts that the only owner occupied home in the
area is immediately to the west abutting this property. However, numerous single
family residential homes exist in the general area. Some could be owner
occupied while others are registered rental properties. The existing use of the
property can serve either of those styles of residential living.
The application states that the house has been on the market with no sale
because the area does not accommodate a single family home as well now as in
the past and that it makes more sense to serve as an office use and that the
layout of the home makes more sense as an office use. In the past, this property
has been providing a reasonable return with the current building. With the four
property sales, including the current owner within the past 15 years, it can be
demonstrated that this property has the ability to be sold and utilized as a
residential use. The property, however, has not appreciated in value significantly
in the past 13 years. The applicant has not provided clear evidence for return on
investment from its purchase and use in the past four years and now their
interest in selling the property.
While the South Lincoln Sub Area Mixed-Use District allows for both residential
and commercial uses, there is no guarantee that all allowed uses can occur on
any given property and that its use as commercial with front yard parking is
necessary to avoid a hardship. 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: The subject property is a 5,280 square foot parcel located on a corner
lot. The South Lincoln Sub Area Mixed Use District encompasses the area
generally west of Duff Avenue, south of Lincoln Way and east of south Grand
Avenue. The neighborhood consists of numerous non-conforming parcels and a
large number of homes that are of similar age and design as the applicant's
home. The neighborhood is a mix of apartment buildings, two-family and single
family detached homes with some businesses throughout the area. The size of
the parcel is non-conforming as the minimum sized residential and commercial
parcel is 6.000 square feet in this zoning district. The lot does not have alley
access due to a prior property transfer to create a short lot of out of the rear area
to the west in the past. Due to zoning standards and the dimensions of the
property, it does not appear possible to add parking in conformance with the
Zoning Ordinance to change the use to another use that requires more than two
parking stalls.
CONCLUSION: The neighborhood contains a mixture of apartments, single
family homes and some businesses. The applicant makes claims to the difficulty
of adding parking to the site in the rear yard due to limited space and being
located on a corner lot. Other instances of residences on corner lots exist within
the area and in some of those cases such properties are below the current
required minimum lot size similar to the applicant's property. The lots within the
area are traditionally narrow and in some cases also not of great depth. Uses
such as the existing use are found all throughout the neighborhood and are
currently occupied and used for residential uses whether owner occupied or as
rental properties. These sites would face the same dimensional issues with any
proposed additional parking as a commercial use but are able to function as a
residential site with the parking they have available. Enlarging the lot size is
possible through means of purchasing a neighboring property and consolidating
the properties together. While the cost of doing so is not able to be known, such
a purchase at market rates is not seen to be unreasonable or unique to the
owner. 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 both single family homes and
apartment uses in addition to some commercial businesses. The neighborhood
contains a mixture of parking designs ranging from small single family residential
driveways to parking lots for apartment buildings and some nearby businesses.
Parking is not provided in a manner with parking stalls accessed directly from the
street, unless a single family home. The properties that do have parking that is
not behind the front of a building are non-conforming.
5
CONCLUSION: The applicant points out three other properties nearby that have
parking in front of the building. Current standards do not permit front yard
parking. While front yard parking does exist in certain areas of the surrounding
neighborhood as is pointed out by the applicant, the goal of the current zoning
standards is to discourage further proliferation of front yard parking in order to
promote an aesthetically pleasing design along public streets. Although adding
parking to a given site is permitted in this zoning district, the proposed parking in
this instance is not consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance for this area.
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 South Lincoln Sub Area Mixed Use District standards state that
front yard parking is prohibited in the South Lincoln Sub Area Mixed Use District.
Other properties within the area must conform to the same front yard parking
restrictions and on-site parking requirements. The location of the front yard
parking stalls at this location will be located less than 60 feet to the intersection of
Washington Avenue and South 3rd Street. Accessibility requirements at the front
of the building for commercial pedestrian access could also require a ramp or
means of access which may protrude outward from the front of the building. The
required parking stall dimensions will leave very little if any room for separation
from pedestrian and vehicular activity within the right of way of Washington
Avenue as well as along the front of the building. Site landscaping required for
front yards and parking areas will also be impeded with the dimensional
challenges on site as three parking spaces in the front yard will leave little room
for shrubs and trees.
CONCLUSION: The applicant asserts that by adding parking along Washington
Avenue as proposed the property will be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance
commercial parking requirements. Multiple dimensional issues with regard to the
placement of front yard parking at this location will cause challenges for right-of-
way clearance as well as accessibility clearance to the building at the front door.
While the parking stalls may technically fit between the building and the street,
placement of stalls would be problematic to comply consistently with other city
standards for keeping sidewalks clear from obstructions. Front yard landscaping
and parking lot landscaping could also be difficult to accomplish as very little
open space in the front yard would remain if front yard parking is allowed.
Additionally, current SUDAS design requirements discourage entrances and exits
this close to intersections such as Washington Avenue and South 3rd Street and
the City does not permit direct access of parking area to streets that are not
driveways to homes.
Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is not met.
6
(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 or that an issue of equity in use of property exists. The
property at this location is similar to other properties within the area and has
historically been used for its current residential use since its construction. The
current use of the property as a residential home is in compliance with a
permitted standards within this zoning district. The applicant asserts that the only
acceptable offer made for this property is for commercial office space and that
the neighborhood is quickly transitioning to a more commercial feel in support of
the desire of the intended purchaser. Further, the applicant claims that the
location. size and layout of the building lend to its best use being commercial
office space.
CONCLUSION: Granting of a variance for the proposed front yard parking does
not provide substantial justice in use of the property as front yard parking is not a
common condition in the neighborhood for other residential or commercial uses
within the current zoning district standards. 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 233
Washington Avenue to allow the construction of three front yard parking stalls to
meet commercial office parking standards based upon the above findings and
conclusions.
2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve this request for a variance for 233
Washington Avenue to allow the construction three front yard parking stalls to meet
commercial office parking standards, if it makes finds that evidence supports the
explicit findings of consistency with all of the variance criteria.
3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may table this variance request and seek further
information from the applicant or from staff.
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:
It is the conclusion of City staff, based upon an analysis of the applicant's proposal to
construct front yard parking on the property at 233 Washington Avenue, that the
evidence provided does not support approval of a variance for front yard parking
between the building and street. None of the criteria have been met by the proposal.
despite the fact the site is a non-conforming lot and that there are a mix of uses,
residential and commercial, in the area. While commercial use is permissible in the
zone, and on its own could be found compatible with the surroundings, the proposal to
place parking in the front yard in support of the commercial use would be incompatible
with the area and many design standards of the City. The proposed design could also
be potentially disruptive to the traveling public with its proposed direct access to
Washington Avenue with minimal clearance of the parking spaces from the right-of-way.
7
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 233 Washington Avenue to allow the
construction of three front yard parking stalls.
8
S 2ND ST 3 2ND ST
- - �4 3,
2
212;
3 4 5 6
�11�182i8 218 i�5
12 13 •14 - - w
> f�
� F da2252 5
3•
130
229 •'
3 4 5 6 2 R !
. 232'232 . 232�23
10 11 121 -
232 232232 �{
15 17 18
Subject Site ——
S 3RD'ST S 3RD ST>'o�
S 3RD ST S•3RD ST
,IIonj
�' . W
Z
_ O 4
C7 -
Z
'v y 316
306
Attachment A- Location Map
233 Washington Avenue
p