Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA7 ITEM# 4 DATE: 02/14/18 CITY OF AMES DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE FILE NO.: VAR-000364 DATE PREPARED: February 8, 2018 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE: To allow for a reduction in the required number of commercial parking stalls for a proposed commercial office use within an existing building. APPLICANT: Dana Thomann LOCATION: 233 Washington Avenue ZONING: S-SMD- South Lincoln Mixed-Use District BACKGROUND: The owner of 233 Washington Avenue has applied for a variance to allow for a reduction in the required number of required parking spaces in order for the home to be converted to a commercial office use. The variance is for an office use to provide two or three parking spaces on site rather than the five required parking spaces. The property owner can accommodate two parking spaces on site in the current configuration of the property or a third space could be added by removing a detached garage and adding a third parking space with approval of stacked parking. The reasoning for this request is that the owner intends to sell the property and asserts 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, which is an allowable use within the South Lincoln Mixed Use District. The existing home was built in the 19tn century. The gross area of the structure is 1,361 square feet with approximately 825 square feet on the ground floor. The intent is to convert the whole home to an office use. The required parking is one space for every 300 square feet of office space. The required parking is calculated as 4.5 parking spaces, which rounds up to 5 whole parking spaces. Two existing parking stalls are located on the west side of the home accessed from South 3`d 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 the existing home. It is also not possible to add three additional stalls in the front of the home along Washington Avenue or South 3rd Street as parking is not allowed in the front yard. The Board previously denied a variance to construct parking in the front yard. 1 The subject property is a non-conforming 5,280 square foot parcel, where the zoning district minimum is 6,000 square feet. 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 a minimum of two 19-foot deep parking stalls west of the building where current parking for the home exists now. A third parking stall could be added on the west side of the property with removal of the accessory building and approval of stacked (tandem) parking. The owner proposes no changes to the physical layout of the building with the variance request. If the variance is approved, the conversion of the home to an office would be subject to building/zoning permit review and potentially a Site Development Plan review for site improvements. 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: 2 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: 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 thus no parking can be placed in the front yard and parking may only be provided in the rear of the building. The zoning standards for this district were developed in order that the neighborhood could maintain its character both in terms of the design of structures and for the general site improvements of property. The potential buyer has indicated that the proposed use would be a small leasing office for rental properties. The intended use would retain the existing home and maintain its residential appearance. The applicant asserts that the visits to the site would be short and infrequent and the reduced parking would not affect traffic patterns or on-street parking in the area of the home. The commercial parking standard is designed with a reasonable expectation that a given volume of traffic will visit a commercial use and that parking must be provided accordingly to meet that general need. A total of five parking spaces are required based on the floor area of the current home at the commercial rate for an office. On street parking is allowed on the east side of Washington Avenue. No parking is allowed upon S. 3rd Street. Staff finds that the area to the west of the home currently has two parking stalls and could be modified to accommodate up to one additional parking space, including a van accessible ADA compliant stall. None of the existing parking is paved and it would need to be improved to change the use of the site to commercial. 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; however, each use contains its own set of distinct standards for parking. Ensuring adequate parking and access to a site to support allowed uses is also in the public interest for the benefit of health, safety, and general welfare for the surrounding area. Approving the variance would allow for a change of use and likely require use of 3 street parking for customer visits with employee parking on site. Parking is permitted along Washington and is reasonably accessible to the site. The low number of potential customer parking needed on Washington is unlikely to create traffic congestion or displace other potential on-street parking needs for visitors to the area. Most on street parking would be utilized for the surrounding residential uses. Allowing for reduced parking in this area for the retention of an existing structure with reduced parking would not be contrary to the public interest. Therefore the Board can conclude that this criterion is 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 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 19th century. The home is a single- family detached structure that resembles numerous other similarly sized single- family detached structures in the area. The lot is slightly below the minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet at 5,280 square feet. The property most recently sold in 2013 to the current owner as a residential use for $76,000. The property owner provided documentation of expenses incurred over the past three years of $18,804 related to improvements to the property. A substantial amount of these costs are related to general upkeep and repairs to the property with some costs associated with preparing the property for registration as a rental unit. The work included painting, repairs, inspections, structural items, and utility and appliance replacement. The property is currently not a registered rental and additional investment is needed to meet the City's rental ordinance standards. The owner states that the asking price for the sale of home is $95,000, which would cover the majority of the expenses incurred over the few years. The property has been for sale since the fall of 2017. CONCLUSION: A reasonable return does not ensure a profit or that no loss on an investment may occur as a result of owning a property and using it in a manner consistent with City ordinances. The unique situation for this property is that two disparate uses are allowable by zoning, single-family residential or commercial, subject to conforming to site development requirements. The question of hardship applies to whether the property can be used in any manner consistent with the zoning and yield a reasonable return. 4 The applicant believes the slow sale of the property supports that a residential use for homeownership cannot be achieved. Additional investment is needed to convert the property to a registered rental property. No information on additional costs or potential revenue from the sale of registered rental property or renting the home has been provided. The property owner contends the only reasonable return is from selling the home for an allowed commercial uses that would require a reduction in required parking to accommodate the use. Staff finds that financial documentation provided by the applicant does not fully support a basis for determining a reasonable return on an investment in the site as a registered rental property if it cannot ultimately be sold at a lower asking price as an owner occupied home. 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. 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 some 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 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. Most lots in the area do have alley access north of S. 3rd Street. 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 allow for the change the use with five parking stalls. The existing structure would have to be razed and a new building constructed to meet parking standards. Due to setbacks and nonconforming lot size, it is uncertain that a 1,300 square feet office building could be rebuilt on the site with compliant rear parking. CONCLUSION: The neighborhood contains a mixture of apartments, single family homes and some businesses. The applicant makes claims of the changing nature of the neighborhood from single family to multiple family and commercial and that a request to add front yard parking in support of the allowable commercial uses on the east side of the home has already been denied. Uses such as the existing single-family residential use are found all throughout the neighborhood whether owner occupied or as rental properties. Although this site is non-conforming in size, other sites with single family homes would face similar dimensional issues with any proposed additional parking for converting to a commercial use, but they are able to function as a residential site with the 5 parking they have available. 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 larger uses. The applicant proposes parking stalls remain located to the west of the existing home outside of front yard and street side setbacks. The applicant proposes to add up to one additional parking stall than is currently provided. Adding an on-site parking space is permissible by zoning standards. The variance would not alter the character of the existing site as it removes a site improvement standard and relies upon street parking to meet customer parking needs. CONCLUSION: The applicant proposes to provide parking stalls along the west side of the existing home to allow for the home to be changed to a commercial office use with two or three commercial parking stalls. With a reduction in parking requirements, customer parking would likely occur on Washington Avenue rather than on site. Washington Avenue is a local street with parking permitted upon the east side and used principally for parking associated with the residential uses on the block. The proposed use and parking design of no more than three parking stalls on site is not seen as altering the essential character of the neighborhood as the applicant proposes to leave the existing site relatively unchanged. The proposed commercial use of the site is seen as a low intensity use and is compatible with commercial and residential uses already allowed in the South Lincoln Sub Area Mixed Use District. The limited hours of operation during the daytime would likely ameliorate concerns about parking conflicts with residential uses in the area in the evening. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is met. 6 (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 commercial uses are allowed in this district and there is an intent to preserve the aesthetic look of the area with residential design standards similar to the existing home. The spirit of the zoning standards in this case are to ensure there is adequate parking to meet the needs of individual uses and to support a variety of uses, including residential and small scale commercial. Parking standards apply uniformly to properties and uses within the zoning district. Based on the floor area of both levels of the home (1,361 sq ft.) a total of five parking stalls are required. The variance would reduce the required parking to two or three on site spaces on the west side of the existing home. CONCLUSION: The applicant states that the nature of the proposed office use would not generate significant traffic and that visits to the site would be short term in nature thereby making the required five commercial parking stalls unnecessary. Note that the requested variance is conditioned upon a general office use and not just a real estate office use. The Applicant believes the spirit of the ordinance of providing adequate parking has been met with two or three spaces on site. The combination of retaining an existing structure and allowing for a use permitted in the zone can be found consistent with the general intent of base zoning district. In regards to the specific reduction in parking that is the subject of the variance, the use of two on-street parking spaces in combination with three on-site parking partially addresses the intent of the parking standards by meeting the regular parking needs of employees on site. The overflow parking would likely occur adjacent to the property on Washington Avenue, which is easily accessible to the site without disrupting other uses in the vicinity. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is 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 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 permitted standards within this zoning district. The applicant believes that the neighborhood is quickly transitioning to a more commercial feel than residential and this is in support of the desire of the intended purchaser to create an office use. The applicant also states they believe allowing for the reuse would also result in an investment in the property by the future purchaser than the property to improve the site. CONCLUSION: Granting of a variance from the required commercial parking does not provide substantial justice in that meeting commercial parking requirements for the use of the property for commercial purposes is not a peculiar condition for this property nor puts this property at a disadvantage relative to other nearby properties. Additionally, the findings for hardship in regards to yielding a reasonable return were not fully met based upon staffs analysis described above. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is not met. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment with findings of consistency for all Variance criteria, may approve a Variance to reduce the required parking for a 1,361 square foot commercial office use within the existing home from five onsite parking spaces to two parking spaces, conditioned upon retention of the existing home and paving of the onsite parking spaces in the rear yard. 2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment with findings of consistency for all Variance criteria, may approve a Variance to reduce the required parking for a 1,361 square foot commercial office use within the existing home from five onsite parking spaces to three parking spaces, conditioned upon retention of the existing home, paving of the onsite parking spaces, and approval of a Special Use Permit for stacked parking to allow for configuration of three spaces in the rear yard. 3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny this request for a variance for 233 Washington Avenue to reduce the required commercial, if it cannot find evidence that supports the explicit findings of consistency with all of the variance criteria. 4. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may table this variance request and seek further information from the applicant or from staff. PLANNING AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: It is the conclusion of staff, based upon an analysis that the project and the applicant's information, that the request for a variance does not meet all of the criteria. Although the request can meet some of the criteria for a variance, staff did not find that enough evidence was provided to support a determination that there, could not be a yield of a reasonable return for a residential use, that the issues with conversion from residential to commercial were unique to the site, and as a result there is not a lack of substantial justice in denying the variance. However, if the Board was to find that all the criteria have been met for the variance, it would be the recommendation of the Planning and Housing Department to select Alternative #2 to require three on-site parking spaces. 8