HomeMy WebLinkAboutA003 - Report (3) ITEM# _4_
DATE: 03/11/20
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CASE FILE NO.: VAR-000901
DATE PREPARED: March 5, 2020
APPLICATION
FOR VARIANCE: To allow for a reduction in width of required perimeter
parking lot planters and buffer yards, reductions in
parking dimensions, and increase in compact stalls for
a Group Living use in a Residential High Density
District (RH) with the East University Impacted Overlay
District (O-UIE).
APPLICANT: Pi Chapter of Alpha Delta Pi Building Corp.
LOCATION: 2125 Greeley Street (See Attachment A)
ZONING: RH- Residential High Density
O-UIE - East University Impacted Overlay
BACKGROUND:
The owner of 2125 Greeley Street has applied for a variance to allow a parking lot to be
rebuilt in a way that will allow required twenty (20) parking stalls to be provided.
(Attachment A). The subject property has an existing sorority and parking lot constructed
on site. The original house was built in 1925 with an addition in 1967 to current size it is
today. Parking has been added over the years and has been in its current configuration
since at least the 1980's, predating our current Zoning Code standards.
The property owner desires to construct a 402 square foot kitchen addition. The addition
is a result of a kitchen remodel that must comply with the State of Iowa health code
requirement, which requires a three-compartment sink and exhaust hood over the range.
Kitchen updates cannot be done without these code compliant updates for the use of this
property, as group living. The addition is for an essential element of operating the sorority.
The addition will be in the rear northwest corner of the house, where the existing kitchen
is located, causing a loss of parking existing stalls. The Sorority has worked with City staff
to find a parking lot layout the provides the required number of parking stalls configured
in a logical layout that meets as many of the parking lot requirements as they can. The
sorority desires to retain as many appropriate parking stalls as possible rather than seek
a reduction in total number of parking spaces below the minimum requirement.
1
A Minor Site Development Plan application for the proposed parking lot has been received
and reviewed by staff. (See Attachment C — Site Plant) The Site Plan cannot be
approved by staff, without the granting of a "Variance to Perimeter Parking Lot Planters
and Bufferyards and Parking Space and Vehicle Aisle Dimension" by the Zoning Board
of Adjustment. The proposed layout has a lack of required landscaping, additional
compact stalls, and reduced drive aisle and parking space dimensions that do not meet
the current zoning standards.
Currently, the sorority parking lot access is off a narrow public alley that is used by many
properties. The existing parking area has more parking stalls than what is required but
the spaces are not configured in a Zoning Ordinance compliant manner. The proposed
kitchen addition will impact the parking lot and create the need for reconfiguration, which
triggers compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The existing parking lot has a number of
nonconformities and there is not adequate space on the site to construct a new parking
lot with the minimum number of required spaces. The property owner is required to
construct the minimum number of required parking spaces for the uses that exist on the
property. It is generally the policy of the City to eliminate such other nonconformities as
quickly as practicable. See Section 29.307(5)(b) of the Municipal Code. Any increase in
the nonconforming aspects of the existing parking lot is prohibited.
The proposed parking area does not meet all parking and landscaping standards of
Zoning Ordinance. Section 29.403(2)(E) requires side and rear yards to provide a high
screen adjacent to residential zoning. The re-designed parking lot will be in the same
location. but the paving will be extended to the north and west. Currently the extent of the
paving along the north property varies in width from two — five feet (Attachment B —
Existing Conditions). This area is gravel and cars park on or overhang the gravel area.
The north area of the parking lot is currently grass with a few trees. The existing paving
is approximately ten feet from the east property line. The paving at the east end would be
extended but still accommodate existing trees and the addition of shrubs in order to meet
the high screen standard.
The proposed site plan includes twenty-one parking spaces; twenty are required for this
use. The variance of Section 29.406(9) is to allow a length of 17 feet without allowed an
allowable overhang, instead of the required 19 feet, for six stalls along the north property
line. Although the stalls are setback two feet from the property line, it configuration does
not meet standards for landscaping and paving dimensions. Standard parking spaces
that abut a planter area at least seven feet in depth may allow for vehicle overhang of 18
inches with an improved (paved) space that is 17 feet 6 inches in length. These six stalls
are not counted as compact stalls because they meet standard width requirements.
Also, shown on the plan is a 22-foot drive aisle on the east half of the parking lot, two feet
less than the required 24-foot drive aisle. The three angled parking stalls do comply with
stall dimensions and drive aisle dimensions for stalls parked at a 45 degree angle, as
shown with backout to the alleyway for circulation.
The applicant is also asking the variance to allow nine compact parking spaces. five more
than allowed by code. Section 29.406(9)(a) allows twenty percent of the required stalls to
2
be compact when the parking lot consists of 10 or more off-street parking spaces. This
site has twenty-one parking stalls and is proposing nine or forty-five percent of the stalls
be compact. There are seven compact stalls shown along the west side of the house.
Approximately, six of these stalls were existing prior to the proposed site plan. Re-striping
of the stalls and moving a bike rack allow seven to fit and comply with compact stall
dimensions. Three compact stalls will be new to the site, one on the west side of the
building and two within the parking lot.
In addition to parking configuration variances, the applicant request variances from
landscape requirements of a high screen and parking lot landscape percentage found in
29.403(2). A minimum of a five-foot planter is required with specified planting around the
perimeter of the parking lot. Parking lots also require 10% landscape area.
A Plat of Survey to consolidate two existing lots that the parking lot and building straddle,
into a single Parcel "M , will be on the City Council agenda on March 10, 2019 and should
be approved prior to this meeting. The created of the parcel is required by the Subdivision
Code to allow for evaluation of the site consistent with zoning standards for site
improvements.
APPLICABLE POLICIES AND LAWS:
Pertinent Sections of the Ames Municipal Code are described as follows:
Chapter 29, Section 29.403(2) (d) (i) Surface Parking Lot Landscaped Area (a) Parking lots must
contain landscaped area equal to 10%of the total gross parking lot.The total gross area of a parking lot is
defined as the area of the paved surface measured from the back of the curb or edge of paving excepting
landscaped islands, landscaped medians, and driveways within the front yard landscape area
Chapter 29, Section 29.403(2)(e) Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping and Bufferyards Side and rear
yards abutting a parking lot, excepting front yard driveways, require a High Screen adjacent to residential
zoning.
Chapter 29, Section 29.406(9) includes tables for parking lot dimensions and percentage
of compact space.
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.
3
(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" (Attachment D). 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 will need to reconstruct their parking lot as a result of a
small kitchen addition. Access to the parking area is shared with other adjacent
properties by way of a public alley. Properties then access their private parking
areas for this alley. The proposed parking area will provided the number of required
parking stalls, plus one, for this group living use in manner that keeps the parking
on site and in the side a rear yard. The variances requested will allow the parking
to be constructed on site in a layout that is easily maneuverable and meets as
many code requirements as possible.
CONCLUSION: Providing parking for uses consistent with the zoning district is in
the public interest. 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. This site has existed in is current configurations since at least
the 1980's. It is not physically possible to provide the twenty required parking
spaces and meet all of the parking and landscaping code requirements. The
proposed configuration of parking is similar to the aesthetic of adjacent properties.
Without the parking lot in this configuration more parking would be pushed on to
the street in an already congested area of sororities, fraternities and single family
homes.
4
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 changes to the parking are required as a result of the kitchen
remodel project. The State health code requirements for a kitchen in a group living
setting requires a three-compartment sink and an exhaust hood. These
requirements resulted in an addition to be the size proposed. The applicant
describes the requirement to update their kitchen to comply with state codes. This
house was constructed for a sorority use. There is also a demolition prohibition in
the East University Impact Overlay. Change in use would result in extensive
remodeling or possibly demolition.
CONCLUSION: A reasonable return does not ensure a profit, maximized gain, 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 question of hardship applies to
whether the property can be used in any manner consistent with the zoning and
yield a reasonable return.
Without the kitchen updates the kitchen does not meet code. It would like not be
able to continue the use as it without an extensive internal remodel. Changes to
the use of the property or the structure would be financially significant. Demoliion
of the building and reconstruction would not be financially feasible and limited by
the East University Impact Overlay. While the proposed parking lot does not meet
all code requirements, it does allow for providing the minimum number of parking
spaces on a nonconforming site.
Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is met.
(ii) The plight of the owners is due to unique circumstances and not to
the general conditions in the neighborhood.
FINDING: The original building, later addition, and changes to on-site parking
areas were done over the last ninety-five years. The site has a unique access
constraint of a preexisting alley.No significant site changes have been made since
the 1980's and there is no site plan on file. The applicant has worked with staff to
come up with the best parking layout for the situation to provide required on-site
parking.
CONCLUSION: The use of this site is a sorority and the changes to the site are
unique from other single-family homes in the neighborhood. When compared to
5
adjacent sororities, structure size and location on site varies. Staff and the
applicant have worked together to come up with the best layout with the least
amount of impact to the area.
Therefore, the Board can conclude this criterion is met.
(iii) The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential
character of the locality.
FINDING: The building location and existing parking on the parcel is much the
same as those adjacent properties with similar uses. The parking will still be
located where there is existing parking. The proposed parking area will look similar
to adjacent properties of the same use and will not alter the essential character of
the area.
CONCLUSION: The proposed parking area will look similar and be in a similar
location to the adjacent properties with parking in the rear. The parking area
changes will not be visible for the street and will not alter the character of the area.
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 proposed layout is the result of many iterations and best fits the
intent of the zoning standards that apply to the parking lot and landscaping. The
required number of parking stalls are met keeping as much parking on site as
possible. While a high screen will not be provided along the north property line, it
will be installed along the west property line. Keeping parking to the rear of the site
is a primary goal of the zoning standards.
CONCLUSION: Parking standards apply uniformly to properties and uses within
the zoning district. The Code sections the applicant is requesting a variance from
is the dimension of parking stalls and drive aisles and not the number of parking
stalls provided. A variance to the high screen requirements. The applicant's
proposed layout makes a more uniform and consistent design compared to the
current nonconforming conditions and incorporates landscaping where feasible to
try to meet the spirit of the ordinance.
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. The code
6
i
requirements for the kitchen remodel is the cause for the parking lot reconstruction.
The kitchen addition is an essential component of operating the existing use
compared to adding additional floor area for other non-essential ancillary uses or
increasing the overall intensity of use of the site with more bedrooms. Given the
original location of the building and proximity to the property line the area for
allowed parking on site is limited.
CONCLUSION: The applicant is proposing to provide the required number of
parking stalls in layout that would be more conducive to users of the property.
Denial of the Variance would allow some of the parking to remain in its current
nonconforming condition and push more parking onto the street. If approved,
parking would be constructed in a manner that would be as compliant as possible,
resulting in less impervious area, addition of a required handicap stall that is
currently absent, and additional landscaping along the west property line.
Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is met.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . The Zoning Board of Adjustment with findings of consistency for all Variance criteria
may approve a Variance at 2125 Greeley Street based upon the proposed parking lot
layout and kitchen addition represented by Exhibit "C" to allow for a reduction in
landscaping, parking space and aisle dimensions, and overall number of compact
spaces.
2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment can direct the applicant to prepare a modified site
plan that shows a compliant parking lot and landscaping plan and reconsider a
variance to the minimum number of required parking spaces upon submittal of a new
parking lot layout.
3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny this request for a variance for 2125
Greeley Street 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 meets all of the criteria. Approval of a variance
for the parking dimensions will replace the need for a separate parking lot dimension
exception. The Planning Housing Department recommends Alternative 1 to approve
the variance request.
Attachment A- Location Map
». Ott
AF
' � .
>
.r. �.
a.
_ � I IRS$,. ,' :� .► P f c ! -- w
rr at "off R eK K .'. - - r
ri
lit RGABL
fiFFffdi•FW. Rt3�' -'• �f � Y
SUNSET DR">• -�f '
Pr
r •. 7 -l 'may dC', �,�g;:�"�/, :,\. �, 'S'1 i = i
. Q
�q7 �IGFPfF j r
2125`Greeley Street
� �Y�y`'-.�,� � �> r' ��� � � � ffFABPJE'�M4 f• �fN.
a• z �� + r
fr UR . o
e•� t qq
t
e
>.
,fir �; ,� •
.',•t +rA _ .�`i.is �,:.' lr'�r.:• -• ;.�. .. ., Y,4
A
F.
y
. v
V r
N Location Map
2125 Greeley Street
8
i
RECEIVED 1 5
FEB 2 6 2020
CT OF
DEPC LF ft,VAOprpSjp A
---�-� ♦ -f- ate ,•. . '��� .-- ®---- .1 •\\ s
O
C
CL
O
c -- _ — -- ------------ -- �e� .
W —» pf
C1.1
Attachment C- Proposed Site Plan
Y
� y I
., it
T.
T
6
1;i --- _
N # Yam+n�U�UT�M1pWw]s •NCV i'I•+.'tp -ero�0 —
jZffneering o;aa.0000
M1•AW
10
Attachment D- Applicant's Supporting Information
11