HomeMy WebLinkAboutA003 - Staff Report (7) ITEM# 6
DATE: 06/10/20
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CASE FILE NO.: VAR-000949
DATE PREPARED: June 5th, 2020
APPLICATION
FOR VARIANCE: To provide off-site parking for 700 Douglas Avenue on
the property located at 708 Douglas Avenue in a
Residential Medium Density District (RM) within the
Historic Overlay District (O-H) and Single-Family
Conservation Overlay District (O-SFC).
APPLICANT: Susan Hurd
LOCATION: 700 Douglas Avenue (See Attachment A)
ZONING: RM- Residential Medium Density
O-H - Historic Overlay
O-SFC Single Family Conservation Overlay
BACKGROUND:
The property located at 700 Douglas Avenue (Attachment A) includes an existing
nonconforming apartment building with no on-site parking. After reviewing options for
constructing parking for six vehicles on the 700 Douglas site it was determined that it
could not be done and comply with front yard parking limitations and dimension
standards. The property owner now requests a Variance to allow for required offsite
parking for the 4-unit apartment building to be located on the neighboring property to the
north at 708 Douglas Avenue. The requirement for compliant parking has arisen in
response to an application for a Guest Lodging use (Vacation Rental) at 700 Douglas
Avenue. Although the property is licensed as a rental property and "grandfathered" per
the terms of the Rental Code, repurposing one of the apartments for a Vacation Rental
triggers compliance with parking requirements. The review of the application for Guest
Lodging requires that all zoning standards be met. This includes parking for the apartment
units in this building on site. Remote required parking is not permissible within the Zoning
Ordinance for properties within the RM zoning district.
The applicant is asking for the Variance to allow for the required six parking stalls for 700
Douglas to be allowed to be placed on 708 Douglas Avenue along with the required stalls
for 708 Douglas Avenue. In total for the two properties there would be 13 required parking
stalls configured as surface parking and garage parking spaces accessed off of the rear
alley. A proposed Minor Site Development plan is attached (Attachment B) and shows
the proposed parking stalls on the neighboring property located at 708 Douglas Avenue.
1
If the variance is approved staff could finalize the review of the Site Development Plan for
conformance to Zoning standards for dimensions, paving, and landscaping.
Staff has discussed construction of garage parking options on the 700 Douglas site with
the owner. The applicant did not pursue this option due to cost and uncertainty on
whether it could also meet code. Staff has also discussed whether combining the lots of
700 and 708 Douglas Avenue is feasible. The Single-Family Conservation Overlay
standards prohibit any boundary line adjustment or lot consolidation.
APPLICABLE POLICIES AND LAWS:
Pertinent Sections of the Ames Municipal Code are described as follows:
Chapter 29, Section 29.406(6) Parking for a residential use must be the same site as the
principal building, and
Section 29.406 (18) that identifies which zoning districts allow for remote parking.
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" (Attachment D). 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: The applicant proposes to construct their paved parking lot on the
neighboring property to satisfy the parking requirements for both rental housing
and proposed Guest Lodging. The applicant states that "the proposed parking
arrangement has been in place for the past 40 years. There should be no change
in the pattern of traffic or pedestrian traffic" as a result of continuing this current
process.
The proposed parking would be adjacent to the site and have immediate access
to the property while staying off of public streets. Access to the proposed parking
area is shared with other adjacent properties by way of a paved public alley.
The proposed parking area will be required to provide the appropriate number of
required parking stalls, for the apartment and Guest Lodging use in manner that
keeps the parking in the side and rear yard. The variance requested would allow
the parking for both sites to be constructed on the neighboring property of 708
Douglas Avenue site in a layout that is maneuverable and otherwise meets as
many code requirements as possible.
CONCLUSION: Off-site parking is not permitted in residential zones to ensure
that typical parking needs are met on individual sites and do not overburden public
streets and that the design of improvements are compatible with the surrounding
area. In this case, providing parking off of public streets is in the public interest for
the benefit of health, safety, and general welfare for the surrounding area. The
existing traffic pattern is already occurring with little to no problems. The proposed
parking design keeps parking off of surrounding public streets and will be designed
to ensure adequate parking and access to the site from the public alley and streets.
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 proposed location of the physical parking off site are as a result of
a Special Use Permit for Guest Lodging. Parking on this site is required for not
only the Guest Lodging use but the rental use as well. The current apartments
3
have a valid Letter of Compliance (LOC) and have continuously had an LOC since
at least 1997 with no parking stalls on site. The building has operated as
apartments since the 1970's. Per the Rental Code, ongoing use of the property
as licensed rental property does not necessitate upgrading the parking to continue
as a licensed rental property.
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 City's zoning
standards and yield a reasonable return. The current apartments provide use for
the property that is well within the allowed uses of this zone with an active Letter
of Compliance from the City of Ames. The requested additional use of the site as
Guest Lodging is not guaranteed to be granted when other zoning standards of the
ordinance are not met. This does not create an unnecessary hardship in that the
property can be used for permitted principal uses allowed by RM zoning without
the construction of off-site parking for six vehicles.
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 building was constructed in 1885 as a single-family home and
converted to an apartment over 50 years ago. The site has access from a
preexisting alley in the rear. No significant exterior site changes have been made
in the last 25 years and there is no site plan on file. The site is a corner lot with
setback restrictions from both streets to the west and south. Some limited parking
could be provided with a structure (garage) east of the building on this site. A large
area on the lot is off limits to outdoor surface parking as it falls into the front yard.
The building currently houses 4 apartment units with no on-site parking. The lot is
in the same configuration and size it was at the time of the original plat. The site
and lot size is similar to many other properties in the same area that were platted
and originate from the same time period. The neighborhood contains a mix of
slightly larger and smaller lots.
CONCLUSION: The use of this site is an apartment complex and the required
changes to the site in order to meet parking standards in the zoning ordinance are
required of all sites that are a multi-family housing use. The current use of the
building as an apartment complex is permitted as it currently exists as pre-existing
non-conforming. Additionally, a single-family or two-family residential use can be
done here as permitted uses within the zone. The nature of the lot on a corner with
associated restrictions do not preclude this site from being used in its current form
nor as a permitted single-family or two-family use. The site is similar to other sites
in the neighborhood and is not unique on its own.
Therefore, the Board can conclude this criterion is not met.
4
(iii) The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential
character of the locality.
FINDING: The proposed parking will be located where there is existing gravel and
garage parking. The proposed parking area will include more parking than would
otherwise be required if only for the apartment use on the 708 Douglas property.
Residents and guests for a proposed new Guest Lodging use will walk across a
property line or potentially in the alleyway when going to and from their vehicles.
The area is a mix of small apartment buildings and single family dwellings, most
are accessed from alleyways.
CONCLUSION: The proposed parking area will be larger at 708 Douglas than
what would be necessary to only meet the needs of 708 Douglas. The proposed
variance would increase the paved area aby approximately 1080 square feet for
six parking spaces as it would used the same paved maneuvering areas as needed
for the garage access. However, the total amount of paving for the parking would
be similar in area as if the two sites had standalone parking lots. The applicant will
comply with landscape buffering requirements and it is in the rear of a site
accessed by an alley. The overall appearance will likely be compatible with the
surroundings when factoring in the garage area and outdoor parking 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 shows parking for both sites (700 & 708 Douglas
Avenue) on one site. The required number of parking stalls must be met for both
properties upon final approval. The ordinance standards require providing required
parking for the proposed use in a design compliant manner.
CONCLUSION: Parking standards apply uniformly to properties and uses within
the zoning district. The Code section the applicant is requesting a variance from is
the location of the parking on site for a residential use in a RM zoning district. While
the applicant will be required to create paved, properly dimensioned parking area
it also creates offsite parking on a neighboring site in a residential zone which is
not permitted. Adding the parking would meet the intent of having additional
spaces and remove demand from the public street, but it does not address the
purpose of the remote parking limitation which relates to convenience, direct
access to the building by a walkway, and allowing for independent use of the
property without relying upon another property. Additionally, because the property
is allowed be fully utilized as nonconforming property, it is not necessary to deviate
from zoning with remote parking.
Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is not met.
5
(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.
As a result of pursuing a Guest Lodging use at this location required parking must
be provided for the Guest Lodging use as well as the existing apartment use on
site. The property is similar to other properties in the neighborhood. The site is
able to accommodate more than one type of residential use. The property could
accommodate a structure such as a garage to provide limited parking for a less
intense use. The building has an active LOC currently and is a 4-unit apartment
building. The building could be converted to a single-family or two-family home
under the current zoning designation. The lot is not dissimilar in size or form
compared to other lots in the area. No unusual topographic issues exist on the
property.
CONCLUSION: The inability of the owner to provide compliant parking for the
apartment use and Guest Lodging use on site does not make the property peculiar
or uniquely constrained. The apartment building use is a higher density use than
other existing single and two-family homes nearby and can be seen to already be
allowed to maximize density and occupancy greater than other nearby existing
residential uses therefore not creating an equity issue relative to surrounding
properties. Further the limited amount of structured parking that could be provided
would satisfy a single-family or two-family use. The ability to do an additional
principal use of Short Term Lodging as a Vacation Rental is not guaranteed in the
zoning ordinance simply because it is allowed in a given zoning district, without the
standards of the ordinance being met.
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 700 Douglas
Avenue if it cannot find evidence that supports the explicit findings of consistency with all
of the variance criteria.
2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment with findings of consistency for all Variance criteria
may approve a Variance at 700 Douglas Avenue based upon the findings in the report to
allow for off-site parking located on the neighboring property addressed as 708 Douglas
Avenue subject to:
A. An approved Minor Site Development Plan that provides for the six required
parking stalls and meets all other applicable zoning standards.
B. Approval by City Council of a remote parking agreement.
C. The Variance allowance is restricted to providing for required parking for 700
6
Douglas in its existing configuration as a 4-unit apartment building and for up
to one Vacation Rental unit, subject to approval of a Special Use Permit.
3. 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:
The requested variance is based on the desire to have a Guest Lodging residential use
in an existing apartment building which therefore requires parking standards to be met.
The required parking necessary for this apartment building is not able to be met on this
site. The desire to operate a Guest Lodging use at this location is not essential to ensuring
a return on investment for this site as that in addition to the existing apartment building a
single-family or two-family use can be operated here. The site is not unlike other
properties in the neighborhood both in size and in terms of use. The neighborhood is a
mix of apartment and single-family units. Some corner lots in the neighborhood are
slightly larger while some are also smaller. As stated in the findings, an allowed use within
the zoning standards does not guarantee the ability to operate such a use unless the
standards of the ordinance are met. 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.
The Planning Housing Department recommends Alternative#1 to deny the variance
request.
Attachment A- Location Map
-r s sHS- sFis
S
715
79 p. ?'a
7 700 Douglas Aveuuc
705
703
-'00
215213 205 � 700 123 121�'i�
S
y t` Vow-
617
2
A1R
700 Douglas Avenue
Location & Zoning
N
g
Attachment B. Parking and Site Plan Layout (in review)
<zwnH»_
IF-IDT gr NY-W 9119 � • § ( ` |
S,*-T9110_Q04-.O
E
RAVED ALLEY !*
y §!
22
#
b
; -
\ „\ rmrmo}\} \ ,9 ,_-L \
00 \ -
� \
| \
SG |
\0 r
y6E | k�
\�
\k}
/() �00
~(£- .
�. .
_«SIDEWALK
DOUGL SAVE � < Z\
W q «« 2
�_:;, ® n &
� \
g