HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Variance to allow for off-street parking for 700 Douglas Avenue on the adjacent lot addressed as 708 Douglas Avenue Instrument #: 2020-07406
07/06/2020 11:15:33 ALB Total Pages: 7
00 OTHER
Recording Pee: $ 37.00
Stacie Herridge, Recorder, Story County Iowa
■Ili Is,� PEI eK11r1 NJ I 191 18�11111 1
—SPACE ABOVE RESERVED FOR OFFICIAL USE
Legat Descri tion:Lots 4 and 5 in Block 1,Original Town ofAmes,Story County,Iowa
Ce yt Return document to:City Clerk,515 C1arkAvenue,Ames IA 50010
Document prepared by:Jane Chang.City ofAmes Legal Department,515 ClarkAve.,Ames,IA 50010-515-239-5146
Clerk's Certificate
I,the undersigned,the duly appointed, qualified, and acting City Clerk of the City of Ames,Iowa,
do hereby certify:that I have custody of the records of the City of Ames,Iowa;that the foregoing
Decision and Order in Case No. 20-28 is a true and exact copy of said Decision and Order as filed and
recorded in my office.
�- In Witnesj Whereof,I have affixed my signature and the seal for the City of Ames, Iowa on this
; day of 00_L4 2020.
^ �V
DIANE R.VOSS, City Clerk
2020, before me,the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said
state,the foregoing C e k's Certificate was sworn to(or affirmed)and subscribed by Diane R. Voss,as
City Clerk for the City of Ames,Iowa.
,,..� t+R AMY L.COLWELL
$ Commissian Nummission
Expires
8
My C ,mission iresL. (/
ow r� -I'�
Notary a lie
U l� rE
CITY OF AMES, IOWA 'JUL 01 2020
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTME T
CITY CLERK
pw OF AMES,10WA
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF SUSAN HURD, TRUSTEE, FOR A CASE NO. 20-28
VARIANCE, SECTION 29.1504 OF THE
AMES MUNICIPAL CODE, TO ALLOW GEOCODE NO. 09-02-330-060
FOR OFF-STREET PARKING FOR 700
DOUGLAS AVENUE ON THE ADJACENT DECISION & ORDER
LOT ADDRESSED AS 708 DOUGLAS
AVENUE IN THE RM ZONING DISTRICT
WITHIN THE HISTORIC OVERLAY(O-
H)DISTRICT AND SINGLE-FAMILY
CONSERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT
(O-SFC)
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Applicant Susan Hurd, Trustee, is seeking a Variance to allow for the required six parking stalls
for the property locally known as 700 Douglas Avenue (legally known as Lot 4 in Block 1,
Original Town of Ames, Story County, Iowa) to be located on the property locally known as 708
Douglas Avenue (legally known as Lot 5 and the South 15 feet of Lot 6 in Block 1, Original
Town of Ames, Story County, Iowa), along with the required stalls for 708 Douglas Avenue,
City Planner Justin Moore presented the application to the Board. The requirement for compliant
parking arose in response to a Special Use Permit application for a Guest Lodging use at 700
Douglas Avenue.
The property located at 700 Douglas Avenue 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 adjacent 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 current parking requirements. The review of the application for Guest Lodging
requires that all current zoning standards be met. This includes parking for the apartment units in
this building on site. Remote parking is not permissible within the Zoning Ordinance for
properties within the RM zoning district.
For the two properties there would be 13 required parking stalls, configured as surface parking
and garage parking spaces accessed from the rear alley. A proposed Minor Site Development
Plan shows the proposed parking stalls on the neighboring property located at 708 Douglas
2
Avenue. 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.
Applicant and staff worked together to find the best options in this situation. The construction of
a garage was discussed, but the Applicant did not pursue this option due to cost and uncertainty
on whether it could meet code. Staff also discussed combining the lots of 700 and 708 Douglas,
but the Single-Family Conservation Overlay standards prohibit any boundary line adjustment or
lot consolidation. Staff recommended that the Variance be denied.
Applicant Susan Hurd, 3275 400t' Street, Roland, Iowa, testified that the parking at 700 Douglas
is currently nonconforming as a rental property without guest lodging. Her desire is to bring the
property into compliance. There is a path of brick pavers that leads from 700 Douglas to the
parking area at 708 Douglas. The path is not ADA-compliant, but she would be willing to
address that. Ms. Hurd discussed the site plan and paving with the Board and Planner Moore;
however, the issue at hand is just regarding the capability to park offsite.
David Carter, 709 Douglas Avenue, Ames, Iowa, testified about the historical neighborhood, the
reasoning behind the single-family conservation overlay in the area, and also voiced his
opposition to granting the Variance.
Chair Schoeneman noted that all criteria for the Findings had to be met in order to approve the
variance; therefore, the Board made the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions related to
the standards listed in Ames Municipal Code section 29.1504(4):
(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 a 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,
3
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 concludes 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 and the nonconforming use status of the parking
for the rental apartments. Parking on this site is required for not only the Guest Lodging
use but the rental use as well. The current apartments 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. However, if improvements were made
to the property the upgrading of the parking would be required.
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. However, the nonconforming status of the parking would limit any alterations to
the apartments and reasonable return on the property. 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. However, the variance would bring the apartments
into greater conformance with city ordinances by providing the required number of paved
spaces.
Therefore, the Board concludes 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 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.
4
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 corner lot is unique circumstance in that the front yard is the majority of
the lot's area, where the parking is not permitted. The variance to permit off-site parking
also prevents a variance for front yard parking on the property or additional impervious
area/structures added to 700 Douglas and the minor site plan requires landscaping and
screening.
Therefore,the Board concludes this criterion is met.
(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 by approximately 1080 square feet for six parking spaces as it
would be 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.
S
Therefore, the Board concludes 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. Adding the parking
meets the intent of having additional spaces and removes demand from the public street.
The parking lot has direct access to the building by a walkway. A remote parking
agreement negates the issue of allowing for independent use of the property without
relying upon another property. Additionally, because the property is allowed be fully
utilized as nonconforming property, the variance would bring the apartments into greater
conformance with city ordinances.
Therefore,the Board concludes 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.
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
parking for the apartment use is currently nonconforming with city ordinances. 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.
However, if improvements were made to the property the upgrading of the parking would
be required. 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 permitted use in the district and the
nonconforming parking does place constraints on that use. The Applicant will be required
to create paved, properly dimensioned parking area. Adding the parking meets the intent
of having additional spaces and removes demand from the public street. The parking lot
6
has direct access to the building by a walkway. A remote parking agreement negates the
issue of allowing for independent use of the property without relying upon another
property. The corner lot is unique circumstance in that the front yard is the majority of
the lot's area, where the parking is not permitted.
Therefore, the Board concludes that this criterion is met.
Chair Schoeneman requested an amendment to the motion adding a fourth condition that the
sidewalk from 700 Douglas to the parking area at 708 Douglas be ADA compliant.
DECISION
The Board considered the facts as detailed above and found that all of the relevant standards in
Section 29.1504 were met and established by the Applicant.
ORDER
WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Variance is APPROVED, pursuant to Ames
Municipal Code Section 29.1504 of the Ames Municipal Code, to allow for the required six
parking stalls for 700 Douglas Avenue to be located on 708 Douglas Avenue, along with the
required stalls for 708 Douglas Avenue with the following conditions:
1. An approved Minor Site Development Plan that provides for the six required parking stalls
and meets all other applicable zoning standards,
2. Approval by City Council of a remote parking agreement,
3. The Variance allowance is restricted to providing for required parking for 700 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.
4. The sidewalk from 700 Douglas to the parking area at 708 Douglas must be ADA-
compliant.
Done this 1 Oth day of June, 2020.
Diane Voss Amelia Schoeneman
City Clerk Chair