HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 10-12-2016MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AMES, IOWA OCTOBER 12, 2016
The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 6 :00 p.m. on
October 12, 2016, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present:
Shelby Ebel, Kyle Perkins, Matthew Koehler and Amelia Schoeneman. Board Member Susan
Bradbury was absent. City Planner Julie Gould, City Planner Ray Anderson, and Assistant City
Attorney Mark Lambert were also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Perkins, seconded by Koehler, to approve the minutes
of the meeting of September 28, 2016.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 16-16
SPECIAL USE PERMIT – Dean and Luke Jensen, Lincoln Park Co-Op, Inc.
Public Hearing on a Special Use Permit for Enlargement of a Nonconforming Use at 3502
Lincoln Way.
City Planner Julie Gould displayed a location map and site plan for the project. The applicant,
Lincoln Park Co-op, Inc., is requesting a Special Use Permit for Enlargement of a
Nonconforming Use at 3502 Lincoln Way. Granting of the request, through approval of the
Special Use Permit, would allow construction of a 44 foot by 40 foot (1,760 square foot)
accessory structure with a mezzanine. The structure will be approximately 20 feet in height to the
peak of the roof. The two roll up doors are 10 feet in height. The applicant describes the purpose
and need for the accessory structure as providing storage for construction materials while a
renovation of the complex occurs over the next couple of years. The structure will be permanent.
A connection between the proposed and existing accessory structures will be constructed with
the building. Much of the area surrounding the accessory structure will be paved to access the
new building and displace existing greenspace. The existing 24 foot by 24 foot accessory storage
structure is approximately 12 feet in height to the ridge of the roof, and will be unchanged with
this proposal.
The site includes a large parking lot which currently provides parking for the apartment
development and the commercial/office development to the north. This parking lot exists on both
parcels. A cross-access easement was approved in 2006 to ensure that both sites have access to
Lincoln Way and can circulate into and through both sites. In 1984, a 3,500 square foot addition
was approved for the commercial development to the north that required a total of 189 parking
spaces for the commercial and apartment use. The proposed accessory structure does not change
the amount of parking required for the residential development directly, but the driveway to
access the building will likely displace existing spaces. The parking lot layout is to remain
unchanged with this site plan so as to not create nonconformity in required parking. Therefore,
189 stalls must be provided to be consistent with the approved parking standard for the site.
The HOC (Highway Oriented Commercial) district does not permit multiple-family residential
developments. However, when this development was originally approved and constructed the
zoning was B (Multiple Residence) and was a permitted use. The current zoning designation,
HOC, replaced the prior PC (Planned Commercial) zoning district and makes this a
nonconforming use. The PC zoning district approved site plan is the approved arrangement of
the uses and improvements for the site. Although the site is zoned commercial, the property itself
has a residential use and a new commercial use cannot be established in combination with the
apartment buildings. The only way to add improvements to the site is if it is consistent with the
requirements of enlarging a nonconforming use. Since the proposal is a new accessory building,
not a principal building with a nonconforming use, staff has interpreted the nonconforming
expansion standard restriction of a 125% enlargement of a building to not apply. The general
findings of the Special Use Permit control the size and configuration of the request.
The site plan, project description, applicable law, and findings of fact and conclusions were
reviewed in detail by Ms. Gould. She explained that City staff has reviewed the request and
recommends that the Board approve the request for a Special Use Permit for Enlargement of a
Nonconforming Use at 3502 Lincoln Way with conditions:
A. The accessory structure shall be used for no other use than storage for equipment and
materials associated with the Lincoln Park Apartments.
B. The accessory structure may also be used for on-site accessory recreation or amenity
space.
Luke Jensen, Lincoln Park Co-Op, Inc., was sworn in and testified under oath. Mr. Jensen stated
that the renovation process of the property spurred the conversation of needing more space. He
mentioned that at a rate of building 12-14 units per year, it would take around five years to
complete the project. Mr. Jensen wanted to make sure they are compliant with the required
conditions, but believes that condition A might be too rigid when stating that the materials wil l
only be used at the Lincoln Park Apartments. He expects some small items like paint and brushes
to be stored there but used at multiple locations.
Board Member Ebel asked for an example of storage purposes expected in the next two to five
years. Mr. Jensen stated that items such as furnace filters, paint, and other items for on-site
apartments would be stored. Ms. Ebel asked if those items are needed at other locations, would it
be better to have a storage unit elsewhere. She said it would be acceptable to store a lawnmower,
but not materials for a future construction project. Mr. Jensen mentioned that during winter
months, it might be difficult to go from one location to another for these uses. He restated that
they want to be in compliance and straight forward with specific uses for the structure. He
mentioned that a lot of other rental properties have similar storage facilities around town. Mr.
Jensen also clarified that the height was dropped as well as the mezzanine, making it about 20’ to
the peak.
Moved by Koehler to approve ORDER NO. 16-16, thereby approving the request for a Special
Use Permit for Enlargement of a Nonconforming Use at 3502 Lincoln Way
with the following conditions:
A. The accessory structure shall be used for no other use than storage for equipment for
property management.
B. The accessory structure may also be used for on-site accessory recreation or amenity
space.
Motion died for lack of a second.
Moved by Perkins, to approve ORDER NO. 16-16, thereby approving the request for a Special
Use Permit for Enlargement of a Nonconforming Use at 3502 Lincoln Way
with the following conditions:
A. The accessory structure shall be used for no other use than storage for equipment and
materials associated with Lincoln Park Apartments.
B. The accessory structure may also be used for on-site accessory recreation or amenity
space.
Motion died for lack of a second.
Ms. Gould restated that the purpose of the accessory structure is to store materials to renovate
this property and the main concern is the size. Staff does not want to allow the storage of items
for other properties if it would interrupt traffic after the building process is complete. She said
that staff would not be in support of the project if the intended use was for other rental
properties.
Mr. Jensen asked if there would be an opportunity to discuss the acceptable size for the structure
so that it meets approval. It was said that acceptable in order to establish better guidelines.
Moved by Schoeneman, seconded by Perkins to refer back to applicant and staff, specifically to
assess the size (height, length, and width) of the building as appropriate for the use, as well as to
reassess condition A, to look at a more amenable solution where supplies could be used for
property management specifically related to Lincoln Park Apartments or limit that as well as the
size would allow.
Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 16-15
EXCEPTION TO PARKING AREA DIMENSIONS – A&D Partnership, Professional
Property Management, Inc.
Public Hearing on a Special Use Permit for Reconstruction of a Damaged Nonconforming
Structure at 301 S. 4th Street.
City Planner Ray Anderson made a correction to the report. He said that, in the report, there is a
condition stating to add more trees east of the building. The three trees mentioned were said to be
on the property, when in fact they are on the adjacent property. It was said this condition would
not apply. Also, the developers intend to plant five more trees on the property. Mr. Anderson
also mentioned that the addition described as being 10 feet by 22 feet is actually 30 feet by 22
feet.
Board Member Ebel asked if instead of having a condition regarding the maintenance of the
existing three trees, would it be acceptable to have a condition to provide trees in accordance
with the landscape plan. Mr. Anderson said that would be accepted.
Mr. Anderson displayed a location map and site plan for the project. The request by the applicant
is for approval of a Special Use Permit to Rebuild a Damaged Nonconforming Structure in a
Residential Zone, located at 301 S. 4th Street. The property at 301 S. 4th Street is the site where,
on June 6, 2016, a three-story, 33-unit apartment building was severely damaged by fire, and was
subsequently demolished by the property owner, due to the extensive fire.
The prior building was constructed in 1984 within a GC (General Commercial) zoning district
that no longer exists. The site is now zoned RH (Residential High Density), reflecting the use of
the site, but the site does not meet a number of current development standards related to site
layout for the building location and site improvements for parking and landscaping. This Special
Use Permit application is specifically in relation to the reconstruction of the apartment building
in relationship to the nonconformities related to the structure itself, this includes the rear setback,
total parking spaces, side yard setback, and location of parking in the front yard. In the event the
Special Use Permit is denied, the property owner would be required to redevelop the site in
conformance with all of the current development and building standards of the City. Additional
nonconformities are to be minimized and improved as practical in addition to the approval of the
reconstruction of the structure.
The applicant wishes to rebuild the apartment building, Oakridge Apartments, on the foundation
of the former building, which was salvaged during demolition of the above-ground portion of the
building. An expansion of the original building is also proposed with its reconstruction. The
addition is a 30 foot by 22 foot (a 660 square foot addition to the building footprint), next to the
southwest corner of the existing foundation. The mix of one, two, three and four bedroom units
would change in the proposed apartment building. There is a proposed reduction in the total
number of dwelling units from 33 previous units to 24 units in the new building. The total
number of bedrooms would be reduced, as well, from 69 to 67 bedrooms. The number of
parking spaces would also be reduced from 65 to 59 total spaces.
Both buildings are three-story, with a basement level exposed on the south side of the building.
However, the proposed apartment building is designed with a flat roof. The former apartment
building was constructed with a 4/12 pitched roof supporting a more residential appearance with
its very basic design and material treatments. The pitched roof is more in keeping with the
smaller, multi-family and single family structures that exist along S. 4th Street.
Proposed Site Changes. Minimal changes are proposed on the remainder of the site. The
existing parking lot and fences on all three sides of the parking lot will remain. It is the intention
of the applicant to resurface the existing parking surface, without removing the entire existing
asphalt surface. Sections of the parking surface, in need of repair, will be completely replaced.
Interior parking lot landscaping includes two medians, 7.5 feet wide, planted with shrubs and
trees. The applicant proposes to remove one of three trees on each median, and to replace all of
the existing shrubs with vines as the ground cover. The existing foundation plantings, next the
front of the building, including understory trees and shrubs, are planned for removal. A mix of
coniferous and deciduous shrubs are planned as replacements for the foundation plantings.
Three new parking spaces are proposed on the lower level of the site, accessed from S. 5th Street,
and the number of handicap-accessible parking spaces would be increased from one to three,
including one that is van-accessible, to meet the current ADA requirements.
History of Site Development. The original site plan was approved, and a building permit was
obtained for construction of the apartment building in 1984. The site plan was later revised in
1986 to add landscaping along the north perimeter of the parking lot. Zoning at the time of
approval of the site plan was G-C (General Commercial), which allowed ‘residential’ as a
permitted use. The site was later rezoned to RH (Residential High Density) in May 2000, which
allows apartment buildings as a permitted use.
Zoning & Land Use of Surrounding Properties. The surrounding neighborhood is a mix of
zoning and land uses. Zoning of property to the north, east and west is S-SMD (South Lincoln
Sub Area Mixed-Use District). Properties to the south and southeast of the site are zoned as RH
(Residential High Density). Land use consists of single-family dwellings along both sides of S.
4th Street. Commercial service and retail uses are located north and east of the site. South of the
site are large apartment buildings that line the north side of S. 5th Street.
Nonconforming Structure. In accordance with Section 29.307(3)(c)(ii) of the Municipal Code:
“Any nonconforming structure damaged to the extent of more than 70% of its assessed value
may not be rebuilt, repaired, or used unless the rebuilt structure conforms with all regulations of
the district in which it is located or unless the Zoning Board of Adjustment approves the
reconstruction by granting a Special Use Permit after determining that restoration will be made
to the fullest extent possible in conformance with applicable zoning standards.”
The following nonconforming site features, are directly related to the proposed apartment
building:
Rear Yard Setback. The distance between the building foundation for the apartment
building that was destroyed and the rear (east) property line, varies from 11.75 feet at the
northeast corner of the site to 11.20 feet at the southeast corner. At the time of site plan
approval, the property was zoned as G-C, which required a minimum rear yard setback of
10 feet. The current zoning, RH, requires a minimum rear yard setback of 25 feet. Since
the rear yard setback of the existing building foundation is less than the required 25 feet
minimum, the rear yard setback is nonconforming for a new apartment building
constructed on the existing building foundation.
Side Yard Setback. The distance between the building foundation for the apartment
building that was destroyed and the side (north) property line varies from 10.10 feet at the
northwest corner to 9.3 feet at the northeast corner. At the time of site plan approval, the
property was zoned as G-C, which required a minimum side yard setback of 5 feet. The
current zoning, RH, requires a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet for three-story
buildings. Since the side yard setback of the existing building foundation is less than the
required 10 foot minimum, the side yard setback is nonconforming for a new apartment
building constructed on the existing building foundation.
Front Yard Parking. The original approved site plan for the apartment building placed
parking for the apartment building in the front yard, which is the open space in that
portion of a yard between the street and the face of the structure. At the time of site plan
approval, the G-C zoning of the site permitted front yard parking. The current zoning,
RH, prohibits front yard parking for new apartment buildings. Given the fact that the
parking lot for the site currently exists in the front yard and the developer proposes to
leave the parking at its current location, the front yard parking on the site is
nonconforming for a new apartment building constructed, on the existing building
foundation.
Total Number of Parking Spaces. The total number of parking spaces required for the
original building was 62 spaces for 33 units with a total of 69 bedrooms. A total of 65
spaces (including three off-site) were provided with the original building. The current
zoning ordinance would require a total of 74 parking spaces, which is a difference of 9
(74-65=9) fewer spaces provided than what would be required by the current standards.
The total number of parking spaces required for the proposed apartment building is 67
spaces for 24 units configured with two, three, and four bedroom units that total 67
bedrooms. A total of 56 parking spaces are proposed on the new site plan with the
continued use of three remote parking spaces that exist immediately to the south of the
site, which is a difference of 8 (67-56-3=8) fewer spaces provided than what is required
by the current zoning standards. The three off-site parking spaces are also considered a
nonconformity as remote parking is not permitted within the RH zoning district.
Therefore, the number of parking spaces provided with the approved site plan, and with
the proposed site plan, does not meet the current zoning standards, which means the
number of parking spaces provided on site is nonconforming.
Other Nonconforming Site Features and Efforts to Bring into Compliance. There are a
number of other nonconforming site features, which were part of the approved site plan. These
nonconformities have been documented, and the applicant has eliminated some of the
nonconformities, while others remain in the proposed site plan. The nonconforming site features
include the following:
Parking Space Dimensions. The length of parking spaces is 0.5 feet to 2.0 feet less than
required by current zoning standard, meaning the stall depth is as low as 17 feet where 19
feet is currently required. No changes are proposed by the applicant.
Compact Parking Dimensions. Of the 12 compact parking spaces, only two meet the
minimum required dimensions. No changes are proposed by the applicant.
Handicap-Accessible Parking. One space was provided in the approved site plan. Current
zoning standards require three spaces. The applicant is proposing three handicap-
accessible parking spaces in the proposed site plan, which meets the current zoning and
ADA requirements.
Drive Aisle Dimensions. The width of the drive aisle between the end of two parking lot
medians and the west edge of the drive aisle is 10 feet less than the minimum required
width of 24 feet. No changes are proposed by the applicant.
Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaping. Landscape strips along the north, south, and west
perimeters of the parking lot do not meet the minimum requirements for a minimum
width of 5 feet, and for the numbers of trees and shrubs required. No changes are
proposed by the applicant.
Sidewalk Between the Main Building Entrance & the Street. An on-site sidewalk, a
minimum of 5 feet wide, is to connect the main entrance of the building to the street. No
changes are proposed by the applicant.
Remote Parking. At the time of approval of the site plan, three parking spaces located on
the property adjacent to the site were approved as part of the site plan. An agreement was
signed by the two property owners agreeing to use of the three remote parking spaces.
Remote parking is not permitted in the current RH zoning of the site. The three remote
spaces are included in the total of 59 spaces in the new development. No changes are
proposed by the applicant.
Stacked Parking. The approved site plan included eight parking spaces located under the
apartment building and accessed from S. 5th Street. Four of the eight parking spaces meet
current zoning standards. The other four parking spaces under the former building were
designed for stacked (tandem) parking, where one car would be parked in front of
another. The two stacked spaces measured 40 feet in length to accommodate two cars in
each 40 foot space. No parking spaces are proposed under the building in the proposed
building and site plans.
The site plan, project description, applicable law, and findings of fact and conclusions were
reviewed in detail by Mr. Anderson. He explained that City staff has reviewed the request and
recommends that the Board approve the request for a Special Use Permit for Reconstruction of a
Damaged Nonconforming Structure at 301 S. 4th Street with the following conditions:
A. That a Plat of Survey be approved by the City Council, and copies of the recorded
documents be received by the City Clerk’s Office, prior to approval of the Minor Site
Development Plan.
B. Maintain the three existing trees in the rear setback, east of the building, and add four
additional trees. Approval of the location and species of the trees by the Planning &
Housing Department is required, prior to finalizing revisions to the Landscape Plan.
Since there was a change in Condition B in the original staff report, the condition was said to be
eliminated or amended to be clear of landscape expectations.
Mr. Anderson mentioned that City Council will have to approve the property as a “parcel” before
the site plan is approved. The legal description will be finalized as well.
Mr. Anderson pointed out where the three off-site parking spaces were on the site plan. He
clarified that the spots are from a previous agreement and would be counted towards the total
number of required parking spaces in the new development.
Board Member Ebel asked if the structure built in 1974 was built according to plan or not, seeing
as how there are so many nonconformities. Mr. Anderson stated that it partially was and gave an
example of the required parking stall depth. He said during that time an overhang of 2 feet was
allowed since the depth is 17 feet, where 19 feet is currently required.
Board Member Schoeneman asked if it was possible to use the same foundation and have the
structure be smaller, yet still meet all the requirements. Mr. Anderson said that in order to meet
today’s requirements, they would have to start completely over. He stated that it might be
possible with a different layout, but the building would not be as large. The parking and
landscaping dimensions would also be different. Ms. Schoeneman stated her concern for fire
access and asked if the islands could be changed to allow for a larger access road. Mr. Anderson
said that they could not be changed much and still meet the required standards.
Keith Denner, 5901 Vista Drive, West Des Moines, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath.
He stated that they are working hard to comply with requirements and satisfy the Fire Chief, as
well as maximize parking. They will be reducing the number of bedrooms, increasing the
number of bathrooms, and rebuilding on the foundation. Mr. Denner said that the fire occurred
on June 6, 2016 and if everything works well, the project will be complete by July 15, 2017. He
mentioned that the surrounding neighbors approve the project and he was not aware of any that
are opposed.
John G. Washington, A&D Partnership, was sworn in and testified under oath. Mr. Washington
pointed out the handicap parking and striped loading zones on the site map. He also depicted fire
truck access which was said to be very helpful.
Board Member Schoeneman wanted to know if the change in the roof was related to roof access.
Mr. Denner said that it was. The roof hatch will allow access in two separate areas.
Moved by Schoeneman, seconded by Perkins, to approve ORDER NO. 16-15, thereby approving
the request for a Special Use Permit for Reconstruction of a Damaged Nonconforming Structure
at 301 S. 4th Street with the following conditions:
A. That a Plat of Survey be approved by the City Council, and copies of the recorded
documents be received by the City Clerk’s Office, prior to approval of the Minor Site
Development Plan.
B. The landscaping is done in accordance with the landscape plan submitted at the
Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting on October 12, 2016.
Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
COMMENTS: There were no comments by the Board.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Perkins, seconded by Koehler, to adjourn the meeting at 7:12
p.m.
_____________________________ _____________________________
Heidi Petersen, Recording Secretary Shelby Ebel, Chair