Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 4-14-2010MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMES, IOWA APRIL 14, 2010 The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 7:00 p.m. on April 10, 2010, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present: Bruce Calhoun, Elizabeth Erbes, Sandra McJimsey, Gary Taylor, and Thomas Weber. Staff members Sam Perry and Judy Parks were also present. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Moved by Taylor, seconded by Calhoun, to elect Thomas Weber for the office of Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion carried unanimously. Moved by Taylor to elect Bruce Calhoun for the office of Vice-Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Calhoun, seconded by Taylor, to approve the minutes of the meeting of March 10, 2010. Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion carried unanimously. CASE NOS. 10-03 AND 10-05 VARIANCE - ALPHA SIGMA PHI FRATERNITY, 2132 SUNSET DRIVE Public Hearing on application for Variances to allow expansion of the area of a nonconforming front yard parking lot to result in seven additional parking stalls and to allow a ten percent increase in the percentage of small parking stalls allowed within a parking lot. Assistant City Attorney Judy Parks noted that though there were two Variance requests being considered, all of the evidence would be presented at once since the two requests were so closely related. City Planner Sam Perry stated that the applicant has requested to expand a nonconforming parking area, and explained why the area is considered nonconforming. In addition, because of the requested expansion, there is only so much area that would be available for parking, so the applicant desires to put smaller parking spaces within the expanded area. The Municipal Code has a provision for small spaces, which are three feet shorter and one foot narrower than standard stalls. He explained that there is a maximum percentage allowed - based not on total, but required, parking. The two Variance requests are related because the proposed small parking stalls are located within the nonconforming front yard. Mr. Perry showed a sketch of the existing parking and the proposed expansion, as well as photos of the building from different perspectives. He stated that an expansion of the building took place approximately ten years ago, at which time additional parking was added. Mr. Perry stated that the shape of the subject property ’s lot is unique in that it is very narrow in the rear. He pointed out that there was not a parking demand when these properties were built in the 1920s and 1930s. He also noted that some of the nearby lots are more rectangular with the side property lines than the subject property. According to Mr. Perry, front yard parking is calculated based on the nearest side property line to the nearest corner. On a curved lot, it follows the geometry of the front property line; on a rectangular lot it is easier to calculate. When parking was added to the subject property in 1999, it was considered conforming as long as it was behind the front setback. It is now considered “legal nonconforming.” Board Member Weber asked if the current proposal would be considered legal by the old standards, and Mr. Perry indicated that it would. Mr. Perry gave background about the University Impacted Area study, which was conducted several years ago. He explained that the City Council desires to maintain the character of the neighborhood in which the subject property lies. The University Impacted Area study produced ordinances which resulted in two zoning districts for the area. The base zone is Residential High Density, and the overlay zone is East University Impacted Area. The overlay zone contains restrictions on the demolition of buildings, and also requires 50 percent more landscaping on a site plan. He noted that the Board was reviewing a Variance request, not a design or site plan. Mr. Perry described the different Variance criteria and standards which the application needs to meet in order to be approved. In regards to the public interest criteria, he noted that the proposed parking does encroach into the front landscape area. He stated that, by today ’s standards, a building of that size could not be built on that site because of parking requirements. The applicant desires to increase the number of parking stalls from 21 to 28, which would decrease some nonconformity; built today, the City would require 34 spaces. Mr. Perry found that the additional spaces would adversely impact the characteristic landscape, and so the request does not meet public interest criteria. Mr. Perry discussed the reasonable return criterion, and stated that the applicant is in a difficult situation. He explained that it is a lean time for them, and they are looking for a way to have part of the building that would continue to be used as a fraternity. The proposal is to convert some space to apartments, which is a permitted use in the zone. If membership goes back up, then they would be able to flex that space back to fraternity beds. Mr. Perry noted that Ames is seeing a lot more developments for standalone, independent dwelling units, and not as much dorm-style development or congregate living. He also pointed out that dependence on cars has gone up since this building was built. He stated that in order for the fraternity to gain a reasonable return on the property, this is the use they need to have, and so the application does meet the reasonable return criteria. In regards to unique circumstances, Mr. Perry stated that it was quite clear that the applicant does meet this standard. He explained that the lot is very irregularly shaped. They do not have room to add more parking in the back, so they are left with the front yard. He noted that there are some other triangularly shaped lots nearby, but most are rectangular. Mr. Perry explained that another standard is that the use should not alter the essential character of the locality. He referenced the University Impacted Area study, and noted that it is important to preserve the architecture and attractive front landscapes in this area. The applicant is not proposing to change the architecture or materials of the building, but the front landscaping would be affected. He stated that the application would have an adverse affect on the essential character of the locality unless measures were taken to screen cars and enhance the landscape, as well as extend architectural features of the building forward. The idea of building a retaining wall was discussed, and Mr. Perry indicated that the applicant was not interested in going into the effort of building a retaining wall. Mr. Perry concluded that City staff recommended that the Board deny the variance request, because it does not meet all of the standards in the Municipal Code. Board Member Calhoun asked about an alley on the side of the lot, and inquired as to whether it was owned by the City or the applicant. He stated that, in some jurisdictions, a property abutting an alley is considered a corner lot, and he asked Mr. Perry if that was true in Ames. Mr. Perry said that it would not be the case in Ames, since “alley” is exempted from the street definition. Mr. Calhoun suggested that perhaps the large area behind the fraternities could be developed as a shared parking lot. He asked if that idea had been discussed during the University Impacted Area study. Mr. Perry said that it had not been discussed, and he noted that there are grade changes in that area, so there could be some challenges in developing it as such. Chair Weber asked about staff ’s suggestion of a retaining wall. Mr. Perry indicated that staff believes there are several reasons why landscaping alone would not be enough to mitigate the impact of the parking in the front area. Mr. Weber asked if the application would have been approved if the applicant had incorporated a brick wall. Mr. Perry said that it would have been approved with parameters. Board Member Taylor inquired about the calculation of required parking stalls. Mr. Perry explained that the proposed remodeled area would be held to the new standards, but the rest of the building would continue to be held to the old standards. Discussion ensued regarding the number of parking spaces that are required and proposed. Mr. Taylor suggested decreasing the number of beds in the fraternity so that fewer parking stalls would be required, and a Variance would no longer be needed. Mr. Perry indicated that, based on what applicant has explained, for this building to be marketable there needs to be more parking. Board Member Erbes noted that the application states that there is currently one member living in the house, and questioned why there is a need for more parking. Ms. Erbes asked why the parking requirement was so low when the building was added on to in 1999. Mr. Perry stated that they were only required to provide parking for what was added, which is similar to what is being required with the current application. He noted that there was likely no requirement when the building was originally built. Stan Thurston, 733 Foster Drive, Des Moines, Iowa, stated that the original structure was built in the 1920s, and there was very little demand for parking at that time. About a year ago, seven fraternities started to meet because they were all suffering from the same economic problems. Mr. Thurston stated that they couldn ’t keep enough people in the house to make it pay for itself, and in their discussions they uncovered a host of other issues. Mr. Thurston explained that students are different than they were 20 to 25 years ago, with one key difference being that many students have their own cars. He also suggested that a greater number of students have grown up in larger homes with fewer siblings, and have never shared a bedroom. There is a stronger preference for apartment living, and an increased allure of the independence that goes along with it. Mr. Thurston stated that the demand for fraternity housing will inevitably go up and down, and the ability to augment the down time with independent living apartments would make sense. In an ideal situation, both the dormitory -style units and apartment units would be filled by members of the fraternity. They are looking for flexibility, and along with the plan comes the need for more parking. In regards to Ms. Erbes’ question about one person currently living in the house, Mr. Thurston stated that since membership was down and they had been losing money for a number of years, they decided to close the operation of the fraternity house at end of the fall semester. One member lives there as a “caretaker.” There is a recruitment effort underway to bring in more members. Mr. Thurston stated that they set out to expand the parking in the least onerous way. He said that part of the reason why the application should be approved is that they are absolutely in sync with historic overlay district in that they are trying to maintain the structure as a fraternity. He noted that a very large financial commitment was made to this building in the 1990s when it was expanded. Mr. Thurston said that the proposal needs to make sense both aesthetically and economically. He indicated that cost is the downside of City staff’s suggestion of totally screening the parking area with a brick wall. He noted that the building has a setback and green space from the front of the parking to the front property line that is roughly 35 feet now, and if the application were approved it would be 27 feet, which is still in excess of the required 25 feet. He emphasized that no other parking in the area is totally screened by a solid wall. According to Mr. Thurston, the majority of the Greek houses in the area have parking in the front yard. Two properties, because of their deep and narrow shape, have been able to do most of their parking in the back. He noted that the house across the street from the subject property has at least half of its parking in the front yard, which is directly across from their front yard. He suggested that front yard parking is part of the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Thurston feels that they ought to be treated similarly to what has been accepted in the neighborhood, and the suggestion to build a wall to hide parking is unfair when nobody else in the area has been required to do so. He stressed that if he can’t figure out a way to increase the parking, the property as a fraternity or sorority will cease to exist. He feels that the proposal is absolutely in conformance with the character of the neighborhood; however, if the Board decides that is not the case, he is willing to work towards some kind of solution. Ms. Erbes inquired about the current parking spaces, and specifics about the parking requirements and proposal were discussed. She proposed adding parking to the back of the property, and Mr. Thurston indicated that it was not possible due to the very constrained space. Mr. Taylor asked the applicant how he determined the quantity of fraternity beds and apartment bedrooms. Mr. Thurston stated that it was more of a conceptual choice. The main level of the building has a common area as well as the dining room, so the fraternity would ideally retain the main floor plus the first floor. The second and third floors could be converted to apartments by reconfiguring the walls and adding bathrooms and kitchenettes. He stated that they would like to give apartment flexibility within the fraternity setting. Board Member Calhoun asked what the remodeling budget was. Mr. Thurston replied that he did not know; without knowing whether or not the application would be approved, they have not taken it to the next step. He feels that if they are not able to add parking, calculating the cost of remodeling is a moot point. Mr. Calhoun asked for the reasoning behind not projecting the architecture in the front yard. Mr. Thurston feels that it would draw more attention to the property, and that landscaping would soften it enough so it would not detract from the house. Mr. Taylor discussed the number of necessary parking spaces relative to the number of proposed bedrooms. He asked how much calculation went into the need for 28 parking spaces. Mr. Thurston replied that they would need approximately 40 men in the building to break even and be able to generate enough money to keep house in good shape. He indicated that there is really no way to get more parking spaces than the seven that are proposed. Discussion ensued regarding various numbers of fraternity and apartment bed combinations and the resulting parking requirements. Mr. Weber asked if the applicant felt that he could mitigate the view of the parking lot with only landscaping. Mr. Thurston stated that he could, and he showed a picture of the property with the current landscaping. Ms. Erbes perceived a vertical element in the front yard, and said that a retaining wall might be necessary if the parking were moved forward. Mr. Thurston indicated that the grade does not drop until the sidewalk. The Board discussed the slope of the lawn as it relates to the proposed parking and landscaping. Mr. Calhoun asked if the visible parking spaces in the neighboring properties were added after the passage of the more restrictive ordinance. Mr. Perry stated that the lots had been expanded prior to the passage of the ordinance. Board Member McJimsey asked if most of the nearby properties have parking located in the front yard. Mr. Perry stated that about 90 percent of the properties have front yard parking. The project for widening the parking lot across the street was approved prior to the new ordinance passing in November of 2008. Mr. Calhoun indicated that he did not agree with the “everyone else is doing it” argument. He feels that the existing landscaping looks good, and the proposal would be better if the applicant would agree to putting a berm in front of the parking; however, he senses that the applicant is not willing to do that. Mr. Thurston stated that there seems to be a feeling that if a Variance is granted, there needs to be some “pound of flesh” in the process, and he feels that as a basic concept that is wrong. However, if the Board feels that total screening is important, even though it would be the only one in the neighborhood, he will work to try to do that. He reiterated that anything that will exacerbate the economics is painful, but they will do what they need to do. Mr. Calhoun stated that it is difficult to support the application when the applicant is willing to invest money in the building but not in the landscaping. Moved by Weber, seconded by Taylor, to adopt ORDER NO. 10 -03, granting a Variance to extend the existing parking area north and south by approximately 8 feet and widening by approximately 11 feet, provided there is sufficient landscape screening to mitigate the view of the parking lot from the street. Ms. Erbes asked who would determine whether there is “adequate” screening. Assistant City Attorney Parks stated that it would be a staff determination. The Board discussed specifics, including the incorporation of more evergreen and requiring maintenance of the landscaping. Ms. Erbes stated that perhaps they should require some permanent architecture as well as landscaping. Specifics about the conditions were further discussed. Moved by Erbes, seconded by Taylor, to amend the motion to provide, in addition to the landscaping, some type of architectural elements that identify where the landscaping is. Vote on amendment: 3-2. Voting Aye: McJimsey, Weber, Erbes. Voting Nay: Taylor, Calhoun. Motion declared approved. Ms. McJimsey stated that she is concerned about setting a precedent, and granting the Variance could open up a lot of similar requests. She feels that preserving the integrity of the area is important to the overall neighborhood. Mr. Weber noted the odd shape of the property, and stated that he does not foresee a lot of other fraternities coming forth with a similar request. He feels that this applicant has a good reason to request the additional parking, but other fraternities would not. Ms. McJimsey countered that if other fraternities were to decide to do the apartment combination, they would also need more parking. Mr. Calhoun revisited the idea of consolidated parking in the rear. He stated that sometimes ordinances force the areas being zoned to have an imagination and find solutions to things. He feels that if the Board would allow an easy way out, the houses may never come together and consolidate parking. He does not think that all of the possibilities have been exhausted. Vote on amended motion: 2 -3. Voting aye: Weber, Erbes. Voting nay: Taylor, McJimsey, Calhoun. Motion denied. Moved by Weber, seconded by Calhoun, to adopt ORDER NO. 10 -05, granting a Variance to increase smaller parking spaces for small cars from 20 percent of the required off street parking authorized in the Code to 30 percent. Vote on motion: 2-3. Voting aye: Weber, Erbes. Voting nay: Calhoun, Taylor, McJimsey. Motion denied. COMMENTS: There were no comments by the Board. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m. ______________________________ _____________________________ Emily Burton, Recording Secretary Thomas Weber, Chair