HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Planning Commission Action Form dated May 18, 2022 ITEM #: 7
DATE: 05/18/2022
COMMISSION ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: CSC ZONING DISTRICT CLAY BRICK BUILDING MATERIAL
STANDARD TEXT AMENDMENT
BACKGROUND:
At the May 10, 2022 City Council discussed a request from a property owner to initiate a
Zoning Text Amendment regarding the placement of clay brick on new buildings in
Campustown (Ames Municipal Code Table 29.809(3)). Currently, there is a requirement
that all new construction within the Campustown Service Center Zoning District (CSC),
must have clay brick in an amount that comprises more than 50 percent of the wall surface
on each facade. This is not applicable on the facades of internal courtyards and does not
include windows or door area in the calculation of the wall surface.
Campustown has a diverse range of exterior building materials. Older historical buildings
utilized primarily brick. Modern buildings used masonry block, concrete, and brick
primarily for exterior facades. There are other siding materials also present on some
buildings. The City has modified its building requirements for the CSC zoning district over
time in response to the aesthetics of projects that have been built over the past 20 years.
CSC zoning is one of the few zoning districts that include a building materials requirement
and window requirements. The purpose of the standards is to address design
compatibility with historic character of Campustown, as well as ensuring there are high
quality and durable materials used for large and readily visible projects. Ensuring high
quality features at the ground level also supports an engaging pedestrian-oriented
environment that is desired for Campustown.
Clay brick terminology was an evolution of the material standard away from generically
referring to "masonry." Prior to 2017, the City did not specify that each facade must
contain clay brick, just that clay brick must be the primary material on a building. To clarify
the intent that the majority of each building facade contain clay brick, the standard was
changed to the current language.
This text amendment request was specifically made for a planned redevelopment at
2516 Lincoln Way. The property owner, F F & F of Ames, LLC has submitted a Minor Site
Development Plan application for a two-story bar and restaurant to be constructed at 2516
Lincoln Way. As part of the review of the proposed facility the applicant has concerns
about the CSC Zoning District standards for 50% of each facade having clay brick building
materials as it relates to the constructability of their project. The project proposes to have
a zero-lot line condition along its east property line. The applicant has submitted a letter
describing their issues with construction of a zero lot of building and use of clay brick
1
without securing construction easements or changing construction methods. (Attachment
B)
The proposed change would be to modify the 50% per facade requirement to 50% of the
building for zero lot line buildings. The overall total amount of brick would be the same
but it would grant the applicant latitude on how to apply it to the building. City Council did
approve moving forward with consideration of this text amendment as long as certain
design concerns could be addressed about visibility of and quality of materials. City
Council's comments during the discussion focused on where clay brick would be required,
prominence and visibility of facades, what other building materials and their appearance
would replace brick on a facade.
The proposed amendment would apply to all buildings in Campustown. Future
redevelopment projects would likely also have zero lot conditions, meaning this is no a
unique situation. A new building in Campustown could present a zero lot line situation in
most future redevelopment projects in the CSC district, as lots are smaller and City's
intent of the district is to create a dense urban environment. Zoning standards such as
the required FAR requirement along with a 25-foot minimum heights encourages
buildings to be built up to the property lines.
TEXT AMENDMNET OPTIONS:
Option 1: Exception for Zero Lot Line buildings to meet a more than 50 percent clay brick
requirement for the whole building rather than each facade.
This is the simplest change and it would allow some design flexibility of where the brick
may go. Depending on a proposed design you could have one or more fagades maybe
more that do not contain any clay brick. To address City Councils comments on visibility,
this option can include guidelines for priority placement of clay brick on the front facade
and other highly visible locations.
This is what the developer of 2516 Lincoln Way has requested as a text amendment. The
proposed building elevations for this particular project would still provide 50 percent clay
brick on the north, south, and west facades. However, given the proximity of the building
to the east and this new building being constructed at the property line would require them
to be on the adjacent property to construct a brick wall. The builder of 2516 Lincoln Way
indicates they would use a masonry block material for the east wall that would not contain
brick. Exact specifications of color and finish are unknown at this time.
If Option 1 is approved, that would allow any building materials to be used on 50 percent
of the building. This is currently the allowance for each facade as well. The most
commonly used material seems to be concrete masonry units, or CMU blocks, but it could
be EIFS, metal panels, or cement board siding. Vinyl siding products have not been used
recently on new buildings in Campustown. Guidelines on prioritizing front facades and
highly visible features would also be included.
2
- i
Option 2: Exception for Zero Lot Line buildings to meet a more than 50 percent clay
brick standard for the whole building and require a new building material standard for
aesthetic and color for non-clay brick building materials.
This would allow a non-clay brick fagade only when the building is placed at a zero lot line
setback but add a materiality requirement that is at a standard above plain unfinished
concrete masonry units.
If a lack of clay brick is concerning on all visible facades then Option 2 would allow for a
non-brick facade only in certain situations where appearance of all building materials and
their finish is reviewed with a project. In most cases this would likely require an integral
colored concrete block and potentially a textured concrete block finish.
Option 3: Allow a material exception for alternative brick materials in lieu of Clay Brick.
Remove the clay-brick material requirement and allow a different high-quality material
that can replicate brick in appearance. There are several building material products that
exist that replicate brick in size and coloring that would not have been present in the
market at the time the clay brick requirement was created. Staff could create a standard
that allows a developer some options in materials that are required to be brick in
appearance in addition to maintaining that each visible fagade must provide 50 percent
to be "brick" in appearance. A brick appearance would include specifying dimensions and
coloring that approximates traditional clay brick. This option provides flexibility and
addresses design concerns overall, however the specific products used to meet this
would be decided on a case-by-case basis.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Planning & Zoning Commission can recommend approval of the proposed text
amendment for an exception for Zero Lot Line buildings to meet a more than 50
percent ercent clay brick requirement for the whole building rather than each fagade. Also
include guidelines addressing visibility.
2. T-he P-la &-Zpninge Tssigpjc rt c mmend-appr�val of the proposed text
p
amendment fog 'an exception-for Zerbi t= the buildings'to meet a more than 50
percent clay brick standard for the rho e building and require a new building
material standard for aesthetic and color for non-clay brick building materials
3. The Planning & Zoning Commission can recommend approval of the proposed text
amendment to allow a material exception for alternative brick materials in lieu of
Clay Brick.
4. The Planning and Zoning Commission can recommend the City Council take no
action to amend the Ordinance.
3
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The zoning text amendment change relates to a development condition of building at a
zero lot line condition. The developer does not believe they can set the building back to
allow construction of clay brick clad wall and still have a viable project. They believe they
can deliver a better project by using the same amount of brick overall, but placing it on
the higher profile facades of the building.
Staff believes the proposed change in the required percentage of clay brick should be
considered thoroughly on how it applies to projects beyond 2516 Lincoln Way so as to
not be detrimental to the character of Campustown. The options presented by staff offer
varying methods of trying to ensure the intended character of design is maintained with
additional flexibility in materials. The applicant would benefit from any of the options
presented by staff. With Options 1 and 3 being their primary choices. Staff believes with
an emphasis on concerns about aesthetics that extend beyond just placement of clay
brick, Option 2 meets the intent of the request but also adds some additional design
review requirements.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Planning & Housing Department that the
Planning & Zoning Commission adopt Alternative #2.
4
ATTACHMENT A: Campustown Service Center (CSC) Zoning Boundary
Ir
SSHELDQN --� SHELOtlNAVE—
e NIA,
Spa
, s y sg v ft a a g ;�sai anv
�1iiX
-0� 7
4f �
5 �
ei
On
71,
w rw RpAv �
v
*C ' C ;3
5� a
all,
1e
sa ate- 3 k° 3 � T 9 ''��k"�' C•
; . " � '� '. pt' t <t -
t
6TA N TP N AYE
7i11
}
H
i
w 2
5
txniDit t
t�'n k
architecture specialty millwork virtual vision project rrianragernent
118 E.26th Street Sulte 300 Mpls, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tanek.com
May 4, 2022
RE: Brothers Bar & Grill —2516 Lincoln Way
Dear Mr. Diekmann;
We are requesting an alternative proposal to meet the clay brick standard for the project as it
relates to the east property line, per our earlier conference phone discussion.
To meet a number of criteria the building provides a rear easement and a non-interior design
area to the west which will be a patio. Along the north, south and west faces we can construct
a wall assembly that includes appropriate ratios of clay brick.
We have a zero lot line along the street frontage and the east, in part to meet a floor area
ratio.
The east fag due to im =hat
roximity to�the neighboring property is only technically
feasible to constructed aswou idered a "single wythe masonry wall". This
can be done with concrete masonry units that can be assembled from the interior side of the
building. We would be unable to construct a wall assembly of multiple layers for the technical
aspects of not being able to get to the exterior finish side, or the requirement of having to
scaffold upon another neighboring building.
Our proposal is to meet the overall required clay brick ratio by adding the brick ratio of the east
fagade upon the west fagade of the building.
Sincerely,
Nathaniel Shea, A.I.A.
Principal
Tanek, Inc.
Direct: 612-998-8200
nshea@tanek.com