HomeMy WebLinkAboutA4 ITEM#: 4
DATE: 3-14-12
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CASE FILE NO.: ZBA-12-06
DATE PREPARED: March 6, 2012
MEETING DATE: March 14, 2012
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE: To allow expansion of the existing retail commercial
building with a minimum parking standard for the entire building of 2.6 parking spaces per
1 ,000 square feet of building.
APPLICANT: Theisen's Development Co., LLC.
LOCATION: 1315 S. Dayton Avenue
BACKGROUND:
Theisen's Farm and Home Store sells a wide variety of products for use in homes and on
property in both urban and rural areas, such as:
• Hand and power tools and hardware • Farm and ranch
• Automotive supplies • Lawn and garden
• Food • Pet supplies
• Clothing, shoes, boots • Plumbing supplies
• Electrical supplies and equipment . Shop and welding equipment
• Equine/Tack • Sporting goods and toys
Theisen's has several store locations across Iowa and has an Ames store at 1315 S.
Dayton Avenue (See Attachment A). This store is 50,000 square feet in size and the site
has 230 parking spaces, which equates to 4.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building
area and complies with current minimum parking standards. Theisen's has submitted a
Minor Site Development Plan for a proposed 37,500 square-foot expansion of the building,
without additional parking. This would reduce the parking ratio to 2.6 parking spaces per
1 ,000 square feet of building area, which would not comply with current minimum parking
standards.
Theisen's seeks a variance to allow the Minor Site Development Plan to be approved with
additional parking and also proposes the following conditions of the variance:
1. Minor Site Development Plan will show additional parking conforming to the
minimum standard.
2. There will be periodic evaluation of parking demand.
3. Construction of additional parking within six months of any change in building use
for which the zoning code requires additional parking.
The Applicant has provided valuable background information about the project itself and
specific information supporting the compliance of the variance with the criteria for variances
in the Ames Municipal Code. Please refer to Attachment B.
APPLICABLE LAWS:
Article 5 of the Ames Municipal Code lists property uses in various categories and Table
29.406(2) of the Ames Municipal Code establishes a minimum quantity of parking spaces
for these categories. In Article 5, uses involving sales are included in Table 29.501(4)-3
Trade Use Categories and no sales uses are listed in any other use category. Many of the
products sold in Theisen's stores are listed in the category Retail Sales and Service—
General or are most similar to the products listed in that category. A few other products
sold in Theisen's are listed Table 29.501(4)-3 as Wholesale Trade.
Table 29.406(2), the parking standard, lists Retail Sales and Service, but also provides
separate minimum parking standards for Retail and Shopping Centers of larger sizes.
Because of the size of the Theisen's store and the wide variety of products sold, in 2006
when the store was built the standard for Retail and Shopping Centers 50,000 — 99,999
square feet in size was applied: 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of building area
(See Attachment C). Applying this same standard to the proposed 37,500 square-foot
expansion of the building would support a requirement for 169 more parking spaces.
VARIANCE CRITERIA:
The variance criteria may be found in the Ames Municipal Code, Section 29.1504(4)and is
as follows:
(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 fora 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 alterthe essential character of
the locality.
2
(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.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS:
Staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions.
(a) The granting of the variance shall not be contrary to the public interest.
FINDINGS: The City establishes standards for parking in furtherance of a valid
pubic interest: when the amount of parking on a site is inadequate, parking will
overflow into green spaces and required landscape areas on the site, public rights-
of-way, or neighboring property. Also, the site will become congested and vehicle
and pedestrian accidents will increase.
The City establishes required minimum parking based on the average needed for
categories of use. Due to a variety of factors, some specific businesses will need
more, some will need less. Parking demand also varies over time, based on the
seasons and/or the state of the economy. As a new area builds out, visitors to all
retail businesses increase. There are also more neighboring businesses present to
be affected by inadequate parking.
After the initial construction of buildings and parking, the specific use of buildings
changes. Due to lack of space, arrangement of the site and costs, it is more difficult
to provide additional parking after the initial development.
CONCLUSION: It is not practical for the City to establish minimum parking
quantities for each project based on conditions specific to each business at the time
of initial development. Under this approach, the City cannot protect the public
interest over the long term. The conditions proposed to allow delay of construction
of required parking will simply delay the disagreement about whether more parking
is needed. If the property owner at that time does not agree to construct additional
parking, there is no mechanism for the City to construct and pay for a private
improvement on private property.
(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.
FINDINGS: The existing improvements on the site have a value of $2,991 ,600,
according to the City Assessor. A 70% expansion of the building will add
3
substantially to that value, even with additional parking.
The existing building and use have created a return on investment with 4.5 parking
spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of building, or else no investment would be made in
expansion. No information has been presented that the expansion will not yield a
similar reasonable return.
The Highway-Oriented Commercial zoning regulations allow retail sales. The
existing use consists of retail sales. There is adequate parking for the existing use
based upon the size of the existing building to comply with code requirements for
parking.
The applicant has submitted a site plan for an expansion of the existing use, which
site plan demonstrates that there is adequate space of the site to provide the
additional parking the expanded use would required under current codes.
CONCLUSION: The land will continue to yield a reasonable return with parking
provided based on the current standard.
(ii) The plight of the owners is due to unique circumstances and not to the
general conditions in the neighborhood.
FINDING: Most of the products that Theisen's offers are sold at other stores in
Ames. For example:
• Building supply and hardware stores offer tools and equipment.
• Discount stores offerwork clothes, gloves, tools, small appliances, and many of
the general products.
• Garden stores offer fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, and other garden products.
• Sporting goods stores offer outdoor gear for climbing, camping, fishing, hunting,
boating, etc.
• Tack stores offer supplies for horses and riders.
Although no one store offers the same product mix as Theisen's, all of these retail
uses are required to meet the minimum parking standard of 4.5 spaces (or more)
per 1 ,000 square feet of building area.
A limited portion of the retail sales of the existing use are farm-related items that are
not commonly sold by other retailers in the city. (Based on a visual inspection of the
store, staff estimates these items to be between 5% & 10% of the existing floor area
of the store)
There are no unique physical characteristics of the subject lot.
CONCLUSION: The existing use of the site is similar to many other retail uses
throughout the city, with only a minor portion of products sold by this business being
4
unique to this business. There are no conditions related to this site that preclude
the applicant from developing the site under current standards, and there are no
circumstances unique to this site or use that would impose an unnecessary
hardship.
(iii) The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential
character of the locality.
FINDING: The existing and expected future character of the area zoned Highway-
Oriented Commercial in this location is multi-story short term lodging buildings and
one-story commercial buildings with surface parking area and 10 to 20% green
space.
CONCLUSION: The reduction in required parking will not alter the existing and
expected future character of the area.
(c) The spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is
granted.
FINDING: The zoning ordinance establishes uniform minimum standards for
physical characteristics of development that all property owners must follow and
complete before the building is occupied for the intended use. The Minor Site
Development Plan documents that constructing parking consistent with those
standards before the building addition is occupied is possible on the subject
property.
Parking requirements are applied based upon anticipated types of uses at the time
of project development. There are no provisions in code for parking based upon
specific tenants or business models.
There are no known instances when parking provisions were applied after an
identified need.
It is not uncommon for development to have more parking than required; many
businesses demand more parking than code requires.
It is not uncommon for building tenants to change, meaning that the subject site
could be occupied in the future by another retail business that would need currently
required parking
CONCLUSION: There is no evidence that the standards pose any more burden
upon the applicant than any other retail facility. The case made by the applicant
demonstrates that parking standards may be excessive for retail. This is a broader
issue that is not specific to a particular site or tenant and may suggest that a text
amendment may be appropriate if current regulations in fact result in excessive on-
site parking. The proposed variance would result in a departure from standard
5
practice that may be difficult to implement and monitor, and may set an
unreasonable expectation that parking is to be determined only as need is
demonstrated after a use is already in operation..
(d) Substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting the variance.
FINDINGS: City parking requirements are determined based upon the anticipated
type of use at the time of development. Under current standards and practices,
parking must be installed prior to the granting of final occupancy permits for any
new building, including buildings for which tenants have not been identified. There
is no precedent under current codes and practices for granting occupancy permits
with a deferral of parking lot installation until tenants have been identified, or until
impacts have been identified
CONCLUSION: The granting of the variance would result in a determination of
required parking based upon a particular business and its particular marketing
preferences rather than the type of use the business represented. That would be a
significant departure from past and current practice, and would provide a benefit to
this business not otherwise enjoyed by other similar businesses. That would be
substantially unjust to those businesses and developments that met the required
parking as site conditions have allowed.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve this request for a variance to allow
expansion of the existing retail commercial building at 1315 S. Dayton Avenue with
minimum parking standard for the entire building of 2.6 parking spaces per 1,000
square feet of building.
2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny this request for a variance.
3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may table this variance and seek further information
from the applicant or from staff.
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:
The primary basis for this variance request is the applicant's assertion that the existing 230
parking spaces serving the existing 51,200 square-foot Theisen's Store is adequate to
serve the proposed 88,700 square-foot store. If so, their required parking is excessive and
will result in unnecessary costs to the developer and unnecessary pavement that might be
contrary to other environmental and aesthetic objectives of the City. Conditions are
proposed that the applicant believes will provide for the parking should it be needed.
However, the zoning ordinance does not provide for property owners determining their own
parking needs below the minimum required. Such an approach would be a fundamental
shift in the City's policy, requiring a zoning text change. At a minimum, if a farm and home
6
store has different parking demand, it is more appropriate that a zoning text change be
proposed establishing a new use type with a different parking requirement. This would treat
all similar retailers the same.
If the Zoning Board of Adjustment agrees with the Findings of Fact and associated
Conclusions above it can conclude that the criteria for a variance required by Ames
Municipal Code Section 29.1504(4) have not been met and act in accordance with
Alternative#2, which is to deny the request for a variance to allow expansion of the existing
retail commercial building at 1315 S. Dayton Avenue with minimum parking standard for
the entire building of 2.6 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of building.
Alternatively, the Board may make its own findings and conclusions, and concludes that
the criteria for a variance required by Ames Municipal Code Section 29.1504(4) have been
met, it can act in accordance with Alternative #1 , which is to approve the request for a
variance to allow expansion of the existing retail commercial building at 1315 S. Dayton
Avenue with minimum parking standard for the entire building of 2.6 parking spaces per
1 ,000 square feet of building.
S:\PLAN—SHR\Council Boards Comm issions\ZBA\Variances\1315 S Dayton-reduced parking Variance 03-14-12.docx
7
Attachment A
—E 0NCOLN WAY
Alinrnsr
io
SE STH,- {
a '�' `" v o - t E'5 f H S f
gri ;
U F.r LF I y,
Subject BROWNING sr Y
F
Area �` �,� .�'� e COLT ST
SHAD :
oxr��
s c _
r � _ _,� Utz �! b",T � y
8 Zak ° �T
E 16TH ST -
a'.� p
� < US HIGh(WAY 30 RAfdp
��,'� ..«..,...•- a
HIGHWAY
m � #
um
Location Map
1315 S. Dayton Ave.
Map Area
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
Attachment B —Applicants Request
Attachment C - Excerpt of Table 29.406(2)
Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirement
Attachment D — Minor Site Development Plan
9