HomeMy WebLinkAboutA4 f
ITEM# 3
DATE: 5-28-14
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CASE FILE NO.: ZBA-14-15
DATE PREPARED: May 23, 2014
MEETING DATE: May 28, 2014
APPLICATION
FOR VARIANCE: To eliminate an 85-feet long segment of the rear
setback
APPLICANT: Kingland Campus Properties
LOCATION: 2422 Lincoln Way (See Attachment A)
ZONING: Campustown Service Center (CSC)
BACKGROUND:
The applicant intends to develop a three-story, 75,000 square-feet building with retail
and office uses. City Council supported an Urban Renewal Area designation for the site
and commitment of tax increment financing for the development of this 75,000 square
foot building in December 2013, subject to the site development approval process.
The project also includes a parking area behind the building on the south portion of the
property. It will extend across the block from Stanton Avenue to Welch Avenue. This
parking area will include 22 spaces of surface parking and 93 spaces in a two-level
parking structure across the east half of the property. The structure is designed to
generally appear "at grade" as viewed from east along Stanton Avenue where you
would enter the top level. The bottom level is inset more than 100 feet from Welch
Avenue to the west and would as a one-story structure with the top level similar in
height to the adjacent property to the south. The variance request is in support of
the parking structure configuration.
The minimum required building setback from the rear lot line in the Campustown
Service Center (CSC) zone is 10 feet. The rear setback for the subject property is
along the south property line. The south property line has a jog near the center of the
property line. The property line shifts 7.98 feet to the north at a location 190 feet west of
the southeast property corner. The south property line continues 190.33 to the
southwest corner. The applicant is requesting a variance to eliminate the rear setback
for a length of between 45 to 85 feet to the west of the shift in the alignment of the south
property line.
1
This parking structure will occupy the east 225 linear feet of the parking area and be
located 10 feet from the property line up to the shift in the property line, where it is
proposed with no setback. Since the alignment of the south wall of the structure does
not shift with the property line, the west portion of the south wall will only be two feet
from the west segment of the south property line and thus will not comply with the
minimum 10-foot setback distance. In this area the elevation of the upper parking deck
surface is near the elevation of the ground south of it or less than three feet above it.
(See Attached Site Diagram)
West of the parking structure is a large trash enclosure, with a south wall on the same
alignment as the parking structure. It also will not comply with the rear setback as a
covered trash enclosure with a roof. A retaining wall extending west to Welch Avenue
along the same alignment as the south wall of the parking structure and trash enclosure
retains natural grade and thus is not required to comply with the rear setback.
Therefore, the proposed parking structure and trash enclosure do not comply
with the rear setback for approximately 85 feet of the total 383 foot length of the
rear property line. (See Attached Site Diagram)
APPLICABLE LAWS:
The Zoning Code includes Parking Decks as structures subject to the development
standards of the underlying zone. In this instance, the CSC zoning only requires a
setback from a rear property line for structures. Staff would note that surface parking
lots are reviewed differently than parking decks and have their own development
standards for yard space and landscaping.
Table 29.809(3)
Campustown Service Center(CSC)Zone Development Standards
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CSC ZONE
Minimum FAR 1.0 [1]
Minimum Lot Area No minimum,except for mixed uses, which shall provide 250 sf of
lot area for each dwelling unit
Minimum Lot Frontage No minimum, except for mixed uses,which shall provide 25 ft.
Minimum Building Setbacks:
Front Lot Line 0
Side Lot Line 0
Rear Lot Line 10 ft.
Lot Line Abutting a Residentially Zoned Lot 10 ft.
Minimum Landscaped Area No minimum
The General Development Standards for all zoning districts describe how setbacks are
to be applied, as shown in the excerpt of Ames Municipal Code Section 29.402(1)
below:
Sec. 29.402. SETBACKS.
(1) Building Setback Standard. Except as provided below,all buildings and structures, Principal and
Accessory, shall be located to comply with the minimum and maximum Building Setbacks established for Principal
and Accessory Buildings listed in each Zone Development Standards Table, Supplemental Development Standards
Table, condition or other regulation applicable to the lot or the use being employed at the site.
2
Ames Municipal Code Section 29.201(155) and (223) together define the proposed
improvement as a parking structure:
(155) Parking Structure means any structure designed and used for temporary location of vehicles.
(223) Structure means anything constructed or erected,the use of which requires, directly or indirectly,
a permanent location on the land.
Sec. 29.406. OFF-STREET PARKING
(12)Parking Decks.No parking may be provided in stacked parking decks unless the structure
containing such parking conforms to the following requirements:
(d)The parking structure must conform to all setback, height, bulk, and landscaping requirements for
buildings within the zone in which it is located
VARIANCE CRITERIA:
Ames Municipal Code, Section 29.1504(4) states that "a variance shall be granted only
if all of the following standards are satisfied:"
(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 for a
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 alter the essential
character of the locality.
(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.
BASIS OF PETITION: The applicant has submitted responses to the variance criteria.
See the attached "Variance Proposal" prepared by the applicant, part of the "Variance
Application Packet". Portions of this information in addition to the staff findings are
summarized below.
3
FINDINGS OF FACTS & CONCLUSIONS:
Staff makes the following findings of facts and conclusions for each of the six criteria:
(a) The granting of the variance shall not be contrary to the public interest.
FINDING: The basic purposes of setbacks are to provide building separation to
preserve access to light and air for properties and for required fire protection
measures to meet safety requirements. In Campustown, in blocks without alleys,
rear setbacks provide emergency access, although not always for vehicles, and
space for utilities.
The upper surface of the proposed parking structure is generally at grade and
thus preserves building separation. The rear setback on the east portion of the
site provides space for utilities that is continuous with the space provided in rear
setback on other properties to the south. An emergency access agreement has
been approved and recorded that permits emergency access to the properties to
the south through the subject property.
Need for off-street parking has been identified by the City a number of times,
most recently by the City Council in its process to approve the financial
incentives to this project. Enforcement of Rear setback will eliminate five of the
proposed parking spaces in the lower level of the parking structure; however, it
could be more based on reconfiguration of a parking deck. This assumes that the
parking spaces on the upper level can be provided as compact car spaces built
on grade.
In addition, the applicant states that:
• by providing additional useable building area with additional parking, the
project may improve the economic health of this mixed use neighborhood,
and that
• the zoning ordinance allows surface parking lots within five feet of the
property line and retaining walls and decks that are up to two feet above
grade to extend beyond the minimum setback to the property line:
CONCLUSION: The public interest in building separation to provide light and air,
emergency access, utility services is not compromised. It is also in the public
interest to provide additional commercial space with additional parking.
Therefore the Board can conclude 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.
4
FINDING: CSC zoning does not require any parking for commercial use,
because it is a pedestrian oriented commercial area serving 33,000 students and
the faculty and staff nearby who frequently walk. However, this population of
users in Campustown decreases dramatically when college is not in session and
the area desires to attract customers throughout the year.
On-site parking will serve prospective new retail tenants who need to serve the
entire community, year-round. Two-thirds of the building will be occupied by
offices, providing employment to both students and non-student. On-site parking
will also service these uses. The applicant proposes a total of 115 spaces as the
most efficient layout and use of the site. This is equal to a parking ratio of 1.5
parking spaces per 1,000; which is well below typical commercial and office
parking ratios of 3 to 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of area.
Parking can be at a premium in and around campus. By providing parking on site
it supports the expected rent level for the new commercial space. The applicant
states that if the variance is granted, additional new commercial space will be
provided in Campustown and property value will be enhanced through support of
its redevelopment.
The applicant also takes the position that if the variance is not granted, 12
parking spaces in the structure will be lost based on the current design. The
basic cost of the structure would remain the same due to its design and the
remaining spaces will have an increased the cost per parking space from
$25,000 per space to $35,000 per space, a 33% to 40% increase. The cost of
parking at this price level is typically unsupported by market rate commercial
development in Ames. At the same time the lack of parking can be a negative to
the use of the site, regardless of cost per space.
CONCLUSION: Parking is not a zoning code required element of the project.
The applicant's needs for the parking are based on operation interests and
market of the site. If 12 spaces are eliminated from the project, this represents
over 10% of the total parking, corresponding to 7,500 square feet of the total new
building area. Shifting the entire parking structure to the north in order to meet
the rear setback would result in loss of 4,000 to 8,000 square feet of building
space, up to 11% of the total project. Providing the original building area without
the corresponding parking would make it more difficult to attract tenants to the
project that require some support by parking to compete against other
automobile accessible sites in Ames. Therefore the Board can conclude 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.
FINDINGS: The project site was assembled from many properties. Before
consolidation, the proposed parking area was two surface lots, one fronting on
Stanton Avenue and one fronting on Welch Avenue. The two rear setbacks were
5
oriented north-south in the center of the block, similar to the other properties in
the same block, and not the rear setback that now exists due to the building
location being at the street along Lincoln Way. The jog in the south lot line,
resulting in a jog in the rear setback, was pre-existing from the historic lotting
pattern. The lot configuration and the through-lot nature of the site is not
something that is regularly repeated throughout Campustown.
CONCLUSION: The pre-existing jog in the south property line combined with the
length of the parking structure cause the need for the variance. Therefore the
Board can conclude that this criterion is met.
(iii) The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential
character of the locality.
FINDING: Because the proposed structure is at and below the grade surface
along the property line, the fact that it is in the setback will not make it more
visible. Previously, a surface parking lot was in the same location as the upper
level of the parking structure
CONCLUSION: Granting the variance will not change substantially the
appearance of the property from existing conditions. Therefore the Board can
conclude that this criterion is met.
(c) The spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is
granted.
FINDING: Ames Municipal Code Section 29.401(186) defines a setback as an
"unobstructed space." Section 29.402(2) permits a variety of structures and other
elements closer to the property line than the minimum setback. These elements
are generally those at grade or taller elements without substantial foundations.
As stated above, the purposes of setbacks here are to promote light and air
between buildings, to separate building materials to reduce fire hazards, and to
provide space for emergency access and for utilities.
In the CSC zoning district there are no minimum setbacks from front and side lot
lines.
The applicant also points out that the City's land use policy for Campustown is a
mixed-use neighborhood with ancillary uses, such as parking.
CONCLUSION: One of the intents of the CSC zoning regulations is a high
density mixed-use district, with alleys or rear setbacks providing space for utilities
and other purposes. In this case, those needs have been met with a setback of
part of the rear property line and an emergency access agreement. Although the
zoning ordinance does not specifically permit underground parking structures or
other underground building spaces within setbacks, it does allow in the setback
6
surface elements at a low height that are similar to the upper parking deck
proposed in this project. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion
is met.
(d) Substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting the variance.
FINDING: The applicant states that the need for a below grade structure and a
substantial retaining wall combined with an unusual property line situation has
created the need for the variance from the rear setback requirement for a portion
of the subject property.
CONCLUSION: The circumstance in this case is the type that a zoning
ordinance cannot anticipate; this is the purpose of the variance process. The
variance in this case will provide substantial justice in expected use of a site
consistent with the intent of the CSC zoning by the applicant without detriment to
the neighboring properties. Therefore the Board can conclude that this
criterion is met.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve this request for a variance to
eliminate an 85-feet long segment of the rear setback at 2422 Lincoln Way for the
construction of an underground and at grade parking structure and trash enclosure,
based upon the above findings and conclusions.
2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny this request for a variance to eliminate
an 85-feet long segment of the rear setback at 2422 Lincoln Way, if it makes findings
that support the criteria.
3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may table this variance and seek further
information from the applicant or from staff.
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:
The project revolves around a structure that is for the most part below grade and still
subject to setback requirements. Additionally, the requested parking is strongly desired
by the applicant even at the high cost needed to construct it to improve the value of the
project. Overall the applicant believes that the its has balanced the City's development
interests with the need for the parking deck. An alternate approach to this site specific
variance for Kingland would be for the City to initiate a text amendment relating to below
grade parking decks and when they could be allowed without meeting setbacks. This
could be desirable for addressing this issue more broadly across Campustown. While
there could be a general interest in a text amendment, the Planning and Housing
Department concludes that, for the Kingland project, the criteria for a variance required
by Ames Municipal Code Section 29.1504(4) can be found to be satisfied.
The above findings and conclusions are based only on the proposed development plans
that have been reviewed by the City at this time. Although it is unlikely that any
additional buildings or other structures will be developed on this property, staff believes
7
that it is prudent to grant the variance only for the proposed development. Therefore, it
is the Department's recommendation that the Board should act in accordance with
Alternative #1, which is to approve this request for a variance to eliminate an 85-feet
long segment of the rear setback at 2422 Lincoln Way for the construction of an
underground and at grade parking structure and trash enclosure, based upon the above
findings and conclusions.
Attachment A
3 Y
s
Vk"
s 2 s i���li
LINCOL.N WAY 'LINCOLN WA 1 ,� ° wraul' - LINCOLN WAY
�e
01
B
G � yp"ttr
�"_ ".1 Q'
T #
' Subject
xqq e Property
91,111"LJ
_ tl rosy aU'M - _I k
3 CHAMBERLAIN ST &, CHAMSERLAINYST`
ST
=rk - 5 CHAMBERLAN
r
a. z
.�
4. z�
, z
a �3 h t M a
'.Y a3 H :r
9 y
LOCATION MAP
2422 Lincoln Way
N
8