The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutA14 ITEM# DATE: 12/10/14 CITY OF AMES DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE FILE NO.: ZBA-14-23 DATE PREPARED: November 5, 2014 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE: To reduce the rear yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet for a new convenience store APPLICANT: Kum & Go LC LOCATION: 2801 E. 13th Street (See Attachment A Location Map) ZONING: Highway Oriented Commercial (HOC) BACKGROUND: A convenience store and fast food restaurant have occupied the 5600 square-foot commercial building at 2801 E. 13th Street from 1996 until recently, when the fast food restaurant relocated to another site. Kum & Go intends to raze the current site and build a new store at 2801 E. 13th Street, a project that will expand the Kum & Go business from 2808 square feet to 4991 square feet and increase the number of vehicle fueling spaces from eight to twelve. Redevelopment of the site requires conformance to the current zoning standards of the Highway Commercial Zoning District. The current minimum setback distance from the north property line is ten feet. Kum & Go seeks a variance to place the building five feet from the north property line. Granting the variance would accommodate the proposed 45-ft. north-south building dimension and expansion of the minimum space south of the fuel pump canopy from 17.5 feet to 25.3 feet. APPLICABLE LAWS: Ames Municipal Code Section 29.201(186) defines setback as "the distance that is required by this Ordinance to be maintained in an unobstructed state between a structure and the property line of the lot on which the structure is located." The Highway-Oriented Commercial (HOC) Zone Development Standards (Table 29.804(3)) establish the minimum building setback at the rear lot line as ten feet. 1 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 "Variance--Supporting Information" in the attached "Variance--Application Form" prepared by the applicant. See also the site plan and architectural elevations submitted by the applicant. 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. To the north of the subject property is the 450-acre+ property of the National Centers for Animal Health. In the past decade, the facility has had $500 million of improvements. The nearest permanent building on that site is over 600 feet away. There is a property line fence and then a security fence 15 feet inside the property. If this adjacent property to the north was zoned HOC as is the subject property, a seven-story building would be permitted within ten feet of the shared property line. 2 For this variance standard the applicant states that due to limited depth and width of the site, placing the building only five feet from the north property line will provide space for a safer means of maneuvering both vehicular and pedestrian traffic within the site and in and out of the development. This issue is addressed below under standard (c) on the spirit of the ordinance. CONCLUSION: In this location it appears very unlikely that other buildings will be placed on neighboring property in a manner that would threaten loss of light and air or create a greater likelihood of fire protection risk. 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. FINDINGS: The current building is approximately 5,600 square feet as compared to the new building which is 4,991 square feet. The new building will be for the single purpose of operating a convenience store and gas station, this increases the convenience store use by 2200 square feet compared to current conditions. The applicant states that it cannot efficiently use the unoccupied space by remodeling into a convenience store. The proposed project increases the four fuel pumps to six and the east-west dimension of the site accommodates this increase. More fuel pumps typically increases sales within the store. The applicant also states that the existing store is aging and its demolition allows the development of a new store that will better serve the new growth in the 13tn Street corridor, accommodate an updated business model and justify reinvestment in the site. CONCLUSION: This convenience store has been operating at this location for 18 years and it can be concluded that the property has been providing a reasonable return with the range of commercial uses permitted in the zone and within a development pattern that meets HOC development standards. Loss of lease revenue from the fast food restaurant needs to be replaced for the reasonable return to continue. It is clear that the applicant has concluded that sufficient revenue will result from expanding the convenience store. However, no evidence has been provided that expanding into the existing store and avoiding the capital cost of building new will not provide a reasonable return. No evidence has been provided that building a new building that fits the site and setbacks will not provide a reasonable return, nor will selling the property and relocating the business. Therefore the Board can conclude that this criterion is not met. 3 (ii) The plight of the owners is due to unique circumstances and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood. FINDINGS: The subject lot complies with HOC lot requirements and is approximately 1 acre in size with a dimension of approximate 159 to 169 feet of depth. The adjacent lot to the west has a similar depth to the subject property and the two lots to the east have a smaller depth. (See Attachment A Location Map. New development has been completed on two of these lots, with smaller buildings and without the maneuvering requirements of a gas station and convenience store. CONCLUSION: The depth of the subject property is not unique in this vicinity, not is the overall size unique for a commercial property. Although the depth of the lot is a circumstance that contributes to the problem, the depth of the building and the type of use on the site also contribute to it which is a circumstance related to the particular applicant. Therefore the Board can conclude that this criterion is not met. (iii) The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. FINDING: The subject property is within a commercial corridor with another convenience store, three fast food restaurants and two hotels. The north property line and the distance between it and the proposed building will not be discernible from any public right-of-way. (See Attachment A, Location Map) 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: Among the purposes of establishing dimensional standards for sites is to provide adequate space for maneuvering vehicles, to promote safety and access and to provide convenience. (Sections 29.102(1), 29.406(9)(c)(ii) and 29.406(10). The applicant states that the subject parcel has limited depth and width and that the five foot setback will allow the space for more safely maneuvering vehicles into the site, within the site and out of the site. Vehicles include fuel transport trucks with a 50-ft wheel base. An illustration of the turning movements of a fuel truck on this site is attached. The north-south dimension of the site (depth) is on average 160 feet. There are 4 differences between some of the existing elements (as shown on the current approved site plan) and the applicant's proposed site plan (dated September 25, 2014): 1. The existing building is 21 feet from the north property line; the proposed building is five feet from the north property line. The proposed building depth is 45 feet, six feet more than the existing building. 2. The dimension from the south end of the parking spaces in front of the building to the north face of the canopy is 35 feet. This is unchanged in the proposed plan. 3. The minimum dimension from the south face of the canopy to the south curb on the site is 17.5 feet, compared to the proposed plan dimension of 25.32 feet. (Note that the location of the south curb is at the front property line and does not provide for the required five-foot landscape buffer. A separate variance request addressed this.) 4. The north-south dimension of the existing canopy is 28 feet; the proposed canopy is 24 feet deep. The applicant also states that the existing store is aging and its demolition allows the development of a new store that will better serve the new growth in the 13tn Street corridor, accommodate an updated business model and justify reinvestment in the site. This issue is addressed above under standard (b)(i) on unnecessary hardship. CONCLUSION: Altogether there are number of changes in dimensions across the site from existing conditions. The five feet gained from the proposed variance compares to eight feet gained in the maneuvering space south of the canopy. However, no information has been provided that this existing space has been a particular safety issue. The depth of the proposed building is six feet more than the existing building, which is larger than the proposed building. No information has been provided that other alternatives to the variance have been considered, such as reducing the building depth or a different site arrangement. With the spirit of ordinance to be understood as allowing for viable commercial development in a manner consistent with community expectations for size, spacing, and access, staff does not find evidence supporting the variance. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this standard is not met. (d) Substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting the variance. FINDING: This property has been developed and operated successfully for many years. Other similar properties in the vicinity have been redeveloped recently for productive purposes. 5 CONCLUSION: Although the required setback does pose a serious challenge to redevelopment of the property with a new convenience store as configured, it does not create the injustice of depriving the owner of the productive use of the property. Therefore the Board can conclude that this criterion is not met. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny this request for a variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet for a new convenience store at 2801 E. 13tn Street, based upon the above findings and conclusions. 2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve this request for a variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet for a new convenience store at 2801 E. 13t" Street, 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: Successful convenience store chains learn from their experience what mix of products meets their customers' needs, as well as how location, display, and arrangement of their products result in the best sales performance. Efficiency of all of the necessary operations controls costs which also contributes to a profitable business. Security and safety are also important factors in building and site design. This experience has resulted in building design templates used to standardize new construction. Not all sites fit the template equally well. In this case, the depth of the site is at odds with the building template and the needs of site circulation. Not all site conditions are the same nor do they accommodate all development. The purpose of variances is to respond to special site conditions that severely restrict the productive use of a property. To achieve this purpose the zoning ordinance provides somewhat strict standards for the granting of variances. Although, the circumstances in this case meet two of these standards, staff concludes that four of the standards are not met: • The setback requirement does not deprive the property owner of a reasonable return • The circumstances are not unique • A variance would not maintain the spirit of the ordinance • Granting a variance would not prevent an injustice Therefore, it is the Department's recommendation that the Board should act in accordance with Alternative #1, which is to deny this request for a variance. 6 Attachment A Location Map - 2801 East 13th Street o 41 ail 0 iw { kk u�+i Subject � � Property � k �h �a e0s _. Ed3TH ST r■ i - e.....,.,,,. � .w. Vizl im yt c b �I 11 � M' 7