HomeMy WebLinkAboutA7 ITEM#
DATE: 10/28/15
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CASE FILE NO.: ZBA-15-18
DATE PREPARED: October 19, 2015
APPLICATION
FOR VARIANCE: Request to construct a garage at 2622 Lincoln way
with variances from:
• minimum height, and
• minimum floor area ratio, and
• percentage of brick on the exterior facade
APPLICANT: Collegiate Methodist Church
LOCATION: 2622 Lincoln Way (See Attachment A)
ZONING: Campustown Service Center (CSC)
BACKGROUND:
The request is for approval of three variances to construct a new accessory garage
building at 2622 Lincoln Way for the Collegiate Methodist Church. The church was built
in 1920 and has been expanded over the years with the last addition to the main church
building in 2006. The church ownership area contains multiple properties and buildings
including the main church property at 2622 Lincoln Way, the Church Annex and
Lighthouse buildings along Sheldon Avenue, a small house/daycare building located
west of the main church along Lincoln Way and multiple small parcels which are either
vacant open space or used for accessory parking. The church campus totals
approximately 4.9 acres with all of its properties.
A previous accessory garage was located in the church parking lot south of the existing
church building, but has been demolished in anticipation of the new, larger garage
building for use for maintenance services and equipment for the church properties.
Based on the design and proposed location of the garage, construction of the garage as
proposed would require approval of three variances; minimum height, reduction in the
required percentage of brick for exterior fagades, and reduction in the minimum required
FAR for the properties.
The project consists of a request to construct a 1,450 square foot accessory garage
structure located along the south property line of the Collegiate Methodist Church
building property in the Campustown Service Center Zone. (See the applicant submitted
site plan for location information). The church previously had an accessory garage
located in the same general location but has demolished the building in anticipation of
1
the new larger garage to facility the storage and use of the maintenance equipment for
the church. Section 29.408(7)(c) of the Zoning Code requires that buildings or garages
accessory to Institutional uses shall be required to receive approval of the Special Use
Permit when such garage/accessory building is larger than 900 square feet in area.
Pending determination of the submitted variance requests, the applicant has submitted
a Special Use Permit for consideration tonight for the proposed garage.
The new proposed structure is a one-story, three bay garage proposed at 16'-6" in
height as measured from grade along the east side of the structure to the midpoint of
the sloped roof. The exterior of the garage will consist of Hardy Plank siding with
composite trim and fascia and Timberland shingles. The east and north elevations are
proposed with a brick wainscot on the lower 3 feet of the wall. The applicant is not
proposing brick on the south and west elevations. Per the regulations for the CSC
Zone, clay brick shall comprise more of the exterior wall surface of the building than any
other material, excluding the area for windows and doors. The applicant has submitted
a variance for this requirement.
The CSC zone also requires that the minimum height of structures be 25 feet as
measured from grade to the midpoint of the sloped roof. Although, the CSC zoning
allows for an exception rather than variance for reducing height, it was determined to
not be applicable in this case as it refers to a 2-story height requirement and the criteria
are related to a physical circumstance not conducive to a two-story building and that
there is public benefit from a one-story building. Therefore a variance has been
requested from the minimum height requirement of the CSC.
Access to the site will remain as previously approved with ingress and egress from both
Sheldon and Hayward Avenues as well as egress onto Lincoln Way just west of the
church building. The location of the proposed garage is shown to cross multiple lot lines.
No variance is requested for this due to the Churches interest in future consolidation of
all the properties under church ownership. A condition of the related Special Use Permit
should address the required consolidation for the location of the proposed structure.
Due to the need for consolidation of the lots, staff has reviewed the overall floor area
ratio (FAR) for the site to determine if the new overall lot would be compliant with the
minimum FAR after consolidation. In review, staff has determined the overall site would
have a FAR of approximately .57 which is already nonconforming from the 1.0 FAR
required by the code. A previous variance had been granted for the church building;
however, it did not include all the properties under consideration with this request. The
proposed garage area is adding to the FAR for the overall site, however, it is very
minimal in area compared to the 90,000+ square feet of floor area needed to be in
compliance with CSC zone. The applicant has requested a variance from the minimum
FAR for the garage.
APPLICABLE POLICIES AND LAWS:
Chapter 29, Section 29.809: Development Standards for the Campustown Service
Center Zone
2
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
supporting information prepared by the applicant as part of the "Variance Application
Packet". Portions of this information in addition to the staff findings are summarized
below.
FINDINGS OF FACTS & CONCLUSIONS:
Each of the three variance requests must stand on their own to be approved. The
variances are discussed together, but each must stand of their own findings to be
approved. Staff makes the following findings of facts and conclusions for each of the
six criteria for each of the three variance requests:
Variance to reduce the minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR):
(a) Contrary to the Public Interest
The CSC Zoning District purpose can be summarized as providing for high
intensity development near ISU campus and to support a lively and active
commercial and pedestrian environment (Section 29.809). For staff this purpose
of the zone provides some context of the public interest about development in
Campustown. Floor Area Ratio is a zoning standard typically used to define
expectations for development in terms of intensity of its use or in the bulk and
mass of a building. In the context of CSC zoning, staff believes the minimum
FAR in the Campustown area is intended to maximize the commercial area on
3
the lots to create the higher intensity of land use for the Campustown area and it
also supports compatibility of development that matches the historic pattern of
commercial development.
However, an institutional use, while permitted in the CSC zone, is a different
function from that of the typical retail or commercial use where a financial benefit
of the area is intended in addition to finding it compatible with the surroundings.
The existing church is currently nonconforming to the minimum 1.0 FAR of the
CSC zone. A previous FAR variance was granted for just the main church
property back in 2006 to allow a FAR of .8 for a smaller lot area than what is
being considered today. The context of this variance is in the view of the lot
being consolidation for the whole site total of 4.9 acres. Even without lot
consolidation, the garage would not meet individual lot FAR minimum
requirements.
While the proposed garage will increase the building area of the overall site the
church property will maintain a FAR of approximately .57 as indicated in the
application submittal. An approximate 90,000 square feet of additional building
area would be required to bring the property into conformance with the Zoning
standard of minimum FAR.
While the church is a specially permitted use in the zone, the church does not
function in a typical commercial lot design. As evidenced by its need to have a
special use permit to determine compatibility. One of the main differences in use
is that a church typically plans for peak event or services parking with onsite
parking areas that limit areas for structures while commercial uses plan for a
more even parking demand on a regular basis. Additionally, the structures
themselves may be quite large, but not have multiple levels of floor area to meet
the definition of achieving the FAR.
Minimally, the addition of the garage brings the church closer to compliance with
the FAR standard and not increasing the degree of the nonconformity. The
location of the garage set internally to the site also does not waste more
desirable street frontage areas that could be developed in the future and support
the intent for lively and active street frontage. Therefore, supporting the use of
the site with its existing multi-story buildings that are oriented to a public street,
Lincoln Way, and are compatible with the general commercial pattern and
intensity of development in Campustown, adding an accessory structure without
adding an additional 90,000 square feet of floor area would not be contrary to the
public interest. Therefore the Board can conclude that this criterion is met.
(b) ...Unnecessary Hardship...
(i) Reasonable Return for Allowed Use within the Zone
The church does not function as a commercial use as typically intended with
allowed uses in the CSC zone. The new garage will help the church function as
an intended use under the Special Use Permit for which they currently operate.
Based on the applicant's arguments, the use of the site is essentially restricted to
4
that of the Methodist church and it is distinguishable from standards allowed
commercial use of the property that are not institutionally owned. Although no
financial estimates have been provided, the property owner believes that having
to add 90,000 square feet of floor are to the property for use consistent with their
special use permit would not be economically feasible as they do not have a
need for that amount of space and would not have a means to seek a return o
that investment with additional revenue.
Staff finds this particular finding to be complicated when factoring in the
ownership of the property and the limitation of the institutional use with a special
use permit. The standard is that showing must be made that the desired variance
is necessary for a reasonable return on use of a property when compared to use
of property consistent with the zoning, essentially no beneficial use of the
property can occur under the standards of the ordinance. In this case, the site is
already developed and the use of the site is defined by the special use permit. A
full range of CSC zoning allowed commercial or mixed use uses is not readily
available at this time.
To comply with the FAR requirement for expansion of use on the site, it would
require 90,000 additional square feet to be added to the site, plus parking. To
require an institutional use that does not believe it has the need for such space or
the ability to finance such development, the Board can conclude that no
reasonable return can be made by the allowed institutional use with the currently
developed site as is to build an additional 90,000 square feet of floor area to
allow for the addition of the accessory structure on the site.
The last element of the analysis is whether beneficial use has been deprived if
development consistent with the ordinance is not reasonable. In this instance,
the accessory structure will support the convenient and efficient maintenance use
of the properties, but these activities could continue to occur even without the
facility. So while the standard of reasonable return on investment may be met, it
is not certain the beneficial use would be deprived if the variance was to be
denied. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is not met.
(b)(ii) Unique Circumstances
The church is an existing nonconforming use due to the current FAR standards
of the CSC zone. The church believes the unique circumstance is the use of the
site for an institutional use and the large overall site area when combined for
easier management of the campus. The layout of the site does not allow for it to
be attached to an existing building as an addition and the need to locate it in the
rear of the overall site precludes an obvious means of creating an individual lot
for the structure to meet FAR requirements. The proposed new garage will not
increase the degree of the existing nonconformity on the property and essentially
bring the lot closer to conforming to the CSC zone. Therefore, the Board can
conclude that unique circumstances exist in this case that present a
hardship from the literal enforcement of the ordinance and this criterion is
5
met.
(b)(iii) Alter the Essential Character of the Area
The FAR standard does apply to the surrounding neighborhood; however the
addition of the garage structure will bring the church closer into compliance with
the FAR standard and will be of a scale appropriate for the location and the
surrounding existing buildings. The internally located structure will have no effect
on the surroundings. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is
met.
(c) Spirit of the Ordinance
The purpose of the ordinance for the CSC zone is to allow for a high intensity
commercial area with integral residential areas within and surrounding the area.
The use of the church adds to the services and amenities needed for the other
surrounding uses. Allowing for the FAR variance for the church to meet its
maintenance and storage needs, when the church is not exceeding limitations of
the zone, but asking for allowance to decrease the degree of an existing
nonconformity is not in conflict with the spirit of the ordinance. Therefore, the
Board can conclude that this criterion is met.
(d) Substantial Justice
The FAR applies to surrounding CSC neighborhood; however, the current site is
already nonconforming and not meeting the minimum standard for FAR in the
zone. The construction of the garage would not impact the character of the area
and would allow for reasonable support of its existing uses. Therefore, the
Board can conclude that this criterion is met.
Variance to reduce the minimum height:
(a) Contrary to the Public Interest
The minimum height requirement of the CSC zone is intended to create a
substantial commercial presence at the street line for commercial uses typical in
the zone. The institutional use does not maintain the same design characteristics
in a building as would be typical of a retail or office function with the CSC zone.
However, the existing buildings on the property meet the minimum 25 foot height
requirement of the zone. The zoning code does not address any specific
standard for accessory uses or structures in commercial zones related to the
minimum height, therefore is has been interpreted that accessory structures
would also have to meet the same minimum height standard of any principal
building in that same zone.
The accessory building is proposed at a height of 16'-6" as measured to the
midpoint of the roof slope, with an overall peak height of 21'-6" along the east
facade. The grades on the site increase from east to west on the property so the
building height along the east fagade will be higher than that of the west fagade
as measured from grade. It can be argued that the existing church buildings
along the frontages, while institutional in use, still meet the intent of the
commercial zone and therefore, there would be no physical change in
6
appearance of the overall property with the addition of the garage due to the
limited visibility of the garage structure from any of the surrounding streets and
the public interest in compatible structures is maintained. Therefore, the Board
can conclude that this criterion is met.
(b) ...Unnecessary Hardship...
(i) Reasonable Return for Allowed Use within the Zone
As discussed above, the church argument is as an institutional use it is not
consistent with the allowed uses under CSC zoning for which this standard was
intended to be applied near streets. Additionally, the principal structure does
meet this standard of 2-stories. The church does not function as a commercial
use as typically intended in the CSC zone. The new garage will help the church
function better as an institutional use under the Special Use Permit for which they
currently operate. The overall building height could be increased to meet the
minimum height standard of the zone; however this comes at an increase cost to
the owner. No costs estimates for increase in the building height have been
submitted, however, the use of the property as institutional and the location of the
garage not fronting on a public street would likely limit financial return for such
space compared to the anticipated financial gain in a space constructed for a
commercial use. With an expectation that the costs of construction for additional
height would not yield floor area that could provide a return on investment, the
board could determine there is hardship in complying with minimum height. As is
the case with the earlier discussion above evidence of the cost and limits on
beneficial use, staff does not believe the criterion has been satisfied with the
information that is available. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this
criterion is not met.
(b) Unique Circumstances
(ii) Typical commercial businesses are the intended users of properties in the
Campustown Service Center zone. As an institutional use under Special Use
Permit, the property is not a commercial enterprise. The construction of the
garage will allow the continued functionality of the church in a zone where
amenities and services are desired however, the increase area in height is not
required for the function of the church and due to its location set behind other
structures and away from streets can justify the reduced height. The site overall
is unique to that of other properties in Campustown that are typically much
smaller and not as large as this site overall. Therefore, the Board can conclude
that unique circumstances exist in this case that present a hardship from
the literal enforcement of the ordinance and this criterion is met.
(b) Alter the Essential Character of the Area
(iii) As noted previously, the proposed garage is replacing an existing garage on
the property while increasing the size to allow for the church to maintain storage
and maintenance services on the site. The location of the garage is such on the
property to limited visibility of such structure from the public right-of-way and
therefore not altering the visual aesthetic or character of the existing property or
neighborhood. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is met.
7
(c) Spirit of the Ordinance
The applicant notes that it is the intent of the church to construct a functional
garage for the church use that will look like it belongs in the this location and will
mimic the design and detailing of the existing church building while blending into
and with the surround commercial zone. While the strict criteria of the code
requires a design standard of 25 feet, the use of the property as institutional and
the function of the garage accessory to such use does not equate to a need for
such height for the proposed structure. It could be argued that spirit of the
ordinance is maintained even with the granting of the variance by allowing the
existing buildings on the frontage of the property to meet the two-story street
presence where intended in the CSC zone. Therefore, the Board can conclude
that this criterion is met.
(d) Substantial Justice
The CSC zone does not allow outdoor storage; as such the property owners
have been storing and securing church service vehicles off-site to meet the zone
requirements. Approval of this variance for the construction of the garage will
allow the church to store and secure its maintenance and other church vehicles
onsite without having to utilize offsite storage and security. The variance, if
granted in this particular instance, would allow the construction of the garage at
only one story in an area on the property where no other beneficial gain is intend
for the site and in an area not detrimental to the intended two story design
aesthetic of the commercial frontage. Therefore, the Board can conclude that
this criterion is met.
Variance to reduce the amount of brick required for exterior facades:
(a) Contrary to the Public Interest
The intent of a minimum brick design standard is to help create a quality
aesthetic of visual interest and durability for structures within the CSC zone. The
zone requires that brick comprise more of the fagade than any other material on
the building. While not explicit, this has been interpreted to be applied to each
fagade on the building and not to a building as a whole, meaning each fagade
should have more brick than any other material. The applicant is proposing to
use Hardy plank siding on all four fagades with brick comprising only a small
portion, the bottom 3 feet, of the fagade on the north (facing Lincoln Way) and
east (facing Hayward) sides of the building. The location of the proposed garage
on the property is interior to the site and will have limited visibility from any of the
surrounding properties or street rights of way. As an aesthetic design standard, it
is difficult to justify that granting of a variance for such design element which in
this case has limited visual benefit is contrary to the public interest. Therefore
the Board can conclude that this criterion is met.
(b) ...Unnecessary Hardship...
(i) Reasonable Return for Allowed Use within the Zone
8
The applicant has submitted cost estimates associated with the proposed
construction of the garage. The applicant's anticipated construction cost for the
garage, with brick only on the lower portion of the wall along the north and east
facade, will cost approximately $96,000. The additional brick required to meet
the minimum design standard of the code would add an additional $8,500 to the
cost of the project. While this is not a significant cost increase based on the
overall project cost, there is concern from the applicant that the additional cost on
the project, where not intended to create a financial benefit for the church, is a
hardship compared to a typical commercial enterprise where costs at the time of
construction are balanced by a future financial gain on the property. In this
instance adding the brick is cost increase of about 9% but is does not necessarily
deprive beneficial use of the property for what is allowed or required. Therefore,
the Board can conclude that this criterion is not met.
(b) Unique Circumstances
(ii) The location of the garage on the property is located within the interior of the
lot separated from the existing buildings and backing up to College Creek. The
two church buildings that exist along Sheldon Avenue do not meet the minimum
brick requirement, however the main church building along Lincoln Way does, as
well as many of the commercial buildings in the zone. While it could be argued
the addition of brick along facades with limited visibility does not have an obvious
design benefit, therefore from a visibility standpoint in this case, the location of
the garage deems the brick as an unnecessary design element. However, based
on the application of the brick standard to all facades, staff would argue that the
brick standard should be applied in the CSC zone independent of use or building
layout. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is not met.
(b) Alter the Essential Character of the Area
(iii) Even though the brick standard as an aesthetic element has been uniformly
applied to all fagades of buildings in the CSC, in this case, the strict enforcement
of the brick standard for an area with limited visibility would not alter the essential
character of the surrounding properties or the neighborhood. Therefore, the
Board can conclude that this criterion is met.
(c) Spirit of the Ordinance
The applicant notes that it is the intent of the church to construct a functional
garage for the church use that will look like it belongs in the this location and will
mimic the design and detailing of the existing church building while blending into
and with the surround commercial zone. The compliance of this brick design
standard was built into this zone to ensure that the visual aesthetic continues as
properties develop and redevelop. However, no mention is made in the
ordinance regarding the exterior facades for an accessory building, and also one
that is not visible from surrounding street rights-of-way.
The spirit of the ordinance is for durable and aesthetic materials to be used for
compatibility with building in the general area. The use of a 3-foot wainscot on
two facades does not substantially meet this interest in staff's view, even though
9
the structure is setback internally on the site. Therefore, the Board can
conclude that this criterion is not met.
(d) Substantial Justice
The granting of the variance would allow the applicant to construct the garage
desired for the function of the maintenance services for the institutional use.
However, the brick requirement, even as a design standard, has not been limited
to the visibility, location or type of use as it has been applied to other buildings in
the CSC zone. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is not
met.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve the Applicant's variance requests of:
a. Reduction in Minimum Floor Area Ratio from 100% to 57 %, and
b. Reduction in the minimum height from 25 feet to 16 feet, and
c. Minimum brick percentage of 10% rather than a standard of more than any
other siding material.
based upon the findings and conclusions as discussed by staff above, and
additional findings provide by the Board to address the "Hardship" Criterion for
each variance, and the "Unique Circumstance" and "Spirit of the Ordinance"
criterion for the brick percentage.
2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny the requested variance based on the
findings and conclusions described by staff in this report.
3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may table this variance and seek further
information from the applicant or from staff.
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:
It is the conclusion of City staff, based upon an analysis of the applicant's request for
variances from the minimum FAR, minimum height and minimum brick requirement of
the CSC zone to allow for construction of an accessory garage at 2622 Lincoln Way that
with the information provided it is difficult to make the findings for all three variances.
The most notable obstacle is determining how the hardship standard applies to use of
the overall property as the request is to add an accessory structure to support the
primary institutional use. Additionally, in regard to the brick standard staff did not
believe findings for unique circumstances or sprit of the ordinance were observed wit
the reduction in brick percentage to a 3-foot wainscot on two facades.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Planning and Housing Department that
the Zoning Board of Adjustment act in accordance with Alternative #2, which is to
deny the variance requests for the reduction in the minimum height and minimum
FAR, and reduce the minimum exterior brick requirement for an accessory garage
on the property at 2622 Lincoln Way, based upon the above findings and
10
conclusions.
11
Attachment A
Location Map
r.
� max
� R
i
3v�
3 �
w
Y
,,x "` e
A�
U3
s3 �
�_
Subject Property
w
Of
,.• a
qq Y
Wit„ �� , �'�"� �•re �
z rr
Location Map
2622 Lincoln Way
12