HomeMy WebLinkAboutA003 - Staff Report July 28, 2021 ITEM #: 3
DATE: 07-28-21
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REQUEST: A Request for a Variance to allow a wall sign on a building with no street
frontage in the "S-SMD" (South Lincoln Sub Area Mixed-Use District) at 119
Washington Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
Continue Care Real Estate Holdings LLC recently purchased the property at 119
Washington Avenue for conversion from an auto repair business to a banquet hall. The
banquet hall is intended to serve as a place where family and friends can gather following
funeral services at Grandon Funeral and Cremation Care directly across the alley, and as
a venue for other occasions, as well. (See Attachment A— Location Map.)
The new owner is requesting a Variance to allow the installation of a wall sign on
the north wall of the banquet hall building. The specific characteristics of the
proposed wall sign including the design, dimensions and message is not part of
this request for a Variance. The property is in the "S-SMD" (South Lincoln Sub
Area Mixed-Use District) which allows one wall sign per street frontage. The
property at 119 Washington Avenue does not abut a public street. It does abut an
alley on the north and west sides; however, an alley is not included in the definition
of "street" in the zoning ordinance. Therefore, a wall sign is not allowed since
there is no frontage on a street. (See Attachment B — Building Elevations &Attachment
C — Wall Sign to be Installed on the North Building Elevation.)
Although the property at 119 Washington Avenue does not abut a public street, it does
have the minimum required amount of "lot frontage" in the S-SMD zone. Lot frontage
means the distance for which the front boundary line of the lot and the right-of-way are
coincident. Right-of-way includes any public ways. Public way includes any highways,
streets, or alleys. Although the subject property does not about a public street, it does
have lot frontage on an alley which meets the frontage requirement, as required for site
plan approval.
The S-SMD zone allows banquet halls as a permitted use. A site plan was approved by
the Planning and Housing Department for the banquet hall use of the property on May
17, 2021 . A "Joint Use Parking Plan" was approved by the City Council on May 11, 2021,
to allow the use of twenty (20) parking spaces on the funeral home site at 414 Lincoln
Way to meet minimum parking requirements for the banquet hall at 119 Washington
Avenue. (See Attachment D —Approved Site Plan.)
1
STATEMENT OF APPLICANT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant has provided the attached application including statements as to how the
sign request meets the standards for a Variance.
APPLICABLE LAW:
The Board shall determine, pursuant to Iowa law, whether all the standards for granting
of a Variance are satisfied by the Variance Request. Findings of Fact for each standard
are included in the attached Addendum.
Pertinent Sections of the Ames Municipal Code include:
Chapter 29, Table 29.1003(3), South Lincoln Sub Area (S-SMD) Mixed-Use District
Zone Development Standards includes a Development Standard in the S-SMD Zone,
which allows 1(one) wall sign per street frontage.
Chapter 29, Section 29.1504(1) states the following:
"(1) Purpose. This section is intended to allow for variances from the terms of this
Ordinance pursuant to Section 414.12 of the Iowa Code as will not be contrary to the
public interest, where owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of the
provisions of the Ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit
of this Ordinance is observed, and substantial justice done."
Chapter 29, Section 29.1504(3)(c) states the following:
"(3) Procedure. Review of an application for variance shall be conducted by the Zoning
Board of Adjustment and shall be in accordance with the following:
(c) Review and Disposition.
(i) The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall act upon all applications for a variance
in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Iowa Code.
(ii) In granting any variance, the Zoning Board of Adjustment may prescribe
appropriate conditions and safeguards to promote the purposes and protect
the integrity of this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions and safeguards,
when made part of the terms under which the variance is granted, shall be
deemed a violation of this Ordinance."
Chapter 29, Section 29.1504(4) states the following:
"(4) Standards. Pursuant to Iowa law, a variance shall be granted only if all 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:
2
(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.
The pertinent zoning regulations of the Iowa Code are included in Chapter 414 (City
Zoning), Section 414.12(3) which states the following:
"414.12 Powers.
3. To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance from the terms of the
ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, where owing to special conditions
a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship,
and so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed, and substantial justice done."
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." Staff findings and conclusions are summarized in the Addendum.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
Notification was made to all owners of property within 200 feet. A notice of public hearing
was placed on the property and published in the newspaper.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment, with findings of consistency for all Variance criteria,
may approve a Variance for 119 Washington Avenue based upon the proposal to
install a wall sign on the building at this address.
2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny this request for a Variance for 119
Washington Avenue if it cannot find evidence that supports the explicit finding of
consistency with all the Variance criteria.
3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may table this Variance Request and seek further
information from the applicant or from staff.
3
PLANNING AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is the conclusion of staff, based upon an analysis of the Variance Request and the
applicant's information that the request for a Variance to allow one wall sign on the
building at 119 Washington Avenue meets all the criteria necessary for the Board to grant
a Variance. The Planning Housing Department recommends Alternative #1 to
approve the Variance Request.
4
ADDENDUM
Staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions for each of the Variance criteria:
(a) The granting of the variance shall not be contrary to the public interest.
Findings of Fact: The applicant proposes to install a wall sign on a commercial
building to identify the business (a banquet hall) that occupies the building. The
property does not have frontage on a public street. The sign would be mounted on
the north fagade of the building facing an alley and Lincoln Way. No sign is
proposed that would be visible from the residential area south of the banquet hall.
The commercial use of the building, prior to the banquet hall, was an auto repair
shop. The previous use has vacated the building and has removed their wall signs.
The property is in the South Lincoln Sub Area (S-SMD) Mixed-Use District which
allows one (1) wall sign per street frontage. Commercial uses occupy the abutting
properties to the north, east, and west. Residential uses occupy the properties to
the south. Public alleys abut the north and west sides of the property.
Conclusions: The installation of a sign in this location faces away from any
residential properties on Washington Avenue and S. 2nd Street, and does not
present any safety concerns, nor is it a feature that would be detrimental to
commercial properties in the general vicinity.
Therefore, the Board can conclude 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 applicant proposes a wall sign to identify the name of the business.
Proposed use of the building as a banquet hall is a permitted use in the S-SMD
zoning district. The variance request is not a "use variance." The requested
variance is to allow a wall sign on a building that does not have street frontage.
The property has a Washington Avenue address despite not having street frontage
on Washington Avenue.
The property previously had frontage on Washington Avenue, prior to dividing Lots
8 and 9, Black's 2nd Addition into two conveyance parcels, one with street frontage
on Washington Avenue and one without frontage. The division of Lots 8 and 9
occurred several years ago without City approval. The east portion of Lots 8 and
9 (117 Washington Avenue) retained frontage on Washington Avenue, and the
west portion of Lots 8 and 9 (119 Washington Avenue) no longer has street
frontage.
5
Conclusions: A reasonable return does not ensure a profit, maximized gain, or
that no loss on an investment may occur because of owning a property and using
it in a manner consistent with City ordinances. The question of hardship applies to
whether the property can be used in any manner consistent with the City's zoning
standards and yield a reasonable return.
Without the granting of a variance to allow a wall sign identifying the business, the
applicant will be limited to a sign that includes only the property address, and not
the name of the business. Although this would be compliant with the zoning
regulations of the City, it imposes a hardship upon the potential users, customers,
and visitors to the facility by not identifying the building on the exterior wall with a
sign that provides the name of the business. This is compounded by the fact that
the property has an address for a street it does not abut, which could have a direct
effect on the ability of the business owner to yield a reasonable return.
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 subject property is the only property in the neighborhood that does
not have frontage on a public street. As originally platted, it did abut Washington
Avenue; however, a division of the property into two conveyance parcels, one
which abuts Washington Avenue and the other with no street frontage, left the
subject property without street frontage.
Conclusions: The subject property is unlike any other properties in the
neighborhood. It is a unique situation given the way in which the original Lots 8
and 9 of Black's 2nd Addition were divided to create a parcel without street frontage.
Therefore, the Board can conclude this criterion is met.
(iii) The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential
character of the locality.
Findings: The previous use of the property until recently purchased by the new
owner was an auto repair shop. There were signs on three sides of the building.
All other businesses in the general vicinity have wall signs that advertise their
business name.
Conclusions: The proposed wall sign would be less signage than was previously
on the building, which did not conform to the current limits for wall signs in the S-
SMD zoning district. The new sign will be required to conform with the current sign
regulations for dimensions, etc.
Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is met.
6
(c) The spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is
granted.
Findings: One (1) wall sign would be permitted for the business on the subject
property if the property had street frontage. All other businesses in the S-SMD
zoning district are allowed to have a wall sign, provided the property has street
frontage. There are no other businesses in the general vicinity within the S-SMD
district that do not have street frontage.
Conclusions: Although, the property at 119 Washington Avenue does not have
street frontage it does have lot frontage on a public right-of-way which includes
streets and alleys. Allowing this property to have a wall sign is consistent with the
spirit of the ordinance in that all other businesses located in the S-SMD district are
allowed to have a one wall sign.
Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is met.
(d) Substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting the variance.
Findings: Substantial justice speaks to the requirement that the hardship must be
peculiar to the property or that an issue of equity in use of property exists. The
property at this location is like other commercial properties in the S-SMD district
except that it that it does not have street frontage.
Conclusions: The hardship for the subject property has a unique set of
circumstances unlike any other commercial property in the S-SMD district.
Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is met.
7
Attachment A — Location Map
w w -n' r
4 Y
VP a
f
Cn
= r
r - 1
119 Washington Ave
s
S,_NWST , ..
Location Map
r 119 Washington Avenue
N
¢r - Feet
11 ? a_i 1 C?Li
8
Attachment B — Building Elevations
�t
=r
W
D _ �
- -- - --
I
f - _
r
x , 1
#3
z y. R - r
19
AN
Z.
h
tf*{f Z.
cy o M 9 R
c>
v
A
NO
Z�
gg �
F n o � m3
9
Attachment C —Wall Sign to be Installed on the North Building Elevation
PROPOSED
t..
`'i'xSi i°.`' "`'i4'*iir'TT""r'`�- '�i°i'''r`i'r','r'.•rii��,�,` rz+,[x�i',`s,`�'�'�'���r�i�i,4ii i'f',i�iYi�i`iti�i II i4
,''.`s°`s,i'i'yr`T'i'yi.e. ..+.. T.,.,...., t�`-t,,,t,;,,.a i i .[.t.[.l.t•a.[.,.,.,. ,[, i r
t'r�i�y'sy?i'S=x
`5�;[`Yt:t:t: `Ct•S:t:a.4�=+� , .r,, , r r ,r,,.�a:i.t.4s.e 't.' .+.+.+.,.�.a...+.,.� _
r`�`,'`.,��,�'�.`��_`�`-��'�:•�'i'i�r:�'��-�-�-,-•-T- �.�.�,'�'rT;'';�;[`i*�''`.''`.''''��i%i'i'i'?'i+6'''i'•,�r'.''.T`'i, ''t,rii'i#.'='iT�{`yi'`y.=`rt;�:i'��,°i=ii
NORTH ELEVATION
10
Attachment D — Approved Site Plan
l
I
I,
II
I
pl ,
� I
, I
I I
r 1 P6- II
I I II
-----P i-M
Fz M I
j!i
u LL
77
i
I I I I wg
i
I
I
i
� I
iEl I
I ,
I
I I I I 1
I • I
11I1I] '
_ - --
�
i
a
S 5 e SITEVOt1T 9DIME`N p[ONI GPUIN jZt0gC.ring
FOX
a-1h—s"',s to 107
�+ � w� awpu�NiwLLK awatm�M1crox nvcuE P1 j51 .1101W
re:Evssrs .
11