HomeMy WebLinkAboutA002 - Council Action form dated March 23, 2010 E
ITEM # 41
DATE: 03-23-10
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO GARAGE
PARKING MAXIMUMS FOR SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS
BACKGROUND:
This issue pertains to proposed amendments to residential garage regulations. The
amendments were initiated by staff for purposes of clarifying existing language, and for
providing greater flexibility in achieving what staff assumes to be the intent of existing
language. Although not a frequent problem, this amendment will clarify the City's
standard during plan review for proposed new garages and garage additions.
Section 29.408(7)(a)(iii)(c) of the Ames Municipal Code outlines the zoning regulations
for the size of garages and accessory buildings as follows:
"In any Agricultural or Residential district the number of parking spaces within a
detached or attached garage shall not exceed 3 for a Single Family Dwelling or 2
per dwelling unit for a Two Family Dwelling."
The three parking stall maximum has been in the Municipal Code since at least 1966.
The original intent or purpose for that specific standard is not explicit from available
records and files. However, a limitation on garage size is not an uncommon regulation.
It is often adopted as a means of minimizing the visual dominance of garages in single
family neighborhoods as the sizes of residential garages have become increasingly
larger over the past several decades. This is likely the reason the City of Ames adopted
more stringent standards for garages in Somerset and in the Single Family
Conservation Overlay. Specifically, the Somerset regulations require that the garage be
no closer to the street than the rest of the facade. Regulations for the Single Family
Conservation Overlay (which is the area between Grand and Duff Avenues, and 7th and
11th Streets) require that the garage be set back at least 18 feet from the rest of the
facade.
The City's Inspection Division has found that the interpretation of the garage parking
stall limit in the Zoning Code has been problematic and inconsistent because garages
can have other uses besides the parking of motor vehicles. Parking stalls are often built
larger than the minimum stall dimensions to accommodate storage or workshop space.
The current policy allows a property owner to build an unlimited number of separate
garages, as long as each individual garage has no more than three parking spaces
inside. This is not a common approach, but there are a few examples where a builder
placed one attached garage on the front of the house, and one on the side or rear of the
house. Alternatively, builders may install an interior barrier such as a fire wall to
separate one garage area from another. In this manner, they technically meet the
1
"separate garage requirement." For those that simply want space within the garage for
other uses, some may rely upon half-walls or even paint striping to designate the
expanded area of the garage for non-parking uses. However, since most builders
choose to limit the size of garages to three parking stalls, there has been little
opposition to this existing standard.
The existing standard is effective at minimizing the visual dominance of garages.
However, it limits the ability to have more than three parking stalls in a garage even if
the enlarged garage was not visually obvious. For example, a garage with tandem
parking would result in a deeper garage, but would not increase the visual fagade width
of the garage.
Therefore, staff is proposing language that would regulate garages based upon
cumulative door width, rather than the number of garage parking stalls within the
garage. Staff believes this would achieve the aesthetic intent of the existing standard,
but would provide more flexibility to the builder in meeting market demands for larger
garages. The proposal further clarifies that the standard pertains to the entire property,
and that when there are multiple garages on a single lot, they are not regulated
separately.
The original language developed by staff to address this issue, and which was
presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission, read as follows.-
In any Agricultural or Residential district the cumulative garage door width
number of parking Spaces within a detanhed or attached garage Shall not
exceed three (3) equivalent widths for a Single Family Dwelling or two (2)
equivalent widths per dwelling unit for a Two Family Dwelling. An
equivalent width shall mean nine (9) feet. Doors less than eight feet in
width, such as for lawn and garden equipment, are exempt.
Subsequent to the Planning & Zoning Commission's review and recommendation for
the above language, Staff determined that a more straight forward way of wording the
proposed regulation would be to eliminate reference to the "equivalent garage door
width" and to simply state the total width allowed. Staff is therefore submitting for the
Council's consideration the following revised proposal, as reflected on the attached
ordinance:
In any Agricultural or Residential district the cumulative garage door width
number of parking spaGeS within a detaGhord or attached shall not exceed
3 twenty-seven (27) feet for a Single Family Dwelling or 2 eighteen (18)
feet per dwelling unit for a Two Family Dwelling. Doors less than eight feet
in width, such as for lawn and garden equipment, are exempt.
The above language would exempt garage doors less than 8 feet in width, such as a
6-foot "roll-up" door. This would facilitate the use of smaller roll-up doors for workshop
access, or for smaller equipment storage such as golf carts or lawn and garden
2
equipment. These would be allowed in addition to standard garage doors, and could be
used on either attached storage areas, or on detached outbuildings. An 8-foot door is
also a standard garage door size available from suppliers, but is much less common
than a nine foot door.
There may be a small number of non-conformities created with this amendment. Those
cases would be where separate garages add up to more than the cumulative total
allowed. Those cases would be "grandfathered" in as legal nonconforming structures
and uses, requiring no action by the owner or the City to rectify or document.
Planning & Zoning Commission. At its meeting of March 3, 2010, by a vote of 7-0,
the Commission recommended approval of the originally proposed language as
described above. Public input was received from one member of the audience (a local
developer), who spoke in favor of the proposed language.
The text originally proposed by the Staff to the Commission was slightly more complex
than the proposed revisions described above, and would have required the reader to
compute the cumulative door width based on a definition of "cumulative door width".
The final text proposed herein removed the definition, making the computation obvious.
This was not a substantive change and does not require another review by the
Commission. The following alternatives are therefore provided.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . The City Council can revise the standard as described above and per the
attached ordinance to regulate garage sizes based upon the cumulative width of
garage doors rather than the number of parking spaces within the garage.
2. The City Council can revise the standard according to its own determinations and
conclusions.
3. The City Council can decide not to amend this section of the Municipal Code in
any way, thereby maintaining the status quo.
MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
City staff met with members of the local development community to discuss these
changes and to get their input. While there was some discussion about the initial
purpose of the regulation, there was no opposition to the proposed changes expressed.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council act in
accordance with Alternative #1, which is to approve the attached ordinance revising the
standard as described above to regulate garage sizes based upon the cumulative width
of garage doors rather than the number of parking spaces within the garage.
3