HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Staff Report dated December 7, 2011 ITEM#: 4
DATE: 12-07-11
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CASE FILE NO.: ZBA-11-22
DATE PREPARED: December 1, 2011
MEETING DATE: December 7, 2011
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE: To allow a side setback reduction from 8 feet to 0.4 feet
APPLICANT: Jennifer Evans,Architect, Benjamin Design Collaborative
LOCATION: 2957 Monroe Drive
BACKGROUND:
The owner of 2957 Monroe Drive desires to make a 617 square foot addition to his 2300
square-foot home. The addition would be used as a hobby woodworking shop. As seen
from the street, the shop would have the appearance of a third bay in a three-car garage.
The proposed addition would come within 0.4 feet of the side property line, while the
required setback is 8 feet for a two story house. Therefore the request is for a variance to
reduce the side setback requirement by 7.6 feet.
The application cites the existence of the adjacent 25-foot City-owned park access as a
unique circumstance, which she believes supports several of the variance criteria. The
application also cites the common occurrence of the three car garage with the surrounding
homes as support of the criteria. Additionally, the application cites that special attention to
the design of the proposed addition will allow it to blend well with the existing home and
neighborhood.
To assist the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) in rendering a decision, City staff
researched information about the 98 properties that surround the park land abutting the
site. There are 14 City-owned accesses that connect the park land to the public streets.
The accesses are unpaved and function as public green space. The space between the
two homes on each side of those 14 accesses ranges from 36 to 60 feet. The proposal
would reduce the space between the subject home and the nearest home from 36 to 27
feet. Of the 98 properties there have been two side setback variances approved by the
ZBA. A one-foot setback was approved in 1999 at 2963 Monroe Drive, north of the subject
property. A 5.5 foot setback was approved in 1982 at 3002 Eisenhower Avenue. Both of
those variances were for sites adjacent to park accesses and both on cul-de-sac type
frontages. Of the 98 properties surrounding the park land, 11 had three car garages.A map
of the 98 properties and an attribute table is attached. A subset of the 28 properties
1
adjacent to park accesses is provided separately as an attachment. Also attached are the
meeting minutes and decisions from the 1982 and 1999 variances.
APPLICABLE LAWS:
The Development standards for the Residential Low Density(RL)Zone indentify minimum
setbacks as shown in the excerpt of Table 29.701(3) Ames Municipal Code, below:
Tattle 29.701(3)
Residential Late•Density (RL)Zane Development Standards
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SLIGLE FAMILY TWO FAMILY DNkELLDZG
M==im Lot ALrea 6.000 3f 7.000 d
Mini urnP3inncepal
Bnldiug Setback
Front Lot line 25 ft. 25 fl.
Side Lot Line 6 tl. or 6 ft.;or
8 it fnr.a stories 8 ft for 2 stories
8 ft.for 3 stories 8 ft.for 3 stohes
1S ft.foe side lot line abutting prtblic 15 it,for side lot lime abutting public
rigInt-ofnr ay ou a caner lot right-of-way on a comer tat
Rear Lot Lune 20 ft 20 ft
Mir am Frontage. 35 ft 4 street lime. 35 ft.f4,;street line:
50 f.f- rnlding line 50 ft.sir€bnldikg line
Msvam-umBuildineCam.=eraee 35°« 40 a
Maxnmim Site Cove.-age{includes all buildings,pa-ang 60 O 60%
and sidewa-s on lot
Mu-mnun Landscaaoed HSea 40% 40%
VARIANCE CRITERIA:
The variance criteria may be found in the Ames Municipal Code, Section 29.1504(4)and is
as follows:
(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.
2
BASIS OF APPEAL: The applicant has submitted responses to the variance criteria. See
the attached "Supporting Information" prepared by the applicant, part of the "Variance
Application Packet".
STAFF ANALYSIS:
The placement of the addition appears to provide the most convenient ingress and egress
for the owner. However,there may be options for placement of the same amount of square
footage of addition without the need for a variance. For example, the addition could be
placed completely on the rear of the home with no new garage door. This option may block
views of the parkland for the neighbor's home or it may be more costly to design and
construct since it would affect living space. It would also require ingress and egress
through existing garage doors. This is less desirable for the applicant, but could reduce or
eliminate the encroachment into the setback.
Another option would be to minimize the encroachment into the setback by pushing the
front wall of the proposed addition further back. Because the house is not parallel to the
property line, the encroachment would get increasingly smaller the further back the front
wall of the addition were placed. However, this option would reduce the square footage of
the addition as proposed, and it would not eliminate the need for a variance, and the ZBA
would still have to find that it met the criteria for a variance.
One of the more difficult variance criteria to meet pertains to the "reasonable use" of the
land, and it is rare that staff has found that reasonable use of land would be lost but for
the granting of a requested variance. In the case of the cited 1999 variance approved
to the north, staff nonetheless recommended denial, finding that the property enjoyed
reasonable use as already developed under the standard provisions of the code.
However, the ZBA determined otherwise, finding that the home would not be able to
compete with new homes being constructed elsewhere in the city with three car
garages if the variance was not granted. In this case the variance is requested to
construct a woodshop on the house. The ZBA should therefore determine if the
property cannot yield reasonable return without the addition of a woodshop.
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS:
Staff makes the following findings of facts and conclusions for each of the six individual
criteria "tests":
(a) The granting of the variance shall not be contrary to the public interest.
FINDING: The closest spacing between houses in the area abutting park access
strips is 36 feet. The proposed variance would narrow the gap between houses from
36 to 27 feet.
CONCLUSION: Although the gap between the houses would be the narrowest of
3
the 14 park accesses, it would still be significantly wider than the gaps between
houses without park accesses. The purpose of the setback is for fire safety and also
to promote access to air and light that is not inhibited by buildings. The existence of
the park access would maintain that public interest if the variance were approved.
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.
FINDING: Two car garages are more common than three car garages in this area
(11 versus 87). The proposed addition, when complete, would create the largest
garage of the 98 properties researched, including the 11 three car garages (a
cumulative total of 1,203 square feet proposed garage space).
CONCLUSION: Although the design of the proposed garage expansion seeks to
minimize the visibility of the garage from the street, many other homes in the area
are successfully operating with less square footage and less garage doors.
Therefore the Board can conclude that this criterion is not met.
(ii) The plight of the owners is due to unique circumstances and not to the
general conditions in the neighborhood.
FINDINGS: There are 14 public park accesses in this area. The average lot size of
the 98 lots around the parkland is 11,631 square feet. The subject lot is 12,000
square feet.
CONCLUSION: Although a public park access is unique when looking at a City-
wide level, it is not unique to this area, as there are 28 such lots with adjacent park
accesses. Additionally, there is no indication that the access strips are a detriment
to the development of the property. The subject lot is similar to the average size
and width of the 98 lots adjacent to the parkland. Therefore the Board can find
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: There are 11 other three car garages in this area.
CONCLUSION: Although there are only 11 other three car garages among the 98
lots researched, an additional garage stall would not alter the essential character
because of the proposed building design. Therefore the Board can conclude that
this criterion is met.
4
(c) The spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is
granted.
FINDING: The remaining space between the two houses would be 27 feet. The park
access land is owned by the City of Ames.
CONCLUSION: Although the gap between the houses would be narrower than it is
now, the access to air and light would not be significantly affected. Because the land
is owned by the City, the likelihood for it to remain open is very high. Therefore the
Board can conclude that this criterion is met.
(d) Substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting the variance.
FINDING: There are other options for similar sized additions that would eliminate or
reduce the encroachment into the side setback.
CONCLUSION: Because there are other options that would require less of a
variance or no variance at all, substantial justice would not be done if the variance
were to be granted. 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 allow the
proposed addition at 2957 Monroe Drive to encroach into the side setback by 7.6 feet,
based upon the above findings and conclusions.
2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve this request for a variance 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 Planning and Housing Department has determined that the criteria for a variance
required by Ames Municipal Code Section 29.1504(4) have not all been met. Therefore,
the Board should act in accordance with Alternative #1, which is to deny the requested
variance. If the Board finds and concludes that all of the criteria have been met then the
Board should act in accordance with Alternative #2.
SAPLAN SHR\Council Boards Commissions\ZBA\Variances\2957 Monroe Drive side setback variance 12-07-11.doc
5
e
ZI /3 // (/ �', a� �\`S�f we>a / F✓
vk"/
/ I v \ i
R r n
�`
26 \ \ 3t 4 SP
%: .
spy -
�/i Po
�"/�4 9Jl //�% •�^�'' K\,Eh 9ff £\ , �� J
Subject Property
2957 Monroe Drive
ve
n
r. '
SO
IM
Nir
IN
e N ,
0 30 60
2957 Monroe Drive mommommE==Feet
Map created by Department of Planning&Housing December 1,2011
6
It
11 U 1999
Cl" OF
CITY OF AMES, IOWA
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF ELLIOTT FOR A VARIANCE TO THE CASE NO. 99-30
SIDE YARD SETBACK RESTRICTIONS IN GEOCODE NO. 05-27-359-220
AN R1-10 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
ZONING DISTRICT, SECTION 29.14,AMES
MUNICIPAL CODE,TO ALLOW CON-
STRUCTION OF A GARAGE AND STOR-
AGE ROOM ADDITION ON THE PROPER- DECISION & ORDER
TY LOCATED AT 2963 MONROE DRIVE
FACTS
The applicants own and reside in the single family , two story home at this address. They are in an
R1-10 (Low-Density Residential) zoning district. The applicants would like to build a garage
addition to their home,but the addition they have planned encroaches into the side yard setback area,
so they are seeking a variance to allow this project. The home presently has an attached 2-car garage
which is 22'-8" wide. The addition will be for an a third garage stall plus a large storage area behind
that, and the front of the addition will be approximately aligned with the front of the home. They
live on a cul-de-sac so their home is situated on a pie shaped lot whose narrowest dimension is at
the street, and the garage stall will be to the south side of the home at the front. An 8-foot sideyard
setback is required for a two story home in this district,but because the widest part of the home will
be toward the front of the lot,the new addition will encroach into the sideyard setback by seven feet.
The applicants do not presently have three vehicles,but their children will be of driving age in a few
years, and it would be very inconvenient for them and the neighbors to have the third car parked in
the street. There is limited on-street parking available, and this is especially so in the wintertime,
because the snow accumulation is piled along the cul-de-sac. The applicants have a neighbor to their
east,but there is no neighbor immediately to the side where this addition will be. This is because
there is a 25-foot wide green space that is meant for access to the public park that is behind this area.
The addition will have the same roofline and siding as the existing structure. Although three car
garages are not the norm in this area, the addition should not change the essential character of the
area since there are several other three car garages within the immediate vicinity. The applicants are
not concerned about passersby bothering their property, since they are already so close to the public
park access and tolerate people who stray off the pathway.
DECISION _
The Board considers the standards applicable to requests for variances from the provisions of the
zoning ordinance. In this instance, there is a unusual situation in that the property abutting the
applicants nearest to where the proposed addition will be is a 25'wide open space park access. The
existence of this feature will allow for the openness between structures that setbacks are meant to
preserve, mitigating the fact that the variance sought is sizeable. This addition will not change the
essential character of the area, since there are other three car garages found nearby occasionally, and
it will be constructed to match the architecture and finishes of the existing home. The Board
determines that it can grant this variance.
ORDER
WHEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that the applicants are granted a variance to the side yard
setback restrictions in an R1-10 (Low-Density Residential) zoning district, Section 29.14, Ames
Municipal Code,to allow a garage addition with a side yard setback of 1', all for the property located
at 2963 Monroe Drive.
Any person desiring to appeal this decision to a court of record may do so within 30 days after the
filing of this decision.
Done this 25th day of August, 1999.
Karen Thompson Steve D. Goodhue
Secretary to the Board Chair
MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT MEETING
AMES, IOWA AUGUST 25, 1999
The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment(ZBA)met,pursuant to law,in regular session at 7:00 p.m.,
August 25, 1999,in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present:Barnes,
Goodhue, Habeger,Hildebrand and Homstad. Staff members Schmitt and Parks were also present.
All testimony was given under oath administered by Board Chair Goodhue.Board members and staff
were introduced and procedures outlined.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Motion by Homstad, Second by Habeger, to approve the
minutes of the August 11, 1999, Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting, with the correction of
Joyce Hatfield's address from 612 to 610 Brookridge under testimony on Case 99-33.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. (Motion declared carried unanimously.)
Motion by Hildebrand, Second by Barnes, to take Case 99-30 from the table.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. (Motion declared carried unanimously.)
CASE NO. 99-30
VARIANCE -JOHN & TERI ELLIOTT, 2963 MONROE DRIVE
Application for Variance from side-yard setback requirements to allow the construction of a
third garage stall on the property located at 2963 Monroe Drive
Planner Schmitt stated that this was an application to build an addition for a third garage stall and
storage area next to the existing garage,and the addition would extend into the side-yard setback
to a point approximately one foot from the property line. She said staff had considered the
various tests for approval and found that four of the five were not met. With respect to the test
of Reasonable Return,one could not say that all value of the property would be lost without the
variance; two garage stalls already exist and an addition up to eight feet wide could be
constructed without a variance.Schmitt stated that the lot was pie-shaped and therefore the house
was not built parallel to the lot line, but said the property had no other unique physical
characteristics which contributed to Plight of the Owner.With regard to the Essential Character
of the Area, Schmitt commented that other homes in the immediate neighborhood had only two
garage stalls.Finally,Schmitt stated that because an addition could be built without the need for
a variance, granting one would not uphold the Spirit of the Ordinance. She added that the
appellants have argued that they are adjacent to a 25-foot-wide park access,but she pointed out
that the access is a public way and allowing this variance would be analogous to allowing
someone to build up to within one or two feet of the sidewalk, something the City would never
consider.
John Elliott,2963 Monroe Drive,was sworn in and stated that he could build an eight-foot wide
storage area without a Variance, but said his family's true goal was to add a third garage stall.
This plan just allows for a storage area behind it.He said that the pie-shaped lot resulted in there
being only one on-street parking space between his house and the neighbor's. He said his family
had three cars and would prefer to park the third one off the street to protect it from vandalism
and to keep it from being buried when snow plows round the cul-de-sac in the winter. He stated
r
that sometimes six or seven feet of snow get plowed over the car parked on the street,and it can
take an hour or more to dig it out.
Elliott explained that he was asking for a seven-foot variance, but it is only for a triangular
section of the front corner of the proposed addition. He said only about 42 square feet of the 420
square-foot structure would extend into the setback. He added that he felt he really only needed
a six-foot variance,but wanted to allow for a possible error in his measurements.
Elliott disagreed with various comments and interpretations made by staff. Regarding the
character of his neighborhood,he said there were two nearby homes on Monroe with three-car
garages, and a total of 12 within a 250-foot radius of his property. He said he didn't feel a third
stall would detract from neighborhood,but would add value to their home. Elliott also said he
felt having a public access adjacent to their lot line was a rather unusual situation.He maintained
that the Spirit of the Ordinance concerning the setback was to allow space between structures
and,if the proposed addition were built,there would still be 35 feet between the two houses. He
said his neighbors had no objections to the proposal.He also remarked that it is not clear where
the lot lines are and he recently found out that he had been mowing the City's property. Elliott
concluded that there was no other place to add a third garage stall, because there are living
quarters behind the garage and they couldn't build in the front yard.
Board Member Barnes asked if they had considered any alternative plans to avoid the need for
the variance. Elliott replied that the addition could be built farther back,but the roof line would
have to change and he would prefer to match slope of the existing roof.
Tom Keller,2969 Monroe,was sworn in and stated that he lived just east of the Elliotts.He said
he supported the addition because the snow is a great problem when the plows come around the
cul-de-sac. He said he'd like to see the cars off the street.
The board members asked Schmitt about the park access and the reason it was so wide. She
replied that she was not sure why some park accesses were ten feet wide and this one was
twenty-five, except that the City did need adequate room to get vehicles in and out.
Goodhue stated that he agreed with the appellant that the shape of the lot and its location next
to the access-way was something of a unique physical characteristic. He agreed that the third
garage stall would not alter the character of the neighborhood. He also thought it was important
that the entire addition would not encroach into the setback, as only about 10%would extend
into the side yard.
Board Member Hildebrand argued that the side-yard setback is especially important here because
of its location bordering a public park which is very limited to anyone who doesn't own adjacent
property.He said that because the access is so limited,it would be an encroachment on the City's
rights to allow a homeowner to build within a foot of the right-of-way.
Homstad pointed out that she has seen other places where an adjacent property owner uses the
city property because most of the time no one uses it at all. She said there were other accesses
to this park for vehicles and this variance, in her mind,would not hurt anybody.
2
r
r
Hildebrand pointed out that nine of the 12 homes near the appellant that had three-car garages
faced Reagan Drive and were newly-built.
Homstad asserted that existing neighborhoods would not be able to compete with areas of new
construction if the City or the ZBA allowed them to become obsolete by disallowing upgrades
such as garage additions. She reiterated her feeling that this would not hurt anyone as the access
was very wide.
Board member Barnes stated that he agreed with Hildebrand, but also felt there were unique
circumstances. He said that he would oppose this variance if any neighbors contested it.
Habeger said that she could understand the snow problem.
Motion by Habeger,Second by Homstad,to ADOPT ORDER NO.99-30,granting a seven-foot
Variance from side-yard setback requirements to allow the construction of a third garage stall
on the property located at 2963 Monroe Drive.
Roll Call Vote: 1-4, Barnes, Goodhue, Habeger, Homstad voting aye; Hildebrand voting nay.
(Motion declared carried.)
CASE NO. 99-34
SPECIAL USE PERMIT - STONEBROOKE COMMUNITY CHURCH, PROPERTY
OWNER; AMES CHRISTIAN SCHOOL, PROPOSED TENANT, 3611 EISENHOWER
AVENUE
Application for Special Use Permit to allow the operation of a preschool on the property
located at 3611 Eisenhower Avenue
Planner Schmitt stated that this was an application for a preschool program which would operate
from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. weekday mornings and 12:30 to 2:30 p.m., Monday, Wednesday and
Friday. She said staff believed all the standards were met,the Planning and Zoning Commission
concurred,and they all recommend approval with three stipulations. She said the parking lot was
very big and would accommodate the preschool.
LeRoy Harmsen, 315' Street, south of Kelley,was sworn in and stated that the Ames Christian
Preschool has been in existence for five years. They had to move out of the church they were
in and the facility they found for the elementary school would not accommodate the preschool.
Stonebrooke Community Church offered to house the preschool until they could construct their
own building. He said they had no problems with the stipulations and added that it was their
goal to build in about two years.
Motion by Hildebrand, Second by Barnes, to ADOPT ORDER NO. 99-34, allowing the
operation of a preschool on the property located at 3611 Eisenhower Avenue with the following
stipulations:
1. that the maximum number of children allowed at each of the three preschool sessions be
limited to 20 children;
2. that the hours for the preschool sessions be 9:00 a.m.to 11:00 a.m.,Monday through Friday,
and 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., Monday, Wednesday, and Friday;
3
t
s
3. that the preschool program be fully licensed by the Department of Human Services.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. (Motion declared carried unanimously.)
COMMENTS: Goodhue announced that there were two cases on the upcoming agenda and
mentioned that meetings regarding the new Zoning Ordinance would be held in September and
October.
Schmitt stated that she would be gone for that reason on September 8 and Ray Anderson would
most likely take her place. She stated that public informational meetings would be held as
follows: September 8 - Ward 1 (commercial and industrial); September16 - Ward 3;
September 22 -Ward 1, (residential); September 29 -Ward 2; and October 14 - Ward 4
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:44 p.m.
Karen C. Thompson, Recording Secretary Steve D. Goodhue, Board Chair
The next meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment will be a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m.
on September 8, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the Ames City Hall at 515 Clark Ave.
4
'iS•{I�'a':�' _ _ _ - may.
,�A•d �Ly�������Y�_ ��5ri',G'..t.�'�r�.:���•'Y v's�� �tfk7v� w.z �i:.:_L', 't •i-' _ •.<.. �M - ..
!
CITY OF AMES, IOWA <„
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION OF JACK SWANSON ;
4
FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW
DIMINISHED SIDE YARD SET BACK �~^
FOR AN ADDITION AT 3002
EISENHOWER CIRCLE + ''c
CASE N0. 82-34 DECISION & ORDER
� � * � � � ,t �r � � * � � � � ,ter * � * * � � s• �t � * ,� * � * �t �t• � � a• �%'�: .:
FACTS ' ;;
The applicant wishes to add a sunroom which will also be used for pas-
sive solar heat onto the southeast portion of his house at 3002 ;'r
Eisenhower Circle. The structure is constructed almost entirely out of
windowa. The variance requested is to allow a reduction of the eight
foot side yard set back required by Section 29.14(2)(d) of the municipal ?=
code to only five feet six inches. The property abuts a 25 foot park
entrance on the southeast. The lot is wedge-shaped. _
DECISION '='=
The board finds that due to the unique pie shape of the lot and the 25
ems" foot adjoining park entrance the strict application of the eight foot f'
rule would result in an unnecessary hardship. The interests of the
public or neighboring property owners will not be disserved nor the
<;s::• intent and purpose of the ordinance be defeated because of the minor
nature of this variance and the minimal impact on the side lot.
ORDER
'- WHEREFORE, it is ordered that the side yard variance as Applied for
' shall be and is hereby ranted. The a licant s uld apply
Y 8 PP to the
building official for a building and zoning permit.
« (�
�:;=��;-,•, " Done this 8th dap of September, 1982.
""• Gi9d Bicknese Geo ge Co t, Chairmaa
Secretary to the Board
ri
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT :=
DATE PREPARED: SEP 2, 1982 •'`a:
MEETING DATE: SEP 8, 1982
APPEAL FOR VARIANCE: To construct a passive solar sunroom addition; the zoning � '• "
permit was refused because of insufficient side yard setback.
;:.
APPELLANT: Jack Swansonr_,
LOCATION: 3002 Eisenhower Circle
ZONING: R1-10
APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS: Section 29.14(2)(d) of the Municipal Code which -'
states that the minimum side yard setback for a two-story dwelling is 8 feet. '
REQUESTED VARIANCE: To allow a side yard setback of 5 feet 6 inches. ;a=• `
BASIS OF THE APPEAL: "we wish to utilize the solar heating aspect derived from a ., '
greenhouse application. The only place this can now be done would be on the
front or side. The front side would violate the normal setback and be
objectionable visually; the back side would be in the shade and of no value."
FINDINGS: This property abuts a 25-foot park entrance on the southeast.
ANALYSIS: The Zoning Board of Adjustment is authorized to grant a variance
provided all of the following requirements are met:
I. Finding of Unnecessary Hardship
To support a finding of unnecessary hardship, the Board must find, upon
competent evidence, that:
;. A. The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for
the purpose all-owed in the zone.
This section to not applicable since an addition to a residential structure
is a permitted use in the R1-10 district.
B. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and not to general
conditions in the neighborhood, which may reflect the unreasonableness of the
Zoning Ordinance itself.
- Although the appellant's lot is quite large, it is located on a circle and
has minimum frontage on Eisenhower Circle. The lot then widens or flares
out in a wedge shape. There are some other odd shaped lots in the neigh-
borhood, however, most of the lots are rectangular. It appears as though
;.l . the house had been located at the 40-foot front yard setback in order to
accommodate its full width because of the wedge-shaped nature of the lot.
= The appellant proposes to locate the passive solar sunroom addition on
the southeast portion of the structure in an indented area, which was
probably designed into the house in order to take into consideration the
side yard setback requirements of 8 feet. Because the structure is not
parallel to the aide yard line, a corner of the proposed sunroom would
1.
h�
Jack Swanson 2 ..
September 8, 1982
protrude 2 feet 6 inches into the side yard setback. See the
accompanying map,
There is other buildable area on-the appellant's lot which would allow
an addition to the dwelling of the size the appellant wishes however,
the other locations are not as advantageous from an aesthetic point of
view or from an appropriate passive solar orientation. The appellant's
home has a front yard setback of 40 feet, while the homes in the area ,_:=
have a 30-foot front yard setback. Therefore, the sunroom could be
located on the front of the house, which would satisfy setback requirements : '
and have solar access. This solution, however, would not fit very well :,..,.
with the deli �`�-'�•
gn of the house. Attaching the proposed addition at the rear
of the house or on the northwest side would not allow the appellant to
take advantage of the passive solar nature of the sddi;"m.
C. The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential -character of the area.
- The proposed sunroom addition should not alter the character of the area.
Although no other similar sunspaces were observed in the neighborhood, w.-
�r
this is an appropriate addition to a residential structure, which is somewhat similar to an enclosed
porch found in many homes.
II. The Variance Will Not Be Contrary to the Public Interest 4��k
The purpose of the side yard setback is to permit adequate light and ventilation, •�'A
=' allow adequate separation between structures, and provide for fire protection. In
M ._;. this case, a 25-foot park access abuts the side yard. This access looks like an 'r•
integral part of the side yard, since it is a rasa unmarked area and functions as a
4.,•_`,.,. wide aide grassy,
yard. The granting of this variance should have no negative effect on the
_.: public health and safety, since the existence of the park access insures that adequate
y .: separation will be provided between structures.
III. The Spirit of the Ordinance is Protected
Although it is desirable and the Ordinance dictates that sufficient side yard
' setback be provided, in this case it may be argued that a certain degree of flexibility
be considered since the actual separation between structures is guaranteed by the
ale 25-foot outlot which has been left for park access.
The appellant does have the alternative to put a passive on the
" front of the house, however, such a solution v.{ould be undesirableafromdon aniaesthetic
point of view, since it would not integrate well with the design of the house. And,
such a solution might have a negative impact on surrounding. g property.
The Land Use Policy Plan for the cit
-: solar as well as other ever Y au Pporta the concept and use of passive
gy-Having techniques. In instances where the use of these
systems and techniques do not negatively impact the surrounding area', they should be encouraged and therefore, fall within the protection of the spirit of the ordinance.
SP
• .'r.
i.. �
7 a_ _
Iwo
' TOE -Zoning Board of Adjustment
FROMS Department of Planning and Housing
DATE: September 3, 1982 i•.'.
SUBJECTS Variance to Allow a Passive Solar Sunroom at 3002 Eisenhower Circle
In the past several years there has been an increased awareness of the potential
for energy savings that can be achieved through the proper use of solar energy. 7~
Because of increasing energy costs, more people are wishing to adapt existing
structures with passive solar additions and both passive and active solar modifications.
{ Frequently, such adaptations conflict with the Zoning Ordinance because of the limited
areas {southern exposures) where such modifications can take place, and the Zoning
Ordinance does not provide for special consideration of this type of conflict. 1" <
As noted in other memos from the staff, the Energy Policy Steering Committee has
.t.. recommended that the city revise appropriate city codes to provide for solar and
wind access. It is hoped that included in any ordinance changes.will be a means 3'r=
to take care of such special considerations that are necessary for adaptation to '':.:
solar and wind energy systems.
Av.
The Department recomends that this variance be granted. The appellant does have
a hardship in locating the structure-at the side of the dwelling due to angular
aide yard property line. Although an alternative does exist to construct the
sunroom on the front of the structure, such an alternative would have a negative `+
aesthetic impact on the design of the existing structure and could have a possible
negative impact on the surrounding area. Adequate separation between structures will
be maintained in this case due to the existence of the 25-foot outlot abutting the
side yard.
r
J.
^`t
=4
Mark Cheple appeared before the Board and explained that he proposed to
take the existing structure and remove the privacy fence and construct two
walls which would include two casement windows and an energy efficient
storm door.
The Board expressed their concern on setting a precedent in allowing this
variance for a front yard setback.
Baord Member Rothmel expressed the plight of the owner is not due to unique
circumstances. Also, Chairman Covert expressed his concern that approving
this variance would alter the essential character of the area.
Motion by Rothmel , seconded by Campbell to adopt ORDER .NO. 82-33 t6 deny
the variance on the basis that it does not meet .the..requirementsof- the Board.
Roll Call Vote 4-0. Order declared denied.
CASE NO. 82-34 ,
VARIANCE - JACK SWANSON: Application for a variance to install a sunro,om_on
property located at 3002 Eisenhower Circle. Request was re.fus�e:d because of
insufficient side yard setback.
Requested variance: a side yard setback of 5 feet 6 inches (8 feet is
required) .
Jack Swanson appeared before the Board and explained he would like to install
a sunroom for passive solar heat. He also expressed they have a park Access
which is approximately 25 feet wide which separates the house frmth4ir
neighbor's home.
Motion by Halliburton, seconded by Campbell to adopt ORDER NO. 82-34 to
grant a variance due to the pie shaped lot, minor nature of the variance
in that it will impact only on the corner of the building and not the
entire building, and the existence of the 25 foot outlot for the park
entrance.
Roll Call Vote 4-0. Order declared adopted.
CASE NO. 82-35
SPECIAL PERMIT - (HOME OCCUPATION) - RICHARD WILSON: Application for a special
permit for a home occupation for a sound system rental at 508 Carroll , #2.
The applicant failed to appear nor did another appear for him to present
his application to the Board on this date set for hearing. The applicant
did not notify the Board of any reason for not appearing.
Motion by Campbell , seconded by Rothmel__to...adopt..ORDER--NO. .82-35 to deny the
request according to rule IV.A.2 (failure of the appicant to appear)
of the Rules of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Roll Call Vote 4-0. Order declared denied.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:38 p.m.
Mary Hart nn, Sp,-—tary 7
e over Chairman
F
U 9•tT H
U
9
O G� za 7TTTI
Z Z
J Q W
U � >
BUCHANAN DR a
m
m w
O NT
O
L im � L
POLK DR WHEELER DR WHEELER ST
1999 Variance H I
Approved
�GMIN
1982 Variance STEVENSO TRUMAN DR TRUMAN?�
Approved 0
FM
BRECKINRIDGE CT
--M �M�'I D
30TH ST
REAGAN DR
Subject Property
2957 Monroe Drive
0NQ0 JACKSON DR
M
JOHNSON ST
28TH ST
2y G Fqc
9L
P,
G�
�Q
Q�
Legend 0 250 500 N
- Parcels adjacent to park access mmmmmmmE===== Feet
0 Parcels adjacent to parkland but not access
parkland
�' ```"`"' �., Map created by Department of Planning&Housing December 1,2011
P
98 LOTS SURROUDING PARKVIEW HEIGHTS PARK LAND
Address Lot SF Lot Acre Stories Above Grade SF Stalls Garage SF
1549 REAGAN DR 14563 0.33 2-Story 1369 3 910
1555 REAGAN DR 10028 0.23 2-Story 1594 3 701
1561 REAGAN DR 11079 0.25 2-Story 1192 3 708
1573 REAGAN DR 10674 0.25 2-Story 1339 3 786
1628 TRUMAN DR 8884 0.20 2-Story 1076 3 808
1654 REAGAN DR 14383 0.33 1-Story 2617 3 829
1901 POLK DR 14924 0.34 2-Story 2961 3 979
1906 STEVENSON DR 9801 0.23 2-Story 2020 3 948
1913 POLK DR 11129 0.26 2-Story 1388 3 776
2963 MONROE DR 11422 0.26 2-Story 1189 3 921
3306 TAFT CT 17593 0.40 S/Level 1256 3 884
1567 REAGAN DR 10006 0.23 1-Story 1547 2 554
1579 REAGAN DR 10274 0.24 1.5 Fin 1426 2 540
1606 PIERCE CIR 13822 0.32 2-Story 1129 2 475
1610 PIERCE CIR 10277 0.24 2-Story 1135 2 487
1614 PIERCE CIR 11510 0.26 2-Story 1330 2 528
1615 JACKSON DR 13965 0.32 S/Level 1417 2 572
1615 PIERCE CIR 15236 0.35 1-Story 1676 2 597
1616 TRUMAN DR 13963 0.32 2-Story 949 2 578
1617 JACKSON DR 9694 0.22 2-Story 1090 2 460
1619 WHEELER DR 14282 0.33 1-Story 1648 2 588
1620 BUCHANAN DR 20587 0.47 2-Story 1150 2 470
1620 TRUMAN DR 10274 0.24 2-Story 1119 2 458
1623 WHEELER DR 11758 0.27 1-Story 1145 2 440
11624 BUCHANAN DR 17073 0.39 2-Story 1468 2 723
1624 JOHNSON ST 13578 0.31 2-Story 793 2 462
1624 TRUMAN DR 8993 0.21 1-Story 1498 2 528
1630 JOHNSON ST 113175 0.30 2-Story 1285 2 784
1632 TRUMAN DR 9481 0.22 1-Story 1621 2 478
1636 JOHNSON ST 10411 0.24 2-Story 1107 2 484
1642 JOHNSON ST 8021 0.18 2-Story 1084 2 488
1648 JOHNSON ST 9189 0.21 2-Story 1392 2 476
11702 BUCHANAN DR 12513 0.29 2-Story 1400 2 586
1710 BUCHANAN DR 11510 0.26 2-Story 1221 2 576
1722 BUCHANAN DR 11619 0.27 2-Story 1862 2 497
1802 BUCHANAN DR 12159 0.28 2-Story 1161 2 534
1808 BUCHANAN DR 13399 0.31 S/Level 1288 2 540
1814 BUCHANAN DR 10345 0.24 2-Story 1133 2 481
1820 BUCHANAN DR 12599 0.29 1-Story 1406 2 484
1902 STEVENSON DR 8539 0.20 2-Story 1190 2 669
1904 BUCHANAN DR 12257 0.28 2-Story 1542 2 619
1907 POLK DR 10260 0.24 2-Story 2317 2 644
1910 STEVENSON DR 9677 0.22 1-Story 2524 2 542
1914 STEVENSON DR 9701 0.22 2-Story 1736 2 636
1918 STEVENSON DR 10799 0.25 2-Story 1512 2 667
1919 POLK DR 11049 0.25 2-Story 1424 2 528
11922 STEVENSON DR 12735 0.29 2-Story 1085 2 602
1926 STEVENSON DR 11893 0.27 2-Story 2127 2 528
1930 STEVENSON DR 10821 0.25 2-Story 1395 2 578
98 properties.xls Page 1 of 2
r
1934 STEVENSON DR 10947 0.25 1-Story 1810 2 567
1938 STEVENSON DR 10739 0.25 1-Story 1338 2 484
1942 STEVENSON DR 10797 0.25 2-Story 945 2 482
2002 STEVENSON DR 11339 0.26 2-Story 1375 2 627
2006 STEVENSON DR 11275 0.26 1-Story 2203 2 506
2010 STEVENSON DR 11098 0.25 2-Story 949 2 770
2014 STEVENSON DR 10392 0.24 1-Story 1901 2 528
2502 EISENHOWER AVE 11122 0.26 1-Story 1555 2 420
2505 PIERCE AVE 11292 0.26 2-Story 1204 2 525
2512 EISENHOWER AVE 10168 0.23 2-Story 1242 2 418
2513 PIERCE AVE 11122 0.26 2-Story 1512 2 619
2523 PIERCE AVE 10528 0.24 2-Story 1004 2 473
2524 EISENHOWER AVE 11458 0.26 2-Story 1148 2 442
2531 PIERCE AVE 10508 0.24 2-Story 1271 2 515
2532 EISENHOWER AVE 10719 0.25 1-Story 1717 2 516
2538 EISENHOWER AVE 10679 0.25 1-Story 2244 2 505
2544 EISENHOWER AVE 10486 0.24 1-Story 1750 2 589
2607 PIERCE AVE 10453 0.24 2-Story 1287 2 532
2612 CLEVELAND DR 17980 0.18 2-Sto 1403 2 570
2624 CLEVELAND DR 8057 0.18 1.5 Fin 1144 2 628
2630 CLEVELAND DR 8437 0.19 1-Story 1532 2 525
2634 CLEVELAND DR 110546 0.24 2-Story 1820 2 422
2638 CLEVELAND DR 11735 0.27 1-Story 1442 2 615
2644 CLEVELAND DR 8974 0.21 S/Foyer 1082 2 480
2650 CLEVELAND DR 8379 0.19 1-Story 1624 2 504
2749 CLEVELAND DR 21685 0.50 1-Story 2156 2 508
2751 CLEVELAND DR 13357 0.31 2-Story 1271 2 518
2753 CLEVELAND DR 9229 0.21 1-Story 1489 2 462
2858 MONROE DR 15872 0.36 1.5 Fin 1599 2 475
2862 MONROE DR 8990 0.21 2-Story 1046 2 518
2868 MONROE DR 10897 0.25 1-Story 1691 2 574
2874 MONROE DR 10331 0.24 2-Story 1088 2 484
2880 MONROE DR 9511 0.22 1-Story 1409 2 528
2884 MONROE DR 9578 0.22 1-Story 1651 2 600
2888 MONROE DR 8877 0.20 S/Level 1324 2 585
2914 MONROE CIR 11805 0.27 2-Story 951 2 551
2915 MONROE CIR 16975 0.39 S/Level 1080 2 528
2941 MONROE DR 14172 0.33 1-Story 1420 2 538
2942 EISENHOWER CIR 12190 0.28 2-Story 1136 2 539
2948 EISENHOWER CIR 10328 0.24 2-Story 1218 2 513
2953 MONROE DR 12718 0.29 1-Story 1220 2 944
2957 MONROE DR 11999 0.28 S/Level 1707 2 568
2969 MONROE DR 9773 0.22 1-Story 1552 2 576
2975 MONROE DR 11124 0.26 S/Foyer 1181 2 555
2981 MONROE DR 10344 0.24 2-Story 1110 2 462
2985 MONROE DR 10446 0.24 2-Story 1088 2 484
2989 MONROE DR 13350 0.31 2-Story 1047 2 519
3002 EISENHOWER CIR 21117 0.48 2-Story 1401 2 596
3302 TAFT CT 14003 0.32 2-Story 1046 2 561
Averages 11631 1425.67 577.34
98 properties.xls Page 2 of 2
28 lots with adjacent park accesses
Address ILot S T Lot Acre
1820 BUCHANAN DR 12598.78 0.29
1722 BUCHANAN DR 11618.76 0.27
1802 BUCHANAN DR 12159.36 0.28
1620 BUCHANAN DR 20587.34 0.47
1628 TRUMAN DR 8884.36 0.20
2948 EISENHOWER CIR 10327.98 0.24
2914 MONROE CIR 11804.69 0.27
2880 MONROE DR 9510.83 0.22
2753 CLEVELAND DR 9228.69 0.21
2607 PIERCE AVE 10452.60 0.24
2531 PIERCE AVE 10508.10 0.24
2957 MONROE DR 11999.35 0.28
2505 PIERCE AVE 11291.57 0.26
2502 EISENHOWER AVE 11122.39 0.26
1904 BUCHANAN DR 12256.65 0.28
1910 STEVENSON DR 9676.73 0.22
1914 STEVENSON DR 9700.79 0.22
1624 TRUMAN DR 8993.13 0.21
3002 EISENHOWER CIR 21117.02 0.48
2915 MONROE CIR 16975.26 0.39
2874 MONROE DR 10331.47 0.24
1624 BUCHANAN DR 17073.34 0.39
2963 MONROE DR 11421.62 0.26
1636 JOHNSON ST 10411.33 0.24
2650 CLEVELAND DR 8378.63 0.19
2624 CLEVELAND DR 8056.99 0.18
2612 CLEVELAND DR 7979.90 0.18
3306 TAFT CT 1 17593.361 0.40
1642 JOHNSON ST 8020.981 0.18
Averages 11726.96 0.27
Parkview_Iots_by_easements for report-As