The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutA4 t ITEM#: 2 DATE: 7-25-12 CITY OF AMES DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE FILE NO.: ZBA-12-12 DATE PREPARED: July 16, 2012 MEETING DATE: July 25, 2012 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE: To allow construction of an accessory building that exceeds the allowed gross floor area by 720 feet. APPLICANT: Craig and Leslie Boylan LOCATION: 3914 South Duff Avenue ATTACHMENTS: Location Map Project Drawings Applicants Responses to Criteria Adjoining Property Owner Statement Site Photos BACKGROUND: The applicants own a residence on a 15,525 square-foot lot on South Duff Avenue near Ken Maril Road. The property is in a low density residential neighborhood and single family detached homes surround the property on three sides. (See Location Map). The applicants propose to demolish two existing accessory buildings and build a new detached accessory building, with space for two vehicles and a woodshop. The building would also have an unoccupied second level loft, for storage of wood. The accessory building would have, on the south elevation, two overhead doors, two person doors and two windows. The gambrel roof would give the building an appearance similar to a barn. The garage is for leisure use of the owners onlyfor non-commercial purposes. (See Project Drawings) The size of the accessory building is 27 feet wide and 60 feet long, for a gross floor area of 1620 square feet, exceeding the maximum allowed by 720 square feet. The applicant seeks a variance from this requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition to the design drawings providing background information about the project itself, the Applicant has provided specific information supporting the compliance of the variance with the criteria for variances in the Ames Municipal Code. At the time the applicant prepared the application it was believed that the height of the proposed accessory building exceeded the maximum height that the Zoning Ordinance allows. However, that is not the case, so please disregard references to building height in the supporting information. See Applicants Responses to Criteria APPLICABLE LAWS: Section 29.408(7) of the Ames Municipal Code establishes requirements for garages and other accessory buildings in residential zoning districts. Section 29.408(7)(a)(iii)(a) specifies that the total area of all accessory buildings may not exceed 25% of the area of the rear yard. Section 29.408(7)(a)(iii)(b) specifies that the gross floor area of any single accessory building to a single family dwelling cannot exceed 900 square feet. 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 fora 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. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS: Staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions. (a) The granting of the variance shall not be contrary to the public interest. FINDINGS: The proposed accessory building is 1620 square feet, exceeding the maximum allowed by 80%. The proposed building has two uses: garage for cars 2 and woodshop. Two separate buildings, each housing one of these uses,would still total 1620 square feet. The rear yard is approximately 85 feet by 90 feet, an area of 7,650 square feet. The applicant plans to demolish the existing accessory buildings. The total area of two new buildings would be 21% of the area of the rear yard, which meets the Zoning Ordinance. CONCLUSION: Communities limit sizes of accessory buildings in orderto preserve neighborhood character. For the same reason, only one single-family home is allowed per lot in a low density residential zoning district. Staff believes that a single accessory building that is as large as some single-family residences would be out of character with a low density residential neighborhood. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this standard has not been 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: This well maintained-property is located in a stable neighborhood. The subject property contains a house with a two-car attached garage. The assessed value of the subject property is comparable to nearby properties. The proposed accessory building may add value to the property, but two accessory buildings that meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements for maximum size would also add similar value. CONCLUSION: It is staff's opinion that not approving the requested variance will not have any impact on existing property value. The property is yielding a reasonable return, without the single, large accessory structure, and the applicant can expect the same additional return from two accessory buildings as from a single, large accessory structure. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this standard has not been met. (ii) The plight of the owners is due to unique circumstances and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood. FINDING: The subject property is a rectangular lot 172.5' by 90' and is similar in shape size and topography to other lots in the area. Access is from a busy U.S. Highway, similar to other properties on this block. A few properties, including the subject property, have secondary access from an alley on the east side. This alley provides access to the proposed accessory building and therefore it does not create the need for the requested variance. CONCLUSION: There are no unique physical characteristics of the subject lot that contribute to the need for the requested variance. Therefore, the Board can 3 conclude that this standard has not been met. (iii) The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. FINDING: Due to the location of the house and the trees nearby, the proposed accessory building will not be visible from the front of the lot. Due to existing trees, shrubs and a trellis on the subject property and adjacent properties, the accessory building will only be partially visible from the north, northeast and southeast. A large vacant space is adjacent to the site on the east. The accessory building may be partially visible from two or three windows on the back of the house to the south. All of these neighbors have signed the"Adjoining Property Owner Statement"as having no objections to the variance. See also Site Photos CONCLUSION: The proposed accessory building will not alter significantly the character of the area. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this standard has been met. (c) The spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is granted. FINDING: The uses to be accommodated by the accessory building, storing vehicles and a wood shop, are common accessory uses in a residential neighborhood. The Zoning Ordinance permits accommodating these uses in two buildings whose total area is the same as the one proposed building. CONCLUSION: Whetherone large building is constructed ortwo smaller buildings are constructed is irrelevant to the spirit of the ordinance. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this standard has been met. (d) Substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting the variance. FINDINGS: The applicant can accommodate the proposed uses in a manner that conforms to the Zoning Ordinance requirement by constructing two buildings. CONCLUSION: Requiring two buildings does not deprive the applicant of any use and enjoyment of his property. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this standard has not been met. 4 ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny this request for a variance to allow construction of a single accessory building at 3914 South Duff Avenue that exceeds the allowed gross floor area by 720 feet. 2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve this request for a variance to allow construction of a single accessory building at 3914 South Duff Avenue that exceeds the allowed gross floor area by 720 feet. 3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may table this variance and seek further information from the applicant or from staff. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings of fact, staff has concluded above that the proposed variance does not meet four of the criteria in the Zoning Ordinance for approval of a variance. The Zoning Ordinance requires the variance to meet all six of the criteria in order to be approved. 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\3914 S Duff garage area variance-07-25-12.docx 5 'igi 1 e� a t ` GARDEN J a a i , y ' n Z e J m c TEAGARDEN DR Subject � � ' 'mt , Area ` f c - 'r KEN MARIL RD`� w'm �',P Joe g tP 4 r �a NS r co a W S .. _._....................... ..._. j Location Map 3914 South Duff 0 125 250 500 Feet 6 SITE PHOTOS — 3914 S. DUFF q 4 ,tea Front of House (West-Facing) Rear of House (East-Facing) S � 3 �sr s,A7M1,rl� r. View of Site Toward North View of Site Toward Northeast z � Adjacent Property on East View of Site Toward South 7