The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutA4 ITEM# 3 DATE: 7-25-12 CITY OF AMES DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING BOARD AND ADJUS ADJUSTMENT REPORT TO THE ZONING CASE FILE NO.: ZBA 12-13 DATE PREPARED: July 20, 2012 MEETING DATE: July 25, 2012 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE: To construct a detached garage that exceeds the height limitations. APPLICANT: Branden Geil LOCATION: 415 Garden Road BACKGROUND: Mr. Geil is seeking to construct a detached garage for the house tt 1 property Garden Road. The house is a single-story ranch and there is cu Y no garage on There is, however, a driveway that extends along the thewro o st side se of ga age. An aerial (2012 concrete slab has been prepared, presumably for p p photo) is found in Attachment A. The site plan for the proposed garage is found on Attachment B. the maximum allowable size of 900 The applicant proposes a 30-foot square garage itched roof on 10-foot sidewalls. The square feet. The applicant also proposes a 6:12 p result is a garage that measures 14 feet 3 inches. (The htweenn the t of a Leaves and ndget)The roof is measured from the adjacent grade hed to mid-point be existing house is 12 feet in height. Elevation drawings with dimensions are found on Attachments C and D. t of a detached garage to no more than the height Section 29.408(7)(a)(ii)(a)timits the heigh of the principal structure. APPLICABLE LAWS: Hei ht requirements for private garages are found in Section 29.408(7)(a)(ii) of the Ames g Municipal Code, and excerpted below: (ii) Height. a. A detached garage or accessory building on the same lot with a 1 story principal building shall not exceed the height of that principal building. b. Detached garages or accessory buildings on the same lot with a principal building that is taller than 1 story shall not exceed 80% of the height of the principal building or 20 feet, whichever is lower. 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. BASIS OF APPEAL: The applicant has submitted full responses to the variance criteria. See the attached "Supporting Information" prepared by the applicant, part of the"Variance Application Packet". FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS: Staff makes the following findings of facts and conclusions: (a) The granting of the variance shall not be contrary to the public interest. FINDING: The purpose of the Ames Zoning Ordinance is to promote the health, safety and the general welfare of the City by, among other things, regulating the height of buildings. This promotes the public interest by providing adequate light and air; securing safety from fire, flood, panic and other dangers; and preventing the overcrowding of land. Height limitations for principal and accessory buildings are a common tool in Ames 2 a and inmost other jurisdictions for providing adequate light and air circulation among buildings, and preventing excess massing of buildings that create the appearance of overcrowding. The applicant states that the granting of the variance "will not endanger neighbors property or homes. Structure will increase value of my property, in doing so it will increase the value of surrounding properties." CONCLUSION: Instances where accessory structures are taller than principle buildings are more commonly found in rural agricultural settings where barns are prevalent. The City zoning ordinance is specific in requiring that garages not exceed the height of the house. (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: The applicant states that the 6:12 pitch is required to meet snow load standards in the building code. A 30' by 30' garage, therefore, will be 14 feet 3 inches. There are other options for meeting snow load standards other than a 6:12 pitch. Alternatively, a smaller garage, at least in one dimension, would still allow for the 6.12 pitch and still meet the height requirements. Another alternative is to build the garage attached to the home. It would then be limited to the 40-foot limit of the house. CONCLUSION: The applicant has provided no evidence that the propertywould not have value without the 30' by 30' garage with the 6:12 roof. (ii) The plight of the owners is due to unique circumstances and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood. FINDING: The applicant states his desire to have a 30' by 30' garage in order to store household items and have a small shop. The larger garage would preclude the need for a smaller storage shed. The lot is typical of residential lots in the area. In addition, the single story house is typical of the neighborhood. There are other large garages in the area but staff could not find a detached garage in this area that is taller than the house. Other houses have large garages but some found ways to connect the house to the garage, thus making it an attached garage. 3 CONCLUSION: Staff could find no evidence that there are unique circumstances to this property that would justify a variance to the garage height limitation. (iii) The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. FINDING: The applicant states that several neighbors have garages about the same size as this proposed garage. Staff looked around the neighborhood and found some large garages. All appeared to meet the height limitations or are attached garages to which this limitation does not apply. CONCLUSION: The built environment in this neighborhood is characterized by single-story, single-family homes. Nearly all have a garage, some quite prominent. However, the larger garages are attached to the homes and, therefore, are not restricted by the same height standard. Staff could not find any instances where a detached garage exceeds the principle structure. (c) The spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is granted. FINDING: The applicant states that the garage is intended for storage of vehicles, lawn equipment and a small work shop. These uses are consistent with general uses of garages in all residential districts. But staff could find no evidence that such uses couldn't be conducted within a smaller garage, within a garage with a flatter roof, or within an attached garage. If the variance were to be granted to allow the height as proposed,the garage would be 2 feet 3 inches taller than the house. CONCLUSION: If the variance were to be granted, the height of the garage would be 2 feet 3 inches taller than the house. The placement of the garage behind the house would minimize the impact of that height from the street but would likely be noticeable from adjacent properties as well as from the side street. (d) Substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting the variance. FINDING: The applicant states that the variance would allow for a reasonable pitched roof for the size of the garage. While the ordinance allows for a garage of this size, the ordinance also has other limitations such as height, setbacks, lot coverage within the rear yard. 4 CONCLUSION: All the requirements of a garage must be looked at in total. All of these requirements may require a reduction of a proposed garage in order to be compliant with the ordinance. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may adopt the findings and conclusions noted above and deny this request for a variance to allow a garage of 14 feet 3 inches at 415 Garden Road. 2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may adopt its own findings and conclusions and approve this request for a variance to allow a garage of 14 feet 3 inches at 415 Garden Road. 3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may table this variance request and seek further information from the applicant or from staff. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: The findings and conclusions above provide the necessary evidence to allow the Board to conclude that the criteria for a variance required by Ames Municipal Code Section 29.1504(4) have not been met. The city ordinance and state law require that all of the standards for granting a variance be met. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Department of Planning and Housing that the Zoning Board of Adjustment deny this request for a variance to allow a garage of 14 feet 3 inches at 415 Garden Road. If the variance is denied, staff will work with the applicant to help him explore other alternatives such as reducing the pitch of the roof, reducing the size of the garage to reduce the height, or finding ways to connect the proposed garage to the existing house. SAPLAN SWCouncil Boards Commissions\ZBA\Variances\415_Garden-07-25-12.docx 5 Attachment A ° y f' . i 1.F• dE 3', �,i I' y c ? PSI", r i � g F p w.� ... <....wJ M M w ■ ■ ■ M M w � ' r IZJ Feet 6 Attachment B Site Plan of 415 Garden Road 1 I � 8 J d 1 1 7 Attachment C Elevation Drawing of Proposed Garage 5§ f ti .......... ... f 5 � i P � < I t, r .t 3 t � � ... _�- fin ,..• i m- y 8 Attachment D Elevation Drawing of House i 9