The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutA3 ITEM# 2 DATE: 06-12-13 CITY OF AMES DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE FILE NO.: ZBA-13-06 DATE PREPARED: June 5, 2013 MEETING DATE: June 12, 2013 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE: To allow a side setback reduction on the east property line for an accessory structure APPLICANT: Galen Wilke LOCATION: 2136 Friley Road ZONING: Low Density Residential (RL) BACKGROUND: The applicant intends to construct an overhead pergola on the east side of the property, between the east wall of the house and the east property line and south of the garage. There is an existing concrete patio in this area. The garage and a fence with a gate east of the garage prevent a view between the street and the patio and a six-foot property line fence provides privacy from the east neighbor. There was a large shade tree on this neighboring property, which was large enough to shade most of the patio before noon. In July 2012 this shade tree was removed, exposing the patio to direct sun. The pergola is intended to provide this shade to the patio. (See attached sketches number 1 though 4.) Since the house is two stories, the side setback from this property line is eight feet. The Zoning Ordinance requires the pergola to be at least eight feet from the property line, except for the roof overhang, which could extend to five feet from the property line. The patio extends to within 40 inches of the side property line. Therefore, to comply with this side setback,the posts supporting the pergola need to be in the patio. These posts require footings, which would require penetrating the concrete patio. Also, the posts would be within the traffic pattern between the gate to the north and the back yard. If the pergola does not extend more than five feet from the east property line, it will be less effective at shading the patio, reducing its more useful area. Therefore, the application is to allow placing the posts and footings east of the patio. Although no dimension is given, from the scaled drawing it appears that the east face of the posts would be three feet from the property line and that the overhead portion or the pergola would also be three feet from the property line. 1 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: Table 29.701(3) Residential Low Density(RL)Zone Development Standards DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SLNGLE EMILY TWO FAMILY DNA-E=G Muunnuu Lot Area 6-000 if 7,000 if !VfU=Un Principal Building Setbacki: Front Lot Line 1-5 2.5 ft. Side Lot Line 6 ft.-or 6 ft,;of 8 ft fur 2 stories 8 ft for I stories 8 ft,for 3 stones 8 ft_for 3 storie-, 15 ft.for si&lot lie abuttmg public 15 ft.Pu side lot Lie abuVing-public rift_of-ivay on a comer lot ra&-d-way on a comer lot Rear Lot Lhb- 20 ft 20ft MuunnimFroirage: 35 it.,ii,street line: 35 ft..ez street line: 50 11.'d build=line 50 ft.(4,,building line Max=im Building Coverage 35". 40% M&xdnmim Site Coverage(includes all buildings,paving 60"', 60% mid sidewalks on lot Mining=Landwaued Area 40% Sec. 29.402. SETBACKS. (1) Building Setback Standard. Except as provided below, all buildings and structures, Principal and Accessory, shall be located to comply with the minimum and maximum Building Setbacks established for Principal and Accessory Buildings listed in each Zone Development Standards Table, Supplemental Development Standards Table, condition or other regulation applicable to the lot or the use being employed at the site. (2) Extensions into Required Building Setbacks. (a) Principal Buildings. (i) Minor projections allowed. Minor features of a building, such as eaves, chimneys, open or lattice-enclosed fire escapes,bay windows, uncovered stairways, wheelchair ramps, and uncovered decks or balconies, may extend into a required setback up to 3 feet. Such projections, however, maybe no closer than 3 feet to a lot line. VARIANCE CRITERIA: Ames Municipal Code, Section 29.1504(4) states that "a variance shall be granted only if all of 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: (i) The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in the zone. 2 (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 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 for each of the six individual criteria "tests": (a) The granting of the variance shall not be contrary to the public interest. FINDING: The structure as allowed by the variance will not be visible to the public or the neighbors nor impact them in any way CONCLUSION: The purpose of setbacks is to allow adequate light and air between structures and to create an appropriate appearance of buildings and open space in the neighborhood. The pergola structure as proposed will not affect these conditions. 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: No evidence or argument has been presented that the value of the property will be diminished if the variance is not granted. A pergola can be constructed conforming to the setback requirement, which will shade part of the patio, thereby maintaining its usefulness. The applicant states that the concrete patio will be damaged if the support posts are placed through the patio. However, it is possible to modify the paving without damaging it, or it can be replaced. CONCLUSION: Although the pergola built according to the standards may not shade the same area of the patio as the previous shade tree, the patio can still be useful and it is unlikely that the property value will be affected.Therefore the Board can conclude that this criterion is not met. 3 (ii) The plight of the owners is due to unique circumstances and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood. FINDINGS: There are many two-story homes in the immediate area. The subject property is 68 feet wide. Although there are many lots that are 78 and 80 feet wide, there are four other lots near the subject property that are 68 feet wide with two- story homes. The applicant states that the general condition of the neighborhood includes many large shade trees. The loss of this shade tree over the patio creates an atypical condition for the subject property, although it is not known if this is unique. CONCLUSION: The loss of a large shade tree on the neighboring property was not caused by the applicant and it is not a general condition of the neighborhood. Therefore the Board can find that this criterion is met. (iii) The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. FINDING: Overhead pergolas and other garden structures are parts of the character of the neighborhood. The pergola within the setback distance will not be visible to the public or neighbors. CONCLUSION: The structure as proposed will be similar to other structures in the neighborhood and will not be visible. Therefore the Board can conclude that this criterion is met. (c) The spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is granted. FINDING: In this zoning district, the full wall of a one story building can be placed six feet from the side property line. Section 29.402 (2) allows eaves to extend to within three feet of a property line. The proposed variance would allow two or three posts and the edge of an open roof structure to be placed three feet from the property line. CONCLUSION: The variance will allow a condition that is similar to what is already allowed in some cases: the edge of a roof three feet from a property line and no solid wall within the setback. Therefore the Board can conclude that this criterion is met. (d) Substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting the variance. FINDING: The applicant points out that all other provisions of the zoning code will be met. 4 However, there are other options that allow construction of a pergola to shade a portion of the patio without the variance. CONCLUSION: Because there are other options that would 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 a side setback reduction on the east property line for an accessory structure based upon the above findings and conclusions. 2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve this request for a variance a side setback reduction to three feet on the east property line for an accessory structure 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 concludes that the criteria for a variance required by Ames Municipal Code Section 29.1504(4) have not all been met. Therefore, it is the Department's recommendation that the Board should act in accordance with Alternative#1, which is to deny the requested variance. Alternately, if the Board finds and concludes that all of the criteria have been met, then the Board should act in accordance with Alternative #2. 5 k CES$NA ST p.. 1 COUNTRY�CLUB�gLVD La` f;; "'s a Off„ •1F;..; a 6, q r W y Subject Area Ems, MGCAR YRD y r a d , r- c Location Map 2136 Friley Road a N 6