HomeMy WebLinkAboutA6 1
ITEM# 2
DATE: 05-14-14
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CASE FILE NO.: ZBA-14-11
DATE PREPARED: May 9, 2014
MEETING DATE: May 14, 2014
REQUEST: Reduction of the length of the driveway leading from the street to
the entrance of the garage from the minimum required length of
20 feet to the proposed length of 15 feet.
APPLICANT: Doug & Chrissy Snider
OWNER: Doug & Chrissy Snider
LOCATION: 721 Douglas (See Attachment A)
ZONING: Residential Medium Density (RM) with Single Family
Conversation Overlay, and Historic District Overlay
BACKGROUND:
The property at 721 Douglas is located in the Old Town Local Historic District on the
southwest corner of the intersection of Douglas Avenue and 8th Street, see Attachment
A, Location Map. The property is occupied by a two and one-half story house that was
originally constructed as a single-family dwelling, and a detached two-bay garage
oriented to 8th Street.
The parcel of land at 721 Douglas has a width of 40 feet and a length of 140 feet for a
total of 5,600 square feet. Originally, this parcel was platted as Lot 9 of Blair's Addition,
and was 60 feet wide and 180 feet long, and included 10,800 square feet.
Applicant Request. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing detached
garage in the rear yard to allow for an addition to the house and to building a new larger
garage. The review of the addition to the house and design of the garage will be subject
to review by the Historic Preservation Commission subsequent to any action by the
Zoning Board of Adjustment.
The existing garage is presumed to be built in 1912 as a two bay garage that measures
approximately 20 feet on each side with 400 square feet of floor area in the garage.
This existing garage is located in the rear yard and is accessed from 8th Street. The
1
F
applicant requests a variance to construct a new detached three-car garage in the
southwest corner of the rear yard that measures 32 feet wide and 22 feet deep
with 704 square feet of floor area. The proposed garage is also to be accessed from
8th Street with a 15-foot driveway where 20 feet of depth is required.
APPLICABLE POLICIES AND LAWS:
Section 29.408(7) includes development standards related to accessory structures and
detached garages. Accessory structures have separate requirements from the base
zone requirements of principal structures. In this instance, it has been determined that
the proposed garage does not meet one specified standard.
Section 29.408(7)(iv)(a) of the Ames Municipal Code, which reads as follows:
(iv) General Requirements.
a. Driveways to streets. The driveway leading from a street to the entrance of a
detached or attached garage shall be at least 20 feet long measured from the
property line.
The Variance criteria may be found in the Ames Municipal Code Section 29.1504(4) and
are described 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.
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCES
The applicant's complete application and supporting information accompany this report.
These materials discuss the condition of the existing garage and the inadequate size of
the garage for today's vehicles. The applicant states that the intent is to demolish and
remove the existing garage, and to construct a new garage, properly sized to the
family's current needs.
2
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 Code requires two parking spaces per single-family home, but
does not require covered or enclosed garage parking. The code requires
functional access and parking to meet these requirements.
The proposed garage meets the minimum required accessory structure setbacks
from the property lines of 3 feet to the rear and side and 15 feet from the street
side yard. The garage is not required to be six feet from the west property line
(rear) despite the orientation of the abutting lot to 8t" Street. This is because a
variance was granted to that property for construction of a garage with a reduced
the front yard along 8t" Street.
The narrow width of the parcel (40 feet) does not allow for a garage accessed
perpendicular to 8t" street to meet setbacks requirements and parking space
dimensions. A parking space for a garage is to be a minimum of 20 feet in depth
as well as the driveway from a street. The minimum setback requirements of 3
feet, plus parking space requirements of 20 feet, and driveway depth
requirements of 20 feet require a minimum lot width of 43 feet. In this case the
applicant has requested a 22-foot garage depth for parking of larger vehicles,
such as a pickup truck, which allows for only a 15-foot driveway depth.
CONCLUSION: The purpose of the minimum 20-foot length of the driveway
between the property line and the garage is to provide adequate space for a
vehicle to park on the driveway in front of the garage, without protruding into the
sidewalk and disrupting pedestrians. The proposed driveway length of 15 feet
does not provide adequate distance to park a car on the driveway in front of the
garage, without interfering with pedestrians using the public sidewalk along 8t"
Street. Therefore the Board can conclude that this criterion is not 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 to build a three car
garage with 90 degree perpendicular access from 8t" Street. The applicant has
not proposed repair of the existing garage.
3
CONCLUSION: Although the applicant desires to construct a garage that is 12
feet wider than the existing garage, and include an additional stall. Given the
width of the parcel and the minimum required setbacks from property lines, there
is adequate space in the rear yard to construct a two-car garage at a width of 22
feet that faces the rear of the house and meet the 20-foot minimum required
length of the driveway. This means a two-car garage that is side loading could be
built on the property and meet dimensional requirements. It would require
additional paving within the rear yard, but it would protect crossing of the
sidewalk. 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: The subject property is 40 feet wide, which is the same width of the
property that abuts the west property line at 214 8th Street. The property to the
west is occupied by a three-car garage for which five variances were granted by
the Board, in 2005, to allow construction of the garage. One of the variances
granted is to the setback restrictions in the "O-SFC" (Single Family Conservation
Overlay) district to allow a setback of seventeen (17) feet from the alley abutting
the west property line of 214 8th Street. Compatibility standards for detached
garages in the "O-SFC", that are accessed from an alley, is that the detached
garage shall be located either 8 feet from the property line abutting the alley, or a
minimum of 20 feet from the property line abutting the alley. Other new garages
in the Old Town Historic District have been constructed to meet the minimum 20-
foot driveway length.
CONCLUSION: Although the width of the parcel is not typical in the
neighborhood, there is an alternative for the applicant to construct a garage on
the property without granting of the variance or the degree of the variance.
Therefore the Board can conclude 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 many detached garages in the Old Town Historic District,
including new garages that have been constructed for two, or even three
vehicles. The current 2-car garage is oriented at 90 degrees to 8th Street in a
similar manner to the proposed garage.
CONCLUSION: The garage, as proposed, will be similar to other garages that
have been constructed in the neighborhood. The primary difference is the length
of the driveway in front of the garage. The three car garage design may be found
by the Historic Preservation District to be inappropriate to the Historic District
based upon compatibility and character of the district. This criterion could be
found to be met by the ZBA with subsequent review by HPC.
(c) The spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is
4
granted.
FINDING: The City desires on-site parking for a single-family home and to
protect sidewalks from obstructions. The existing garage is not of adequate
dimensions to accommodate many of the vehicles available today. The proposed
garage would be constructed with dimensions for modern vehicles in support of
providing required parking. Garages in the Old Town Historic District are
typically located in the rear yard with an orientation to either an alley, or if no
alley exists are facing the rear of the house on the same lot, and the street in
front of the house.
CONCLUSION: New garages in the Old Town Historic District have been
constructed with driveway lengths that meet the 20-foot minimum, with the
exception of the garage to the west of the subject property. The minimum
driveway length would be in compliance with the 20-foot minimum, without the
need for a variance by changing the garage orientation and reducing the size of
the garage from a three-car to a two-car garage. Therefore the Board can
conclude that this criterion is not met.
(d) Substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting the variance.
FINDING: The applicant has the option of constructing a garage that would meet
the minimum driveway length of 20 feet, and would meet the required minimum
setbacks from all property lines.
CONCLUSION: Because there are other options that would not require a
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
driveway length of 15 feet, based upon the above findings and conclusions.
2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve this request for a variance to allow a
driveway length of 15 feet, based upon the above findings and conclusions.
3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve modified variance request or a
reduced degree of variance for driveway length based upon findings and
conclusions of the Board.
4. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may table this request for a variance and seek
further information from the applicant or from staff.
5
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:
In this instance the proposed 3-car garage cannot meet zoning standard. However, in
relation to the criteria for a Variance described above the request cannot be supported
due to the ability of the property owner to reconfigure the garage design to be a side
loading 2-car garage that meets zoning standards. From the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions above, it can be concluded that the requested variance does not meet all
of the criteria necessary for granting of the variance. Therefore, it is the Department's
recommendation that the Board should act in accordance with Alternative #1,
which is to deny the request for a variance to allow the driveway length of 15 feet.
6
Attachment A
g7H 5T
'g
z y � Iz UhJe ri'opCrtb
H Sr
e4 E F7H S7
r
mgm
Er 4
i7 H.ST .....
r
'* rm 4.
r
`¢-
a
w�
x
- Location Map
,n 721 Douglas Avenue
— — N
_ 0 62.5 125 250 37-
-- -- ` Feet
7
YY, t
w, r
•,_ 3 to Nfr;: 'fi ( s'�,2( ,
rA�
2
IA
/ w t
r
S
3��p C
i
F �
r
S
( 5
V
a y 3
f pti i t B i
i 7 g
g
77
i s
�
€ � , + )
F i ��
lr
I� A�
ILI
f
a
n
�.
`4T'l I III I Ili IIIII'li :# g
9
.._..........................._..........._..
6#
x r
Kee.
fv ,
h;
S � r
_ a z t
f
i
-
�
x
s
f � k
—AA Y f S
g .
10
9
1 s ryp,k z
l�x
Atf
i 111,
< 1
It
lilt
TH
f
L c �l i t lftik{�t[ifl�l[1LLL�#:�� a�
too 7101;
r '
r
� •�aT � "i�Pf � � �d gyp' �� Yc�� �,r �: . �.j z �:.
11
...............__......... .
rig
S.
Y
Z $
r .x
1 Yt!j
) i � YS IA f s 3
f
y i yf
US
� 4
i,� i} e R 2 $Y �� SDI•
f �
iVVT�'�
IN
knit
z
1 �
�� �'�a'.lf&Aty,•� '��i(�3i1'1. L`4. �r.�.. a Yn,. ��.
12
�t� a
Y
Y2 +
r �
{,�
s
� t
�h
Y'
� t
3Y
xSi h a fN:, ay, r
-c
' rs j i 1 1j
1It,,�
� ,✓ t 1 "Ix j 1Bt i jal iz � fib'
�t a
� a r
F
13