Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA8 ITEM# DATE: 05/27/15 CITY OF AMES DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE FILE NO.: ZBA-15-10 DATE PREPARED: May 22, 2015 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE: To allow the construction of an addition to a single- family home that does not meet the minimum required setback of 6 feet from the side property line. The applicant proposes an addition with one corner having a side setback of 1 foot. APPLICANT: Clint and Jan Petersen LOCATION: 2957 Monroe Drive (See Attachment A) ZONING: Residential Low Density (RL) BACKGROUND: Clint and Jan Petersen own the property and reside at 2957 Monroe Drive. A photograph of the home can be found in Attachment B. A one-story home addition is required to maintain a 6-foot side setback. The owner wishes to construct a third stall on the north side of the existing attached garage that would be one foot from the side lot line to the north. [A site plan is included as a separate attachment.] The adjacent property is a 25' leg of Parkview Park, owned by the city. This leg is one of 14 city-owned access points to the 13.4-acre park located behind the homes in the Parkview Heights development. An additional access is via pedestrian easement across privately-owned land. The lot is located on a bulb of Monroe Drive which has three driveways off of it. The lot is wider at the rear of the lot and narrower at the front as is typical for a cul-de-sac. In addition, the front line is irregular due to the bulb. In 2011, the current owner of the subject property sought a variance to allow the garage addition to come within 0.4 foot of the property line. The Board denied that request. This application comes forward with a redesigned layout, increasing the proposed distance to 1.0 feet. APPLICABLE POLICIES AND LAWS: Pertinent Sections of the Ames Municipal Code: 1 Chapter 29, Table 29.701(3) of the Municipal Code establishes the minimum side setback for a two-story principle structure as 8 feet. 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. (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 PETITION: The applicant has submitted responses to the variance criteria. See the attached supporting information prepared by the applicant as part of the "Variance Application Packet". Portions of this information in addition to the staff findings are summarized below. FINDINGS OF FACTS & CONCLUSIONS: Staff makes the following findings of facts and conclusions for each of the six criteria: (a) The granting of the variance shall not be contrary to the public interest. FINDING: Side setbacks provide a space between principle buildings on adjoining lots. Side setbacks thus preserve access to light and air for properties and for required fire protection measures to meet safety requirements. Setbacks in residential districts are based on the number of stories of the structure, increasing in distance as the number of stories increase. In this case, the adjoining lot is 25 feet wide and serves as a pedestrian access to the park. There are no structures within this 25' access. The lot on the other 2 side of the access has a principle structure that was granted a variance in 1999 to allow a side setback of 1 foot. CONCLUSION: The City applies setbacks evenly to all properties, regardless of abutting uses and open areas. If the variance from the side setback is granted, the public interest in building separation to provide light, air and fire protection will not be compromised as the abutting space is dedicated park space. 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: The application states that the improvements done so far to the house represent a significant investment and have resulted in an increased assessed valuation. In order to recoup that value in the event of a future sale, an additional investment in the form of a third stall to the attached garage would be necessary. CONCLUSION: Staff finds this argument speculative about the necessity to maximize investment on property. 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 initial construction of the building met or exceeded all the required setbacks. An additional garage stall would meet the side setback at the rear of the addition but not at the front of the addition due to the narrowing of the lot at the front. The narrowing of the lot results in the proposed addition not being able to meet the setback requirements with the front of the garage stall located near the front of the existing two-car garage. CONCLUSION: The wedge shape of the lot is not unique to the neighborhood, but neither is it ubiquitous. These wedge shaped lots occur at the ends of the bulbs where a street turns to create an acute angle. The bulb at these corners allows the lots fronting on them to maintain the required street frontage but also result in this wedge-shaped lot. To provide as much lot width as rectangular lots, homes are typically set much further back from the street to meet setback and space requirements of the zoning. Therefore, the Board can conclude that unique circumstances do not exist in this case that present a hardship from the literal enforcement of the ordinance and this criterion is not met. 3 (iii) The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. FINDING: This neighborhood is characterized by one- and two-story single family homes in a suburban development pattern. The development pattern of attached garages is mostly two-stall with an occasional three-stall. Driveways do not exceed a standard two-car approach. Distances between houses are prescribed by the zoning ordinance as 12 feet between one-story homes, 14 feet between a one-story and a two-story home, and 16 feet between two-story homes. In this instance, if the variance were granted, the distance between the two homes would be 27 feet, with a public access sidewalk between them. CONCLUSION: A variance to allow one corner of the addition to extend to 1 foot from the side property line and then taper back is consistent with the development patterns of the neighborhood. The general openness of the park access sidewalk and distance to the neighborhood will not be substantially degraded. 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: The side setbacks are intended to maintain a certain minimum distance between homes consistent with a suburban residential development pattern. Because of the 25-foot wide city access, those separation distances will remain. CONCLUSION: While the distance between the house and the property line will be reduced, the separation distance between buildings will exceed development expectations. 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 is a history of granting variances similar to this in other areas along the perimeter of Parkview Park. In 1999, a variance was approved for 2963 Monroe Drive to allow an encroachment into the side setback resulting in the corner of the attached garage being one foot from the property line. This is the property north of the City access from the subject property. In 1982, a variance for 3002 Eisenhower Circle was granted to allow an addition to the home that came within 2.5 feet of the side property line. CONCLUSION: Both of these previously approved variances were similarly situated in that the lots are on bulbs resulting in wedge-shaped lots narrowing 4 towards the street. While an individual variance must stand on its own merits and past approvals do not necessitate approval of subsequent variances, some variances have been granted in this neighborhood for similar circumstances. Therefore the Board can conclude that this criterion is met. PUBLIC COMMENT: Notices were sent to all property owners within 200 feet of 2957 Monroe Drive. In addition, a sign was placed on the property as notice of zoning action. As of this writing, two responses have been received. The owner of 2969 Monroe Drive supports the request as states that it will not affect the entrance to the greenbelt. The director of the Parks and Recreation Department has no objection but requests that, if approved, a number of conditions be placed on the approval. These conditions are found in the alternatives, below, but stem from concerns that there may be an existing encroachment into park property at this address, based on aerial photographs. They request that the property pins be located and examined by City staff and that existing encroachments be removed and no encroachments during construction occur (vehicles, materials, etc.) ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny this request for a variance to 2957 Monroe Drive for an attached garage having a side setback of 1 foot, based upon the above findings and conclusions. 2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve this request for a variance to 2957 Monroe Drive for an attached garage having a side setback of 1 foot, based upon the above findings and conclusions. If so found, staff would ask that the following conditions be placed on the approval: a) The homeowner must locate the property pins and mark the property line and proposed location of the addition to the attached garage and driveway to the satisfaction of City staff. b) The homeowner must remove the landscaping and restore that area to turf if it is determined that it is on park property. c) The homeowner must ensure that no vehicles or equipment enter park property at any time and that there be no storage of materials on park property. d) Any expense to locate property lines shall be at the homeowner's expense. 3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may table this variance and seek further information from the applicant or from staff. 5 DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: It is the conclusion of City staff, based upon an analysis of the applicant's proposal to construct an attached garage to the residence at 2957 Monroe Drive that the findings fail to support all the criteria that must be met for the Zoning Board of Adjustment to grant a variance to the minimum required front setback. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Planning and Housing Department that the Zoning Board of Adjustment act in accordance with Alternative #2, which is to deny this request for a variance to 2957 Monroe Drive for an attached garage having a side setback of 1 foot, based upon the above findings and conclusions. SAPLAN SHR\Council Boards Commission s\ZBA\Variances\2957 Monroe-05-27-15.docx 6 ATTACHMENT A: LOCATION MAP di a ""u.. ¢ � � a o ^ A Proposed a E 1` Setback ARM x •� .3 �. �t � ,a:, "� _�u�. �� � `� f^.:'y "�' "fib «3. R �y u ihYl g e d 'tv• 's, ' t'J Alin 0 25 50 n Ames, N Feet 7 ATTACHMENT B: ASSESSOR PHOTOGRAPH r � K Sao,', r V