The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutA7 ITEM# DATE: 10/28/15 CITY OF AMES DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE FILE NO.. Z BA-15-21 DATE PREPARED: October 19, 2015 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE: To allow the reduction of the minimum required front yard setback from 25 feet to 11 feet for the construction of a carport. APPLICANT: Ryan and Liz Jeffrey LOCATION: 234 Parkridge Circle (See Attachment A) ZONING: Residential Low Density (RL) BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to the minimum front yard setback requirement in the RL zone to allow for the construction of a carport in front of the existing two stall garage on the property at 234 Parkridge Circle. The home is a two- story single-family home located on a cul-de-sac. Based on GIS data existing grades at the front of the property appear drop approximately 10 to 12 feet from the front property line to the base of the home. The existing grades on the property is such that the garage is located on the upper story of the home over lower level finished living space and is accessed through the use of a bridge structure from the public right-of-way to the garage entrance. The current garage is approximately 30 feet from the front property line where a 25-foot setback is required. The applicant states that the existing garage floor is constructed of structural OSB and is leaking into the lower level living space located under the garage. The application notes that the concern for future water issues and materials available on the market are not adequate to be able to maintain the existing garage attached to structure. Therefore, the applicant is requesting the variance to be able to construct a new carport in front of the existing garage to allow for covered parking for their personal vehicles to replace the use of their current garage In conversation with the applicant it was noted the existing garage would be used for storage in the short term and could eventually be remodeled for additional living space in the future. The proposed carport will be located in front of the existing garage over the driveway bridge and based on the scale of the submitted plans is proposed to be approximately 21 feet wide by 19 feet deep (the length of the existing bridge structure to the garage). 1 The column supports of the proposed carport are located approximately 12 feet from the front lot line with the eaves of the roof structure extending 4 feet beyond the columns to match the roof design of the existing home. (See applicant submitted plans). Based on Chapter 4 of the Zoning Code, eaves can project into the front yard not more than 3 feet. With the proposed carport eaves being proposed 4 feet from the column structure, the variance request for the proposed garage as indicated in the plans would need to be granted at an 11 foot front yard setback (not 12' as shown on the plans) to make the proposed carport complaint with the Zoning Code for allowed encroachments into the setback. APPLICABLE POLICIES AND LAWS: Chapter 29, Table 29.701(3) of the Municipal Code establishes the minimum principal front building setback from a front lot line of 25 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: 2 (a) The granting of the variance shall not be contrary to the public interest. FINDING: Front setbacks provide a space without buildings along a street with a minimum and often consistent width. Thus front setbacks preserve access to light and air for properties and for required fire protection measures to meet safety requirements. Setbacks also often create a uniform alignment of the front faces of buildings along each side of the street. The subject property is pie shaped lot located on a cul-de-sac with 10 other single family homes, 4 of which are located at the end of the cul-de-sac. Due to the curved alignment of the street surrounding this property, a uniform alignment of the front faces of buildings along Parkridge is not obvious on this site compared to typical rectangular sites. CONCLUSION: If the variance from the front setback is granted, the public interest in building separation to provide light and air, emergency access, and a uniform appearance of building faces down the street will not be compromised. 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 value of the home will be reduced if the property does not maintain covered parking. The applicant also states that there is no way to make the home safe for the living space located under the garage due to the leaking from the garage floor, therefore the carport is needed to eliminate the safety concern of the garage. A letter by a local contractor was submitted on behalf of the applicant, noting the unusual nature of a garage over living space, and the concern for the health issues that may arise from the leaking of the garage floor into the home. The letter also implies that a system for water barrier could be installed but would need to be maintained and potentially replaced in the future. The applicant explained to city staff that costs associated with other options have not been determined. The applicant noted that the existing floor structure of the home would not be able to withhold the weight of a concrete floor structure installed in the garage as a water barrier, however, other options have not been researched other than for the carport based on the conversation with the home owner and the contractors letter. (See application materials attachment.) CONCLUSION: This property has been providing beneficial use with the current building that was built in 1967. The applicant feels that the proposed carport plan is the best way to alleviate the leaking issue with the existing garage. However, in staff's review of the submitted application, the applicant has not demonstrated 3 that consideration has been given to other products or improvements that could be done to maintain the existing garage and prevent water leakage and still maintains the code required front yard setback for the site. A relationship of cost to value has not directly been addressed. Garages over living spaces are not a common occurrence, but are not unheard of in home construction. It may be possible to maintain the existing garage with an alternate floor material other than concrete that could maintain the waterproof barrier needed to maintain the existing code compliant setbacks for the site, and thus continue to provide a reasonable return. Staff believes additional information is needed before it can be determined that all beneficial use or loss of value of the property has occurred. 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 home is situated on a pie shaped lot at the end of the Parkridge Circle cul-de-sac. The existing grades at the front of the property drop approximately 10 to 12 feet from the front property line to the home. The garage is accessed over a bridge to accommodate the grades of the site to allow access to the second story garage over lower level living space. CONCLUSION: Although many houses are located on pie shaped lots on cul-de- sacs, the subject property is also constrained by the steep grade at the front of the lot requiring that a bridge be used to access the existing garage. If the garage is unable to be repaired and maintained, there are limited other options for locating code compliant parking or enclosing parking on the lot due to the grades of the site. Therefore, the Board can conclude that unique circumstances exist in this case that present a hardship from the literal enforcement of the ordinance and this criterion is met. (iii) The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. FINDING: This neighborhood is characterized by single family homes of varying design. The area is wooded with large vegetation and varying degrees of slope in the front yards of the neighboring homes. The front yard is the only location on this property where the desired carport could be located due to the pie shape of the lot and the existing grades of the lot. The proposed addition will intrude into the front setback; however, will not obscure the view of other single family homes. The design of the proposed structure is in line with the existing residence and will match the roof line and exterior features of the home. The open design of a carport limits the visual impact of the encroachment to some degree. No specific design standards are required for the RL zone where the home is located. 4 CONCLUSION: A variance to allow the carport to extend to 11 feet from the front property line will not obstruct the view of other residences on the cul-de-sac. The proposed design is mimicking the roof line and details of the existing house and as a open sided carport will still allow views to the front of the home and will be unobtrusive to the neighborhood. 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 City does not require two-covered parking spaces for single family homes, only that two spaces are provided along with a home whether they are covered or not. The spirit of the front yard setback standard is described under the intent in Criterion A and the granting of the variance does not compromise the intent of keeping open front yard space for single family homes in the low density district. However, if it can be determined that alternative options exist to allow for the maintenance and repair of the existing garage, the variance would not be needed and the strict regulation of the zoning ordinance can be enforced. CONCLUSION: Approving this variance helps to alleviate the issues of the existing garage by allowing for the construction of the carport that will continue and improve the property use for the owners, however staff questions the use of alternative options that have not been explored at this time for alternative methods of repairing the existing garage structure. If information was provided about the issue of cost and feasibility of complying with the Code, a finding about consistency with the spirit of the ordinance to allow for parking with single family homes and maintaining compatible front yard areas could be made. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is not met at this time. (d) Substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting the variance. FINDING: Due to the steep slopes and orientation of the home on the pie shaped lot, limited area is available for construction of alternative garage structures. Options for the site are otherwise limited to the applicability of maintenance of the existing structure or the proposed carport. If is it determined maintenance of the floor of the existing garage is not an option, the location proposed for the carport is the only suitable area on the site where the building could be expanded. CONCLUSION: The variance in this case will provide substantial justice in expected use of a site consistent with the land use policies of the city, the intent of the low density residential zoning without detriment to the neighboring properties. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is met. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve this request for a variance for 234 Parkridge Circle reducing the front yard setback from 25 feet to 11 feet to allow for 5 the construction of a carport, if it makes findings that support the criteria that the variance is necessary for a reasonable return on the property. Specifically, the ZBA would need to make Findings B.i and C that have not been provided by staff. 2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny this request for a variance for 234 Parkridge Circle reducing the front yard setback from 25 feet to 11 feet to allow for the construction of a carport, based upon the above findings and conclusions. 3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may table this variance and seek further information from the applicant or from staff. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: It is the conclusion of City staff, based upon an analysis of the applicant's proposal to construct a carport to the residence at 234 Parkridge Circle that the findings support four of the criteria that must be met for the Zoning Board of Adjustment to grant a variance to the minimum required front setback. However, staff concludes that evidence has not been provided that maintenance/improvement of the existing garage is not feasible to maintain continued reasonable return or beneficial use of the property without the need for the variance for the carport. 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 for 234 Parkridge Circle reducing the front yard setback from 25 feet to 11 feet to allow for the construction of a carport, based upon the above findings and conclusions. 6 Attachment A Location Map Int OS a w 1 7 nOw, " y Subject Property , , E4•,::.r _ _seal"', �J� '4 ZA 1 u S s � � a J E y v sH- a,N1y <E M : °• ,.�� .a*. N - LY ES f r `/ YY EST BEND WE5T8 D �s ,A", 78EN0 DR is r Location Map 234 Parkridge Circle ,. 7 Attachment B Site Images y E a� J � �•� 'q 4 rp, Qt- ZV L P ' y $ x z v, y� L k ^� ffi�a k 8