Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA7 ITEM# DATE: 12/09/15 CITY OF AMES DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE FILE NO.: ZBA-15-23 DATE PREPARED: December 1, 2015 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE: To allow the construction of a detached garage with a 16 foot overhead garage door that exceeds the total allowed length of garage door for a property. APPLICANT: Judy and Bruce Vance LOCATION: 1023 Hyland Avenue (See Attachment A) ZONING: Residential Low Density "RL" BACKGROUND: Judy and Bruce Vance own the home located at 1023 Hyland Avenue. The property is a flag lot measuring 543 foot deep on the north side, 330 foot deep on the west, 331 foot deep on the south side and 303 foot deep on the east side leading to the driveway which travels to a 30 foot deep frontage point at Hyland Avenue. Access to the property is from Hyland Avenue. The lot is located on a wooded property totaling 2.56 acres (111,568 sq ft.) located on the west side of Hyland Avenue. The home was constructed in 1950. It is a single-family home with a two-car attached garage. The width of the current garage doors totals 18 feet. The home is currently the only structure on the property. (See Attachment A) The applicant is requesting a Variance to the City's standard that limits the cumulative amount of garage doors on a property to 27 linear feet. The City adopted this standard in 2010 to clarify that there was no limit on the amount of parking spaces, but there was a limit on the size and amount of garage doors. Roll up doors that are less than 8 feet in width do not count against the cumulative width standard. The applicant's request is for a total of 34 feet of cumulative garage door width as part of the construction of an additional detached garage. The addition of 16 feet of additional overhead garage door would exceed the maximum allowed cumulative garage door width by 7 feet. Staff notes that the property owner could add one additional 9-foot garage door to the property without seeking a variance. APPLICABLE POLICIES AND LAWS: Pertinent Sections of the Ames Municipal Code: Chapter 29, Section 29.408(7)(iii)(c.) of the Municipal Code establishes the cumulative garage door width shall not exceed twenty-seven (27) feet for a single family dwelling or eighteen (18) feet per dwelling unit for a two family dwelling. However, garage doors that are eight feet in width or less do not count against the cumulative total. This was to allow for smaller accessory storage spaces to have roll up doors if so desired. 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: The purpose of the cumulative garage door lineal footage limitation is to prevent exceedingly large garage spaces that did not correspond to the customary use of property for a single family home and to specifically limit the aesthetic effects of long linear lengths of building overhead garage doors. The site is located well back from a public street and set away from its neighboring properties. The additional garage door length would not be readily visible on the site. CONCLUSION: The usage and design of the proposed detached accessory building does not cause aesthetic issues to the surrounding neighborhood. 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 overhead doors on the existing attached garage can be altered, but to do so would compromise historical significance of the home and that constructing a new detached garage as proposed would enhance the property further. There is no evidence that the property cannot continued to be used with the current two-car garage or that constructing an additional one car garage would not provide a reasonable return on the use of the property in a manner compliant with the standards. Staff also notes that the home is currently not in an historical district or a local landmark and does believe that the assertions of historical significance are relevant to the claim of reasonable return on investment of maintaining an historic home and adding a two-car detached garage. CONCLUSION: Staff reiterates that the legal standard for a hardship is that the property does not have value if conforms to the standards, not just a lower return on investment, loss of potential value, or greater cost in meeting the standard. The applicant has not and probably cannot demonstrate that the property has no value as a single-family home with only its existing two car garage or if they only added one additional garage door for a detached garage. In fact the home was recently sold in January 2015 without having the amenity of a four-car garage. Staff finds the argument speculative about the historical significance and its relationship to a reasonable use of the property and that there is no evidence to suggest the property does not have economical value in conformance with the zoning standards 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 applicant states that the current garage ceiling is low by today's standards and that the proposed door on the new detached garage will accommodate larger modern vehicles. This claim is not necessarily unique to the applicant. The standard of modern construction as opposed to historically utilized techniques is a variable based on numerous factors. This claim cannot be seen as being unique to this particular property over others in the neighborhood. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings above, staff finds that the plight of the owners does not constitute unique circumstances in comparison to surrounding properties within the neighborhood. 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. (iii) The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. FINDING: This particular neighborhood is relatively wooded with larger lots spread across an area as a low density residential area. The applicant states that there would be little to no impact to the neighborhood due to the large nature of the lot. Staff finds that the lot is large and does extend back beyond the point that which is easily visible from Hyland Avenue. CONCLUSION: Based on the information above staff finds that the magnitude of the addition of extra garage door width would not be such that it would alter the essential character of the locality specific to the RL zoning district or current character of 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 applicant states that the appearance of the detached garage will be placed a considerable distance from the principal structure and that there will not be an impression or appearance of an excessive amount of cumulative garage door width. Staff finds that, given the additional 9 feet of cumulative garage door width that can still be added before reaching the maximum 27 foot limit, there is adequate ability of the owner to add additional garage door width to the cumulative total of the property as is. Thus, the request for additional cumulative garage door width beyond 27 feet is not within the spirit of the ordinance to provide for up to three individual garage doors to meet the storage needs of a single family dwelling. Further, altering the layout and design of the existing two stall attached garage is within the parameters and spirit of the Zoning code. CONCLUSION: The alternative(s) available to the applicant are sufficient as such that a variance as requested would violate the spirit of the ordinance. 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: In considering the nature of the property in question and the proposed configuration of the detached garage, staff finds that the granting of a variance would work against substantial justice which is characterized by a standard of fairness. Staff finds no justice in granting a variance in this case as no harm to the individual is readily apparent by applying the City's zoning standard and the standard as written is based on an allowance for all single family homes in the City without regard for the size of a property or a home. Further, the issues presented regarding claims to historical significance and design of the home cannot be substantiated at this time to support a finding of substantial justice in adding additional garage door width beyond what is allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. CONCLUSION: Given that there is a lack of evidence of a significant disparity in fairness for this single family home versus other single family homes that are restricted to 27 feet of garage door width, staff finds that this criterion is not met. Therefore the Board can conclude that this criterion is not met. PUBLIC COMMENT: Notices were sent to all property owners within 200 feet of 1023 Hyland Avenue. In addition, a sign was placed on the property as notice of zoning action. As of this writing, no comments have been received. The applicant included a petition in support of the request. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny this request for a variance to 1023 Hyland Avenue to exceed the maximum cumulative garage door width allowed, based upon the above findings and conclusions. 2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve this request for a variance to 1023 Hyland Avenue to exceed the maximum cumulative garage door width allowed, with findings articulated by the Board in support of the variance. 3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may table this variance and seek further information from the applicant or from staff. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: Approving a variance is a case of applying the law to the set of facts presented for a property. The Board is not asked to suppose its judgment of the merits of the zoning standards themselves, but instead is asked as to whether the criteria for a variance from the standard have been met as defined by State law and case law. Staff does not find that the evidence presented for this project to support a conclusion of granting a variance from the 27-foot cumulative garage width limitation. While the proposed garage may not have aesthetic impacts, the request does not satisfy the other criteria related to hardship, unique circumstances, or substantial justice with granting of the variance. Additionally, the property owner can add additional storage to the property with the addition of a one-car garage door. If the applicant is denied the request for the larger garage, they can request the City Council to consider a text amendment to allow for larger garages with a single family home. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Planning and Housing Department that the Zoning Board of Adjustment act in accordance with Alternative #1, which is to deny this request for a variance to 1023 Hyland Avenue to exceed the maximum allowed cumulative garage door width, based upon the above findings and conclusions. Attachment A g'�� °�'�'S.. ,{ �• 'a .: �' Ea >�".,,tom... �"•?�f � �° �" , i r ' eye > Z 8.�• yY x Requested Variance 1023 Hyland Avenue 3