Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA7 ITEM# DATE: 04-27-16 CITY OF AMES DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE FILE NO.: ZBA-16-03 DATE PREPARED: April 22, 2016 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE: A variance to Table 29.703(3) establishing front and rear setbacks in the UCRM zoning district to allow construction of a detached garage. APPLICANT: Timothy Grandon, Continue Care Real Estate Holdings, LLC LOCATION: 105 South Maple Avenue ZONING: Urban Core Medium Density Residential BACKGROUND: Tim Grandon owns the home at 105 South Maple Avenue (see Attachment A). This is a corner lot on the south side of Lincoln Way. The lot is platted as 45 feet by 80 feet and is a non-conforming lot per the development standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The house is at the far south end of the lot. There once was a single stall detached garage north of the house but it was removed sometime between 2003 and 2008. The applicant wishes to construct a three stall garage on the site (22 feet by 30 feet). The location of the house at the back corner of the property, the address of the property as fronting onto South Maple, and the zoning requirements for location of detached garages in a front yard preclude the ability to construct any garage that would meet requirements. Currently, there is no off-street parking, which would make the property non-conforming regarding parking requirements for single-family homes because two spaces are required for a single family home. The proposed garage would be set back 20 feet from the east lot line along South Hazel Avenue. This is the same setback of the existing house so the garage would not protrude forward of the house. This would require a variance of 5 feet from the required 25 foot front setback. The garage would be set back 3 feet from the west property line. This would require a variance of 17 feet from the required 20 foot rear setback. 1 r The garage would be set back 25 feet from the Lincoln Way lot line. This meets the required 15 feet setback (see Attachment B). The following analysis describes why a variance is needed: • The property is addressed on South Maple Avenue. This address determines the front of the lot, in accordance with the definition of "front" in Section 29.102(80). This is also consistent with the orientation of the house on this corner lot with the front door facing South Maple Avenue. • The front setback requirements are 25 feet and the rear setback is 20 feet. For a lot which is 45 feet deep, there is NO ability to build any structure—house or garage. • The side setback is 8 feet on the south (for a two-story home) and 15 feet to the north (as a corner lot). There is about 60 feet from the north wall of the house to the north property line along Lincoln Way. • The only location for a garage is in the side yard (the area between the north wall of the house and Lincoln Way). Setbacks to Lincoln Way are 15 feet. • Section 29.408(7)(1)(i) requires detached garages in the side yard to meet the same setbacks as a principal building. • The single family home requires two parking spaces, each 9 feet by 19 feet. Surface parking is not allowed in the only area large enough to accommodate parking. Section 29.407(7)(b) does not allow parking in the "front yard" which is defined for off-street parking as the area between the house and the street on corner lots. Parking is only allowed on a driveway that leads to a garage or to the side or rear of the lot. APPLICABLE POLICIES AND LAWS: Ames Municipal Code, Section 29.1504(4) states that "Pursuant to Iowa law, 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. 2 (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 City zoning ordinance requires each single family home have two off-street parking spaces. This lot has none and therefore any resident would need to find parking on the street. The public interest in allowing a garage to be constructed is that it lessens congestion on the street. CONCLUSION: The public interest is to lessen congestion on the street. It is also to ensure that structures meet setbacks to slow the spread of fire and allow for adequate light and air circulation. Having no parking is problematic and the ordinance does not allow for surface parking at any location on the lot. 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 applicant states that the property retains value because of the house that exists on the lot. However, the lot is non-conforming since there is no off-street parking. And the only location in which to provide the parking would not meet the location requirements for surface parking or the setbacks for a garage. CONCLUSION: The only way to come into compliance would be to demolish the house and rebuild it closer to and facing Lincoln Way. If the house were facing north and addressed on Lincoln Way and met the 25 foot front setback, a garage meeting all setback requirements could likely be built. However, the configuration of the house on the lot precludes that arrangement—in essence, the location of the house and garage would have to be swapped. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is met. 3 (ii) The plight of the owners is due to unique circumstances and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood. FINDINGS: The lot is not unique in size in this neighborhood of Ames. However, its orientation (45 feet in depth and 80 feet wide) and the location of the existing house is abnormal (being within 2 feet of the south property line and 3 feet of the west property line). The large side yard to the north previously had a garage but, once it was removed, current zoning does not allow it to be replaced. CONCLUSION: This building placement is unique being as it is pushed far to the south lot line. It does not meet setbacks. And because of the orientation of the front yard to the east, it does not allow for any structure to meet the 25-foot front and 20-foot rear setbacks. No location on the lot can accommodate surface parking or a garage that meets the setbacks. 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: The neighborhood consists mostly of older, modest homes. The Friends meeting house lies to the south and the county human services building is on South Hazel Avenue to the west. Several apartment buildings are to the east. Most single family homes have off-street parking, usually a single stall garage in the rear or side yard. Very few have a two-stall garage. Staff could find no other single family home with a three-stall garage. An examination of aerial photographs does not show any other house placement similar to this lot. CONCLUSION: A garage at the proposed location will be in the side yard—albeit the side adjacent to a right-of-way (Lincoln Way). Although this appears unique to the neighborhood, the structure will still meet the setbacks from Lincoln Way. What is out of character is the size of the garage. The proposed three stall garage is 22 feet by 30 feet. That size meets the size limitations for garages (900 square feet). And if it were a two-stall garage, the same variances would be needed. However, an accessory structure is defined as being "a subordinate structure...." It does not mean that it must be smaller in footprint than the principal structure, it does mean that it must be used only to serve the principal use on the lot. If the board determines that the three-stall garage is `subordinate' to the house and does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, the Board can conclude that this criterion is met. Otherwise, the Board may condition approval with the same variances but for a two- stall, 22-foot wide garage. The two car garage would meet minimum standards and be the minimum need for a variance. (c) The spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is granted. 4 FINDING: The variance will allow the garage to meet setbacks typical of garages in other situations (where the house on a corner lot is between the street and garage). In this case, due to the location of the existing house, the garage would be between the house and street. CONCLUSION: The two separate structures (house and garage) would likely be met if their locations were swapped. However, history has presented us with a house snuggled up the south property line. 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 property currently is non-conforming due to not having any off- street parking spaces. In order to allow either surface parking or a garage, some variance would be needed. CONCLUSION: In this case, staff believes that allowing the garage is better than granting a variance for a surface parking lot because of the added utility of having a detached structure for storage of vehicles as well as of yard and garden equipment. A variance should be seen as a mechanism, not of allowing a property to have something more than its neighbors, but of allowing it to have what its neighbors already have but that due to circumstances, can't be accomplished under the zoning rules. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is met. ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve the 3-car garage variance of 5 feet from the required 25 foot front setback and 17 feet from the required 20 foot rear setback at 105 South Maple Avenue to allow construction of a 22 foot by 30 foot garage, based upon the above findings and conclusions that all of the criteria are met. 2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve a 2-car garage variance of 5 feet from the required 25 foot front setback and 17 feet from the required 20 foot rear setback at 105 South Maple Avenue to allow construction of a 22 foot by 22 foot garage if it determines that the smaller size is subordinate to the principal structure and does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, also based upon the above findings and conclusions that all of the criteria are met. 3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny this request for front and rear setback variances and direct the applicant to seek a variance to allow surface parking at that location instead. 4. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may table this variance and seek further information from the applicant or from staff. 5 DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION: The site is non-conforming in that there is no off-street parking. There is no location for a garage or for surface parking that meets the requirements of the ordinance. If the applicant wished to construct a single or two stall garage, staff believes it would be easier to determine that there is little alteration of the character of the neighborhood. A three-stall garage could be seen as creating an accessory structure that is no longer subordinate to the principal structure. It should be noted, though, that a one, two, or three stall garage requires the same variances for construction. And the three-stall garage still meets the size limitations for accessory structures. If no variances were needed, nothing would preclude a three-stall garage from being built to serve a two- bedroom, 396 square foot 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 approve this request for a variance of 5 feet from the required 25 foot front setback and 17 feet from the required 20 foot rear setback at 105 South Maple Avenue to allow construction of a 22 foot by 30 foot garage, based upon the above findings and conclusions that all of the criteria are met. S:\PLAN_SHR\Council Boards Comm issions\ZBA\Variances\105_S_Maple-04-27-16.docx 6 ATTACHMENT A: LOCATION MAP Lj Lj J V Y r+ 45' co Li 3 E q i tam � i.ry i a ff '1 ij ,n e� Y ' i ,aroaas UWE �w l u r 0 5 10 4► Ames Feet N 7 ATTACHMENT B: PROPOSED SITE PLAN 4 5" zn ILI ; N u �x Cd i N 4A f� Qj L fD fY1 M O O M a O L CO I I In NAy 0 th � 15 4MA�Y A4' y7 7, ��,y1yT�� III '�F N 8