Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA9 ITEM# 2 DATE: 07/26/17 CITY OF AMES DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE FILE NO.: VAR-000240 DATE PREPARED: July 17, 2017 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE: A variance to allow a reduced rear yard setback from the 20 foot rear setback requirement found in the development standards in Section 29.1202(5)-1 for a single family attached house that does not meet the minimum required rear setback of 20 feet from the rear property line. The applicant proposes a 7.2 foot rear yard setback. APPLICANT: Classic Builders- Justin Greenfield 1910 SW Plaza Shops Ln Ankeny, IA 50023 LOCATION: 426 Sunflower Drive (See Attachment A) ZONING: Residential Low Density (FS-RL) BACKGROUND: Classic Builders has constructed a single family attached home located on two parcels at 426 and 430 Sunflower Drive. The home was approved in February of 2017 and constructed on Lots 2 and 3 of the Southfork Subdivision 9th Addition located in a Residential Low Density (FS-RL) zoning district. The residence is located to the northeast of the intersection where Coy Street and Sunflower Drive intersect. (See Attachment A- Location Map) The attached structure is located on two lots. Because of the adjacent intersection one of the lots, 430 Sunflower Drive (Lot 3) is a corner lot and the other, 426 Sunflower Drive (Lot 2) is an interior lot. The corner lot has a front setback on two sides and a side setback from the property boundary on the east. The interior lot has a single standard front setback of 25 feet and a standard side yard setback of 6 feet from the property boundary on the north. The interior lot also has a standard rear setback from the property boundary on the east of 20 feet. There is a zero setback lot line allowance where the common wall for both units meets. Classic Builders is seeking a variance to the required 20 foot rear setback requirement at 426 Sunflower for the single-family attached home to obtain relief from rear setback requirements due to an approved building permit being issued and the home already being constructed. City staff discovered that the site plan that was submitted for the home did not indicate the proper rear yard setback for the home at 426 Sunflower prior to approval and construction. The home was constructed 7.2 feet from the east rear property boundary of 426 Sunflower Drive similar to that of the home at 430 Sunflower Drive. All other setbacks are met on the property. The attached single family home is an allowed use in the Residential Low Density (FS-RL) zoning district. The surrounding properties are all either zoned FS-RL or RL both being Residential Low Density zones allowing for single family attached and detached housing. As indicated, City staff reviewed and approved this permit with the incorrect rear yard setback shown. City staff discovered that the home had been approved with the incorrect rear yard setbacks during consultation between the Building Inspections staff and Planning staff. The consideration for the board in this case is to decide whether or not to grant relief from the required 20 foot rear yard setback at 426 Sunflower Drive instead to a 7.2 foot rear yard setback that the home has already been constructed to and as is shown on the attached site plan (See Attachment B). APPLICABLE POLICIES AND LAWS: Pertinent Sections of the Ames Municipal Code: Chapter 29, Table 29.1202(5)-1 of the Municipal Code establishes the minimum principal building setback from a rear lot line of 20 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 following criteria. (a) The granting of the variance shall not be contrary to the public interest. FINDING: Rear setbacks provide a space without buildings in order that structures may be separated from neighboring uses with adequate distance. Thus rear setbacks preserve access to light and air for properties. Because of the location of the subject property the rear yard abuts the side yard of the residential properties to the east (See Attachment A Location Map). Exceeding the rear yard setback requirements in this instance increases the likelihood of less area for air and light than intended in the FS-RL zone. CONCLUSION: While all other setbacks are met inadequate setback from the rear property boundary could impede adequate air and light as intended by the zoning ordinance for rear yards in the FS-RL zoning district. If the variance from the rear setback is granted, the public interest in building separation to provide light and air will be compromised. 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: The lot that the home is located on meets all minimum requirements for lot sizes within the Residential Low Density (FS-RL) zoning district. The land is considered to be adequate to generate a reasonable return for the zoned purpose at this location. The existing home is setback from the north property line 15 feet which exceeds the required 6 feet setback distance for a side yard. The home could have been constructed in a different manner so that more of the side yard to the north is utilized for space in the home within the allowed side yard setback standards. There is no physical or topographical impediment to constructing a home on this property as the topography is generally level and can be maximized for structural use within the required setbacks. CONCLUSION: The property on which the home is located provides adequate space for development and thus can be seen to provide a reasonable return when used for a residential purpose. 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 application states that the cost of changing the structure to come into compliance with the rear setback would be $311,688. The original construction valuation of the home according to City of Ames building permit records is $232,8353he applicant has provided cost information showing the estimated cost of demolition and reconstruction of the home. (See Attachment C- Cost Information) The cost breakdown shows a $40,000 cost to demolish the home as necessary to come into conformance with setback requirements. An additional $271,688 cost is then shown to reconstruct the home. CONCLUSION: The cost to demolish and reconstruct the property can be considered significant. However, based on staffs review the cost has been created by the applicant in not abiding by the rear setback requirements for this property found in the zoning ordinance. A financial hardship must be found to be pre-existing in order that it be considered as a criteria for granting a variance. In this instance the applicant had a duty to abide by the ordinance and in not doing created a self-imposed circumstance that could significantly add to the cost of construction on this property based upon the submitted cost estimates. 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 neighborhood is characterized by attached and detached single family homes. The general area consists of low to medium density residential zoning. The distance of the home to the east boundary line of the property is not easily seen being at the rear of the property. Although the home will be closer to the home on the property to the east, no views are expected to be inordinately obstructed by the location of the home. CONCLUSION: A variance to allow the home to extend to 7.2 feet from the rear property line will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or immediate surrounding area. 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 ordinance requires that in Residential Low Density (FS-RL) zoning districts the required rear yard setback from the rear boundary line be a minimum of 20 feet. The building permit that was submitted and approved did not have the correct rear yard setback shown. Providing the correct rear setback as required is not seen to discourage the spirit of the ordinance. Additionally, nearby homes must also meet the required rear yard setbacks. CONCLUSION: Allowing the rear setback to be shortened to 7.2 feet given the requirements of the ordinance and the responsibility of the applicant to have such information and abide by the ordinance is not seen to be within the spirit of the ordinance given the circumstances. Approving this variance would not be within 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: All other properties within the area and within the FS-RL zone must comply with the appropriate rear yard setbacks. The properties located within the neighborhood abide by the existing FS-RL and RL setback requirements. There are no known existing structures that do not meet rear setback requirements in the immediate neighborhood. CONCLUSION: Constructing the home with the required rear yard setback does not put it at a disadvantage relative to other nearby properties. Rather, allowing the home to be built with relief from the rear yard setback can be seen to put other nearby properties at a disadvantage as they have otherwise abided by or will abide by zoning ordinance requirements. Given that the property in question has no topographic challenges relative to the other properties in the neighborhood and that the zoning ordinance requirements were in place when constructed, there is no reason this property could not have abided by the zoning ordinance requirements. A variance in this case will not provide substantial justice. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is not met. i ALTERNATIVES: 1 . The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny this request for a variance for 426 Sunflower Drive for a reduced rear setback of 7.2 feet, based upon the above findings and conclusions. 2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve this request for a variance for 426 Sunflower Drive for a reduced rear yard setback of 7.2 feet.. if it makes findings that support the criteria that the variance is necessary for a reasonable return on the property. 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 statements that the criteria for issuing a variance are not met. 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 for 426 Sunflower Drive for a reduced rear yard setback requirement of 7.2 feet. However, the approval and issuance of the building permit by the City allowed for construction of the single family detached home at 426 Sunflower Drive to take place. The process of correcting the setback violation is substantial for the owner. Staff acknowledges that an error was made in issuing the building permit for this property in that the incorrect rear yard setback was approved via the site plan attached to the building permit. The board can decide if allowing a reduced rear yard setback is appropriate given the circumstances in this instance. Attachment A- Location Map R � Q. y1LLq G E DR r - Subject Locabon C7 COY S T 37Z0- 3M 371• $708 off'"• \,� �r. Sim ( . Variance Location N 426 Sunflower Drive 13 -� Attachment B- Site Plan SITE PLAN JUL 11 201 I , I I CITY OF MES,I WA i DEPT.OF PLAh NING& IOUSING LL] I I N I oi �� l 1 � I -a Q o Q c I o T LL) I I a in 0 I I o -Erosion Control � I I 87.21' J I — V- I I j (n 25.00, i2os7• W I 0 2 0 0 I I e-426 o c S 0 Ill Drive 7,20 v 0 3 25.00' 20.57• v #430 4 y — -- 6'Side Yard Setback 0 ]4.]] 7,19' i00 Trosh w K) 25'Front Yard j aD Setback I 0�---- _1' ----------- ——————— oncre O1 1 10,P,U.E. Washot57.20ut I -- -- _ — I I - - - -------- --------------------------------------- COY STREET ZONING: FS-RL MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: FRONT YARD - 25'(Garoge) 0 30 REAR YARD - 2D' (Corner-Two Front Yards & Two Side Yards) SIDE YARD 6' ADDRESS 426 & 430 SUNFLOWER DRIVE AMES, IA SCALE (FEET) HOUSE PLAN TWIN HOME CLASSIC BUILDERS SHEET 1 OF 1 SOUTHFORK SUBDIVISION 9TH ADDITION LOTS 2 & 3 PN: 117.0044 PM: GAC SNYDER &ASSOCIATES 2727 S.W.SNYDER BLVD. DATE: 2-9-17 Engineers and Planners ANKENY,IA 50023(516)064-2020 TECH: RSN I Attachment C- Cost Estimate BUDGET CATEGORY Main Leval Lawn Level Building PerMls $ 3,000.00 Rullders Risk Insumme _ 300,00 Arrthlt-tural/Deslbi+Foes $ 250.00 SuNeyt _- _- _- 00.0 60 S Solis Testin _ $ 3on.00 $ Erosion Control - $ -_ 400.00 Water Connection $ 7SO.OD $ Sewer Connection 710.00 Tem .Electric Service _ - 20D.00 $ &-tbn 6 B.&M 4 .00 $ Earawtbn Maw" - $ 5 000.00 Foundation $ 29 249.00 Flatwwk-loth r S 8,350.45 Flalwork-Eit.1w fipw.00 Front 5 - $ 739.00 _ Dec /-Pordi Materlab 300DO Deck I Pwch labor 300A0 - Framl Wmber $ 32,606.50 $ 5,324.10 Tr'E!Te pouf-. . $ -Flow Trusses $ -- Framing Labor $ 9 20.00 $ S"62 Materfab- S 62MDO Sldln Labor- $ 325.00 6da.rn And DownsP.M 2,200.00_ Plum 5 17,370. $ ,00 ElMrkW Whitt- - __ S 1 000.00 ZAODM Electrbl Fotures �_ 11 00.00 H"tl-6 cove..1 12,SW.00 $ 1,100A0 Roop Materlab _ 5,500.00 3850.DD $ Fxledor brick i Stotts S 1 640.00 $ Lk4 _ S 4,119.16 S Extarfor Doors S 1,599.24 $ GSra a Dod3 S ___ 1 720.00 S Insulation J. 4,730.00 elowar Door I wing 600.00 ' Paint-Exterior $ Milt And Stale lt.Aw $ 3 ,40 Dry roll Malerlak i Ubw5 8192.36 S 701.80 Car -MaterW 1,516.32 2.436.48 df ;lzbor-- _ $ 1166.00 4M00 Hardwood Fkso -MaterW _ _$ 957.90 ' HaTd,-b,d9ppAr4-Labor 950.00 MIN-kPadap 7 371.66 In Lumber Number i Trim q zLabw - 4 722.98 1962.00 I Granks.0 s: 2,S00.00 Tile Flo-4 WaBs Matvlal 1,170.00 325.OD T➢e Flows 4 Web Lbw 1,260.00 S 401)AO The-Shower MawW The-Shower Labof -- - - [abinets-Material 6,676.00 S 900.00 Closet She -Wke - 600.DO 200.00 Ilanca Packs a-Standard 13W.DO Shower Mirrors BW.00 300.00 ROWIT gradft and flrsel traft 2,200.00 $ Sod _ 3 50D.00 Tomp.Jo9at- 160.00 $ Dum tar _ _ S 6W.00 FTt161%GN►nln---- _ 400.00 $ MOD Irrf{atbn : S S TOTAL $ 229,326.97 S 30,211.0 Demolitlan -' _40,D00.00 Du star _ 12,000,00 Variance Fae IS0.00 TOTAL "-�-- RECEIVED JUL 11 2017 CITY OF AMES,IOWA DEPT.OF PLANNING&HOUSING