HomeMy WebLinkAboutA6 ITEM# 2
DATE: 08/23/17
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CASE FILE NO.: VAR-000248
DATE PREPARED: August 16, 2017
APPLICATION
FOR VARIANCE: To allow the construction of 30 feet of overhead
garage door width where 27 feet is permitted.
APPLICANT: Danny & Shana Wilson
LOCATION: 1602 Ada Hayden Rd (See Attachment A)
ZONING: Suburban Residential Zone Residential Low Density
FS-RL
BACKGROUND:
Danny and Shana Wilson own the property located at 1602 Ada Hayden Road and plan
to construct a new single-family dwelling on the property. The house is under
construction with a condition on the building permit to comply with garage door width
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The property is zoned FS-RL. The lot is .56 acres (24,404 sq. ft.) and located on the
south side of Ada Hayden Road in the new Quarry Estates Subdivision. The lot
measures 126 feet deep on the north, 194 feet deep on the east, 186 feet deep on the
west and 130 feet deep on the south. (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 when the garage doors are 8 feet
or greater in width. The City adopted this standard in 2010 to clarify there was no limit
on the amount of parking spaces within garage, but there was a limit on the size and
amount of garage doors. The city had previously had standards expressing a restriction
of three car garages that limited total parking spaces for the garage size.
The applicant's request is for a total of 30 feet of cumulative garage door width as part
of the construction of an attached garage. The garage is 1,387 square feet. The
proposed configuration of the garage is in an L- shape with three separate 10-foot wide
garage doors. (Attachment B)
The City has standards in place for parking of vehicles and requires parking areas to
1
accommodate 9 feet of width for parking spaces. The 9-foot width standard is intended
to accommodate the actual width of a vehicle and also allow for space for passengers to
enter and exit the vehicle. Actual vehicle dimensions vary, but for example truck
dimensions for a Ford F-150 have a vehicle width of approximately 6.5 feet and
additional 9 inches for mirrors for a total of approximately 8 feet. Cars are typically
narrower than trucks and have less width with mirror extensions.
The 9-foot standard is applied to all striped parking stalls for commercial and residential
uses. When reviewing garages, the garage is required to demonstrate that there is a
minimum of nine feet of clear space for the required parking spaces. Single family
homes are required to provide a minimum of two parking spaces, which may be either
uncovered or covered within a garage.
Questions concerning the garage door standards have come up previously with the
Zoning Board of Adjustment denying a variance request in 2016. Additionally, City
Council chose in 2016 to not initiate a text amendment to modify the garage standards
in response to the denied 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.
2
(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 with garages as an accessory
component to the home. The specific standard of 27 feet was written to address
aesthetics and indirectly garage width by effectively limiting openings along the
front facade.
The proposed garage is L shaped with the side nearest facade located 25 feet
from the property line abutting Ada Hayden Road. Two of the doors are aligned
perpendicular to the street with the third door parallel to the street. The proposed
garage doors would be most visible from the north and east. The interior square
footage of the garage is not directly regulated, but the size of the garage doors
likely enhance maneuverability into the oversized garage. While the garage door
length would be easily seen, the addition of 3 feet of additional garage door
length as a general aesthetic issue would not have significant impact on the
views from Ada Hayden Road or the abutting properties.
CONCLUSION: The usage and design of the proposed detached accessory
building can be found to not cause negative aesthetic and compatibility impacts
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.
3
FINDING: The application states that when a home with a high value such as this
is sold prospective buyers generally own or want larger vehicles. The garage is
oversized at 1,300 square feet on the interior and allows for ample space for
multiple vehicles within the garage. As stated in the background, the wide
variety of vehicles sold to consumers fit within the normal parking space width
standard of 9 feet.
There is no evidence that the property cannot be used for a single family
residential purpose with a garage that does not exceed the 27 foot width
limitation and that when constructed within current allowed limits that the site
would not provide a reasonable return on the use of the property in a manner
compliant with the standards. Homes across the community at multiple price
points are constructed with compliant garage door widths. The applicant has
options to configure some wider doors, if it is needed, for access to garage
without exceeding the total 27 foot limitation.
A variance finding is also based upon the conditions of the property and not the
personal situation of the applicant as a car dealership owner. Vehicular
ownership and business uses as described by the applicant do not relate to
characteristics of the property. This is not viewed as an existing hardship but
rather one that is created or related to individual preferences.
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 demonstrated that the property has no value as a single-
family home with a garage door width that falls under the 27 -foot maximum width
allowed by the ordinance. Given that the owner is currently constructing a new
home on the property after purchasing the lot indicates that the lot can be
purchased and a home can be built within existing zone development standards
on this 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 applicant states that ownership of an auto dealership requires
wider garage doors on the property to accommodate larger vehicles. As this is a
residential area, consideration of commercial ownership of a business elsewhere
is not a relevant factor in determining the plight of the owner. The storage of
personal vehicles related to the applicant's personal circumstances is also not a
relevant factor in consideration of unique circumstances to the property in
question. Additionally, the applicant has offered no information about sizes of
vehicles or reasons why they would not be able to enter the garage through
standard openings or why three extra wide doors are needed.
4
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. Personal and business interests are not
related to the conditions of the property. 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 zoned for single-family detached
homes on lots that are approximately one half acre in size. The lots are situated
in a manner that the appearance of each home will face Ada Hayden Road and
will be easily visible to the properties on opposite sides of the street and abutting
one another from each side. The proposed garage door location will be seen
from abutting properties and Ada Hayden Road. The applicant is asking for an
additional 3 feet of overhead garage door width. The appearance of the doors
while wider than allowed by the ordinance would likely not be noticeable enough
to alter the essential character of the neighborhood. In this case the 3 additional
feet of garage door width would not make the site appear out of character.
CONCLUSION: Based on the information above staff finds that the proposed
addition of extra garage door width would not be such that it would alter the
essential character of the locality specific to the FS-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 increased garage door
width will not give an impression or appearance of an excessive amount of
cumulative garage door width given its visibility from the street. Staff finds that,
there are various sizes of garage doors that can be constructed within the 27 feet
of allowed garage door width. Thus, the request for additional cumulative garage
door width beyond 27 feet is not within the spirit of the ordinance in this case.
Alternate configurations examples such as tandem parking or extra maneuvering
space inside the garage are within the parameters of the Zoning Ordinance that
staff believes present adequate alternatives for the applicant in addition to wider
garage door options within the existing standards.
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.
5
(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 attached garage, staff finds that the granting of a variance
would work against substantial justice which is characterized by a standard of
fairness and equal application of zoning standards. 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 by the applicant regarding
claims to vehicle size and automotive industry trends exist separately and are not
relevant to compliance with the zoning standards.
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 1602 Ada Hayden Road. 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 1602 Ada
Hayden Road 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 1602
Ada Hayden Road 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:
Staff has reviewed with the homeowner options for having wider garage doors for some
of the three garage entrances without having a variance. Options included use of one
6
standard double garage door with one oversize single garage door or to widen two of
the doors and narrow the remaining door. Each of these options would be consistent
with the Zoning Ordinance without a variance, but they did not interest the property
owner.
Staff does not find that the opinions presented for this variance request support a
conclusion of granting a variance from the 27-foot cumulative garage width limitation.
While the proposed garage door configurations may not have significant 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 configure one or two larger garage doors that fall within the garage
door width limits and meet the City zoning standard.
As with all variances, approving a variance is a case of applying the established
standards to the set of facts presented for a property and not individual preferences.
When reviewing the criteria of a variance and application to a specific situation the merit
of the standards is also not at question in the review as a change of standards is a
legislative decision of the City Council.
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 at 1602 Ada Hayden Road.
Attachment A
z
1422 Y
Q
1505
1°O' 27 �•�' -�
T` M
s
r
Variance Request Location
9,;
Ate_
f ..
1602 Ada Hayden Road
Y., N Variance Request
8
Attachment B- Floor Plans and Elevations
f� [�{ 8 UUBQ
- s a• CCRAI
4
r.
E
i
� i
r e
9
Attachment B- Floor Plans
Q - 0L009 M'sewy'P—uep.H ePV ZOBL
8L 70l L P"d S-M-A f---b
•€ a�uapisa�{ uos�iM eueyg+g I(uuea
sale
LU 3 !pill
0
------ ---- --- —— —
i
:j
fl9
•omo.ai"ii-
333
A .. a.!
lit t
<1 r -------------'T-----------: is
�• :1 ' BEY
a •
w� Q
@ �n
§ f
10