HomeMy WebLinkAboutA7 ITEM # 3
DATE: 08/23/17
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CASE FILE NO.: VAR-000252-2017
DATE PREPARED: August 18, 2017
APPLICATION
FOR VARIANCE: To allow a reduction of the minimum required side
yard setback from 6 feet to approximately 1 .5 feet for
the construction of a carport.
APPLICANT: Abdul Sarwary
LOCATION: 1430 Summit Avenue (See Attachment A)
ZONING: Residential Low Density (RL)
BACKGROUND:
Abdul Sarwary, applicant, owns the home at 1430 Summit Avenue. Mr. Sarwary is
requesting approval of a variance to the minimum side yard setback requirement in the
"RL" (Residential Low Density) zone to allow for the construction of a detached carport
in the side yard, between the house and north property line. Construction of the carport
has begun, without the issuance of a building permit (see Attachment B: Photographs of
the Site). The applicant has since applied for a building permit, and has been instructed
by the City of Ames Inspections Office to cease any further work on the carport, since a
building permit cannot be issued until the carport complies with the minimum required
building setbacks, or unless a variance is granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment to
allow a reduction in the required setback.
The applicant has placed six 4"x4" posts in the ground for support of the carport, of
which three of the posts are within approximately 1 .5' of the north property line of the
lot. These posts appear to be the north edge of the carport. The carport structure itself
is approximately 10.0' to 10.5' wide, and the concrete paving under the carport is
approximately 9.0' wide by 19.0' long. The home is a one-story single-family detached
dwelling, which requires a minimum side yard setback of 6 feet. The same minimum
setback applies to an accessory structure, such as a detached carport, constructed in
the side yard. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a reduction of 4.5' (from
6.0' to 15) in the side yard setback required for the proposed carport. If the carport is
constructed with eaves, the setback is measured from the edge of the eave, not from
the wall of the structure to the property line.
The City requires two parking spaces for single-family homes, but does not require
1
covered parking. The site was nonconforming previously with no paved parking
surfaces. With the recent paving, the site is no longer nonconforming for parking
standards.
APPLICABLE POLICIES AND LAWS:
Chapter 29, Table 29.701(3) of the Municipal Code establishes the minimum principal
front building setback from a side lot line of 6 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:
(a) The granting of the variance shall not be contrary to the public interest.
FINDING: Side yard setbacks provide a space, with a minimum width dimension,
between buildings along public streets. Side setbacks preserve access to light
2
and air, emergency access, and a uniform appearance of building faces down
the street.
CONCLUSION: In general, it is in the public interest to ensure that the use of
property does not infringe on the rights of the neighbors, allow for emergency
access around and into properties, to allow room for lawns and trees, for light
and air in the home, and to serve as filtration areas for storm water run-off. The
use of parking on a site is desirable to meet City standards, but it does not
require covered parking or that it is located in the side yard.
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 would be compromised and the standard would
not be met with only a 1.5 foot setback to the edge of the carport and with no
eave on the structure. 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 applicant has included a statement from Patrick Weigel, a local
realtor with Hunziker and Associates. Mr. Wiegel believes that the carport will be
an improvement to the property, and that the value of the home will improve, as
well as help support the value in the neighborhood. No evidence was provided
by the applicant that all beneficial use of the property would be lost, if carport
could not be constructed in the side yard. The applicant can also explore adding
covered parking in the rear of the yard and meet setback.
The property has served as the location for a single-family detached dwelling,
since it was constructed in 1935, which is a permitted use in the RL zone. The
property is currently occupied and used as a single-family home. Use of the
property as a residence may continue, regardless of whether the variance is
granted for the carport.
CONCLUSION: The property owner has not demonstrated that he will be
deprived of all beneficial use of the land. The owner would still realize a
reasonable economic return without the variance since he would still be able to
enjoy full use and occupancy of the existing house and provide for off-street
parking that is not covered. Staff believes further convincing
evidence/documentation would be needed to conclude that all beneficial use or
loss of value of the property has occurred. Therefore, the Board can conclude
that this criterion is not met.
3
(ii) The plight of the owners is due to unique circumstances and not to
the general conditions in the neighborhood.
FINDINGS: The minimum lot size for a single-family detached dwelling in the RL
zoning district is 6,000 square feet. The legal description of the property is: "Lot
20, Block 2 of Ridgewood 2nd Addition", which includes 4,130 square feet, and
was originally platted in 1923, with the current lot dimensions. This is a
nonconforming lot according to the current minimum lot size standard of 6,000
square feet in the RL zoning district. This is not a unique case for lot size in this
area of the community. The great majority of lots in this subdivision were
originally platted at a lot size of less than the current minimum standard of 6,000
square feet, as shown in Attachment C: Final Plat for Ridgewood Second
Addition, and as documented in the table below:
Size of Lots in the Summit/Ridgewood Neighborhood
(Located on Summit & Ridgewood Between 16t" St. & Crescent St.)
Street Name Nonconforming Lots Conforming Lots
(less than 6,000 sq.ft.) *(6,000 sq.ft. or greater)
Summit Avenue 20 (71.4%of lots) 8 (28.5% of lots)
Ridgewood Avenue 20 (76.9%of lots) 6 (23% of lots
Summit & Ridgewood 40 (74.0%of lots) 14 (25.9%)
*Note:The minimum required lot size in the"RL"(Residential Low Density)zone is 6,000 sq.ft.
The applicant has requested a variance to allow the construction of a carport in
the side yard. An inventory of the location of garages, and carports, in the
neighborhood produces the numbers found in the table below:
Garages and Carports in the Summit/Ridgewood Neighborhood
(Located on Summit & Ridgewood Between 16t" St. & Crescent St.)
Number Percentage of Total Lots
No Garage on the Lot 22 40.7%
Detached Garage in Side Yard 2 3.7%
Detached Garage in Rear Yard 22 40.7%
Attached Garage 5 9.2%
Attached Carport 2 3.7%
Detached Carport 0 0.0%
Vacant Lot 1 1.8%
Total No. of Lots 54
CONCLUSION: As shown in the tables above, there are no unique
circumstances regarding the property that would set apart this property from
others in the neighborhood. The lot size is smaller than is required by current
standards; however, that is the case for 74 percent of the lots in this area of the
community. Additionally, the lot does meet minimum lot width requirements even
4
though the total area is less than standard. The applicant proposes a detached
carport in the side yard. There are no other detached carports in this
neighborhood, and only 2 lots out of 54 total lots (3.7%) have an attached
carport. Almost 41 percent of the lots do not have a garage, and of the lots that
do have a garage, or a carport, (31 out of 54), 22 of those are located in the rear
yard, and only 2 in the side yard. Therefore, the Board can conclude that 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 small single-family homes, on
substandard size lots, with either one- or two-car garages in the rear yard, or no
garage at all. There are 5 lots out of 54 total lots with an attached garage, two
attached carports, and two detached garages in the side yard. The proposed
carport would be the first to be constructed in the side yard, and encroaches into
the minimum required setback of 6 feet, by approximately 4.5 feet. There are no
specific design standards required by the "RL" (Residential Low-Density) zone in
which the property is located.
CONCLUSION: A variance to allow the carport to extend to within approximately
1-1/2 feet of the side lot line would establish a new location for a carport in the
neighborhood, and a side yard location that only 2 garages out of 29 total
garages in the neighborhood occupy. Although, the open design of a carport
limits the visual impact of the encroachment to some degree, construction of a
detached car port within 1-1/2 feet of the property line will alter the character of
the neighborhood. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is
not 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. If it can be determined that alternative options exist to allow for
the construction of a carport that meets the minimum building setbacks, the
variance would not be needed and the strict regulation of the zoning ordinance
can be enforced.
CONCLUSION: On many other properties in this area of the community, the
property owner has constructed a detached garage in the rear yard, since
adequate space did not exist between the house and the side lot line. The rear
yard on this property provides adequate space to construct the carport, and meet
the minimum required setback of 3 feet from the lot lines. 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: Substantial justice speaks to the requirement that the hardship must
be peculiar to the property. The Board must determine if the applicant asking for
the least relief from the zoning law that is possible to allow a reasonable use of
the property. The Board must also determine if there is a hardship attributable to
the property that results in lack of equal use of property compared to the others
in subject to the same regulations.
CONCLUSION: Granting of a variance for the proposed carport does not provide
substantial justice in use of the property as there is not hardship of providing for
off-street parking in manner that complies with the zoning ordinance. There is
another way to accomplish the purpose without a variance. Therefore, the
Board can conclude that this criterion is not met.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny this request for a variance for 1430
Summit Avenue to allow a reduction of the minimum required side yard setback from
6.0 feet to approximately 1.5 feet for the construction of a carport, based upon the
above findings and conclusions.
2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve this request for a variance for 1430
Summit Avenue to allow a reduction of the minimum required side yard setback from
6.0 feet to approximately 1.5 feet for the construction of a carport, if it makes explicit
findings that support the variance criteria.
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 1430 Summit Avenue that the evidence provided
for the variance does not support approval of the a variance. None of the criteria were
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 1430 Summit Avenue to allow a reduction of
the minimum required side yard setback from 6.0 feet to approximately 1.5 feet
for the construction of a carport, based upon the above findings and conclusions.
6
Attachment A
Location Map
XTH S- H S-
tq r }
VIP .to
r
C
1430 Summit Ave.
W
v •' T S
A- 5 _
■
I
f 1
N
w -
Location Map
1430 Summit Avenue
kmi
0 55 110 220 330
Feet
7
Attachment B
Photographs of the Site
q.a� 4.}i: f •.4 s.
r'
Attachment B
Photographs of the Site
cp
.a
4
w
f H�
i
9
Attachment B
Photographs of the Site
w
_ Y
I
10
Attachment B
Photographs of the Site
Nde
11
Attachment B
Photographs of the Site
r
4 ,
a; +
t
� ��sit�„ :.:. �� . 's¢�•�
y� r
12
Attachment C
Final Plat for Ridgewood Second Addition
RIDGEWOOD SECOND (I1
R. M. Favner, R. B. McGregor and A. W. McGregor ADDITION
to TO AMES , IOWA
Plat of Ridgewood Second Addition to Awe, Iowa
Being a subdivision of Outlot "H" Ridgewood Add. to
Ames, Iowa,and that part of the Southwest quarter
Deed of Dedication (4) of the Southeast quarter. (4) of Section thirty-
four (34) Township eighty-four (84), Range twenty-
Know ss ° ,,,,,four (24) West of the Fifth P.M. lying and being
That the Subdivision e the following described real
estate, to wit: Outlot "B" Ridgewood Addition to Ames, k south and wn Railtofway
right-of-way of the Chicago and
Iowa, and that part of the Southwest quarter (4) of the � � _Northwestern Railway as now located.
Southeast quarter (.14) of Section thirty-four (34) Township 2 J. Q. Wickham, Engineer Ames, Iowa
eighty-four (84), Range twenty-four (24) West of the Fifth 17 T�
P.M. lying and being south and.west of right-of-way of the 3 ,es t
Chicago and Northwestern Railway as now located, into lots, 4
streets, and alleys as shown on the accompanying plat is S -2-
with our free consent and in accordance with our voluntary �.3
desires and wishes and we hereby dedicate all the streets P. 6 4
therein shown to the public, said Sub-division to be known y 7
as Ridgewood Second Addition to the City of Ames, Iowa. S
witness our hands this 4th day of June 1-923. S b 5 Q
R. B. McGregor R. V. Favner q 9 Lj 7 �
Leone. B. McGregor Ada Dean Havner to > M a
A. W. McGregor Q .r?
Myra McGregor C II ro 9 1
3 9
g12 a -. lo
I J. Q. Wickham, Engineer do hereby certify that the q 13
plat hereon is correct and in accordance with the survey 12
made by me on the 18th day of May to June llth 1923. 14 � r 6 7', D
M
b 15 �o ^ 1 A.' 14
J. Q. Wickham Q r 0
Engineer
17 `2 �1• 4 .S° 16
Filed for Record this 9th day of June A.D. 1923 at » j` �a �" s°� SCALE-1"=200'
4i10 P. M. 4 t9 N r ,� �lb °
Recorder S. Ada Miller 12,
19
t 3� p 11" 12 W !22
d
Toga Lot Deed Record
M� u]J
No. 49 - Pg. 576 � 23
sa G} 2
Recorder's Office ° J1 6 ; 3 d e5
U3 4
CZ ,k24 2529 V b 29 d 7 4 U 20 U
3'i 2b U 6 5
YT
el'^Ti so•, �
3 Z 15 16 n 16 2 I �'
11 12 13 14 3
4 1 i
e I
5
� 7 •t �i 1
a , / 1
1
9 / NOTE:WOODEN STAKES SET AT ALL
/ LOT AND BLOCK CORNERS.
10
I
13