HomeMy WebLinkAboutA004 - Staff Report dated October 9, 2019 ITEM# 3
DATE: 10/9/19
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CASE FILE NO.: VAR-000752
DATE PREPARED: October 4, 2019
APPLICATION
FOR VARIANCE: To allow for parking in the front yard for a single-family
use in an Urban Core Residential Medium Density
District (UCRM).
APPLICANT: Lisa Hein
LOCATION: 1113 Maxwell (See Attachment A)
ZONING: UCRM-Urban Core Residential Medium Density
BACKGROUND:
The owner of 113 Maxwell Avenue has applied for a variance to allow parking in the front
yard in order for the home to comply with parking requirements related to standards of
the City's Rental Code. (Attachment A) If approved. the variance would allow the recently
paved area (9.5 ft x 40 ft.) to be counted as the two required parking spaces. however
this area does not meet standards of Zoning Ordinance as it is located in the front yard.
The reasoning for this request is that the owner is trying to obtain a Letter of Compliance
to operate property as a single-family rental. Single-family homes require two off street
parking stalls and new parking must meet paving and location requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance. This property is zoned Urban Core Residential Medium Density District
(UCRM) and front yard parking is prohibited in this zoning district as defined in Section
29.406(7)(e). (Code excerpt- Attachment B) The Zoning Ordinance does allow parking to
be located in the side and rear yards, or upon a driveway that leads to parking spaces in
the side or rear yards.
The subject property is a non-conforming 5,925 square foot parcel, where the zoning
district minimum is 6,000 square feet. The 420 square foot house is situated in the front
half of the lot. The driveway leads from Maxwell Avenue to the front of the house. The
recently paved driveway area is 9.5 ft x 40 ft, which is enough room for two cars to park
in tandem with minimum 9 ft x 19 ft parking space dimensions.
At the beginning of the Rental Inspection process only one parking stall existed on a
paved area located directly in front of the house. This area was approximately 190 sq. ft.
Once the property owner was informed of the two parking stall requirement, they
1
extended the driveway up to the house. This extended the driveway an additional twenty
feet. This extension leads to a portion of the house where there is a recessed fapade,
meaning the parking area is between the building and the street in the front yard. The
paving was added to the site without concurrence from the City that it would meet Code
standards. The areas on a property that are defined as front yard can be found in Section
29.406(7)(g), this includes all areas between the building and the street extending the full
width of the property. (See Attachment B)
The owner is requesting the variance to allow parking in the front yard in order to use the
recently paved area as required parking. If approved, there would be no changes to
parking layout or additional paving compared to the current conditions of the site. The
applicant is requesting approval of the variance based on explanations for each variance
standards (Attachment C). If the variance is not approved the applicant would need to
pave additional areas of the property to meet parking standards and obtain a Letter of
Compliance for the Rental Code.
APPLICABLE POLICIES AND LAWS:
Pertinent Sections of the Ames Municipal Code are described as follows:
Chapter 29, Table 29.406(7)(e) of the Municipal Code prohibiting parking in the front yard
in the UCRM district, except on a drive way that leads to the side or rear yard or to an
attached garage...
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.
2
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" (Attachment C). 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: This is a small house, 420 square feet, which has been used as a rental
property for previously with a single parking space off of Maxwell. The applicant
argues that the strict enforcement of the code may reduce aesthetics of the
property and diminish the property values because of increased paving and loss
of landscaping.
In order to comply with the parking location requirements, the driveway would need
to be expanded to the south and wrap the side of the house to create parking that
is not in the front yard. This would require an additional 350 sq. ft. of paving.
Staff finds while the recent paving does provide enough room to allow for two cars,
however it is located in the front yard. The driveway was not paved to the house
until sometime in the spring of 2019 when the property owner added approximately
20 feet of paving between the house and where the previous driveway ended. Part
of the parking area would be located behind the primary fapade, but not wholly
behind the front of the home.
CONCLUSION: Providing parking for uses consistent with the zoning district is in
the public interest. Each use contains its own set of distinct standards for parking.
Ensuring adequate parking and access to a site to support allowed uses is also in
the public interest for the benefit of health. safety, and general welfare for the
surrounding area.
A single parking space has been provided in the front yard for many years. The
character of the neighborhood is for small or single lane driveways in general,
some homes have garages but not all. Most parking is provided to the rear of
homes in this area.
The proposed configuration of parking is similar to the aesthetic of other homes in
the area. Allowing the additional front yard parking to remain would not be contrary
to the public interest of providing on-site parking for a property's use in the context
of this single family neighborhood.
Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is met.
3
(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 property owner is trying to get a Letter of Compliance so that the
home can be used as a single-family rental. The current property owner
(Meadowlark Bass LLC) acquired the property in 2017 without the property having
two parking spaces. A Letter of Compliance cannot be issued without providing
two off-street parking stalls. All other requirements for a Letter of Compliance have
been met. The property had previously been a licensed rental, but has not been
licensed for ever ten years. Licensing requires compliance with current Rental
Code requirements. The owner states that without the Letter of Compliance they
could not legally rent the house. The house can be owner occupied with no
requirement to add parking.
CONCLUSION: A reasonable return does not ensure a profit, maximized gain, or
that no loss on an investment may occur as a result of owning a property and using
it in a manner consistent with City ordinances. The question of hardship applies to
whether the property can be used in any manner consistent with the zoning and
yield a reasonable return.
Interior and exterior improvements by the property owner have already been done
by bringing the house into compliance with the requirements for a rental property.
If the variance is not granted and a parking stall is not located in the side yard, then
a Letter of Compliance for a rental could not be issued with constructing parking
to the rear of the home. Lack of a Letter of Compliance may lead to the property
owner selling the property, if they desired. The applicant has not provided
information that the cost of meeting parking paving standards would create a
financial hardship for a reasonable return on use of the property or that the resale
of the property is not feasible without approval of the variance.
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.
FINDING: The property owner points out that most of the driveways in the area
have a curb cut and drive way that lead directly to the side yard or back yard. This
parcel has a curb cut and driveway that is directly in front of the house. There is
concern that if the driveway is extended to the side of the house that drainage
issues may arise as the yard slope towards the west and that re-grading would
result in a drop off on the north side of the pavement into the rear yard.
4
The property owner speculates that even if the additional pavement were added
for a parking stall in the side yard, that it would likely be unused for parking. Access
to the parking spot would create awkward maneuvering from the side of the house
to the driveway leading to the street.
Conversations between Staff and the property owner regarding parking
requirements left questions if enough room existed in the side yard in front of the
shed for one parking stall. Based on the site plans submitted with the application,
there is room to provide one parking stall in the side yard compliant with Zoning
Standards. Staff did not find the proposed configuration with tandem parking to be
unworkable or out of the ordinary for homes with single width driveways.
Additionally, the larger paved area needed for compliant parking is partially a result
of the owner's recent paving without considering the optimal way to meet zoning
standards for the location of parking.
CONCLUSION: The neighborhood contains principally single-family homes
situated similarly to this property with most single width driveway access to
parking. Most do have the curb cuts and parking that lead directly to a side yard.
On-street parking is not allowed on either side of Maxwell Avenue. However, space
is available to create parking in the side yard, as required by Code, even though
the driveway would have to have additional maneuvering area that would create
more pavement in the front yard to access the parking. The location of the parking
in the side/rear yard would be in keeping with the general pattern of the
neighborhood.
Therefore, the Board can conclude this criterion is not met because the
applicant is able to meet dimensional parking requirements outside of the
front yard.
(iii) The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential
character of the locality.
FINDING: The applicant proposes to allow the parking to remain, as it recently
built, in the front yard. The applicant feels that the meeting the requirements of the
code will cause a negative change in the character of the area and compliance
would require more pavement that would cover more of the front yard and all of
the side yard. This design would give the appearance of a double wide driveway
which is not consistent with most properties in the neighborhood. The additional
pavement would create a paved area that would be 1 '12 times larger in area than
the house itself and fit three parked cars.
CONCLUSION: Based on the applicant's sight plan and scale of drawings,
approximately thirty-four percent of the front yard is paved in its current
configuration. If pavement were to be added to extend the driveway and
maneuvering area that leads to a compliant parking stall in the side yard, the
5
amount of paved front yard would increase to approximately forty percent. The
UCRM district does not have a front yard open space/landscaping requirement or
limitation of the extent of paving when it is exclusively related to accessing parking.
In newer subdivisions, it is not uncommon for larger areas of a front yard to be
paved to access multiple parking spaces. However, forty percent paving in a front
yard would appear to be significantly more than most of the properties within the
neighborhood. The parking design, while not compliant unless the requested
variance is approved. could be seen as similar to the essential 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 is trying to meet the spirit of the ordinance with the parking
that is already provided on site. A single-family home by code is required to have
two off street parking stalls. This home preceded the current parking requirements
and has existed with one stall until this spring when the driveway was extended.
There is a paved area large enough to allow two cars to be parked off street in
tandem. Maxwell Avenue is a snow route and does not allow for on street parking
on either side of the road.
CONCLUSION: Parking standards apply uniformly to properties and uses within
the zoning district. The code section the applicant is requesting a variance from is
the location of parking stalls and not the number of parking stalls provided. The
applicant feels the parking for two vehicles in the front yard is trying to meet the
spirit of the ordinance, however space does exist to provide compliant parking in
the side yard. 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: Substantial justice speaks to the requirement that the hardship must be
peculiar to the property or that an issue of equity in use of property exists. The
property at this location is similar to other properties within the area and has been
used as rental previously, but not continuously. The property owner has made
many improvements to the property since they took ownership, included adding
additional paving to allow for two cars to be parked off street. The applicant does
not want to add additional paving to the property to avoid passing the cost onto
tenants. Also, they feel the amount of paving and parking is sufficient for a house
of this size.
The house was and is legal nonconforming with its one parking space and can be
used as an owner occupied home. The allowance for a rental licenses requires a
higher level of property conformance for a number of different standards, not just
parking. The requirement is uniform to all single-family homes and is objectively
applied throughout the city.
CONCLUSION: Granting of a variance from the required prohibited front yard
6
parking may or may not provide substantial justice in that parking requirements for
the use of the property as a single-family rental. The two stalls are provided in a
prohibited location, but are provided in the required amount. Denial of the Variance
would require additional paving to meet rental requirements or the removal of the
expanded paving. The additional paving would result in a larger paved area than
there is house or living space. It could be argued that it is not a peculiar condition
for this property that parking needs to be in the side or rear yard to comply nor puts
this property at a disadvantage relative to other nearby properties to provide
parking in the side yard when room exists for additional paving and maneuvering.
Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is not met.
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . The Zoning Board of Adjustment with findings of consistency for all Variance
criteria, may approve a Variance to allow front yard parking at 1113 Maxwell Avenue.
2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny this request for a variance for 1113
Maxwell Avenue to allow parking in the front yard, if it cannot find evidence that
supports the explicit findings of consistency with all of the variance criteria.
4. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may table this variance request and seek further
information from the applicant or from staff.
PLANNING AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:
It is the conclusion of staff, based upon an analysis that the project and the applicant's
information. that the request for a variance does not meet all of the criteria. Although the
request can meet some of the criteria for a variance, staff did not find that enough
evidence was provided to support a determination that there could not be a yield of a
reasonable return for a residential us, that there is a unique circumstance causing a
hardship, that the issues with allowing parking to be located in the front yard would not
be within the spirit of the ordinance, and as a result there is not a lack of substantial justice
in denying the variance.
The Planning Housing Department recommends Alternative 2 to deny the variance
request. The applicant could then choose to construct parking in the side or rear
yard to receive a Letter of Compliance or proceed to remove the added paving and
not obtain a Letter of Compliance for a rental property.
Attachment A- Location Map
4.
.,r.
E 13TH
--ki.
wri�.
I
= ti
i
.:
F 12TH ST - ----- -
MirMaxwell Ave
,r. Ikip
.:eft � �5 . -�_ � 1" :,��`�' � � J •M �L` '�
E'1THST
111111111,11im lip
1+ fr..
At-
r t,
e,
1113 Maxwell Avenue
8
Attachment B- Parking Location Regulations
(e) Under no circumstances shall vehicular parking be permitted in the front yard of any
Household Living or Short Term Lodging uses in any"RL","RM","RH","UCRM","FS-RL",or"FS-RM"zones,except
upon a driveway that leads to the side or rear yard or to an attached garage;and,one parking space is permitted in the front
yard in the case where there is an existing,one car attached garage and there is insufficient room between the side of the
attached garage and the side property line. Such space shall meet the following requirements:
i)The parking space shall not exceed nine(9)feet in width;
ii)The parking space shall be contiguous to and parallel to the existing driveway;and,
iii)The parking space shall be located between the existing driveway and the side property line.
There shall be no installation at grade of any expanse of asphalt,concrete,gravel,brick,or other form of paving by any
material whatsoever without the written authorization of the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Such authorization shall be
granted only if under the facts and circumstances of the particular situation it is unlikely that the paving will facilitate the
use of the front yard,or any part thereof,for the parking of vehicles,except on a driveway as stated.
(Ord.No. 3591, 10-10-00;Ord.No.3675, 8-27-02;Ord.No.4205, 1-13-15).
W For one and two family dwellings with access only from either Grand Avenue,Thirteenth
Street, Duff Avenue, or Lincoln Way, and located on a segment of one of those streets where the Public Works
Department can confirm an average weekday traffic count of not less than 12,000 vehicles per day,there may be a paved
area appended to the driveway as a space in which a motor vehicle can be turned around to avoid backing onto the street.
The dimensions of the said turning space shall be no greater than reasonably convenient to that purpose.The dimensions
and configuration of that space shall be approved in writing by the Department of Planning and Housing prior to
construction.A Building/Zoning Permit per Section 29.1501 shall be required for installation of the tum-around.
(g) As used in this section,front yard means the open space in that portion of a yard between
the street and the face of the structure and a line originating from the left side of the lot and extending to the right side
of the lot.The line,as viewed from the street,shall extend parallel to the street to the nearest corner of the principal
structure and then along the face of the principal structure to the right comer,and from that point on a line parallel to
the street to a point on the right lot line.As used in this section,the face of a principal structure shall be any and all
portions of the structure fronting on a street.The front yard shall not include any portion of the city right-of-way.A
corner lot shall be deemed to have two front yards.
(Ord.No.4205, 1-13-15) {
- Structure ® Motor Vehicle
Parking Prohibited
® Driveway
Q
LL
O
LU
—
O O�
G
rn STREET RIGHT OF WAY
I
Sup#2018-1 Chapter 29,Article 4-19 Rev. 1-1-18
9
Attachment C- Applicant's Supporting Information
VARIANCE.REQUEST SUMMARY;1113 Maxwell Ave.Ames,IA
We are requesting a variance to allow the existing*ftx40ft paved area to be
considered sufficient space for off-street parking.
We are attempting to finalize the Letter of Compliance for our rental property at 1113
Maxwell. This segment of Maxwell Ave has residential houses on the west side and the
Ames Cemetery on the East.Our property is a small,one-bedroom,480 square ft.unit
built in 1920. We have met all the building code specifications to receive a Letter of
Compliance except the two off-street parking spaces do not meet the exact
requirements because the driveway does not"lead to the side or back yard."
I
Existing pavement is 9 1h ft wide by 40ft long
1�
Existing Single lane access from Maxwell Ave
1
10
p c
40ft by 10ft pavement 7ft to side property line from
to front property line pavement.10ft from building
The city code requires two off-street parking spaces.The current paved area between
Maxwell Ave to the house is 40ft long by 9 1h ft.wide.This pavement area meets the
requirement to park two cars.However,this space is technically in the front yard.
If the requirements of the code are required to be met,then we will need to remove the
landscaping and pave additional portions of the front yard to widen the access,pave the
entire side yard and part of the back yard nearly reaching the shed.The result will be an
estimated 350ft2 of paving and loss of the outdoor patio space and landscaping.The
entire 750sq ft.of paving will be enough to park three cars,but these cars will not be
able to maneuver around each other and will not likely be used.
There is no simple way to extend the existing parking areas to the side yard because the
curb cut is in line with the house not the side yard,and the jog in the house moves the
defined"front yard"back an additional 10 ft.
The end requirement seems excessive for such a small house. There will be more
pavement than house,increased water runoff,which drains towards the shed,and 4400
lbs of greenhouse gasses(CO2). (www.ctre.iastate. .). Some aspects of the current
Municipal Code do not always fit the location,especially in part of the community built
100 years ago.
2
11
Standards
A.Variance will not result in injury or endangerment to other property or
persons,nor will it devalue nearby property.
The house was built in 1920. It is a 480 square foot home with one bedroom. It
was used as a rental for at least 20 years prior to our ownership. The paved
driveway and parking situation has not changed for many decades and has not
been a safety hazard or aesthetic detriment to the neighborhood. The variance
will not cause any changes to the property values for this home and the
neighborhood.
Instead,it is more likely that the strict enforcement of the code will reduce the
aesthetics of the property and diminish the property values because of the
overbearing amount of paving and loss of landscaping. Outdoor open space and
landscaping are known to increase property values.
If the variance is granted,then the aesthetics and character of the neighborhood
will remain intact.
B. That without granting of the variance,and due to special conditions,a literal
enforcement of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship.
(i)The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a
purpose allowed in the zone
If the variance is not granted,then a Letter of Compliance will not be issued.We
will not be able to legally rent the house.
(ii)The plight of the owners is due to unique circumstances and not to the
general conditions of the neighborhood.
The majority of properties in this neighborhood have a curb cut and single lane
driveway access that leads directly to the side yard or back yard.This parcel has
a single lane curb cut and driveway that leads to a jog in the house and the side
entrance.
If the original driveway had been constructed on the property line(similar to the
other houses)instead of where it is now,then the existing pavement area would
meet city code with only slight modifications.
In addition,the land slopes towards the west. The pavement will cause
additional drainage directly towards the shed or require re-grading and extra fill
that would then result in a drop off on the north side of the pavement where it
enters the rear yard.
3
12
i
It's not likely that the new paved area would even be used for the proposed
parking when completed because it will be awkward to access because there
technically won't be enough room to maneuver around a car parked in the
driveway.
(iii)The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character
of the locality.
As mentioned previously,the other homes in this neighborhood have just a
single-lane driveway access to their respective parking spaces or garages. We
are requesting that the existing single lane driveway conditions be considered
sufficient and therefore no changes to the character of the locality will occur.
We believe that the requirements of the ordinance will instead cause a negative
change in the character of the area.In order to meet the letter of the ordinance,
the site conditions would require that the driveway be widened to establish
access around the house and extended nearly all the way to the shed. The
installation of this hard surface would end up covering over all of the side yard
and create an 18ft-wide surface in much of the front yard giving the appearance
of a double wide driveway which is incongruous to the neighborhood. The
reduced open and green space and expanded width will make this property
become an anomaly in the neighborhood if the additional pavement is required.
All of the extra paving would bring the entire paved area up to 750 square feet
with enough room for three cars. The paved area would be 1 1h times the size of
the house.
C.The spirit of the ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is granted
We are attempting to meet the spirit of the ordinance because we are not
requesting any less than what the ordinance already expects.There is sufficient
pavement to allow two off-street parking spaces.
In addition,Maxwell Ave has on-street parking and is not a snow route.There
are houses only on the west side of the street because the Ames cemetery is on
the east side.The likelihood of insufficient parking in this neighborhood is low.
D.Substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting the variance
We've worked to take excellent care of this property.The previous owner rented
it for nearly 20 years without any improvements or complaints. We cleaned up
the property,painted the interior and exterior,refinished the wood floors,
replaced windows,reconstructed the stairs to the basement and brought the
living conditions up to code. The house rents for$675.We would like to keep it
that way. Increasing the rent to recover the costs of the paving is not fair to the
tenant and would put this property out of range for typical rental rates for a one-
bedroom house. Even an extra$50/month will likely take 5 years for us to
recover.The variance will allow us to work to keep the rental rates reasonable in
an area near the hospital medical district,where support staff can walk to work.
4
13
r
P �
t
i
a
D�fz-
I
M-.
.I t/" �i' �•WfJ 1 ti
14
Si
.p
i
y
)4wa
I _ �
�.
Q�
-:rw5
�5^ A, r; .
03 ,
16