HomeMy WebLinkAboutA004 - Staff Report dated January 8, 2020 (2) ITEM# 3
DATE: 1/08/20
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CASE FILE NO.: VAR-000799
DATE PREPARED: December 30, 2019
APPLICATION
FOR VARIANCE: To allow for parking in the front yard for a single-family
use in a Residential Low Density District (UCRM).
APPLICANT: William Jennings
LOCATION: 2030 County Club Blvd (See Attachment A)
ZONING: RL-Residential Low Density
BACKGROUND:
The owner of 2030 Country Club Blvd has applied for a variance to allow parking in the
front yard. (Attachment A) Currently, the home has a driveway that constitutes the allowed
and required parking area for the home. If the variance is approved, it would allow a new
parking area (22 ft. x 24 ft.) to be paved and counted as the required two parking spaces
for the home. The proposed parking area does not meet standards of Zoning Ordinance,
as it is located in the front yard as defined by the Zoning Ordinance.
This property is zoned Residential Low Density District (RL) and front yard parking is
prohibited in this zoning district as defined in Section 29.406(7). 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 an irregular, pie-shaped 9,997 square foot parcel, where the
zoning district minimum is 6,000 square feet. The front yard is curved to parallel the
alignment of the Country Club right-of-way. The property line is situated adjacent to the
back edge of the sidewalk. An approximate 51-foot long and 8-foot wide existing driveway
leads from Country Club Blvd along the side of the house to a shed. Although the
proposed parking location is situated behind the front corner of the house closest to the
street, it is in front of the back corner of the home, making it front yard parking (See
Attachment B Example).
There is non-compliant existing parking in the front yard with the current driveway that is
considered legal nonconforming in location and width (Attachment C-Applicant
information). At the time of application submittal, the owner's reasoning for the variance
is to provide a paved parking area that is larger and a better maneuvering area without
1
having to parking in tandem. A code modification for parking width was approved by the
Building Official that allows the property to be used as a rental with the existing parking
as is. However. the applicant would like to install a parking area that is a paved driveway
that leads to a paved parking area large enough to park two cars side-by-side. With the
addition of parking, it would also allow for parking on a driveway as is currently permitted.
It should be noted that an application was submitted for a Special Use Permit for Guest
Lodging after this Variance application was received. This variance request does not refer
to the use of the property for Guest Lodging. Depending on the number of bedrooms and
guests listed on that application, the existing parking and proposed parking may or may
not comply with the Guest Lodging parking standards and would be evaluated
subsequent to this variance request as a separate application. Regardless of the outcome
of the variance request, the existing parking is adequate and has been approved for a
Letter of Compliance to use the property as a single-family rental.
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 an irregular, pie-shaped shaped parcel. Based on definitions in
the Zoning code this property has two front yards. A Rental Letter of Compliance
has been acquired for the site that allows for use the front yard parking as it exists
today. The existing driveway is long enough to allow two cars to park in tandem.
The applicant desires a larger parking area that would allow to cars to be parked
side-by-side rather than in tandem or stacked. This parking area would physically
be located at the side of the house but would still be within the front yard as defined
by the Zoning Ordinance.
In order to comply with the parking location requirements, the driveway would need
to extend to the rear of the house. Given the grade of the rear of the property,
additional parking area behind the front yard might not be possible.
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. An existing driveway has existed in the front yard for many
years. The neighborhood has many single-lane driveways; some homes have
garages but not all.
The proposed configuration of parking is similar to the aesthetic of other homes in
the area. Allowing the relocation of front yard parking 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.
(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:
3
(i) The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for
a purpose allowed in the zone.
FINDING: The property was recently acquired by the property owner with
knowledge of the current site conditions of the property. Existing parking currently
exists in the front yard on a driveway. The property owner has a Letter of
Compliance so that the home can be used as a single-family rental. Licensing
requires compliance with current Rental Code requirements. 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.
A Letter of Compliance has been granted for the property to operate as a rental.
The applicant has not provided information that the cost of not being able to
relocate and enlarge the parking 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 driveways in the area generally have curb cuts and driveways on
the side of the house. In observing properties on a 2019 aerial most of the pie
shaped parcels have parking on the side of the house. A pie shaped parcel and a
parcel with two front yards is not unique across the City, nor is a grade change on
a property. However, all three of these factors together, do cause some difficulty
for code compliance of building uncovered parking in the rear of the home.
Staff does not find the existing configuration with tandem parking to be unworkable
or out of the ordinary for homes with single width driveways in this area. The larger
paved area is desired by the owner but is not required to function as a rental
property or as an owner occupied home.
CONCLUSION: The neighborhood contains principally single-family homes. Other
pie-shape parcels in the area typically comply with parking requirements for
driveway locations. On-street parking is not allowed directly in front of the house
due to the curve of County Club Blvd and adjacent intersection.
It is questionable if there would be enough room to park in the area that would be
4
considered rear yard due to a grade change in the back yard. The culmination of
the shape of the parcel, two front yards and a grade change in the rear yard do
cause difficulty. The option of grading the property to change the grade in a way
that would allow for parking to be located outside of the front yard has not been
explored in detail, nor has an addition of covered parking been evaluated as a
addition to the home.
Therefore, the Board can conclude this criterion is not met because the
applicant is able to provide required parking in its existing configuration and
is similar to the surroundings.
(iii) The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential
character of the locality.
FINDING: By definition, the parking will still be in the front yard but it will be located
on the physical side of the house. The proposed area is not "directly" in front of
front fapade of the home. The applicant feels that the change in parking location
will look similar to adjacent properties.
CONCLUSION: Most homes in the area do not have parking located in the font
yard, as defined by the Zoning Code. The few instances where parking is seen in
a front yard leads to a garage or to a parking area in the rear. Aesthetically, the
proposed parking location. 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: A single-family home by Code is required to have two off street parking
stalls, located outside of the front yard. This home preceded the current parking
requirements and has existed with a driveway that can fit two cars parked in
tandem, in the front yard, for some time. The proposed paved parking area would
be large enough to allow two cars to be parked off street. however, still located
within the front yard.
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 in a different layout
and location is trying to meet the spirit of the ordinance. However, by trying to add
the parking in the manner that is proposed it is in conflict with the locational
requirements of parking intended to reduce the appearance of open parking areas
that relate to the character of a single-family neighborhood.
5
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. The
requirement prohibiting parking in the front yard is uniform to all single-family
homes and is objectively applied throughout the city. Being a pie-shaped lot and
being deemed to have two front yards does place this property at a slight
disadvantage for efficient parking options when compared to other properties in
the area.
CONCLUSION: The applicant is proposing to provide two stalls in a prohibited
location, but in layout that would be more conducive to users of the property. Denial
of the Variance would not require any changes to the site. If approved, parking
would be constructed in a manner that would result in a paved area still located
within the front yard. 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 2030 Country Club Blvd.
2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny this request for a variance for 2030
Country Club Blvd 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 use, that there may or may not be unique
circumstances 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, nor would here be 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, construct a covered parking addition, or maintain the existing parking
configuration.
6
Attachment A- Location Map
iL
04
1.
:sl C)kj
ti,4 li t `
000,
�- pp
fti I •
Y T 1y� •
2030 Country Club Blvd
N
Attachment B- Parking Location Regulations
Ames Municipal Code 29.406 (7)
(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","UCW',"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).
(f) 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 turn-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 comer 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
comer lot shall be deemed to have two front yards.
(Ord.No.4205, 1-13-15)
- Structure ® Motor Vehicle
Parking Prohibited
•
® Driveway
Q
u_
O
O O&
wLU
5
STREET RIGHT OF WAY A��
i
Sup#2018-1 Chapter 29,Article 4-19 Rev. 1-1-18
i
8
Attachment C- Applicant's Supporting Information
�� 'P"
IF
1 i
i
- � -� -I- - --f-I -
i 1
.I (-` t �- I -f eft �,A019
-? �—i - E i - I- I E 1 I
TIME CIN pjJWN N0&FIw INP I
_7 ;r- I
r I i
9
- -= _ —F- of
RIO
I it
r
CJ' -
_. -- , - ---- mm- - --- - - - - - -�-r --- - ---�. --- - _. _ K
oa
m -' - -
I
om
_-----t-- - 60,
_
> --ir- -� -- ----- ---
-i 1.