Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout505_8th_Street_Variance report ITEM #: 2 DATE: 06-22-22 CITY OF AMES DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REQUEST: A Request for a Variance to allow reconstruction and extension of non- conforming stair deck located within the rear setback at 505 8t" Street. BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a Variance to allow for the reconstruction of non-conforming stair deck extending into the rear setback of the property located at 505 8t" Street. (See Attachment A) The property contains a three-story 12-unit apartment building that has two means of required ingress/egress. The north rear access is the stair deck and provides the required second access evacuation for all of the units on the second and third floors of the building and therefore is required in order to have the building usable for these units and to obtain a certificate of occupancy as a rental property. The building was constructed in the early 1970s well before current zoning regulations. The current zoning designation of the property is Residential Medium-Density (RM) with the Historic Overlay (O-H) and Single-Family Conservation Overlay (O-SFC). The stair deck is requiring reconstruction as a result of aging and needed to avoid falling into disrepair. All of the existing deck and proposed deck are within the 25' rear yard setback. The allowed extensions into a rear setback are defined in Section 29.402(2), which allow for no more than a 3' extension into the required rear yard setback for decks more than 24 inches in height. The current deck is 6'11" into the required setback. The proposed new deck will be 11'4" into the required rear yard setback. The proposed new stair deck extends 4'5" further outward from the building as compared to the current deck in order to comply with current building code requirements. The deck will be approximately 14 feet from the property line. (See Attachment B & C) The building is situated in such a manner that the north wall of the building is at the rear setback line. Without the existence of the stairs the building would need to be redesigned or reconstructed to allow for a code compliant means of secondary access for the upper- level units. STATEMENT OF APPLICANT IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSAL: The applicant has provided the attached application including statements as to how the apartment dwelling use and the lower number of parking spaces meets the standards for a variance. APPLICABLE LAW: The Board shall determine, pursuant to Iowa law, whether all the standards for granting of a variance are satisfied by the Variance Request. Findings of Fact for each standard 1 are included in the Addendum. Pertinent Sections of the Ames Municipal Code include the following: Sec. 29.402. SETBACKS. (1) Building Setback Standard. Except as provided below, all buildings and structures, Principal and Accessory, shall be located to comply with the minimum and maximum Building Setbacks established for Principal and Accessory Buildings listed in each Zone Development Standards Table, Supplemental Development Standards Table, condition or other regulation applicable to the lot or the use being employed at the site. (2) Extensions into Required Building Setbacks. Certain building elements and site features are allowed to be located within or project into required setbacks. Extensions of architectural features into nonconforming setbacks may be granted as a minor area modification under Section 29.1506. (a) Minor projections allowed. Minor features of a building, such as eaves, chimneys, fire escapes, bay windows, uncovered stairways leading to an upper story entrance or deck, awnings, and uncovered balconies, may extend into a required setback up to three feet. Such projections, however, may be no closer than three feet to a lot line. Chapter 29, Section 29.1504(1) states the following: "(1) Purpose. This section is intended to allow for variances from the terms of this Ordinance pursuant to Section 414.12 of the Iowa Code as will not be contrary to the public interest, where owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit of this Ordinance is observed, and substantial justice done." Chapter 29, Section 29.1504(3)(c) states the following: "(3) Procedure. Review of an application for variance shall be conducted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment and shall be in accordance with the following: (c) Review and Disposition. (i) The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall act upon all applications for a variance in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Iowa Code. (ii) In granting any variance, the Zoning Board of Adjustment may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards to promote the purposes and protect the integrity of this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions and safeguards, when made part of the terms under which the variance is granted, shall be deemed a violation of this Ordinance." Chapter 29, Section 29.1504(4) states the following: "(4) Standards. Pursuant to Iowa law, a variance shall be granted only if all the following standards are satisfied: (a) The granting of the variance shall not be contrary to the public interest. 2 (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." The pertinent zoning regulations of the Iowa Code are included in Chapter "414 (City Zoning), Section 414.12(3)" which states the following: "414.12 Powers. The board of adjustment shall have the following powers: 1. To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of this chapter or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto. 2. To hear and decide special exceptions to the terms of the ordinance upon which such board is required to pass under such ordinance. 3. To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance from the terms of the ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, where owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed, and substantial justice done." 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." Staff findings and conclusions are summarized in the Addendum. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: Notification was made to all owners of property within 200 feet. A notice of public hearing was placed on the property and published in the newspaper. 3 ALTERNATIVES: 1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment, with findings of consistency for all Variance criteria, may approve a Variance for 505 8th Street based upon the proposal to reconstruct the stair deck structure located within the required rear yard setback as required for secondary access for the upper-level units. 2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny this request for a Variance for 505 8tn Street if it cannot find evidence that supports the explicit finding of consistency with all the Variance criteria. 3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may table this Variance Request and seek further information from the applicant or from staff. PLANNING AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff reviewed the application materials and determined that the proposed stair deck structure at 505 8t" Street meets all the criteria for issuance of a Variance. The stairs are necessary for secondary access via building code regulations as well as rental code regulations for a required second evacuation route in an emergency. The location of the building with its pre-existing north rear wall at the 25' rear setback line creates a situation whereby in order to provide compliant secondary access to the upper two floors, a major redesign or reconstruction of the building would be required thereby creating an unreasonable hardship for the owner. The proposed encroachment will still allow for approximately 14 feet of open space on the north property line, which exceeds side yard setbacks requirement and is compatible with the adjacent side yard of abutting property. It is the conclusion of staff that the variance be approved based upon the findings included in the addendum. The Planning Housing Department recommends Alternative #1 to approve the Variance Request. 4 ADDENDUM Staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions for each of the Variance criteria: (a) The granting of the variance shall not be contrary to the public interest. Findings of Fact: The stair deck is a required means of access for the building and required to comply with the Building code and the Rental code. The existing stair deck is non-conforming in the rear yard setback. The new stair deck will also be non-conforming and must be expanded slightly to meet building code requirements. The expansion results in an additional 4'5" extending into the 25' rear yard setback. Conclusions: In general, it is in the public interest to ensure that the use of property does not infringe on the rights of the neighbors and allows for emergency access around and into properties. The new deck will still allow for 14' of clear open space in the rear setback between the abutting property to the north and the deck. The surface sidewalk leading to the deck will be the same sidewalk currently in place which means residents will not be walking or accessing the building any closer to the north rear property line than they are now. In this case the proposed new stair deck is required for a second means of access to the upper two floors of the building for evacuation and is the second access for the upper two floors of units which is vital for health for and safety. Staff also notes that prior to recent zoning ordinance changes stairways to an entrance on any story of a building were permitted to fully project into rear setbacks. As a result for the much of the history of this building the stair deck was not considered non-conforming. Therefore, the Board can conclude 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. Findings: The current deck and building was constructed well before the current ordinance governing extensions into required setbacks was in place. The stair deck is a required means of second access to and from upper floors of the building for evacuation purposes. The north wall of the building itself sits at the rear yard setback line. The current stair deck structure has been in place for many years to access the upper two stories of the building from the north side. The building is designed in such a manner that secondary access to the upper two floors of units is only able to be accomplished from the deck structure. Redesigning the building 5 to accommodate an alternative means of secondary access for the upper two floors would result in a major redesign of the building and may require that the building be completely reconstructed. Without a second means of access the upper two floors are not compliant with building code and therefore not able to be lived in. Conclusions: If the stair deck were no longer able to be used as a means of secondary access to the building it would render the entire upper levels of the building unlivable. Staff consulted with the Inspections Division and there was no identified feasible alternative for Building Code compliance without using the exterior stairways. Finding an alternative location for the stair deck without encroachment beyond the permitted distance into the rear yard setback would require moving the building away from the rear yard setback line which would require complete reconstruction or locating the deck to the west of the building and a major redesign of the layout and access into the existing building. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion met. (ii) The plight of the owners is due to unique circumstances and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood. Findings: The property has been an apartment dwelling since the early 1970s. The surrounding neighborhood has a mix of historic single-family homes, multi-family conversions and apartment buildings with the majority of nearby structures being predominately single-family in design based on their historic nature. Some scattered small sized apartment buildings exist within the immediate vicinity. Staff has observed 5-6 other nearby small apartment buildings with stair deck structures located within required setbacks. The zoning standards permitted construction of the current building and deck at the time the building was constructed. The current stair deck structure was designed and constructed as a permitted structure for required second access to the building. Apartment buildings are permitted in this zoning district subject to review and approval by City Council. Conclusions: Staff believes the circumstances in this case are unique in that the majority of the other surrounding structures in the neighborhood don't require second access from a non-conforming stair deck in a required setback as an only means of secondary evacuation access. Most structures in the nearby neighborhood enjoy surface level access and associated interior access to multiple units within buildings aside from a handful of exceptions noted in this report. This creates a unique plight for the owners in that the majority their residential building is otherwise unusable under current standards if the stair deck is not allowed to be rebuilt. Therefore, the Board can conclude this criterion is met. (iii) The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. 6 Findings: The neighborhood is characterized by single-family homes and scattered small apartment buildings. In a few cases nearby small apartment buildings have similar second access configurations. The proposed deck will be very similar in size and design as the existing deck. The appearance of the building will not change, nor will any other feature of the property. Conclusions: The proposal can be found to not alter the character of the area. The proposed deck is very similar to the existing deck which has existed here for many years and is similar in nature to some other structures in the neighborhood attached to small apartment buildings. 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. Findings: The ordinance requires access to all units in the building. The ordinance requires that all deck structures be safe according to building standards. The current deck structure was compliant with standards when it was built. The proposed structure will be very similar albeit slightly larger in area and closely resemble the existing structure. Access to a large portion of the building is eliminated without the reconstruction of the stair deck. Conclusions: The expectation of a major remodel or reconstruction of an entire building is not expected when no other site improvements are being proposed aside from maintaining existing compliant access. The pre-existing non- conforming condition when combined with nearby small apartment examples in the same area with similar structures do not create an expectation of eliminating a means of accessing the building due to the need to maintain such a structure. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is met. (d) Substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting the variance. Findings: 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. Conclusions: Granting of a variance for the proposed reconstruction of a stair deck structure may provide substantial justice in use of the property. There is not an option of providing secondary access in a manner that does not create a hardship and complies with the zoning ordinance. There is no another way to accomplish the purpose without a variance. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is met. 7 Attachment A- Location Map 9T H ST > 505 8th Street Q Location 3 BT H ST RPJ 7T H ST 13+e,` y Y ric 5 V S—GA .I 505 8th Street Location & Zoning 8 Attachment B O 6 t- lo'�aON z z Q a a CD 3 W 3i Y LU Q W 2 9 i �, , , IIIIIIIII , � I. �I Illi��l � .II L.