HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 8-23-2017MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AMES, IOWA AUGUST 23, 2017
The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 6:00 p.m. on
August 23, 2017, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present:
Amelia Schoeneman, Shelby Ebel, Matthew Koehler, and Susan Bradbury. Board Member Kyle
Perkins was absent. Assistant City Attorney Victoria Feilmeyer, City Planner Justin Moore, and
City Planner Ray Anderson were also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Bradbury, seconded by Koehler, to approve the
minutes of the meeting of July 26, 2017.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 17-14
VARIANCE – Danny & Shana Wilson, Public Hearing on application for a Variance to
allow an additional 3 feet beyond the maximum allowed lineal garage door width of 27 feet
on the property located at 1602 Ada Hayden Road
City Planner Justin Moore displayed a site plan for the project. 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 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’ or greater in width.
The City adopted this standard in 2010 to clarify there was no limit on the a mount of parking
spaces within a 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 ’ of cumulative
garage door width as part of the construction of an attached garage. The proposed garage is 1,387
square feet, and the configuration is in an L-shape with three separate 10’ wide garage doors.
The City has standards in place for parking of vehicles and requires parking areas to
accommodate 9’ of width for parking spaces. The 9’ 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.
The 9’ 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 9’ 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.
The site plan, project description, applicable law, and Findings of Fact and Conclusions were
reviewed in detail by Mr. Moore. It was said that 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; however, other criterion is not met.
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’ width limitation. Homes across the community at multiple
price points are constructed with compliant garage door widths. The applicant has options to
configure some wider doors for access to the garage without exceeding the total 27’ 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.
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. Therefore, it was
concluded by staff that unique circumstances do not exist in this case that present a hardship
from the literal enforcement of the ordinance and the criterion is not met.
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 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. The alternatives available to the applicant
are sufficient as such that a Variance as requested would violate the spirit of the ordinance.
According to Mr. Moore, staff does not find that the opinions presented for this request support a
conclusion of granting a Variance from the 27’ 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.
In addition to the petition of support submitted by the applicant, one email was received from a
resident who supports the request. Also, one phone call had been received from a resident who
wanted more information, but they did not state if they were in support or not.
Mr. Moore stated that based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, it is the
recommendation of the Planning and Housing Department that the Zoning Board of Adjustment
deny the request for a Variance to allow an additional 3’ beyond the maximum allowed lineal
garage door width of 27’ on the property located at 1602 Ada Hayden Road.
Ms. Ebel asked for more information on the denied request that occurred in 2016. Mr. Moore
stated that he was unsure of whom the applicant was, but the request was similar to this case. The
applicant was requesting to go beyond the 27’ standard, and although other options were
available to meet standards, the applicant asked the City Council for a text amendment. The
request was denied.
Danny Wilson, 1602 Ada Hayden Road, Ames, Iowa was sworn in and testified under oath. Mr.
Wilson thanked Mr. Moore for his help throughout the application process. He expressed that
this situation affects him personally, since his livelihood is about marketing and maintaining
vehicles. Mr. Wilson said that he has waited a number of years for the property at 1602 Ada
Hayden Road to be brought into City limits, and if the property were outside City limits, the
request would be permitted. Mr. Wilson stated that there is a lot of subjective language in the
ordinance, and he can show hardship with the various vehicles he uses. He distributed a fact
sheet for a Toyota Tundra. Since the mirrors on a Toyota Tundra extend several inches, a
clearance of about four inches is available on each side of the vehicle to enter a garage. Mr.
Wilson said that parking a truck next to another truck is difficult. He knows that ordinances have
to be in place, but believes this is a small request.
Ms. Ebel expressed her concerns on the request from 2016. She said that a lot of people argue
that their property would be worth more, but granting a Variance means that one cannot live
without it. She believes the ordinance is awkwardly written, and plans to emai l the City Council
to request a text amendment. Ms. Ebel said unfortunately, the Variance cannot be granted under
those guidelines.
Ms. Bradbury stated that the Board has to work within the law in terms of making a decision, and
cannot argue with the findings of fact that staff has found.
Mr. Wilson added that he has had legal counsel from two other states, and believes the language
of the ordinance needs adjustment. He offered his help in going forward with those updates.
Moved by Ebel, seconded by Bradbury, to deny ORDER NO. 17-14, thereby denying the request
for a Variance to 1602 Ada Hayden Road to exceed the maximum cumulative garage door width
allowed, based upon the findings and conclusions.
Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 17-15
VARIANCE – Abdul Sarwary, Public Hearing on application for a Variance to allow a
reduction in the minimum required side yard setback from 6 feet to approximately 1 -1/2
feet for the construction of a carport on the property located at 1430 Summit Avenue
City Planner Ray Anderson displayed a site plan for the project. The applicant, Abdul Sarwary,
is requesting approval of a Variance to the minimum side yard setback requirement in the
Residential Low Density (RL) 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. 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. The carport
structure itself is approximately 10’ to 10.5’ wide, and the concrete paving under the carport is
approximately 9’ wide by 19’ long. The home is a one-story single-family detached dwelling
which requires a minimum side yard setback of 6’. 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’ to 1.5’) 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 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.
The site plan, project description, applicable law, and Findings of Fact and Conclusions were
reviewed in detail by Mr. Anderson. According to staff, several of the required criteria were not
met. 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. The standard would not be met with only a 1.5’ setback to the
edge of the carport and with no eave on the structure. Also, 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.
It was said that 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 what 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 though the
total area is less than standard. There are no other detached carports in this neighborhood, and
only two lots out of 54 total lots 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 two in the side yard.
A Variance to allow the carport to extend to within approximately 1.5’ of the side lot line would
establish a new location for a carport in the neighborhood, and a side yard location that only two
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
carport within 1.5’ of the property line will alter the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Anderson said that 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’ from the lot lines.
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.
Mr. Anderson stated that none of the criteria were met, and based upon the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions, it is the recommendation of the Planning and Housing Department that the Zoning
Board of Adjustment deny the request for a Variance to allow a reduction of the minimum
required side yard setback from 6’ to approximately 1.5’ for the construction of a carport on the
property located at 1430 Summit Avenue.
It was said that no comments or concerns had been received from surrounding property owners.
Mohammad Mohmand, 1004 Murray Drive, Ames, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath.
Mr. Mohmand was speaking on behalf of the applicant, Abdul Sarwary. He stated that Mr.
Sarwary wants to protect his vehicle from the weather, so he decided on the addition of a carport.
Mr. Sarwary was not aware he had to contact the City to build one. Mr. Mohmand said that if the
carport is to be moved so that it is 6’ from the property line, it would be too close to the wall of
the home, and moving it elsewhere would cause financial hardship. Mr. Mohmand stated that the
neighbor sharing the affected property line has no concerns with the carport. Mr. Mohmand
added that Mr. Sarwary has owned the house for 10 years, and the driveway has been paved for
two years.
Ms. Schoeneman asked if the walls of the carport will remain open, or will the carport be
enclosed. It was said that they would remain open due to the cost. The applicant would just like a
roof for shelter.
Ms. Schoeneman pointed out that in the aerial photo of the neighborhood, several structures look
rather close to the property lines and questioned what the setbacks were for those. Mr. Anderson
stated that it is hard to tell in the photo, but one would have to go out and measure to be exact.
Ms. Schoeneman asked if there was a limit on the maximum number of structures located in the
rear of a property. Mr. Anderson stated that the structures cannot be larger than 900 square feet,
and can only occupy 25 percent of the rear property. The proposed carport would be acceptable
if it were located in the rear property owned by the applicant.
Ms. Bradbury and Ms. Ebel agreed that this case is similar to the last, in which the hardship
cannot be met with the findings of fact. Since the carport can be placed elsewhere, the Board
cannot support the request.
Moved by Bradbury, seconded by Koehler, to deny ORDER NO. 17-15, thereby denying the
request for a Variance for 1430 Summit Avenue to allow a reduction of the minimum required
side yard setback from 6’ to approximately 1.5’ for the construction of a carport, based upon the
findings of fact as shown in the staff report.
Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
COMMENTS: There were no comments by the Board.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Koehler, seconded by Ebel, to adjourn the meeting at 6:59 p.m.
_____________________________ _____________________________
Heidi Petersen, Recording Secretary Shelby Ebel, Chair