HomeMy WebLinkAboutA002 - Staff Report dated December 11, 2024 ITEM# __2_
DATE: 12/11/24
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REQUEST: A request for a Variance to the Single-Family Conservation Overlay
Standards (O-SFC) for a partially constructed new single-family home with no garage
setback from the front façade and other variations to the design standards of Section
29.1101(9) at 814 Wilson Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
The owner of 814 Wilson Avenue represented by Keystone Equity Group is requesting a
Variance to the Single-Family Conservation Overlay Standards in Section 29.1101(9).
(See Attachment A-Location & Zoning) The home is within the Single-Family
Conservation Overlay District (O-SFC), which contains unique design standards for single
family homes. The property was acquired in May of 2023 out of foreclosure. The previous
home, a dangerous building, was demolished in November 2023.
The owner was issued a building permit by the City of Ames on May 31st of 2024 to
construct a new home. The home is a 1,646 square foot single-family detached home
with an attached garage. As it currently stands, the home is nearly complete and ready
for a final building inspection.
The O-SFC has design criteria in Section 29.1101(9) that must be met with construction
of any new single-family home in this district. The intent of the Overlay is to preserve and
conserve single-family homes in this area and to reinforce the traditional residential
character of the area.
The plans for the home were reviewed by staff last spring and approved on May
31st. After approval and partial construction of the home it was discovered that the
plans for the home were approved in error with several of the criteria in the design
standards not being met.
Staff has identified the following issues which are described in detail later in the report:
• Garage location is not setback 18 feet from the front façade
• The horizontal gable roof pitch is 5:12 where 6:12 is required, a front facing gable
meets the standard
• The foundation is 12 inches above surrounding grade where 18 inches is required
• Certain windows do not meet the 2:3 height to width ratio
• The porch does not meet certain design requirements . The proposal is for an 8
foot deep covered porch.
• The driveway, not yet built, would exceed 12 feet in width in the front yard.
• A rear yard detached garage that is proposed more than 8 feet but less than 20
feet from the rear alley.
Staff contacted the owner’s builder in September 2024 to review the approved plans and
the now known issues. The builder reviewed the intent of the standards with staff and
stated that with the nearly complete condition of the home there was not an easy way to
comply with the standards. The most significant issue being the garage location as part
of the floor plan.
The initial consideration was to remove the two-car garage door and convert it to habitable
space so the setback issue would not apply and then address the other design elements
and to then modify the porch design. The builder and staff explored options for what
changes could be done to come into compliance and described the variance process if
the full compliance could not be achieved. The builder determined that with nearly 70%
of the home completed, including having all the mechanical equipment already installed,
that to convert the garage to only habitable space would require a rework of the floor plan
overall and the heating and cooling system design. The option of making it rear access
garage from alley was also dismissed due to it requiring replacement of the kitchen and
all of its plumbing and electrical work as well.
However, the owner has proposed changes to their plan for the home to attempt to
come more into compliance with the standards and intent of the district in support
of a Variance request (See Attachment B Site Plan & Elevations). If the variance is
approved, the builder would modify the home as follows:
• Most of the current window design will be corrected to comply with the district
design standards, however the owner is asking for a middle main picture window
on the upper level to be allowed that does not fully achieve the 2:3 ratio for
windows.
• The garage door location remains but its width is reduced to a single car width 9-
foot garage door and a window constructed where the garage door previously
extended to. Also, a portion of the garage will be converted to storage space where
the second vehicle stall would have been. A one car garage with driveway parking
meets minimum code requirements. Note that Attachment B shown new parking
in the rear of the site, the applicant may build a parking pad or a garage, but neither
is required with the variance. A garage would need to meet setbacks in the rear
yard from the side lot line and the alley.
• The porch will have an eight foot depth that then matches front eave line of the
garage along the front of the home.
Given this situation, the Staff process for reviewing building and zoning permits exists to
assist property owners and developers in determining if their project meets City
standards. Property owners and developers do bear a responsibility to ensure that they
understand City standards and have a responsibility to abide by those standards when
applying for and proceeding with a project, regardless of the City administrative review
process.
O-SFC Design Criteria
The design criteria being requested to be granted a Variance for the Compatibility
standards in Section 29.1101(9) include the following:
Garage Setback Section 29.1101(9)(b)
The design standards of the O-SFC in Section 29.1101(9) require that all garages on
newly constructed single-family homes be recessed at least 18 feet behind the primary
façade of the principal building on the lot. In this case the garage has been approved and
constructed in the opposite manner. The garage is proposed to be forward from the front
façade that includes the front door by 8 feet.
If no change were made to the garage, the width of the driveway would be 16 feet to
access a two-car garage, which exceeds the maximum width of 12 feet in the front yard.
Driveways are allowed to be wider outside of the front yard.
Roof Pitch Section 29.1101(9)(f)
The roof pitch for the main portion of the roof is proposed at 5:12. The required pitch in
the district design standards is 6:12. The main portion of the roof run that is parallel to the
street will not achieve this. A front facing gable does meet the 6:12 slope requirement.
Porch design Section 29.1101(9)(j)
The design standards require that a porch constructed on a new home in the O-SFC must
extend at least 50% of the front façade of the home. The proposed porch does not achieve
this standard being at only 40% of the front façade of the home.
Foundation Elevation Section 29.1101(9)(I)
The design standards require that the foundation of the home extend at least 18 inches
above grade. The current proposal and partially built home do not achieve this. The
foundation will be 12 inches or less between the top of foundation and the finished grade.
The home is 18 inches above the finished grade at the street level.
Staff has additional detailed explanation of findings and conclusions and associated
details in the addendum with the Findings and Conclusions of the Variance criteria.
APPLICANT PETITION AND STATEMENT OF SUPPORT OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant has provided the attached application including statements as to how the
request meets the standards for a variance. Fundamentally, the applicant believes
that a financial hardship exists to remove or substantially alter the home in its current
condition and that proposed changes to the home combined with that they acted in
good faith relying upon an issued building permit will support the specific findings 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. The Criteria for Approval and
Findings of Fact prepared by staff are included in the Addendum. If Board does not
adopt the Staff findings, alternative findings by the Board are required.
Pertinent Sections of the Ames Municipal Code include the following:
Section- 29.1101(9)(a-q) Single Family Conservation Overlay Standards (O-SFC).
(9) Compatibility Standards. New construction of any principal building or other structure or any change in
the use of land shall comply with the following compatibility standards. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
are not subject to the compatibility standards.
(a) Driveways. All new driveways that are located in the front yard shall be of a width no greater than 12
feet. This width limitation shall apply to only that area between the street and the primary facade of the
structure. The front yard shall always be the narrowest portion of a lot that fronts a street. For lots accessible
from an alley, any new driveway shall be constructed in the rear yard with access only from the alley.
Existing front yard driveways may be maintained or replaced but shall not be widened to more than 12 feet
in width. Driveways leading from an alley that provide access to a parking lot may be constructed at a width
of 16 feet.
(b) Garages. The purpose of this subsection is to establish the setback requirement for i)garage setback
from an alley and ii) garage setback from the front of a principal building. Detached garages that open to
an alley shall be located either 8 feet from the property line abutting the alley or a minimum of 20 feet
from the property line abutting the alley. No setback distance that is more than 8 feet but less than twenty
feet shall be allowed. All garages, attached or detached, shall be set back a minimum distance of 18 feet
behind the primary facade of the principal building on the lot.
(c) Parking. No parking lot shall be located in the front yard or side yard of any lot. Only rear yard parking
lots are allowed.
(d) Trees. Any tree that is removed from the street right -of-way shall be replaced in the street right-of-way
as close to the original location as possible.
(e) Solids and Voids. A solid to void ratio shall be required for the primary facade, including any recessed
facades that face the front yard, and the secondary facade. The void requirements for the primary facade
of new buildings shall be a minimum of 15% and a maximum of 80%.
(f) Roofs. A minimum roof pitch of 6:12 rise to run shall be required. However, mansard and
mansard-style roofs will be permitted. Building additions, with the exception of porches and stoops, shall
be required to have similar roof pitches as the existing structure to which they are being added. The roof
pitch requirement shall not apply to porches or stoops.
(g) Dormers. Where the primary facade does not have a gable facing the street, a minimum of one dormer
shall be required for every 15 feet of street-facing roof width, after the first 20 feet.
(h) Windows. Windows shall have a width-to-height ratio of 2:3. This requirement shall only apply to the
primary facade, front facing recessed facades, and the secondary facade. In addition, an exception will be
made for decorative windows, gable windows, or a single large window where the interior floor plan contains
a space where such a window type would be expected.
(i) Entrances. There shall be an entrance with a porch or stoop on the primary facade of any new structure.
This entrance shall face the street and be accessible by means of a paved walkway. No more than one
entrance shall be placed on any primary or recessed facade.
(j) Porches. Where a porch is constructed, the porch shall have a depth of not less than 6 feet and shall
extend a minimum of 50% of the width of the facade to which it is attached. Porches shall not be enclosed
by walls, windows, or solid doors and shall not exceed 10 feet in height measured from the floor of the first
story to the roof line.
(k) Stoops. A stoop shall be of a width not greater than 30% of the width of the facade to which it is attached
and shall be of a depth not less than 4 feet. Stoops shall not be enclosed by walls, windows, or solid doors
and shall not exceed 10 feet in height, measured from the floor of the first story to the roof line. The roof of
a stoop that is supported by brackets shall project from the building a minimum depth of 4 feet.
(l) Foundations. Substantial foundation plantings shall be required to screen the base of the primary and
secondary facade of any new building. The first floor elevation shall be constructed a minimum of one and
one-half feet above grade. Grade shall be determined at the high point of the sidewalk that is located in the
public right-of-way parallel to and abutting the front of the lot. In addition, ground-mounted mechanical units
shall be screened with plantings.
(m) Orientation. Structures shall be situated at right angles with the street. Primary facades shall be parallel
with the street to which they front. Buildings shall be oriented perpendicular to the front facing facade.
(n) Width - Building. No building shall be constructed or remodeled to have a width greater
than 76 feet.
(o) Width - Facade. The primary facade of a building shall have a width between the range of 24 feet and
38 feet. Any portion of the building that is wider than the primary facade shall be recessed from the primary
facade a distance of not less than 8 feet. A second primary facade will be permitted, provided that it is
separated by a recessed facade that conforms to the minimum facade width of 24 feet.
(p) Height. No structure shall be constructed or remodeled to a height greater than 3 stories or 40 feet,
whichever is lower.
(q) Lot Configurations. Lots in the O-SFC shall remain configured as they are on the date that the O -SFC
regulations go into effect. In the O-SFC a Zoning Permit shall not be issued with respect to one or more
dwelling units to be established on a lot formed by the combination of 2 or more lots or the combination of
the parts of 2 or more lots or the combination of a lot and a part or parts from one or more lots.
(r) Compliance. New buildings shall be constructed in full compliance with subsections (a) through (q)
above. In building additions or remodeling it is not required that the entire building be brought into full
compliance with subsections (a) through (q). It is only required that the addition or remodeling comply. It is
required that the addition or remodeling does not have the effect of increasing the level or degree of
nonconformity of the building as a whole.
Section 29.1504 VARIANCE
(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.
(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.”
(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.
(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.
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.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment denies this request for a Variance by adopting
findings that the evidence does not support the explicit finding of consistency with
all the Variance criteria.
The applicant would need to modify the home to meet the Single -Family
Conservation Overlay requirements in their entirety.
2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment, approves the variance with conditions of
changes to the home by making specific findings for consistency of the request
with all Variance criteria, approves the Variance for the design standards for
Attached Garage design and Detached Garage Setback- Section 29.1101(9)(b),
Roof Pitch- Section 29.1101(9)(f), Porch Design- Section 29.1101(9)(j) and
Foundation- Section 29.1101(9)(I). (Applicant’s Request)
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:
The Plans submitted by the applicant initially did not meet the correct zoning standards,
as they only met the base zone requirements and the overlay The initial building permit
was approved in error by for compliance with all zoning requirements. Staff has modified
internal review procedures for Inspections to verify zoning in special areas prior to building
permit issuance to avoid this issue in the future.
However, issuing a building permit by the City does not negate the zoning standard
compliance for the builder or original designer and does not allow for the project to be
completed without conforming to adopted codes. Once staff identified this problem and
contact the owner, they had a choice to modify the home or to seek a variance. They
have chosen to seek a variance approval with some changes to the current home.
With staff’s review of application materials and analysis of the project, that the request for
a variance does not meet all of the criteria. Typically, financial hardship based upon no
reasonable return for use of the land is the most difficult standard to achieve, but in this
case there is evidence that could support a conclusion of a financial hardship because of
the nearly complete condition of the home and costs to demolish it or achieve full
compliance and that the proposed modified home can meet the o ther hardship criteria.
Staff also determined that evidence can support findings regarding Public Interest and
Substantial Justice.
However, staff did not find that the evidence of the proposal being in the Spirit of the
Ordinance substantiated this finding. As discussed in the findings Spirit of the Ordinance
can apply differently to each situation and standard and is a unique case by case
evaluation of circumstances for each variance.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of the Planner & Housing Department that the
Zoning Board of Adjustment act in accordance with Alternative #1 which is to
deny the request for a Variance.
However, if the Board believes that the circumstances surrounding the request for the
Variance can be seen to be a basis to find that all of the Variance criteria are met, it
could find in favor of the Variance by restating the criteria and approving Alternative #2.
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.
FINDING: The requested Variance is to the design requirements governing
Garage design, roof pitch, porch design and foundation elevation. The proposed
plan will only allow for a single-family home consistent with base zoning
requirements. The O-SFC is an additional set of requirements with the intent of
conservating of the traditional one and two-family home neighborhood character.
CONCLUSION: While issuance of a Variance would allow for a home to be built
with design features that do not precisely meet all of the traditional design
requirements of the Overlay, the construction of a new single-family detached
home in the O-SFC is at its base level consistent with its intent. The modified
proposal reduces the aesthetic impact of the garage design and maintains a front
porch element with improved windows compliance. The proposed home meets all
base zone RM setbacks and bulk zon ing standards criteria. No encroachments
into easements or rights-of-way are proposed or interfere with or burden City
services are otherwise created.
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.
FINDING: Use allowed within the Zoning District are one family and two-family
homes, with potentially an apartment building with Council approval.
The owner has indicated the original cost of constructing the home is $260,000.
City building permit records indicate a construction cost of $258,900. The owner
anticipates a sales price of $350,000 at this time to cover their profit (return on
investment) and site preparation and demolition costs.
The owner has indicated in their variance application that the cost of reconstructing
the garage to meet the design standards of the O -SFC is in excess of $70,000.
The converted space did not logically fit with the floor plan and they are concerned
about its marketability due to overall size and configuration. Additional costs would
apply to modify the floor plan related to the kitchen and living areas.
Additionally, in an email correspondence the owner states that the cost of
reconstructing the roof to meet the 6:12 pitch requirement of the O -SFC would be
at least $32,000. The owner has indicated to staff in an email that the total cost of
correcting all of the issues with the design errors of the home to a level of minimum
compliance are estimated at $105,000. Adding these costs would exceed their
initial projected sales price for no return. If the sales price could escalate with the
additional costs a return may be generated, but the builder does not believe
significantly higher sales price could be achieved with the oddly configured home.
CONCLUSION: The owners cost estimate puts the enumerated cost of correcting
the issues in the approved plan and partially constructed home at $105,000. In
order to make the home affordable at market rates to this area the owner believes
he needs to target a sales price of $350,000 which would not recover any profit
after the total expenses the owner has incurred are factored in at this sales price.
Given this, its reasonable to conclude that the return on the land in question would
be greatly diminished and not reasonable to the cost expended if the home has to
be physically altered to comply further than is proposed. The owner could choose
to price the home higher to recover the additional cost, but its unknown what that
price would be at this time and what sort of timeframe it would take to sell the home
at a higher cost. This can be seen to create a financial hardship related to a
reasonable return if the costs exceed the revenue for the project. Therefore, the
Board can conclude this criterion is met.
(ii) The plight of the owners is due to unique circumstances and not to
the general conditions in the neighborhood.
FINDINGS: The owner submitted a permit earlier this year for construction of the
home. The plan complied with base zoning but not overlay zoning standards. At
the time staff reviewed the permit the design criteria for constructing a home at this
location in the O-SFC were inadvertently missed, which allowed the home to be
constructed to the state it is in today with a design that does not meet all of the
design criteria of the O-SFC. The lot and general conditions in the neighborhood
are similar with the same expectation throughout the area and in the O-SFC. The
physical property in question is similar to other properties nearby and throughout
the neighborhood. The applicant believes they acted in good faith relying on permit
approved initially by the City and this is a unique circumstance of not determining
compliance until it was nearly completed.
CONCLUSION: Multiple parties, both the designer and staff, could have
determined the appropriate zoning standards of review for the project, but it was
not caught until September of 2024, over 4 months from being issued a permit.
Based on the permit being issued in error it can be seen that the reason for the
design of the home not meeting the design standards of the district is unique in
that the permit review process could have captured the issues with design early
on and allowed the owner to redesign the façade of the home to meet the O -SFC
standards. The expectation is in all cases where new homes are proposed in this
overlay district that the proposed new homes will be reviewed against the design
standards of Section 29.1101(9).
The physical property is not unique and creates no unique condition in terms of the
conditions. However, in the case of the permit review issue, these circumstances
are not otherwise anticipated and can been seen as unique. 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.
FINDING: This neighborhood is part of the O-SFC. The purpose for the O-SFC is
to have single-family home uses constructed with specific design criteria that give
the home a distinct look and feel based upon historical development patterns. The
standards for the allowed uses of new homes is described in Section 29.1101 of
the Ames Municipal Code. All new homes constructed in this overlay district must
be reviewed by staff and be found to comply with these standards prior to issuance
of a permit which include that the use be a single-family home.
The locality can be viewed as the 800 Block of Wilson and/or more broadly of the
entire neighborhood. The overall area is predominantly single family homes, with
a mix of apartments, conversions, and other uses. Property access typically is
from alleys, but front access exists and is permissible subject to the driveway and
garage limitations. The 800 Block of Wilson has 12 properties along the Wilson
Block Face. Five of the 12 have single wide driveway access from Wilson.
CONCLUSION: The O-SFC expects that new construction will be that of a new
single-family home character. This is in order to create a look and feel for the
neighborhood which reinforces a character of single-family detached living. The
overlay was created in the 1990s for the purpose of conserving single-family
homes and preventing conversions to multi-family uses.
The proposed new home, while not fitting all of the design criteria of a traditional
home as intended, will be a single-family detached home which fits the use criteria
of the district and with the proposed changes with the variance application has
some elements of the standards, and therefore does not alter the essentially
character of the block or area. Note the historic district does not apply west of Clark
Avenue. Therefore, the Board can conclude this criterion is met.
(c) The spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is
granted.
FINDING: The ordinance is specifically written to create an expectation of a single-
family home with a specific type of visual design in the O-SFC. The proposal
included with the Variance does not achieve the design requirements of the O -
SFC in Section 29.1101(9).
Quoted from the purpose of the Overlay 29.1101 (1)
(1) Purpose. The Single-Family Conservation Overlay (O-SFC) Zone is intended
to conserve the existing single-family residential character of areas identified as
O-SFC adjacent to the downtown. The O-SFC is intended to protect single-family
neighborhoods while guiding the transition to higher density and compatibility with
the surrounding uses where intensification is permitted. The O-SFC is meant to
help maintain the general quality and appearance of the neighborhoods; promote
a more cohesive look to the neighborhoods; recognize the neighborhood
characteristics as a major part of the City's identity and positive image; promote
local design qualities; stabilize and improve property values; reduce conflicts
between new construction and existing homes; and allo w a limited amount of
increased housing densities.”
CONCLUSION: The Board must determine if the applicant is asking for the least
relief from the zoning law that is possible and considering other factors justifying
the request for the proposed relief is appropriate.
A Variance request is not consistent with the intent of the Ordinance if alternatives
for development exist that do not require a variance and the variance request is
not an effort to comply with the Ordinance to the fullest extent practicable .
Staff has emphasized the spirit of the standards emphasizing traditional design
elements that are the standards of the Overlay.
Four elements of design are being asked to be issued a Variance. Included in
those elements are major design issues with the garage design and its relation to
the primary front façade, among others that relate to the traditional character of the
area. Financial burden is not a consideration of this particular finding. The
ordinance would otherwise expect that regardless of cost, the home at this location
comply entirely with the standards.
Lack of permit review according to the standards is not seen to change the
expectation of how a home must be designed here with the availability of the
standards for anyone to review. Granting a Variance in this case is not found to be
observing the spirit of the ordinance as the precise appearance of the home will
not match the defined tradition al character of the O-SFC and would not meet the
design standards of 29.1101(9). Therefore, the Board can conclude 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 the use of property exists. The
applicant indicates the situation was created due to an oversight of permit review
by City staff of the code requirements. They believe that they acted in good faith
and the to compromise on the design after the fact would be substantial justice for
consistency with the intent and for the builder to have a reasonable return. Staff
has confirmed that the permit review process did not take in to account the Overlay
design standards and this was realized after the permit was approved and
construction of a majority of the home was complete .
CONCLUSION: The Board must determine if there is a hardship attributable to the
property that results in lack of equity compared to others subject to the same
regulations. The plight of the owner as described in other criteria above is that of
substantial cost invested in the construction of the home contrary to the design
standards of the O-SFC. Given the circumstances of the error in approving the
initial permit for construction of the home it can be seen that had staff caught the
errors earlier such a substantial cost would not have been taken on by the owner.
Previous homes in this overlay have been constructed with review and
appropriately constructed according to standards. If the Board finds the other
factors of the variance are met related to the character of the area, this finding of
substantial justice with partial changes to the home as proposed can be substantial
justice for the additional cost burden of correcting the errors. Therefore, the
Board can conclude this criterion is met.
Attachment A- Location & Zoning
Attachment B-New Home Site Plan & Elevations/Floor Plans