Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 06/10/2020 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMES, IOWA JUNE 10, 2020 The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 6:01 p.m. on June 10, 2020, via Zoom communication with the following members present: Amelia Schoeneman, Leila Ammar, Ronald Schappaugh, Rob Bowers, and Chad Schneider. Also present were Assistant City Attorney Jane Chang and City Planners Eloise Sahlstrom, Justin Moore and Julie Gould. Board Chair Schoeneman announced that it is impractical to hold an in- person meeting due to the Governor of Iowa declaring a public health emergency because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, limits have been placed on public gatherings, and this meeting is being held as an electronic meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Schappaugh, seconded by Ammar, to approve the Minutes of the meeting of May 13, 2020. Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried. DISCUSSION OF VIDEO USE FOR FUTURE ZOOM MEETINGS Board member Schoeneman asked staff if there were any other boards besides City Council that use video. Ms. Sahlstrom stated that there were not. Mr. Schneider felt that the meetings should include video. He said due to the Board’s position of authority, people should be able to see who is on the board. Ms. Ammar stated that she thought video would help people engage more. Moved by Schneider, seconded by Schoeneman, to use video conferencing when conducting Zoning Board of Adjustment meetings via Zoom and for video to be optional to anyone providing testimony. Role Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared carried. CASE NO. 20-25 SPECIAL USE PERMIT – NICK HULSTROM, RMH ARCHITECTS, 120 ABRAHAM DRIVE Public Hearing on a Special Use Permit to allow Enlargement of a Nonconforming Use for the property located at 120 Abraham Drive within the Residential High-Density (RH) Zoning District. City Planner Eloise Sahlstrom introduced the request, reviewed the site plan, and project description. Ms. Sahlstrom stated that the applicant, Ames Community Theater, is requesting a Special Use Permit to allow enlargement of a nonconforming use in a residential zone. A Special Use Permit was previously granted on May 22, 2019 but lapsed before construction could begin. Additionally, the lapse occurred before an extension could be requested. The proposed request is for the same previously approved project. Staff has recommended approval consistent with the conditional approval of 2019. The property at 120 Abraham Drive is the permanent location of ACTORS, which operates a 2 community theater. The property is located at the edge of the RH (Residential High Density) Zoning District, adjacent to RL zoned (Residential Low Density) properties to the south. The RH zone allows for a variety of residential housing types from single-family to apartment dwellings. Community theater is categorized as an “Entertainment, Restaurant and Recreational Trade” use within the Zoning Ordinance and is not an allowed use within the RH (Residential High Density) zone. The rezoning of the property made both the building and its use “nonconforming,” meaning that the use existed as a lawfully established use, prior to adoption of the current zoning for the property. The building was built with a 15-foot rear setback as required under GC zoning; the rear setback requirement in RH is 20 feet. The site is also nonconforming for parking design and landscaping requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Nonconforming uses may continue and are allowed to expand on a limited basis when there is not an increase in intensity and the building enlargement complies with zoning standards, including a limitation on a maximum expansion of 125 percent of the existing floor area. A Special Use Permit is required to approve an expansion to determine if the project is compatible with the surroundings. In addition to use and structure nonconformities, other nonconformities related to site improvements are required to be approved as practicable, but are not required to come into full conformance with changes to the site. Other nonconformities include features such as parking, landscaping, lighting, etc. The proposed first-floor addition will be utilized for an entry corridor, entry vestibule, and gathering space. The second-floor addition will be utilized for costume storage space. The intensity of use is based upon seating capacity and as a nonconforming use cannot be expanded. The current seating capacity of the theatre is 136. The expansion will not increase the seating capacity. It will remain at 136. An expansion to the building can only be allowed if it does not increase the nonconformity, meaning that the building can expand only in the direction where the building meets the required setback. The proposed expansion is at the front of the building or to the north where the setback is not constrained. Abraham Drive and Todd Drive are local streets, with low volumes of traffic. A sidewalk exists along the front of the property. A proposed sidewalk connection has been included between the public sidewalk and the building, as required in the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed changes to the parking lot will result in accommodating a total of 40 parking spaces, including two ADA accessible spaces. Lighting will include a display for temporary banner signage. Additionally, accent lighting is proposed to highlight the building façade and building marquee. The applicant indicates that the building accent lighting will only be illuminated 80 nights a year. Lights will be turned off by 11:00 p.m. The applicant notes that during the summer months the illumination will be for a shorter period of time, given the lengthened daylight hours. The expansion of the parking lot requires the inclusion of a landscape high screen between the parking and the adjacent residential properties. The applicant is proposing a 6-foot privacy fence along the south and west property perimeter as part of the high screen, along with seven overstory trees and 15 high screen shrubs. Seven overstory trees will be planted to meet the parking lot tree requirement. The landscape plan meets the required landscaping for the new 3 parking area. The existing entrance drive will remain in its current location. At the entrance to the site, most of the existing area is paved making it difficult to comply with front yard landscaping. However, a new landscape area will be created on the south side of the entrance and will include seven low shrubs to help bring the site closer to compliance with the front yard landscaping requirements. Ms. Sahlstrom stated that she would go through the Findings if the Board requested her to do so. Ms. Sahlstrom stated that staff recommends approval of Alternative One. Ms. Sahlstrom said that the Zoning Board of Adjustment can approve this request for a Special Use Permit to allow enlargement of a nonconforming commercial use in a residential zone, at 120 Abraham Drive, with the following conditions: 1. The building and accent lighting will be illuminated no more than 80 nights a year and lighting will be turned off by 11:00 p.m. 2. Evening (after 6:00 p.m.) performances and events shall be limited to 80 days in a calendar year. Applicant Mike Jackson, 5615 Thunder Road, Ames, Iowa was sworn in and testified under oath. Mr. Jackson stated that Ms. Sahlstrom did a great job in explaining the background of the facility. He said the changes being made would enhance the appearance of the building and will better accommodate everyone using the building. Ms. Schoeneman stated that she knows the applicant’s architect, Mr. Hulstrom, but that the two had never discussed the case. Moved by Bowers, seconded by Schoeneman, to adopt ORDER NO. 20-25, thereby approving Alternative One with conditions as read by staff. Roll Call Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried. CASE NO. 20-26 SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION – MATTHEW SPEICHER, 2508 MELROSE AVENUE Public Hearing on a Special Home Occupation to allow a live bait business at 2508 Melrose Avenue Planner Eloise Sahlstrom introduced the request and reviewed the site plan, project description, applicable law, and Findings of Fact and Conclusions. She stated that the applicant is requesting allowance to operate a live bait business as a home business from the single-family residential property at 2508 Melrose Avenue. The property is located within the RL Zoning District. The applicant is proposing to use 375 square feet of his two-car garage for the business. The garage will hold all equipment and supplies. As indicated by the applicant, appliances to keep bait at optimal temperature include an 84-inch Living Stream Minnow Tank/aquarium which is approximately 190 gallons and a household upright refrigerator/freezer. Other equipment includes a 100-gallon Rubbermaid stock tank, vending machine storage (when not in seasonal 4 use), and a table for packaging. Supplies include packaging materials, extra worm bedding, filters, chemicals, etc. The business will have an initial footprint no larger than 200 sq. ft. The remainder of the garage will be used for personal storage and the applicant’s vehicle. A small trailer used for moving vending machines will be stored out of city limits when not in use. The residence includes approximately 1,821 square feet of floor area. Ten square feet of the interior of the house will be used for computer and paperwork processing for the business. The total business area requested is 385 square feet which is less than the maximum 25 percent of the floor area of the residence allowed. The applicant describes his business operations as: • Raise, store and package bait on premises • Retail Sales - predominantly off-site in vending machines with limited on-site sales The applicant indicates that he will initially be raising only worms and will later expand into raising minnows as well. He will purchase or catch other types of bait to expand his retail sales offerings as allowable by his DNR retail bait license. The majority of the retail sales will be through vending machines located off-site. A limited number of sales will occur at the house. These will be primarily friends and relatives. His intention is to send business to the vending machines and not to the house. The applicant has full time employment (off-site) so business sales at the residence will be limited to before and after his full-time job and by appointment. No business sales will take place between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Appointments will result in less than the 10 maximum vehicular trips allowable per day. Stacked parking is available on the 88-foot driveway which can accommodate up to four cars in addition to the garage space for the applicant’s personal vehicle. On-street parking is also available but not needed. Ms. Sahlstrom stated that based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, it is the recommendation of the Department of Planning and Housing that the Zoning Board of Adjustment act in accordance with Alternative One which states this permit will allow the applicant to proceed with a live bait business at 2508 Melrose Avenue subject to the home occupation being operated as described herein. Applicant Matt Speicher, 2508 Melrose Avenue, Ames, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath. Mr. Speicher wanted to ensure the community that he had purchased quality equipment to ensure that there would be no smell. Mr. Speicher said he planned to have only one vending machine. He did not see any issues with traffic or smells or anything of that nature. Moved by Bowers, seconded by Schappaugh, to adopt ORDER NO. 20-26, thereby approving Alternative One as read by staff. Roll Call Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried. CASE NO. 20-27 SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION – DEBORAH MCINTOSH FLAHERTY, 1535 5 MAXWELL AVENUE Public Hearing on a Special Home Occupation to allow a CPA professional office at 1535 Maxwell Avenue. Planner Eloise Sahlstrom introduced the request and reviewed the site plan, project description, applicable law, and Findings of Fact and Conclusions. She stated that the applicant is requesting allowance to operate a professional office home business as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) from the two-family residential property at 1535 Maxwell Avenue. There are no active home occupation permits currently at this location. The property is located within the RL Zoning District. The applicant is currently practicing as a CPA with a Special Home Occupation permit at 609 20th Street; however, she plans to move to 1535 Maxwell and wishes to relocate her existing business as well. The unit at 1535 Maxwell Avenue includes approximately 830 square feet of floor area. The home office area will occupy approximately 165 square feet or just less than 20 percent of the total floor area of the unit. No modifications to the home are being proposed for use by the business. The applicant indicated that the proposed hours of operation will be: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. May- December and 8:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. January-April, by appointment only. The applicant indicates that appointments range in duration from 30 minutes to occasionally two hours or more. The maximum number of scheduled appointments per day is seven to eight. Many of these appointments are via teleconferencing or internet conferencing. Those appointments that are in- person will result in less than the 10 maximum vehicular trips allowed per day. Two or more clients are not expected to visit the premises concurrently so designating where clients will park is not required. The driveway will accommodate one stacked parking space beyond the required residential parking spaces and on-street parking is available on both Maxwell Avenue and 16th Street in front of the residence. The two-car garage is not available to the applicant, but the driveway expands out to fit two cars. Ms. Sahlstrom stated that based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, it is the recommendation of the Department of Planning and Housing that the Zoning Board of Adjustment act in accordance with Alternative One. Alternative One states that this permit will allow the applicant to proceed with a Certified Public Accountant professional office at 1535 Maxwell Avenue subject to the home occupation being operated as described herein. Applicant Deborah McIntosh Flaherty, 609 20th Street, Ames, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath. Ms. Flaherty stated that she had been through this process before. She stated that her residence in Ames is her second residence, and that her primary residence is out of state. She is in Iowa more frequently January through April, and the rest of the year as needed. Moved by Schappaugh, seconded by Schoeneman, to adopt ORDER NO. 20-27, thereby approving Alternative One. Roll Call Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried. 6 CASE NO. 20-28 VARIANCE – SUSAN HURD, 700 DOUGLAS AVENUE Public Hearing on a Variance to allow off-street parking for 700 Douglas Avenue on the adjacent lot addressed as 708 Douglas Avenue. Planner Justin Moore introduced the request and reviewed the site plan, project description, applicable law, and Findings of Fact and Conclusions. The property located at 700 Douglas Avenue includes an existing nonconforming apartment building with no on-site parking. After reviewing options for constructing parking for six vehicles on the 700 Douglas site it was determined that it could not be done and comply with front yard parking limitations and dimension standards. The property owner now requests a Variance to allow for required offsite parking for the 4-unit apartment building to be located on the neighboring property to the north at 708 Douglas Avenue. The requirement for compliant parking has arisen in response to an application for a Guest Lodging use (Vacation Rental) at 700 Douglas Avenue. Although the property is licensed as a rental property and “grandfathered” per the terms of the Rental Code, repurposing one of the apartments for a Vacation Rental triggers compliance with parking requirements. The review of the application for Guest Lodging requires that all zoning standards be met. This includes parking for the apartment units in this building on site. Remote required parking is not permissible within the Zoning Ordinance for properties within the RM zoning district. The applicant is asking for the Variance to allow for the required six parking stalls for 700 Douglas to be allowed to be placed on 708 Douglas Avenue along with the required stalls for 708 Douglas Avenue. In total for the two properties there would be 13 required parking stalls configured as surface parking and garage parking spaces accessed off of the rear alley. A proposed Minor Site Development plan shows the proposed parking stalls on the neighboring property located at 708 Douglas Avenue. If the variance is approved, staff could finalize the review of the Site Development Plan for conformance to Zoning standards for dimensions, paving, and landscaping. Staff has discussed construction of garage parking options on the 700 Douglas site with the owner. The applicant did not pursue this option due to cost and uncertainty on whether it could also meet code. Staff has also discussed whether combining the lots of 700 and 708 Douglas Avenue is feasible. The Single-Family Conservation Overlay standards prohibit any boundary line adjustment or lot consolidation. The desire to operate a Guest Lodging use at this location is not essential to ensuring a return on investment for this site because, in addition to the existing apartment building, a single-family or two-family use can be operated here. The site is not unlike other properties in the neighborhood both in size and in terms of use. The neighborhood is a mix of apartment and single-family units. As stated in the findings, an allowed use within the zoning standards does not guarantee the ability to operate such a use unless the standards of the ordinance are met. It is the conclusion of staff, based upon an analysis of the project and the applicant’s information, that the request for a variance does not meet all of the criteria. 7 The Department of Planning and Housing recommends Alternative One to deny the variance request. Mr. Schappaugh asked staff if a feasible alternative would be to combine the two lots in to one. Mr. Moore stated that the applicant and staff had looked at that option, but the area has a few different overlays. In the two overlay districts, lot consolidation is not permitted. Because of the historic nature, the goal is to preserve the lot in the form that they were at the time the ordinance was adopted. Mr. Schappaugh asked staff if the applicant has a hardship that is not of their doing. Mr. Moore stated that staff didn’t find that the inability to consolidate properties met the hardship criteria. Mr. Schappaugh then asked staff if there is room on the corner lot to provide the necessary parking for that property. Mr. Moore stated that there is not room to meet the full parking requirement on the lot. Mr. Schneider asked staff if it would be feasible for the applicant to come back and ask for a variance to allow front yard parking on 700 Douglas. Mr. Moore stated that a variance for front yard parking could be something that the applicant could request. Ms. Schoeneman asked if a variance for parking is the preferred route for the applicant. Mr. Moore stated that he thought the applicant went with a variance because it would be the easiest correction. Ms. Schoeneman asked Mr. Moore if the variance would essentially bring the apartment parking into compliance. Mr. Moore stated that the parking would be compliant once completed if a variance were granted. Ms. Schoeneman asked Mr. Moore if the parking would have to be brought into conformance if there were any improvements to be done to the property. Mr. Moore stated that any improvements requiring a Minor Site Development plan would require the parking to be brought into conformance. Mr. Schappaugh asked if the sidewalk from 700 Douglas to the parking at 708 Douglas is wide enough to meet ADA standards. Mr. Moore said that he could not confirm the width of the path. Applicant Susan Hurd, 3275 400th Street, Roland, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath. Ms. Hurd stated that the parking at 700 Douglas is currently nonconforming as a rental property without guest lodging. She stated that her desire would be to bring the property into compliance, and that anything she may do in the future would require her to do so. She stated that the site plans the Board had were not the current plans and that the current plans were much more refined. Ms. Schoeneman asked if the sidewalk is paved or gravel. Ms. Hurd stated that the path from 700 Douglas to the parking area is brick pavers. She stated that it is not ADA compliant, and would be something to potentially address. Ms. Schoeneman asked Ms. Hurd if she had considered a covenant making the two parcels inseparable. Ms. Hurd said she asked about changing the boundary line between the two properties, but said due to the zoning in the area it was not feasible. David Carter, 709 Douglas Avenue, Ames, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath. Mr. Carter said he wanted to emphasize the historical context of adjoining rental properties. He said adjoining parcels could not be joined together for redevelopment, because there were 8 neighboring homes in the area that were purchased, torn down, and the two lots would then house one larger apartment complex. For this reason, two properties can no longer be joined together. Mr. Carter pointed out that the current site plan still did not meet parking requirements. He said six stalls are needed for 700 Douglas and seven stalls are needed at 708. He stated that he is opposed to granting the variance for 700 Douglas. Ms. Hurd stated that she did not disagree with Mr. Carter with regard to property line rationale. She stated that she did not understand who would want to take down beautiful old historic buildings to put in a large apartment complex. She stated that her intention over the past 20 years as owner has been to preserve the history. Ms. Hurd said she felt that if she could no longer rent her two properties, it would cause a bit of a hardship. She stated that she her desire for a variance came from the desire for the parking to be more compliant. Mr. Schneider asked Ms. Hurd if there would be more spaces added east of the handicap spaces in the updated site plan. She stated that the concrete would expand further west, but that some of the gravel would be left. Mr. Schneider asked Justin if Ms. Hurd would be allowed to pave further east than the site plans dictate. Mr. Moore stated that she could pave almost all the way to the alley if she wanted. The main issue would be permitting the parking offsite. Mr. Schneider stated that it seems that parking has existed in its current state for some time, and from a neighbor’s perspective, a variance for this property could reduce congestion and alleviate some on-street parking. Ms. Schoeneman asked Mr. Moore if he could clarify the number of parking spaces required between both sites, and if not having the current site plan would be an issue in approving the variance. Mr. Moore stated that the number of parking spaces required between the two sites is 13. He said the newest site plan was just submitted and staff didn’t have time to review it prior to the meeting. He noted that the layout of the final site plan would ultimately depend on the decisions of the Zoning Board going forward. Ms. Schoeneman asked for confirmation that the variance is only to allow offsite parking and does not depend on the site plan at this time. Mr. Moore said this does not pertain to the number of spaces, but rather the capability to park offsite. Ms. Schoeneman asked if the site plan would then go before the Historic Preservation Commission. Mr. Moore said the Final Site Plan does not deal with the alteration of structures, so it would not need to go to the Historic Preservation Commission. Mr. Schneider asked Ms. Chang if the variance runs with the applicant or the property. Ms. Chang said she believed the variance would run with the land. Mr. Moore stated that where offsite parking is permitted, a remote parking agreement has to be approved by City Council. Moved by Schneider, seconded by Schoeneman, to reopen the public hearing. Schoeneman made a friendly amendment of a two-minute time limit. Mr. Schneider accepted. Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried. David Carter stated that in his neighborhood on-street parking is normal. He said during the day there are many working professionals that park on the street. When they go home, there are many people who live in the neighborhood that park on the street. 9 Moved by Schoeneman, seconded by Ammar, to adopt ORDER NO. 20-28, thereby approving Alternative Two with conditions as follows: 1. An approved Minor Site Development Plan that provides for the six required parking stalls and meets all other applicable zoning standards 2. Approval by City Council of a remote parking agreement 3. The Variance allowance is restricted to providing for required parking for 700 Douglas in its existing configuration as a 4-unit apartment building and for up to one Vacation Rental unit, subject to approval of a Special Use Permit. Ms. Schoeneman noted that all criteria for the Findings had to be met in order to approve the variance. She identified her Findings of Fact starting with (b)(i) adding the proposed location of the physical parking off site are as a result of a Special Use Permit for Guest Lodging and the nonconforming use status of the parking for rental apartments. The parking for rental apartments is a nonconforming use already. If improvements were made to the property, upgrading the parking would be required to be in conformance with the ordinance. The Conclusion should then state that the nonconforming status would limit any alterations to the apartments and reasonable return on the property. The variance would bring the apartments into greater conformance with City ordinances by providing the required number of paved parking spaces off-street. Therefore, criterion is met. Mr. Schneider stated that he agreed with that statement, and that a variance will only bring the property into greater conformance. Ms. Schoeneman proceeded to her next Finding, (b)(ii). She stated that the condition should also include that the nonconforming status of the parking lot would limit any alterations to the apartments and reasonable return on the property. The variance would bring the property into greater conformance with the City ordinances by providing the necessary amount of paved spaces. Therefore, criterion is met. Ms. Schoeneman proceeded to her next Finding, (c), the condition states that the spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is granted. She stated that adding the parking meets the intent of having additional spaces and removes demand from a public street, and has direct access to the building by a walkway. A remote parking agreement negates the issue of allowing for independent use of the property without relying on another property. Additionally, because the property is allowed to be utilized as nonconforming, the variance would bring the properties into greater conformance with City ordinances by providing the required amount of paved spaces. Therefore, criterion is met. Mr. Schneider asked to revisit the second condition stating that the conclusion can also include that the corner lot is unique in many aspects because it doesn’t have a natural area to use for parking or parking is extremely restricted. Ms. Ammar added that the property is considered mostly front yard. Mr. Schneider said even if it were a single-family home, a variance would be needed for parking. He also stated that most people feel more secure parking their vehicle on their property rather than on the street. Mr. Schappaugh agreed with Mr. Schneider’s assessment. Ms. Schoeneman added to the conclusion of (b)(ii) that the corner lot is a unique circumstance in that the front yard is the majority of the lot’s area where parking is not permitted. Ms. Schoeneman added that the variance to permit offsite parking prevents the need for a variance 10 for front yard parking on the property or additional impervious area and structures added to 700 Douglas. Mr. Schappaugh asked staff if the addition of the paved parking on the property at 708 Douglas would then require some type of screening. Mr. Moore said that a high screen would be required to screen out the vehicles. Ms. Schoeneman proceeded to her last Finding, (d), which states that substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting the variance. Ms. Schoeneman said her Finding is that the property is currently nonconforming which places constraints on the use. In conclusion, a variance will bring the property into greater conformance with the City ordinances by providing the required amount of paved spaces. Therefore, criterion is met. Ms. Schoeneman requested an amendment to the motion adding a fourth condition that the sidewalk from 700 Douglas to the parking at 708 Douglas be ADA compliant. Mr. Schneider moved to amend the conditions to Alternative Two adding the condition that the sidewalk from 700 Douglas to the parking at 708 Douglas meet ADA compliance. Ms. Schoeneman accepted the amendment. Roll Call Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried. CASE NO. 20-29 EXCEPTION – STEVEN & SARAH WALTER, 635 AGG AVENUE Public Hearing on an Exception for a Rear Yard Setback Minor Area Modification of 5 feet for the property at 635 Agg Avenue Planner Julie Gould introduced the request and reviewed the site plan, project description, applicable law, and Findings of Fact and Conclusions. She stated that the property at 635 Agg Avenue has a single-family home that the property owner desires to construct an attached garage to for additional parking and living area. The subject property is located within the RL (Residential Low Density) Zoning District. The subject site is somewhat oddly shaped but is defined as a corner lot by zoning standards. The west property line is defined as a rear setback of 20 feet and the applicant requests a five-foot exception into this setback to allow enough width to construct a two-car-wide garage. A Minor Area Modification is permitted to allow the reduction of required residential rear yard setbacks for principal structures by no more than five feet. The Zoning Board of Adjustment is authorized to grant the exception based upon the review criteria identified in Section 29.1506(4)(d)(ii). The applicant wishes to construct an attached two-car garage on the southwest side of the house. The existing house is a one-and-a-half-story, single-family dwelling with an existing attached one-car garage on the northeast side of the house. It is addressed off of Agg Avenue as its front yard, but has curvilinear frontage on both Agg Avenue and Cessna Street making it a corner lot. Compliance with setbacks is proving to be difficult given the shape of the lot and the curve of the public right-of-way that affects the orientation of the home in its current configuration. 11 This semi-pie-shaped lot is considered a corner lot because Cessna Street and Agg Avenue intersect in front of this property. Based on how the Zoning Ordinance defines how to identify setbacks, Agg Avenue has been identified as the front yard, and Cessna Street as a street side yard. The west property line is the most opposite the front (Agg Avenue), and therefore by definition is the rear lot line. The rear lot line has a minimum 20-foot setback compared to an interior side yard setback of eight feet for a one-and-a-half story home. In September 2019, a partial vacation of a former public walkway was vacated and acquired by the property owner from the City. They then completed a Plat of Survey to adjust the property to include this former right-of-way. This adjusted the rear property line seven feet to the west, and provided the property owner with some additional land to pursue an addition. Due to the siting of the existing home and the shape of the lot, it is difficult to construct a two-car garage that would comply with all zoning regulations even if it were detached rather than attached. The Traffic Engineer reviewed the request and has approved the two driveways on the property. Ms. Gould stated that based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, it is the recommendation of the Department of Planning and Housing that the Zoning Board of Adjustment act in accordance with Alternative One. Alternative One states that this permit will allow an Exception for a Minor Area Modification to allow a reduced setback for the construction of an attached two-car garage located at 635 Agg Avenue with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must record the approval of the Minor Area Modification in the office of the County Recorder, in order to make effective the approval; 2. The garage must be built in substantial conformance with the attached plans; and 3. The garage must maintain a minimum 15-foot setback from the rear property line. Applicant Steven Walter, 635 Agg Avenue, Ames, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath. Mr. Walter stated that the addition process started in March 2019. He said that he and his wife were approved for the purchase of the seven-foot right of way in May 2019 costing them $3,000. In June 2019, the Walters met with an Ames City Planner to discuss easement requirements. Concerns at that time were side and front setbacks. At that time, the rear yard was considered a side yard and needed an eight-foot setback. A plat of survey was needed to determine current lot dimensions and a boundary line adjustment to combine the two property lines was also needed. Mr. Walter stated that in July, a plat of survey combining the two lots was done at a cost of $2,200. On September 12, the boundary line adjustment was approved by City Council combining the two lots into one. In December, Mr. Walter stated that he met with the Ames Traffic Engineer and got approval for the second driveway without having to remove the current driveway. In March/April 2020, Mr. Walter stated that the sewer and water lines under the driveway were replaced costing roughly $13,000. Mr. Walter stated that on May 4, he signed a contract with a builder and project plans were submitted to the City. He said a few weeks later, he heard back from the City with concerns that the side yard would not be a side property line but instead a rear property line which would change the setback from eight feet to 20 feet. The options that were then provided would be to eliminate the breezeway which would reduce the height of the building, shrink the garage to allow for a 20-foot setback, or file a variance for a 15-foot setback. Mr. Walter stated that he had spent $18,000 thus far preparing for the garage build. 12 Mr. Schneider asked Mr. Walter if he is planning to put up some type of screening along the property line to the west. Mr. Walter said that he and his neighbor would be splitting the cost of a new fence. Mr. Walter asked if there is anything else he could do other than a variance. Ms. Gould stated that the minor area modification only allows up to a five-foot setback. She stated that a variance request could possibly be made but he wouldn’t meet all of the standards. Moved by Schneider, seconded by Schappaugh, to adopt ORDER NO. 20-29, thereby approving Alternative One with conditions. Roll Call Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Schneider, seconded by Schappaugh, to adjourn the meeting at 8:35 p.m. _____________________________ _____________________________ Jacque Higgins, Recording Secretary Amelia Schoeneman, Chair