HomeMy WebLinkAboutA002 - Council Action Form dated 09/10/2025
1
ITEM: 3
DATE: 9/10/25
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REQUEST: A Request for a Practical Difficulties Variance of a reduction of two feet and
four feet to side yard setbacks along the north and south property lines for construction
of a new 2-story dwelling where eight-foot side setbacks are required in the Urban Core
Residential Medium Density (UCRM) at 216 N Hazel Drive.
After publishing the report and agenda packet, the applicant revised their
application to request a three-foot north side setback reduction and a two foot
south side setback reduction.
BACKGROUND:
Adib Amini, the applicant and owner of 216 N Hazel Avenue (see Location Map—
Attachment 1) requests a setback variance for a proposed two-story single-family
dwelling. The property has street frontage along Hazel and is adjacent to an alley. The
property is zoned Urban Core Medium Density (UCRM), a residential zoning district that
applies to developed core neighborhoods of the City and allows for construction of new
single-family dwellings. The intent of this base zone is to preserve the general single-
family character of the area while maintaining the pre-existing mix of housing that
existed prior to 2000 when the zoning district was established.
The owner acquired the property in April of 2025. Previously the site contained a 461-
square-foot dwelling that was demolished in 2025. The property is 6,240 square feet
and is an interior lot that abuts an alley along the south property line. A demolition
permit for the existing single-family dwelling on the property on January 22, 2025.
On June 3, 2025, staff received a building permit proposing to construct a two unit
dwelling. The applicant was informed only a single-family dwelling is an allowable use
and that the dwelling did not meet the zone development standards. Since that time the
owner has modified the permit to be for a single dwelling and reduced in size to meet
zoning; however, the applicant seeks this variance to increase the size of the proposed
dwelling (See the site plan in Attachment 2 for details ). A building permit has not yet
been approved for the construction of a new single-family dwelling as the owner seeks a
setback variance.
The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to allow side setback reductions
along the north and south property lines. The applicant’s proposal is to construct a
new single-family dwelling on a vacant lot that encroaches into the north setback
by three feet and the south setback by two feet. If the variance is approved, the
setbacks would be less than a 1-story home to the north and match a 1-story
setback to the south.
2
The request is being made based on the applicant’s claims that complying with the
required side setback would result in significant hardship. Although the subject property
is 52 feet wide and 120 feet long, it does comply with minimum zoning standards. In
general the typical lot is 60 feet wide, but there is a diverse range of sizes in the
neighborhood. The subject property is smaller in size due to it being created from two
originally platted lots and was not part of the original subdivision. However, despite its
smaller size it is considered a conforming lot.
The applicant states that the lot is relatively narrow, making it difficult to construct a two-
stall garage and a home with adequate living space. The applicant contends in their
application materials that the additional six feet of living space added through the
setback reductions would allow a single-family dwelling with a reasonable layout to be
built on the site. The applicant also states that the existing lot conditions and setback
requirements reduces the potential value of the home and the lot. The footprint of the
dwelling if the variance is approved, as shown on the site plan, would be approximately
2,378 square feet. If the variance is not approved, then the property owner could move
forward with the permit on file, which would allow the construction of a single-family
home with a footprint of approximately 2,088 square feet. With a lot size of 6,240 square
feet, the variance application proposes a building coverage of 38%, which exceeds the
maximum coverage allowed. The existing permit on file proposes a dwelling with a
building coverage of approximately 33%, which complies with the standard.
The applicable UCRM development standards and subject property details are outlined
in the Development Standards Tabel below:
Development Standards Table:
The subject property exceeds the UCRM zone minimums for lot size and lot frontage
and meets the standards to allow the construction of a two -story single-family dwelling.
If the variance is not granted, the applicant could choose to construct a two-story single-
family dwelling that meets the eight-foot side setback requirements. The proposed
dwelling would also have to meet the applicable development standards and the
building code requirements.
OTHER SITE CONSIDERATIONS
Although the applicant has requested setbacks variances, there are other constraints on
enlarging the structure as proposed. The property contains a 5-foot electrical easement
Development Standard UCRM Subject Property
Lot Size Min. 6,000 square feet 6,240
Frontage Min. 50’ 52’
Building Coverage Max. 35% 38%
Side Setback 8’ (two-story) /6’
(one-story)
Proposed: 5’ North, 6’ South
3
that runs along the north and east property lines. If a variance to allow a side setback
were granted, it could not encroach into the easement. Structures are not allowed to be
constructed within easement areas and variance cannot change that. The greatest
reduction that could be approved is 3 feet on the north. After publishing the report
and agenda packet, the applicant revised their application to request a three-foot
north side setback reduction and a two-foot south side setback reduction and no
longer proposes to construct the dwelling inside of the electrical easement area.
Additionally, based upon the attached plan the enlarged structure would exceed building
coverage. The variance request did not address this issue and if setback reduction were
granted the home would still need to meet the building coverage limitation, see table
above.
APPLICANT PETITION AND STATEMENT OF SUPPORT OF PROPOSAL:
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”. Portions of this information in addition to the staff findings are summarized
within the addendum.
APPLICABLE LAW:
The applicant requests a “Practical Difficulties” variance in relation to numeric standards
of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board shall determine, pursuant to Iowa law, whether all
the standards for granting of a variance are satisfied by the Variance Request. Based
upon the criteria defined by state law, the application submitted, and the
conditions of the site, staff was not able to make findings in support of the
variance. The Criteria for Approval and Findings of Fact prepared by staff 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.
4
Section 29.1504 VARIANCE
(4) Standards. Pursuant to Iowa law, a variance, as defined by lowa Code
section 414.12(3), to the terms of this ordinance, including use, shall be granted
only if all the following standards are satisfied:
(5) Standards for Area, Dimensional, or other numerical limitations. A
variance for area, dimensional or other numerical limitations as defined by Iowa
Code section 414.12(4) may be granted where owing to special conditions a literal
enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in practical difficulties to
the property owner in making a beneficial use of the property allowed by the zoning
ordinance, and so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial
justice done. Area, dimensional, or other numerical limitations subject to variances
include but are not limited to requirements for minimum lot size, setbacks, yard
widths, height, bulk, sidewalks, fencing, signage and off-street parking.
To receive the requested area, dimensional, or other numerical variance, the
property owner must prove that:
(a) The practical difficulties faced are unique to the property at issue and not
self-created;
(b) Demonstrate that granting the variance will not significantly alter the
essential character of the surrounding neighborhood;
5
(c) The spirit of the ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is
granted; and
(d) Substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting the ordinance.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION:
Notification was made to all owners of property within 400 feet. A notice of public
hearing sign was placed on the property and published in the newspaper.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment deny this request for a Variance to reduce the
north side setback by 3 feet and the south side setback by 2 at 216 N Hazel
Avenue by adopting the findings that the evidence does not support the explicit
finding of consistency with all Variance criteria.
2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment makes specific findings for consistency of the
request with all Variance criteria, approves the Variance for a 3-foot north side
setback reduction and a 2-foot south side setback reduction at 216 N Hazel
Avenue, with the noted stipulations of complying will all other requirements
including, but not limited to, that the building cannot encroach within the existing
electrical easement and the overall building coverage limitation of 35% still
applies.
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:
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 any of the criteria. Staff did
not find that enough evidence was provided to support a determination that lot size and
site conditions of vacant lot relate to a practical difficulty that was not self-created for the
beneficial use of the lot, that the larger structure did not alter the character of the
neighborhood, the larger structure is not in keeping with the spirit of the ordinance, and
that there is no issue substantial justice. The proposed findings of fact address all
applicable criteria.
The Planning Housing Department recommends Alternative 1 to deny the
variance request. The applicant could then choose to comply with the setback
requirement and continue with plans to construct a two-story single-family
dwelling that complies with zoning standards.
6
ADDENDUM
Staff makes the following findings of fact and conclusions for each of the Variance
criteria:
(a) The practical difficulties faced are unique to the property at issue and not
self-created.
FINDING: The subject property is consistent with existing properties in the
neighborhood and exceeds the minimum lot and frontage requirements of the
base zone and a dwelling could be constructed that complies with the Ames
Municipal Code.
The minimum lot frontage in a UCRM zone is 50 feet while the minimum lot area
required for a single-family dwelling is 6,000 square feet. The subject property is
52 feet by 120 feet, and the lot area is 6,240 square feet. The property recently
demolished the existing single-family dwelling and remains a vacant lot of a
consistent size to nearby properties. Several properties with two-story homes in
the neighborhood are below 60 feet in width and can range from a lot width of 56
feet to 40 feet, while complying with the base zone side setback requirements of
8 feet.
Examples include:
212 N Hazel Avenue, located south of the subject property and the alley, has
identical lot dimensions at 52 feet by 120 feet. The property contains a two -story
single-family house and a detached garage. The principal dwelling is setback
approximately 12 feet from the north side property line and 13 feet from the south
side property line.
209 N Maple Avenue, located to the east at the intersection of the alley and
Maple Ave, also has identical lot dimensions to the subject property at 52 feet by
120 feet and maintains an approximate north side setback of 9 feet and a south
side setback of 10 feet. The property is a two-story single-family dwelling,
1207 N 2nd Street, located approximately four properties to the west, has a lot
width of 40 feet and a lot depth of 172 feet. The property contains a two -story
single-family dwelling with an approximate west side setback of 10 feet and an
east side setback of 9 feet.
The property does not contain any steep slopes, floodplain, or unique
easements.
CONCLUSION:
The site is currently vacant. The minimum side setback for two-story dwellings of
8 feet has been met or exceeded on properties of similar size in the
neighborhood. Additionally, the site is relatively level, which is typical for
7
residential infill development. The subject property is consistent in character to
properties within the neighborhood and subject to the development standards of
the Ames Municipal Code. Proposing to alter the minimum side setback is a
design choice that has not been created out of necessity due to site
characteristics. Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is not
met.
(b) Granting the variance will not significantly alter the essential character of
the surrounding neighborhood.
FINDING: The property is currently vacant due to the recent demolition of a pre-
existing single-family home and garage. Granting the variance would allow
setbacks that are below the standard requirement and not consistent with the
neighborhood character for typical single family home construction. Construction
of a single-family dwelling is permitted, regardless of whether or not the variance
is granted for the setback reduction.
The College Park Addition Subdivision was platted in 1893. Most of the homes
were constructed prior to the Ames Municipal Code established today. There
appears to be lots within the neighborhood that do not comply with the setback
requirements of the current Ames Municipal Code. However, lots that may not
comply with the current code, but that were constructed prior to the current code,
may continue to operate as legal nonconformities.
As currently proposed as part of this variance application, the setback reductions
would subsequently be utilized to increase the dwelling size by approximately 5
feet by 58 feet (the length of the proposed dwelling), for a total increase of 290
square feet. The building coverage proposed as part of this application is
approximately 2,378 square feet. Please see the site plan included in Attachment
2 for details.
As noted earlier, the proposed dwelling even with reduced setbacks will remain
subject to the 35% maximum building coverage. With a lot size of 6,240 square
feet, the building coverage proposed is roughly 3 8%. The proposed building
coverage would exceed the UCRM zone maximum requirement of 35%.
Properties in the neighborhood have a broad range of sizes, corresponding to
their lot sizes. Many smaller homes range from 1,200 square feet to 1,500
square feet. Some larger two story homes to exceed 3,000 square feet, a two
story home at the corner of N Hazel and N 2 nd Street is approximately 2000
square feet.
CONCLUSION:
As proposed, the applicant intends for the variance to increase the house size
and livable area. There are no specific design features proposed with the plan
that mitigate its relative size with its large rectangular form that would occur with
8
granting of the variance. The building would be out of character for the size of the
lot. Per the findings outlined above, the Board can conclude that this
criterion is not met.
(c) The spirit of the ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is
granted.
FINDINGS: Setbacks preserve access to light and air, adequate separation of
buildings for fire safety and emergency access, and a uniform appearance of
buildings. Lot and building coverage standards provide consistent development
characteristics throughout zones to ensure uniform development patterns . One
goal of zoning is for building size to be proportional to lot size with consistency in
minimum yard areas. In this case a single-family dwelling is an allowed use, the
City has no minimum house size standard and in fact has very diverse stock of
housing sizes, especially within the core neighborhoods of the City.
The variance request is to reduce the side setbacks on both the north side and
south side of the property. With the variance, the home is proposed to have a
footprint of approximately 2,378 square feet, which conflicts with the maximum
building coverage requirements. Without a variance, the home would comply with
zoning standards and have a footprint of approximately 2,088 square feet.
CONCLUSION:
A Variance 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.
As there are alternatives, such as constructing a single-family dwelling that
complies with the development standards of the Ames Municipal Code and is
consistent with other allowed uses and building sizes of the immediate area and
zoning district, the spirit of the Ordinance is not observed . Therefore, the Board
can conclude that this criterion is not met.
(d) Substantial justice shall be done as a result of granting the variance.
FINDING: Substantial justice speaks to the requirement that the practical
difficulty must be peculiar to the property or that an issue of equity in the use of
property exists. The neighborhood is characterized with a variety of lot sizes.
Several of which are identical or similar in size to the subject property. The
subject property also exceeds the minimum lot requirements to allow the
construction of a two-story single-family dwelling in the UCRM zone. As
discussed in Spirit of the Ordinance Criterion, there is no minimum house size
expectation within the UCRM and diversity of sizes is common.
CONCLUSION: Properties within the neighborhood with similar or identical lot
sizes meet the setback requirements established in the current zoning code.
9
Properties that do not meet this requirement were established prior to the current
zoning code and may continue as legal nonconformities. The existing lot is
currently vacant, level, land that allows for new construction to meet the current
Ames Municipal Code.
The Board must determine if there is a hardship attributable to the property that
results in lack of equal use of property compared to others subject to the same
regulations. The granting of a variance for the setback reduction would not
provide substantial justice in the use of the property. A single family dwelling of
substantial size is approvable on the site without a variance. Therefore, the
Board can conclude that this criterion is not met.
10
Attachment 1
Location Map
PARCEL E
6233.21 S.F.
0.14 ACRES
N0
0
°
4
0
'
5
5
"
W
1
1
9
.
9
8
'
N89°26'35"E 120.14'
S0
0
°
3
5
'
1
3
"
E
1
1
9
.
9
7
'
N89°26'35"E 240.08'
S0
0
°
3
0
'
4
5
"
E
1
7
1
.
9
2
'
S89°26'03"W 239.86'
N0
0
°
4
0
'
5
5
"
W
67
.
9
9
'
S0
0
°
3
5
'
1
3
"
E
51
.
9
9
'
N89°26'13"E 119.94'
S89°26'03"W 119.85'
N0
0
°
4
0
'
5
5
"
W
51
.
9
9
'
59.92'(M) 60'(R)
16' ALLEY
B L O
C
K
8
NW COR. LOT 6
FOUND 1/2"
REBAR W/
YELLOW CAP
#17161
NE CORNER LOT 5
FOUND 1/2" PIPE
NE COR. LOT 1
FOUND 1/4" SQ.
IRON BAR
SE COR. LOT 1
FOUND 1/2"
REBAR
NE COR. LOT 10
FOUND 'X' IN
CONCRETE
N0
0
°
4
0
'
5
5
"
W
1
1
9
.
9
2
'
LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3LOT 4LOT 5LOT 6
LOT 12LOT 11LOT 10LOT 9LOT 8LOT 7
SE CORNER
LOT 5
SW COR. LOT 6
SET 1/2" REBAR
W/ YELLOW CAP
#17161 (TYPICAL)
FOUND 1/2" REBAR
W/ YELLOW CAP
#17161
CORNER FALLS
UNDER WOOD
FENCE - SET
WITNESS 1.00' W.
SW CORNER LOT 7
FOUND 1/2" REBAR
W/ YELLOW CAP
#17161
SE CORNER LOT 4
FOUND 1/2" REBAR
N.
H
A
Z
E
L
A
V
E
N
U
E
5' ELECTRIC EASEMENT
(NORTH AND EAST LINES)
N. 3RD STREET
N. 2ND STREET
N.
M
A
P
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
LOCATION:
PROPRIETOR:
REQUESTED BY:
PREPARED BY
PLAT OF SURVEY
& RETURN TO:
IN LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 8, COLLEGE PARK ADDITION
CITY OF AMES, STORY COUNTY, IOWA
ADIB AMINI
JAMSHID AMINI
ADIB AMINI
R. BRADLEY STUMBO, PLS #17161
STRAND ASSOCIATES, INC.
AMES, IA 50010
515-233-0000
Phone: (515) 233-0000
414 South 17th Street, Suite 107
Strand Associates, Inc.
Ames, Iowa 50010
FAX: (515) 233-0103
JOB#DATE:FIELDWORK COMPLETED:PAGE OF7229.272 5/14/25 5/13/25 1 1
00
60
'
12
0
'
Survey Description - Parcel E:
A tract described as being the South 52 feet of Lots 5 and 6 in Block 8 of College Park Addition to the City of Ames,
Story County, Iowa, and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest Corner of said Lot 6;
thence N00°40'55"W, 51.99 feet along the west line thereof; thence N89°26'13"E, 119.94 feet to the east line of said Lot
5; thence S00°35'13"E, 51.99 feet to the Southeast Corner thereof; thence S89°26'03"W, 119.85 feet to the point of
beginning, containing 0.14 acres.
Electric Easement:
The North 5.00 feet and the East 5.00 feet of Parcel E in Lots 5 and 6 in Block 8 of College Park Addition to the City of
Ames, Story County, Iowa.
I hereby certify on _______________ that this Plat of Survey is
consistent with Chapter 23 of the Ames Municipal Code and any
conditions of approval.
___________________________________
Planning & Housing Director