HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - 417 12th Street Setback Variance
1
ITEM# __3
DATE: 9/9/26
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REQUEST:
A request for a variance to allow construction of a new dwelling with a 20-foot front yard
setback, 16-foot rear yard setback, and a front porch with a 14-foot front yard setback at
417 12th Street.
The subject property is a legal non-conforming 4,800 square foot lot zoned Urban Core
Residential Medium Density (UCRM) Zoning District. The variance is proposed to
reduce the UCRM-required 25-foot front yard setback by 5 feet for building façade and
11 feet for the front porch encroachment and to reduce UCRM-required 20-foot rear
yard setback by 4 feet.
The applicant submitted the request as a use variance application, citing that use of the
site for a dwelling is not possible without relief . If the Board is unable to make all
findings required for granting of a use variance, they may direct the applicant to submit
a variance for area, dimensional, or numeric standards, which requires a finding of
practical difficulty and not financial hardship.
BACKGROUND:
Dennis Thiel, the applicant and owner of 417 12th Street (see attached Location Map)
requests a setback variance for a proposed two -story single-family dwelling with a front
porch. 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
property is located outside of the Single-Family Conservation and Historic Preservation
Zoning Overlays, but within the historic residential core of the City where dwellings
generally date to the early 1900s.
The owner acquired the property in March of 2026. The site currently contains a
nonconforming one-story, 802-square-foot dwelling with an 8-foot by 7.5-foot front
porch. The porch had no setback from the front property line with 12th Street. The front
façade of the dwelling is setback approximately 8 feet from the property line. The
dwelling has a 15.5-foot rear setback.
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing home to facilitate construction of a new
single-family home. The existing dwelling has not been habitable since a fire in the fall
of 2023. While the structure was considered nonconforming and a dwellin g would have
2
been allowed to be rebuilt on the property that did not further encroach on
nonconforming setbacks, the rebuilding process had to occur within 18 months of the
damage, which has since passed. The applicant took ownership of the subject property
after the 18-month window.
If a variance were not granted, no dwelling could be constructed on the property. The
Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum size for a single-family dwelling of 20 feet by 20
feet. A dwelling on the property would be limited to 15 feet in depth if both front and rear
setbacks were met.
The proposed dwelling will be 24 feet in depth and 32 feet in width with a total living
area footprint of 768 square feet. It will be two stories in height. This size allows for
setbacks of 16 feet from the rear property line and 20 feet from the front property line. A
6-foot deep by 10-foot-wide front porch is also proposed to have a 14-foot front setback
from the front property line. See attached site plan, elevation drawings, and interior
plans for the proposed dwelling.
PROPERTY HISTORY:
The subject property was created in 1919 prior to City review of land divisions (note: it
has since been surveyed in conformance with City standards for platting). It was created
when a platted subdivision lot was divided in half to create a second parcel. The original
subdivision lot was a corner lot and had frontage on Clark Avenue and 12 th Streets. It
was 160 feet deep by 60 feet wide. The subject property was reconfigured through the
division to only front on 12th Street and be 60 feet in depth and 80 feet in width (4,800
square feet). The current UCRM zone requires a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet
for a single-family dwelling.
The need for the variance is largely due to this size and configuration.
Nonconforming lots are permitted to be built on “so long as all use, density and
coverage standards and all spatial standards other than minimum lot size and minimum
frontage requirements are met.” The subject property exceeds the UCRM zone
minimums except for minimum lot size and front and rear setbacks. See below table for
a comparison of UCRM standards and the subject property:
UCRM Development Standards Table
Development Standard UCRM Subject Property
Lot Size Min. 6,000 square feet 4,800 square feet
Frontage Min. 50 feet 80 feet
Building Coverage Max. 35% 20%
Front Setback 25 feet (17 feet porch) 20 feet front wall, 14 feet from porch
Rear Setback 20 feet 16 feet
3
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.
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.
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:
(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 400 feet. A notice of public
hearing was placed on the property and published in the newspaper.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment approves the request for a variance to reduce
the front setback by 5 feet for the front façade, the front setback by 11 feet for the
front porch, and the rear setback by 4 feet for the proposed dwelling at 417 12th
Street by adopting the findings that the evidence supports a finding of
consistency with all Variance criteria.
2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment denies this request and makes specific findings
that the evidence does not support the explicit finding of consistency with
variance criteria.
3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment denies this request and makes specific findings
that the evidence does not support the explicit finding of consistency with
5
variance criteria for unnecessary hardship and directs the applicant to apply for
an area, dimensional, or numeric variance with criteria for practical difficulty.
4. 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 meets all the criteria. This is chiefly due to
the uniqueness of the lot not meeting minimum lot size requirements and the timeline to
rebuild a structure under allowances for nonconforming structures having passed,
outside of the control of the applicant. The lot would have no allowable use other than
open space without a variance for construction of a home. The applicant’s proposed
design complies with setbacks to the greatest extent practicable while creating a
desirable living environment and includes design details complimentary to the general
area.
The Planning Housing Department recommends Alternative 1 to approve the
variance request.
6
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: Setbacks preserve access to light and air, adequate separation of
buildings for fire safety and emergency access, and a uniform appearance of
buildings.
In comparison to the previous dwelling, the setbacks will be increased by 14 feet
from the front property line to the proposed porch and 1.5 feet from the rear
property line.
While the proposed dwelling will be increased in height to two stories, all required
side setbacks will be met, and the dwelling will be offset from the neighboring
dwelling to the rear.
The proposed front setback will be similar to the adjacent dwelling to the west,
which has an 8-foot setback from 12th Street.
CONCLUSION: In general, it is in the public interest to ensure that the use of
property does not infringe on the rights of the neighbors, allow for emergency
access around and into properties, allow room for lawns and trees, and for light
and air into the home.
If the variance is granted, the public interest in building separation to provide light
and air, emergency access, and a uniform appearance of buildings would not be
substantially compromised.
The use that is to be permitted with the setback variances is the primary use
intended for the zone as a single-family dwelling.
Therefore, the Board can conclude that 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: Without the granting of a variance, no dwelling could be constructed
on the property meeting the City’s minimum size standards of 20 feet by 20 feet.
CONCLUSION: The principle of reasonable return asks the Board to consider if,
7
without a variance, a property owner cannot have beneficial use or enjoyment of
the property consistent with zoning. In the case of the subject property, they
would not be able to realize return on the property (construct a dwelling) without
a variance. No other use of the site is permitted by the zoning district other than
open space.
Therefore, the Board can conclude that 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 property is one of 19 properties in the Bigelow’s Additions
Subdivision that are nonconforming in terms of minimum lot size (under 6,000
square feet). They are all corner lots that were divided into two parcels to create
an additional property for a dwelling after the original subdivision platting. See
attached exhibit illustrating the nonconforming lots.
Of these nonconforming lots, only one is vacant (517 11th) and would not be
eligible to have a structure rebuilt with nonconforming setbacks under provisions
for damaged nonconforming structures.
Further, the fact that the request is outside the 18-month timeline to be rebuilt is
not a self-created issue. The previous owners had ap plied for permits to restore
the dwelling after the damage occurred but instead sold the property to the
applicant. The sale occurred after the 18-month window had passed.
CONCLUSION: While the lot configuration is not unique for the neighborhood, in
combination with the loss of the dwelling’s ability to be rebuilt as nonconforming
structure, the Board can conclude that this criterion is met.
(iii) The use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential
character of the locality.
FINDING: Bigelow’s Addition Subdivision was platted in 1892. Most of the homes
were constructed prior to the adoption of 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 Zoning Ordinance , related to
nonconforming minimum lot sizes. This includes the setback of the dwelling
adjacent to the subject property to the east, which is setback approximately 8
feet from the front property line off 12th Street. 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 or be rebuilt in accordance with allowances for
nonconforming structures.
Specifically, regarding the front porch, the porch acts as a necessary
architectural feature to ensure compatibility with the historic neighborhood. The
8
applicant indicates that the style of the home was designed to reflect other two -
story Craftsman style homes in the area.
CONCLUSION: Given the nonconforming status of other properties in the
neighborhood, the proposed variance is not inconsistent with the general area.
Therefore, the Board can conclude that this criterion is met.
(c) The spirit of the Ordinance shall be observed even when the variance is
granted.
FINDING: Without the granting of a variance, no dwelling could be constructed
on the property meeting the City’s minimum size standards of 20 feet by 20 feet.
However, the requested variance is for a 24 -foot-wide house, greater than the
20-foot minimum, and includes a front porch. The applicant this indicates this is
the minimum size necessary to accommodate a two -car garage on the main level
of the house. Staff notes that the minimum required off street parking for a
dwelling would be met without the two-car garage as the driveway off the alley
provides sufficient space for parking two vehicles. However, overall, the applicant
has designed the home to be 12.5 feet narrower than the previous dwelling to
minimize the variance to the smallest practicable request. The dwelling is
proposed to have a reduce first-floor area from the existing dwelling and be a
one-bedroom dwelling with a galley kitchen.
While the porch encroaches 6 feet past the front of the dwelling and requires a
larger variance, typically, porches are permitted to encroach 8 feet into the
required front setback in the case of dwellings with conforming setbacks.
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 a dwelling could not be constructed on the subject property without and
variance and the applicant has taken steps to design the house to better comply
with the required setbacks, the Board can conclude that this criterion is 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.
While there are similarly situated lots in the neighborhood, only one other would
not be eligible to have a structure rebuilt with nonconforming setbacks under
provisions for damaged nonconforming structures. However, this other lot is
9
under common ownership with an adjacent lot that contains a dwelling and may
not meet other variance criteria if requested.
The dwelling on the subject property may not be rebuilt with nonconforming
setbacks as this must occur within 18 months of the damage to the structure.
This timeline was not met due to several factors including change of ownership to
the applicant.
CONCLUSION: 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. Given the loss of the structure’s nonconforming
status afforded to others in the neighborhood, the Board can conclude that this
criterion is met.
13TH ST
12TH ST
11TH ST
B
U
R
N
E
T
T
A
V
E
C
L
A
R
K
A
V
E
W
I
L
S
O
N
A
V
E
Location Map
0 0.03 0.050.01
MilesIN
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
3
5
LINCOLN
24TH
13THONTARIO
IN
T
E
R
STA
T
E
3
5
D
A
Y
T
O
N
ST
A
N
G
E
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
16TH
GE
O
R
G
E
W CARVER
SO
U
T
H
DA
K
O
T
A
AIRPORTHY
L
A
N
D
LINCOLN
WAY
¯Legend
Parcels
Subject Property
417 12th Street
(Subject Property)
13TH ST
C
L
A
R
K
A
V
E
W
I
L
S
O
N
A
V
E
Nonconforming Lots in Bigelow's Addition
0 0.04 0.070.02
MilesIN
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
3
5
LINCOLN
24TH
13THONTARIO
IN
T
E
R
STA
T
E
3
5
D
A
Y
T
O
N
ST
A
N
G
E
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
16TH
GE
O
R
G
E
W CARVER
SO
U
T
H
DA
K
O
T
A
AIRPORTHY
L
A
N
D
LINCOLN
WAY
¯Legend
Parcels
Subject Property
Bigelow's Addition
Nonconforming Minimum Lot
Size
417 12th Street
(Subject Property)