HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 10-28-2015MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AMES, IOWA OCTOBER 28, 2015
The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 7:00 p.m. on
October 14, 2015, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present:
Shelby Ebel, Kyle Perkins, Michael Davis and Matthew Koehler. Board Member Susan
Bradbury was absent. Staff members Karen Marren, Charlie Kuester, Justin Moore, and Mark
Lambert were also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Perkins, seconded by Koehler, to approve the minutes
of the meeting of October 14, 2015.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 15-16
SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT – Kyle Thompson, 4630 Twain Street
Public Hearing on application for a Special Home Occupation Permit to allow a reptile
breeding and sales business on the property located at 4630 Twain Street*
City Planner Charlie Kuester displayed a location map of the applicant’s home. He noted that the
applicant has requested approval of a Special Home Occupation permit to allow a snake breeding
and sales business. The applicant, Kyle Thompson, has been raising and keeping snakes and
reptiles for twenty years but his hobby has evolved into a business of breeding and selling certain
snakes in the past three years. Mr. Thompson sought a Special Home Occupation permit in July
of 2014, but was denied. He has worked with the City to meet compliance regarding treatment
and control of animals. Mr. Thompson has reapplied and is seeking a Special Home Occupation
permit once again for reptile breeding and sales.
Mr. Thompson currently has about 44 snakes in his three bedroom residence. None of the snakes
are venomous. All are pythons and boas, 15 of which are more than six feet long and a re thus
registered with the City. The food source is rodents, which are shipped to the residence frozen
and then kept in a freezer until needed. Delivery of these rodents occurs approximately once per
month. The only other business elements are enclosures and enclosure supplies, which are
purchased infrequently.
The breeding snakes produce eggs and offspring. Once they have reached a certain development
phase, the snakes are available for purchase; the business is conducted through the internet and e-
mail. Snakes are shipped by a commercial shipper who requires certification of the shipper and
thus certain standards must be met. The applicant also uses a third party who has the required
certification. The applicant takes the snakes to be shipped to the shipper. Because the snakes are
not shipped in the winter months and due to the life cycle of the snakes, the business is
somewhat seasonal. The applicant states that snakes are also sold at reptile expositions, which
involves transporting the snakes to and from those locations. The applicant states that he expects
to sell about 20 snakes over the next year.
The site plan, project description, applicable law, and findings of fact and conclusions were
reviewed in detail by Mr. Kuester. He explained that City staff has reviewed the request and
recommends that the Board approve the request for a Special Home Occupation Permit with the
following conditions:
a. The permit be for the period of one year and the Zoning Board of Adjustment must
approve a new permit in order for the home occupation to continue beyond that
period.
b. No more than eight breeding pairs of snakes be used for the business.
c. No other reptiles are bred or sold.
Ms. Ebel inquired if there is anything different from this application compared to last years. Mr.
Kuester noted that it is essentially the same recommendation and staff report from last year.
Kyle Thompson, 4630 Twain Street, was sworn in and testified under oath. He feels his snakes
are being referred to as a business but he doesn’t feel that he fits into either of the business
models for breeding snakes. He explained that he loves reptiles and that he breeds snakes
because it is an amazing, fulfilling experience for him. He also said that he needs to participate in
some selling and breeding to help cover expenses for food, vet bills, and enclosures. Mr.
Thompson noted how much he enjoys sharing his hobby and knowledge surrounding snakes with
others, particularly at Iowa State University (ISU). He explained that he does not expect, nor
does he care, to make a profit from this business as he actually plans to decrease the amount of
reptiles he owns. In conclusion, he stated that he meets every city, state, and federal requirement
and that he does not feel that he is or has been a nuisance to the neighborhood in any way.
Mr. Koehler questioned when snakes become mature enough to breed. Mr. Thompson noted that
it varies depending on the species and the individual snake. He also said that he has snakes in his
collection that are just pets, not breeding snakes.
Mr. Perkins inquired if there have been instances where snakes have escaped. Mr. Thompson
said they all have locked cages and that the room where they are stored is also locked.
Ms. Ebel inquired that if eight breeding pairs, condition b recommended by staff, is not ideal for
Mr. Thompson, what would be a better metric for him. Mr. Thompson said that he does feel
eight is an odd metric but said that there probably isn’t a good metric.
Mr. Koehler asked when breeding season occurs. Mr. Thompson said that it can vary depending
on the season, weather, and other factors; there is only so much that the breeder can control.
Mr. Davis wondered if the condition that no other reptiles are bred or sold is realistic. Mr.
Thompson said that yes, it is realistic and feasible.
Lindsey Heinrichs, 300 Mulberry Boulevard, was sworn in and testified under oath. She is an
ISU student and a member of the Amphibian and Reptile Club speaking in favor of the approval
of the permit. She explained that Mr. Thompson provides students with extensive knowledge, as
well as the opportunity and experience to work with exotic animals that they wouldn’t have
obtained otherwise.
Carmen Lau, 103 Mulberry Court, was sworn in and testified under oath. She is also an ISU
student and a member of the Amphibian and Reptile Club who spoke in favor of the approval of
the permit. As a vet student, she emphasized the importance of being able to work with and gain
experience from real exotic snakes. Ms. Lau feels she can ensure the safety of herself, as well as
the safety of her clients, because of the knowledge that she has obtained handling Mr.
Thompson’s snakes.
Kendra Mosman, 2321 Sundown Drive, was sworn in and testified under oath. She owns two
properties on Twain Street and is in opposition of approval of the permit. She spoke on behalf of
the tenants who live in her properties. She said that her tenants feel uneasy living in the same
neighborhood as the snakes which puts property owners, who also have businesses to run, in a
difficult position. Ms. Mosman said that it has affected their rental business and she’s concerned
it could ultimately affect property values in the future. Lastly, Ms. Mosman noted concern for the
extra traffic and vehicles that might be on the street as a result of the approval of the permit.
Ed Twedt, 4606 Ontario Street, was sworn in and testified under oath. He has worked with
reptiles for about 25 years. Mr. Twedt feels Mr. Thompson’s rights are being infringed upon
because of others’ fear and dislike for exotic reptiles.
George Amariucai, 3010 Turquoise Circle, was sworn in and testified under oath. He owns three
properties on Twain Street and feels that the snakes are hurting his rental business. He has
received complaints from his tenants and feels that the approval of this permit would only further
negatively impact his rental business.
Mr. Kuester reiterated that the snakes are there and will be there regardless of whether or not the
permit is approved. He also said that the applicant would maybe have one or two vehicles a week
in the neighborhood; there would not be a noticeable increase in traffic. Mr. Kuester feels that
what it ultimately comes down to is people’s fear of snakes and the perception of the public that
Mr. Thompson has snakes in his home. In conclusion, Mr. Kuester stated that Mr. Thompson’s
application meets the animal control ordinance, as well as the criteria for a Special Home
Occupation permit.
Mr. Thompson noted that he understands that people have a real fear of snakes. He invited his
neighbors to come to his home to show them the set up and that the snakes are not the terrifying,
man eating reptiles that people believe they are.
Ms. Ebel inquired what kind of licenses or permits Mr. Thompson already has for the snakes.
Mr. Thompson said that he has his USDA commercial breeders permit, as well as a permit
through Iowa agriculture. Ms. Ebel questioned if it would make sense to require that Mr.
Thompson maintains the permits that he already obtains. Mr. Kuester said that that would be
consistent and similar to requiring that a daycare maintain a license through the state.
Mr. Davis stated that he feels it’s important to keep in mind the scope of the application. He
knows that people have concerns about property values but Mr. Thompson does meet the zoning
code requirements across the board.
Mr. Koehler noted that he was undecided but feels Mr. Thompson’s business should be in a
commercial zoning district, not a residential zoning district.
Moved by Davis that conditions b and c be included with the approval of the permit with the
removal of condition a; however, also require that Mr. Thompson maintain all active licenses and
permits.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
Moved by Perkins, seconded by Ebel, to approve ORDER NO. 15-16, thereby approving the
request for a Special Home Occupation Permit to allow a reptile breeding and sales business on
the property located at 4630 Twain Street contingent upon the satisfaction of conditions a, b, and
c recommended by staff with the added condition that the applicant maintain all active licenses
and permits.
Roll Call Vote: 3-1. Voting Aye: Perkins, Davis, Ebel. Voting Nay: Koehler. Motion declared
approved.
CASE NO. 15-20
EXCEPTION FOR MINOR AREA MODIFICATION – Jim and LoJean Peterson, 2814
Duff Avenue
Public Hearing on application for an Exception for Minor Area Modification for side yard
setback for a garage addition on the property located at 2814 Duff Avenue*
Assistant City Planner Justin Moore displayed a location map and site plan for the project. He
informed the Board that the request is to allow a reduction of the side setback from six feet to
four feet on the south side of a single-family detached residence. The applicant has a one-story
single-family residence with an attached two-car garage on the south side. The garage portion of
the house is one story tall, 24 feet wide, and 23 feet deep. The garage is 18 feet from the south
property line at the front and 16 feet from the south property line at the back corner. Since the
house is considered as having a one-story above grade, the required minimum side setback is 6
feet.
Currently, the attached garage is a two-stall wide structure. The homeowner wishes to add an
additional stall on the south side that would be 12 feet wide. The addition would extend beyond
the 24-foot width of the existing garage to include a 12-foot wide by 24-foot deep addition on the
south side of the existing garage. An exception for minor area modification to allow the garage
to extend two feet into the minimum required side yard setback of six feet is requested. Since the
south wall of the garage is not parallel to the south property line, approximately half of the
proposed addition would encroach into the required setback.
The site plan, project description, applicable law, and findings of fact and conclusions were
reviewed in detail by Mr. Moore. He explained that City staff has reviewed the request and
recommends that the Board deny the request. City staff found that the applicant only met six of
the eight applicable criteria needed for this exception.
Justin Else, 306 Colorado Circle, was sworn in and testified under oath. Mr. Else is the builder
for the project at hand and spoke on behalf of the applicant. He noted that it is dangerous for the
applicant to park vehicles on Duff Avenue but that the applicant must park on Duff because of
the lack of space in their driveway. He emphasized that they are only asking for a minor
modification for the back corner of the garage. Mr. Else said that it is not worth it for the
applicant to spend the money on a garage if they are unable to build a 12 foot wide garage; the
garage must be 12 feet in order to accommodate a full size vehicle. He said that it is his hope, as
well as the applicant’s hope, that the garage would help to improve street flow and the safety of
pedestrians with more off street parking. In conclusion, he said that ten feet is not feasible for the
applicant’s need which is why they are requesting this exception.
Mr. Koehler asked if the garage could be tapered. Mr. Else replied that it would not be worth it to
angle the garage; the measurements and the look of the property would look much worse with a
trapezoid for a garage.
Mr. Koehler inquired why the applicant needed 12 feet rather than ten feet. Mr. Else said that
they need the 12 feet for the full size truck they plan to park in that garage. 12 feet would give
the applicant two feet on each side to get in and out of, rather than one foot which would be
pretty tight. The addition would also create two more parking spots in their driveway for their
frequent visitors.
Ms. Ebel inquired if there are rules surrounding the boat and how long it can sit out without
being enclosed. Mr. Moore said that the boat can sit out for 72 hours and then the boat needs to
be enclosed, per City code.
LoJean Peterson, 2814 Duff Avenue, was sworn in and testified under oath. Ms. Peterson spoke
on the safety issues associated with their location, as well as the issue of having to jockey
vehicles around in order to avoid parking tickets.
Mr. Davis inquired what other vehicles they have besides a truck. Ms. Peterson said that they
have two cars and a truck. She noted that they have a storage facility where they take the boat to
be parked during the spring, fall and winter.
Mr. Koehler asked if any comments had been received by the public. Mr. Moore replied that no
comments had been received.
Mr. Davis noted that he was having a difficult time finding justification for the financial
hardship.
Ms. Ebel inquired if the boat fit in the two stall garage. Mr. Else replied that it does, but it takes
up the entire two stall garage.
Ms. Ebel said she feels that a practical difficulty does exist since the Code requires the boat to be
enclosed after 72 hours.
Moved by Davis, seconded by Perkins to deny ORDER NO. 15-201, thereby denying the request
for an Exception for Minor Area Modification for side yard setback for a garage addition on the
property located at 2814 Duff Avenue, based on the findings of fact and conclusions.
Roll Call Vote: 2-2. Voting Aye: Davis and Perkins. Voting Nay: Ebel and Koehler. Motion
fails.
Moved by Ebel, seconded by Koehler, to approve ORDER NO. 15-20, thereby approving the
request for an Exception for Minor Area Modification for side yard setback for a garage addition
on the property located at 2814 Duff Avenue, based on the findings of fact and conclusions.
Roll Call Vote: 3-1. Voting Aye: Ebel, Koehler, and Davis. Voting Nay: Perkins. Motion
declared approved.
CASE NO. 15-21
VARIANCE – Ryan and Liz Jeffrey, 234 Parkridge Circle
Public Hearing on application for Variance for the building of a carport on the property
located at 234 Parkridge Circle*
City Planner Karen Marren displayed a location map and site plan for the project. She informed
the Board that the applicant is requesting approval of a variance to the minimum front yard
setback requirement in the RL zone to allow for the construction of a carport in front of the
existing two stall garage on the property at 234 Parkridge Circle. The home is a two-story single-
family home located on a cul-de-sac. Based on GIS data, existing grades at the front of the
property appear to drop 10 to 12 feet from the front property line to the base of the home. The
existing grades on the property is such that the garage is located on the upper story of the home
over lower level finished living space and is accessed through the use of a bridge structure from
the public right-of-way to the garage entrance. The current garage is approximately 30 feet from
the front property line where a 25-foot setback is required.
The applicant states that the existing garage floor is constructed of structural OSB and is leaking
into the lower level living space located under the garage. The application notes that the concern
for future water issues and materials available on the market are not adequate to be able to
maintain the existing garage attached to the structure. Therefore, the applicant is requesting the
variance to be able to construct a new carport in front of the existing garage to allow for covered
parking for their personal vehicles to replace the use of their current garage. In conversations
with the applicant, it was noted the existing garage would be used for storage in the short term
and could eventually be remodeled for additional living space in the future.
The proposed carport will be located in front of the existing garage over the driveway bridge,
and based on the scale of the submitted plans, is proposed to be approximately 21 feet wide by
19 feet deep (the length of the existing bridge structure to the garage).
The column supports of the proposed carport are located approximately 12 feet from the front lot
line with the eaves of the roof structure extending four feet beyond the columns to match the roof
design of the existing home. Based on Chapter 4 of the Zoning Code, eaves can project into the
front yard not more than three feet. With the proposed carport eaves being proposed four feet
from the column structure, the variance request for the proposed garage, as indicated in the plans,
would need to be granted at an 11 foot front yard setback to make the proposed carport
compliant with the Zoning Code for allowed encroachments into the setback.
The site plan, project description, applicable law, and findings of fact and conclusions were
reviewed in detail by Ms. Marren. She explained that City staff has reviewed the request and
recommends that the Board deny the request.
Ryan Jeffrey, 234 Parkridge Circle, was sworn in and testified under oath. Mr. Jeffrey addressed
the cost concern first. He informed the Board that the estimated cost of fixing the flooring in the
current garage was estimated at roughly $240,000 while the cost of the carport is $60,000; he
considers this to be a significant financial hardship. Within residential low density, there is a
general expectation of covered parking. In conclusion, he feels he meets all of the criteria for the
variance.
Mr. Koehler inquired how long the applicant has lived in the home. Mr. Jeffrey replied that they
have been in the home for a little over five years. He stated that they parked their vehicles in the
garage the first winter that they lived in the home until they noticed damage in the bedrooms
below the garage a couple months into the winter season; they have not parked in the garage
since that instance.
Mr. Davis noted that the floor of the garage is OSB. Mr. Jeffrey replied that it is indeed OSB
flooring, which has been replaced multiple times, with an epoxy coating and no drainage. Mr.
Jeffrey informed the Board that the proposed carport would not have walls or a door; however, it
would have protective railings because of the one level drop off.
Mr. Davis questioned what would happen to the current garage space. Mr. Jeffrey noted that for
the time being, the garage would work as extra storage space; they don’t have the funds to do
anything else with it at this time.
Mr. Davis inquired if Mr. Jeffrey had looked into what the cost would be to pour cement over or
seal the current structure. Mr. Jeffrey explained that cement cannot be laid on the current wood
structure which is why the engineer’s estimate came in at four times the amount of the carport.
All of the wood would have to be replaced with steel and a drainage system would need to be
implemented, as well. Mr. Jeffrey said that it would be a total rebuild of that portion of their
home.
Mr. Davis explained that section b(i) of the applicable laws states that the land in question cannot
yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in the zone. Mr. Davis noted that the
home is assessed at over $230,000; however, not a single home was listed over $200,000, of
those that sold, without a garage and this home essentially has no garage. He feels that without a
garage, it affects the property value; therefore, the criterion is met.
Mr. Davis noted that section c of the applicable laws states that the spirit of the Ordinance shall
be observed even when the variance is granted. But, it also says that information can be provided
showing the issue of cost and feasibility of complying with the code. Mr. Davis said that he feels
that sheer cost factor alone is a great enough factor to meet the criteria; therefore, he feels the
criterion has been met. Mr. Koehler concurred with Mr. Davis.
Moved by Davis, seconded by Ebel, to approve ORDER NO. 15-21, thereby approving the
request for Variance for the building of a carport on the property located at 234 Parkridge Circle,
based on the findings of fact and conclusions.
Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 15-18
VARIANCE – Collegiate United Methodist Church, 2622 Lincoln Way
Public Hearing on application for Variance from the minimum height, floor area ratio, and
percentage of brick on the exterior façade for a new garage located at 2622 Lincoln Way*
City Planner Karen Marren displayed a location map and site plan for the project. She noted that
the request is for approval of three variances to construct a new accessory garage building at
2622 Lincoln Way. The church was built in 1920 and has been expanded over the years with the
last addition to the main church building in 2006. The church ownership area contains multiple
properties and buildings including the main church property, the Church Annex and Lighthouse
buildings along Sheldon Avenue, a small house/daycare building located west of the main church
along Lincoln Way and multiple small parcels which are either vacant open space or used for
accessory parking. The church campus totals approximately 4.9 acres with all of its properties.
Based on the design and proposed location of the garage, construction of the garage, as proposed,
would require approval of three variances; minimum height, reduction in the required percentage
of brick for exterior facades, and reduction in the minimum required floor area ratio for the
properties.
The applicant’s request is to construct a 1,450 square foot accessory garage structure located
along the south property line of the Collegiate United Methodist Church building property in the
Campustown Service Center(CSC) Zone. The church previously had an accessory garage located
in the same general location but has been demolished in anticipation of the new larger garage to
facilitate the storage and use of the maintenance equipment for the church.
The site plan, project description, applicable law, and findings of fact and conclusions were
reviewed in detail by Ms. Marren. She explained that City staff has reviewed the request and
recommends that the Board deny the request.
Ms. Ebel noted that the CSC Zone does not seem to be the best fit for the church and wondered if
rezoning might be a possibility or if the applicant had explored that option at all. Ms. Marren
replied that institutional use is permitted in other zones; however, most other zones would still
require a Special Use Permit and criteria would be altered for a different zone. She noted that
most of the property surrounding the church is zoned high density residential. Religious
institutions also have other requirements they have to meet as far as setbacks.
Mr. Davis asked if the building would need to be all brick viewing it from any direction. Ms.
Marren said that the applicant would be required to have some brick on all four sides in order to
meet the façade requirement.
Mr. Davis inquired if the home on the property is grandfathered in or not. Ms. Marren said that
the church is required to meet the brick requirement from an addition that happened in 2006 but
the house was grandfathered in and does not need to meet the brick requirement.
Randy Larabee, 306 Thackeray Avenue, was sworn in and testified under oath as a representative
of the church. Mr. Larabee informed the Board that there is a traffic problem, as well as a history
of vandalism in the neighborhood where the church is located. Because of the traffic and
vandalism, it is essential that the church have a very secure, protected facility to store their lawn
and snow removal equipment, as well as a full size bus. Currently, the equipment is being stored
in two trailers on the church parking lots and the bus is being stored in a facility in Boone
County which is not very convenient for members.
Mr. Larabee explained that the church has been granted floor area ratio (FAR) variances for past
projects, but the variances did not include the entire nine lots that the church owns. He informed
the board that to build 90,000 square feet of space for the garage, it would cost the church
roughly 9 million dollars which is financially impossible for the church to obtain. With the hope
that the garage will be built again, they would move the garage north in order to avoid the City
sanitary sewer line. He said that that would require an easement from the City but they are happy
to work with the City get that taken care of.
Touching on the minimum height issue, Mr. Larabee said that the issues are the same as that of
the FAR. They would be looking at constructing a garage costing $70 per square foot (assuming
the structure is one level), plus another $30 to 40 per square foot to fix the height issues which
does not include the cost to meet the brick requirements; the costs are extreme and financially
impossible for the church to meet.
Mr. Larabee said that regarding the brick requirement, he feels that the brick is an unnecessary
expense for the church. The garage would be located against the back property line where there
are some grade changes. He explained that the entire height of the garage would not be visible
from Lincoln Way, the view from Sheldon would be partially screened; the Hayward side of the
garage would be most visible. Mr. Larabee said that driving on Lincoln Way, the garage would
be barely visible as the church would obstruct most of the visibility of the garage. He feels the
brick is just another cost issue to the church; however, if the findings can’t be made to grant the
variance for the brick, the church would be willing to finance the brick to meet the necessary
requirements.
Ms. Ebel inquired if the church has looked into demolishing the house and using that space for
the garage. Mr. Larabee noted that they did consider that option but there are severe grade issues;
the house sits eight to ten feet higher than the rest of the property. Ultimately, the church wants
to change how members enter into the sanctuary. The long term plan would be to demolish the
house and expand the sanctuary in that direction as they do not want to pull the church toward
Lincoln Way. Mr. Larabee noted that the church took a look at several options and scenarios but
this was the scenario that everyone agreed upon.
Ms. Ebel asked Mr. Larabee if the church looked into the possibility of rezoning. Mr. Larabee
said that they did explore that option but discovered that they do like their location and the fact
that their location does include green space which can be rare. Ms. Ebel concluded that another
zoning district would most likely present other problems. Mr. Larabee agreed noting that
different zoning districts would have pro’s and con’s. He also said that even the largest building
on the property does not meet the FAR.
Mr. Davis feels that findings can be met to grant the variance on the grounds of unnecessary
hardship because of the millions of dollars it would cost simply to build the garage if they have
to resort to the demolition of the house already located on the property. He concluded that with
vandalism being an issue, and a concern, that too is a part of the unnecessary hardship. The
church must take extra care and precaution to ensure the church is securely locked up and
protected.
Mr. Davis noted that there would also be a significant, unnecessary hardship in order for the
applicant to be able to the meet the minimum height requirement; therefore, the criterion would
be met.
Mr. Koehler inquired if the brick must be 51% on each side. Mr. Larabee said that that is correct
with the exclusion of doors and windows. Ms. Marren explained that it is written the way that it
is so that brick comprises the majority of the structure; the brick is calculated side by side, not as
a whole.
Mr. Larabee said that they are certainly willing to do whatever they need to do in order to meet
the brick requirement for the exterior facade.
Mr. Davis feels that it is difficult to ignore the brick façade requirement when other businesses
are required to comply with it, as well.
Moved by Koehler, seconded by Perkins, to approve ORDER NO. 15-18, thereby approving the
request for Variance from the minimum height and floor area ratio, and denying the Variance
request for the percentage of brick on the exterior façade for a new garage located at 2622
Lincoln Way, based on the findings of fact and conclusions.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 15-17
SPECIAL USE PERMIT – Collegiate United Methodist Church, 2622 Lincoln Way
Public Hearing on application for Special Use Permit for a new garage located at 2622
Lincoln Way*
City Planner Karen Marren displayed a location map and site plan for the project. Ms. Marren
noted that there are three corresponding variance requests also pending for this project. Staff has
recommended denial for some of the variance requests, but has approached the Special Use
Permit application independent of the variance recommendation. She noted that if the Board
chooses to deny the related variance(s), the proposed Special Use Permit may not be approved as
it will not comply with zoning requirements.
The site plan, project description, applicable law, and findings of fact and conclusions were
reviewed in detail by Ms. Marren. She explained that City staff has reviewed the request and
recommends that the Board deny the request.
Mr. Larabee informed the Board that the church is already working with an engineering
company to get property lines consolidated.
Moved by Perkins, seconded by Koehler, to approve ORDER NO. 15-17, thereby approving the
request for Special Use Permit for a new garage located at 2622 Lincoln Way, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions with the following conditions:
a. Be compliant with the brick façade requirements in the Code
b. Obtain a Plat of Survey to consolidate property lines
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
COMMENTS: There were no comments by the Board.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Perkins, seconded by Davis, to adjourn the meeting at 9:42 p.m.
_____________________________ _________________________________
Erin Cain, Recording Secretary Shelby Ebel, Chair