Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ames Zoning Board Denies Request for 1,600-Square-Foot Detached Garage at 2612 Woodview Drive
Summary
The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment voted Oct. 22 to deny a variance for a 1,600-square-foot detached garage at 2612 Woodview Drive, finding the hardship was largely self-created and alternatives exist; the board suggested staff or City Council consider a narrower code adjustment.
The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment on Oct. 22 denied a request to build a 1,600-square-foot detached garage at 2612 Woodview Drive, voting to accept staff’s recommendation to deny.
Parker Walsh, city planner, told the board the proposed detached garage exceeds the Ames Municipal Code maximum for accessory structures (900 square feet) and that staff concluded several variance criteria were not met, including that the hardship is self-created. "Therefore, the board can conclude that this criteria is not met, and staff recommends Alternative 1, which is to deny the request," Walsh said.
The applicant had argued attaching a garage would be structurally impractical because the existing garage is partially submerged and the house grade would require significant foundation work. Alicia Rabeck, representing the property owners, said the household has five vehicles and that attachment or other designs were not workable. Builder Tyler Raybeck added, "we wouldn't be here if we could" attach the structure without extensive alterations and said the proposed detached building would match the house materials and could be converted to an accessory dwelling unit later if desired.
Neighbors told the board they did not object. Deborah Buck, who lives nearby at 2811 White Oak Drive, said she had "no objection to it." Edwin Buck asked whether the owners could instead build two separate 900-square-foot garages; staff said multiple 900-square-foot detached garages are possible but that the cumulative garage-door width and the city’s building-coverage limit would still apply.
Board members debated whether the 900-square-foot cap created a practical difficulty unique to the property. One board member summarized the point as a statutory test: "we have to analyze this as whether or not the 900-square-foot maximum is imposing a practical difficulty," and said they did not see a way to find that the standard was met under current code. Staff noted the director had informally considered a 20% discretionary increase (1,080 square feet) as a possible compromise that could be pursued after the meeting.
Member White House moved to accept Alternative 1 (deny the variance); Cruz seconded. The board conducted a roll-call vote with Taylor, Cruz, Patton and White House voting "Aye." The motion carried and the board denied the request based on staff findings. The chair read appeal rights, saying anyone desiring to appeal may do so within 30 days after filing the decision in a court of record.
The board also discussed, without taking formal action on a text amendment, whether City Council should reexamine accessory-structure size limits for large lots or particular neighborhoods; staff explained that a city-initiated or citizen-initiated text amendment would go to City Council for final action.
Votes at a glance: approval of minutes for Oct. 8, 2025 — passed (motion moved and seconded; chair abstained as noted); variance for 2612 Woodview Drive (1,600 sq ft) — denied (board accepted staff Alternative 1).
