HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 11-13-20131
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AMES, IOWA NOVEMBER 13, 2013
The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 7:00 p.m. on
November 13, 2013, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present: Shelby
Ebel, Elizabeth Erbes, Sandra McJimsey, and Gary Taylor. Board Member Patrick Brooks was absent. Staff
members Ray Anderson and Jessica Spoden were also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Erbes, seconded by Ebel, to approve the minutes of the meeting
of September 25, 2013, as written.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 13-10
VARIANCE - ADAMS, 1179 MCCORMICK AVENUE & 1930 E 13 STREETTH
Public Hearing on application for Variance from the required rear yard setback on the property
located at 1930 E 13 Street and the required side yard setback on the property located at 1179th
McCormick Avenue to allow the relocation of the property line between the two properties
City Planner Ray Anderson displayed an aerial photograph of the two subject properties, highlighting the
property line where the properties are divided. He explained that, in order to sell a portion of his lot, the
owner of 1179 McCormick, is proposing to relocate the property line to a point between two existing
buildings, approximately 64 feet farther south than the current line. The two buildings are approximately
4 feet apart; this would create a rear yard setback reduction from 12 feet to 2 feet for 1930 E 13 Streetth
(Parcel A), and a side yard setback reduction from 12 feet to 2 feet for 1179 McCormick Avenue (Parcel
B). According to Mr. Anderson, a variance was granted by the ZBA in 1995, which allowed the original
parcel, addressed as 1930 E 13 Street, to be divided between two existing buildings. This created a setbackth
of 1.72 feet for each property. Mr. Anderson displayed a photograph of the buildings between which the
current property line sits. He explained that the owner wishes to relocate the line to the south side of the
southern building, which is approximately 1,906 square feet, so that it can be relocated to Parcel A. Mr.
Anderson stated that when the buildings were constructed, there was not a plan to divide them off and sell
them separately.
Mr. Anderson said that City staff has analyzed the request in comparison to the variance criteria and
standards in the Municipal Code, and the findings and conclusions are listed in the staff report. It was
staff’s conclusion that only one of the standards was met by the application.
Robert Goodwin, 311 Lincoln Way, Ames, Iowa, stated that he was representing the applicant, Jim Adams.
Mr. Goodwin explained that Mr. Adams has owned the land south of East 13 Street since the 1960s. Ath
photo and sketch showing exterior dimensions was displayed. Mr. Goodwin said that the buildings on the
site were all built in accordance with City Code. He highlighted the building on the north edge of 1179
McCormick and explained that Mr. Zylstra, who owns the property to the north, wants to purchase the
building. Mr. Goodwin pointed out that in 1996, despite City staff’s recommendation for denial, the ZBA
granted a variance which allowed Mr. Zylstra to purchase three buildings from Mr. Adams. He displayed
current City Assessor information on both properties, noting that the building in question was built in 1967
as a warehouse storage building, 1,906 square feet, 100% concrete block, with a firewall. Mr. Goodwin
explained that Mr. Zylstra desires to remodel the southernmost building (currently 2,080 square feet) on
his property, next to the building that he wants to purchase. However, he is unable to remodel it because
the wooden foundation is rotting, so he intends to replace it with a new building that would extend 50 feet
farther to the east. Mr. Goodwin said that Mr. Zylstra is willing to pay $100,000 for the 1,906 square foot
2
building. He stated that the granting of the variance will change very little on the subject properties; the
only difference is that the 2,080 square foot building would be replaced with a new one. Mr. Goodwin said
that if the variance is not granted, Mr. Adams will lose his $100,000 sale, which would be an economic
hardship. Mr. Adams could raze the building and have an open space there, but that would eliminate all
revenue from the tenant in that building, which amounts to $8,400 per year in rent. Mr. Zylstra has
indicated that he would only pay $50,000 if the building is razed because he would lose a good building
with a good tenant. Mr. Goodwin said that razing the building would be so impractical that it would be an
economic debacle.
Mr. Goodwin noted that the staff report finds the application to be contrary to the public interest, citing
concern about firewalls. He disagrees with that finding; the 1,906 square foot building is 6-inch concrete
block and has firewalls of its own. Mr. Goodwin also takes issue with staff’s finding that there would not
be a loss of reasonable return on the property if the variance was not granted. He stated that Mr. Adams will
lose his $100,000 sale, and if the building is razed, there would be loss of rent and a $50,000 loss on the
sale. With regard to the unique circumstances criterion, Mr. Goodwin believes that the situation is unique
because the existing buildings were constructed by one owner and in accordance with Municipal Code at
the time. Mr. Goodwin said that the spirit of the ordinance would be observed if the variance was granted,
because one of the significant spirits is to not impose an unnecessary hardship. He reiterated that the area
will not change if the variance is granted. With regard to substantial justice, Mr. Goodwin stated that it
would be justice to Mr. Zylstra to enable him to replace his building, justice to the tenant to remain in the
building, and justice to Mr. Adams so that he does not lose the $100,000 sale. He said that this request is
very similar to the one that was granted in 1996. He feels that the application does fulfill all of the
requirements and should be approved.
Upon being questioned by Board Member Ebel, Mr. Goodwin stated that he believes the Zylstras would
keep the current tenant if the variance was granted. He understands that their plans are to expand their
existing building, which will give them the additional square footage they need. Ms. Ebel asked if a cross
access easement is in place that would prevent the building from getting enlarged even farther to the east.
Mr. Goodwin said that he is not aware of a written document, but the two property owners work very well
together, so he is confident that there would still be access between the two properties.
Board Member Erbes asked if the Zylstras have looked into replacing their building in a conforming
manner. Mr. Goodwin explained that they did not want to start paying for architectural work until they
knew whether or not a variance would be granted, so plans have not been drawn up. Ms. Erbes surmised
that the Zylstras desire to acquire the building to the south so that they wouldn’t have to build in
conformance with the existing property. Mr. Goodwin said that if they rebuild as the property exists now,
they would need 12-foot setbacks from the property line. Losing 12 feet from the setbacks and gaining 50
feet to the east is not enough square footage for their needs.
Chair Taylor agreed with Ms. Erbes; he thinks that, if not for the boundary line change, there is nothing that
would prevent them from doing architecture work right now, except that they would have to comply with
the setbacks. Mr. Taylor asked if the applicant would continue to see $8,400 per year even if the sale does
not go through. Mr. Goodwin believes that the tenant would remain if the building was not sold.
With regard to Mr. Goodwin’s statement that all of the buildings were built in accordance with the
Municipal Code, Assistant City Attorney Jessica Spoden asked if the property was all one parcel at the time
of construction. Mr. Goodwin said that it was; there are common walls on three buildings to the north.
Planner Anderson noted that the north wall of the southern building has a firewall, but the building to the
south has not been insulated as such. Mr. Goodwin stated that it could be.
3
Ms. Erbes inquired about the City’s position on a nonconforming building that needs to be rebuilt. Mr.
Anderson explained that if it is torn down completely, it would have to be built according to Code. That
would be a 12 foot minimum on the side (west) and a 12 foot minimum on the rear (south). Ms. Erbes said
that even with the setbacks, the end result would still be a building that is larger than the present one. Upon
being questioned by Ms. Ebel, Mr. Anderson explained that the 1996 variance would no longer be effective
if that building is torn down.
Moved by Ebel, seconded by Erbes, to deny ORDER NO. 13-10, thereby denying the request for a variance
to allow a rear setback reduction on the property at 1930 E 13 Street and a side setback reduction on theth
property at 1179 McCormick Avenue, based on the findings and conclusions as stated in the staff report.
Board Member McJimsey said that, in addition to the reconstruction options that the Board has discussed,
she is concerned about the fire safety issue. Mr. Taylor concurred. He does not believe that a reasonable
return will be lost on either property. Though the applicant may lose the sale, there will not be a loss of
return.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 13-11
VARIANCE - RAYMOND, 1179 AND 1201 MCCORMICK AVENUE
Public Hearing on application for Variance from the required landscaping and parking lot
improvement standards for the properties located at 1179 and 1201 McCormick Avenue
Planner Anderson displayed an aerial map of the subject properties. He noted that one of the properties was
part of the previous case, but the application is unrelated. The building at 1201 McCormick Avenue is
owned by Alano, Inc., and is used for “Alcoholics Anonymous” meetings. The owner would like to pave
the existing gravel parking area and create a second parking area in the front yard. Mr. Anderson pointed
out the property line on the map, and explained that the parking lot itself is split by that line. Part of the
drive aisle is on 1179 McCormick, and according to the Code, a landscaped strip is required between the
drive aisle and property line. Another part of the variance is that the edge of the drive aisle is less than 5
feet from the property line; the Code requires a minimum of 5-foot perimeter parking lot landscaping.
Additionally, the applicant is requesting approval for front yard parking. Mr. Anderson explained that the
proposed front yard parking has already been paved, which was done without City approval. There is a
Code requirement for a 5-foot landscape strip between front yard parking and the front of the property line.
In this case, that is not possible since the parking spaces come right up to the property line.
Mr. Anderson stated that staff has analyzed the request, and there are conditions for approval of the
variance that would need to be accomplished before the plan would be approved. In addition to the
proposed conditions listed in the staff report, Mr. Anderson explained that a 13 condition should be addedth
with regard to the handicapped parking sign to the south of the entrance. He said that the handicapped spot
does not have adequate depth to be a parking space without encroaching into the right-of-way, so that sign
should be removed. Upon being questioned by Chair Taylor, Mr. Anderson stated that the site would still
have enough handicapped accessible spots, but not enough total parking spaces. The subject property
currently does not have enough total parking spaces; if the variance were granted, it would be closer to
conformance than it is today.
Mr. Anderson stated that staff has found the application to meet all of the standards. He noted a correction
on page 7 of the report; the report states that the spirit of the ordinance is not met by the application, but
it is.
4
Upon being questioned by Vice Chair McJimsey, Mr. Anderson explained that there are nine total parking
spaces. Starting from scratch, the site would need at least 18. The drive aisle is 24 feet wide, which allows
it to accommodate two-way traffic. If the required landscaping was installed on the south, it would not be
wide enough for two-way traffic. Mr. Taylor asked if this drive is the only access to 1179 McCormick,
absent any easements from 1930 East 13 . Mr. Anderson stated that it is.th
A photo of the front of the building was displayed and the front parking area was discussed at length.
Assistant City Attorney Spoden stated that simply removing the handicapped parking sign will not stop
people from parking vehicles there. Mr. Anderson suggested that the area could be landscaped or
signed/striped for no parking. Ms. Spoden inquired as to when the front area was paved. Mr. Anderson said
that it was paved in August of 2012, without permission from the City. He explained that the property
owner did not know the process and thought that he was doing the right thing.
Scott Raymond, 1401 Panoramic Court, Ames, Iowa, stated that the Ames Alano Society, Inc. began its
operation in a residential area and eventually came to the current location as meetings grew in size. Mr.
Raymond said that the entity operates on a very small operating budget based on contributions. He
explained that a memorial was received in late 2011 and was designated for the paving of the handicapped
space on the east side of the building. Upon receipt of the memorial, a committee was organized to ensure
that the proper procedure was followed. Mr. Raymond explained that the committee checked with City
Hall, and a right-of-way excavation permit was issued in August of 2012 that allowed them to partially cut
the curb. At that time the paving went in as well. The neighbor to the west, Mr. Adams, has agreed to share
the expense that would enhance the parking on the south. Mr. Raymond indicated that prior to beginning
work on the south side, the contractor checked with the City to ensure that they had all of the necessary
permits, and that is when they discovered that they should have done a Minor Site Development Plan in
2012. They have since been working with Clapsaddle Garber Associates on the site plan, which has come
as a financial hardship. Mr. Raymond said that the idea of possibly needing more work, tearing out
concrete, or putting in additional landscaping on the east side would come at an additional hardship. He
said that the gravel parking was unsafe for everyone who used it, and the project will be an improvement
for everyone. He asked that the Board approve the application.
Mindy Bryngelson, Clapsaddle Garber Associates, 612 5 Street, Ames, Iowa, stated that she prepared theth
site plan. She noted that the subject property site is only .22 acres, which is the size of most residential lots,
so it is very difficult to accommodate the parking on the site itself. The access aisles and the parking aisles
are all standard sizes. Ms. Bryngelson indicated that she and Mr. Anderson met multiple times to try to
configure the site without needing a variance, but it was not possible. She noted that the plan is designed
to not increase storm water runoff at all. Mr. Taylor asked if she foresees any issues with being able to
comply with the proposed conditions in the staff report. Ms. Bryngelson said that the only issue may be
changing the parking stalls and making them deeper on the east side; they may lose a space.
Mr. Anderson reiterated that staff and the applicant attempted to find a way to make the site work without
a variance, but did not come up with one. He believes the applicant has come up with a good solution. It
does not bring the site into total conformance, but it would be less nonconforming than it is now.
Ms. McJimsey noted that the Board was considering a 14 condition with regard to adding no parkingth
indicators on he south part of the front of the building. Assistant City Attorney Spoden said that parking
would not be allowed there without an encroachment permit, so signage would be appropriate. She said
that, practically speaking it may be difficult to enforce, but it would at least serve as notification. Another
option would be a remote parking agreement with another property.
5
Moved by McJimsey, seconded by Erbes, to adopt ORDER NO. 13-11, thereby approving the request for
a variance to allow a reduction in the requirements for parking lot driveway/drive aisle dimensions and a
variance from the required parking lot perimeter landscaping requirements as shown on the site plan
received November 7, 2013, and in conformance with the following conditions for approval:
1.Provide cross access easement documents that assure access to the parking spaces and the drive
aisle on the two properties;
2.Provide a storm sewer easement from the owner of property at 1179 McCormick Avenue to the
owner of property at 1201 McCormick Avenue;
3.Change the location of the access aisle for the van-accessible space to the passenger side of the
parking space;
4.Lengthen the depth of the parking spaces between the building and the street to 19 feet, instead of
18 feet, as shown;
5.Change the width of the sidewalk between the building and the parking spaces to 4 feet, and the
depth of the parking spaces to 19 feet, instead of 20 feet, as shown;
6.Add one tree to the landscape area east of the parking spaces, and include shrubs spaced every 4
feet along the east edge of the parking lot and along the north side of the driveway to meet the “L2”
landscape standard;
7.A permanent easement from the owner of property at 1179 McCormick Avenue to the owner of
property at 1201 McCormick Avenue is required to provide the perimeter parking lot landscaping
that is required along the west perimeter of the parking lot;
8.An alternative solution to the permanent easement described in #7, above, is to use the western-
most parking space shown on the site plan for perimeter parking lot landscaping, instead of parking;
9.Add one tree to the landscape area west of the parking spaces;
10.Correct the building setbacks shown on the “Existing Conditions” sheet to include the following:
Front Lot Line: 10 feet, Side and Rear Lot Lines: 12 feet;
11.Label the existing shrubs and trees on each of the two properties;
12.Change the “Property Owner” label on the “Existing Conditions” sheet to include “Property
Owners, and change the address for property owned by James Adams to 1179 McCormick
Avenue;”
13.The Handicapped parking sign south of the main entry door on the east side of building shall be
removed; and,
14.Add no parking indicators for the south part of the paved area on the east side of the building,
all for the properties located at 1179 and 1201 McCormick Avenue.
The Board further discussed the options of requiring striping on the pavement and/or a parking agreement.
Mr. Anderson noted that remote parking is not allowed in the General Industrial zoning district, so the
Board would not be able to require it. It would still be fine for the property owners to enter into a private
agreement, but the City cannot require one.
Ms. Spoden asked that the Board be clear on whether it wants no parking signs, striping, or both. Mr.
Taylor asked if striping on pavement is generally required for no parking in a private lot. Mr. Anderson
stated that the City typically does not require striped no parking areas unless it is a walkway or area where
pedestrians go. Ms. McJimsey said that it might be useful to have the striping not only for their use, but also
so others would not park there when they’re not there during the daytime. Ms. Erbes said that may be true,
but she is sensitive to the cost involved with striping. A no parking sign may not be as effective, but it is
effective with less cost. Furthermore, if an encroachment were ever to be granted, the striping would need
to be removed.
6
Ms. Erbes suggested changing condition 13 to state that the applicant must substitute a no parking sign for
the handicapped parking sign. Ms. Spoden recommended that a new motion be made.
Moved by McJimsey, seconded by Erbes, to adopt ORDER NO. 13-11, thereby approving the request for
a variance to allow a reduction in the requirements for parking lot driveway/drive aisle dimensions and a
variance from the required parking lot perimeter landscaping requirements as shown on the site plan
received November 7, 2013, and in conformance with the following conditions for approval:
1.Provide cross access easement documents that assure access to the parking spaces and the drive
aisle on the two properties;
2.Provide a storm sewer easement from the owner of property at 1179 McCormick Avenue to the
owner of property at 1201 McCormick Avenue;
3.Change the location of the access aisle for the van-accessible space to the passenger side of the
parking space;
4.Lengthen the depth of the parking spaces between the building and the street to 19 feet, instead of
18 feet, as shown;
5.Change the width of the sidewalk between the building and the parking spaces to 4 feet, and the
depth of the parking spaces to 19 feet, instead of 20 feet, as shown;
6. Add one tree to the landscape area east of the parking spaces, and include shrubs spaced every 4
feet along the east edge of the parking lot and along the north side of the driveway to meet the “L2”
landscape standard;
7.A permanent easement from the owner of property at 1179 McCormick Avenue to the owner of
property at 1201 McCormick Avenue is required to provide the perimeter parking lot landscaping
that is required along the west perimeter of the parking lot;
8.An alternative solution to the permanent easement described in #7, above, is to use the western-
most parking space shown on the site plan for perimeter parking lot landscaping, instead of parking;
9.Add one tree to the landscape area west of the parking spaces;
10.Correct the building setbacks shown on the “Existing Conditions” sheet to include the following:
Front Lot Line: 10 feet, Side and Rear Lot Lines: 12 feet;
11.Label the existing shrubs and trees on each of the two properties;
12.Change the “Property Owner” label on the “Existing Conditions” sheet to include “Property
Owners, and change the address for property owned by James Adams to 1179 McCormick
Avenue;” and,
13.Appropriate no parking signage shall replace the handicapped parking sign on the east side of the
building, south of the main entry, to clearly indicate that parking is not allowed in the paved area
south of the walkway,
all for the properties located at 1179 and 1201 McCormick Avenue.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
COMMENTS: There were no comments by the Board.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:34 p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________
Emily Burton, Recording Secretary Gary Taylor, Chair