HomeMy WebLinkAboutA4 ITEM #: 3
' DATE: 4
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD O
F ADJUSTMENT
DATE PREPARED: April 6, 2012
MEETING DATE: April 11, 2012
THE ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER:de landscaped
APPEAL FROM A DECISION peal
OF Officer requiring a 15 fo
from a decision of the Zoning arking aisles.
median for every three contiguous, double loaded p
TY OWNE ER' Henry ZhenglYum Properties, LLC
PROPER
APPELLANT: Kurt Mackey: Roseland, Mackey, Harris Architects, PC
1620 South Kellogg Avenue (Attachment A)
LOCATION:
HOC (Highway Oriented Commercial)
ZOO:
SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Planning and Housing,interpreting
February 2,2012,from the Director opec's on of the Zoning Enforcement
See the e-mail of Fe and the, from a site plan
the zoning code(Attachment B) Also included is a proposed
Officer Supporting Information Form (Attachment C).
submitted by the appellant (Attachment D).
BACKGROUND: Ian for a
and Housing Director approved a minor site development p
In 2007,the Planning a 0 South Kellogg Avenue.The site also showed an area that
an in parking.The site plan als royal
commercial development at 16
of 12,510 square feet and accomp y However,the note the plan indicates that app
included a second building
and parking. and parking.The second building and
sec
of the site plan does not includetivepurposes.ond wilding ss wishes to add
parking were shown for illustrative
d occupied and the successful busing tha the additional
The first building was completed an staff,who indicate
A proposed site plan was reviewed by licable Code,below and
more parking p p e median requirement(see App
would trigger the landscape Director in Attachment B).
parking and Housing
the e-mail from the Planning Ian, as noted above,was
second building and parking area identified on the 2007 site p whether the
These of that 2007 approval. Conversations with the owner of the
explicitly NOT approved as part
lot or would be separated through a
representatives since 2001 have indicated an uncertain y d
property and his P ed as part of the existing Would be neede
vacant area would be develop
n lat.As early as 2010, staff indicated that some landscaping
subdivision p
in any case, either as a 15-foot landscaped median if it were retained as a single lot or as
two five-foot perimeter landscaping buffers if it were divided into two lots.
The issue of the landscaped median arises when a single parking lot(which has more than
16 spaces) contains three contiguous double loaded drive aisles. In that instance, there
needs to be a 15-foot wide landscaped median running the full length of(any) drive aisle.
This requirement applies for every three double loaded drive aisle so, for instance, a
parking lot with six double loaded drive aisles would need two medians.
The appellant submitted a site plan showing the owner's intent to add an additional 33
parking spaces (see Attachment D).These additional spaces include a double loaded drive
aisle oriented to the north/south. This double loaded drive aisle is the third double loaded
drive aisle and, therefore, triggers the landscape median requirement.
APPLICABLE CODE:
Section 29.403(4)of the Ames Municipal Code describes the landscaping requirements for
surface parking lots. Specifically, subparagraph (c)(i) provides the requirements for interior
landscaping of surface parking lots, including the threshold for the landscape median.
(c)Surface Parking Area Interior Landscaping.All surface parking areas must meet
the following interior landscaping requirements.
(i) Interior landscaping shall be required for parking lots, containing 16 or
more spaces, that include three or more rows of parking spaces separated
by two or more drive aisles in a single location. Such interior landscaping
shall, at a minimum, include a 9.0' wide and 16' long landscaped island for
every 20 interior parking spaces and a landscaped median, a minimum of 15'
wide running the full length of the drive aisle, for every 3 contiguous double
loaded parking aisles. [Emphasis added.]
At least one Landscape Tree, as defined in Section 29.403(2)(b), shall be
installed on each landscaped island. A minimum of one Landscape Tree is
required per 50 lineal feet of landscaped median. Shrubs or ground cover
plants must cover the remainder of each landscaped island and median.
BASIS OF DEPARTMENT DECISION:
Staff reviewed the site plan for the proposed parking lot expansion (Attachment D). Staff
finds that the layout will contain three contiguous, double loaded drive aisles. ("Double
loaded" means that the drive aisle has parking on both sides.)Staff relies on the language
of the ordinance which states that a landscaped median is required "for every 3 contiguous
double loaded parking aisles."The use of the term "for" means that the requirement is not
a spacing requirement; it is a ratio requirement—in this case, a one per three ratio. For
every increment of three double loaded parking aisles, one landscape median is required.
If the parking lot were larger and contained, say, nine contiguous double loaded parking
aisles, then the parking lot would need 3 landscape medians. There may be instances
where the constrains of the property would necessitate the loss of a row of parking in order
to accommodate the additional medians. In such a case,there may be three medians for 8
2
parking aisles (or two medians for five parking aisles or one median for two parking aisles).
Such a ratio is still acceptable because the ordinance seeks to assure that there is no less
than one median for every three double loaded parking aisles.
The proposed site plan has three contiguous double loaded parking aisles. Therefore,
under the provisions of the Section 29.403(4)(c)(i), a landscaped median needs to be
provided.
BASIS FOR APPEAL OF DECISION:
The appellant notes (in Attachment C) that the site is not like other, larger commercial
parking spaces. The triangular shape of the lot creates a number of relatively short parking
aisles. The applicant argues that requiring a landscaped median would necessitate the
removal of a row of parking spaces, thus turning a double loaded drive aisle into a single
loaded drive aisle. As a single loaded drive aisle, it would render the requirement
unnecessary since there would no longer be three double loaded aisles. Therefore, since
there are not three double loaded aisles, the median can be removed and replaced with
parking. But this would create three double loaded aisles which then would require the
median to be installed. The appellant argues that the correct interpretation should be that
the landscaped median would be required once the parking lot exceeds three double
loaded aisles.
Staff notes that our consistent practice is to require a landscaped median for every three
contiguous double loaded aisles. The applicant has pointed out an instance (the Wal-Mart
Super Center on South Duff Avenue) where the landscaped median was not required for
every three double loaded drive aisles. Staff concedes that it appears the standard was not
applied in this instance and can offer no reasoning why.
Staff also notes that the appellant's argument could be applied to whatever the threshold
number is. For example, if the requirement were a landscaped median for every five double
loaded drive aisles, then having to remove a row of parking from one of those five double
loaded aisles to install a median would drop the number down to four and the median
could, under the appellant's reasoning, be removed and replaced with parking. But adding
the parking would create the fifth double loaded aisle which would require the landscaped
median.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment can find that the Director of Planning & Housing made
the correct decision in determining that the proposed parking lot expansion requires a
landscaped median since the threshold of three contiguous double loaded parking
aisles is met.
2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment can grant the appeal if it finds that the Director of
Planning & Housing did not make the correct decision in applying City code to the
parking lot landscaping.
3
3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment can table this appeal application, and request
additional information from City staff or the appellant.
S:\PLAN—SHR\Council Boards Commissions\ZBA\Appealing the Decision of the Zoning Officer\1620S_Kellogg-04-11-12.docx
4
Attachment A
m
L/ x
S
YF �
87
s
�/03"� (
Alb
:.,x,• e�=x � �,.�"- a�,� '� s �aY � he
AL,
Y`
or
q
/ K �9�ti,71-3Vv1�1�JCJ
sue=
General Location
1620 S. Kellogg Ave.
i
(—Ll �Feet
0 25 50 100
5
Attachment B
RE: 1620 S. Kellogg SDP-1 1-27
Steve Osguthorpe t& Kurt Mackey 02J02)2012 08:21 AM
Bcc-, Charles KussW
Tide message is digitally signed.
............................. ........
Hello Kurt:
I'm trying to remember where we left off on the issue of the landstape median requirement for 1620
Kellogg and what additional follow-up you need from me. I recall that I was going to get back with you on,
projects for which the requirement for one landscape median for every three double loaded drive aisles
was applied or otherwise addressed. I also recall that you had concerns over the note on the approved
plan for 1620 Kellogg,which stated that the southwest corner of the site was not reviewed and approved
as part of the submitted site plan. You thought that staff should have provided a more thorough review of
the layout of that portion of the site regardless of the notation on the site plan.
Please forgive me in advance for a lengthy reply to the above items,but preparing a response has
required a bit of research on several projects,which I'll attempt to share with you now.
Regarding projects for which the landscape median requirement has been applied,there actually haven't
been too many during my tenure with the City that triggered this requirement. Projects to which this
requirement did apply include:
1, The Fateway site on Stange and Bloomington. (Median installed as required)
Z The Ag Leader site on Airport Road(ZBA upheld applicants appeal of requirement and allowed
parking lot without median(applicable to that site only))
1 The North Grand Mail Adaptive Reuse Site Plan(median requirement.waived by City Council under
provisions of adaptive rause plan)
4. The proposed site plan for a restaurant on the old bowling alley site(near corner of South Duff and 5th
Street) (Medians identified on site plan as required)
5. The now Web Filings site on University Blvd and Airport Road. (Medians Identified on site plan as
required)
Although R was not reviewed under my watch,you will also note that the larger parking lots in Somerset
Village all provide one median for every three double-loaded aisles..
I agree with your finding that the Super Walmart site does not have landscape medians for every three
double-loaded drive aisles. I don't know if that was the result of a staff oversight when the site plan was
reviewed,or if the requirement was otherwise fbnrnally addressed, I'm just not familiar with the processing
of that project since it was processed before I started work for the City.
Regarding your concern over the note on the approved site plan for 1620 So.Kellogg,you Stated that City
staff should have been more dear about any noncompliant issues with the layout of the southwest comer
of the site,rather than just saying its not approved as part of that.site plan review. I researched the file to
find out what information was provided pertaining to that corner when the project was reviewed and
approved.What I found is that there was obvious uncertainty over how the landscaping requirements
would be met if that southwest corner of the site were developed, Apparently,that uncertainty was initially
based on an assumption that the phasing line for the southwest corner was a proposed property line.One
of the earlier staff notes said,'Take out future property line around Bldg 2% A follow-up comment from the
March 2,2007 meeting stated that,'it is difficult to determine conformance with the standards of parking
lot landscaping on the perimeter of the project.. ,"
In light of the note pertaining to the"future property line around Bldg 2",the phasing line for the Bldg 2 site
was apparently thought to be the perimeter of the project, In which case, any discussion of landscaping
would be over perimeter landscaping and not medians in the middle of a parking lot.
6
l don't know what verbal communications staff may have had with you after those comments mnents were
provided, but it appears that you and city staff agreed to deter resolution of that landscaping Issue through
simple notation on the site plan. It also appears that staff relied upon you to indicate what part of the plan
you did want reviewed as part of that application.. A staff comment from the March 2,2007 DIRC meeting,
stated,"It is our understanding that this reviews does not include the future building area outlined on the
site Layout Plan, Please revise the information on the Site Layout Plan to reflect the area to be reviewed
through this application only. .
Follousing the approval of the 2007 plan,staff provided comments to proposed site revisions in 2010,
which indicated the same uncertainty over how the southwest corner would be developed and whether or
not it would be divided off, A staff comment dated.July 27,2010 stated,"Parking area landscape medians
(15 feet)or perimeter landscaping(total of 10 feet)will be required to continue de elcEpment into the
'building 2''area; d€pvndin on iftheprojvrry is divided Five feet of perimeter landscaping will be
required wherever there is parking on just one side of the property line."
The question over whether the property would be divided is significant because, as indicated;above, if the
property is divided there would be no need for a landscape median;.the property line and associated
pedmeter landscaping would be provided in the place where a median might otherwise be located. I
therefore don't believe that staff overlooked the issue of the landscape median when reviewing the
broader site plan; I think it was more a matter of uncertainty over how that corner would actuatly be
developed anddrrr divided.
I hope this information sheds some light on how the issue of landscape medians has been addressed with
other projects,and how it has been addressed with the 1620 So.Kellogg project, Please let me know how
I might further assist you as you continue to work with rpour client on this matter.
Again, I apologize for the lengthy reply. Thank you for your patience.
Steve tOsguthorpe,AlCP
Director,Planning &Rousing
City of Ames
(515)209-5400
7
Attachment C
Effective Date; December 4, 2003
Appeal from a Decision � RECEIVE
of the Zoning Enforcement f � r AR o 201
Supporting Information I CIS of AME.S.14Y
l >..*r � i
(This form gust be filled out completely before your application i� a,�t
As provided by Section 414.12 of the Iowa Code, Section 29.1403(7)(a) of the Zoning
Ordinance grants power to the Zoning Board of Adjustment to hear and decide appeals
where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or
determination made by on administrative official in the enforcement of the Zoning
Ordinance.
In order to facilitate review of this application for an appeal the appellant mast provide sufficient
facts to support the aappellaant's position..
(Note ,Additional facts a'I!tay be attached an a separate sheet if suftient space is not provided.)
The existing building site was plan sulamritfed and approved in April 2007, This submittal included a site plan
which showed the future deva k>pment,Including parking, Since them,they Owner has developed and
lensed most of the emoting 12,510 square feet„ The+Owner hos,indicated that he would like to add thee 33
parking spaces inclicatea on the attached drawings. This parking is in the same configuration shown on the
original subrrittal as*future'. There is m timetable for when the second building will W Wit,
In November.2011.o site plop with The lndlcated poring lot expansion was submitted for review. AN issues
were resolved with the exception of the internal landscaping median requ*omenf,as stated in than 11/18111
taRC Staff Comments
"Because the packing lot will contain three contiguous double-loccled oorkiing aisles, it appears that
one 15,400t wide landscaped median running the length of one of the drive aisles is required ISe+ctiion 29.403
(4luc,lj,.
Staff has interprested the wording of this section(see attached}to mean Woof the presence of three
contiguous double-loaded parking c0sles requires an Internal poWng lot median. This interpretation may be
applicable for leargo.p*tking lots where there are more than three douk le•looded parking aisles, Rowever,
the addition of an internal median to a parking lot with only three clou 4o*ded pcirking aims creates a
situation where there are no longer three contiguous double-loaded drive aisles. This would negate the
requirement for the internal median just added,so the median can be removed. Doing this,however,resufts
in three contiguous double4aaydexd parking aisles and the medianwould again be required. This
interpretation has no solution in this case.
A correct interprototion of the Cade would t>0 to regQie on internal landscaping median for parking lots
after going beyond three oistes,thereby ensuing that theree are never more than three configuous double-
loaded parking aisles,
If Staffs interpretation is upheld,the Owner would have to choose from the following options to finish
developnwt of the property
1.Remove a minimum of six(6)existing parking spaces already constructed and paid for in the Tarsi phase of
the site development.
2.Delete a n-iinimum of thirteen(13}parking stalls from the proposed porkincg lot expansion. This would result
in a decrecse in the amount of square footage for the planned'future retail multiter ont building by
aapOroximotely 500 squaare feet, Thi's reduction could be greater if charuges to the paxking lot ratios care
increased before the second building is built.
8
Attachment D
u ou
X L" 0 on
M
0 � -i
G god
LLJ
a-
uj
,IlltM
Q� ups
LU
T"T
9