Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 03/25/2020 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMES, IOWA MARCH 25, 2020 The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 6:03 p.m. on March 25, 2020, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present via telephonic communication: Kyle Perkins, Amelia Schoeneman, Ronald Schappaugh, and Rob Bowers. Not present: Leila Ammar. Also present were Assistant City Attorney Jane Chang, Planning and Housing Director Kelly Diekmann, and City Planners Benjamin Campbell, Ray Anderson, and Justin Moore. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Perkins, seconded by Schappaugh, to approve the Minutes of the meeting of March 11, 2020. Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried. CASE NO. 20-21 SPECIAL USE PERMIT – CATHERINE & TODD EDSALL, 2316 CAMDEN DRIVE Public Hearing on a Special Use Permit for Guest Lodging to allow a Vacation Lodging use, for the property located at 2316 Camden Drive, located within the “F-VR” Village Residential Floating Zoning District. Planner Benjamin Campbell stated that the applicant requested to continue their application to the May 13, 2020, Zoning Board meeting. Moved by Bowers, seconded by Schoeneman, to continue the request for a Special Use Permit for Guest Lodging to allow a Vacation Lodging use, for the property located at 2316 Camden Drive to the May 13, 2020, Zoning Board meeting. Roll Call Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried. CASE NO. 20-22 SPECIAL USE PERMIT – METRONET FIBER, LLC, 901 N. 4TH STREET Public Hearing on a Special Use Permit to Allow a Wireless Communications Facility at 901 N. 4th Street in the “HOC” Highway-Oriented Commercial Zone. Planner Ray Anderson reviewed the following report regarding the request for a Special Use Permit from MetroNet Fiber, LLC, at 901 N. 4th Street: MetroNet is requesting the approval of a Special Use Permit by the Zoning Board of Adjustment to allow a Wireless Communications Facility, i.e. a communications tower, and associated shelter(s) for equipment related to a Basic Utility use. The site is located at 901 N. 4th Street in the Highway-Oriented Commercial (HOC) Zoning District. The Basic Utility use was subject to a Major Site Development Plan review by the City Council on Tuesday, March 24. The Council approved that Major Site Development Plan allowing for the consideration of the Special Use Permit. The focus of the Special Use Permit is the review of the proposed communication tower in relation to the proposed site improvements and surrounding area. 2 The proposed communications tower is constructed of galvanized steel, with a height of approximately 70 feet, is of a monopole design, and includes antennas mounted on the tower for television signal reception. The proposed antennas are between four and eight feet in length projecting perpendicular from the pole. The tower includes spline ball ionizer lightning terminals extending approximately six feet beyond the top of the tower. The base of the tower will be approximately 21 inches in diameter with a slight taper at the top of the tower. Coax cable from the tower base to the top of the tower is enclosed in electric conduit to meet wireless facility standards. An additional 10 feet of the tower will extend below ground. The tower will be located on the property to meet the minimum required setback of 35 feet (one-half of the tower height) from all property boundaries of the site. A seven-foot tall closed slat wood fence will enclose the tower, shelter(s), and a generator for back-up power. MetroNet intends to construct one “market shelter” to house the MetroNet equipment necessary to provide internet fiber optic service to the community, with the potential for a second shelter in the future. One parking space is required for this facility to provide a place for a service vehicle to park. In this case, since the driveway will be paved between the street and the fence gates, there is adequate room to park a vehicle between the fence and the front property line, which is 20 feet. No additional paved parking is proposed for the use. A sidewalk will be required along North 4th Street. Non-residential landscape standards apply to the site. The front yard landscaped area requires a minimum of one overstory tree per 50 lineal feet of street frontage, as well as eight shrubs and 12 ornamental grasses per 1,000 square feet of front yard area. The proposed site plan meets the minimum front yard landscaping requirements. Planner Anderson stated that staff recommends approval of Alternative One based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Alternative One states that the Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve the Special Use Permit for a communications tower with antennas at 901 N. 4th Street. Moved by Bowers, seconded by Perkins, to adopt ORDER NO. 20-19, thereby approving Alternative One. Roll Call Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried. CASE NO. 20-23 SPECIAL USE PERMIT – ASCENSION LUTHERAN CHURCH OF AMES, 2400 BLOOMINGTON ROAD Public Hearing on a Special Use Permit application for the expansion of a parking lot and construction of a new driveway for Ascension Lutheran Church located at 2400 Bloomington Road. Planner Justin Moore reviewed the following report regarding the request for a Special Use Permit from Ascension Lutheran Church at 2400 Bloomington Road: Planner Moore stated that Ascension Lutheran Church of Ames proposes to expand their parking lot with a 14,938 square-foot parking lot expansion and construct a second driveway extending to Bloomington Road on the east side of the site. The church is located at 2400 Bloomington 3 Road in a Residential Low Density (RL) zone. RL zoning regulations require that a Religious Institution obtain a Special Use Permit issued by the Zoning Board of Adjustment for such a use or expansion of use. In this instance, the site plan for the use is being amended and requires a new approval. The proposed parking lot addition is located south of the current church building and will extend eastward from the south end of the current parking lot as a double-loaded single-aisle parking area. A new 24-foot-wide access driveway will be constructed along the east side of the property between Bloomington Road and the east end of the new parking lot addition. On-site detention is required with this project. The detention pond is proposed in the northeast portion of the site east of the existing building near the proposed driveway. The proposed access point for the driveway will be a right-turn in and right-turn out only. The driveway will also cross a shared use path that exists along the south side of Bloomington Road. Landscaping is required within and abutting the parking lot addition according to site landscaping standards for non-residential development. This requires front yard landscaping and parking lot landscaping. The applicant requests approval of an alternative landscaping plan as part of the Special Use Permit. The proposed alternative is to allow overstory trees related to parking lot design along the south side of the new parking lot addition with three trees along the north side in anticipation of future parking lot expansion. The applicant proposes to eliminate the high screen along the south side of the parking lot due to the distance from the parking lot to the neighboring property lines to the south, but will provide eight overstory trees. This is beyond what would otherwise be required along the south side of the parking lot under the basic standards. The Board may approve the proposed plan as an alternative landscape design. A six-foot high fence is proposed along the east property line in place of a dense screen of high shrubs as an allowed substitution. The bufferyard width will be maintained at 10 feet of depth. The six-foot fence is proposed to extend into the front yard along the east property line, which is the area in front of the existing building of approximately 140 feet. The front yard would normally restrict fence height to no more than four feet. However, the restriction applies to front yards of residential properties when abutting the front yard of another residential property. In this case, the property to the east of the church is a rear yard of single-family. This allows the fence to be six feet in height in this location as the church property is an institutional use abutting the rear yard of a residential property. The fence is being treated as a single-family rear yard fence location to provide additional privacy to the homes. The parking lot expansion is being done only to add parking capacity to the existing church building. There is no new building or addition being proposed, so the new parking is at the discretion of the church. The new driveway access is not required by City ordinance. City staff is restricting the driveway onto Bloomington Road to a right-turn in and right-turn out drive with a median strip in the middle of Bloomington. The strip will be installed to City standards at the church’s cost and approved by the traffic engineer. The access onto Bloomington also requires a shift in the shared use path, installation of warning signage for pedestrians on the path, as well as a stop bar and stop sign for traffic using the driveway. That is noted as one of the conditions under the alternatives. The construction of the project must begin within 12 months of approval of the Special Use Permit. The church indicated that they plan to install the entire driveway within the next 12 4 months. The parking is being added at this time in anticipation of future capacity along with an eventual new building for the church. That is a long-term plan and not included in this permit request. Any additional building that is built in the future will have to come back as a site plan with a Special Use Permit for consideration before the Board. Staff received one phone inquiry and one email from a neighbor. Planner Moore stated that staff recommends approval of Alternative One based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Alternative One states that the Zoning Board of Adjustment can approve the request for a Special Use Permit to allow the parking lot expansion and new driveway at 2400 Bloomington Road with the following conditions: A. That an alternative landscaping plan as proposed along the south edge of the new parking lot area allowing for the planting of extra overstory trees while eliminating the required high screen be permitted. B. That a painted stop bar with driveway stop sign at the driveway exit to Bloomington Road and shared use path warning signs be installed to provide warnings to bicyclists and pedestrians and provide traffic control onto Bloomington Road. Final determinations on signage are subject to approval by the City’s Municipal Traffic Engineer. Planning and Housing Director Kelly Diekmann stated that the Zoning Board received an email from Charles Richards, 2221 Buchanan Drive, that was sent in as public comment which stated, “I live at 2221 Buchanan Drive, an adjacent property. I’ve seen some plans that the Ascension Church submitted to the City for this permit and have the following comments and questions regarding the church parking and drive expansion: What is the distance between the fence and the closer curb along the proposed drive? This was not specified in the drawings, and varied in proportion on different plans. The fence indicates a “solid board pattern,” suggesting that the proposed fence may not be designed to allow for wind to pass through, as would a shadow box fence. The concern is that this hill has always been hit with high winds and that a solid fence would need continuous repair, though complete privacy is also a requirement. One of the plans I’ve seen mark some trees with “Protect Existing Trees,” while other drawings eliminate some or all of these trees. I’m hoping very much to keep all three trees along my property line, so request clarification of this point. The plantings of trees and bushes as indicated in one of the drawings will help with sound from our side of the fence. None of the drawings I’ve seen show locations or other specs from the lighting along the drive and parking lot. It would be good to know this, and how much light would spill over the fence, with the intent to minimize the impact on neighbors. Thanks in advance for including these points in the discussion. Chuck Richards” Director Diekmann read another email from Pat Long, 2211 Buchanan Drive, which stated, “My husband and I are very opposed to the construction of a driveway behind the homes on Buchanan Drive to allow for a different route of traffic leaving the church. We are concerned about privacy and security mostly. We are also concerned about property values dropping due to this driveway in direct view from the backyards of the homes on Buchanan Drive. -Pat and Russ Long, 2211 Buchanan” Board member Schappaugh asked staff if they feel that the site plans have addressed the concerns of the residents. Mr. Moore stated that the church proposed on its site plan a solid six- 5 foot-high fence that is fully opaque that leads from the parking lot to the street. As far as opacity and required height, it meets staff’s screening standards. Any headlights from vehicles would be blocked by the solid fence so that opacity is meant to address that. Mr. Moore said the applicant could address the structural integrity of the fence due to wind based on their discussions with their engineer. The church hasn’t proposed additional parking lot lighting with this parking lot. The city doesn’t require parking lot lighting. If the church did want to put in lighting later, they would have to meet City lighting output standards. Board member Schoeneman noted that there was a petition enclosed that outlined a few concerns. One concern of the neighbors was the landscaping maintenance. Ms. Schoeneman asked if there is anything in the Code that would assure neighbors that the property would be maintained. Mr. Moore stated that there is a landscaping maintenance standard in the City Zoning Ordinance, and that any required landscaping approved on a site plan must be maintained perpetually. Ms. Schoeneman also asked if the church could just widen the existing drive rather than putting in a new drive. Board member Bowers asked to raise a point of order. Mr. Bowers stated that prior to the current agenda item, his video and audio had been tracking well. He stated that he had concerns as to whether he was catching everything that staff was saying. He could see staff talking but he could not hear anything. Mr. Diekmann suggested that he refresh his browser. Ms. Schoeneman called for a two-minute recess at 6:38 to allow Mr. Bowers to refresh his browser. Ms. Schoeneman reviewed what had been discussed on the current case prior to the recess. She again asked if the church had considered widening the driveway rather than adding an additional driveway to the property. Mr. Moore stated that the widening of the driveway was not proposed by the applicant, so the applicant would be better able to speak to that. Mr. Moore stated that he wanted to clarify whether all neighbors’ concerns had been addressed. He said there is one neighbor that lives to the south of the south end of the proposed fence that would not be shielded by the high screen fence and could possibly see vehicles or headlights. Ms. Schoeneman asked if the best side of the fence is required to be facing the neighbors. Mr. Moore said it is. Ms. Schoeneman also asked if a pile of dirt that was mentioned in the petition was part of the plans. Mr. Moore said that there is a detention pond that will be dug out with dirt shifted and graded on the property. Mr. Bowers stated for the record that his audio and video seemed to be working perfectly. He then asked if staff was requiring the church to put in the required landscaping between the detention pond and the property line. Planner Moore stated that in the alternative landscape plan, the area between detention pond and the area that abuts Bloomington Road was reviewed for front yard landscaping. Under base standards, the church would be required to put in front yard landscaping. However, under the alternative landscape plan, because of the how far back the parking sits, the church has proposed to eliminate those front yard shrubs and trees in exchange for the setback of the parking. Mr. Bowers asked if staff supports that landscape alternative. Planner Moore said that staff was in support of the alternative due to the setback. Applicant Richard Gladden, 1821 Northwestern Avenue, Ames, Iowa, was sworn in and testified 6 under oath. Mr. Gladden stated that he is the Chair of the Site Development Committee for the church property. He stated that the reason for the expansion in the parking lot was the need for more parking spaces. He explained that during summer months, between Memorial Day to Labor Day, the church offers one service, and must find alternate parking. In addition, the congregation continues to grow. He said the Site Development Committee held a neighborhood meeting in September. Neighbors along Buchanan drive were very concerned about burglary and people entering backyards, so the solution was a solid fence rather than slatted. The other reason for a solid fence would be to block vehicle lights during nighttime services. He stated that there are no plans to light the driveway. Mr. Gladden also addressed the concern from the neighbors regarding the added hill of dirt stating that moving the soil from the detention pond area to the space adjacent to the current building would allow them to use the soil for their future building. They would not need to pay to have the dirt removed, and the church would later not have to pay to have dirt added to the property. He said the addition would likely happen 8 to 10 years down the road allowing for the soil to settle some before construction. Applicant Dan Kruger, 108 10th Avenue, Slater, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath. Mr. Kruger stated he serves on the Site Development Committee with Mr. Gladden. He said they did consider widening the original driveway, but that there was a fire hydrant, stoplight, and a storm water inlet that would cause issues. He said the Fire Department would require a second drive once the second building was added to the property. Ms. Schoeneman noted that the fence, given the opacity, height, and location adjacent to the drive addressed many of the neighbors’ concerns. Moved by Perkins, seconded by Bowers, to adopt ORDER NO. 20-20, thereby approving Alternative One. Roll Call Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Schoeneman, seconded by Perkins, to adjourn the meeting at 7:01 p.m. _____________________________ _____________________________ Jacque Higgins, Recording Secretary Amelia Schoeneman, Chair