Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 04/14/2021 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMES, IOWA APRIL 14, 2021 The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 6:01 p.m. on April 14, 2021, via Zoom communication with the following members present Amelia Schoeneman, Chad Schneider, Ronald Schappaugh, Rob Bowers. Leila Ammar was absent. Also present were Assistant City Attorney Jane Chang, City Planner Ray Anderson, and City Planner Justin Moore. Board Chair Schoeneman stated that it was impractical to hold an in-person meeting due to the COVID-19 pandemic; therefore, this meeting was being held as an electronic meeting. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Moved by Bowers, seconded by Schappaugh, to nominate Amelia Schoeneman for the office of Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. Moved by Schoeneman, seconded by Bowers, to nominate Leila Ammar for the office of Vice- Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Schoeneman, seconded by Schappaugh, to approve the Minutes of the meeting of March 10, 2021. Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. CASE NO. 21-03 Appeal from a Decision of the Planning Director that Vehicle Areas Require Paving with a Minor Site Development Plan as Part of a Request for a Special Use Permit at 220/400 Freel Drive. City Planner Ray Anderson stated he was not going to give another presentation since this case had been tabled at last month’s meeting; however, he had included a memo in the packets with some additional background information. Mr. Anderson emphasized this appeal is about the appellant asserting that the decision on the Planning Director to require a Minor Site Development Plan for the paving of the vehicle areas, including the driveway leading to the parking and the parking spaces (not all of the driveways on the site) as part of the Special Use Permit for a yard waste collection and transfer facility at 220 and 400 Freel Drive was incorrect. Chair Schoeneman asked if there were any questions from the Board. She also asked Assistant City Attorney Jane Chang, since this was tabled from the March 10, 2021, meeting, if a statement from Board Members stating they have reviewed the packet information was needed. Assistant City Attorney Chang stated that a statement was not needed. Ms. Schoeneman wanted it to be on the record that the Board members had all received the staff report twice and reviewed same. Ms. Schoeneman asked the applicant if he wished to add anything to his former testimony. Mr. MacCrea stated this appeal was based on two key points. First, the Planning Director considered the Special Use Permit to be a permanent request based on the previously approved Special Use 2 Permit for this site as a yard waste collection and transfer facility. That decision by the Planning Director appeared to be subjective as there is nothing in City Zoning Code that defines permanent or temporary. When asked for a definition or reasonable explanation of those terms, the Planning Staff was unable to provide one. The applicant requested a three-year permit which by itself indicates that the Permit was temporary. If they had desired a longer term or permanent permit, they would have requested one. Secondly, the Planning Director has subjectively determined that this is a permanent Special Use Permit and invoking a requirement for a Minor Site Development Plan. In essence, by invoking a requirement for a Minor Site Development Plan, the Planning Director was requiring the landowner or tenant to develop the site before moving the Special Use Permit application forward. By developing the site, he was requiring the landowner or tenant to pave the entrance from the property line to designated paved parking, which includes designated handicapped parking spots. The appellant stated the main issue was that the City was applying a double standard. The City expects the landowner or tenant to pave the entrance on their property when the City-owned roadway and easement are not paved, and there is no plan in the future to pave Freel Drive. It should also be noted that no other property entrance along Freel Drive is paved nor is there any paved parking or designated handicapped parking, and several of those locations have been developed over the past several years. Section 29.1503 of the Zoning Code discusses Special Use Permits, and it does not address any requirements for a Minor Site Development Plan to be prepared or submitted. Table 29.901 of the Zoning Ordinance states that, in a General Industrial zone, only a Special Use Permit is required for waste processing and transfer use. Table 29.501(4)-5 further defines what is considered waste processing and transfer, which includes recycling operations and waste composting, which is the entire reason for the yard waste collection and transfer site. Table 29.406 (2) discusses the minimum off-street parking requirements for principal land use. Under the Industrial Use listing, it does not list nor does it provide any minimum parking requirement for waste processing and transfer facilities. Additionally, the Minor Site Development Plan Application Package states an exception to the Minor Site Development Plan requirement is any development or redevelopment that does not require any additional parking spaces, does not increase storm water runoff, and does not exceed 150 square feet in area. Under the terms of development and redevelopment it states neither the landowner nor tenant have any plans to develop or alter the characteristics of the site a Minor Site Development plan is not required. Adding an impervious entryway and parking area would in fact increase storm water runoff at this site. Ms. Schoeneman re-opened public hearing. No one requested to speak, and the public hearing was closed. Board Member Schneider noted that the appellant had claimed that the site was temporary. He asked the appellant how long this has been ongoing in a temporary status. Mr. MacCrea stated that the original Permit was for one year and they requested an extension. They are now asking for three years. They are working with other City staff in conjunction with the waste reduction surveys and looking for a location to move this site to and include food waste diversion programs. Mr. MacCrea shared that, unfortunately, trying to find a site around the City of Ames right now is 3 extremely difficult because either, the University owns that land or the land that is considered suitable for such a site is already under development. Mr. Schneider asked if there were any conditions put on the original Special Use Permit issued three years ago and extended for two years stating that the City was not going to extend this any further and the applicant needed to put in a new request. Mr. Schneider commented that if the appellant cannot find a different place the current place may be the permanent place going forward. Mr. MacCrea said if that were the case they would then put in for a permanent Permit. To his knowledge, based on the original Permit the only condition was to pave the entryway with ground rock. Mr. Schneider pointed out he was trying to look at procedurally how they got to this point and determine if there were any conditions placed on it. Mr. MacCrea stated the documents that were provided by the City when the Permits were approved did not indicate any deadlines, however he could be mistaken. City Planner Anderson said there were no stipulations put on the Permit as far as paving the driveway or parking area. Mr. Anderson went on to say when Mr. MacCrea first came to the site when he was in the middle of a contract with the City and it was understood he was only going to be there for one year, but it ended up being more than that. The City does not define temporary in the Code, but it needs to follow the requirements that all other sites need to follow for Site Plan approval. Mr. Schneider asked Mr. MacCrea if the contract with the City was a benefit to him, or if the burden of paving were to be added to that requirement if it would affect Mr. MacCrea’s ability to perform the contract. Mr. MacCrea stated that they would have to weigh the cost and determine if they wanted to stay at this site. The estimated cost to pave for Mr. MacCrea is $15,000-$20,000 and the estimated monthly income to Mr. MacCrea for this City contract is $16,000. They do get additional income from the public. The goal in the long term for the City is to take organic waste and divert it from the landfill, and the goal would be to mix with yard waste and compost right away. Mr. MacCrea restated his issue is with the appeal and the requirements put on him to get a Special Use Permit at this location. The requirements they are being asked to complete do not fit with the rest of that road. No one else on that road has a paved entryway. Freel Drive is not paved, and by forcing the landowner or tenant to pave private property would be a double standard because the City is not going to pave Freel Drive. Mr. MacCrea stated he believed that they needed to focus on the appeal and not the Special Use Permit at this point. Mr. Schappaugh asked City Planner Anderson about the memo he sent out and the definition of salvage yard vs yard waste collection and transfer facility. City Planner Anderson said they have different definitions in the Code, however, they never did use as a salvage yard. Salvage yard, yard waste collection and transfer facility are different types of uses. Mr. Schappaugh asked if one is more obtrusive than the other. Mr. Anderson stated that is based on perspective, however, looking back at past reports, the appellant had plans on how to collect fluids from vehicles so they would not leak into the ground. 4 Ms. Schoeneman noted that the memo had stated that the appellant had to submit a Site Plan meeting the requirements, but the appellant never went through with it. Paving was a requirement on the site plan for salvage yards as well. Mr. Anderson said that salvage yards need paved drive aisles. Mr. Schappaugh asked if Carney’s had paved drive aisles at their salvage yard. Mr. Anderson could not confirm that, but stated that if a salvage yard was new today, paved drive aisles would be required. Mr. Schappaugh asked when that came into effect. Mr. Anderson stated it is part of the improvements for a Site Plan. Chair Schoeneman confirmed with Assistant City Attorney Chang that she did not swear the applicant back in, but Assistant City Attorney Chang stated that since this was a continuation of the meeting held on March 10, 2021, the appellant is still under oath. Moved by Schoeneman to approve Alternative 1, which is that Zoning Board of Adjustment can find that the Planning Director correctly determined, as per all requirements found in the Ames Municipal Code that vehicle areas require paving with a Minor Site Development Plan as part of the request for a Special Use Permit. Motion died for lack of a second. Moved by Schappaugh, seconded by Bowers, to approve Alternative 2, which is that the Zoning Board of Adjustment can find that the Zoning Enforcement Officer incorrectly determined that vehicle areas require paving with a Minor Site Development Plan as part of a request for a Special Use Permit. Mr. Bowers stated for the record that one of the things the Zoning Board looks at is if this fits the nature of the rest of the area. He believes the applicant has made the argument that the requirements the City is asking do not meet rest of the area. If the Board asks the appellant to make the changes, it would be altering the character of the area. Mr. Bowers wanted it noted that was why he voted the way that he did. Mr. Schneider confirmed that the Board first had to resolve the appeal and then the Board could approve the Site Plan as part of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Schneider stated the Board’s job was not to determine what is required or not required under the Site Development Plan; the application states a Site Plan is required. However, when the Special Use Permit comes back to the Board, it can consider the issues discussed. Board Member Schoeneman stated, by determining the Zoning Enforcement Officer incorrectly determined the paving requirement, he essentially stated that the appellant did not have to submit a Minor Site Development Plan if the Special Use Permit is temporary. Mr. Anderson confirmed that is what was being said. Mr. Schneider said the Board is then back to the issue of whether it is temporary or not. Ms. Schoeneman said at this point is the site permanent, and if so, a Minor Site Development Plan would be required. Board Member Schneider asked Mr. MacCrea if he was a tenant of the property, and Mr. MacCrea confirmed yes. Mr. Schneider asked if the lease for the property was negotiated every year. Mr. MacCrea commented that if they were required to pave, it would be a modification to the site that the City is forcing the landowner or tenant to do and not something he wants to do. The Zoning Code states improvements to the site, which, to him infers development and he does not have any 5 intention of developing the site. Ms. Schoeneman called for the vote. Assistant Attorney Chang stated that, before the Board votes on the motion the Board should amend it so that it applies to this particular instance only, so as not to impact other Special Use Permits going forward. Moved by Bowers, seconded by Schappaugh, to amend the motion to state that the Zoning Board of Adjustment can find that the Zoning Enforcement Officer incorrectly determined that vehicle areas require paving with a Minor Site Development Plan as part of a request for a Special Use Permit for a temporary yard waste collection and transfer site located at 220 & 400 Freel Drive Ames, Iowa. Roll Call Vote on Amendment: 3-1. Voting aye: Bowers, Schappaugh, Schneider. Voting nay: Schoeneman. Motion declared approved. Roll Call Vote on Motion, as Amended: 3-1. Voting aye: Bowers, Schappaugh, Schneider. Voting nay: Schoeneman. Motion declared approved. Mr. Schneider stated key term was “temporary.” Planner Anderson asked what was meant by temporary. Mr. Schneider commented that could be addressed with the Special Use Permit. CASE NO. 21-04 Approval of a Special Use Permit for a building addition to Ames Pet Resort at 2811 Hyatt Circle City Planner Justin Moore stated the request was from Ames Pet Resort, which is being represented by Justin Dodge of Hunziker Companies. The Permit is to construct a building addition to the existing Ames Pet Resort, building which is a retail sales and service use in the General Industrial zone at 2800 Hyatt Circle. The existing business is over 3,000 square feet and they are proposing to add a 2,100-square-foot addition, which requires a review of the Special Use Permit. The property, a 1.35-acre parcel, is zoned General Industrial and is located at the northeast corner of Hyatt Circle and Bell Avenue. The original Special Use Permit and Minor Site Development Plan was approved in 2011, which approved construction of the original building. An amendment to the Special Use Permit with second Minor Site Development Plan was approved in 2017 for additional outdoor play area and kennels. The proposed addition will bring the total square footage of the building to 8,111 square feet. The building is being proposed to be constructed with facade materials that are the same as the existing building. The façade materials proposed on this addition do fall within the required percentages in the Covenants for this area. Mr. Moore explained the nature of the business. Everything within the new addition would be enclosed within the building. The operation of the site is primarily during daytime hours. There are seven criteria in the addendum in your report that staff has included. Mr. Moore stated he will not go over the criteria; however, if the Board has any questions, please ask. Mr. Schneider asked how long it had been since the square footage has been updated for 6 commercial use; previously, the limit was 3,000 square feet. Mr. Moore stated the size had not been reviewed lately; however, if in the future the Zoning Ordinance was reviewed, that is something that could be brought up at that time. Mr. Schappaugh asked Mr. Moore if all the parking requirements on the Site Plan meet City standards. Planner Moore stated they did meet all requirements as well as all ADA requirements. Justin Dodge, 105 S 16th Street was sworn in. He stated the State changed the requirements on the play area for animals being boarded so the Ames Pet Resort had to do an addition to add on additional play area. Mr. Dodge stated there have been no complaints regarding the Ames Pet Resort from any of his neighbors. Ms. Schoeneman opened the public hearing. No one requested to speak, and the public hearing was closed. Moved by Bowers, seconded by Schoeneman, to approve the Special Use Permit to allow a 2,120- square-foot building addition of Retail Sales and Service – General use at 2811 Hyatt Circle, based upon the finding and conclusions of staff. Roll Call Vote: 4-0. Motion declared approved unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Schappaugh, seconded by Schneider, to adjourn the meeting at 7:00 p.m. _____________________________ _____________________________ Renee Hall, Recording Secretary Amelia Schoeneman, Chair