HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 04/28/2021
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AMES, IOWA APRIL 28, 2021
The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment met, pursuant to law, in Regular Session at 6:00 p.m. on
April 28, 2021, with the following members participating Amelia Schoeneman, Chad Schneider,
Ronald Schappaugh, Rob Bowers and Leila Ammar. Also present were Assistant City Attorney
Jane Chang and City Planner Ray Anderson. 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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Schappaugh, seconded by Bowers, to approve the
Minutes of the meeting of April 14, 2021.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 21-05
Special Use Permit to allow a yard waste collection and transfer facility at 220 and 400 Freel
Drive
City Planner Ray Anderson mentioned that this case had been previously discussed, but in relation
to an appeal. A request for a Special Use Permit had now been submitted to allow a yard waste
collection and transfer facility at 220 & 400 Freel Drive. On January 14, 2021, Chamness
Technology, Inc. dba Green RU, LLC, applied for a Special Use Permit to operate a yard waste
collection and transfer site at 220 & 400 Freel Drive in the General Industrial (GI) zone. On April
14, 2021, the Zoning Board of Adjustment granted an appeal of the Planning Director’s decision
that a Site Development Plan was required for the proposal due to zoning standards that require
paving of vehicle areas (driveway and parking) with a Site Plan as part of a request for a Special
Use Permit. The Zoning Board of Adjustment approved the appeal with a motion indicating that a
temporary use for a yard waste facility was not subject to the application requirement. It is
important to note that the appeal was only for the application step of the review and did not grant
approval for use of the site, nor was it a variance to Zoning Ordinance standards.
Mr. Anderson pointed out Sec. 29.303., of the Zoning Code states no land, building or structure
shall be used, no building or structure shall be erected, and no existing building or structure shall
be moved, added to, or altered except in conformity with this Ordinance.
It was pointed out that “temporary” is not a defined term within Zoning Ordinance. The applicant
did not propose a specific end date for the use, but instead described it in relation to the City’s
contract. Even if the use operates for only the initial three-year period of the City contract, it results
in a total of six years of operation at this site. Staff has found no basis to determine that six years
of use at this site can reasonably be viewed as “temporary.” There are no known examples of such
a situation in Ames. The prior approvals for this use were the longest granted approvals as a
“temporary” use. The only other similar situations where the specific allowance for one-year
authorizations were for certain cellular tower installations and asphalt batch plants to be exempt
from certain standards as determined by a Special Use Permit. It was discussed with the applicant
2
to request a legislative change by the City Council to state the proposed use would be similar to
batch plants is the most appropriate way to address the site improvement concerns. For a Special
Use Permit, there are certain standards that must be met. They are in Article 13 of Chapter 29 of
the Municipal Code. Of those standards there are seven general standards, and staff found two of
the seven standards that were not met.
The first standard was: “General Standard ii: Be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained
to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing and intended character of the
general vicinity and that such a use will not change the essential character of the area in which it
is proposed.”
Findings of Fact: The applicant has not submitted a formal Site Development Plan needed for the
installation of required paving of driveways and parking areas. Article IV of the Zoning Ordinance
requires the paving of all vehicular areas used for parking and maneuvering with a minimum paved
surface of 5” of asphalt or concrete, or as otherwise authorized by the Municipal Engineer. This
standard applies City-wide in all zoning districts, including General Industrial. Staff has identified
that a minimum amount of driveway and parking pavement is needed for the regular use of the site
as described by the applicant. The drop-off and storage areas on the site do not require paving,
although surface stabilization may be done as needed for facilitating large event days.
Conclusions: Without Zoning Ordinance development standards compliance that applies to all uses
of land, the use is not harmonious in its design and construction with intended character of the
area, because all new uses in this area are required to comply with zoning standards. If the site
included required improvements for its ongoing use, the proposed yard waste disposal site is
compatible with the other types of industrial zone uses that currently exist on Freel Drive.
The second standard staff felt the applicant did not meet was: “General Standard vii; Be
consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zone in which it is proposed to locate such use.”
Findings of Fact: As stated in Section 29.901 General Industrial of the Municipal Code, “This
Zone is intended to provide a limited development review procedure, involving only developer-
and staff-coordinated efforts to satisfy the planning and permitting requirements. This District
applies to those areas where there is a need to provide a desirable industrial environment and to
promote economic viability of a type generally not appropriate for or compatible with retail sales
areas. A Site Plan review process is required to ensure such development and intensity of use in a
way that assures safe, functional, efficient, and environmentally sound operations.
Conclusions: The General Industrial zoning designation, which is the appropriate zoning for a land
use designation of General Industrial requires a site plan review process. This has not occurred for
this Special Use Permit application. Staff had determined that paving is required for the vehicle
areas per the standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
There were alternatives in the report, and it was the recommendation of the Department of Planning
and Housing that the Zoning Board of Adjustment approve Alternative 1, which is the approval of
a Special Use Permit for a temporary yard waste collection and transfer facility at 220 and 400
Freel Drive, based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions stated herein, with the following
3
conditions:
1. General operations on weekdays and weekends as described within the application and up
to five large event days.
2. That the approval of the use be allowed through May 1, 2022. All yard waste material,
equipment, and temporary structures shall be removed from the site and the site restored to
its current or better condition within 60 days of the end of the permit.
3. If the site is sought for use again beyond the one-year allowance, the applicant will need to
seek a new Special Use Permit for the use and meet all site development standards related
to the use, including but not limited to required paving of driveways, parking, and
landscaping. All future approvals will be subject to meeting current zoning requirements
for use of the site in any capacity, permanent or temporary.
Board Member Schappaugh asked why approve a one-year permit when the applicant has a three-
year contract. City Planner Anderson stated that by having the three-year contract in addition to
the three-plus years extension, this no longer a temporary use. The Board did grant an appeal for
temporary use so that is why staff is recommending one year; anything beyond that would need to
meet the standards in the Code for Site Plan review and required improvements to the site.
Board Member Ammar confirmed that the Board granted the appeal for one year. City Planner
Anderson stated anything beyond one year is not temporary.
Board Member Schneider asked City Planner Anderson to look at 29.901 Section 2 of the Code
which use category, as waste processing and transfer states that a Special Use Permit is needed. It
does not state that a Minor Site Development Plan is required. Planner Anderson explained he had
reviewed some site plans that were approved, and all of the sites on Freel Drive required paving.
When 401-415 Freel Drive was approved, they were required to pave a drive aisle and parking
area. To the south, there are three commercial buildings, and they were all required to pave parking
areas. The salvage yard, located at1816 SE 5th Street, needed a Special Use Permit and they had to
provide 41 paved parking spaces. Finally, Schaeffer’s Auto Body had to pave parking spaces along
Freel Drive and a paved parking lot on Lincoln Way. There is a precedent to require paving on
Freel Drive if they are in the General Industrial Zone. To be consistent with the standards of the
General Industrial Zone, a site plan and paving improvements are required. Staff is not saying the
use is not an appropriate use for this location in the General Industrial Zone, but it does require
site improvements.
Board Chair Schoeneman clarified that, in the Special Use Permit section of the Code, it states that
it requires a Minor Site Development Plan, not in the General Industrial Zone section. Board
Member Schneider expressed concerns with the wording in the Code and having to provide paved
parking at this site. He said citizens typically pull up and drop off their waste and leave. City
Planner Anderson stated when it’s not a “free day” to dump, the public does have to pay and need
a place to park. Mr. Schneider commented there wasn’t a building to pay at. Mr. Anderson pointed
out that they currently do not have a structure, but they could bring in a temporary structure, RV,
to use as an office at any point.
Assistant City Attorney Jane Chang stated that it sounded like the discussion was leaning towards
4
granting a Variance to what is required by our Code and that is a whole separate process. There is
also a process for the applicant to request a Text Amendment. She did not want it to be confused
with what is on the Agenda tonight, which is a Special Use Permit. The Board cannot grant a
Variance at this point.
Board Member Schoeneman wanted to clarify what the difference was between other temporary
uses and gave an example of the cell phone towers and asphalt plants. City Planner Anderson
explained typically they are approved for one year or less and then they are completely removed
from the site and the site is restored to its previous state. Ms. Schoeneman asked what the longest
“temporary” permit was to be issued. Mr. Anderson stated it would be the temporary cell towers
or the batch plant and those have been issued for one year maximum.
Doug MacCrea, 225 Little Wall Lake Road, Blairsburg, Iowa, was sworn in. He stated Green
RU’s plan is harmonious with the area involved on Freel Drive. They did submit a Site Plan in
accordance with the application package provided by the City. It stated the Plan needed to show
traffic routes and parking. Nothing was stated that it needed to be submitted formally by a
computer-generated print-out. It was submitted in 2006 by a licensed surveyor, but nothing had
been done to change the physical characteristics of the site nor is anything being planned to make
changes. He stated temporary is not defined in the City Code, so it is a subjective opinion and that
becomes a challenge for all involved. Until it is in the City Code, it is going to be subject to
interpretation. Mr. MacCrea mentioned that City Planner Anderson stated several sites were
required to pave as part of their permit, but Mr. Anderson failed to specify what they are paved
with. Green RU’s first Use Permits were required to pave the entryway with aggregate. Schaeffer’s
Auto Body does have a paved surface but only 150 – 200 feet paved on Freel Drive. In his opinion
he didn’t think anyone else had paved entryways. It is a double standard, as the City is directing
the landowner to improve or redevelop its site when the City has no intention of improving Freel
Drive. He felt the Ordinance was written in good faith; it just wasn’t written with Freel Drive in
mind. Mr. MacCrea commented that the City is asking the landowner to do something the City
will not do.
Mr. MacCrea referenced Table 29.406 (2) “Minimum Off Street Parking Requirements.” Under
the General Industrial Zone, it talked about industrial service, manufacturing and production,
resource production and extraction and it says warehouses; it did not talk about waste transfer
stations or yard waste sites even though other documentation in the Code specifically addresses
those. He stated he will never bring a temporary structure to the site to collect fees. The City’s
recommendation is for a one-year permit and Mr. MacCrea understood that, but the rationale was
difficult for him to understand as that does not benefit anyone. He would like the Board to consider
a three-year temporary permit with provisions listed in Alternative 1A and Alternative 2C to be
part of that approval.
Board Chair Schoeneman asked if there were any questions. There were no questions.
Ms. Schoeneman opened the public hearing. No one requested to speak, and the public hearing
was closed.
Ms. Schoeneman asked if there were any further questions.
5
City Planner Ray Anderson requested to respond to the comments from the applicant. He
explained that concrete is specified for parking areas, and there was one site at 406 and 408 Freel
Drive that had a driveway with alternate material that was approved with a Site Plan but everyone
else has had to pave with concrete. Forty-one parking spaces for the salvage yard were concrete
and Schaeffer’s Autobody parking spaces are concrete. Freel Drive is not the only unpaved road
in the City of Ames; there are several other unpaved roads. There are other areas where paved
services access a gravel road. Mr. Anderson noted that Section 29.303: Land, Buildings and
Structures Regulated, states; “No land, building or structure shall be used, no building or structure
shall be erected, and no existing building or structure shall be moved, added to, or altered except
in conformity with this Ordinance.” In this case, if there was a site plan, it would require paving
improvements. Mr. Anderson explained that staff is supporting a one-year permit, but the
applicant’s proposal for three years with no paving improvements was not an option.
Board Member Schappaugh asked why staff would not consider the applicant’s request. Mr.
Anderson said the Code requires a site plan and it requires improvements as part of the site plan.
Therefore, approving the use for another three-years is not allowed by the Code. This is not a
Variance; it is a Special Use Permit, and the rules of the Code must be followed. Mr. Schappaugh
stated he thinks City Council needs to define “temporary.” Ms. Schoeneman stated, that in Staff
Report, staff encouraged the applicant to pursue a Text Amendment. She mentioned that the Board
is not approving the Variance and cannot change the text in the Code; the City Council is
responsible for any changes. Staff, the applicant, or the Zoning Board of Adjustment could write
a letter to the City Council asking for a Text Amendment.
Ms. Schoeneman asked City Planner Anderson how long a typical Text Amendment process took.
Mr. Anderson replied two to three months. It has to go to the Planning & Zoning Commission
first, and if approved, the staff will draft and present it to the City Council.
Doug MacCrea stated he appreciated the time everyone had put into this. He stated he would like
to know where there are 41 paved parking spots. He mentioned that Mr. Anderson was pointing
out Section 303 of the Code, which states land use needs to be approved by a Special Use Permit,
and he followed the application package that the City provided for the Special Use Permit. He felt
the documentation was correct. Mr. MacCrea commented it will be the residents of Ames that lose
here.
City Planner Anderson added that when staff accepts an application and determine it as complete,
it is then reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC). The DRC determined that what
was submitted for a Site Plan was not acceptable. The Site Plan was from 2006 and the applicant
drew blue lines on it to show the traffic pattern and called that a Site Plan for this Special Use
Permit. It didn’t meet the requirements. The signature of the surveyor that prepared the Site Plan
in 2006 would not apply to the way it is now.
Mr. MacCrea responded that there was nothing in the documentation or Code that says that the
Site Plan could not have a pen & ink drawing of traffic flow. The surveyor is still a licensed
surveyor in the State of Iowa. The Site Plan, had no material changes done, it is still valid.
6
Board Member Schoeneman stated she thought the Board waived the temporary use of this specific
site during the last meeting. There is no Site Plan submitted and the Board already discussed and
acted on that. The Board had already waived the requirement of the Site Plan and allowed a one-
year temporary use with conditions. Ms. Schoeneman asked the applicant if he was willing to
write to the Council asking for the definition of temporary. Mr. MacCrea responded “yes,” but the
process to make changes is long. He felt the Planning Department doesn’t seem supportive. Mr.
MacCrea stated he is always looking for a permanent location, and it will be difficult to find
another location. This site is perfectly suited for his endeavor. There is a three-year purchase order
with the City, but not a contract with the City.
Board Member Ammar asked Mr. MacCrea why he didn’t want to stay at Freel Drive, as he had
stated, it was the perfect location. Mr. MacCrea answered that he is working with the City of Ames
as part of the Solid Waste Management Plan to develop an organic waste diversion program that
would take organic waste. He explained that food waste brings in approximately 800 to 1,000
pounds of food waste a week that is hauled down to Southeast Iowa to compost. The long-term
goal with the City is to have a food waste diversion program, organic waste diversion program,
divert at least 30% of solid waste that is generated into the City, and convert it into compost. To
accomplish this, a yard waste or a bulking agent is needed. To do this at Freel Drive is not feasible
because 220/400 Freel Drive is in a flood plain. Yard waste or wood waste down the river is not a
concern, but food waste would be unacceptable. He is continuing to look at the old US30 corridor
and further out. Mr. MacCrea commented that if they found a place to do organic waste diversion,
he would leave the Freel Drive site.
The Board discussed how to provide notice to the applicant if Alternative 1 was approved allowing
the applicant enough notice to find another location or do the Site Development Plan. Approving
a one-year extension will give the applicant time to move forward with a Text Amendment.
Assistant City Attorney Chang explained notice can be sent to the Council from the Zoning Board
of Adjustment asking for movement on the definition of “temporary.” Ms. Schoeneman stated in
the past the Board has sent a letter to Council requesting direction. A motion is not needed to send
a letter to Council.
Moved by Schoeneman, seconded by Schneider, to approve Alternative 1, approve Special Use
Permit for a temporary one-year approval of a yard waste collection and transfer facility at 400
and 220 Freel Drive, based on the findings of fact and conclusions stated herein, with the following
conditions:
a) General operations on weekdays and weekends as described within the application and up
to five large event days
b) The approval of the use be allowed through May 1, 2022. All yard waste materials,
equipment, and temporary structures shall be removed from the site and the site restored to
its current or better condition within 60 days of the end of the permit.
c) If the site is sought for use again beyond the one-year allowance, the applicant will need to
seek a new Special Use Permit for the use and meet all site development standards related
to the use, including but not limited to required paving of driveways, parking, and
landscaping. All future approvals will be subject to meeting current zoning requirements
for use of the site in any capacity, permanent or temporary.
7
Roll Call Vote on Motion: 4-1. Voting aye: Bowers, Schneider, Ammar, Schoeneman. Voting nay:
Schappaugh. Motion declared approved.
Board Member Schoeneman stated an item needed to be added to the next Agenda in regards to a
letter to City Council to review the term “temporary.” Mr. Schneider agreed to draft a letter to the
City Council for review at the next meeting
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Ammar, seconded by Schoeneman, to adjourn the meeting at
7:11p.m.
_____________________________ _____________________________
Renee Hall, Recording Secretary Amelia Schoeneman, Chair