Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Planning & Zoning Minutes 09/05/2012 MINUTES CITY OF AMES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Date: September 5, 2012 Norman Cloud , Chairperson 2013 Call to Order: 7:00 p.m. Julie Gould 2013 *Jeff Johnson 2014 Place: Ames City Hall Troy Siefert 2014 Council Chambers Debra Lee, Vice Chairperson 2015 Rob Bowers 2015 Adjournment: 9:17 p.m. Yvonne Wannemuehler 2015 MAJOR TOPICS DISCUSSED: *Absent 1. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Allow Limited Residential Use on the First Floor in the Downtown Service Center (DSC) Zone 2. Minor LUPP Amendment for First Evangelical Free Church 3. Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendments – Miscellaneous Code Clean-up 4. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Add Firearm Sales to Sec. 29.1304(1)(C) Prohibited Home Occupations 5. Preliminary Plat for Deery Subdivision ____________________________________________________________________________ CALL TO ORDER: Norman Cloud, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Norman Cloud, Chairperson, explained the request from the applicant to change the order of item number 7, Preliminary Plat Deery Subdivision to follow item number 9, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendments. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION: (Lee/Bowers) to approve the Agenda for the meeting of September 5, 2012. MOTION PASSED: 6-0 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JULY 5, 2012: MOTION: (Wannemuehler/Siefert) to approve the Minutes of the meeting of July 5, 2012. MOTION PASSED: 6-0 ____________________________________________________________________________ PUBLIC FORUM: There were no public comments. ____________________________________________________________________________ 2 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Allow Limited Residential Use on the First Floor in the Downtown Service Center (DSC) Zone Steve Osguthorpe, Director, gave a brief presentation of the request from Bill Talbot, representing Craig and Bev Marrs. They have purchased the original McFarland Clinic building that was most recently used as the Ames Tribune business offices. The request is to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow limited residential uses on the first floor in the Downtown Service Center (DSC) Zone. Their proposal is to build four residential units in that building, although the residential units would be accessed from the rear to the second floor and primarily contained on the second floor, they did include some portions of the residences on the first floor. Although they were located and designed in a way not to appear residential on the front, it was still something that the current code would not allow. The current code states that household living is not allowed in the Downtown Service Center (DSC) Zone, except in combination with committed non-residential use or uses in which case household living should be located above the first floor. Mr. Osguthorpe explained the proposed changes by staff that would allow their proposed use, but also meets the intent of the Downtown Service Center (DSC) Zone. He explained the importance of mixed use in the downtown, and that the intent of the Zoning Code was to insure that we have the non-residential uses along the street face and that we maintain that clustering of retail. The proposed language takes the existing language and modifies it to say: Household living is not allowed, except in combination with permitted on residential uses or uses, in which case 75% household living should be located above the first floor and at least the front 50% of the first floor must be maintained for non-residential use. The difference between this language and Mr. Talbot’s original language is the original language he proposed, avoids the appearance of a residential use, and this language actually maintains real space for non-residential use in the first half of the building. Mr. Talbot and Mr. Marrs can confirm that this proposed language meets their intent. Julie Gould asked if this is the first time a request for residential on the first floor has come up. Mr. Osguthorpe stated that he was unaware of any other instances. Ms. Gould asked if a variance for this specific property was an option. Mr. Osguthorpe explained that there are strict criteria in order for a variance to go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Ms. Wannemuehler asked if there is going to be a business included in this building as well. Mr. Osguthorpe stated that it would be required that the front portion be retained for a business use. Bill Talbot, Newbrough Law Firm, representing Mr. and Mrs. Craig Marrs stated that there is a plan for about 80% of the first floor to be commercial office building. Norman Cloud, asked about the original intent for the language that there was no living on the first floor. He asked if there may be any issue with potential service entry or deliveries to the back of the property, if that first floor were to include residential. 3 Mr. Osguthorpe stated that it’s a matter of design and making sure the property owner designs their building in a way that will accommodate those needs. Rob Bowers asked if this request is approved, would the design come back for approval by staff. Mr. Osguthorpe stated that the design would go through inspections as long as they meet all of the code requirements. Mr. Talbot explained that the original intent of the Zoning Ordinance is to prevent a cheap building downtown from taking away potential future use in the downtown. Mr. Talbot explained the intent for viability and also allowing for rehabilitation of buildings. MOTION: (Siefert/Wannemuehler) to accept a motion, which states: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the attached draft ordinance amending Table 29.808(2) to allow limited residential use on the first floor in the Downtown Service Center (DSC) Zone. MOTION PASSED: 6-0 ____________________________________________________________________________ Minor LUPP Amendment for First Evangelical Free Church Steve Osguthorpe, Director, presented the request from the church to amend the Land Use Policy Plan on property that is currently the location of First Evangelical Free Chuch at 2008 24th Street. Mr. Osguthorpe displayed an area map to show the subject site. He explained that the request was referred by Council to change the property from its current designation, Low Density Residential to High Density Residential. He explained that this would allow the existing High Density Residential be expanded further to the west to encompass the church site. Mr. Osguthorpe explained the importance of property always being able to be sold in the future and possibility of change of the use. Mr. Cloud asked about the explanation of a minor Land Use Policy Plan change rather than a major. Mr. Osguthorpe explained that minor would be something that is not contrary to the existing code, it usually involves a minor shift in boundary lines. Major would be anything that is obviously contrary to the current policies or something that involves significant impact. This could be approved by Council on the first hearing. Ray Anderson, Planner, stated that staff has not received any comments/concerns in relation to this project. A short discussion ensued regarding the existing uses in that area. Debra Lee, asked if Northcrest did not follow through with their plans, how many apartments would be allowed on this site. Mr. Anderson said the code states that 7,000 square feet is needed for the first two units and 1,000 square feet for each additional unit. 4 David Miller, President of Northcrest, stated that the density is 187 residents on 22 acres, around eight people per acre. He explained there is a mixture of housing including: Townhomes, apartments, health care center, memory care center and some other amenities. He said they have been located on that site for 51 years. He explained there is already an agreement going forward with First Evangelical Free Church. He explained their intent is to co-join the properties in order to make a single parcel; they have no intent to sell off the property. He said they are planning on creating more green space. He explained that they have two years to form their detailed plans because the church plans on being in that location for another two years. Ray Anderson, Planner, stated that a maximum of 212 units would be allowed on the 5 acres, but there is also a consideration for parking and open space, resulting in fewer units than the allowed maximum. MOTION: (Bowers/Gould) to accept a motion, which states: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve an amendment to the LUPP Future Land Use Map to change the land use designation of the property at 2008 24th Street from Low-Density Residential to High-Density Residential. MOTION PASSED: 6-0 ____________________________________________________________________________ Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendments – Miscellaneous Code Clean-up Steve Osguthorpe, Director, explained the errors in the revisions and the unintentional omissions that had previously taken place. The proposed amendments are only to correct the unintentional omissions to the code. Mr. Osguthorpe noted that the second draft ordinance pertaining to multiple buildings on a single lot was not included in the report. Mr. Cloud asked how critical these amendments are at this time. Mr. Osguthorpe explained the importance of the timing of the approval of these ordinances and another case that is pending based on this approval. A recess was taken at 7:37 p.m. and reconvened at 7:42 p.m. Mr. Osguthorpe handed out copies of the draft ordinance for Section 29.401(5) to the Commissioners. Mr. Osguthorpe gave a brief explanation of the ordinance for Section 29.401(5). A brief discussion ensued regarding the proposed ordinances. MOTION: (Lee/Wannemuehler) to accept a motion, which states: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve an ordinance to repeal Section 29.401(5) and adopt a new Section 29.401(5) for purposes of reinserting standards pertaining to multiple residential buildings on single lots; and an ordinance to repeal Table 29.406(9)-2 and adopt a new Table 29.406(9)-2 for purposes 5 of re-establishing dimensional standards for compact parking stalls. In addition the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council suspend the rules and approve and adopt the ordinances upon first reading. MOTION PASSED: 6-0 ____________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Cloud made a motion to further delay the Preliminary Plat for Deery Subdivision. MOTION: (Wannemuehler/Siefert) to delay the item number for the Preliminary Plat for Deery Subdivision and instead hear the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Add Firearm Sales to Sec. 29.1304(1)(C) Prohibited Home Occupations. MOTION PASSED: 6-0 ____________________________________________________________________________ Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Add Firearm Sales to Sec. 29.1304(1)(C) Prohibited Home Occupations Steve Osguthorpe, Director, gave an overview of the proposed text amendment and recommendation. He explained that in April of 2012, the Zoning Board of Adjustment reviewed and approved an application for a special home occupation permit to allow the sale of firearms from a home occupation. At that time, staff determined that the use was acceptable for review by the Zoning Board of Adjustment because it was neither listed as permitted nor as prohibited use in the home occupation section. Mr. Osguthorpe gave an overview of what is currently listed as a prohibited use per the Code. He explained that the Zoning Board of Adjustment approved the application in April, but with some conditions and limitations. One of the limitations was that it only be approved for one year. After this application was approved, there were a lot of concerns raised from property owners. The Council then referred a text amendment to staff to include firearm sales on the list of prohibited uses for home occupations. Julie Gould asked if the applicant was required to provide proof of license to sell firearms when he went to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for approval of the home occupation. Mr. Osguthorpe said he was unsure of the specific details. Rob Bowers asked for a definition of home occupation and how many sales qualify for a home occupation. Mr. Osguthorpe stated that home occupations are a provision in the Code that allows people to utilize their home for a limited type of business and the idea is that it doesn’t have any outward appearance of a business, that the residential character of the neighborhood is retained, but allowing people some private use of their home for business purposes. He explained that some home occupations are outright permitted and others that are called a special home occupation require approval from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Ray Anderson, Planner, listed the permitted home occupations per the Code. Mr. Osguthorpe explained that a home occupation also limits what percent of the home is used for the home occupation; he stated that no more than 25% of the home’s floor area to be devoted to the home occupation. 6 Ms. Wannemuehler asked if a permit would be required for a home occupation. Mr. Osguthorpe stated that a permit is required for both home occupations and special home occupations. Mr. Bowers brought up his concern for creating an unintended consequence with the approval of this proposed ordinance. Ms. Gould asked if it is typical for all special home occupations to be conditioned and not just the one case. Mr. Osguthorpe stated that it isn’t unusual for special home occupations to be conditioned. There was a discussion on examples of different types of home occupations. Mr. Cloud raised a discussion regarding types of goods being sold for a mail-ordered business and traffic issues. Mr. Osguthorpe explained that if someone had a mail-ordered business involving the sale of one of the items on the list of prohibited home occupations, the mail-ordered business would not be approved. The list of prohibited home occupations would supersede the mail-ordered business allowance. Mr. Cloud asked if there was any issue with traffic or if it was just an issue on what is being sold. Mr. Osguthorpe stated that it’s not an issue with traffic, but more with the product being sold. John Lamont, 1005 Idaho Avenue, stated that the applicant is his next door neighbor and he is required to have a federal firearms license. Mr. Lamont said he turned in a petition with 129 signatures in opposition to the approval of the home occupation. He expressed his concern to the Council prior to the approval of the special home occupation by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. He explained that he put in a request to the Council to put forward this text amendment to add firearms to the list of Prohibited Home Occupations. He said the majority of the neighbors signed the petition and two or three didn’t sign for a couple different reasons, one being they had neighbors that had a special home occupation permit for child care and were afraid the petition would affect them and the other being the neighbor felt no need for the action from the residents. He explained that the neighbors concern was not about the guns but whether they want a business running in their neighborhood. He explained some of the other concerns of the neighborhood. Vaughn Seaton, father of special home occupation applicant, explained that his son does have all of the permits necessary for the home occupation. Julie Gould asked Mr. Seaton if his son has a verification process for a person to purchase a firearm from him. Mr. Seaton explained that that is also part of having all of his licenses. Mr. Osguthorpe reviewed the stipulations of the special home occupation as approved. Yvonne Wannemuehler asked if this is unusual to add firearms as a restriction to the code and if other cities have added it as well. 7 Mr. Osguthorpe explained that he is unaware as to how other cities have handled home occupations. Debra Lee asked if this list of prohibited home occupations is just going to keep expanding as people have issues with particular instances that are approved. Mr. Osguthorpe explained that often times that is how the code gets amended. There was a brief discussion regarding the procedure for notification as there weren’t many people in the audience concerning this case. Ms. Gould asked if this is the first time a special home occupation for the sale of firearms has been approved. Mr. Osguthorpe stated that he was unaware of any others. Mr. Cloud asked for continuation of commission comments. Rob Bowers explained that he checked with the City of Ames Police Department and he said there are a number of people in the city that have firearm licenses. Mr. Bowers stated his concern about this being more of a gun issue rather than a business issue. He stated that there are requirements for shipping firearms. Ms. Wannemuehler asked if there are any restrictions if this type of business would go to a commercial district. Mr. Osguthorpe stated that they would still need the appropriate licenses, but they wouldn’t need to go through any special process for approval. There was discussion pertaining to what would make a person with a valid permit to sale firearms be in violation and whether or not there was volume attached to this text amendment. Staff and commissioners discussed what would constitute a business by definition. Ms. Gould stated her concern for creating a reactionary code. Ms. Lee asked if the firearm sales could be included as permitted, but be codified to include limitations such as the ones adopted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Osguthorpe stated that the question here is whether or not firearm sales are an appropriate use as a home occupation. A brief discussion ensued regarding the limitation to the one year approval from the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the process of getting reapproved after the one year approval is expired. Mr. Bowers said he would be interested in reviewing this at a later time. He would like to hear from all interested parties. Ms. Gould stated that she likes the idea of alternative 3 and receiving more information. 8 Ms. Lee stated that she is hesitant to make a decision without having all of the information before her. Mr. Cloud asked when the Zoning Board of Adjustment approved the special home occupation for the sales of firearms. Mr. Osguthorpe stated that it was approved on April 25, 2012. Mr. Cloud asked if that individual would be grandfathered in under the existing home occupation permit. Mr. Osguthorpe that it would be grandfathered in until the one year is up. Mr. Cloud stated that if the Commission isn’t ready to vote, that this case can be brought back at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Troy Siefert stated that he is looking at how a business, whether or not it’s selling firearms or any other type of business, would affect the neighbors’ quality of life. MOTION: (Bowers/Gould) to accept a motion, which states: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council not adopt the proposed text amendments. MOTION FAILS: 2-4 MOTION: (Siefert/Wannemuehler) to accept a motion, which states: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the zoning code text amendment to add firearm sales to Section 29.1304(1)(c) prohibited home occupations. MOTION FAILS: 3-3 Mr. Osguthorpe stated that if there are no other motions staff will report to City Council the action tonight of going forward with no approved motion. Mr. Bowers stated that he is unsure of what information he would ask for if there is a motion for alternative 3. Mr. Osguthorpe suggested that the motion include the Council to include more specific criteria to reflect the Zoning Board of Adjustment’s approval of allowing firearm sales in the home. He explained that if the Council did approve the Commission’s recommendation, they would still need to send the language back to Planning and Zoning Commission for review and a recommendation. Mr. Cloud stated if the Commission wants to send the case to Council unresolved, that is possible. MOTION: (Bowers/) 9 The Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the City Council consider adopting a restricted use home occupation for firearm sales including the criteria that were set out by the Zoning Board of Adjustment on April 25, 2012. MOTION FAILS: Nobody seconded the motion. Mr. Cloud stated that this will go on to City Council with no recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, but that all the conditions of the Zoning Board of Adjustment be presented to the City Council along with a summary of discussion and concerns from this meeting. He recommended an interested parties to show up to the City Council meeting to voice their concerns. ____________________________________________________________________________ Preliminary Plat for Deery Subdivision Ray Anderson, Planner, gave an overview of the request for a Preliminary Plat for Deery Subdivision. He stated that the proposal is to divide the subdivision into four lots. Mr. Anderson reviewed staff’s approval and the findings of fact. Mr. Osguthorpe stated that since the request for the waiver is included in this process, the Commission can make a recommendation on whether to approve or not approve the waiver for the sidewalk requirement. Troy Siefert asked who would be responsible for maintenance of the sidewalk in front of Outlot A. Mr. Osguthorpe stated that the abutting property owner would be responsible for the maintenance. He stated that the only time the City does take care of the maintenance is when there is a shared use path. There was a brief discussion regarding water drainage throughout the development. Mr. Cloud asked what the differences are between the Gateway Overlay as opposed to Highway Oriented Commercial. Mr. Osguthorpe stated that the uses remain the same, but that there are more stringent design standards with the Gateway Overlay district such as landscaping, signage, and building materials. Mr. Cloud asked if there are restrictions on how the land on Outlot A can be utilized. Mr. Anderson stated that since it’s an outlot and a floodway overlay, neither are buildable by definition. Ms. Wannemuehler asked whether the sidewalk would be necessary in the future. Mr. Osguthorpe stated that because of the location of the bridge it only allows pedestrians to cross on the north side of the bridge. There was a brief discussion regarding the river straightening. 10 Scott Renaud, Fox Engineering representing Dennis Pyle, property owner, and the Deerys, gave an overview of the site. He explained that a permit is already approved for the floodplain. An agreement is already in place with the City on widening the river. Mr. Cloud asked if lots 2 and 3 would be used for anything different than lot 1. Mr. Renaud stated that there are no specific plans for those lots yet. Julie Gould asked if the Gateway Overlay covered the entire plat or just a portion of the plat. Mr. Anderson explained that the Gateway Overlay would apply to all of the lots in that subdivision, minus the outlot portion. Mr. Siefert asked that what the City is proposing with alternative 1 would not affect the Overlay District. Mr. Osguthorpe stated that that is correct. MOTION: (Bowers/Siefert) to accept a motion, which states: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Deery Subdivision, as illustrated on Attachment B, based upon the findings of facts and conclusions in this report, conditioned on: a) The preparation of easement documents for all public utilities in the proposed subdivision, for submittal with the Final Plat. b) The preparation and approval of an agreement, prior to approval of the Preliminary Plat, for a floating storm water drainage easement for conveyance of storm water from Lot 3 across Lot 2 at the time of approval of a Minor Site Development Plan for either Lot 2, or Lot 3, whichever develops first. c) Approval of a request for a waiver from the requirement for construction of a sidewalk on the south side of the right-of-way for S.E. 16th Street next to proposed “Outlot A”, as specified in Section 23.403(14)(a) of the Municipal Code, prior to approval of the Preliminary Plat for Deery Subdivision. MOTION PASSED: 6-0 __________________________________________________________________________ COMMISSION COMMENTS: Ms. Lee thanked the staff and the applicants for their work on items one and two. Mr. Cloud showed his appreciation for the Commission in speaking their mind. ____________________________________________________________________________ STAFF COMMENTS: Steve Osguthorpe, director, stated that the only item on the tentative agenda for the September 19, 2012, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting is a text amendment for lighting regarding the alternative landscape standards that were recently approved. Mr. Osguthorpe introduced new planner, Karen Marren. 11 ____________________________________________________________________________ MOTION TO ADJOURN: With no further business coming before the Commission, the Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m. _________________________________ ____________________________________ Norman Cloud, Chairperson Melissa DeBoer, Recording Secretary Planning & Zoning Commission Department of Planning & Housing S:\PLAN_SHR\Council Boards Commissions\PZ\Minutes\2012 Minutes\Minutes-09-05-12.docx