Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 4-12-2017MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMES, IOWA APRIL 12, 2017 The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 6:00 p.m. on April 12, 2017, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present: Amelia Schoeneman, Kyle Perkins, Shelby Ebel, Matthew Koehler, and Susan Bradbury. Assistant City Attorney Mark Lambert, City Planner Charlie Kuester, and City Planner Karen Marren were also present. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Moved by Koehler, seconded by Perkins, to elect Shelby Ebel for the office of Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. Moved by Bradbury, seconded by Ebel, to elect Matthew Koehler for the office of Vice Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Perkins, seconded by Bradbury, to approve the minutes of the meeting of March 8, 2017. Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. CASE NO. 17-08 SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION – Emrah Simsek, Chronox, LLC, Public Hearing on application for a Special Home Occupation Permit to allow the purchase and resale of electronic equipment on the property located at 3907 Berkshire Avenue City Planner Charlie Kuester stated that Emrah Simsek has submitted an application requesting approval of a Special Home Occupation to allow for the purchase and sale of electronic equipment. The applicant purchases electronic equipment which is delivered to his home by parcel delivery. It is then repackaged and resent by the applicant. The site plan, project description, applicable law, and Findings of Fact and Conclusions were reviewed in detail by Mr. Kuester. It was said that no exterior changes are proposed and no signs will be used. Incoming shipments by standard UPS or FedEx will occur up to five times a week, and outgoing shipments will be picked up by similar parcel pickup about once a month. No customers will arrive for services, no additional parking is required, no other home occupations will be at the location, and Mr. Simsek will be the only employee. Of the total area of the 2,738 square foot house, 600 square feet will be used, which is within the maximum area permitted for a special home occupation. Mr. Kuester stated that based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, it is the recommendation of the Planning and Housing Department that the Zoning Board of Adjustment approve the request for a Special Home Occupation to allow an electronics purchase and resale business at 3907 Berkshire Avenue. It was said that no comments or concerns had been received from surrounding property owners. Emrah Simsek, Chronox, LLC, was sworn in and testified under oath. Mr. Simsek clarified that the type of electronic equipment that would be purchased and resold is mostly for satellite reception. The average packages delivered are not heavy, and can be left at his door if he is not present at the time of delivery. Moved by Perkins, seconded by Bradbury, to approve ORDER NO. 17-08, thereby approving the request for a Special Home Occupation to allow an electronics purchase and resale business at 3907 Berkshire Avenue based upon the finding and facts. Vote: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. CASE NO. 17-05 SPECIAL USE PERMIT – Verizon Wireless, Public Hearing on application for a Special Use Permit to allow a cell tower on the property located at 600 South Maple Avenue City Planner Charlie Kuester displayed a site plan for the project. Verizon Wireless, represented by Rob Viera of Buell Consulting, is seeking to construct a new monopole cell tower on the property located at 600 S. Maple Avenue. This is located within City-owned park land for which the City Council approved a lease on October 9, 2014, subject to approval of a Special Use Permit. Verizon received approval of a Special Use Permit (and an accompanying Conditional Use Permit in the Floodway) on June 24, 2015. Ames Municipal Code requires construction to commence within 12 months of approval and, prior to the expiration of that approval, Verizon sought and received two 30-day extensions. The extensions expired and Verizon is seeking a new approval of the Special Use Permit. This request is similar to that approved in 2015, the differences being the equipment fencing is added and there is a slight amendment to the parking area. Also, subsequent to that 2015 approval, the Ames Municipal Code was amended to require development in the Floodway to receive Major Site Development Plan approval from the City Council rather than a Conditional Use Permit in the Floodway. Following review by the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the Special Use Permit, the project must be reviewed through the Major Site Development Plan process. The new tower and associated equipment shelter would be located in a lease area along the north boundary of the property with an access easement to the South Maple Avenue right-of-way. The site is in a wooded area and will require removal of approximately 24 trees. The Verizon improvements will be within a 33 feet by 59 feet compound. The leased premises are 33 feet by 84 feet, which includes an area for the future inclusion of two additional carriers’ equipment. Within the Verizon area will be a 120 -foot tall monopole (129 foot with the lightning rod) and an elevated equipment platform. The pole has an eight-foot diameter at its base. The plan includes a paved parking space to meet zoning requirements. The proposed cell tower is a monopole design with mountings for four antennas on each of three sides, and will be a dull gray color, similar to those others within the community. The equipment platform is 17.33 feet by 35.33 feet and will rise 13 feet above ground with multiple columns used for support. The platform will contain the equipment cabinets and an emergency generator inside a shelter. The shelter provides security and screening for the equipment. Access to the platform is by stairs on the north side, and a security fence is located along the top. The premises will be about 300 feet into a heavily wooded area, making it nearly invisible to see from the immediately adjoining properties. The nearest property, the Iowa Department of Transportation maintenance garage facility, lies immediately to th e north and will likely have a view of the equipment platform. The tower will likely be seen from South 4th Street and from the golf course on the south side of Squaw Creek, but only a portion will appear over the top of the trees. The site plan, project description, applicable law, and Findings of Fact and Conclusions were reviewed in detail by Mr. Kuester. The site is zoned S-GA which has no use restrictions concerning wireless carriers. The adjacent land is zoned A-Agriculture, RH-High-Density Residential, and UCRM-Urban Core Medium Density Residential, all of which allow wireless carrier towers with a Special Use Permit. Mr. Kuester also stated that the equipment tower is elevated to meet flood plain standards. Mr. Kuester stated that based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, it is the recommendation of the Planning and Housing Department that the Zoning Board of Adjustment approve the request for a cell tower with antennas at 600 South Maple Avenue, based on the findings of fact and conclusions stated herein, as detailed on the submitted Site Plan and application materials. Ms. Bradbury expressed concerns about fencing around the premises. Mr. Kuester clarified that the fencing would just be located around the equipment shelter, not around the entire site. It was said that fencing around the tower itself is not required; however, it is around the equipment shelter. Mr. Perkins added that in one of the site plan drawings, a proposed fence around the tower is depicted. Mr. Kuester stated that he was not aware of that, but it would raise flood concerns. He mentioned that the site plans would have to be updated before City Council approval. Ms. Schoeneman asked if there is any lighting proposed for the tower. Mr. Kuester stated that there is not. Ms. Schoeneman also asked if Staff considers the impact of flooding when testing the stability of the tower. According to Mr. Kuester, all equipment has to be elevated and the applicants have to demonstrate that the hydraulic forces of water moving through the area will not impact the tower. Rob Viera, Buell Consulting, was sworn in and testified under oath. He believes the lease has already commenced and payments are already being made, hence why Verizon is anxious for the tower to go up. Mr. Viera stated that the length of the term is typically a 5-year lease with four- or five-year renewals after, until the lease is terminated. He also mentioned that there will not be a fence at the base of the tower. Ms. Bradbury asked for clarification on the map that provides justification. Mr. Viera stated that one image shows current coverage. The use of yellow and red in the image depicts the outside coverage, and green is depicting the indoor coverage. He mentioned that the other image shows more indoor coverage. Mr. Viera added that the FCC license has already been approved. Moved by Koehler, seconded by Perkins, to approve ORDER NO. 17-05, thereby approving the request for a Special Use Permit for a cell tower with antennas at 600 South Maple Avenue, based on the findings of fact and conclusions stated herein, as detailed on the submitted Site Plan and application materials. Vote: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. CASE NO. 17-06 VARIANCE – Iowa Farmhouse Association, Inc., Public Hearing on application for Variance to allow 1” landscape rock in the East University Impacted Overlay (O-UIE) zone on the property located at 311 Ash Avenue City Planner Karen Marren displayed a site plan for the project. In February 2015 a Minor Site Development Plan was approved for an addition to the existing Farmhouse Fraternity House at 311 Ash Avenue. The site plan included a large building addition with parking lot modifications. The changes to the site triggered improvements to the existing parking lot layout and landscape screening and new required areas of front yard landscaping relating to the building addition. It was noted on the Landscape Plan, approved with the site plan application, that hardwood mulch would be used around the base of new plantings within the revised screen areas and landscape beds around the building addition. These notes were necessary to comply with the City’s landscaping standards of the Zoning Ordinance and the prohibition of large rock within the University Impact area. In March 2015 a revision to the Landscape Plan was submitted for approval to revise some of the proposed plant materials for the project. It was also noted on the plan as part of that revision that river rock would be used for the plant beds instead of the previously approved hardwood mulch. Staff noted that the landscape plan must note that any rock used on the property would need to meet the maximum ¾” size limitation for the overlay. The revised landscape plan approved for the property does state that the river rock shall not exceed ¾” in size. The General Development standards of the Zoning Ordinance (Article 4) for all properties in the city states that rock generally may be used in landscape areas, except for required landscape areas (typically considered parking lot screening or front yard landscaping) which requires a living ground cover. Mulch may be used in landscape areas under shrubs or trees when living ground cover would not be sustainable. The East University Impacted Overlay zone more specifically states that for properties in the overlay, “No rock, brick fragments or other hard, loose material over 3/4-inch in size shall be used.” At the time of final inspection for the addition in August 2016, the Planning Division noted that the rock placed in the new front yard landscape areas and required parking lot screen areas exceeded the maximum ¾” size allowed by the zoning ordinance. It was noted by the applicant that some areas of rock on the property which exceed the ¾” allowance around the original house existed prior to the construction of the addition and new site work. Staff worked with the owners representative to identify those areas of existing rock which could remain as it was unclear when those areas had been installed or last modified; however, all new and amended landscape areas around the addition and the parking lot approved by the new landscape plan needed to be compliant with current code. The City could require all rock to be removed or replaced on the site as removal of a nonconformity with the project work that was done. The property was issued a temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO) in August 2016, which has been extended 4 times through March 24, 2017, to allow the applicant to finalize the landscaping to comply with the approved site plan and current zoning ordinance. At this time the TCO has expired for the property. Rather than comply with the approved site development plan and the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant has requested a variance from the standards. The applicant is requesting a Variance to the City’s standard that limits the size of landscape rock allowed to not exceed ¾” in size. The City adopted this standard in 2006 when the East University Impacted Overlay zone was created. It is believed the regulation was in response to previous concern for safety due to previous issues with events in the Campustown Area. The applicant’s request is to keep the landscape rock in place with the approv al of a variance to allow 1” landscape rock in the required front yard and parking lot screen areas of the property. The site plan, project description, applicable law, and Findings of Fact and Conclusions were reviewed in detail by Ms. Marren. Staff does not find the evidence presented for this project to support a conclusion of granting a variance from the landscape rock requirement for the East University Impacted Overlay. While the proposed change in the rock may not have aesthetic impacts, the request does not satisfy the other criteria related to hardship, unique circumstances, or substantial justice with granting of the variance. It has also been noted that the costs associated for changing out the current incorrect rock material was the result of the installation not meeting the original approved landscape plan. Additionally, the property owner can simply change out the landscape rock for mulch or other acceptable bed cover for the areas within the new site plan as identified by staff. The owner can also use landscape edger or other landscape options to help elevate any unsightly aesthetic or nuisance concern raised by the applicant as part of this request. If the applicant is denied their request, they can request the City Council to consider a text amendment to allow for alternate options for landscape ground cover for the overlay zone. Ms. Marren stated that based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, it is the recommendation of the Planning and Housing Department that the Zoning Board of Adjustment deny the request for a variance for 311 Ash Avenue to exceed the maximum allowed size for landscape rock in the East University Impacted Overlay Zone. Duane Wolf, 3205 Aspen Circle, Ames, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath. Mr. Wolf stated that he is the representative for Farmhouse Fraternity. He displayed a site plan and described the updates that had occurred to the structure, parking lot, and landscape. He then displayed the original drawing from late 2014, and located the areas of the property along the north, west, and south where mulch was not required at the time. The original drawing was reviewed by the City, and those specific areas were not identified as being an issue. Mr. Wolf said that after Farmhouse reviewed the original drawing, the second version of the drawing was prepared in early 2015. The second version of the drawing included the modification of the landscaping to include the 1” river rock to match the existing. He stated that an addendum was filed with the City, and included was the change from hardwood mulch in the identified areas to 1” river rock. He believes it was verbally communicated that the 1” river rock notation needed to be modified to ¾” river rock, which then lead to the third version of the drawing, which was approved on March 4, 2015. He said that on all three drawings, the existing landscaping material around the parking lot was never identified as being modified in any way. In August 2016, when the inspection for the Temporary Occupancy Permit occurred, it was identified that 1” river rock was around the new construction, and the existing 1” river rock around the parking lot still remained. Mr. Wolf stated that in late October 2016, the architect on the project submitted a drawing to City staff for review, which was roughly two months after the original Temporary Occupancy Permit was granted. At that time, the architects had clarification of what City staff expectations were. Mr. Wolf explained that Farmhouse desires the 1” river rock for several reasons—it matches the existing rock that has been in place since 1995; it is permanent, low maintenance, and and consistent with what is on adjacent properties; and it would prevent nuisances. He mentioned the significant grade change along the north portion of the property, and said the use of mulch would result in a run-off into the neighbors’ property. The property to the west was said to have 1” rock, and mulch would not make sense since the two materials would mix. Mr. Wolf stated that digging out the existing rock would create a hardship for Farmhouse, and an additional expense. Ms. Bradbury asked Ms. Marren to display Attachment B of the staff report. Ms. Bradbury confirmed that the site plan was approved in March 2015, and noticed the changes that were originally approved. She read the fine print in the landscape notes and quoted “river rock shall not exceed ¾” in size.” Ms. Bradbury located the areas on the map where the statement referred to, and said it was agreed to ¾” rock. Mr. Wolf interrupted and said that the second version of the drawing, which calls out 1” rock, predates version three of the drawing. Ms. Marren stated that version three of the drawing was not the approved plan; the second drawing was approved. Ms. Marren clarified that the third drawing submitted was agreed upon between City staff and the architect as they were working through what needed to be fixed during the Temporary Occupancy. Ms. Ebel said that if the applicant wanted to have ¾” rock in the specific areas described, they should be able to without a Variance. Ms. Marren replied by saying rock is not allowed in required landscape areas, which is parking lot screening and front yard screening. The applicant could use ¾” rock in allowed landscape areas, but not in the required landscape areas. Ms. Marren added that the triangles on the approved drawing also note the changes to plant materials. Ms. Schoeneman pointed out that the revision to the mulch is only located along the south, and is not indicated in the other areas of concern labeled with a triangle. Ms. Marren stated that the area located to the south is not parking lot screening or required front yard landscaping. Ms. Bradbury restated that the ¾” rock should be allowed based on what was approved. Ms. Marren stated there probably was an error in reading the plan originally. Ms. Schoeneman ask if the applicant would need to do an appeal of the directors decision in this case since the site plan was approved, and that the site plan does not comply with current regulations. Ms. Marren said it is still a variance from the code for the areas that the rock is placed and the size used. The applicant said they would agree to ¾” rock consistent with the plan that was approved, and added that all adjacent property owners signed off on the request with no concerns. Mary Claire Mohrfeld, 311 Ash Avenue, Ames, Iowa, was sworn in and testified under oath. She stated that a lot of time and effort has been put towards the north side of the property to prevent erosion. She described the area as being a downward slope, and the use of rocks has finally helped prevent erosion. She believes that the use of mulch in the area would not make sense because it would run down and erosion would occur. Ms. Mohrfeld would like if that area in particular would be left alone. She also added that it would make sense to leave the rock along the west side of the property since the adjacent property has rock. Ms. Ebel asked why the existing rock around the building can remain if it is over ¾”. Ms. Marren answered by saying it cannot be determined when the rock around the existing building was added, and since it was not an area affected by the new addition, it can remain as a nonconformity. She added that any areas that are being worked on with nonconformities need to be brought into compliance as practicable. Ms. Ebel confirmed that since the perimeter with existing rock was disturbed by adding plants, it now has to be brought up to code “as practicable.” She said that digging out the rock and replacing it with mulch is problematic, costly, and not practicable. Ms. Schoeneman asked what is the intent of the ordinance to require mulch or living ground cover instead of rock in the specific front yard and parking lot screening areas. Ms. Marren stated that she did not know what the original intent was because that is a general development standard across all City properties, but does know what it states rock is generally permitted, but in required landscaping areas, it should be a living ground cover. Moved by Bradbury to approve ORDER NO. 17-06, thereby approving the request for a Variance to allow 3/4” landscape rock along the north and west side of the property at 311 Ash Avenue, based on what was approved in the revised landscape plan of March 4, 2015. Mr. Lambert pointed out the standards for Variances in the code are difficult to meet. He quoted the section on hardship, “Unnecessary hardship exists when: the land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in the zone; the plight of the owners is due to unique circumstances and not to the general conditions of the neighborhood; the use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.” Ms. Bradbury confirmed that the property had to meet all of those. Motion was withdrawn by Ms. Bradbury. Moved by Bradbury, seconded by Perkins, to table ORDER NO. 17-06, to seek further information from staff on the following: a. clarification of the landscape plan approved on March 4, 2015; b. rationale of mulch versus rock c. clarification of what was approved in the revised landscape plan, approved March 4, 2015, and what is currently installed according to the landscape plan depicting the existing conditions and requested revisions for the property. Vote: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. COMMENTS: There were no comments by the Board. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Perkins, seconded by Schoeneman, to adjourn the meeting at 7:37 p.m. _____________________________ _____________________________ Heidi Petersen, Recording Secretary Shelby Ebel, Chair