HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 4-13-2016MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AMES, IOWA APRIL 13, 2016
The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 6:00 p.m. on
April 13, 2016, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present:
Shelby Ebel, Kyle Perkins, Susan Bradbury, Matthew Koehler and Amelia Schoeneman. Staff
members Justin Moore and Mark Lambert were also present.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Moved by Bradbury, seconded by Perkins, to elect Shelby Ebel
for the office of Chair and 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 Bradbury, seconded by Perkins, to approve the
minutes of the meeting of January 13, 2016.
Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 16-02
SPECIAL USE PERMIT – Shuyu Wang, 926 South 16th Street
Public Hearing on application for a Special Use Permit to allow a restaurant to operate on
a pre-existing lot that exceeds the maximum lot area of 30,000 square feet in a
neighborhood commercial zoning district on the property located at 926 S. 16th Street*
Assistant City Planner Justin Moore displayed a location map and site plan for the project. The
applicant desires to construct and operate a 4,430 square foot restaurant at 926 South 16th in a
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning district. The restaurant is proposed to be located on a
44,997 square foot lot situated amidst residentially zoned property on all sides ranging from low
to high density. The subject parcel was created as part of the subdivision in the 1990’s to create
the mobile home park to the south.
Section 29.801 (3) of the NC zoning regulations require that any lot over 30,000 square feet and
less than 100,000 square feet can exist and be utilized in the NC zoning district to a Special Use
Permit being issued by the Zoning Board of Adjustment for use of the parcel.
The proposed restaurant is 19 feet 6 inches high at the top of the parapet. This height falls within
the standard of the NC zone. The main entrances to the facility sit on the south and north sides of
the building with a sidewalk entry off of the South 16th street sidewalk. There is a canopy
extending from the building proposed on both the north and south sides of the building. Patio
space is located on the northwest and southeast sides of the building.
The parking lot has two islands with lights in both parking islands. The lighting plan meets the
standard set forth in section 29.411 of the Municipal Code; there are 25 parking stalls required
for a facility this size and there are 32 stalls proposed on the plan. Two ADA stalls are required,
along with L3 landscaping along the abutting south and west residential sides of the lot in the
setback, as required. The L3 landscape standard is a high level screen at a continuous 6 foot
height with trees located every 50 lineal feet. The L2 landscape standard is required along 16th
street west of the building. The L2 standard is a low continuous screen with trees required every
50 lineal feet. The L1 standard screen is required along Creekside Drive which is a mixture of
low shrubs with a tree every 50 lineal feet. The L1 standard is designed for areas 10 feet in width
or greater.
The parking area proposed is on the southern portion of the lot. The detention area proposed is
located on the southwestern portion of the lot. There are two access points onto the property. One
to the west located along 16th street and the other along Creekside drive to the east.
The site plan, project description, applicable law, and findings of fact and conclusions were
reviewed in detail by Mr. Moore. He explained that City staff has reviewed the request and
recommends that the Board approve the request with the condition that the existing trees located
along and directly on the south property line next to the parking area be maintained and if
removed or destroyed, replaced with trees that will meet the L3 screening standard upon
replacement within the specified growth period, as required.
Ms. Ebel inquired if there would be a height requirement for the trees at the time of planting. Mr.
Moore said that that would not be a specific requirement for this property.
Ms. Ebel noted that the building itself is not in the flood plain but the small northwest portion of
the building is in the flood plain. Mr. Moore said that the permit is for the drive that enters and
exits to the northwest. The applicant needs the permit because they will be disturbing land in the
flood plain but the building itself is not in the flood plain.
Ms. Bradbury inquired if the waiver of the ordinance (5b) is for the stream buff requirement of
100 feet and if it is, why are they doing that when the structures are outside of the buffer. Mr.
Moore said that the drive that enters and exits to the northwest is located within that zone and
generally, the Planning and Housing Department would ask for the drive to be moved, but in this
case, there isn’t room on the site to do so. The applicant applied for the waiver because there will
be an impervious surface on the site, along with some other ground issues. Mr. Moore said that
Planning and Housing is waiting on the Board’s decision tonight before issuing the Flood Plain
Permit.
Ms. Bradbury inquired if the wavier has been approved by Public Works. Mr. Moore said that
Public Works won’t issue the waiver until the Special Use Permit has been considered by the
Zoning Board of Adjustment. He noted that Public Works may be waiting to hear on tonight’s
application verdict before making a decision.
Ms. Bradbury asked if there was a particular reason for the block retaining walls on the
landscaping rather than screening. Mr. Moore replied that the retaining walls are there for
stabilization of the existing trees on the property.
Ms. Schoneman inquired what bearing the decision of Public Works would have on this project.
Mr. Moore replied that it is not uncommon for waivers to be considered for a project such as this.
In this case, they have applied for the waiver due to the entrance and exit drive in the northwest.
Scott Renaud, 414 South 17th Street, was sworn in and testified under oath. Mr. Renaud,
representative of the applicant, questioned the necessity for the condition listed by staff in
Alternative 1 but stated that the applicant does not object to it. He concluded that he had nothing
further to add unless the Board had questions for him. Mr. Renaud confirmed for Ms. Bradbury
that the retaining walls are to protect the roots of the existing trees.
Mark Reisinger, 520 Brown Court, was sworn in and testified under oath. Mr. Reisinger is the
Vice President of the Ames Christian School Board and expressed to the Board that he is not
opposed to the development of the restaurant. However, he wanted to take the opportunity to say
that he is concerned about the traffic patterns surrounding Ames Christian School. Mr. Reisinger
is particularly concerned about the intense amount of traffic at pick-up and drop off times. He
would like to see the speed limit drop 10 miles per hour near the school as the speed limit does
around all public schools in Ames. He said that the school does their best to keep kids on the
back side of the parking lot of the school but feels that a stop sign or traffic light would be
helpful to slow down the traffic in the area. In conclusion, he feels the traffic is a significant
problem for the school from a safety stand point.
Ms. Ebel asked when pick up and drop off times take place. Mr. Reisinger said they generally
have drop offs between 7:30 and 8:15 a.m. and pick-ups at noon and 3:15 p.m.
Ms. Bradbury asked what the hours of the restaurant will be. Mr. Renaud said that restaurant
hours will be 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. but they will have a delivery business, as well. He informed the
Board that they will be using the existing driveway already there and that that drive has been
there for over 20 years.
Ms. Ebel asked Mr. Renaud if he would be opposed to making it a right turn only at the existing
driveway for those exiting. Mr. Renaud said that they would be very opposed to that; the hours
of the restaurant are much greater than that of the school. He stated that, generally, more traffic
results in slower speeds; the restaurant is hoping they will have a lot of pedestrian traffic. He also
said that he feels the traffic issue is more from the parents going to and from the school rather
than the other vehicles traveling in the area.
Ms. Bradbury expressed her concern regarding the waiver of the ordinance (5b) and asked that
they add a condition that the applicant must receive approval of the waiver from Public Works.
Mr. Moore said that the Board can add it as a condition, but it is already required in this case so
it’s not necessary. Mr. Lambert concluded with Mr. Moore.
Mr. Renaud replied that that would be a redundant condition because the solution, if the permit is
not approved, would be to get rid of that portion if denied the waiver. He said that they cannot
build the restaurant without the waiver anyway.
Mr. Moore said that City staff already has an administrative policy in place to govern that;
therefore, adding that the waiver be approved as a condition would be redundant of the policy
already in place and required by the applicant.
Ms. Schoneman inquired that if the waiver is not approved and the driveway has to move, would
the approval for the Special Use Permit still hold up. Mr. Lambert said that not gaining approval
for the waiver would be a separate issue from the Special Use Permit. If the waiver is not
approved, the approval of the Special Use Permit would still hold.
Moved by Koehler, seconded by Perkins, to approve ORDER NO. 16-02, thereby approving the
request for a Special Use Permit to allow a restaurant to operate on a pre-existing lot that exceeds
the maximum lot area of 30,000 square feet in a neighborhood commercial zoning district on the
property located at 926 S. 16th Street, with the following condition:
a. That the existing trees located along and directly on the south property line next to the
parking area be maintained and if removed or destroyed, replaced with trees that will
meet the L3 screening standard upon replacement within the specified growth period, as
required.
Roll Call Vote: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
COMMENTS: There were no comments by the Board.
ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Perkins, seconded by Koehler, to adjourn the meeting at 6:44
p.m.
_____________________________ _________________________________
Erin Cain, Recording Secretary Shelby Ebel, Chair