Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 12-10-2014 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMES, IOWA DECEMBER 10, 2014 The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 7:00 p.m. on December 10, 2014, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present: Sandra McJimsey, Susan Bradbury, Shelby Ebel, Michael Davis, and Matthew Koehler. Staff members Jeff Benson, Kelly Diekmann, Charlie Kuester and Mark Lambert were also present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Bradbury, seconded by Koehler to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 12, 2014, with one correction. The motion to deny the Conditional Use Permit was moved by Bradbury and seconded by McJimsey. Moved by Bradbury, seconded by Koehler to approve the minutes after that correction has been made. Vote on Motion: 5-0. Motion declared carried unanimously. CASE NO. 14-28 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – Brent Haverkamp, 1204 S. 4th Street Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for an Alternate Method of Elevating a Residential Structure in the Floodway Fringe for two apartment buildings proposed on the property located at 1204 S. 4th Street This item returned to the Board for further discussion due to a 2-2 vote at the November 12 meeting. City Planner, Charlie Kuester, noted that this item was discussed for Final Minor Subdivision Plat approval at City Council the previous evening. He noted that Council deferred the request back to staff or the applicant for additional information, asking that the City work with a third party to get an evaluation of the hydrology effects of the proposed project on the Oak-Riverside Neighborhood and direct that staff explore what level of oversight is needed to ensure that the project would be built with the appropriate design. Mr. Kuester stated that staff will get back to Council as quickly as possible with their request for additional information. Ms. McJimsey asked who would conduct this study. Mr. Kuester noted that a state agency could give them a model and then they could plug in the numbers, but staff is unsure how long that could take. Assistant City Attorney Mark Lambert noted that the board should go ahead with an open public hearing tonight. Then, the board can either deliberate and vote or defer the matter if the board would like to wait and hear the information that is found as a result of the Council’s request. So that there is not needless repetition, Ms. McJimsey requested that information not be repeated that has already been presented and on the record; the public should speak to new issues only. At the end of the public hearing, the board will determine how they would like to proceed. Ms. McJimsey asked new board member, Michael Davis, to let the public know what he has done to educate himself. Mr. Davis noted that he watched the previous Zoning Board meeting on November 12, watched the Council meeting the previous evening, and has read all of the information and materials sent to him. 2 Ms. McJimsey asked Mr. Kuester to give a brief overview, once again, of the item up for discussion. Mr. Kuester noted that the proposal at hand is the property at 1204 South 4th Street. Flood plain regulations note that it should be elevated 3 feet above the 100 year flood plain. They also say that the elevated fill has to extend 18 feet around the perimeter or they must seek an alternative method of approval from the board. Ms. McJimsey asked Charlie to summarize the memo that was sent out to the board members in response to some questions members had raised after the previous meeting. The first question was related to storm water management and how the city regulates it. He explained that Chapters 5A and 5B of the Ames ordinance govern the storm water management. Chapters 5A and 5B both deal with construction and post construction ordinances and the appropriate techniques for keeping mud from flowing into storm sewers. He noted the applicant is in compliance with the requirements for Chapter 5A and that the applicant sought waivers to meet the requirements of Chapter 5B which were approved by the City Municipal Engineer. The Board had also inquired about the impact of the retaining wall on flood waters and whether or not the wall would speed up water flow or make the ground less able to absorb water in the event of flood conditions. The velocity of flowing water is affected by the type of surface it flows over. For instance, a heavily wooded area offers greater resistance to flowing water which would increase upstream water surface elevations. A smooth concrete surface offers less resistance which would decrease upstream water surface elevations. Mr. Kuester also expressed that a retaining wall that extends above the water surface level of a flood event would totally restrict water movement in that direction. However, he noted that the velocity would be influenced by the ground surface. Lastly, he discussed that as far as the ability of the ground to be able to absorb water during a flood event, saturated soils have little to no absorption ability and City flood plain regulations do not prohibit impermeable surfaces in the Floodway or Floodway Fringe. The storm water regulations require that water not leave the site at a rate faster than prior to development. The final item the board had asked staff to look into was more information on the requirement that residential structures be elevated 3 feet above the BFE and that the elevation extend 18 feet around the perimeter of the building. Mr. Kuester noted the regulations require elevation by compacted fill and also allows other elevation techniques such as piles, posts, piers, columns or walls; they also require a Conditional Use Permit from the zoning board for this alternative method. Finally, he stated that it would be up to the board to determine whether the safe evacuation of the residents can still occur if the perimeter elevation is not met. Ms. McJimsey also asked Mr. Kuester to summarize the emails that have been received since the last meeting. Mr. Kuester read the emails that were received from residents Joyce Cummings, Betty Clark, Elaine Rose, Deborah Fink, and Christopher Anderson. Ms. McJimsey expressed that the properties and neighbors to the north and the east have been discussed a lot; however, what about the neighborhoods to the south where the retaining wall might have the most impact. 3 Mr. Kuester said that to the south, the retaining wall is parallel to the creek and there are a couple of accessory structures, such as the intramural fields for basketball, a parking lot for the Iowa State center, and the football field but no habitable structures; it is mostly open area and it is all elevated above the 100 year flood plain, as is Hilton Coliseum. Ms. McJimsey inquired about the space on the same side of the creek on South Maple. Mr. Kuester noted that on South Maple, there are apartment buildings, a single family home and industrial buildings, but moving downstream, within the floodway fringe, there’s nothing until you move closer to Duff Avenue where there are a number of commercial buildings in the floodway fringe. Ms. McJimsey inquired what the raised elevation impact on Riverside Manor would be if the parking lot is higher than Riverside Manor and if there would be drainage off of the parking lot. Mr. Kuester asked that the project manager respond to that question. Ms. McJimsey asked Mr. Kuester to review the parking requirements for a facility such as this. Mr. Kuester informed the board that one parking space is required for every bedroom in the facility. Because the facility is in the floodway, they aren’t allowed to bring fill into the site; however, parking is an allowed use in the floodway. Ms. McJimsey expressed concern that with the retaining wall taking away part of the evacuation space, it’s her understanding that the parking lot would then become the evacuation space where people would wait for help. Mr. Kuester noted that the upper, grassy areas are elevated to the 100 year flood plain and as you approach the street that decreases because the street doesn’t have the 100 year flood plain. Ms. McJimsey said it is her concern that if the lots are filled with cars and the accesses with emergency vehicles, then there’s no place for people to wait for help. Ms. McJimsey questioned if the retaining wall on the other building, that’s not structural to the building, has the same specifications or if they are different of that of the building with the retaining wall. Mr. Kuester noted that both types must be engineered to be hydraulically stable and able to withstand a 100 year flood plain. Mr. Davis asked that if the board waited for the analysis to make a decision, would that analysis look at the effect of the retaining wall or will the study only look at the platting issue that the Council is looking at. Mr. Kuester noted that the study will look at what the impact of the floodwall will be based on the construction of this project and the placement of the fill. Planning and Housing Director, Kelly Diekmann, noted that Council has asked staff to specifically look at the floodwaters to the north of the site and how the elevation and grade changes could potentially deflect water to the north. Scott Renaud, FOX Engineering, answered Ms. McJimsey’s question from earlier noting that the bearing wall for the building is designed differently than the other wall; the other wall functions as a retaining wall. Ms. McJimsey noted she is concerned about the impact of the elevation and run off on Riverside Manor. Mr. Renaud noted that although Riverside Manor will sit lower than the parking lot, there are depressions around Riverside Manor and an anterior storm water management plan has been developed. The storm sewer is designed to prevent backflow from the site into the Riverside 4 Manor area. Ms. McJimsey expressed her concern regarding the run off from the parking lot to Riverside Manor. Mr. Renaud said that there are anti-back flow devices that push the water to flow towards the river. They don’t want Riverside Manor, because it is lower, to be impacted and want the back flow to go towards the parking lot not towards Riverside Manor. Ms. McJimsey inquired regarding the grade from Maple and South 4th Streets. Mr. Renaud explained that the berm and grade adjustments will act as a barrier and work to prevent flash floods from coming into the site. Mr. Renaud also said that the Maple Woods apartments have never flooded. Ms. McJimsey inquired about the grade from Maple and Mr. Renaud said that there will be two accesses to South 4th; they will be replacing an access with an easement across that parcel on Maple rather than South 4th. Mr. Renaud wanted to clarify the three possible ways of building and did so in a memo that he sent to the board. He noted that the applicant is requesting the third option to eliminate the 18 feet because they want people to go to the front of the building to the north because there’s no evacuation from the rear and it is an efficient use of the site. Ms. McJimsey asked Mr. Renaud to clarify what the applicants’ options would be if the board didn’t approve their request. Mr. Renaud noted that they would either need to move the building 18 feet away, change the building, eliminate the building or the other building would be 8 or 10 stories high rather than 4 stories. According to zoning code, they could technically have 1,200 beds but they will only have 378 beds. The owner wants to use the space of the site efficiently without crowding Riverside Manor. Ms. McJimsey asked Mr. Renaud to review the parking lot and how many spaces there will be. Mr. Renaud said that about 15% of the 388 parking spaces will be vacant due to students who do not have a vehicle. There are 50 residents at Riverside Manor and the apartment building will include 134 multiple bedroom units with 376 bedrooms, so 376 possible residents. He also expressed some of the work they have done, such as fixing the basement so that it no longer has structural issues, the electric service into the site has been changed so that residents would not need to be evacuated because of electricity, and the site itself has been re -configured so that it is safe from flash flooding from South 4th and Maple and from anything coming to them from Squaw Creek. Ms. McJimsey inquired if the parking lots are separate or shared with Riverside Manor and Mr. Renaud noted that there are separate parking lots for each and that the accesses are the only thing shared. Ms. McJimsey expressed her concern that despite all of the engineering improvements, would there be room for all of the residents of the apartments and Riverside Manor, their cars, and emergency vehicles in the parking lot in the event of a flash flood. Mr. Renaud said he feels that in the event of a flash flood, people should really stay put and if they do stay put, no cars or buildings should be impacted by a flash flood. He expressed the importance of relying on the City’s flood monitoring system to gauge the level of water in Squaw Creek to know whether or not the lower level parking lot would need to be evacuated. Mr. Renaud said that flash floods usually have 6-8 hours of warning notice for a flooding situation. Mr. Renaud also said that he has worked with the applicant to incorporate a notification system with cell phones for the residents so they are able to reach every resident in a very quick, timely manner. And, the backup 5 plan after cell phone notification would be to have tow trucks come in and move the vehicles that haven’t been moved near the time of flooding. Ms. Bradbury inquired how many spaces would be in the upper, smaller parking lot compared to the lower parking lot and noted that the smaller lot is higher in terms of elevation. Mr. Renaud replied that there are 47 spaces in the upper lot, 319 in the lower lot that is in the flood plain, and 23 spaces in another separate upper lot. Ms. Bradbury questioned if the larger, lower lot had two exit points and Mr. Renaud confirmed that it does have two exit points and explained that it is a requirement of the City code to have two accesses for the number of units they will have available. Ms. Ebel wondered how high the berm would be and Mr. Renaud replied that the berm will be 3 feet high and that it will act not as a visual barrier but as a protective, water barrier. Brian Hoyle, representing American Healthcare Investment, owners of the property in question, stated that the 2010 flood was a “defining moment” that brought this project to this point. He advised that American Healthcare Investment has owned the property for 15 years and has sustained floods throughout the years that required the evacuation of their residents. The 2010 flood was the third major flood that has impacted the facility. Mr. Hoyle expressed that his company has looked at every possible option to make the property safer for the resid ents of the care facility. According to Mr. Hoyle, the proposed project will provide stability to the site that has not been in existence over the course of the past 40 years. Mr. Hoyle noted that it was not his intent to subdivide and develop the site, but he was driven to that point given the conditions and past flooding. Mr. Hoyle told the Council that the purpose of the project is to help the facility survive, as well as prevent the residents from having to evacuate in the future and noted that that the property now has protection from future flooding without adding to the existing floodway problem. He feels that what is being proposed is a sustainable development project using all the best modern construction techniques to protect the existing property; it would be a vastly improved property and an improvement for the community as a whole. Ms. McJimsey asked Mr. Hoyle to expand on how he thinks the building will improve the neighborhood. Mr. Hoyle expressed that in terms of water coming onto the property, he believes the changes they are making will help protect his property and will keep water from coming from Squaw Creek. He realizes it is not a permanent solution, but that it does make matters better and does make several improvements. Ms. McJimsey questioned how long it took for the residents of Riverside Manor to be evacuated and Mr. Hoyle informed the board that it took them two hours to evacuate residents in 2010 and that they were able to get everyone out safely before the flooding occurred. Deborah Fink, 222 South Russell, pled with the board to look over things very carefully. She noted that her neighborhood has lost over 20 homes in the past due to flooding Ms. Fink feels the area around Squaw Creek already has too much concrete, preventing the natural absorption of flood waters; more buildings and concrete will only make it worse. She asked the Council to halt 6 the construction of the proposed buildings because she believes it will further harm her neighborhood during flooding in the future. Sharon Guber, 2931 Northwestern, has spent time looking at flooding and the funneling of storm water and its effects. She noted that it was stated at the Council meeting the night before that no study has been done on this and urged the board wait to hear the results of the hydrology study that the Council has requested. She also feels that the whole idea of the project being at this location needs to be studied and believes the evaluation of the hydrology effects of the proposed project will give better information to the board for the request at hand. Debbie Lee, 214 S Maple Street, wanted to clarify some points that she had heard previously in the evening. She noted that Mr. Kuester expressed that although there are buildings downstream there are not many residents who would be affected. Ms. Lee believes this to be false as she acknowledged that there are a lot of apartment buildings just south of Hy-Vee between Grand and Walnut which hold a lot of residents. It is also her belief that South 4th became a river in 2010 and that although the Maple Woods buildings may not have flooded on the inside, they were certainly isolated from access in or out after a certain point. Ms. Lee feels the development is pushing the limitations of the site, especially considering they have a flood plan established. She also noted that Squaw Creek is not a satisfactory outlet because it is already full at the times when it needs to be used as an outlet. After speaking with an Iowa State University meteorologist, Ms. Lee strongly believes that more frequent flooding will occur, so why allow these plans to occur if this is a risk prone area where more frequent weather events will be occurring. She stated that Mr. Hoyle has talked about flood protections for the nursing home. Ms. Lee believes Riverside Manor could be protected without the apartment buildings and feels adding the apartments just puts more people at risk. In conclusion, Ms. Lee expressed that if all of this work is to protect the residents of the nursing home, why keep the nursing home on this site at all. She thanked the board for their time and consideration. Tam Lorenz, 311 South Maple Avenue, noted that we all have our own definitions of what flooding is and showed pictures of the flooding from 2010 half block by half block. Ms. Lorenz also brought pictures of the current site and does not believe a lot of changes have been made to the accesses. She believes the proposed property plans will not only affect current residents, but the property of her potential 376 new neighbors. Erwin Erickson, 3115 Sedwick Street, touched on a few statements he feels are contradictory. He expressed that the floods in both 1993 and 2010 involved sandbagging efforts. He notes from experience that once the water reaches the low spot north of the footbridge it comes out of the creek, out of the buyout area and on to South 4th as a strong, raging current. With his years of experience in the neighborhood, Mr. Erickson feels that the water comes from Squaw Creek to the north. Mr. Erickson also noted that debris is not limited to sand and mud, because he has seen trees get caught up at the bridge, along with sections of fence, landscaping timbers, etc. With the proposed plans, lack of trees and a vertical wall, Mr. Erickson questions if the debris will travel a different direction. He believes that despite everyone’s best efforts they can try to get the cars out, but in 1993 a car was wedged under the freeway at the Iowa State University Center and it’s very likely that cars will be swept into the river unless tow trucks are on standby. Mr. Erickson noted that statements were made that residents didn’t have to be evacuated from the Maple 7 Wood apartments; however, boats were used to remove residents out from Maple Wood. The City knew 8 hours in advance that water was coming, although they didn’t know how high, they knew in advance the water was coming and still couldn’t get the cars out in time. Comments were also made that emergency vehicles will be able to get in and out of Riverside Manor and residential facilities. Although, if there’s a medical emergency, Mr. Erickson knows that water on South 4th gets a few feet deep and it would be very difficult to get an emergency vehicle in and out with 3 feet plus of moving water. In conclusion, he said that the board needs to keep in mind the debris, amount and type of debris that will go downstream. He thanked the board for their consideration. Judith Lemish, 327 South Maple, expressed her skepticism about the motive of the developer; she believes it is purely for profit, not because of concern for the residents of Riverside Manor. Ms. Lemish said she is also suspicious of the alleged protection of others in the neighborhood. She reiterated that she believes the project is for the protection of profits at the expense of the neighborhood residents. Ms. Lemish feels there are many unknowns and uncertainties as to what direction the water will come from, how long it will remain, and how much damage will be done from future flooding events. She is concerned for the safety of herself and her neighbors who are at a lower elevation and fears flooding will only get worse, not better, due to climate changes. Ms. Lemish believes that this type of development has gone on too long in Ames and feels it can be avoided if residents, City leaders, and developers could work cooperatively for the long-term benefit of all, rather than for the short-term profit of few. Mr. Kuester reminded the board of the request that is before them, meaning the 18 foot distance between the building and the 3 foot elevation requirement. He noted that they should look at what the impact of the project would be without the 18 foot perimeter around the building. Ms. McJimsey noted that although there is one specific request in front of the board, the criteria seems to be more broad and feels the board should make the best decision they can based off of the twelve criteria. Ms. McJimsey closed the public hearing after having heard from the applicant, owner, staff, and the public. Moved by Bradbury to defer the decision on the property located at 1204 South 4th Street upon hearing back from City staff with regards to the evaluation of the hydrology effects of the proposed project, as well as the impact of flooding on the property, seconded by Ebel. Mr. Davis inquired if the information that would come back from the study would be relevant, specifically, to the Conditional Use Permit request before them. Ms. McJimsey said that it might describe the flow of the water or the protection that the retaining wall could offer, which could be helpful to know; it is difficult to know what information the report will produce. Mr. Koehler noted that he feels the board should move forward with their decision because he feels that the report will not produce information relevant to the request at hand. Ms. Bradbury expressed that she would feel comfortable with more information rather than less to make their decision. 8 Vote on Motion: 3-2. Voting Aye: Bradbury, McJimsey and Ebel. Voting Nay: Koehler and Davis. Motion declared carried. CASE NO. 14-23 VARIANCE – Kum & Go, LC, 2801 E. 13th Street Public Hearing on application for Variance to rear minimum setback requirement on the property located at 2801 E. 13th Street City Planner Jeff Benson displayed a location map and site plan for the project. Mr. Benson explained that a convenience store and fast food restaurant have occupied the 5,600 square foot commercial building at 2801 E. 13th Street from 1996 until recently, when the fast food restaurant relocated to another site. Kum & Go intends to raze the current site and build a new store that will expand the Kum & Go business from 2808 square feet to 4991 square feet and increase the number of vehicle fueling spaces from eight to twelve. However, Mr. Benson noted that re-development of the site requires conformance to the current zoning standards of the Highway Commercial Zoning District. Mr. Benson explained that the current minimum setback distance from the north property line is ten feet. Kum & Go seeks a variance to place the building five feet from the north property line. He said that granting the variance would accommodate the proposed 45 foot north, south building dimension and expansion of the minimum space south of the fuel pump canopy from 17.5 feet to 25.3 feet. Mr. Benson noted the criteria that must be met in order for the variance to be granted. The site plan, project description, applicable law, and findings of fact and conclusions were reviewed in detail by Mr. Benson. He explained that City staff has reviewed the request and recommends denial of the request for a variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet for a new convenience store at 2801 E. 13th Street because two of the four standards have not been met. Mr. Koehler questioned what would happen if they were unable to tear out the entire parking lot; how much would need to stay of the existing building. Mr. Benson said that the building is being torn down and replaced so the variance would still be required regardless of how much of the parking lot they will be removing or replacing. Nick Halfhill, 6400 Westown Parkway, West Des Moines, IA, Kum & Go Company, informed the board that Kum & Go was founded in Iowa and that they currently have 430 stores in 11 states. He noted that the new Kum & Go stores that are being built are a new model with a larger square footage to better serve their customers. He emphasized that the new model is heavily focused on a smaller market; this re-investment effort is company driven. Mr. Halfhill went on to explain that it is a hardship for the company to allow the 2801 East 13th Street store to remain its current size. Although they have been at their current location for 18 years and would like to stay at the current location, or a location nearby the current site, there aren’t other available sites or properties nearby; they have explored their options. He explained that their situation becomes a hardship because they have an existing investment where they are 9 at and are stuck with a piece of land that does not allow them to expand the way they would like to. Mr. Halfhill expressed the work that Kum & Go has done to try to work with the City to find common ground so they are able to keep their investment rather than lose it. He displayed site plans and dimensions of other Kum & Go locations which have been recently remodeled to the larger square footage model. Mr. Halfhill emphasized that losing the five feet is substantial to maintain the same model in their stores and said that re-developing without the five feet becomes very difficult and changes the model and experience they are trying to maintain for their customers at every store. In conclusion, Mr. Halfhill noted that if they are unable to re-develop this store with their modern model, it puts them in a tough position to be able to better serve their customers, as well as improve the site and experience for their customers. Mr. Davis questioned that if neither variance was approved would they run into other variance standards and Mr. Benson replied that they could meet other zoning requirements for fuel pumps, curbs, etc. Ms. McJimsey said that in order to grant the variance the board needs to be able to determine that the applicant does meet each of the criteria. Ms. Bradbury noted that Kum & Go is phasing out the 2,800 square foot model because it is not as successful as the new model they are building that is 5,000 square foot; the small model no longer fits the new business model. Mr. Halfhill agreed that their situation really is a matter of old product versus new product. If this location is unable to expand, they would most likely, eventually, close the location because they are changing each of their locations to the larger model. Ms. Bradbury indicated that the model, with regards to the depth out front towards the fueling area, would have 35 feet from the building to the curb. She inquired if this depth was based off of criteria, such as safety and convenience. Mr. Halfhill replied that the depth is indeed based off of safety, the needs of the store, ADA requirements, convenience, and also the behavior of their customers which they have observed. Mr. Diekmann noted that the ADA requirements are not a unique circumstance; it is a standard that must be followed nationwide. Mr. Diekmann also reminded the board that there are two separate variance requests at hand. Mr. Benson noted that the City didn’t want to give up any of the right of way because they may need to re-do the water main break in the next few years. Mr. Davis questioned if their model would fit in the space if they moved the site plans ninety degrees. Mr. Halfhill said this is not a possibility because of the fuel canopy; he also expressed that the skewed rectangle space lot they are working with is extremely limiting. Mr. Benson remarked that the board still had some criteria that had not been met that the board could not justify. 10 Mr. Halfhill inquired what their options might be upon denial of their variance requests. Mr. Diekmann informed the applicant that if the variances are denied they can come back to the board sooner than twelve months; however, the variance requests cannot be exactly the same. If the variance request does not change, they must wait twelve months to re-apply. Mr. Halfhill decided that they would like to withdraw their application rather than ask the board to take action at this time. Ms. McJimsey noted the public hearing was closed because the issue was no longer before the board. CASE NO. 14-26 VARIANCE – Kum & Go, LC, 2801 E. 13th Street Public Hearing on application for Variance to eliminate 5-foot parking lot perimeter setback and landscaping on the property located at 2801 E. 13th Street City Planner Jeff Benson displayed a location map and site plan for the project. Mr. Benson explained that a convenience store and fast food restaurant have occupied the 5,600 square foot commercial building at 2801 E. 13th Street from 1996 until recently, when the fast food restaurant relocated to another site. Kum & Go intends to raze the current site and build a new store that will expand the Kum & Go business from 2808 square feet to 4991 square feet and increase the number of vehicle fueling spaces from eight to twelve. However, Mr. Benson noted that re-development of the site requires conformance to the current zoning standards of the Highway Commercial Zoning District. Mr. Benson explained that the current minimum front setback distance from the parking area to the property line along East 13th Street is five feet, within which landscaping is required. The current parking lot has no setback from the property line along East 13th Street and there is no perimeter landscaping along this property line. Mr. Benson noted that Kum & Go is seeking a variance in order to remove this parking area and replace it with a new parking area in the same location at the property line with no perimeter landscaping. He expressed that granting the variance to the applicant would accommodate the proposed new store and parking area and provide a minimum of 25 feet for vehicle maneuvering south of the fuel pump canopy. The site plan, project description, applicable law, and findings of fact and conclusions were reviewed in detail by Mr. Benson. He explained that City staff has reviewed the request and recommends denial of the request for a variance to eliminate the parking area setback and landscaping on the lot line abutting East 13th Street at the new convenience store at 2801 E. 13th Street. Mr. Davis inquired if the original setback was in the zoning laws or if they got a variance for it originally. Mr. Benson noted that the zoning code for parking lot landscaping in 1996 was more general and that the code didn’t have the specifics that it does today. Mr. Halfhill decided that they would like to withdraw their application rather than ask the board to take action at this time. 11 Ms. McJimsey noted the public hearing was closed because the issue was no longer before the board. COMMENTS: There were no comments by the Board. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Ebel, seconded by Bradbury, to adjourn the meeting at 9:52 p.m. _________________________________ _________________________________ Erin Cain, Recording Secretary Sandra McJimsey, Chair