Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 1-11-2012MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMES, IOWA JANUARY 11, 2012 The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 7:02 p.m. on January 11, 2012, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present: Bruce Calhoun, Elizabeth Erbes, Sandra McJimsey, and Gary Taylor. Board Member Thomas Weber was absent. Staff members Charlie Kuester and Judy Parks were also present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by McJimsey, seconded by Taylor, to approve the minutes of the meeting of December 14, 2011, as written. Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion carried unanimously. CASE NO. 12-01 SPECIAL USE PERMIT - JERRY CARNEY AND SONS, INC., 340 SOUTH DAYTON AVENUE Public Hearing on application for an amendment to the approved Special Use Permit for the existing salvage yard on the property located at 340 South Dayton Avenue City Planner Charlie Kuester explained that, in 2010, the Board approved a Special Use Permit that allowed an auto salvage yard to operate at the subject site. The 15-acre site has since been occupied by Carney’s salvage yard. The Carneys have made improvements to the site, most of which are consistent with the approved site plan; however, some are not. The application before the Board is to allow these changes to continue, as well as to approve some changes the applicants anticipate will need to be made. Mr. Kuester noted that the approval of the Special Use Permit in 2010 contained the following conditions: A.That the salvage yard be fenced with a solid, opaque fence in the locations shown on the Site Plan, similar in design to the existing fence used to screen the existing operation on Freel Drive. The current height limit of a fence in this location is 6 feet. The City is presenting an amendment to the Zoning Code to the City Council on November 9 that will allow an 8-foot fence in the locations shown on the plan. The note as shown on the site plan will allow an 8-foot fence if the amendment is approved; otherwise it will be a 6-foot fence. The fence will be placed in such a way that plantings be placed north of the fence from the east property line 250 feet toward the west to provide an additional buffer near the daycare center. B.That car-crushing be limited to no more than 14 days per year. The Site Plan shall be updated to indicate the temporary location of the car crusher at the north end of the site in either the first or second drive aisle from the entrance. C.That the existing trees (as shown on the site plan) be retained and that any removal will require an amendment to the Special Use Permit. D.That salvage material be stacked no higher than the height of the fence. E.That dust abatement measures be undertaken on the internal drives, when needed. F.That the fence, driveway, parking areas, and internal roadways be maintained. This maintenance shall include replacement or repair of the fence within 14 days if it is damaged or after it comes down. The fence shall be replaced or repaired whenever peeling or chipping occurs. G.That no underground storage or burial of materials is permitted. H.That, prior to bringing vehicles to the site for storage, their fluids be drained and disposed of in accordance with state and federal law. A copy of the approved site plan was shown, and Mr. Kuester noted where changes have been made. Several trees were removed from the south end of the site in order to accommodate an 8-foot fence around the entire perimeter. In addition to the installation of the fence and the removal of the trees, the owner seeks to change the grading of the site. The approved site plan shows a two-tier site with the rear one-fourth of the lot about 25 feet higher than the front three-fourths. The proposed grading creates a 2 percent grade along the entire site with the rear slope rising about 20 feet at a 3-to-1 slope. The owners would also like to place the car crusher at the front of the property behind the fence, rather than 200 feet farther east as indicated on the previously approved site plan. Mr. Kuester reviewed the potential impacts of the three major changes (the fence/removal of trees, grading change, and location of the car crusher). He explained that the owners had originally intended to only fence the site in certain areas and rely on topography and dense vegetation in other areas to keep trespassers out. The site is now fully fenced, with the clearing of trees and undergrowth necessary to accomplish the installation. Although this work was done in violation of one of the Board’s conditions, staff feels that the fence will provide a more secure facility and better restrict access. The fencing will also further the criterion of Section 29.1306(2)(a) by making the site a less attractive nuisance for young children. In regards to the proposed grading change, Mr. Kuester stated that the site will be graded lower than originally planned. There may be a benefit of lowering the area of vehicle storage by making it less likely to be seen from abutting properties. The Public Works Department reviewed the grading and erosion control plan and found it to meet the City’s standards. The proposed plan places the car crusher immediately behind the fence and adjacent to the front gate, midway between the north and south property lines. Staff finds this location to be better than the originally approved location. Mr. Kuester noted that the 2010 site plan showed 15 eastern white pine trees at the northeast corner of the site, outside of the fence. An inspection made by staff revealed that several of these trees have died, and these trees will need to be replaced. This is one of the conditions attached to staff’s recommendation of approval. Board Member McJimsey asked what the current status of the grading is. Mr. Kuester said that it is incomplete; the owners have not graded beyond what the original plan was. Chair Calhoun asked if soil borings were conducted to see if there is any sand or sediment that may inhibit storm water drainage. Mr. Kuester said he was unaware of any borings. Upon being questioned by Board Member Taylor, Mr. Kuester indicated that he spoke to the neighboring property owners after notice of the hearing was sent out. The property owner to the south had no comments after the project was described. The daycare owner informed Mr. Kuester of the dead pine trees in the northeast corner. The residential owner to the north felt that the permit should not have been approved in the first place, but that part is a “done deal.” Chair Calhoun inquired about buffering requirements between this use and a residential property. Mr. Kuester indicated that there is no buffering requirement in the zoning code from one General Industrial property to another; however, a buffering requirement could be added as a condition to an approval. Ms. McJimsey asked what the procedure should have been before the owner made changes to the site. Mr. Kuester stated that an application for a change to the Special Use Permit should have been submitted prior to doing anything different from the approved site plan. Ms. McJimsey noted that they would have been able to discuss the location of the fence in that scenario. The Board could have required the owners to put a jog in the fence and leave the trees to provide a buffer. Assistant City Attorney Judy Parks said that it is still within the Board’s purview to require that if it so chooses. Chuck Winkleblack, 105 South 16 Street, Ames, Iowa, stated that the applicants got ahead ofth themselves with the fencing, but the other two changes have not yet been made. At the time of the initial application, the owners were dealing with two flooded properties. The plan all along was to fence the entire site, but they were unsure if it would work at the beginning due to the financial burden of the floods. Mr. Winkleblack acknowledged that even though it was the long-term plan to fence the whole site, the owners should have asked before it was done. He indicated that the fence was placed where it was in order to avoid moving it if Southeast 5 Street is ever extended. Mostth of the trees that were cut out were 6 inches in diameter or smaller, and a lot of it was dead or had fallen over. Upon being questioned by Ms. McJimsey, Mr. Winkleblack indicated that the installation of the fence began in May or June of 2011. Ms. McJimsey read a portion of the minutes from the October 27, 2010 meeting, in which Mr. Matt Carney stated that they would “consider” fencing the entire site. She did not get the feeling that the long-term plan was to fence the entire site, and she expressed disappointment that the Board did not have a chance to discuss it before it happened. Mr. Winkleblack said that during the initial discussions with City staff, it was always the goal to have the site completely fenced in. He said that Carney’s is a family-owned business that has operated for years with Special Use Permits without any violations. They are accustomed to doing things the right way, but this was a misstep. The intentions behind putting up the fence were good. Ms. McJimsey asked if the applicants had any pictures to show what underbrush is left. Mr. Winkleblack did not have pictures, but he indicated that there was a significant amount of growth left up against the fence. Scott Williams, Alfred Benesch & Co., 223 South Walnut Avenue, Ames, Iowa, stated that he is the engineer for the project. Chair Calhoun expressed his concern regarding the grading changes on the site. There could be rock or sand deposits which may provide a chance for groundwater pollution through the porous soil. Mr. Williams said that they did not do any soil borings, but historically this site and others in the area were used as “borrow sites” for roadway projects. Years ago, much of the west end of the site was at a higher elevation; it is likely that the materials on the east end will be the same as what is on the west. It is very typical of the surrounding area. Matt Carney, 2108 Buchanan Drive, Ames, Iowa, apologized for putting up the fence before proper approval was given. Mr. Calhoun asked for a description of how the car crusher is operated. Mr. Carney explained that a semi comes in and loads 12 to 14 cars. The crusher will be fed from the east to the west. Mr. Calhoun noted that the proposed location is close to the road, and inquired about the danger of car parts flying or popping out of the crusher. Mr. Carney said that the crusher is enclosed, so there would be no danger of that occurring. Mr. Carney said that he does not wish to use the flooding as an excuse, but it did complicate the process. He stated that fewer than 10 trees were removed, most about 4 inches in diameter. The residential property owner requested that several of the trees be removed. He said that the area where the trees were removed was “not a golf course,” but rather mostly overgrown, dead material. With regard to Mr. Calhoun’s concern about the soil quality, Mr. Carney indicated that the bottom section of the site is all blue clay. He indicated that water will not pass through it, and once the grading is done it will drain very well. Mr. Calhoun stated that he is still concerned about the drainage. He asked if the soil would be inspected by the City. Mr. Kuester said that the City will inspect the grading and ensure that the storm water management plan is being followed. Mr. Carney noted that they are required to submit storm water reports annually for all of their salvage yards. Tom Carney, 2200 Quail Ridge Road, Ames, Iowa, said that storm water samples are taken from the retention ponds annually, and the samples are sent to a lab for testing. The results are sent to the Department of Natural Resources and kept on file. He added that this project was pushed ahead because they were experiencing good weather and wanted to get the project behind them. He thanked the Board for approving the first plan, and he said that they will do a better job of following the proper procedures moving forward. Moved by Taylor, seconded by Erbes, to adopt ORDER NO. 12-01, thereby granting the request for an amendment to the Special Use Permit for an auto salvage yard on the property at 340 South Dayton Avenue, with the following conditions: A. That the location of the car crusher when on site be consistent with site plan filed with the City on November 30, 2011 B. That car crushing be limited to no more than 14 days per year. C. That salvage material be stacked no higher than the height of the fence. D. That dust abatement measures be undertaken on the internal drives, when needed. E. That the existing 8' fence, driveway, parking areas, and internal roadways be maintained. This maintenance shall include replacement or repair of the fence within 14 days if it is damaged or if it comes down. The fence shall be replaced or repaired whenever peeling or chipping occurs. F. That no underground storage or burial of materials is permitted. G. That, prior to bringing vehicles to the site for storage, their fluids be drained and disposed of in accordance with state and federal law. H. That the dead trees planted by the applicant on the north side of the fence at the east end of the property be replaced by May 1, 2012 and all these trees are to be maintained for as long as the use is established at this site. Board Member Erbes referenced Ms. McJimsey’s comment that the Board has the ability to require more trees. Ms. McJimsey said that even though the residential properties are nonconforming, they still have rights to an attractive surrounding. She noted that the compatibility of this use was an issue the Board debated for a long time. If pictures had been presented, she might be more convinced that it didn’t make any difference what was removed. She suggested tabling the item to give the applicants and staff a chance to come up with a solution to provide buffering between the salvage yard and the residential property. It was also suggested that the Board could require the applicant to move the fence and/or plant additional trees on either side of the fence. Mr. Taylor noted that if the fence were moved, the grading plan would likely need to change, which would also affect the driveway alleyway. Different options were discussed at length. Ms. Erbes asked what would happen to the adjacent residence if the City extends Southeast 5 Street.th Mr. Kuester stated that the City would need to acquire the property. Mr. Calhoun asked if any other body reviews the plans with regard to the soil or trees. Mr. Kuester explained that the City has a Development Review Committee (DRC) that reviews developments on a regular basis. The DRC is comprised of Public Works Engineering and Traffic, Water and Pollution Control, and various other departments. After the trees were removed, an application was submitted for the DRC to review. Mr. Kuester indicated that no comments were made with regard to the residential use being affected by the cutting down of the trees. It was felt that the fence would be much more secure than relying on undergrowth to keep people out of the site. Mr. Taylor said that he recalled discussion in 2010 that the trees provided a better visual buffer, but a fence provided a more secure site. He thinks the Board was more focused on the trees because of the absence of a fence in that location. Ms. McJimsey agrees that the security was a consideration; however, the visual buffer was a large factor for the neighbors. Mr. Winkleblack pointed out that the neighbor specifically requested that a number of trees be removed when the fence was put up. The Board discussed several options for providing a buffer between the residential property and the salvage yard. Ms. Erbes suggested that planting trees on the inside of the fence would provide a visual buffer up higher and soften the look of the fence. Moved by Erbes, seconded by McJimsey, to amend condition H to state “That the dead trees planted by the applicant on the north side of the fence at the east end of the property be replaced by May 1, 2012, that additional new trees be planted on the north side of the west end of the south fence and climbing vines or something similar be planted to green the fence. All of these trees and plantings shall be maintained as long as the use is established at this site.” The Board discussed different types of trees that could be planted. Mr. Taylor is concerned that this may put the applicants in a box or require changes to the grading plan. Discussion ensued regarding the specific impacts the additional trees may have on the site plan. Mr. Winkleblack stated that the idea of planting trees on the inside of the fence is not ideal. He speculated that by the time the new canopy was developed and flourishing, the residential property may not exist anymore due to the extension of Southeast 5 Street. It could take years before theth trees could provide any buffering or softening. He asked if the Board might table the item, and offered to speak with the neighboring property owners to see what their concerns are and find out what might make them happy. Ms. McJimsey asked Mr. Kuester to sit in on the conversation with the neighbors. She would like the Board’s point of view represented; the other property owners may think that since the fence is up, it’s a “done deal.” She would also like a clear understanding of what happens to the fence and the Special Use Permit if Southeast 5 is extended past the property. Mr.th Kuester stated that the subject property would not be impacted by the Southeast 5 extension.th Chair Calhoun said that in zoning considerations, the Board doesn’t necessarily consider how the neighbors feel, it considers land uses and how they conform with the zoning ordinance. It is not what the neighbors want or don’t want; it is about compatibility. Moved by Taylor, second Erbes, to postpone the hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion carried unanimously. COMMENTS: There were no comments by the Board. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. ___________________________________________________________ Emily Burton, Recording Secretary Bruce Calhoun, Chair