HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 4-11-2012MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AMES, IOWA APRIL 11, 2012
The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 7:00 p.m. on April
11, 2012, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present: Patrick Brooks, Bruce
Calhoun, Elizabeth Erbes, and Gary Taylor. Board Member Sandra McJimsey was absent. Staff members
Charlie Kuester, Steve Osguthorpe, and Judy Parks were also present.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Moved by Erbes, seconded by Taylor, to elect Bruce Calhoun for the office of Chair of the Zoning Board
of Adjustment.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion carried unanimously.
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Brooks, to elect Elizabeth Erbes for the office of Vice Chair of the Zoning
Board of Adjustment.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Erbes, seconded by Taylor, to approve the minutes of the meeting
of March 14, 2012, as written.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 12-09
APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER - HENRY ZHENG
/ YUM PROPERTIES, LLC, 1620 SOUTH KELLOGG AVENUE #103
Public Hearing on Appeal from a Decision of the Zoning Enforcement Officer with respect to interior
landscaping requirements in a surface parking area
City Planner Charlie Kuester explained that this is an appeal from an interpretation of Section 29.403(4)(c)(i)
of the Municipal Code, which he read aloud:
(c)All surface parking areas must meet the following interior landscaping requirements.
(i) Interior landscaping shall be required for parking lots, containing 16 or more spaces, that
include three or more rows of parking spaces separated by two or more drive aisles in a
single location. Such interior landscaping shall, at a minimum, include a 9.0' wide and 16'
long landscaped island for every 20 interior parking spaces and a landscaped median, a
minimum of 15' wide running the full length of the drive aisle, for every 3 contiguous
double loaded parking aisles.
Mr. Kuester indicated that the applicant has submitted a site plan that if approved and built would result in
three contiguous double-loaded drive aisles, which requires a landscaped median. According to the applicant,
if there are three contiguous double-loaded aisles and a fourth is added, then a median would be required.
The applicant has appealed staff’s interpretation that one median is needed for every three aisles.
Mr. Kuester showed the Board the applicant’s site plan, which was approved by the City in 2007. The site
plan includes the Mongolian Buffet building and accompanying parking, and also shows an area that
includes a second building with parking. There is a note on the site plan indicating that approval does not
include this second building and parking. The owner now seeks to construct the new parking area. Mr.
Kuester noted that the site is constrained by dimensions and an irregular shape. Adding a landscaped median
would result in the loss of parking area, so the net parking space increase would not be enough for what the
new building needs.
The site plan contains three double-loaded contiguous parking aisles, and Mr. Kuester stated that there is
a 15-foot-wide landscaped m edian required for every 3 double-loaded parking aisles. The median would
need to be placed in one of the interior drive aisles, so by necessity a row of parking would be lost. He
pointed out that if a row of parking is lost, there are no longer three double-loaded parking aisles, and thus
no requirement for a median. Mr. Kuester reiterated that the site is constrained by dimensional challenges,
but the issue before the Board is an interpretation of the Code, not a site plan issue. Based on the language
of the Code, it is clear to City staff that there is a minimum requirement of one median for every three
double-loaded aisles.
Upon being questioned by Board Member Brooks, Mr. Kuester confirmed that the proposed parking would
serve the existing building, not a future building. He also explained that there has been discussion of whether
or not the lot would be subdivided, with each building on a separate lot. If the lot was divided, there would
no longer be three double-loaded aisles on the same lot, and perimeter landscaping would be required instead
of a landscaped median.
Chair Calhoun inquired about the initial site plan approval. He asked if it was made clear to the applicant
at the time that a median would be required in this future development. Planning & Housing Director Steve
Osguthorpe explained that the parking was discussed as something that would need to be addressed or
resolved; the details of the future development of the site were unclear to City staff.
Kurt Mackey, Roseland, Mackey, & Harris Architects, 1615 Golden Aspen Drive, Suite 110, Ames, stated
that when the site plan was originally submitted, it was understood that a portion of the buildings and
parking would be completed at another time. Staff requested that a note be added to the site plan stating that
only a portion of it has been approved. It was not the applicant’s intention to have a partially approved site
plan, but in order to move on with construction and get approval, they added the note. Mr. Brooks asked if
the median would have been required in 2007 had the entire site plan been approved. Mr. Mackey said that
there was no discussion at that time about a median, so he believes it would not have been required.
Mr. Mackey stated that he has not met another design professional who interprets this section of the Code
the same as the current City staff. He believes that the intent of the Code is to separate parking into three
contiguous double-loaded drive aisles. The Super Wal-Mart was developed with a median in between three
contiguous double-loaded aisles, as was the Ag Leader property. He said that it is a circular argument; if you
have three double-loaded aisles and you put in a median, then you no longer have the contiguous parking
aisles that require the median. Once the requirement is applied, the conditions of the requirement no longer
exist.
According to Mr. Mackey, the ZBA heard a similar case several years ago and upheld the applicant’s appeal.
After discussion, the Board members determined that they would like a chance to review the materials for
that case before coming to a decision. Mr. Mackey said that delaying the decision until the next meeting
would not be a problem.
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Erbes, to postpone the hearing on this application to the next regularly
scheduled ZBA meeting on April 25.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared approved unanimously.
COMMENTS: There were no comments by the Board.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:28 p.m.
______________________________ _____________________________
Emily Burton, Recording Secretary Bruce Calhoun, Chair