HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 8-8-2012MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AMES, IOWA AUGUST 8, 2012
The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 7:00 p.m.
on August 8, 2012, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present: Bruce
Calhoun, Elizabeth Erbes, Sandra McJimsey, and Gary Taylor. Board Member Patrick Brooks was
absent. Staff members Jeff Benson, Charlie Kuester, Steve Osguthorpe, and Judy Parks were also
present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by McJimsey, seconded by Erbes, to approve the minutes of
the meeting of July 25, 2012, as written.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 12-17
SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT - JONI GORMAN, 2121 BURNETT AVENUE
Public Hearing on application for Special Home Occupation Permit to allow a cosmetology
business on the property located at 2121 Burnett Avenue
City Planner Jeff Benson explained that the applicant wishes to operate a salon in a 150-square-foot
area of her home on Burnett Avenue. The business would be conducted between the hours of 8:00
a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. On average, the applicant anticipates approximately 6
appointments per day, but there would be no more than 10 in one day. There is space available to
park in the driveway, and time would be scheduled between clients to avoid overlap.
Mr. Benson reviewed other details of the business and the applicable standards from the staff report.
He stated that City staff found that the application meets all of the standards in the Code. Upon being
questioned by Board Member McJimsey, Mr. Benson stated that only one public comment, a letter
of support from a neighbor, had been received regarding the proposal.
Joni Gorman, 2121 Burnett Avenue, Ames, Iowa, stated that she moved to Ames in June. She wants
to keep the operation very small, and has no intentions of developing the business into something that
would eventually require commercial space.
Board Member Taylor noted that there were certain parameters for the business operation in the staff
report, and asked if the applicant would have a problem with the Board limiting the scope of
operations to that described in the staff report. Ms. Gorman said that would not be an issue.
Merle Prater, 2110 Burnett Avenue, Ames, Iowa, stated that he welcomes the Gormans to the
neighborhood, but he is concerned about traffic congestion due to this proposed business. He does
not want to see his neighborhood become a commercial area.
Board Member Erbes noted that language from a previous case was erroneously included in the staff
report under Alternative 2, and should be stricken from the report.
Moved by Taylor, seconded by McJimsey, to adopt ORDER NO. 12-17, thereby approving the
request for a Special Home Occupation Permit to allow a beauty salon at 2121 Burnett Avenue,
subject to the home occupation being operated as described in the staff report, and based on the
findings of fact and conclusion in the report, with the following conditions:
1.No changes shall be made to the premises;
2.The business shall occupy approximately 150 square feet of the home;
3.Any future signs will be no larger than 1 foot square;
4.Joni Gorman will be the only employee;
5.Hours of operation are limited to 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday;
6.The business shall operate by appointment only;
7.Number of clients shall not exceed 10 daily; and,
8.Appointments shall be scheduled to avoid clients arriving at the same time.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared approved unanimously.
CASE NO. 12-20
EXCEPTION FOR MINOR AREA MODIFICATION - FREDERICK AND LYNN KOENIG,
2125 POLK DRIVE
Public Hearing on application for Exception for Minor Area Modification to allow a 2-foot
extension to an attached garage on the property located at 2125 Polk Drive
Planner Benson explained that the subject property is a two-story home with a double garage and
double driveway on the south side of the home. The applicant finds it difficult to get two vehicles in
and out of the garage with the current 16-foot-wide door, so he would like to widen the door to 18
feet. Since the garage is only 20 feet wide, the door cannot be widened without the garage also being
widened. Widening the garage would place the structure 2 feet into the required 8-foot setback.
Mr. Benson reviewed the criteria as detailed in the staff report. He stated that staff found the
application to meet all of the criteria in the Code.
Bill Koenig, 2125 Polk Drive, Ames, Iowa, stated that he has spoken to his neighbor about the
proposed expansion and he is in full support. Chair Calhoun asked if there were any park accesses
on either side of the applicant’s property, and Mr. Koenig stated that there are not. He explained that
the park access is on the east side of Eisenhower Avenue.
Moved by McJimsey, seconded by Erbes, to adopt ORDER NO. 12-20, thereby approving the request
for an Exception for Minor Area Modification to allow a reduction of the side setback from 8 feet
to 6 feet on the east side of a single family detached residence at 2125 Polk Drive, based on the
findings of fact and conclusions as stated in the staff report and the applicant’s completed application
form.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 12-19
SPECIAL USE PERMIT - IOWA RSA 10 LLC, 1325 SOUTH 4 STREETTH
Public Hearing on application for Special Use Permit to allow a temporary cellular tower on
the property located at 1325 South 4 Streetth
City Planner Charlie Kuester explained that the request is to place a temporary cellular tower, also
known as a Cell on Wheels or COW, on the property at 1325 South 4 Street. The area is just eastth
of the Squaw Creek in close proximity to the Iowa State University football stadium. Mr. Kuester
said that the applicant would like the tower to be operating on the site from one week before the first
home ISU football game through one week after the last home game. Verizon Wireless has provided
this service to the area in the past, but the tower has always been located on ISU property, which the
City does not have zoning authority over. This year, ISU is not allowing the tower on its property.
Mr. Kuester said that Verizon Wireless plans to use the tower to provide supplemental service on
game days due to the increased number of cell phone users in the area. He reviewed the details of the
proposal and the applicable criteria in the staff report, and stated that the application met all of the
criteria of a permanent cell tower facility. However, there are landscaping screening requirements for
permanent cell tower facilities, and since the Code does not differentiate between temporary and
permanent cell towers, staff is recommending that the landscaping requirement be deferred for this
application. Staff has added a condition to the approval that the applicant provide financial security
for the cost of paving and landscaping; if the site is still in use on May 1, 2013, the City would draw
upon the financial security to install the paving and landscaping.
Chair Calhoun asked why Verizon does not place a permanent tower in the area. Mr. Kuester
explained that coverage is adequate in the area, but extra capacity is needed during football games.
The intent is for this tower to be in place for one season only.
Upon being questioned by Board Member Erbes, Mr. Kuester stated that the proposed 6-foot-tall
fence around the trailer is the maximum fence height allowed in the zone, and the fence will be
removed after the season is over and the site is no longer in use. Board Member McJimsey asked
what the process would be if the applicant wanted to change this to a permanent site. Mr. Kuester
stated that it would be the same process, but it would need to come back before the Board. This
application and approval is specific to a temporary tower.
Nathan Ward, 1200 Riva Ridge, Racine, Wisconsin, stated that he was representing Verizon
Wireless. Mr. Calhoun asked why Verizon does not want to pursue a permanent site. Mr. Ward
explained that this area of Ames is currently serviced by five permanent cell site installations that
provide better than adequate service and capacity for current customers. However, during home
football games, the large influx of capacity causes the need for an additional tower. The cost of a
permanent cell site would not be cost-effective at this time. Mr. Ward explained that Verizon has
been deploying temporary towers at the University for many years. Between the end of the last
football season and this summer, the University entered into an agreement with another party that has
prohibited Verizon from being able to deploy temporary towers on University property this season.
He is unsure what the next football season will bring, but Verizon will continue conversations with
the University between now and then to find a solution. He noted that this request was strictly for the
2012-13 season only. If necessary, Verizon will come back and make a similar request next year.
Ms. McJimsey asked if the applicant is amenable to providing financial security if the application is
approved. Mr. Ward said that they have discussed it with staff and are currently working on the form
of security. He said that they will make sure that it is issued prior to the cell tower being deployed;
however, it would be advantageous if the unit could be placed on the site as soon as possible. He
explained that it takes roughly seven days or longer once the unit is sitting on the site to connect to
the fiber optic network. They would like to be able to place the trailer on the site, but would agree
to not turn the unit on until the securities are in place and permits are issued.
After being questioned by Ms. McJimsey, Mr. Ward stated that the generator on the site would be
tested a few times per month. It would be running for a few minutes at a time, and there would not
be a residence close enough to notice it running.
Ms. Erbes inquired about the vehicles that would be parking close to the tower, and asked if there was
anything in the Code regarding how close a vehicle can be parked to a cell tower. Mr. Kuester said
that there are no regulations.
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Erbes, to adopt ORDER NO. 12-19, thereby approving the request
for a Special Use Permit for Cell Site with Antenna at 1325 South 4 Street as detailed on the Siteth
Plan (prepared by SSC, INC and dated August 1, 2012) with the adoption of the findings of fact and
conclusions stated in the staff report, and subject to the following condition:
That the required landscaping and paving be deferred until May 1, 2013, provided the applicant
submit an engineer’s estimate of probable cost of improvements that satisfy the City’s
development standards, and submit financial security in a form acceptable to the City for that
amount. Said security would be either returned to the applicant if the tower is removed prior to
May 1, 2013, or drawn upon by the City if the tower is not removed prior to May 1, 2013.
The Board discussed the need to make the approval limited to a one-season use, as well as the desire
of the applicant to place the unit on the site before it is operational.
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Erbes, to amend the motion to state that the Special Use Permit shall
expire one year from the date of the hearing, and that the applicant will be allowed to put the cell
tower on site, but prior to making it operational, the financial security must be provided to the City.
Vote on Motion as Amended: 4-0. Motion declared approved unanimously.
CASE NO. 12-18
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PYLE LAND LLC, 1400 SOUTHEAST 16 STREETTH
Public Hearing on application for Conditional Use Permit to allow channel stabilization and
widening of the Skunk River on the property located at 1400 Southeast 16 Streetth
Planner Kuester stated that the proposal is to allow excavation in the floodway to straighten the
Skunk River channel between Southeast 16 Street and Highway 30. The request is driven by theth
desire of the prospective owner, Deery Brothers, to seek tax abatement for a proposed auto dealership
on land adjacent to the site. Mr. Kuester described the details of the proposal as outlined in the staff
report. He noted that the applicant had provided the Board with an Engineering No-Rise Certificate,
which indicates that the channel straightening will result in no rise to the Skunk River watershed. The
Certificate was reviewed by the City’s Engineering department and it was deemed acceptable.
The criteria and performance standards were reviewed from the staff report. City staff has found the
project to meet the requirements of the flood plain zoning regulations, and approval is recommended.
Mr. Calhoun expressed concern regarding the site being under construction during a flood. Mr.
Kuester said that the flood plain development permit would specify that work cannot be done during
high water events, and no vehicles or anything buoyant, flammable, or poisonous may be stored in
the floodway. Mr. Calhoun asked about maintenance if a flood wipes out all of the seeding off of the
site. Mr. Kuester explained that the Board would be approving an excavation plan, which includes
grading and top cover vegetation; the applicant is responsible for maintaining compliance with the
site plan. If there is a disaster, the applicant would be responsible for restoring the site. Mr. Calhoun
expressed concern that the City does not require a maintenance or performance bond to ensure the
site is maintained properly. He does not want to see the applicant start on the site, have it inundated
with a flood, and then decide that it’s not worth it to restore the site. Mr. Kuester explained that the
applicant is responsible for maintaining the site in perpetuity; the City cannot hold a bond in
perpetuity. Failure to comply with an approved site plan is a violation of the Zoning Ordinance.
Assistant City Attorney Judy Parks added that the City typically does not require a bond in this
situation. Mr. Calhoun said that a maintenance bond would be appropriate to ensure that things move
along in a timely fashion; the vegetative cover requires time to be established. He wants to make sure
that the Board is being responsible and protecting the area.
Scott Renaud, FOX Engineering Associates, 414 South 17 Street, Suite 107, Ames, Iowa, said thatth
a maintenance or performance bond is required in a situation where one is contractually obligated to
complete work. This is a private developer, and he anticipates that the work should take about two
to three weeks; they have arranged to have this done separately so it can be done quickly. He said that
they have a landscape plan and a maintenance plan to go with it. Details of the landscape plan were
discussed.
Larry Reinsch, P.O. Box 408, Ames, Iowa, expressed his support of the Deery Brothers project and
the proposed location. He believes that the dealership would provide a great amount of jobs and
commerce for Ames.
Joe Rippetoe, 419 Pearson Avenue, Ames, Iowa, stated that this application does not meet the
requirements of the ordinance. He passed out a copy of Municipal Code Section 9.4(1) Permitted
Uses and (2) Conditional Uses. He said that item 3 on the application form fails to show what
allowable use the applicant is trying to meet. The application asks to authorize “channel stabilization
and widening to eliminate a restriction in the channel and to reduce bank erosion.” Mr. Rippetoe said
that this is not on the list of conditional uses and does not meet the excavation standards. He read the
list of Permitted Uses from Section 9.4(1), and noted that excavation or channel changes are specified
under public infrastructure uses [9.4(1)(f)]. He does not think that the Code allows these uses for
private purposes. He read Section 9.4(2), Conditional Uses, and said that the application does not fit
under a conditional use either. Mr. Rippetoe said that this application is spurred by private demand
for tax abatement, and “digging in the river for private purposes” is not permitted as a conditional
use and is not consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. He stated that performance standards and
engineering studies do not matter if there is not a permissible use in the first place, and this
application should be denied.
Mr. Kuester stated that excavation in the floodway, whether for channel straightening or a borrow
pit, does fall under the conditional use category. Permitted uses are types of uses including public
infrastructure and excavation in the floodway that are approved administratively by City staff.
Excavation in the floodway for other purposes falls under the broader conditional uses category of
9.4(2)(g), “other uses similar in nature to uses described as permitted uses or listed conditional uses,
which are consistent with the performance standards of Subsection (3) below and the general spirit
and purpose of this ordinance.” Mr. Kuester explained that the spirit and purpose of the ordinance
is to protect from flood hazards. Excavation in the channel to improve flow is not inconsistent with
the ordinance. He stated that the City has consistently required conditional use permits for excavation
in the floodway. Mr. Calhoun further discussed staff’s reasoning with Mr. Kuester. He is not certain
that the Code allows excavation other than for public infrastructure.
Planning and Housing Director Steve Osguthorpe stated that the river channel straightening is not
something that this private venture wanted to do. When the proposal came before the City Council,
the Council wanted some public good to come in exchange for a tax abatement, and their solution
was river channeling. The purpose is for a broader public good.
Board Member Taylor said that the excavation/straightening is done in effect to public infrastructure
even though it’s being done by a private entity. Mr. Kuester added that if the project were public
infrastructure, it would fall under a permitted use and the Board would not even hear the case. There
is already a public hearing process for public infrastructure projects; since this is a private project and
falls under the “other uses similar” category in (2)(g), the public is being heard through the
conditional use permit process. Mr. Calhoun said that the private entity caused the problem of the rise
in the first place. He is concerned that the applicant created a situation, and in order to get some
benefit they need to mitigate a rise that may ensue because of what they did as another part of the
project.
Director Osguthorpe noted that the project at hand is the river channel straightening, not the overall
project that the applicant has in mind. The “No Rise” certificate applies to the channel straightening,
and the Board must determine whether or not to approve this specific project. The City Council’s
intent is that this will make things better; staff wants to make sure through the ZBA review that it will
at least not make things worse.
Mr. Calhoun expressed concern about the applicant tearing out natural vegetative slopes and putting
in prairie grasses. He wonders how it will affect someone downstream.
Mr. Renaud said that this is a drainage district formed in 1896, and it was manmade back then. The
channel banks are not stable, and the proposed project will be an improvement to the current
conditions. Ms. McJimsey asked what the impact of the “No Rise” Certificate is if there is a rise. Mr.
Renaud explained that he incurs liability, and his engineering license could be taken away. Mr.
Renaud indicated that it is mathematically not possible for a rise to happen with regard to this project.
Mr. Rippetoe urged the Board to keep in mind that it is an independent, quasi-judicial body; the
Board cannot interpret what the City Council’s motive or intent is. He said that the Board’s role is
to deliberate based on what is actually in the Zoning Ordinance; it is clear to him that channel
straightening does not appear as a conditional use. He does not agree with staff’s determination of
designating this project as “other.” Mr. Rippetoe said that the ordinance is designed to protect the
public, not to allow private interests to alter the river for private gains. If this was a public
infrastructure project, the City would be doing it, not an auto dealership.
Larry Reinsch said that as rivers meander, they wear themselves out. This project will ensure that the
river will move water faster. Public infrastructure projects are usually done at the burden of the tax
payers; this is a private entity doing a public project at their own personal cost.
Moved by Erbes, seconded by Taylor, to adopt ORDER NO. 12-18, thereby approving the request
for a Conditional Use Permit to allow channel stabilization and widening of the Skunk River on the
property located at 1400 Southeast 16 Street, based on staff’s analysis and conclusions, and subjectth
to the following conditions:
1. The applicant obtain a Flood Plain Development Permit prior to excavation and comply with
any conditions imposed therein;
2. The applicant obtain a COSESCO permit prior to excavation;
3. The applicant meet any permitting requirements of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources
and the Army Corps of Engineering prior to any work being done and comply with any conditions
imposed therein; and,
4. The applicant obtain an approved Permit to Perform Work in the Right-of-Way from the Iowa
Department of Transportation prior to any work being done and comply with any conditions
imposed therein.
Mr. Calhoun said that this project is being defined too indirectly as public infrastructure, and he
cannot support the motion. Mr. Kuester reiterated that staff is not making the argument that this is
a public infrastructure project. It is private and benefits the private, though there may be collateral
benefits to the City. If it were a public project it would not be before the Board; because it is private,
it requires the conditional use permit. Staff feels that the standards have been met. Mr. Taylor said
that he would also categorize this project under 9.4(2)(g). This is a use similar in nature to the use
described in 9.4(1)(f). Although it is not public infrastructure, it still fits in the category of excavation
or grading and channel changing.
Vote on Motion: 3-1. Voting Aye: Taylor, McJimsey, Erbes. Voting Nay: Calhoun.
Motion declared carried.
COMMENTS: There were no comments by the Board.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m.
______________________________ _____________________________
Emily Burton, Recording Secretary Bruce Calhoun, Chair