HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 6-08-2011MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AMES, IOWA JUNE
8, 2011
The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 7:00
p.m. on June 8, 2011, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members
present: Bruce Calhoun, Elizabeth Erbes, Sandra McJimsey, and Thomas Weber. Board
Member Taylor was absent. Staff members Ray Anderson, Sam Perry, Steve Osguthorpe, and
Judy Parks were also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Weber, seconded by McJimsey, to approve the
minutes of the meeting of May 11, 2011, as written.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 11-13 - APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE ZONING
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER - 1811 SOUTH DAYTON PLACE
Public Hearing on application for Appeal from a Decision of the Zoning
Enforcement Officer that a concrete batch plant on the property located at
1811 South Dayton Place is not a permitted use
City Planner Charlie Kuester explained that the applicant has requested a
deferral of this item due to pending City Council action.
Moved by McJimsey, seconded by Weber, to table the item until a future
meeting.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 11-10 – SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT – 2507
WHITE OAK DRIVE
Public Hearing on application for a Special Home Occupation Permit to
allow a professional counseling service on the property located at 2507
White Oak Drive
City Planner Ray Anderson explained that the applicant, Stephen Bohlen, proposes to operate a
licensed counseling service out of his home. The hours of operation would be between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with occasional appointments in the evening and
appointments on weekends only in rare instances. There will be a minimum of 30 minutes
between appointments, and parking is available in the driveway and in the attached garage. Mr.
Bohlen plans on having only one client at each session.
Mr. Anderson reviewed the project description and criteria found in the staff report, and stated
that City staff recommended approval of the application.
Stephen Bohlen, 2507 White Oak Drive, Ames, Iowa, clarified that he does counsel couples
from time to time, but generally they arrive together in one vehicle. He stated that he has been
working for 15 years in the counseling field, and has had a home office in Burlington, Iowa for
the last 8 years. Chair Calhoun asked if he has ever experienced a crossover between clients. Mr.
Bohlen said that he avoids that due to the confidential nature of his services; he does not want
people running into each other there.
Board Member McJimsey said that people may drive separately for marriage counseling. Mr.
Bohlen indicated that he has had that happen a handful of times, but usually they do come
together. Ms. McJimsey asked if any group therapy sessions would occur. Mr. Bohlen said that
he does not do group sessions, nor does he plan to. Assistant City Attorney Judy Parks noted
that permission to do so in the future would need to be granted by the Board and the permit
would need to be amended.
Board Member Erbes asked if the applicant would ever counsel individuals that were brought to
him by the Police. Mr. Bohlen said that he does not do clinical or court ordered counseling; he is
not credentialed for that and does not plan to be. He would not feel comfortable having those
individuals in his home or in the neighborhood.
Ms. McJimsey said that the hours of operation for evenings and weekends feels approximate.
Mr. Bohlen indicated that he has only seen 3 people on a weekend in the last 15 years, and
evening appointments never go past 7:00. If the business gets successful and grows, he would
get a professional office in the community. Ms. McJimsey said that the Ames community could
be different, and there may be a high demand for evening and weekend appointments. Mr.
Bohlen said that in the past, he has generally just refused to schedule people during those times.
Moved by Erbes, seconded by Weber, to adopt ORDER NO. 11-10, thereby approving the
request to allow a licensed professional counseling service at 2507 White Oak Drive, subject to
the home occupation being operated as described in the staff report.
In regards to the hours of operation, Ms. McJimsey asked how it is enforced if neighbors start to
see more occurrences of evening and weekend appointments. Assistant City Attorney Parks
indicated that Planning staff would be made aware of the issue and enforcement action could be
taken, or the applicant would need to come back to the ZBA to enlarge the permit to address
those concerns.
Vote on motion: 4-0. Motion declared carried unanimously.
CASE NO. 11-14 - SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT - 327 HARTFORD
DRIVE
Public Hearing on application for a Special Home Occupation Permit to allow a medical
office equipment home business on the property located at 327 Hartford Drive
Planner Anderson explained that the owner of the property, Brett Folkerts,
would like to operate a medical office home business and employ his
brother, who does not reside at the subject property. The business is
currently being operated at the home as a retail store and service center
called ERI, Inc. The business was brought to City staff’s attention by a
neighbor across the street who noticed a large amount of commercial
traffic from delivery vehicles. This neighbor states that deliveries occur
frequently with several vehicles visiting every day, and that the trucks
create noise and damage his grass. City staff sent a letter to the property
owner requesting that he apply for a Special Home Occupation Permit, and
additional information about the business was obtained after the
application was made.
Details of the business operations were included in the staff report and
reviewed by staff. The business occupies 392 square feet in the basement of
the home, and another 508 square feet of the garage is used for the
business. The total gross area of the house, including the garage, is 4,032
square feet. The business occupies 900 square feet, which is equal to 22.32
percent of the total gross floor area. Mr. Anderson stated that this appears
to be a thriving business. He said that the City encourages entrepreneurial
businesses to start out small in the home and then move to larger
commercial locations and continue their success as they grow.
Mr. Anderson reviewed the criteria found in the staff report. He stated that
the application did not meet two of the criteria, the first of which is that
the activity shall not alter the normal residential character of the premises.
Based on information given by the applicant and the neighbor, it seems to
be altering the normal residential character of the neighborhood, not only
in terms of delivery vehicles, but also at times from the noise generated by
the delivery or pickup of the products.
The second criterion that the application did not meet is that the activity
shall not generate significantly greater traffic volumes than would normally
be expected in a residential area.
Mr. Anderson said that City staff’s recommendation is that the Board deny
the request based on the findings of fact that the application did not meet
the criteria.
Board Member McJimsey noted a misstatement in the report under the
public comments section; the subject property address listed was 3314
Hoover Avenue and should be 327 Hartford Drive. She asked if the square
footage measurements of the space used by the business are provided by the
applicant or measured by the City. Mr. Anderson indicated that staff relies
on the information that is provided by the applicant. Board Member Erbes
asked if he had visited the site. Mr. Anderson said that he has been to the
address, but he did not go inside the home.
Joel Folkerts, 2601 Yorkshire Street, Ames, Iowa, stated that he is the
brother of the property owner and part owner of the business. Mr. Folkerts
addressed the concerns about deliveries; he stated that, in a worst case
scenario, there will be three deliveries in the morning followed by two
pick-ups in the afternoon. It is very difficult to predict exactly when a
delivery may arrive, but outbound is always consistent. Mr. Folkerts said
that the truck shows up at approximately 3:30 p.m., backs into the singl e
stall garage, and is there for no more than 30 to 45 seconds before leaving
again. The Ground truck arrives between 4:30 and 5:00, and it is there for
approximately 3 minutes.
Mr. Folkerts stated that the apparent abundance of deliveries does not
mean that the business is thriving. He said that their success is dependent
on offering products at a better price than their competitors and keeping
overhead costs down. He also indicated that ERI is not the sole generator of
the commercial traffic; the FedEx vehicles are in the neighborhood
regardless of the business. One driver told Mr. Folkerts that she makes daily
drop offs to another home in the area. He provided the Board with a
traffic survey that he and his brother had conducted by observing traffic
outside the home from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Mr. Folkerts referred to the alleged noise created when pallets are delivered. He said that the
vehicles are standard FedEx trucks that normally travel through residential neighborhoods.
Pallets are transported on straight trucks, which back up into the driveway and unload pallets
from a mechanical jack that does not create noise.
In regards to the neighbor’s complaint that the FedEx trucks were causing damage to the grassy
area between the sidewalk and the street, Mr. Folkerts stated that this is not occurring. He
questioned the drivers, and all of them denied ever driving onto the complainant’s grass. He
indicated that no damage is present on the neighbor’s property.
Mr. Folkerts said that relocating his business to commercial property is not feasible due to
financial and operational limitations. He and his brother searched for several months prior to
locating the business in the home. The primary issues with the warehouse properties they looked
at were high cost and lack of availability of high speed internet. Security is also an issue due to
the value of the inventory.
Board Member McJimsey asked about the configuration of the business inside the house. Mr.
Folkerts stated that there are two desks with computers and phones in the unfinished basement,
as well as some of the more expensive inventory that needs to be kept in a climate controlled
environment. In addition, there is a workbench where servicing of equipment is done, usually
with nothing fancier than a screw driver. Most of the inventory is on shelves in the garage,
where there is also a table on which the merchandise is packaged.
Ms. McJimsey asked what the total square footage of the basement is, and whether the business
activity takes up the entire basement. She wants to make sure that there is a way to document
that the square footage used for the business is accurate. Chair Calhoun asked if there were
photographs of the business area, but Mr. Folkerts said that he did not have any with him. Ms.
McJimsey expressed concern about the uncertainty of the square footage. The maximum
allowable square footage is 25 percent, and 22.32 percent is very close to that. She is not sure
that there is a way to guarantee that no more will be used for the business. If there is an occasion
where there are heavier sales, the tendency would be to just use more space. Since it is inside the
home, the City can’t see it. Mr. Folkerts said that he can only offer his sworn testimony that the
square footage is accurate.
Mr. Calhoun asked how long ERI has been in business. Mr. Folkerts indicated that they have
been operating at the current location since August of 2010, and before that they were located on
a rural property in Marshall County. Mr. Calhoun noted that the business had been operating in
the home for almost a year, and he asked why they did not have a permit. Mr. Folkerts indicated
that they were unaware of the requirement to have a home occupation permit. Mr. Calhoun said
that ignorance is not an excuse. He suggested that they are operating from the home in order to
save money and unfairly compete with people who do pay for business space.
Mr. Calhoun noted that the applicant said that the deliveries made to the business are like any
other normal delivery made in the neighborhood. He asked for the delivery process to be
described. Mr. Folkerts stated that a standard FedEx truck will back up to the single stall garage,
open the rear door, and he will raise the garage door and hand off or pick up the package(s). Mr.
Calhoun asked what other types of vehicles make deliveries. Mr. Folkerts indicated that a
straight truck, which is approximately 30 feet long, will come for deliveries as well. The driver
will back into the driveway, open the rear door, take a pallet from the pallet jack, lower the lift
gate, and wheel it into the garage. The front of the truck extends to the edge of the sidewalk; it is
approximately two or three feet from
the street. Occasionally the truck will stop on the side of the street instead of parking in the
driveway over the sidewalk. The process typically takes about 15 to 20 minutes.
Mr. Folkerts indicated that there was one instance when a straight truck was not available, so
they used a semi instead. In this instance, the driver called ahead of time and they were able to
meet them off-site to transfer the merchandise. There has never been a delivery from a semi
truck to the business in the neighborhood.
Chair Calhoun noted that most of the deliveries made to the business involve a vehicle backing
into the driveway. He asked if they had observed the other deliveries in the neighborhood being
conducted in this manner. Mr. Folkerts said that the typical procedure is to stop on the side of
the road for residential deliveries.
According to Mr. Folkerts, the relocation of the business to a commercial space will be
determined by the economy. They have searched diligently for a commercial space, but the
speed of internet that the business requires is difficult to find at warehouse sites.
Ms. McJimsey referred to a finding listed in the staff report, which states that deliveries by a
semi truck and trailer may occur once every six months. She asked if that was inaccurate, since
it was stated that a semi has never delivered to the business. Mr. Folkerts said that it hasn’t
occurred yet, but could in the future if they are unable to make arrangements to meet the semi
elsewhere like they have in the past.
Jeff Cesler, 320 Hartford Drive, Ames, Iowa, stated that he lives across from the business. He is
in full support of the Folkerts’ business, and does not believe that it causes more traffic than any
other home in the neighborhood. He sees the truck deliveries from time to time, but it does not
concern him. He has never noticed any loud noises or any damage to property or grass. Mr.
Calhoun noted that testimony had been provided that the business affects the traffic volume and
alters the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Cesler does not agree; he is more concerned with
people who speed on the street than he is about this business.
Andy Janus, 324 Hartford Drive, Ames, Iowa, stated that he lives directly across the street. He
said that his main concern about the business is that there is no room in the garage for any
vehicles to park. With two people residing at the residence plus the additional truck of the
brother, there is always a vehicle parked directly in front of Mr. Janus’ driveway. This is
especially problematic in the winter when the streets are narrower from snow. He disagrees with
the statement that no semis have ever delivered to the home; he has seen a large vehicle
delivering to the business on at least one occasion. Mr. Calhoun asked if there could be a way
for Mr. Janus and the business to coexist; perhaps the vehicles could be parked away from his
driveway. Mr. Janus said that would help. Mr. Folkerts was amenable to that idea. In regards to
the noise issue, he stated that one of the truck drivers will honk when she begins to back up. He
is willing to talk with her about that issue.
There was discussion about a truck and trailer that is parked on the street on a regular basis; Mr.
Folkerts indicated that it is his brother’s trailer, and it is not used by the business. Ms. Erbes
asked if the quantity of goods from a semi truck would fit in a trailer that size; perhaps the
wording could be changed to not allow deliveries by semi. Mr. Folkerts said that the quantity
would fit in the trailer, and he would be willing to not allow semi deliveries.
Hours of operation were discussed. Hours are 7:00 a.m. at the earliest to 6:00 p.m. at the latest,
Monday through Friday. They do not process orders on the weekend.
Brett Folkerts, 327 Hartford Drive, Ames, Iowa, stated that he usually works 8:00 a.m. to 5:30
p.m. Ms. McJimsey asked if clerical help would ever be needed. Mr. Folkerts said that they do
not plan to hire anyone for that purpose; they are not busy enough to justify it. Mr. Calhoun
asked if he would be willing to work with Mr. Janus regarding his concerns. Mr. Folkerts
indicated that this was the first time he had been made aware of the complaints; he is willing to
work with his neighbor to remedy the problems.
Planning and Housing Director Steve Osguthorpe noted that the Municipal Code requires
residential developments to have two onsite parking spaces available to serve each residence. If
the garage is not available for that, and if the driveway has to remain open for delivery trucks to
back in, then adequate space is not available. He recommended that the Board ensure in some
way that there is an opportunity for two residential spaces onsite.
Chair Calhoun noted that there has been opposing testimony as to whether or not the application
meets the criteria. Planner Anderson stated that in a normal residential, single-family
neighborhood, it is not typical for courier vehicles come to a home regularly each day. There
may be other deliveries in the neighborhood, but this home has very frequent deliveries.
Whether it is a neighbor complaining or not, that is not typical for a neighborhood and it is still
staff’s position that the applicant cannot meet the criteria.
Mr. Calhoun said that they have heard testimony from neighbors that are okay with this
business. Even Mr. Janus, the complainant, said that if the applicant could solve some problems
it wouldn’t be so bad. He’s not sure how to look at the issue of altering the character of the
neighborhood; that seems subjective. Most residences don’t have delivery vehicles back up to
them on a regular basis, but at the same time maybe there are other things that occur on
residential streets that are more objectionable. Assistant City Attorney Parks said that the
Board’s basic function is to find and judge the facts, giving credit to what testimony the Board
thinks deserves it. The board members must look at what the character of the neighborhood is
and determine in their own minds if there is an adverse impact or not. If there are things the
Board can do to mitigate the concerns, it may impose conditions on the approval to ensure that
the residential character of the area is maintained.
Director Osguthorpe agreed with Ms. Parks; if staff found that an application did not meet
criteria in the Code, 100 percent support from neighbors would not be a reason for the Board to
approve the application anyway. Whether the additional traffic changes the residential character
is subjective, and it is for the Board to decide based on testimony. However, when property
owners change, what is tolerable to some may not be tolerable to others. Furthermore, staff feels
that the number of vehicle visits per day is atypical for a residential area. In that regard, the
Board should focus on the facts rather than opinions.
Ms. McJimsey pointed out that if there was a similar situation in an entirely different
neighborhood where the testimony was 100 percent against it, the Board would have to deny the
application based on that logic. She believes that would be an inconsistent interpretation of the
law.
The interpretation of the character of the area was discussed at length.
Moved by Weber, seconded by Calhoun, to adopt ORDER NO. 11-14, thereby approving the
request for a Special Home Occupation Permit to allow a medical office equipment home
business and the hiring of one non-resident employee at 327 Hartford Drive, subject to the home
occupation being operated as described in the staff report, and provided that there are two off
street parking spaces. This approval should be reviewed within one year.
Mr. Calhoun said that he was initially unsure if this could be approved, especially since the
applicant was operating the business without first checking to see if a permit was needed.
However, he feels that the concerns raised by the complainant can be mitigated by things the
applicants have agreed to do. Since the permit would be reviewed in a year, the Board could
hear at that time whether or not these things continue to be problems.
Board Member Erbes said that she is concerned about the larger trucks coming to the site. She
would be more comfortable with a review period of six months.
Ms. McJimsey said that she is still concerned about documentation on the square footage. There
is nothing definitive that shows the Board that only 22.32 percent is strictly limited to the
business use. She supports the staff finding that two to five delivery truck visits per day seems
like an atypical residential use.
Chair Calhoun said that he is surprised that the City does not go to the house to verify the
measurements stated on the application. Ms. Parks said that it is not the City’s obligation to go
and find the evidence in this situation; it is the applicant’s obligation to prove the facts. She said
that it is not normal for staff to inspect the premises, but it is within the Board’s purview to
direct them to do so.
Mr. Osguthorpe noted that some board members are expressing comfort that the issues of noise
and parking will be resolved between neighbors, but no conditions have been added to the
approval. Ms. McJimsey agreed; it leaves things very open-ended and subjective unless there are
conditions imposed.
Roll Call Vote: 2-2. Voting Aye: Weber, Calhoun. Voting Nay: Erbes, McJimsey. Motion tied.
Ms. Parks noted that the Zoning Board needs three concurrent votes, either for or against a
motion, in order for a final decision to be made. This matter must come back to the Board when
all five members are present. The absent board member will be instructed to watch the meeting
so that all members have the same information.
CASE NO. 11-11 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - 1407 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE
Public Hearing on application for Conditional Use Permit to allow an Alternate Method of
Elevating two residential structures in the Floodway Fringe Overlay at 1407 South Grand Avenue
City Planner Sam Perry explained that the application is for new student housing buildings next
to the Coldwater Golf Course on South 16th Street. This is a request to reduce the distance of
required elevation that is extended beyond the building footprint. The approved plans for the
project included a retaining wall along the north property line that would allow the required
Base Flood Elevation plus 3 feet to be met and exceeded for the full 18 foot horizontal distance
from the perimeter of the buildings. The request is to reduce the distance of required elevation
by up to 12 feet. In lieu of a retaining wall, the applicant wishes to border the area with a 45
degree graded grass slope. Installing the slope will result in a smaller level area around the north
sides of two of the buildings.
Mr. Perry indicated that staff does not deal with this type of application very often. He reviewed
the details of the proposal and the performance criteria that are listed in the staff report. Mr.
Perry indicated that City staff was recommending denial of the application since there is already
an approved site plan for the project that meets Code requirements.
Scott Renaud, Fox Engineering Associates, 414 South 17th Street, Suite 107, Ames, Iowa, stated
that this proposal was discussed during the site plan approval process. It was always the plan to
come before the ZBA to get the approval. Mr. Renaud explained that the proposed method of
elevation includes providing low floor elevations that are 3 feet above the Base Flood Elevation
requirements. He stated that the intent of the 18 foot buffer requirement is to provide building
access and egress during a flood event. The two affected buildings will provide means of access
on three sides (west, south, and east), passable by wheeled vehicles during flood events.
Mr. Renaud said that a vegetative slope is a better system of protection during a flood than a
retaining wall would be. Board Member McJimsey asked if he had done research to validate that
claim. Mr. Renaud indicated that he has designed both; it is his professional opinion that a
retaining wall is more likely to fail and slide away when inundated with flood waters.
Chair Calhoun said that there must be a reason for requiring 18 feet of elevation; he does not
know if the Board is qualified to determine what the detrimental effects are if that is reduced.
Mr. Renaud reviewed the performance standards found in the staff report and explained how
each one of them have been met by the application. He stated that the actual floodway boundary
is well away from the area in question, and the flood height or velocity would not be increased
by the slope. From a life and safety standpoint, people should not be going in the direction of the
slope anyway, since that would be the area that would flood first. People would be directed to
the hard surfaces on the other side of the building. The 18 foot requirement is met everywhere
else, and the retaining wall would be a hazard because of the close proximity to the golf course
and from a maintenance standpoint.
Board Member Weber said that he did not see any reason to change the 18 foot requirement in
the Code. Mr. Renaud said that there is no reason for the 18 foot requirement; it came from the
State as a guideline. The Code allows for alternative methods, but the only way to be approved
for an alternative method of elevation is to go through the ZBA.
Scott Randall, 420 South 17th Street, Ames, Iowa, stated that he is in support of approving the
application. He is the owner of the golf course, and prefers to have a grassy slope as opposed to
a 10 foot retaining wall.
Chris Russ, Campus Crest Development, 2100 Rexford Road, Suite 414, Charlotte, North
Carolina, stated that the safety of the residents and property are the number one concern. He
does not want people to go out the back towards the flood waters. The residents’ safety is in
their hands. Mr. Calhoun asked if he was aware of the agreement to build a retaining wall and
maintain the 18 foot flat area. Mr. Cross said that he was, but as they went through the process it
was understood that they would come before the Board to have the alternate method approved.
Mr. Calhoun referred to a section of the staff report that states “Alternate methods of elevating
(such as piers) may be allowed, subject to favorable consideration by the Zoning Board of
Adjustment and issuance of a Conditional Use Permit.” He does not think that the words “such
as” eliminate possibilities other than piers. Ms. Parks concurred; the general rule is to require the
building plus 18 feet, but there are other ways to accomplish the overall performance standard
besides the 18 feet.
Mr. Calhoun inquired as to where the fence would be located if the slope technique were used.
Mr. Renaud stated that if a retaining wall was used, the fence would be on the edge. If the slope
was used, it would be either up close to the building or at the property line. Mr. Calhoun asked if
it could be positioned so people could pass between the building and the fence without being in
flood waters in the event of a flood. Mr. Renaud said that it can be done.
Ms. McJimsey asked if staff felt that the slope was safe and a good solution. Mr. Osguthorpe
indicated that, based on the information and knowledge that they had at the time of writing the
report, they were not comfortable that the issues were adequately addressed. If the testimony
proves otherwise, staff is comfortable with that.
Moved by Calhoun, seconded by Weber, to adopt ORDER NO. 11-11, thereby approving the
Conditional Use Permit, based on all testimony presented at the meeting, with the stipulation
that the fence be placed at the top of the slope on the north side of the building area in question,
with vegetated slopes stabilized with appropriate plant material.
Vote on motion: 3-1. Voting Aye: McJimsey, Calhoun, Erbes. Voting Nay: Weber. Motion
declared approved.
The meeting recessed at 10:41 p.m. and reconvened at 10:43 p.m.
CASE NO. 11-12 - VARIANCE - 1407 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE
Public Hearing on application for Variance to allow a six foot fence in the front yard at
1407 South Grand Avenue
Planner Perry explained that the Municipal Code does not allow fences over 4 feet in height in
front yard areas. The applicant, Campus Crest, markets itself as a very secure place for college
students to enjoy living in the community. Campus Crest has stated that security is in the public
interest, and in order to have the security they need, they would like to build a 6 foot fence
around the property.
Mr. Perry reviewed the criteria and the findings of fact and conclusions in the staff report. He
noted that there are apartment complexes throughout the city that provide housing for students.
There is no precedent for 6 foot security fences in residential areas of Ames, and therefore no
evidence that 6 foot fences are necessary to protect the public interest. The application does not
meet the six criteria, so staff is recommending denial of the application.
Mr. Renaud reviewed the criteria and reasons listed in the application for why the criteria have
been met. He said that it is a security and safety issue for tenants. The fence is wrought iron and
aesthetically pleasing, which also preserves the public interest. Mr. Renaud indicated that the
Police Department reviewed the site plan and liked the idea of the open fence.
The Board debated whether or not the application could meet the criteria. It was agreed that the
evidence shows that a 6 foot fence is not necessary in order to have a secure property in Ames.
Director Osguthorpe said that this is a topic which will have to be discussed
in more detail at some point. Gated communities are an issue nationwide. The
question now is whether or not staff thinks security is necessary at this point.
The Code hasn’t addressed it, and every other development hasn’t needed it; there
is not a precedent in the city of Ames that addresses it. If many think that it’s
a good idea, it might be the time for a Code amendment.
Mr. Calhoun recalled a previous case that was denied because the Board could not
find a way to make the application meet the criteria. This applicant ended up
going to the City Council and getting the Code changed. Mr. Calhoun is having
a hard time coming up with reasons why this application meets the reasonable return
or special circumstances criteria.
Moved by McJimsey, seconded by Erbes, to deny ORDER NO. 11-12, thereby denying
the fence height Variance, based on staff’s findings and conclusions.
Roll Call Vote: 3-1. Voting Aye: Calhoun, Erbes, McJimsey. Voting Nay: Weber.
Motion declared approved.
COMMENTS: There were no comments by the Board.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:22 p.m.
______________________________ _____________________________
Emily Burton, Recording Secretary Bruce Calhoun, Chair