Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 3-10-2010MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMES, IOWA MARCH 10, 2010 The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 7:00 p.m. on March 10, 2010, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present: Bruce Calhoun, Elizabeth Erbes, Gary Taylor, and Thomas Weber. Chair Denise Link was absent. Staff members Jeff Benson and Judy Parks were also present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Calhoun, seconded by Taylor, to approve the minutes of the meeting of September 23, 2009. Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion carried unanimously. Vice Chair Thomas Weber asked City Planner Jeff Benson for an update on the Casey’s General Store application to build a gas station in north Ames. Mr. Benson told the Board that the City Council has recently directed staff to create a new Convenience Commercial Zoning classification called Convenience General Service (CGS). The new zoning changes significant parts of the Convenience Commercial Node zoning that the ZBA dealt with in the Casey’s application. Mr. Benson explained that there is no requirement for obtaining a Special Use Permit to sell gasoline in the CGS zoning ordinance. The CGS district will also allow a greater number of gasoline pumps, increased maximum signage square footage, and will not require canopies to follow building design standards. CASE NO. 10-01 SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT- CANDI GERRITSON, 5222 TEXAS CIRCLE Public Hearing on application for Special Home Occupation Permit to allow a small dog grooming business for the property located at 5222 Texas Circle. Planner Benson said that the subject property is zoned Residential Low Density (RL). He explained that a Special Home Occupation Permit has been applied for because dog grooming is not a permitted use in RL zoning. Mr. Benson stated that there are some particular uses that are suitable for a home business, and when carried out correctly can have minimum impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. If the Board decides that the application meets the specific criteria, this use is allowed in an area where it would otherwise not be allowed. Mr. Benson said that noise is an important factor when thinking about Home Occupation Permits. He explained that there was previously a dog breeding and dog sales business going on in this home, with a large number of dogs. The dog breeding and sales business has since closed, so that source of noise has been eliminated; however, the applicant would still like to have a dog grooming business. Mr. Benson stressed that the applicant is taking measures to eliminate noise, including using bark inhibitors, and most importantly limiting business to no more than five dogs groomed per day, one at a time. Mr. Benson said that traffic and parking are also concerns when considering a Home Occupation Permit. He explained that there are no employees for the proposed business, so the traffic would come mainly from customers. The applicant has offered a pick-up and delivery service for her clients, which will help mitigate the traffic impacts. Mr. Benson explained that there is a very specific provision in the ordinance that states that no more than 10 vehicle visits per day shall be allowed, in addition to normal traffic. He said that this can be accomplished by limiting the business to five dogs per day, with two trips per dog. Mr. Benson concluded that staff recommended approval of the application, subject to the stipulation that no more than five dogs will be groomed per day. Board Member Taylor asked if the applicant’s previous business was subject to a permit. Mr. Benson explained that the applicant called to inquire about a permit for dog grooming, and was not aware that she needed a permit for the other businesses. Vice Chair Weber asked for a distinction between a kennel and a dog grooming business. Mr. Benson said that several uses, including kennels, are outright prohibited in the ordinance. He explained that there is no definition of kennels in the ordinance, but staff believes that a kennel is a combination of uses - boarding, breeding, selling, grooming, etc. Mr. Benson said that the City has found dog grooming to be a permitted use in the past. Candi Gerritson, 5222 Texas Circle, Ames, Iowa, said that as soon as she applied to do the grooming business, she found out that she could not breed her dogs. She spoke with Assistant City Attorney Judy Parks about the ordinance, and immediately made arrangements to have her dogs fixed so that she would be in compliance and could proceed with the grooming business. Ms. Gerritson explained that she has installed bark inhibitors in the home, which can be moved outside when the dogs are out, and her dogs now wear bark collars. She said that she will keep her personal dogs completely separate from the grooming clients, which will also help keep down noise. Ms. Gerritson stressed that she is not the main “bread-winner” in the home, and that her work is only part-time. Board Member Erbes asked how many dogs the applicant has. Ms. Gerritson replied that she has five Yorkshire Terriers and one Italian Spinone. Board Member Calhoun asked if she was the only person involved in the business, and if only one client dog at a time will be on the premises. Ms. Gerritson said that she was the sole groomer, and if she has a customer with two dogs they would probably both come at the same time. She said that a lot would depend on whether the Board requires her to do all of the dog transportation on her own. Ms. Gerritson noted that though she offers pick-up and delivery, it would be traffic regardless of who is transporting the dogs. Mr. Calhoun said that sometimes things evolve out of these kinds of businesses, one example being a “doggy daycare” center. He clarified that daycare is not to be part of this permit. Ms. Gerritson said that it will not be a daycare, and that the pick-up and delivery will help prevent that. She also stated that all of the clients will be by appointment only, and she will not allow walk-ins. Mr. Taylor asked if she would be acceptable with an added stipulation of no client dogs overnight, and Ms. Gerritson said that she would have no problems with that. Mr. Taylor asked what her hours of operation would be. Ms. Gerritson stated that they were originally going to be 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., but she decided on 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. because of a neighbor’s concern. Mr. Taylor asked if she would be open to a stipulation of limiting the hours of operation to 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and Ms. Gerritson consented. Steve Fox, 5235 Texas Circle, Ames, Iowa, stated that he has known the applicant since they built a home in the area, and testified that Ms. Gerritson is very good with his “hard-to-please” dog. He said that there is more noise from the bus stop behind their house than what he has heard from the Gerritson’s. He is not worried about traffic, and is very much in favor of the application. Kiva Delaney, 1100 6th Street, Ames, Iowa, stated that she has known the applicant for several years, and has purchased a dog from her. She stated that she is wonderful with dogs, and she is ecstatic that Ms. Gerritson is trying to get a permit for grooming. She said that she has been in Ms. Gerritson’s home, and it is very quiet. Moved by Erbes, seconded by Taylor, to adopt ORDER NO. 10-01, granting a Special Home Occupation Permit to allow a small dog grooming business for the property located at 5222 Texas Circle, subject to the following conditions: • No more than five dogs shall be groomed per day • No client dogs may stay overnight • Hours of operation of 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion declared approved unanimously. CASE NO. 10-02 VARIANCE - STEVEN AND BARBARA O’ROURKE, 1513-1515 FLORIDA AVENUE Public Hearing on application for Variance to allow construction of a mini storage system on property zoned Neighborhood Commercial for the property located at 1513-1515 Florida Avenue. Planner Benson stated that the subject property is at the intersection of Florida Street and Reliable Street, and is zoned Neighborhood Commercial. He explained that self storage units are allowed only in areas zoned Industrial, and noted that the surrounding subject area is characterized by diverse uses, because it is located in what used to be the business district of a small town called Ontario. Mr. Benson stated that the applicant proposes up to 140 self storage units of different sizes. The applicant may also build a residence or office there, both of which are already allowed in the zoning. He explained that because it takes a substantial amount of time and investment to make a site plan, it didn’t seem logical to require a site plan when the use hasn’t been approved by the Board yet. If the use is approved, the applicant would prepare a site plan which would need to be approved by staff. Mr. Benson showed photos of the surrounding area and noted that the property is bordered on one side by railroad tracks, which are very heavily traveled and produce a lot of noise. According to Mr. Benson, one of the first questions asked for a use variance is whether or not the property can be developed under one of the uses that are permitted, and he indicated that usually the answer is yes. He explained that the Neighborhood Commercial zoning was created as a “catch-all” district to cover pre-existing, old areas, in an effort to keep them from being non-conforming. He noted that this zone also acts as a transition area between residential and commercial areas. Mr. Benson indicated that the subject property has been vacant for ten years, and it was zoned Industrial at the time of purchase. He explained that the entire city was later re-zoned, and the property changed from Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial. Mr. Benson believes that it would be very difficult to, out of the permitted uses, develop something on the site and get a reasonable return on the property. He said that it is not a viable commercial area. Mr. Benson talked about buffering between commercial and residential uses, and explained that an area can be developed and not impact the neighborhood. City staff looks at this proposal as an opportunity to improve the overall character of the area, and have proposed a series of conditions for approval: 1. Screen and buffer on south and west property lines: a. Open security fencing that is also ornamental and of metal materials b. Along entire south property line coniferous trees that grow at least twenty feet in height, spaced so as to form an unbroken screen within five years c. Plantings along entire west property lines as follows: • Coniferous shrubs that grow at least six feet in height and width, planted at least six feet on center • Groupings of not less than three deciduous, overstory, trees 25 feet apart with no more than 75 feet between each group (between trunks) d. Plantings in b and c above in planting beds as follows: • Located inside the fence • Wide enough to contain all of these elements, but no less than 6 feet • Weed fabric and mulch to reduce weeds and other volunteer growth • Six-inch high curb to protect plants from vehicles and contain mulch 2. Temporary irrigation system for the first three years to establish the plantings 3. Lighting that meets the outdoor lighting standards of the city, regardless of the fixture lumens 4. Brick as the primary exterior material on the residential/office building 5. At least two columns at the entrance into the facility with brick matching the brick on the residential/office building 6. Front yard landscaping for the residential/office building Mr. Benson explained that the details were added in order to ensure compliance with the site plan. Staff feels that the variance meets the criteria, as long as all of the aforementioned conditions are met. Board Member Erbes asked about the composition of the driveway, as well as storm water requirements. Mr. Benson said that the Code would require that it be either concrete or asphalt, and they will also have to meet the storm water standards of the City. Mr. Benson noted that the facility would undoubtedly be developed in phases, as would the paving. The staff would require a phasing plan along with the site plan. Board Member Taylor asked if the applicant’s site plan would still have to conform to the development standards, should the Board grant a variance. Mr. Benson replied that they would. Vice Chair Weber noted that the proposed plantings are different on the south and west side. Mr. Benson said that it is because of the grade change on the south side. Steve O’Rourke, 5300 Hickory Hills Drive, Ames, Iowa, stated that his original intent was to put storage units on the property when it was bought ten years ago. He indicated that it had been used as a local “dump” in the area, and he brought in loads of dirt and cleaned it up. It was eventually re- zoned, which is why he needs a variance. Mr. O’Rourke showed photos of what he would like to build, and expressed his agreement to the landscaping requirements. He said that there will be plenty of room on the north side of the buildings to put in a retention area for the storm water. Mr. O’Rourke explained that he went door-to-door in the area and talked to homeowners about his proposed project, and he did not find anyone who was not in favor. Some told him that if he were building apartments, they would be opposed; however, they were happy to hear about storage units. Board Member Calhoun asked about the dimensions of the outside drive, and questioned whether or not there was room for the proposed plantings. He stated that he did not believe that the applicant could fit all of the landscaping and the proposed buildings. Discussion ensued about the outside perimeter of the site. Mr. Calhoun said that the Neighborhood Commercial zone is intended for small-scale, pedestrian- friendly retail use. He said that zoning is typically written to guide present conditions and future development, and he does not see that this is compatible with any long-range or short-range goal to develop this area into a small-scale, pedestrian-friendly use. He cannot see any reason why this use could be viewed as compatible with this zone. Mr. O’Rourke reiterated that the property was previously zoned Industrial, and that the re-zoning took place without any of the property owners’ knowledge. City staff recommended that he take the route of requesting a variance. Mr. Calhoun said that he has seen storage facilities that have been designed to fit in with commercial and residential uses, and have facades that look like buildings that are intended in the zone. He feels that it would be better if the buildings were “softer” looking, and thinks that it might be good for the entire structure to be brick. The photos shown do not seem at all compatible to him. In regards to the project being pedestrian-friendly, Mr. O’Rourke stated that it is a rough area of town, and there are no sidewalks for people to walk on. Mr. Calhoun said that he doesn’t know why it was re-zoned that way, but it is, and he assumes that it was zoned Neighborhood Commercial because of an intent to make it better some day. He thinks that the applicant would be better off trying to get the area re-zoned back to Industrial. Mr. Taylor asked what the Land Use Policy Plan (LUPP) says about this neighborhood and why it went from Industrial to Neighborhood Commercial. Mr. Benson said that there is nothing specific to this neighborhood in the LUPP. He said that the LUPP map once showed a Highway Oriented Commercial (HOC) designation for this property, but in the zoning process it became clear that HOC did not fit well, and the Neighborhood Commercial zone was created. Mr. Taylor said that he presumes that it was re-zoned from Industrial to some form of commercial because a worse fate would be to have some other industrial use in that neighborhood. Mr. Benson concurred. He said that Industrial zoning did not fit with the surroundings. The Board discussed HOC zoning and its permitted uses, and whether the site should be zoned HOC. Mr. Benson explained that mini storage systems are allowed in HOC zoning, but there are very stringent design standards. Mr. Calhoun asked if there has been any new development in the subject area since the re-zoning. Mr. Benson indicated that apartments have been built, and cell towers have been the main non-residential use. Mr. Calhoun expressed concern about how the concept drawing represented the project, and said that he does not think that there will be room for the buffering/screen. He does not think that the applicant has a clear understanding of what needs to be done. Mr. Taylor said that those details are part of the site plan approval process with City staff. Mr. Calhoun is concerned about how the financing will be affected if things need to be changed in order to fit the proper buffering in. Moved by Weber, seconded by Erbes, to adopt ORDER NO. 10-02, granting a Variance to allow construction of a self storage facility at 1513-1515 Florida Avenue, subject to the following conditions: 1. Screen and buffer on south and west property lines: a. Open security fencing that is also ornamental and of metal materials b. Along entire south property line coniferous trees that grow at least twenty feet in height, spaced so as to form an unbroken screen within five years c. Plantings along entire west property lines as follows: • Coniferous shrubs that grow at least six feet in height and width, planted at least six feet on center • Groupings of not less than three deciduous, overstory, trees 25 feet apart with no more than 75 feet between each group (between trunks) d. Plantings in b and c above in planting beds as follows: • Located inside the fence • Wide enough to contain all of these elements, but no less than 6 feet • Weed fabric and mulch to reduce weeds and other volunteer growth • Six-inch high curb to protect plants from vehicles and contain mulch 2. Temporary irrigation system for the first three years to establish the plantings 3. Lighting that meets the outdoor lighting standards of the city, regardless of the fixture lumens 4. Brick as the primary exterior material on the residential/office building 5. At least two columns at the entrance into the facility with brick matching the brick on the residential/office building 6. Front yard landscaping for the residential/office building Mr. Taylor sees this as a circumstance where a variance is necessary. He looks at the list of permitted uses in the Neighborhood Commercial zone, and it looks like the market has shown over the last ten years that nothing is viable on that spot. An apartment complex could be built there; however, he is not sure if that is feasible either. He does not think that the project is contrary to the public interest, and it does not alter the essential character of the area. He would be reluctant to suggest re-zoning it back to Industrial because that would open the entire site up to industrial uses. Mr. Taylor believes that this is a legitimate way to put that property to use. Mr. Calhoun agreed with Mr. Taylor, but he is concerned about the appearance of the structure, especially on the west side. He would accept a proposal to do something to the exterior of the visible parts of the buildings, but the current proposal looks like a prison to him. He reiterated his concern about a lack of buffering. Specifics of the building design were discussed. The Board discussed whether it would amend the motion to include description about the landscaping. Ms. Erbes stated that she believed that staff’s conditions described things well. Moved by Calhoun to amend the motion and change the buffer requirement on the west side to 20 feet wide, and include plants that will screen the development and filter the view from the upper level of apartments on the west. Ms. Erbes said that 20 feet is very wide; wide even for neighborhoods. Mr. Taylor did not agree with the added requirement. Motion withdrawn. Vote on Motion: 3-1. Voting Aye: Weber, Erbes, Taylor. Voting Nay: Calhoun. Motion declared approved. COMMENTS: There were no comments by the Board. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m. ______________________________ _____________________________ Emily Burton, Recording Secretary Thomas Weber, Vice Chair