HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 11-10-2010M INUTES OF THE REGULAR M EETING OF
THE ZONING BO ARD OF ADJUSTM ENT
AM ES, IO W A NO VEM BE R 10, 2010
The Am es Zoning Board of Adjustm ent (ZBA) m et, pursuant to law, in regular session at 7:00 p.m . on
November 10, 2010, in the Council Cham bers of City Hall with the following m em bers present: Bruce
Calhoun, Elizabeth Erbes, Sandra M cJim sey, Gary Taylor, and T hom as Webe r. Staff m em bers Charlie
Kuester and Judy Parks were also present.
APP RO V AL O F M INUTES: Board Mem ber McJimsey noted the following corrections to the minutes
of the meeting of October 27, 2010:
Page two, paragraph four: Ms. McJimsey asked that the minutes reflect that she had concern for
young childre n in the area - not only from the daycare, but also from the nearby trailer park. She also
requested that a discussion regarding the Land Use Policy Plan, which occurred shortly after
pa ragraph four, be added to the minu tes.
Page three, paragraph four: M s. McJim sey noted that it was Board Mem ber Erbes who asked about
tires, not trees.
Page six, paragraph four: Ms. M cJim sey asked that a discussion regarding whether daycare ce nters
requ ired a special permit in the GI Zone be includ ed in the minu tes.
Vote to app rove minu tes as co rrected: 5-0. M otion carried unanim ously.
CASE NO . 10-17
SPECIAL USE PERM IT - JEFFREY KLUV ER, 3925 CALHO UN AVENUE
P ublic Hearing on application f or Special Use P ermit to change from a thr ee-unit residential use
to a two-unit residential use in a Residential Low Density (RL) Zoning District
City Planner Charlie Kuester explained that the request was to change a non-conforming three-unit
residential dwelling to a two-unit residential dwelling. The subject property is located at the corner of
Calhoun Avenue and Ada m s Street. It is cons i der e d l e gal non-con form ing; th e prope rty ex isted as a
m ulti-fam ily dwelling prior to the 2000 Zoning Ordinance. Said Ordinance established the area around
the subject property as RL, which allow s new construction of only single-fam ily dwe llings; how ever,
it does allow existing uses to remain as legal non-conforming. The Municipal Code makes provisions
for downgradin g one non-conform ing use to a less intense no n-conform ing use th rou gh a Special Use
Perm it.
M r. Kuester described the subject property. He noted that there is one garage on the south side with a
gravel driveway to Calhoun Avenue, and another garage with a driveway to Adam s Street. The applicant
desires to purchase the hom e and convert it to a two-dwelling unit. If the Special Use Perm it is not
granted, the sub ject pro perty ca n rem ain as a three-un it dwelling.
M r. Kuester reviewed the criteria in Section 29.1503 (4) (a), (b), and (e) of the Municipal Code, which
were i nclu ded in the staff report. He also noted that notification of the application was provided to
property owne rs w ithin 200 feet of the subject property, and no public comm ents have been received
either for or against the proposal.
M r. Kuester reviewed the findings of fact and conclusions that are listed in the staff report. He said that
the proposed change would bring the property more in harmony with the policies of the Land Use Policy
Plan and with the area’s zoning. City staff recomm ended approval of the application, conditioned upon
the conversion of the excess gravel parking area along the south property line into green space within
one year. Mr. Kuester said that the applicant is amenable to that condition.
Board Mem ber Erbes noted that Conclusion No. 4 stated that a duplex would be m ore com patible with
the scale of surrounding single-family homes than the scale of the existing larger duplex. She pointed
out that the size of the dwelling would not be changed. Assistant City Attorney Parks suggested that
“intensity” may be a better word than “scale”.
M s. Parks referenced a letter written by the applicant regarding a plan to pour a conc rete driveway in
front of the garage. She asked for clarification as to which garage was being referenced. Jeffrey Kluver,
2403 Kam den Drive, Webste r C ity, Iowa, said that he plans to concrete the driveway in front of the
double garage. He indicated that the single car garage will probably be taken down sometime in the
future.
Dennis Wendell, 917 Adam s Street, Am es, Iowa, stat e d th a t he was representing him self and his
neighbors, George and D orothy K izer, who reside at 3919 Daw es Drive. Mr. Wendell indicated that they
are all extrem ely supportive of the proposal.
M s. M cJim sey asked what the process would be if the permit were granted as recommended but the
applicant could not meet the one year deadline. Mr. K uester said that a request for an extension w ould
need to come back before the ZBA.
M s. Erbes requested that the two occurrences of the word “scale” in Conclusion No. 4 be struck and
replaced with “intensity”.
M oved by M cJimsey, seconded by E rbes, to adopt ORDER NO. 10-17, granting the request for a Special
Use Permit t o c han ge 3 925 Calhoun Avenue from a three-unit residential dw elling to a two-unit
residential dwelling, conditioned upon the conversion of the excess gravel parking area along the south
property line into green space within one year. Ms. McJimsey noted that the motion is based on the
findings of fact and conclusions as written in the staff report.
Vote on motion: 5-0. Motion declared approved una nim ou sly.
CASE NO . 10-16
SPECIAL USE PERMIT - JERRY CARNEY AN D SONS, INC ., 340 SO UTH DA YTO N AV ENUE
Continuance of Public Hearing on application for a Special Use Permit to allow a salvage yard on
the property located at 340 South Dayton Avenue
Chair Weber explained that this hearing was a continuation from a previous m eeting, as the Board tied
its vote at the previous m eeting, 2-2. The Board requires three vo te s either for or against a m otion in
order to m ake a final decision. B oard M em ber T aylor said that he was absent from the last m eeting, but
he viewed the DVD recording of the m eeting. H e has reviewed the staff report and letters that have been
submitted, and has been out to the site.
Pla nn er Kue ster explained that Jerry Carne y & Sons, Inc. is see king a Special Use Perm it for a salvage
yard at 340 South Dayton Avenue. The staff report from the previous meeting included a project
description and the standards of the Code that the ZBA m ust consider. Findings of fact and conclusions
were presented to the Board at th e previo us m eeting as well as a recomm endation and alternatives. Staff
recom mended approval of the Special Use Perm it with conditions, as noted in the staff report.
Board Mem ber Erbes asked when the subject area was zoned General Industrial. Mr. Kuester said that
it was part of the 2000 rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance.
M r. Taylor asked for clarification regarding which trees would rem ain and which would be rem oved;
particularly the trees in the northwest corner. Mr. K ue ster said that a wedge of trees, adjacent to the
proposed vegetative swale, will be rem oved to accom modate the storm drainage system. The remaining
trees extend north up into the abutting prop erty.
Tom Carney, 2200 Quail Ridge Road, Ames, Iowa, stated that the City is justified in requiring a Special
Use Permit for salvage yards. He said that there are many poorly run salvage yards that Carney’s deals
with daily. He feels that the City Planners’ approval of the Special Use Perm it proves that Carney’s is
a unique and properly run salvage yard. Mr. Carney explained the detailed operations of a salvage yard.
He indicated that Carney’s has a w ide range of customers, and som e come from out of state to make
purchases. He said that C arney’s is not a corporate salvage yard; it is a sm all, second-generation fam ily
business that ca res about the environment and the city of Am es. The value of the business is not only
from a convenience standpoint, but from the revenue that the business generates. T he property tax on
a 44,000 square foot warehouse and 10-15 acres of land is very high, but M r. Ca rney said that they are
proud to pay it because they like Am es. He said that C arney’s is a draw; a unique business that generates
revenue in the city.
In regards to the concern about the daycare near the subject site, Mr. Carney said that they plan to fence
around the property, and the daycare w ould not be able to see the operation. He spoke to the owners of
E agle’s Loft Child Care Center on Dayto n Ave nue, which has 700 to 1,1 00 gravel trucks pass by daily.
The daycare said that this wasn’t an issue; the kids love watching the trucks, the noise doesn’t bother
them , and even parents who almost got hit by one of the trucks still have their children enrolled there.
M r. Carney said that Eagle’s Loft’s philosophy is that if it is a quality daycare, people will come.
M r. C arney noted that the noise of the operation was also a concern at the previous meeting. He said that
he went to the daycare site with an Am es Police Officer and took various noise readings. While standing
abo ut 200 feet south of the daycare, they took decibe l readings facing 4 different directions. All rea dings
cam e in at 83.7, with no equipm ent running. Mr. Carney then took readings near the “For Sale” sign on
the subject property on D ayton, and the m eter read 83.5 with no equipment; a dump truck went by and
it went up to 85. The reading at the Carney’s plant on Southeast 5 Street was 83.3 with no equipmentth
running, and 84 when the end loader was running at full throttle behind the fence, approximately 70 feet
away. He also took decibel readings of the car crusher at the facility on South Duff. Crushing one car
read at 83 from 100 feet away, 65 from 200 feet, 62 from 400 feet, and 57 from 600 feet. Mr. Carney
indicated that Highway 30, Interstate 35, and South Duff Avenue m ake m ore noise than the equipm ent.
Chair Weber asked how fa r th e c ru sh er wou ld be from the daycare center on the proposed site. M r.
Kuester said that the entire w idth of the site is approximately 900 feet; if the crusher were placed in the
m iddle, it wou ld be approximately 350 feet from the property to the north, 350 feet from the property
to th e s outh, and approxim ately 600 feet from the daycare ce nter. M r. Carney added that there w ould
be a fence and trees to help block the sound.
M r. Carney concluded that he would like the Board to approve the perm it for two reasons: water and
revenue. He said that they have had enough water; they have been in A m es sinc e 19 56 , and a s years go
by the flooding is affecting them m ore and m ore. In regards to revenue, M r. Carney said that they need
to have quantity in order to keep up with dem and. Carney’s also generates revenue for the city of Ames
throu gh taxe s and by bringing custom ers into Am es.
Larry Curtis, 323 6 Street, Ames, Iowa, showed the Board a picture of the Ca rne y’s o pe ration onth
Southeast 5 Street, wh ich depic ted c rushed c ars stacked on top of one an other. He said tha t a salvageth
yard cannot be turned into anything other than what it is. He thinks that the Carneys do a wonderful job
in their operation, but it’s still a salvage yard. The im pact that a salvage yard would have on the daycare
center is evidenced by letters from pare nts w h o have said that they wou ld not be interested in
m aintaining their children’s enrollment at the daycare if the salvage yard located there.
M r. Curtis said that a salvage yard must be harm onious with the existing character of the area. The
residential use, light ind ustrial uses, and daycare center change the existing character of the general
vicinity. A salvage yard would be a very big difference in terms of what the typical use is. Mr. Curtis
said that, no m atter how tall the fenc e is, a salvage yard can’t be covere d up.
In regards to an Am es Police Officer assisting with the decibel readings, Mr. Curtis said that he is not
pleased with the Carneys using public dollars to assist a private enterprise. He read several Police
incident reports regarding the Carney’s Duff Avenue location from April of 2008 to present. M r. Curtis
said that a typical call usually involved a suspicious vehicle entering the salvage yard. He reviewed other
Police calls, including burglary, general alarm, and a suspicious person walking on the prem ises. He said
that a salvage yard is an attractive nuisance for people with ill purposes in m ind; incidents are inevitable
at that type of facility. M r. Curtis said that there is an office tenant in the daycare building who is in the
com puter software busine ss. T his tena nt has expressed concern abo ut the neighborh oo d having a
presence of people who are intent on b reak ing into other facilities in the area . Mr. Curtis said that a
salvage yard would create an environment where there would be an increased likelihood of that kind of
activity; m iscreants could use the northeast corner as access to the salvage yard because it would be
unde tectable. H e i nd ic a ted that the area does not currently have the type of problems that would
ne cessitate a call to the Police.
M r. Curtis said that the Special Use Perm it is a two step process designed to protect the public interest,
and in this case the public interest is the adjoining prope rty o w ners. The perm itting of a new use has
special requirem ents and has to m eet very high standards in order to qualify. M r. C urtis read a portion
of Cod e Section 29.1306 (1), whic h states that the keepin g of salvaged parts and m aterials an d th e storage
of m otor vehicles out of doors can detract from the beneficial use and enjoyment of neighboring
properties. He said that w hen the use does disrupt the adjoining property owners, the Board has very few
options in terms of exercising discretion. The language in the Code is very clear. M r. Curtis said that he
app reciates the Carneys and the excellent service the y pro vide to the com m un ity. How ever, the busine ss
m ay not be owned by th e Carneys forever, and future owners may not operate it as w ell as th e Carneys
do. He urged the Board to look at the long term perspective.
M att Carney, 2108 Buchanan Drive, Am es, Iow a, n oted that the first picture that was show n by Mr.
Curtis was of bundles of crushed cars. He explained that there are four cars to a bundle and three bundles
stacked on top of each other. Each bundle represents a sem i load. Mr. Carney indicated that
approxim ately 75 percent of those cars were crushe d be cause of the flood; they were crushed so that
there would be room for new inventory. It is very rare for Carney’s to have such a stockpile of crushed
cars. He explained that the fence is m issing in the pho to because he is in the process of berm ing the
whole yard, and in order to place the berm in securely, the fence had to com e down to do the dirt work.
T he fenc e will be raised tw o feet, which w ou ld cover the bund les of cars.
Board Mem ber Taylor asked how high the current fence is. Mr. Carney said that it is eight feet tall now,
and with two feet of dirt unde rneath it will be ten feet. Mr. Taylor asked how tall one bundle of cars is.
M r. Carney replied that it is roughly three feet; a car usually crushes down to six or eight inches. Board
M em ber Weber asked if those cars would be shipped away at som e point. Mr. Carney said that they
would, and reiterated that this num ber of crushed cars is unprece dented at Carney’s. He said that the cars
are usually stacked two bundles high.
In regards to security at the South Duff location, M r. Carney said that there are alarm system s in place,
but they have never caught anyone in the building itself. He said that oftentim es the door to the building
will not get shut properly, and if the wind blows the door open the alarm will sound. Mr. Carney said
that there was a period of tim e when there w as elevated activity at the salvage yard, but he indicated that
there was elevated activity all around Ames during that tim e. He described a set-up that took place at
the South Du ff yard, which led to the capture of an individual wh o h a d b e e n r esponsible for m ultiple
bre ak-ins in Am es.
M r. Ca rney apolo gized for the appearanc e of the yard in the photos that were presen ted by Mr. Cu rtis.
Board Mem ber McJim sey asked if he was planning to phase out the South Duff site. Mr. Carney replied
that they need m ore space than what is available at the Southea st 5 site. He said that the intent wa s toth
demolish the Duff site, but if the Dayton project doesn’t happen, the Duff site will remain.
Board Mem ber Weber asked about the landscaping and screening near the daycare center. Mr. Carney
said that “children are children”. H e noted that the Flum m erfelt trailer park has been located next to the
Duff location for a long time, and they have had no problem s. He surmised that a child at the daycare
center would likely not be old enough or big enough to clim b over an eight foot fence; furtherm ore, the
terrain betw een the daycare and the site i s fu ll of brush and thistles, which w ou ld be difficult to pass
throu gh.
M r. Carney said that if Southeast 5 Street ends up being extended throu gh D a yton, that side of theth
salvage yard w ou ld be fenced.
Lou Keigley, 516 South Dayton Avenue, Ames, Iowa, stated that she owns property on the south side
of the propo sed salvage yard. She has ow ned the prope rty for a little over 25 years, and has lived through
being zoned agricultural, residential, heavy industrial, light industrial, and general industrial. She does
not think that a salvage yard is the direction that South Dayton needs to go; it will set a precedent for
prospective business owners. She indicated that South Dayton carries a lot of traffic, and no matter how
high the fence would be, it would not hide the cars stored at the back of the lot. She said that it can be
called a “salvage yard” or “auto recycling business”, but peop le visiting Ames will see a junk yard.
M r. Weber asked if the old salvage yard south of Ms. Keigley’s property bothers her. He said that the
area is very unsightly. Ms. Keigley agreed; however, from her house the trees make a boundary between
the two properties, and the buildings are situated such that she can’t see it well.
Chuck Winkleblack, 105 Sou th 16 Street, Am es, Iow a, showed the Board photos of a property that isth
adjacent to the daycare center. He noted that a tailgating bus, port-a-potties, old spools of wire,
m iscellaneous construction equipm ent, trailers, vehicles, and old pallets are all sitting out and visible.
He said that it is an industrial zone, not a pristine residential area. Mr. Winkleblack believes that after
the salvage yard is fenc ed and landsc ape d, it will be less unsightly tha n the property in the photo s.
M r. Winkleblack noted that there had been discussion about the salvage yard potentially being an
attractive nuisance to the children in the area. He showed the Board a photo of a pond that is located on
the daycare property, near the fenced-in play area. He surm ised that, if a child escaped and w as given
a choice between scaling an eight foot fence or walking down to play in the water, most children would
likely pick the latter.
M r. Winkleblack showed photos to illustrate the elevation change from the daycare property to the
proposed salvage yard site. He said that the salvage yard would be uphill from the daycare. Mr.
Winkleblack showed photos in which an eight-foot-tall piece of m etal w as held up to illustrate the height
of the fence. He showed photos looking from the daycare property and from D ayton Avenue. He noted
that the interior of the property was not able to be seen above the m etal piece from either vantage point.
Board M em ber Erbes asked if the metal piec es were positioned exactly w here the fence would be. Mr.
Winkleblack said that it was appro xim ate.
M r. Winkleblack showed pictures of the residence to the north of the subject property looking from the
subject property. The pictures dep ic te d fairly dense tree cover betwe en the two prope rties. Mr.
Winkleblack said that trees are a better buffer than a fence.
According to M r. Winkleblack, a salvage yard does not have a negative im pact on neighboring property
values. He said tha t th e C arneys have been at the South Duff site since the 1950s. Between 1995 and
2003, B-B op ’s, Sw ift Stop, Bord ers, and Best Buy all built new bu sinesses a dja cent to Carney’s. These
properties have a com bined assessed value of $8,191,200. M r. Winkleblack indicated that the assessor
has never made a value deduction based on the fact that a property is next to a salvage yard.
M r. Winkleblack read a list of uses in the General Industrial (GI) Zone which do not require a Special
Use Perm it, and noted that the GI Zone allows for a 9 story building with a 100 foot m axim um height.
He said that the GI Zone is the only zone in the City’s ordinance where a salvage yard is allowed; if it
is not a pp roved, there is no whe re else to go . H e reite rated tha t the C arneys a re good n eighbors and have
never had problem s. He asked the Board to not think of Carney’s as a junk yard or landfill, but as an auto
recycling busine ss.
Richard Johnson, 3315 Ridgetop Road, Ames, Iowa, stated that he is a m em ber of Ford Street
Development, which is the developer for Phases 1 and 2 of the Ames Com m unity Development Park.
In reference to the photo shown by M r. Winkleblack of the bus, pallets, etc. on the property adjace nt to
the daycare, Mr. Johnson said that it is a violation of the covena nts of the busine ss park to store things
out of doors without screening them. He indicated that he would be addressing this issue. Mr. Johnson
said that Ford Street Development owns the property at 271 1 Southeast 5 Street, which adjoins theth
subject property to the east. There is a 65,900 square foot food grade warehouse that has been on that
property for approximately 10 years, w ith an assessed value of $2.3 million. When the A mes Com munity
Development Park was developed, restrictive covenants were put in place to protect all of the property
ow ners in the park. M r. Johnson finds it ironic that the covenants protect his property to the north, south
and east, but not the we st. He said that there are a lot of perm itted uses in the GI Zone that do not require
a Special Use Permit; the fact that this operation does require a perm it elevates the im portance of m aking
sure that other property owners w ill not be adversely affected. M r. Johnson said that the salvage yard
would have a negative effect on his property both from the ability to lease the space and from a value
standpoint, should Ford Street Development want to sell it. He has the utmost respect and appreciation
for the Carney fam ily and their business operation; how ever, he does not feel that the proposed site is
appropriate. Mr. Johnson indicated that his com pany would not have inve sted over $2 m illion in
construction 10 years ago if the salvage yard had been at this site.
Boa rd M embe r McJim sey referenced item (c) under (2) of Section 29.1306, whic h states that the use
will not be an unsightly detraction from the use and enjoym ent of adjacen t pro p e rtie s. She asked M r.
Kuester how m any adjacent property owners have been heard from . Mr. Kuester said that the Board has
he ard from m ost but not all of the abutting prop erty owners. M s. M cJimsey aske d how m any of those
have told City staff or the Board that they think this use will not be an unsightly detraction. Mr. Kuester
indicated that one property own er has taken that position; the rest who have spoke n feel that it would
be a detraction. In regards to the residential property owners who are considered “nonconform ing” in
the Industrial Zone, Ms. McJimsey said that there seems to be an inference that because they are
nonconform ing, their dissatisfaction can be somewhat discounted. She asked if there was a precedent
that if one is nonconforming, one’s rights are not protected. Mr. Kuester stated that everybody in the
vicinity has the sam e rights. M s. McJim sey surmised that nonconform ity is a moot point when it comes
to item (c); Mr. Kuester concurred.
Chair Weber noted that salvage yards are only allow ed in a GI Zone, and he asked Mr. Kue ster whe re
else the Carney’s yard could go. Mr. Kuester showed a map of the im mediate vicinity, and explained that
Dayton Avenue is a “spine” of the GI Zone in that area. The zone is bound ed by the interstate on the east
and East 13 Street on the north. Mr. Kuester said that the on ly o ther GI Zone in the city is theth
University-establishe d business park south of Highway 30.
M s. McJim sey referenced item (ii) of (4)(a), Section 29.1503, which describes the standards involving
the existing and intended character of the area. Ms. McJimsey perceives a difference of opinion or
judgm ent as to what the existing character of the area is; those on the Bell A venue side see it more as
a com mercial office area versus a hardcore industrial area. She asked M r. K uester how City staff m akes
a judgment on the existing character. Mr. Kuester explained that when looking at uses and transition of
uses, staff believes that there is a strong differentiation between the types of uses found on Dayton and
Bell Avenues. There is a concrete crushing business and a few other “open ya rd” industrial uses
imm ediately across the street from the subject site. O n the backside of the site, off of Bell Avenue, the
area is probably better described as “office park” or “light industrial”. Mr. Kuester acknowledged that
there is a differenc e in character, even tho ugh it is all zoned GI. He expla ine d that when there is a change
between two uses, the transition can either be accomplished by using a right-of-way as the boundary or
the rear lot lines as the boundary. Typically, similar uses face one another, and transition happens at the
rear lot lines. City staff sees this use as being part of the Dayton Avenue corridor, which is an open yard
ind ustria l use; it transitions on the rear to a lighter industrial use.
M s. McJimsey asked how this use could be reconciled with the m ob ile h om e park to the south. She
noted that a residential use is incompatible w ith and dissim ilar in character to an intense industrial use.
M r. Kue ster said that the mobile hom e park is an anom aly; it was zoned as Residential Low Density Park
(RLP) prior to the designation of the surrounding area as GI. He said that it is inconsistent with the Land
Use Policy Plan (LUPP). M s. M cJim sey said that she had asked if the LUPP was under review for this
reason. She said that this situation could be taken into consideration and refinem ents could be made to
the LUPP. She suggested that perhaps the residentia l a rea could transition into the office park, with
Dayton Avenue as a dividing line, despite what Mr. Kuester said about facing uses. S he sa id that the
residential area seem s to be surrounded by dissimilar intensities. M r. Kue ster said that even though there
might be a review of the LUPP down the road, staff has to base its conclusions on what exists now.
Board M em ber Taylor asked for a ch ronology on the m obile hom e park developm ent. Mr. Kue ster said
that the northern portion of the mobile home park w as more recent, bu t he was not certain on exact dates.
T he area was already zoned RLP for the mobile hom e park; a rezoning did not take place specifically
to accom modate the park. M r. Weber noted that the abandoned junk yard property sits between the
proposed salvage yard and the m obile home park. M s. M cJimsey said that the Board needs to consider
the general vicinity, not just the abutting properties.
M oved by Erbes, seconded by Taylor, to adopt ORDER NO. 10-16, granting the request for a Special
Use Perm it for an auto salvage yard o n th e pro perty at 340 So uth Dayton Avenue , b ased on the find ings
of fact and conclusions as presented by the City of Ames Department of Planning and Housing in the
report to the ZBA prepared on October 22, 2010, to allow the construction, grading, and installation of
a fence and other improvem ents as shown on the site plan dated as received by the City on Novem ber
5, 2010, with the follow ing condition s:
A.T hat the salvage yard be fe nced w ith a solid, opaque fence in the locations show n 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 C ity C ou nc il 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 lim ited to no more than 14 days per year. The Site Plan shall be updated
to indicate the tem po rary loc ation of the car crusher at the north end of the site in either the first
or second drive aisle from the entrance.
C.T hat the existing trees (as shown on the site plan) be retained and that any rem oval will require
an am endm ent to the Special Use Perm it.
D.That salvage material be stacked no higher than the height of the fence.
E.That dust abatement m easures be undertaken on the internal drives, when needed.
F.That the fence, driveway, parking areas, and internal roadways be m aintained. This m aintenance
shall include replacement or repair of the fence within 14 days if it is dam aged or after it comes
down. The fence shall be replaced or repaired whe never peeling or chipp ing occurs.
G.That no underground storage or burial of m aterials is permitted.
H.T hat, prior to bringing vehicles to the site for storage, their fluids be drained and disposed of in
accordance with state and federal law.
M s. McJim sey said that she is bothered by subsections (a), (b), and (c) under item (2), Section 29.1306.
She is not convinced that a salvage yard will not provide an attractive and dangerous nuisance for young
children. She noted that the Board prim arily focused on the daycare, but those children are supervised.
She said that there is another concentration of residents in that area, and it’s increasing with an addition
of another m obile hom e park. She thinks that things behind fences are an item of curiosity for young
children, and she is not sure that the Bo ard has a guarantee that the lot is 100 percent secure. She said
that the Board has had enough e vidence from adjacent property owners to say that (c) has not been
satisfied either. She said that she is least worried about subsection (b), which addresses rats and verm in;
she does not see how one can guarantee that condition one w ay or another. In regards to subsection (c),
M r. Weber said that the abandoned junkyard next to the subject property is already unsigh tly.
With respect to subsection (a), Board Mem ber Erbes noted that the Carney’s site on Duff Avenue is as
close to the Flum merfelt mobile home park, and none of the Police records indicated that young children
were getting into tha t facility. She is not concerned with subsection (b). She does not think that
subsection (c) is a problem either; the salvage yard will likely not be seen by m any of the adjacent
properties. They might see a fence, but will not be able to see what is on th e othe r sid e . She said that
there is a possibility that as the lot is approache d from far aw ay, one m ight be able to see into the lot.
M s. Erbes said that she had been concerned abo ut the sound of the operation, but having the decibel
inform ation was very helpful. She feels confident that the conditions listed in the approval are adequate.
Boa rd M em ber Taylor said that he unde rstands both sides, bu t he is m ore inclined to agree with M s.
E rbes. He stated that he visited the site a couple o f tim es and looked at the different vantage points. Mr.
T aylor indicated that the one of the three subsections that would concern him th e m ost would be (c),
unsightly detraction. He noted that he had asked a question about which trees wo uld stay so that he could
understand the extent of the sheltering that w ould rem ain once the salvage yard went in. He thinks that
the m ost problem atic property would be the house to the north, since it sits above the subject property.
He does not think that it will be ideal, and he sym pathizes with the houses that are there legally, but he
recognizes the fact that it is in a General Industrial district. He thinks that the conditions in the motion
m inimize the concerns related to Section 29.130 6 (2)(a),(b), and (c).
M s. M cJim sey asked what would happen to the perm it if the property were sold. Assistant City Attorney
Parks said that Special Use Permits are granted to a person or entity and do not run with the land. A new
permit would have to be applied for if the property was under new ownership.
Roll Call Vote:3-2.Voting aye: Weber, E rbes, T aylor. V oting nay: McJimsey, Calhoun. Motion declared
approved.
COM M ENTS: There were no comm ents by the Board.
ADJOURNM ENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:11 p.m.
___________________________________________________________
Em ily Burton, Recording Secretary T hom as Webe r, Ch air