Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 5-13-2009MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AMES, IOWA MAY 13, 2009 The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) met, pursuant to law, in regular session at 7:00 p.m. on May 13, 2009, in the Council Chambers of City Hall with the following members present: Bruce Calhoun, Elizabeth Erbes, Denise Link, and Thomas Weber. Board Member Gary Taylor was absent. Staff members Sam Perry, Corey Mellies, and Judy Parks were also present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Calhoun, seconded by Weber, to approve the minutes of the meeting of April 8, 2009. Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion carried unanimously. CASE NO. 09-10 VARIANCE - CIVIL DESIGN ADVANTAGE, 205 SE 5TH STREET Application for Variance from the Storm Water Management Design Standards for the property located at 205 Southeast 5th Street City Planner Sam Perry stated that the applicant is requesting a variance for this project because of a restriction the City has placed on the development of this property for the purpose of protecting the city wells. Mr. Perry explained that there is an “overburden,” or layer of soil, that protects the aquifer that the wells are tapped into, and the City has asked that there be no excavation below the existing grade to keep that layer protected. He explained that the proposed development cannot meet the City’s storm water quantity control standards because excavation would have to be done on the site, some of which would have to be below the existing grade. Mr. Perry stated that the site is already depressed below the street grade and some fill is proposed; however, the amount of fill that would be needed in order to comply with the quantity control standards would be impractical, especially when compared to adjacent developments. He explained that in order to build the development with enough height to provide adequate space in which to dig the necessary depth for on-site water detention would place the site significantly higher than the grade of the street. Mr. Perry pointed out that this would also necessitate a retaining wall to be built in order to keep the number of parking spaces the applicant desires, though the applicant’s number of planned parking spaces is above the City’s standards. Mr. Perry went on to describe the specifics of the City’s storm water design standards for quantity control. He mentioned that the standards require the site to be designed to handle 5, 10, 50 and 100 year storms. He also pointed out that 90% of Iowa’s storms are 1.25 inch rainfall events, which are well below the 100-year standard. Mr. Perry said that the proposal is to have more focus on quality control of the water, which is not currently in the City’s standards, in a way that will account for the first 1.25 inches of rainfall. He explained that there are adjacent developments that have been allowed this perspective, but neither of those cases were reviewed by the Zoning Board of Adjustment for different reasons. He clarified that the zoning standard for storm water design was not being used as an enforcement tool for development in the past, but it is now. Mr. Perry briefly spoke of a sideline effort by Water and Pollution Control to allow the possibility of exceptions similar to this application in areas where it is in the public interest to protect the city’s source water. He then reiterated why it is important to keep the overburden of soil in place to protect the aquifer. Mr. Perry showed the Board a map of the floodplain in the proposed development site, including the City’s well restrictions on properties in the area. He then showed the site plan of the development and pointed out the detention areas on the site. Mr. Perry mentioned that the filling of the site varies anywhere from two to six feet, and recapped why it is unfeasible to follow the quantity control standards on this site. The Board asked several questions of Mr. Perry for clarification, including again the reasoning behind the decision that the quantity control standards cannot be met. Chair Link asked what would happen if it rains more than what is predicted, to which Mr. Perry replied that the rain would overflow from the bio-retention areas into the storm sewer. Ms. Link questioned whether the water would flow directly to the storm sewer, or if it would travel over other properties. Public Works Civil Engineer Corey Mellies stated that at each bio-retention area, there is immediate storm sewer access, and that the water would not cross onto another property. Mr. Mellies went over the current storm water management standards, and described why those standards are difficult to meet at this site. Mr. Mellies explained that water quality control means that the detained water is filtered to remove contaminants before it is released. Chair Link pointed out that any overflowing water would not be filtered, and she asked Mr. Mellies whether the City is concerned about that or not. Mr. Mellies stated that they do not have a problem with that issue, and it would be consistent with the Wal-Mart Supercenter and the other property on South Duff, since they cannot excavate. He said that according to Water and Pollution Control, it is the excavating and storing of water that causes a large concern with the aquifer. Board Member Weber asked what percentage of a 100 year storm this proposed system can handle. Mr. Mellies stated that traditionally, street storm sewer systems in Ames are designed for 10 year storms, sometimes less. Board Member Weber asked how much overflow there would be should a 100 year storm occur, and how far off this system is from the standard. This question was deferred for the applicant’s engineer to answer. Mr. Perry summarized the remainder of the staff report and stated that it is staff’s recommendation to grant the variance based on the findings and conclusions. Board Member Calhoun asked about the flumes in the Target private access drive, and staff members Perry and Mellies explained that they are storm water drains which go directly into intakes. Mr. Calhoun pointed out that the elevation of those intakes is 52-54 feet and the proposed site is graded at 64 feet, theoretically leaving 10 feet of usable space in which to lay water storage pipes. He asked the applicant why they had not looked into this kind of approach, and what investigation they had done about on-site detention. Brad Kuehl, Civil Design Advantage, 5501 NW 112 St., Grimes, Iowa, stated that they first looked into whether they could store the 100-year storm volume on site, and echoed the reasons given by staff why this approach was not feasible. Board Member Calhoun asked if the applicants knew when they purchased this land that it was in a restricted area, regulated by storm water management standards and rules that they needed to comply with. Steve Scott, Westown Associates LLC, 1701 48th Street, Suite 11, West Des Moines, Iowa, stated that when they purchased the property, they assumed that since this design was approved at other similar properties nearby that they could follow the same rules at this site. Mr. Scott said that they were not aware of any special regulations because of the adjoining well field. Mr. Calhoun spoke of his concern that the applicants were simply assuming that they did not need to abide by the rules. He explained why he felt that their situation is not unique, and that the people downstream should be afforded protection from people upstream flooding their properties, stressing that the regulations are there for a purpose. He stated that water quality is complimentary to water quantity, but it is not the same thing. Mr. Scott said that they are trying to come up with the most effective and efficient way of dealing with what he feels is a unique situation with a method that is environmentally sound and sound from an engineering standpoint as well. He said that, based on the agreement that they have reached with City staff, they have accomplished that goal. Board Member Calhoun asked for details about the conclusions that were drawn during the applicant’s meeting with the Development Review Committee. Mr. Perry addressed Mr. Calhoun’s suggestion that the applicant’s situation is not unique by discussing neighborhood boundaries. Mr. Calhoun maintained that he is confident that this situation is not unique. Mr. Kuehl stated that they feel this proposal is the most economically feasible development for this property. He said that in order to meet storm water management design standards, they would have to raise the site even farther up since they cannot excavate down to reach the volume necessary for meeting that standard. Mr. Kuehl emphasized that they have worked very closely with City staff to come up with this alternative solution to provide water quality instead. He also said that the reason they have parking spaces in excess of what the City requires for the pet store is because they will eventually have more development on the site, and they want to have enough spaces now to meet the parking requirements later. Erin Ollendike, Civil Design Advantage, 5501 NW 112th Street, Suite G, Grimes, Iowa, stated that the detention pond in the southeast corner would require approximately 27,500 cubic feet of storage to cover a 100 year storm event, and as proposed, that pond would have about 15,255 cubic feet of storage. She said that the northwest pond would require 10,600 cubic feet of storage under the 100 year standard, and the current proposal would hold 2,600 cubic feet. Board Member Erbes asked about a natural depression that would be created on the east border of the site, and said it looked like they could store water there as well. Ms. Ollendike explained that the water coming off of the 3-to-1 slope will drain directly into the storm sewer intakes that are on the Target access drive. Mr. Perry said that they cannot store water there because it is on private property belonging to Target. Mr. Kuehl added that they attempted to work with Target to provide a storm water management solution in that area, but it simply would not have worked for Target. Board Member Calhoun asked if the water from the southeast basin would be discharged to Target’s system, and if that is allowed or not. Mr. Perry stated that there is a public storm sewer easement along the east property line. Mr. Calhoun asked Ms. Ollendike if that storm sewer system had enough capacity to handle their overflowing water, and questioned what year storm this system was capable of handling. Ms. Ollendike stated that she could not attest to what Target sized their system for, but that she did know they have 60 inch pipes. Board Member Calhoun offered the idea again that there appears to be almost ten feet between the surface of the development and the inverts of the pipes, leaving plenty of room to lay pipes for underground detention. This topic was discussed at length, with Mr. Calhoun again asking Ms. Ollendike whether they realized at the time of purchase that this was a regulated site. Mr. Mellies interjected that there is no ordinance defining the regulation against excavation, and that the applicants did not receive that comment until their pre-application meeting. He added that the Municipal Code does not specify that excavation is not allowed when developing in the floodplain next to a well. Board Member Weber stated that it seems that they could easily expand the areas of the retaining systems and use up some of the parking. Ms. Ollendike said that they would lose a great amount of parking space as well as a drive aisle. Mr. Weber asked why they are concerned with losing parking, since they have more spaces than what is required already. Mr. Kuehl reiterated that the parking is in excess for building only a Petco, but will be required for any future development on the west side of the site. Mr. Calhoun suggested that the simple solution is to develop less. He stated that he felt that the site itself was not creating this problem, but rather the applicants are creating their own hardship by overdeveloping the land beyond its capacity. Mr. Scott replied that they made estimations based on the size of the parcel as to how much building can be built and what the best uses are for that site. He stated that they are actually planning less development than what is allowed on a standard four acre site because of what they have discovered about water detention requirements. Board Member Weber offered that the normal way of handling this kind of situation would be to excavate below grade and put an impermeable liner in the pond. Mr. Mellies stated that this option was not discussed with this site, though it has been in the past with the conclusion that water quality was a better solution. Assistant City Attorney Judy Parks added that Wal-Mart did consider having a pond with an impermeable liner, but the Water and Pollution Control Department was very much against that option because those liners are not fail-safe. Mr. Mellies restated the importance of protecting the overburden, which is why this option is not ideal because if there is a failure, the failure is even worse. Mr. Weber stated that he has a problem with the idea of water quality, and spoke of issues such as flooding and erosion. He said that he did not think water quality is a mitigating factor. Mr. Mellies replied that this is merely a solution to a problem, and they are not saying that water quality makes up for water quantity. He stated that this is a unique situation on a specific site, and that there are very few sites that would have this same concern. Mr. Calhoun asked about where the water flowed before on the site that the warehouse is located, and a discussion ensued regarding run-off and direction of water flow. Mr. Scott addressed Mr. Calhoun’s earlier analysis that there would be a ten foot differential between the existing grade and new grade. Mr. Mellies and Mr. Perry commented on this, stating that they could not excavate to the pipe invert, and in reality would only have five feet at best to use for laying pipe. Mr. Scott likened the end result to building a castle if they did attempt underground detention. Mr. Calhoun offered more ideas about different kinds of pipes that could be used, and discussed with City staff his concern about potentially paving what was once a basin. He repeated Mr. Weber’s concerns about erosion and run-off. Ms. Ollendike explained how a water quality system works, suggesting that it could potentially produce less run-off and erosion compared to a detention system. Chair Link asked how much more flooding there would be if this was built than there already is now. Mr. Mellies stated that the impact of this one small site would be minimal, which spurred a lengthy discussion between City staff and the Board about focusing on this one case versus thinking about the “big picture.” Mr. Perry pointed out that the Zoning Board is not charged to try to look at the broader perspective of the City Council’s policies on development. Ms. Link asked if excess water running off of their site and on to the ground where the wells are would be a problem. Mr. Mellies stated that it would not be an issue, and that the long term storage of water near the aquifer is a bigger concern. He pointed out that with the water quality system, the property would most likely not have stored water when a 100 year storm hits. Mr. Calhoun asked if there were sanitary sewers in the area, and questioned staff as to whether or not they leak. He made the point that they can have sanitary sewers in the ground and assume they don’t leak, but if they build a pipe system down into the ground, they are automatically assuming that it will leak. Mr. Calhoun said that a leak in the sewer system would be much more lethal to the wells than pipes full of water and questioned why City staff is so concerned with excavating and discharging the water into the storm sewer system. Mr. Perry stated that he didn’t know what the rationale was behind the regulation, but that perhaps the existing sanitary sewer had been there for a number of years before the regulation was made, prior to the observation of staff to protect the aquifer. Mr. Calhoun suggested that it’s a reasonable compromise to excavate a little, to which Mr. Mellies replied that it is Water and Pollution Control’s decision to make, not theirs. Moved by Erbes, and seconded by Link, that the Zoning Board of Adjustment adopt CASE NO. 09-10 granting a variance from the minimum Storm Water Design Standards at the property located at 205 Southeast 5th Street. Board Member Weber stated that he is against granting the variance because he felt that this would cause many problems downstream. Chair Link said that she weighed that against the danger of disturbing the wells, if they excavate. Mr. Calhoun agreed with Mr. Weber that there should be a different compromise, and challenged the applicant to convince Water and Pollution Control to approve a water-tight underground system. Roll call vote: 2-2. Voting aye: Link, Erbes. Voting nay: Weber, Calhoun Assistant City Attorney Parks noted that the rules of the Zoning Board of Adjustment require three concurring votes for a final decision (as determined by state law). Therefore, this matter will need to come back before the full Board. CASE NO. 09-11 VARIANCE - CIVIL DESIGN ADVANTAGE, 205 SE 5TH STREET Application for Variance from the Maximum Width of a Driveway for the property located at 205 Southeast 5th Street City Planner Sam Perry stated that the applicant has requested a width variance of 7 feet for the eastern driveway, to be allowed a driveway of 37 feet wide instead of the Zoning Ordinance maximum of 30 feet. He explained that this width is within the Statewide Urban Design and Specifications (SUDAS) standards, but it is in conflict with the City’s zoning regulations. Mr. Perry stated that originally the request was for an additional driveway on the west side of the site, which was initially denied by City staff; however, an agreement was worked out that if this driveway was for delivery access only, and labeled as such, that would be acceptable. He stated that the main goal is to direct traffic to the driveway directly across from the Wal-Mart driveway. He explained that a wider driveway increases the possibility for movement as long as it meets the standards of signage, marking, lane widths, etc. If the driveway stayed under the 30 foot maximum and still had three lanes, they would have to be 10 foot wide lanes, which staff doesn’t recommend. In order to have wider lanes, the drive would have to be over the 30 foot maximum. Mr. Perry said that this proposal promotes safety and reduces accidents because of its functionality. He stated that if the lane was narrower, people turning left from Duff Avenue would have to slow down to the point that they would be exposed to oncoming traffic. Mr. Perry summarized that based on the scale of this development, the wider driveway is recommended. Mr. Perry gave more details about the application, and stated that the City staff recommends granting of this variance with the following conditions: 1. That the site plan be substantially the same as the March 20, 2009, site plan with regard to all site access points, widths, and locations. 2. That a monument sign design and location be approved by the City and installed prior to an occupancy permit being issued for any buildings on the site. Brad Kuehl, Civil Design Advantage, 5501 NW 112 St., Grimes, Iowa, stated that the reasoning for the wider driveway is that they would like to match the Wal-Mart driveway to the south and have three lanes with a right turn lane. He stated that the wider driveway is safer, and that they will also use this drive to bring trucks in and use the west drive as the truck exit. Board Member Calhoun asked for clarification about the separate delivery access on the west drive. Mr. Kuehl stated that the trucks would only exit out the west drive. Mr. Calhoun suggested that the sign should clearly state that the trucks should not enter in the west drive. Mr. Perry replied that the intent of the sign is to focus the customer traffic to the wider driveway, and that the wording on the sign can be worked out internally. Moved by Calhoun, and seconded by Weber, that the Zoning Board of Adjustment adopt CASE NO. 09-11 granting a variance allowing a 37 foot wide entrance driveway instead of the maximum of 30 feet for the property located at 205 Southeast 5th Street, with the following conditions: 1. That the site plan be substantially the same as the March 20, 2009 site plan with regard to all site access points, widths, and locations. 2. That a monument sign design and location be approved by the City and installed prior to an occupancy permit being issued for any buildings on the site. Roll call vote: 4-0. Voting aye: Link, Calhoun, Erbes, Weber. Voting nay: None. Motion declared approved unanimously. COMMENTS: There were no comments by the Board. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:01 p.m. __________________________________ ___________________________________ Emily Burton, Recording Secretary Denise Link, Chair