HomeMy WebLinkAbout~Master - Zoning Board of Adjustment Minutes 9-23-2009MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AMES, IOWA SEPTEMBER 23,
2009
The Ames Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) met, pursuant to law, and was called to order by
Chair Denise Link in regular session at 7:00 p.m. on September 23, 2009, in the Council
Chambers of City Hall with the following members present: Bruce Calhoun, Denise Link, Gary
Taylor, and Thomas Weber. Board Member Elizabeth Erbes was absent. Staff members Judy
Parks, Steve Osguthorpe, and Jeff Benson were also present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Moved by Calhoun, seconded by Weber, to approve the minutes
of the meeting of August 12, 2009.
Vote on Motion: 4-0. Motion carried unanimously.
Chair Denise Link explained that because all of the requests were for the same
property, the background for all five requests would be presented once.
Director of Planning & Housing Steve Ogsuthorpe explained that Casey’s had
five separate applications: a Special Use Permit to allow gasoline sales on
property zoned Convenience Commercial Node (CVCN), a variance from the maximum
size of gasoline service to allow five gasoline pump islands, a variance from
architectural standards to allow a flat roof canopy, a variance from the signage
standard to allow a 67 square foot sign, and a variance from the maximum driveway
width to allow a 45-foot-wide driveway. He stated that staff had carefully
reviewed the project, and emphasized that it was most important to mitigate
the impact of the project on the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Osguthorpe said
that City staff had a lot of discussion about the quality, character, and
condition of the neighborhoods around Ames. He stated that staff attempted
to identify what makes neighborhoods work, struggles within neighborhoods,
and decisions that were made 10 to 20 years ago that may have had adverse effects
on neighborhoods.
Mr. Osguthorpe stated that staff approached the Special Use Permit application
with the idea that there is a careful need to integrate what is a potentially
impacting use in a residential neighborhood, and that it was not an issue of
whether there is a hardship involved.
City Planner Jeff Benson showed the Board a map of the South Duff corridor,
which he stated has been the main commercial focus in Ames for many years.
He said that the commercial zoning in that area is largely bounded by
agricultural lands and flood plains. Mr. Benson pointed out the South Lincoln
neighborhood, near the intersection of Duff Avenue and Lincoln Way, and stated
that its proximity to commercial zoning, among other factors, has contributed
to its decline over the years. He explained that, because of that neighborhood’s
decline, the City Council decided to have special standards for development
in that area to try to preserve what is there and to create something special.
Mr. Benson referenced the Main Street Cultural District as another commercial
area of the city, and stated that it is bordered by residential areas to the
north, but there are offices and other non-retail commercial uses buffering
the commercial area from the neighborhoods. He stated that even in new
commercial areas, where the City is attempting to get away from corridors and
focus on nodes, buffering land uses separate most commercial areas from
residential. He showed the Board a map of the development near Mortensen Road
and South Dakota, and explained that it is zoned Community Commercial Node.
Mr. Benson said that it is a mixed use area, with residential/commercial and
high density residential separating it from lower density residential. He stated
that such a design has been the pattern in the past.
Mr. Benson said that several years ago, as the City planned for expansion of
residential areas, the village concept provided for commercial services to
serve those new neighborhoods. He explained that at that time, there was no
provision for commercial services on a neighborhood scale for suburban
neighborhoods. He stated that the plan was to simply expand out to the edges
of the community as residential areas, and people would have to drive elsewhere
in town to have commercial services. Mr. Benson explained that as the need
was expressed to find a way to provide commercial services in suburban
residential neighborhoods, the Convenience Commercial Node (CVCN) zoning was
created.
According to Mr. Benson, higher standards are what make a CVCN work in the
Ames community. He stated that it is important to ensure that the commercial
area responds to being embedded in a residential neighborhood by integrating
aesthetically and physically in the neighborhood, and by maintaining pedestrian
connectivity through providing the ability of walking to use the commercial
services. He explained that the higher standards of CVCN zoning was the issue
at hand. He emphasized that the standards are what make commercial use in a
residential neighborhood possible.
Mr. Benson mentioned the subject property’s proximity to the Somerset
village-style development with commercial services in the center. He pointed
out that the commercial services offered there are not adequate to serve the
whole area. He explained that it became clear that the area would not develop
in a way that would provide for a convenience store, grocery store, and other
things that are desirable for such a large residential development. Mr. Benson
said that this idea impelled the City Council to explore the option of having
commercial zoning at the intersection of Bloomington and Stange. He stated
that the idea had been proposed many times before that and had been turned
down several times even during that process. He said that the City Council
spent a lot of time looking at what uses would be appropriate there, standards,
determining what things would require Special Use Permits, and eventually came
up with the laws for Convenience Commercial Nodes and the specific uses within,
which are identified in the Land Use Plan.
Mr. Benson pointed out that the land to the north, south, east, and west of
the subject property is all some form of residential zoning. He stated that
there are fundamental design standards in a CVCN for all uses allowed in a
commercial area within suburban residential neighborhoods. He explained that
those standards involve much landscaping and buffering around edges between
the commercial and residential areas; setbacks; and standards for buildings,
parking, canopies, architecture, materials, signs, and pedestrian/vehicle
circulation.
Mr. Benson stated that, beyond the basic design standards of CVCN zoning, the
code also allows the Zoning Board to impose additional conditions on the
development for special uses, if the Board concludes that it is necessary for
there to be mitigation of impacts on the surrounding area.
He went over the variance criteria and emphasized that all of the criteria
must be met in order to grant a variance.
Mr. Benson said that staff had found that the driveway variance met all of
the variance criteria. He stated that the delivery of gasoline in large trucks
is necessary, and a large truck could not enter safely without a wider driveway,
based on staff’s assessment.
As indicated by Mr. Benson, City staff felt that the canopy met the definition
of a building. He explained that the zoning code defined a building as any
structure having a roof supported by columns or walls. He added that it also
provides shelter to patrons while they get gasoline. He explained that all
of the standards listed in the zoning code for buildings apply to the canopy.
Mr. Benson stated that it is important to think about suburban residential
characteristics, and said that one of the major criteria is that a commercial
area should be embedded in it, with a small impact on residences. He also said
that scale is an important element, and that the scale of the commercial
development should fit with the scale of the surrounding residential
development. He emphasized that residential structures are composed of smaller
elements put together in a certain way, which creates the scale. Mr. Benson
stated that the scale of the proposed project is quite different, particularly
the canopy. He said that the variance request for five pumps rather than four
relates directly to scale. He indicated that the canopy structure by itself
is a fairly monolithic structure without much variety to it, and to make it
20 percent larger would move in the opposite direction of scale.
Mr. Benson showed the Board a photo of a gas station in Ames with a canopy
and five pump islands, as well as one with two pump islands. He also presented
a sketch showing the store and canopy, as submitted, next to scale drawings
of single family homes located near the subject area. Mr. Benson pointed out
that the canopy may be as tall as a two-story home, and said that it is not
just the height, but the scale and composition of the form itself that has
an impact.
According to Mr. Benson, a five-pump convenience store is large by Ames
standards. He explained that of the 16 gas stations in town, 10 of them are
4 pumps or smaller. He said if one is looking for a scale that fits into a
neighborhood, the larger size would not be appropriate. Mr. Osguthorpe pointed
out that it was very important to remember that the CVCN is intended to serve
nearby residents, not a broad market.
Mr. Benson discussed the 30-foot electrical utility easement on the subject
property and stated that the City does not hold the easement as a means to
prevent Casey’s from paving in this area. He explained that the issue is that
the proposed additional pump station would increase the reliance on the easement
area for required circulation around the pump stations and canopy. He said
that while Casey’s is allowed to pave and landscape in the easement, it may
be removed by the City at any time deemed necessary.
According to Mr. Benson, City staff felt that the applicants were doing a good
job of fitting into the neighborhood with the proposed light levels in the
project. He stated that they had cut the light levels in their canopy by half
after staff reviewed the original plans.
When talking about the roof pitch, Mr. Benson stated that pitched roofs with
variation are the norm in the subject area, and that the other two commercial
uses in that zone were able to comply. He explained that Fareway has a parapet
covering the flat roof, as well as a taller roof at the entrance area and the
canopy, and the car wash has two pitched roofs. He added that the McFarland
Clinic building, for which a site plan has been approved, will have a flat
roof with a parapet variation and a peaked portion.
Mr. Benson stated that another characteristic of a residential area is a lack
of signs, which is the reason for the 32 square foot standard. He said that
businesses located in a small CVCN don’t have a lot of competition and do not
need to draw attention, therefore a smaller sign can function and is more
appropriate in a residential area.
Mr. Benson concluded that staff found that the applicants met none of the
variance criteria for the additional pump, the canopy, or the larger sign.
He stated that the hardship was not due to special conditions, but rather the
applicants’ choices. He said that if the variances were granted, they would
reduce the very standards that make it possible for there to be commercial
zoning in that site in the first place, as well as reduce the integrity of
the residential area. Mr. Benson said that if the variances for the canopy
and additional pump were granted, then the use of gasoline sales – which has
been singled out as having a special impact, thus requiring a Special Use Permit
– would end up having fewer standards to meet than any other uses in the area.
Mr. Benson stated that the Special Use Permit is required for gasoline service,
and that the applicant is asking for five pump islands serving ten vehicles.
He went over the criteria and standards of Special Use Permits. He stated that
if the impacts of gasoline sales near residential uses cannot be mitigated,
then the Special Use Permit should not be issued. Mr. Benson explained that
there can be factors in certain locations that make it not possible to mitigate
the impacts, but if they can be mitigated, then the Board needs to make sure
that the methods used are listed as conditions on the approval of the Special
Use Permit.
Mr. Benson presented photos of the residential area surrounding the site to
provide the Board with the residential context. He stated that staff recommended
conditions on the approval of the Special Use Permit, including hours of
operation, limited lighted portions of the sign, reducing light levels and
glare, and keeping large trucks out of residential areas. Mr. Benson explained
that hours of operation has an impact on residential neighborhoods because
of noise, and said that staff believed that closing at 10:00 p.m. should be
a condition of the permit. He said that the lighting levels as proposed met
staff’s standards, and discussed reasons why light levels and glare can have
an impact on the area. He also discussed truck turning movement, and stated
that staff wanted to ensure that trucks do not end up going north into residential
areas.
According to Mr. Benson, the most important issues were scale, the roof, and
the appearance of the structures. He said that the canopy would be the most
prominent structure and forward-most in the node, and so it should have a design
that is compatible with the residential area.
Mr. Benson showed the Board examples of options for roofs. He also showed a
commercial area in Minnesota as an example of how stringent standards can be
met, and how commercial areas can be integrated successfully in residential
neighborhoods. He explained that the most relevant piece in the example was
the canopy, which was designed with two pitches. He said that staff believes
that the requirements are not unreasonable for a gasoline canopy.
Mr. Benson showed photos of residential areas in Ames that are struggling and
have declined over the years. He reiterated that sometimes the proximity of
commercial development can contribute to the decline of residential areas.
He mentioned a residential area on West Lincoln Way, which has been demolished
and not redeveloped, because it is located across from a low quality commercial
area. He also showed photos near Colorado Junction, and surmised that a sea
of concrete with no landscaping standards has helped cause the decline of the
residential area around it. He emphasized that City staff wants to be careful
with interfacing commercial and residential. He said that all of the land around
the commercial node is planned for residential development. Mr. Benson stressed
that the Board should ask itself if granting the variances and Special Use
Permit would make it more or less likely that these areas would continue to
develop as high quality residential areas.
Mr. Osguthorpe emphasized the canopy design, and clarified that staff’s
recommendation is for a full-pitch canopy, based on the forwardness of canopy
and the context of the surrounding area.
Mr. Benson stated that staff recommended approval of the Special Use Permit
because they believe the impacts can be mitigated with conditions. He pointed
out that Casey’s had made several dozen modifications to their design to
accommodate the standards in the Code, and said that it was not a matter of
the applicants being uncooperative; rather, that staff felt that the standards
are very important and should not be waived.
Doug Beech, Casey’s General Stores, One Convenience Boulevard, Ankeny, Iowa,
stated that this was not a proposal that the company likes to make. He said
that they like to make every effort to resolve all of the issues, but could
not get that accomplished in this case. He said that in his 17 years at Casey’s,
he had never experienced so much public interest and excitement about having
a store built on a site.
Mr. Beech said that Casey’s had made several compromises already. He explained
that new stores of this size do not normally have a gable roof, and that this
is the first one in the state, which he said was a major compromise and a major
cost. He also stated that they had compromised on their windows, lighting,
and brick, and pointed out that they had found brick to match the car wash
next to the subject property. He said that they understand it’s a different
kind of neighborhood for the community, but he felt that they were meeting
the standards. Mr. Beech said that they were also trying to deal with reality,
and felt that they were being micro managed. He stated that there are certain
things they need in their stores to meet the needs of the community, which
is why they were requesting variances.
Mr. Beech spoke of the signage variance, and said that they were proposing
a 67 square foot sign above the door. He said that a company should be able
to tell you what the name of the company is above their door. He explained
that they had already cut their signage proposal by 15 percent. Mr. Beech stated
that he did not see how a 67 square foot sign would hurt the public interest.
He also stated that, within the spirit of the ordinance, they had removed the
logos from the canopy in the proposal.
Mr. Beech said that many of their normal stores have eight to ten pumps. He
pointed out that there are numerous stores in Ames with five or six pumps,
and stated that there has to be enough level of service for the investment
to make sense financially. In reference to Mr. Benson’s comment about paving
in the electrical easement, Mr. Beech stated that they would pave that area
regardless of how many pumps the store had.
According to Mr. Beech, out of 1,483 Casey’s convenience stores, none of them
have a pitched roof canopy. He stated that they had proposed numerous designs
to staff. He also said that the canopy is an accessory structure, not a building;
therefore, the ordinance does not allow the Board to regulate it. He said a
building is something that shelters people, and unless there are people living
under canopies, they’re not buildings. He also pointed out that a pitched roof
canopy would block the view of the store.
Mr. Beech stated that some of the conditions listed in the Special Use Permit
were redundant, and asked the Board to omit them. He stated that Casey’s does
not have any stores that close at 10:00, and that their regular hours of operation
are 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Chair Link asked if they only had one sign. Mr. Beech replied that the sign
for which a variance has been requested is the only wall sign, but that they
do have a separate sign which is in compliance. Ms. Link asked to see some
of the other proposed options for the canopy. Board Member Taylor asked if
the sketch the applicants showed was the only alternative proposed.
Wally Pelds, A Leo Pelds Engineering Company, 2323 Dixon Street, Des Moines,
Iowa, explained that they have been doing Casey’s stores engineering since
1987. He stated that they have a new canopy style, which is flat and symmetrical
with a low line. He said that the bottom of the canopy is 16 feet above the
ground, and surmised that if the roof was pitched, it would appear very large
and would block the view of the store. He explained that they do not want to
detract from their building.
Mr. Pelds said he agreed that the example shown by staff looked nice, and probably
works well in that location because it is not on an arterial street. He said
that if the CVCN was intended to serve only a small neighborhood, then it should
not have been put at the intersection of two arterial streets. He stated that
additional traffic beyond neighborhood residents is inevitable at that
location. He reiterated that if they added structure, the canopy would be
monstrous, and could end up taller than a two-story building.
Mr. Pelds stated that they had not done a four-pump store in the last twelve
years, because it causes more congestion. He stated that, based on traffic
counts on Bloomington and Stange, four pumps could cause long waits and major
congestion for patrons. He said the original proposal was for eight pumps,
and that even with five pumps, people would still experience waiting. He also
said they would pour the same amount of concrete either way, and that it was
not dictated by pumps but by delivery vehicles.
Mr. Pelds pointed out that the signage on the building is recessed and does
not stand out from the building like Fareway’s. He also stated that all of
their stores close at 11:00 p.m., and to have one store close at 10:00 would
be a logistical and programming nightmare. He said that Casey’s is generally
the preferred gas station in neighborhoods because it is not open 24 hours.
Chair Link asked for clarification about the truck turning movement. Mr. Pelds
explained that trucks would be able to come in one driveway, but not out the
same way. He said that they would have a separate drive to exit from, but he
made it clear that cars would be able to come in and go out both ways.
Mr. Pelds said that they were not trying to fight with staff, but that they
just had different opinions. He felt that though staff had offered many good
ideas, some of the things they were mentioning were not applicable. He said
that they want to be a part of the neighborhood, and that they had done a very
good job coming to where they are.
Ms. Link asked if they felt that the lighting as proposed was sufficient for
safety. Mr. Pelds said that people feel safer when they fill up if it’s brighter,
and stores also have fewer “drive-offs.” He stated that with lower light, people
may wonder if the store is even open. He said that they could live with the
lighting as proposed, but they would prefer it to be brighter. He pointed out
that the impact of light is more minimal because they are not a 24-hour store.
Board Member Weber said that he had been in towns where one has to drive two
or three miles through residential areas to find a gas station. He said that
he did not think that cutting back to four pumps would inconvenience anyone
to a great extent. Mr. Pelds stated that a pump is very expensive to put in,
and they wouldn’t do it if they didn’t deem it necessary. He stated that if
and when the surrounding residential area is developed, even five pumps would
not be sufficient. Mr. Weber suggested that perhaps another convenience store
in the area may be necessary once the area completely develops.
Mr. Calhoun asked if it concerned the applicants that all of the pitching and
the sign on the main building would be blocked by the canopy. Mr. Pelds mentioned
line of vision, and said that from a car or from the street, one would be able
to see everything. He also pointed out that they needed to meet setback
requirements for the CVCN, and said that they usually like to have the canopy
all the way out in front so that it does not obscure the building. Mr. Pelds
said that the idea of obstruction was one more reason a gabled roof on the
canopy did not make sense, and that it made more sense to make it sleek.
Board Member Taylor asked if the applicants had used any other designs at any
other stores aside from a flat canopy. Mr. Pelds replied that they never had.
Mr. Beech stated that he had seen maybe two hip roof canopies in the entire
state. Mr. Pelds reiterated that their architect said it would not make sense
to build up a covered fueling area when they are trying to accent the building
behind it.
Chuck Winkleblack, 105 South 16th Street, stated that he had been working both
in Somerset and the subject area’s development for over ten years trying to
get a convenience store in the area. In regard to staff’s emphasis on scale
and fitting in with the neighborhood, he pointed out that Fareway is 34,000
square feet, and the proposed Casey’s would be 3,700 square feet. He also said
the nearby apartment buildings have a 6,000 square foot footprint, with an
additional 6,000 square feet on top. He said that many of the houses in that
subdivision are bigger than 3,700 square feet, as are the nearby townhouses.
Mr. Winkleblack reiterated the applicants’ concerns about a pitched roof being
intrusive, and said that the canopy should not be the focal point. In regards
to staff’s concerns about paving in the easement, Mr. Winkleblack said the
City would not be in any peril because of pavement there. He said since Casey’s
would be doing it at their own risk, it would be their problem, not the City’s.
He also brought up the idea of mitigating the impact on the neighborhood, and
said that when the store closes at 11:00, the lights on the canopy turn off
and go into security mode. He said if the subject property was developed as
something other than a convenience store, most likely the lights of that
commercial establishment would stay on all night.
Mr. Winkleblack referred to the point staff had made about the majority of
gas stations in Ames having four pumps or fewer, and suggested that the gas
stations with fewer pumps are older versions. He surmised that the industry
standard now is to have more than four or five pumps.
Mr. Winkleblack said that Casey’s has 1,500 stores and does a very good job,
and that the Board ought to rely on its history and expertise.
Board Member Weber asked the applicants and staff for clarification about the
truck turning movement. Mr. Benson made it clear that the trucks would have
to come in from the south and leave to the south, and that they did not want
the trucks going north into the residential neighborhoods.
Board Member Taylor asked what Fareway’s hours of operation are. Assistant
City Attorney Judy Parks stated that it was 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday
through Saturday. Mr. Osguthorpe said that staff had suggested 10:00 as closing
time because it is when most people have settled in, and that 11:00 is late
for some people.
Board Member Calhoun asked if the proposed clinic or Fareway had any problems
complying with the sign regulations. Mr. Osguthorpe stated that the Fareway
sign fully meets the standard, and that no others have requested variances.
He said there was no hardship for Casey’s, since the other businesses were
able to comply.
Ms. Link asked how the sign was being measured, and Mr. Benson replied that
they measure the hypothetical box around the letters. Mr. Pelds said that they
did, in fact, have a hardship. He said that Fareway has two 32 square foot
signs, and that they are proposing one 64 square foot sign. Ms. Link pointed
out that Casey’s also has a proposed monument sign out front.
Mr. Calhoun said that he was struggling with the idea that five pumps is out
of scale compared to four pumps. Mr. Osguthorpe said that staff is not arguing
that they can’t or shouldn’t pave within the easement, but the concern is if
the site plan requires it. He stated that if the City would some day need to
utilize the easement, they could end up with a site plan that may not function.
In regards to the extra pump, Mr. Ogsuthorpe stated that it would require the
canopy to be even longer and would exacerbate the canopy issue. Mr. Calhoun
asked if it would make a difference if the applicants agreed to do a different
canopy design. Mr. Osguthorpe said that they would have to look at alternatives
and study what the massing might look like.
Mr. Osguthorpe said that this particular CVCN district is to serve nearby
residents. He said that, because of its location on an arterial street, the
reaction is to want to treat it as an HOC (Highway-Oriented Commercial) district.
He stated that staff could not find any precedent for a gas station with the
proposed number of pumps except in an HOC district. He said that if there is
a determined need for serving a broader market or region in this area, they
should look toward identifying an area where an HOC zone may be appropriate.
Mr. Osguthorpe reiterated that the CVCN is directly across the street from
new homes, and that it needs to be developed carefully, correctly, and
architecturally compatible so that it may provide people with greater confidence
to invest in that neighborhood. He said that they have concern with reducing
the standards such that they are in a small geographic area, but HOC by design
standard.
Mr. Calhoun stated that he was having trouble deciding if three pumps was just
right, or if four pumps was better. Mr. Osguthorpe stated that the issue wasn’t
to decide whether one is better than the other, but rather whether they’ve
met the variance criteria or not.
Mr. Weber asked if the City ordinance stated that the maximum size was not
to serve more than eight vehicles, and Mr. Osguthorpe replied that it is the
standard in CVCN districts only. Mr. Weber asked what the thought behind that
ordinance was. Mr. Osguthorpe reiterated that the purpose is to mitigate the
impact on the surrounding area.
Mr. Winkleblack stated that when the gasoline sales standard for a CVCN was
adopted, the number was picked out of the air with no statistics to back it
up, as were all of the other standards. He said that as the standards were
being made, it was discussed that they may need to address some of the issues
as they got into the actual development of the sites. He recalled that some
City Council members thought there should be four pumps, some two, some eight,
and four was what passed. He also pointed out that this was the only CVCN in
town that has any development on it, and that the other one in Sunset Ridge
has no buildings on it. Mr. Winkleblack said that he did not agree with staff
that going from four to five pumps would have an impact on the land or market
value of the houses across the street.
Mr. Osguthorpe said that whether or not the standard itself was well thought-out
is more of a text amendment issue. He said that the question before the Board
was whether it meets the variance criteria or not. He said that if the Board
disagrees with the criteria, it may suggest a text amendment be pursued through
the City Council. Mr. Calhoun asked if the applicants actually had the option
of asking for a text amendment, and said that he was trying to figure out the
options since the Board was constrained to certain parameters. Mr. Osguthorpe
said they did have that option. Mr. Beech asked if staff would support a text
amendment for five or six pumps. He said that if staff really didn’t want it,
that was fine, but asked that they not recommend getting a text amendment if
they would not support it.
Mr. Pelds pointed out that the ordinance does not address lot size, and said
that even if they bought the entire lot including the car wash, they could
still only have four pumps. He stated that Casey’s usually has six to eight
pumps on a one acre site, and that being asked to run four pumps on a 54,390
square foot lot creates an undue hardship. Board Member Taylor said he did
not think that purchasing too much land was a unique circumstance. Mr. Beech
said that the Casey’s store on Lincoln Way is being expanded because four pumps
did not meet the demand, despite nearby competition. He pointed out that this
site would have no competition, which he said was another reason to have more
pumps available.
CASE NO. 09-17
VARIANCE - CASEY’S MARKETING COMPANY, 3612 STANGE ROAD
Public Hearing on application for Variance from the maximum size of gasoline
service to allow five gasoline pump islands for the property located at
3612 Stange Road.
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Calhoun, that the Zoning Board of Adjustment adopt CASE
NO. 09-17, granting a variance from the maximum size of gasoline service to allow five
gasoline pump islands for the property located at 3612 Stange Road.
Board Member Weber stated that if the Board rejected the variance, the applicant would still
have the option to have the ordinance changed. Chair Link stated that she felt like the
applicants want to be a commercial location, not a neighborhood store like the zoning
intends. She said that it was difficult because the CVCN is brand new for Ames, and that the
City Council put a lot of thought into how to make a neighborhood node and not a
commercial use. Mr. Taylor said that he agreed, and that he thought that Mr. Winkleblack
was probably right that the number of islands was decided upon arbitrarily, but he said that it
is what it is. He said that he did not see unique circumstances presented that would justify
granting the variance.
Mr. Weber said that he sympathized with the applicants that going from four to five pumps
would not make a big difference, but that he was reticent of going against ordinance.
Roll call vote: 0-4. Motion declared denied unanimously.
CASE NO. 09-18
VARIANCE - CASEY’S MARKETING COMPANY, 3612 STANGE ROAD
Public Hearing on application for Variance from architectural standards to allow
a flat roof canopy for the property located at 3612 Stange Road.
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Calhoun, that the Zoning Board of Adjustment adopt
CASE NO. 09-18, approving the request for a variance from the architectural
standards to allow a flat roof canopy for the property located at 3612 Stange
Road.
Roll call vote: 2-2.
Voting Aye: Weber, Link. Voting Nay: Calhoun, Taylor.
Assistant City Attorney Judy Parks noted that since the Zoning Board requires
three concurring votes to have final action, the canopy variance would need
to come back before a full Board before any final action could be decided.
CASE NO. 09-19
VARIANCE - CASEY’S MARKETING COMPANY, 3612 STANGE ROAD
Public Hearing on application for Variance from the signage standard to allow
a 67 square foot sign on the building for the property located at 3612 Stange
Road.
Moved by Calhoun, seconded by Weber, that the Zoning Board of Adjustment adopt
CASE NO. 09-19, approving the request for a variance from the signage standard
to allow a 67 square foot sign on the building for the property located at
3612 Stange Road.
Ms. Link said she felt that a sign half the size of the proposal was not really
in scale with the building. Mr. Calhoun said that there is an ordinance that
states that a condition is required, and he felt that the applicant had not
presented evidence that showed that they qualify for the variance. He said
that if the applicant could demonstrate that they meet the criteria, then they
could grant the variance. Mr. Weber said that a half-size sign doesn’t seem
to fit with the architecture. Mr. Calhoun said that it was incumbent on the
applicant to design the architecture around the sign, rather than designing
the architecture and saying the sign doesn’t work. Mr. Taylor said that he
thought it was a City Council issue, and he agreed that 32 square feet was
out of scale, but that it was not within the ZBA’s purview to grant a variance
based on that.
Roll call vote: 0-4. Motion declared denied unanimously.
CASE NO. 09-20
VARIANCE - CASEY’S MARKETING COMPANY, 3612 STANGE ROAD
Public Hearing on application for Variance from the maximum driveway width to
allow a 45-foot-wide driveway for the property located at 3612 Stange Road.
Moved by Calhoun, seconded by Taylor, that the Zoning Board of Adjustment adopt
CASE NO. 09-20, approving the request for a variance from the maximum driveway
width to allow a 45-foot-wide driveway for the property located at 3612 Stange
Road.
Roll call vote: 4-0. Motion declared approved unanimously.
CASE NO. 09-15
SPECIAL USE PERMIT - CASEY’S MARKETING COMPANY, 3612 STANGE ROAD
Public Hearing on Special Use Permit to allow gasoline sales on property zoned
Convenience Commercial Node (CVCN) for the property located at 3612 Stange
Road.
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Weber, that the Zoning Board of Adjustment adopt
CASE NO. 09-15, granting a Special Use Permit to allow the proposed gasoline
sales at 3612 Stange Road, subject to the following conditions:
1. Gasoline service shall be limited to not more than four pump islands
serving not more than 8 vehicles at once.
2. The gasoline service canopy shall have a full pitched hip roof (with
roof planes meeting at a common ridge line), with shingle to match the
convenience store roof.
3. The gasoline service canopy building shall have brick wrapping on the
support columns to match the brick on the convenience store building.
4. Service access from Stange Road north of the Convenience Commercial Node
shall be prohibited.
5. All exterior lighting fixtures shall be fitted with flat lenses to ensure
that lenses do not extend below the solid and opaque housing of lighting
fixtures. No drop lenses shall be permitted on any exterior fixtures,
including those on the underside of the canopy building.
6. Lighting for exterior and window signs shall be limited to illumination
of the sign text only. Sign backgrounds shall be totally opaque, so that
no light emits through the sign panel’s background, except that the fuel
price signs may have an illuminated background that does not extend more
than two inches beyond the edge of the text, and provided that the fuel
price signs do not exceed 1.5 square feet each.
7. Hours of operation of the facility shall be limited to the hours of 6:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week.
8. Final site plan approval shall be obtained from the City of Ames Planning
& Housing Department.
9. The site shall be developed and operated according to all plans and
specifications as submitted and approved by the City.
Ms. Link offered a friendly amendment to condition number seven, to change
the hours of operation to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Mr. Taylor pointed out that condition number two was an issue that the Board
had not yet made a decision on. He stated that he did not like the flat roof
or the full pitched roof, and said that the full pitched roof seemed out of
scale with the neighborhood. He also said that it may have helped if they had
been presented with other alternatives. Mr. Osguthorpe suggested that inasmuch
as the variance needed to be continued, the Board could move in the direction
to have a canopy study done to see different alternatives.
There was discussion between the Board and Ms. Parks about what action to take
on the Special Use Permit in light of condition number two, and Ms. Parks advised
that the Board may wish to table the Special Use Permit vote until such time
as they have acted on the variance for the canopy, since the decision on the
variance will affect the condition in the Special Use Permit.
Moved by Link, seconded by Taylor, to table the Special Use Permit until such
time as the Board has acted on the variance to allow a flat roof canopy, as
well to as have the applicant and staff explore other options for the canopy
design.
Roll Call vote: 4-0. Motion declared approved unanimously.
COMMENTS: There were no comments by the Board.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m.
__________________________________ ___________________________________
Emily Burton, Recording Secretary Denise Link, Chair