Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-08-19-Board of Adjustment MinutesThe Board discussed whether or not the previous correspondence provided by the Development Services Director,dated January 30,2009 constituted a decision of the administrative official as specified within Section 301.30,Board of Adjustment of the Waukee Municipal Code.I MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 19,2009 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Call to Order.The August 19,2009 Board of Adjustment meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m.by Chairman Oxenford. Roll Call.The Chairman asked for a roll call and the following Board Members were present:Oxenford,Drees,Ellis.Absent:Colter,Phillips.Others in attendance: Development Services Director Brad Deets,Code Compliance Officer Dennis Dowell, Council Representative Mike Watts. Approve the August 19,2009 Agenda.Motion by Board Member Drees,seconded by Board Member Ellis to "Approve the agenda for August 19,2009."Ayes:Oxenford, Ellis,Drees.Nays:None.Motion carried. Approve the July 17,2009 Board of Adjustment Minutes.Motion by Board Member Ellis,seconded by Board Member Drees to "Approve the July 16,2009 Board of Adjustment Minutes."Ayes:Oxenford,Ellis,Drees.Nays:None.Motion carried. Application for Appeal to the Interpretation of Section 301.9 of the Municipal Code related to the permitted use of refining,manufacturing and sale of wine within an A-I Agricultural District.Chairman Oxenford stated that this was an application for interpretation of the A-I Agricultural District provisions related to wineries as requested by Kurt Schade,owner of the property located at 1230 Warrior Lane,Waukee,Iowa. Chairman Oxenford stated that first the Board must determine if the applicant followed the appropriate timeframe for appeal as specified within Section 301.30,Board of Adjustment of the Waukee Municipal Code which states that "Appeals to the Board may be taken by any person aggrieved,or by any official,department,board or bureau of the City of Waukee affected by any decision of the administrative official.Such appeal shall be taken within ten (10)days by filing with the administrative official and with the Board a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof." Oxenford stated that the applicant has based the appeal upon a letter provided by Jeff Kooistra,City Administrator,dated July 7,2009 stating that the refining/manufacturing and sale of wine is not currently permitted within the A-I Zoning District.Oxenford stated that the staff report included correspondence prepared by Brad Deets, Development Services Director,dated January 30,2009 which stated that "the sale of wine on your property would first require a zoning ordinance amendment." Eric Eide,attorney for the applicant,808 Central Avenue,Suite 619,Fort Dodge,Iowa 50501,stated that their appeal was based upon the letter provided by the City Administrator,dated July 7,2009 and did not think that the letter provided on January 30, 2009 by the Development Services Director constituted the decision of the administrative official as specified within 301.30 of the Waukee Municipal Code. It was the general consensus of the Board that they felt the applicant met the provisions for appeal and that they were interested in further considering the appeal.Chairman Oxenford asked the applicant where they felt the use of a winery including refining/manufacturing and sale of wine was permitted within 301.9 of the Waukee Municipal Code. Eric Eide representing the applicant argued that the provisions for a winery fell within the limits of301.9A(I)which specifies that a principal permitted use within the A-I District includes Agriculture and usual agricultural buildings and structures,but not including commercial livestock feed lots,poultry farms,grain storage and drying facilities.He further stated that the definition for Agriculture within 301.3 of the Waukee Municipal Code was "the use of land for purposes of growing the usual farm products, including vegetables,fruit,trees and grains;pasturage;dairying;animal and poultry husbandry;and the necessary accessory uses for treating or storing the produce;provided that the operation of such accessory uses shall be secondary to that of the regular agricultural activities."He argued based upon this definition,that the use including refming/manufacturing and sale of wine was permitted. Eide presented the Board an excerpt of Section 441.21 Subsection 12 of the Iowa State Code which deals with valuation and assessment of property,Eide stated that in his view the City was attempting to classify this use as a commercial use,which is similar to what assessors were attempting to do when it carne to valuation for tax purposes.In 2002,the Iowa Legislature,clarified that agricultural property included the real estate of a vineyard and buildings used in connection with the vineyard including any building used for processing wine if such building is located on the same parcel as the vineyard. Eide also presented a copy of section 71.1 (3)of the Iowa Department of Revenue Administrative Rules which states that as it relates to assessment practices,vineyards and any buildings located on a vineyard and used in connection with the vineyard shall be classified as agricultural real estate if the primary use of the land and buildings is an activity related to the production or sale of wine. Board Member Drees questioned the context between land use and property tax assessments based upon the information provided by the applicant.Drees also stated that he didn't necessarily see the connection that treating and storing produce which is Eide further went on to state that he felt the sale of the product on the property was permitted both within the context ofthe principal permitted uses within the Code as well as the accessory permitted uses within the Code.He stated there are other permitted uses within the Code that certainly would include sales of the product on the property such as nurseries,greenhouses and truck gardens. permitted based upon the definition within the Waukee Municipal Code constituted the processing and manufacturing of grapes into wine. Board Member Ellis indicated that zoning is a local decision made by the City of Waukee and he didn't see where the evidence presented by the applicant from the State Code and Department of Revenue had any basis or control over land use and zoning. Eide stated that the information provided by the State Code and Department of Revenue was meant to clarify and further support the definition within the Waukee Municipal Code for Agriculture as it relates to including the refining/manufacturing and sale of wine.He stated that the treating and storing of these grapes was the fermentation and wine making process as these were not table grapes. The applicant,Kurt Schade,1230 Warrior Lane,gave a brief history of how the property has evolved over the years.He stated that in 2005 he met with City staff to discuss his plans for the property and since then has invested a substantial amount of money in the property and is now at the point where he wants to move beyond just growing the grapes on the property.He stated that his original plan was to apply for a Class "C"native wine permit which allows a native winery to sell native wine and beer at retail for consumption both on and off winery premises and requires local authority approval,After some discussion with City staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission,he scaled back his plans to a Class "A"Native Wine Permit which allows for native wineries to sell wine for off-premise consumption when sold at the winery but does not require local authority approvaL He referred to an email provided by Brad Deets,Development Services Director which stated that his office had confirmed with the State of Iowa that a Class A Native Wine Permit did not require local jurisdiction approvaL Eide presented a letter that was provided by the Alcoholic Beverages Division which clarified the differences between Class A and Class C Native Wine Permits. Drees reviewed the letter provided by the City Administrator which stated that the City was interested in exploring the prospect of a winery within the City and asked about the zoning amendment changes that were proposed earlier this year and what the outcome was of that process.He questioned whether or not the applicant had further pursued working with the City to address the issues and concerns as dicussed within the letter dated July 7,2009. Eide indicated that in their mind this was the next step in asking for an interpretation of the language within the ordinance through the Board of Adjustment.He indicated that they have not dicussed with the City any other options at this point.Schade indicated that he was not really involved with the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance earlier this year.He stated that he was not able to attend the meeting with the City Council and was not aware of the second consideration of the changes where the City Council voted the ordinance amendment down. Old Business.None Deets clarified that the intent of the zoning ordinance changes was to define a winery and the provisions for the sale of wine within an A-I zoning district. Chairman Oxenford introduced to letters of support for the request from adjoining property owners including a letter from Alan Wise,1080 I st Street Place and Firtz and Jeannie Sheldon,170 Park-view Drive.Oxenford asked if any other correspondence had been received on this matter.Deets stated that was the only correspondence received.LJ Witte,200 Parkview Crossing Drive,sitting in the audience also wanted to offer his support for the request.He questioned who was notified regarding this hearing as he had talked to several people that were not aware of the meeting tonight.Deets stated that property owners within 200 feet of the property under consideration were notified of the request. Council Representative Mike Watts stated that there is more to this story than what is being told to the Board.He stated that he could sit here for two hours and review with the Board all that has occurred as it relates to this property. Eide took issue with Watts comments,stating he didn't think it was fair to his client to make such statements to the Board but then not clarify with specific information. Chairman Oxenford reiterated the request before them tonight was the interpretation of the language within Section 301.9 ofthe Waukee Municipal Code related to agricultural zoning and whether or not the language included the use of refming,manufacturing and sale of wine within the A-I zoning district.Oxenford stated that he felt the process of changing the grapes into wine was permitted based upon the language within the Ordinance but only for those crops that were located on the property where the process was being done.He stated that he did not feel the Ordinance included language that would allow for the sale of the wine on the property within an A-I zoning district. Discussion amongst the Board followed. Motion was made by Board Member Drees and seconded by Board Member Phillips as to the interpretation of301.9 of the Waukee Municipal Code that the Ordinance does allow for the refining and manufacturing of the grapes located on the specific property where the refining and manufacturing is being completed only but that the language does not include provisions for the sale of the wine once it has been made on the premises within the A-I zoning district.Ayes:Ellis,Oxenford,Drees.Nays:None.Motion approved. New Business.None Adjournment.Motion by Board Member Drees,seconded by Board Member Ellis,to adjourn at 6:37 p.m.Ayes:Drees,Ellis,Oxenford.Nays:None.Motion carried. Meeting adjourned. j Attest: Jeff Kooistra,City Administrator/Clerk