Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/27/2010 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON JULY 27,2010, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Vice Chairperson Mohr called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of Adjustment to order on Tuesday,July 27, 2010, at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance were: Anfinson (4:16 p.m.), Goldsberry, Mohr and Holdiman. Staff in attendance was Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Shane Graham, Tim Andera, Chris Western and Adam Poll. There were 20 people from the public in attendance. I. Approval of the Agenda for July 77 701f1 It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting on June 77, 2010 It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Holdiman, to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Decision TtPms 1. Request for a special permit to establish a 45,000 SF mini-storage facility within the existing building at 3561 University Avenue,located in the "C-2" Zoning District. Graham gave the staff report, noting the applicant requests approval of the special permit to allow for the existing 45,000 SF empty building to be used for an indoor mini-storage facility. Graham noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood, as the use would be located in the existing commercial building and that surrounding uses were also used for commercial purposes. Graham noted that the property in question has been zoned"C-2" Commercial District since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and the area was developed with commercial uses during the 1960's through the 1970's. Graham noted that the Future Land Use Map designates this site as Commercial. This request would be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. Graham noted that unlike traditional mini-storage facilities, the storage space will be located within an existing building, and not within a stand alone, garage type of building with numerous doors accessed from outside. Graham noted that a mini-storage facility is permitted in the "C-2" Commercial District,however,it requires a special permit first,approved by the Board of Adjustment. Graham noted that this amendment requiring the special permit approval was added to the Zoning Ordinance on April 12, 2004, and was intended to give more review over the location of proposed mini-storage facilities, ensuring their compatibility with surrounding uses, as some mini-storage facilities can become unsightly, and the intent was that they should be located behind other commercial developments and not in high visibility areas. Graham noted that since the proposed storage facility is being proposed within an existing commercial building, and located within a commercial area, the request for the special permit to establish the use at this location would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area. Graham noted that at the Planning &Zoning Commission meeting on July 6, 2010, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of this request. Graham noted that staff recommends the request be approved as the request would not have a negative impact on the area, as it is to establish a use in an existing commercial building in an existing commercial area and the request is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan, and is a good infill development project. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 27,2010 Minutes require a setback of 47'. Andera noted that the new addition would be 45'6" from the west property line that abuts Greenhill Road,reducing the required setback by 1'6". The current building is 52' from the west property line, and the new addition will extend 6'6" beyond that, however, Andera noted that staff believes that approval of the variance request to the setback requirement would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood, as the new addition would not be moving closer to any nearby residential uses. All other setbacks for the new addition meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Andera noted that staff recommends the special permit be approved as the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area and the request is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, and would be a good infill development project but subject to the final site plan meeting all applicable city codes, regulations, etc. including, but not limited to, parking, landscaping, storm water detention, etc. Goldsberry asked how the Engineering Department requirement for storm water detention affects the Board of Adjustment decision. Andera noted that it would not and a storm water detention plan would have to be submitted and approved before a permit is issued. It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Holdiman, to approve the special permit to allow for the construction of an addition to the existing church at 2211 Maynard Avenue, as well as a variance to the 47'setback requirement from all property lines for a religious facility, to allow for the new addition to have a 45'6"setback, 1'6" less than the minimum required. Motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 3. Request by Struxture Architects on behalf of the Hawkeye Community College Foundation for a Special Permit for the establishment of a Regional Transportation Training Facility and construction of a related 80' x 130' 10,400 sq. ft. garage/classroom building, located directly to the south of 6315 Hammond Avenue. Western gave the staff report noting that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area, which consists of Agricultural land. Western noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on traffic or pedestrian conditions in the area, as there are very few homes in the area, limiting pedestrian traffic. Western noted that the site is zoned "A- 1" Agricultural District, and that the area in question was located in the Zone-C,no floodplain. Western noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires that all public institutions obtain a special permit issued by the Board of Adjustment after a recommendation of the Planning, Programming and Zoning Commission in order to ensure that the request meets necessary conditions and safeguards for its operation. Western noted that it would appear that the site plan submitted by Hawkeye Community College would meet those necessary conditions, which include adequate space for parking and limited impact on traffic. Western noted that the training facility to be built in three phases will provide hands on instruction for driving large trucks, school buses, motorcycles and a variety of other vehicles. Phase I includes the drive way and a 600' x 300' concrete slab, connecting the site to Hammond Avenue and storm water retention basin and should be constructed by the end of September. Phase II will consist of 26' wide perimeter roads and a student parking area and Phase III will consist of a building for classroom space and semi- tractor parking. Western noted that Hammond Avenue between Orange Road and Washburn Road is a seal coat street, which may not hold up to truck traffic to the site and that the Engineering Department concurred and expressed concerns with the long-term effects of truck 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 27,2010 Minutes committed to using the route to the south and would not use Hammond north of the facility. Holdiman asked if trucks would be driving on Orange Road. Halver noted that it's a possibility that trucks could use Orange Road or any road that does note have a truck embargo,but noted typically the trucks would be traveling on more significant roadways then Orange. Paul Ackerman, 866 E Orange Road, noted that Hammond and Orange Road intersection is a problem, and if more students will be traveling this route to go to the Trucking Facility, some sort of traffic signaling device needs to be installed at that intersection. Ackermann suggested a road be created that led from the Hawkeye Campus directly to the Trucking Facility. Rex Boatman, 930 E Orange, noted his concern that traffic backs up past his home, as well as noting that there are many accidents due to the speed of drivers on Orange Road and the need to control the speed. Boatman also noted his concerns for the drainage in the area after the Trucking Facility is constructed,noting that the excess drainage could affect the residents in the area. Boatman also wondered where the tax money would come from if road improvements were made. Charlene Ackerman, 866 E Orange Road,noted that the intersection of Hammond and Orange is very bad during the peak school times and noted that traffic is at time backed up to their home. Ackerman noted that there should be some sort of signaling device in place at the intersection. Larry Weile of AECOM, noted that existing truck traffic always uses Orange Road and this trucking facility would remove some of the truck traffic from Orange Road. Ackerman asked how many students would be traveling from Hawkeye Community College to the Truck Facility. Holdiman asked if all the truck-training activities for Hawkeye would use the new Truck Facility. Halver noted that once the facility is completed all the truck training will be at the facility, until then some of the classroom work would be done at the Hawkeye Campus. Paul Ackerman questioned areas on the site plan labeled as future development. Dan Channer, Structure Architects, noted that these areas were to be developed for other types of driver training. Hoskins noted that there is a significant traffic problem now and it needs to be addressed before it is added to. Charlene Ackerman asked why the access to the Trucking Facility could not be located directly south from Hawkeye Community College. Channer noted that the school did not own the property. Hoskins asked if the traffic had been counted, Anderson noted that both the City and IDOT traffic counts are done every few years. Anfinson noted his concern that some questions have not been answered and stated that he would either support denial or tabling the request. Holdiman expressed his concern about Hammond Road being able to handle the truck traffic and would support tabling the issue till that is addressed. Charmer noted that if the motion was tabled Hawkeye Community College would have to re-bid the project. It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by Anfinson, to table the request for a Special Permit 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 27,2010 Minutes the applicant could not easily construct the grocery store, while maintaining the minimum 20' rear yard setback. Andera noted that the site is of an irregular shape, and due to that, it would appear difficult for the applicant to be able to provide 5 parking stalls per 1,000 SF of floor area upon the site. Andera noted that the request would appear to be unique, as the irregular shaped lot does restrict the ability to provide the necessary parking stalls required for the grocery store, as well as, the previous grocery store operated with a parking/square footage ratio less than what is being proposed by Hy-Vee. Andera noted that although the applicant would appear to have the enough parking provided, the plan submitted is conceptual and may lose some of the parking space and depending on the amount lost would still require a variance to the number of parking spaces provided. Andera noted that approval of the variance could set a precedent, however, given the uniqueness of the request, it would not appear to have a negative impact upon the surrounding area. Andera noted that Staff has heard concerns from the property owner of 3251 West 4th Street,noting they have a concern that overflow parking that could potentially be created by the store would spill over onto their property. Andera noted that staff recommends the request that the variance to the 20' rear yard setback requirement to allow for a 10' rear yard setback and a variance to the 5 parking spaces required for every 1,000 SF of floor area for a supermarket to allow for a 4 parking spaces for every 1,000 SF of floor area be approved as it would not appear to have a negative impact on the area and the request would appear to be unique, as the irregular shaped lot does restrict the ability to provide the necessary parking stalls required for the grocery store, as well as, the previous grocery store operated with a parking/square footage ratio less than what is being proposed by Hy-Vee. Andera noted that other commercial buildings within the surrounding area have reduced building setbacks, similar to what Hy-Vee is proposing. Anfinson noted that he would abstain from the vote as he had a conflict of interest. Tony Tomromanvic, 3251 W 4th Street, noted his concern with employees and patron parking in his parking lot and noted that he owns a lot across the street and would let Hy-Vee employees park there as part of a shared parking arrangement. Tomromanvic noted that there is a reason why the code requires 5 parking stalls for every 1,000 SF of floor area. Holdiman noted that based on the square footage of the retail area, a variance would not be required. Jeff Stein, Hy-Vee Stores, noted that there could be some changes that take away some of the parking spaces so they are still asking that the parking variance be granted. Robert Coyle, TNT Rentals, noted that he welcomes the addition of the Hy-Vee store,but expressed concern about the number of staff, noting that similar sized Fairway stores had 30 or more people working at peak hours. Coyle noted that this Hy-Vee would seem to need a similar number of staff and the staff alone could take up about one third of the parking spaces available. Coyle noted his belief that lowering the parking requirements from 5 spaces required per 1,000 SF of floor area to 4 spaces required per 1,000 SF of floor area is a bad idea. Coyle also noted concern about the entrance on 4th Street as the drive is shared and could hamper truck traffic to his business. Stein noted the number of employees for a store this size is 12-15 on a normal day, and maybe up to 20 at busy times. 7 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 27,2010 Minutes Anfinson questioned why staff would require a building be constructed at the end of the 2-year variance. Anderson noted that the proposed ordinance when adopted would not allow a hard surfaced parking lot to exist without a principal building present. Anderson noted that this ordinance would hopefully be adopted within the next year and staff did not want this location to be grandfathered in if this variance is extended for any reason. Mohr questioned if customers would be able to view cars on this lot. Jamie Thompson, Dan Deery Motors, noted that customers could view cars on this lot and that the company had plans to construct a building at this location in the future. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Holdiman to approve a 2-year temporary variance to the hard surface parking requirements to allow for the construction of a parking lot on the property using recycled asphalt, which is a non-approved hard surface with the conditions that the site must meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements for hard surface parking within 2 years and the site must have a principal building constructed or building permit to construct the building within 2 years, or the parking lot is to be removed. Motion carried unanimously. TEMPORARY VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 6. Request by Steve Smith for a variance to the 4' maximum fence height requirement in a front yard, to allow for the construction of an 8' privacy fence located within the required front yard of the property. Western noted that the applicant wishes to construct an 8' fence in the front yard of his property at 3905 Oak Park Circle but along the rear yards of the homes addressed off of Wembly. Western noted that the purpose of the required maxim 4' fence in the front is to provide visibility for neighbors on either side of you as they are backing out there driveways and to maintain attractive residential character of a neighborhood. Western noted that this particular request would not obstruct the view of neighbors as the fence would be located along their rear property lines and this portion of the applicant's front yard does note abut the road and would not have a negative impact on the area. Western noted that the property is zoned "R-1" One and Two Family Residence District and the request would appear to be no impact on traffic conditions. Western noted that Staff has hear no opposition to the request and the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the area as it would not be any different than if the homeowners on Wembley Road where to construct fence along the rear of there properties which they would legally be allowed to do. Western noted that staff would recommend the approval of the variance as it would not appear to have a negative impact on the area, as the property is uniquely situated facing the rear of other homes and therefore,would be no different than if the properties addressed off of Wembly Road where to build a privacy fence along their rear property lines. Steve Smith of 3905 Oak Park Circle noted that his front windows of his home face the rear yards of their neighbors on Wembly Road. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Holdiman to approve the variance to the 4'maximum fence height requirement in a front yard, to allow for the construction of an 8'privacy fence located within the required front yard of the property. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 9