Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/22/2011 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 22, 2011, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Chairperson Anfinson called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of Adjustment to order on Tuesday,March 22,2011,at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance were: Anfinson, Goldsberry,Sass,Mohr. Board members absent were: Holdiman.Staff in attendance was Aric Schroeder,Shane Graham,Chris Western,and Adam Poll. Councilperson Steve Schmitt was also in attendance. There were 10 people from the public in attendance. I. Approval of the Agenda for February 79, 7011 It was moved by Sass, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the agenda as submitted.Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the Minutec of the Regular Maating nn January 75 71111 It was moved by Goldsberry,seconded by Sass, to approve the minutes as submitted.Motion carried unanimously. III. fecicinn Ttem% 1. Request by Fidelity Towers,Inc. at the NE corner of E Ridgeway Avenue and W 11th St for approval of a major significance cellular tower,to allow for the construction of a new 120' monopole cellular tower and related equipment,located within Morris Park. Western gave the staff report noting that the applicant requests that the City approve the request to allow for the construction of a new 120' monopole cell tower and equipment on city owned property. Western noted that properties to the,south and east and west are zoned Residential,and have residential uses on them. Western noted that property owned by the Waterloo Schools to the north is also zoned residential but is being used for Kittrell School. Western noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood,as the tower would be located over 240' from the nearest house,which equals double the height of the tower. Western noted that a 6' tall chain link fence would surround the leased area where the base of the tower and equipment would be located. Also, there will be shrubs planted by the applicant around the equipment building to help screen equipment area. Western noted that vehicular use areas would be hard surfaced with asphalt.Western noted the proposed location was not within the floodplain and that existing utilities to serve the site. Western noted that the City of Waterloo Zoning Ordinance requires that any proposed freestanding tower structure within 500 feet of a 1 or 2 family dwelling lot shall go through the Planning, Programming&Zoning Commission for a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment,similar to a special permit. Western noted that the tower in question would be located adjacent to a single-family dwelling lot, and therefore the approval is required. Western noted that the proposed tower is a 120' Monopole structure with internal antenna's and room for co-locators. The applicant would be leasing a 2,500 SF area for the tower and equipment,which will be enclosed by a 6' tall chain link fence. Western noted that the applicant has noted that they are proposing the tower in order to provide better coverage in that area,and have provided coverage maps showing the coverage difference in the area with and without the proposed tower. Western noted that the Zoning Ordinance prefers that a new structure be co-located onto an existing tower or placed on a roof of an existing tall building,however the applicant has noted that no such locations were available. Western noted that although the tower would be located adjacent to a 1 or 2 family dwelling lot,it would appear that the tower would be located 240' from the nearest house to the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT February 22,2011 Minutes City then purchased the parcel with the existing building on it and another adjacent parcel in March of 2010,for a total parcel size of 11.08 acres. Graham noted that the City purchased the building site for the purpose of creating a new Public Works Facility at this location,which will house several City Departments in one location,as currently they are spread out in different locations.Those departments are Central Garage,which is currently located on Black Hawk Street,Traffic Operations,which is located on W 6th Street,and the Street Department,which is currently located on Black Hawk Street. Graham noted that the facility would also house most of the City of Waterloo's fleet vehicles,such as Engineering,Code Enforcement,Police,etc. so that they would not have to be parked in other locations, such as under the Highway 218 bridge. Graham noted that by having vehicles stored indoors instead of outdoors,there will be a cost savings by having less wear and tear and repairs on vehicles that normally sit outdoors. Graham noted that the Site Plan shows an existing building size of 26,740 SF.The plan then shows a new 101,904 SF addition,which will extend to the west and to the south of the existing building. Graham noted that there will also be a 22,069 SF mezzanine within the addition,for a total square footage of the Public Works Facility being 150,713 SF. The site plan shows two entrances to the property: one off of Glenwood Street and one off of Linden Avenue,both of which are existing entrances to the property. The parking lot would then be located to the south of the building addition,near the Glenwood Street entrance. Graham noted that the proposed Public Works Facility would be a positive addition to the City and to the neighborhood in which it is to be located.The Facility would combine several departments into one location,which could bring cost savings to the City by having those operations in one centralized location. Also,the ability to store the City's vehicle fleet in one location not only could be a cost saver, but it also frees up space in other locations for public parking(i.e.under Highway 218). Graham noted that staff recommended approval of the special permit request. It was moved by Mohr, seconded by Sass, to approve a special permit to allow for the construction of a 101,904 SF addition to the existing 26,760 SF building, to be used for the new City of Waterloo Public Works Facility.Motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST APPROVED 3. Request by Hajrudin Dzehverovic at 910 W 5th St for a variance to the 100' setback requirement for a limited alcohol sales use from a protected used,to allow for the establishment of a new limited alcohol sales use 0'from-a protected used(620-622-Grant Ave),100'-less then the minimum required. Poll gave the staff report noting that the property is located at 910 West 5th Street,near the intersection of Grant Avenue and West 5th Street. West 5th Street is classified as a Minor Arterial,and Grant Avenue is classified as Local Street. The property in question is zoned"C-2" Commercial District,and has been zoned as such since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1969.Poll noted that the.request to have alcohol sales at this location could have a negative impact on the surrounding commercial and residential area. Poll noted that currently,there are 2 non-limited alcohol sales uses directly across the street from the site in question,with a liquor store located at 919 West 5th Street,and a bar located at 931 West 5th Street. Poll noted that many surrounding residents and councilpersons have expressed concerns that alcohol related businesses are negatively impacting this particular area of the City,and their establishments appear to attract crime and other unwanted activities. Poll noted that staff feels that the use of the site as a restaurant selling a limited amount of alcoholic beverages would not be a negative impact to the surrounding area, as the majority of the income derived for the business would come from the sale of prepared food and non-alcoholic beverages. Poll noted that in this particular situation, the proposed restaurant at 910 West 5th Street is a limited alcohol sales establishment, as more than 50% of its gross income would be derived from the sale of 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT February 22,2011 Minutes outside seating area or consumption of alcohol outside of the building and the hours of the business are limited from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.Motion passed 3-0 with Sass abstaining. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 4. Request by Jubilee United Methodist Church at 1621 E 4th St for a variance to the 61 SF maximum size limit for all signage on the property in the"R-2" One and Two Family Residence District,to allow for the placement of a 10' x 8' (80 SF)wall sign(picture mural) on the property,together with an existing 24 SF sign,for a total of 104 SF,43 SF more then the maximum allowed. Poll gave the staff report noting the church is requesting to hang an 80 SF picture mural type sign in addition to their existing 24 SF church sign which would exceed the maximum size allowed by 43 SF. Poll noted that the site in question is on the southwest corner of Newell Street and East 4th Street.The property is zoned"R-2" One and Two Family Residence District and has been since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. Surrounding properties to the north,east and south are zoned"C-2" Commercial District. Properties to the west are zoned"R-2" One and Two Family Residence District. Poll noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood.Several commercial uses surround the church that would be allowed to have more signage then requested. Poll noted that Residential homes are near by,but would not be in view of the proposed signage. Poll noted that although the proposed picture mural meets the definition of a sign it is not a typical advertising sign, and the proposed mural would not appear to have a negative impact on the area. Poll noted that the church is in proximity to many commercially zoned properties that would not need a variance for this request. If the church was zoned"C-2" Commercial District,similar to the properties to the north, east,and south then the church would be allowed to cover up to 15% of the wall area and a variance would not be required.Staff would also note that the sign in question would face north away from any residences in the area,and given that the sign is a picture mural and not a advertising sign,it would not appear to have a negative impact. Poll noted that the applicant has noted that a smaller sign could not be easily read from the street and that the 8'x 10' would be required for easy viewing. Abraham Funchess noted that he was very excited about the positive universal visage. Funchess noted that this was a universal symbol of Justice,non-violence and love. It was moved by Sass,seconded by Mohr, to approve a variance request to the 61 SF maximum size limit for all signage on the property in the"R-2"One and Two Family Residence District, to allow for the placement of a-10'-x 8'(80 SF) wall sign(picture mural)-on the property, together with an existing 24 SF sign,for a total of 104 SF,43 SF more then the maximum allowed as many of the properties in that area are commercial, the sign would not face any residential homes, the sign is a picture mural design and it would not appear to have a negative impact on the area.Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED IV. Ad)rmrnment It was moved by Mohr, seconded by Goldsberry, to adjourn the meeting at 4:44 p.m.Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Adam Poll, Associate Planner 5