HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/25/2008 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON
NOVEMBER 25, 2008, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
Chairperson Holdiman called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of
Adjustment to order on Tuesday, November 25, 2008, at 4:00 p.m. Board members in
attendance were: Anfinson, Mixdorf,Goldsberry, Mohr and Holdiman. Staff in attendance
was Aric Schroeder and Shane Graham. There were 2 people from the public in attendance.
I. Approval of thP Agenda for November 95, 700S
It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion
carried unanimously.
II. Approval of the Mirwtec of the Regular Meeting on Oct 1. 74 7o0Q
a'
It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Mixdorf, to approve the minutes as submitted.
Motion carried unanimously.
III. Decision Items
1. Request by Iowa Wireless at 1621 E 4th St for approval of a major significance cell tower, to
allow for the construction of a new 65' monopole cell tower and related equipment, and a
variance to the setback requirement for the cell tower, to allow a setback of 50' from the
southwest property line, 80' less than the 130' minimum required, and a setback of 25' from
the east property line, 35' less than the 60' minimum required.
Graham gave the staff report, noting that the proposed tower is a 65' flagpole structure with
internal antenna's and room for co-locators, which would be located just south of the existing
building on the property. The applicant would be leasing a 540 SF area for the tower and
equipment, which will be enclosed by a 6' tall wood fence. 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. 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. The applicant has noted that the only building tall enough to
accommodate their needs would be the church building on the property in question, however
they did not want to jeopardize the roof structure, as the roof isn't in very good shape.
Graham noted that although the tower would be located adjacent to a 1 or 2 family dwelling lot,
it would appear that the tower would actually be located over 100' from the nearest house to the
west and southwest, and approximately 200' from the nearest house to the east. Even though the
tower would be located over 100' from the nearest house, it is a predominately residential area.
For that reason, the applicant has proposed that the tower be of a flagpole design, which would
lessen the visual impact on the surrounding area. The required setback from all property lines for
a new tower is 1/2 the tower height, 60' minimum. The tower will be located 25' from the
commercial property to the east, so it would be 35' closer to the property line than the minimum
required. That property is just a parking area for the commercial building to the southeast, and
that building would be located approximately 100' from the tower, which would be more than
the height of the tower, so there wouldn't appear to be a negative impact on that property.
Also, the setback from a 1 or 2 family dwelling lot is 500', except that it can be reduced to twice
the tower height if the applicant can demonstrate that no other location in the immediate vicinity
can meet the requirement. It would appear that there are no other locations in the immediate
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
November 25,2008 Minutes
have a negative impact on the area and would appear to be the minimum variance needed to
make possible the reasonable use of the property, and the property would appear to be unique,
given the irregular shape of the lot, as well as the amount of excess right-of-way between the
paved portion of La Porte Road and the property line.
Dan Levi, the consultant for the applicant, noted that they want to stay at that location, but they
need to expand their business. Anfinson questioned what work the company does, and Levi
indicated that they supply truck parts, noted that they are a distributor only and doesn't
manufacture parts. Anfinson questioned how many employees worked there, and Levi noted that
he hasn't seen more than 3 employees there at a time.
It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the variance request to allow
for the construction of a 4,466 SF addition to the existing building, with a front yard setback of
0', 25' less than the minimum required, and a rear yard setback of 10'7", 3'2"and 39'3" less than
the minimum required. Motion carried unanimously.
VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED.
IV. Discussion Items
There were no discussion items.
V. Adjourrlmant
It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Mixdorf, to adjourn the meeting at 5:09 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Shane M. Graham,
Planner II
3