Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/27/2007 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 27, 2007, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Chairperson Holdiman called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of Adjustment to order on Tuesday, November 27, 2007, at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance were: Holdiman,Goldsberry, Mixdorf, Mohr and Anfinson. Mixdorf left the meeting at 5:00 p.m. Staff in attendance was Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder and Shane Graham. There were 20 people from the public in attendance. I. Approval of the Agenda for NnvPmhir 77, 7(1117 It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Mixdorf, to approve the agenda as submitted.Motion carried unanimously. II. .Approval of the Mimitcc of the T?eghlar Meeting nn C)rtohPr T 7(107 It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the minutes as submitted.Motion carried unanimously, with Holdiman abstaining. III. Decicion TtPms 1. Request by Craig Ceilley on behalf of Heartland Vineyard Church at 715 E 4th St for a special permit to allow for the establishment of a church facility in an existing building in the "C-2" Commercial District, a variance to the 26' setback requirement from all property lines for a church, to allow for 1' setback and a 20' setback, and a variance to the 56 required parking stalls for a church,to allow for 45 parking stalls, 11 less than the minimum required. Graham gave the staff report, noting that the site plan shows the interior layout of the existing building, including the worship area, as well as additional classrooms and offices. Another site plan provided shows the parking layout on the property,with 45 parking stalls shown. The Zoning Ordinance requires that a church provide 1 parking stall per 4 seats of maximum occupancy, and the Building Department has determined that the maximum occupancy is 222 persons. Therefore, the Zoning Ordinance would require that 56 parking stalls be required. The site plan only shows 45 stalls, so the property would be deficient of the required number of parking stalls by 11. The applicants are requesting that a variance to the parking requirements be granted,noting that the church would seat 155 people and that the additional stalls would not be needed. Graham noted that a variance would also be required to the setback requirements for a church, as the Zoning Ordinance states that a church must have a building setback of"2 feet per 1 foot of building height". The building in question is 13' tall, and therefore the setback must be 26' from all property lines. It would appear that the building is only 1' from the east property line, and approximately 20' from the property line abutting the residential home to the north. Since the building has existed for some time, the variance request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Graham indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as the request would reuse an otherwise vacant building, and would not have a negative impact on the surrounding area, and the request is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map. Craig Ceilley, who is on the board of the church,noted that they purchased the building from the Boys and Girls Club, and that the existing building would work great for them, and that they are trying to meet all the requirements. It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the special permit to allow for BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT November 27,2007 Minutes permit has been issued for a wall sign along the front of the building facing the west. The applicant has also requested an additional 29.8 SF sign along the side of the north wall. The west wall is the front of the building, and has space for advertising for each tenant. In addition, Starbucks Coffee,which is at the south end of the building, also has signage on the south and east wall. Therefore the proposed sign on the north wall would be the fourth wall with signage. The Zoning Ordinance provides that only three sides of the building can have signage, therefore the variance is required. The applicant has indicated that no additional signage will be allowed on the east wall, which only has one small 7 SF sign advertising Starbucks Coffee. The fact that only one small sign would be located on a fourth wall could be considered unique,however this uniqueness would only apply if no additional signage is allowed on the east wall. Schroeder indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, due to the uniqueness of the fourth wall having only one existing small sign, and the potential lack of reasonable return due to low visibility, and subject to the condition that the east wall shall be limited to the existing 7 SF sign and that no additional signage shall be allowed on the east wall. This provision shall not restrict the placement of the business name and or logo on the entrance doors on the east wall for directional purposes. Anfinson indicated that he has done legal work in the past for the property owner, and therefore would not participate in any discussions and would abstain from voting. Mason Fromm with Signs and Designs spoke,noting that the owner would comply with the condition that no additional signs be located on the back of the building. The new tenant and owner of The Great Frame Up spoke, noting that the additional sign would give added visibility for his store. It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by Mohr, to approve the variance request to allow for a sign to be located on a 4th side of the building, subject to the condition that the east wall shall be limited to the existing 7 SF sign and that no additional signage shall be allowed on the east wall.Motion carried unanimously, with Anfinson abstaining. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 4. Request by Shane Bohlmann at 3961 Logan Ave for a variance to the Off-Premise Sign regulations requiring a monopole design, requiring a 20' front yard setback, and requiring that the sign be located more than 200' from any residential use, to allow for the reuse of an existing on-premise sign, with a two-pole design, located closer than 200' from a residential use and less than 20' from the front property line. Schroeder gave the staff report,noting that the applicant recently converted an existing on- premise advertising sign into an off-premise advertising sign on the property. An off-premise sign is permitted in the "C-2" Commercial District,however the Ordinance requires that they be constructed of a monopole steel design, with the outermost edge of the sign panel setback from the immediate abutting street right of way line or property line equal to the setback of the underlying zoning district (20' for "C-2"), and shall not be located closer than 200 feet from a residential zoning district or from the property boundaries of any property which has a principal residential use. Schroeder noted that the off-premise sign in question is not of a monopole design, is located less than 20' from the property line along Logan Avenue, and is located less than 200' from a residence to the south at 3947 Logan Avenue. The applicant has submitted a petition in support of the request, as well as a statement as to why the variance is being requested and how he feels the request meets the criteria for issuance of a variance. The applicant indicates that the zoning ordinance restricts the land to a non-productive use,noting that the property was formerly the Budget Motel and is currently used as leased apartments. 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT November 27,2007 Minutes a 17,500 sq. ft. expansion onto the existing 30,000 sq. ft. building. The existing vehicular use areas are not hard surfaced, but are instead gravel drive areas. The Waterloo Industrial Development Association built the building in 1994 as a spec building. Accurate Gear took ownership of the site shortly thereafter and has been growing ever since. When the original site was built, hard surfacing was only required for the parking spaces. There is currently a parking pad area for the parking of pedestrian vehicles, but the remaining drives and loading areas are gravel. When the 2004 expansion occurred, the vehicular use expansion area was also not used for parking but only for truck loading and unloading. The Zoning Ordinance provisions at that time still only required parking areas be hard surfaced, but did not specify areas for truck loading and unloading. Thus,that area is also a gravel surface. The current Zoning Ordinance was amended to specify that all vehicular use areas be hard surfaced to clarify that drive access points, parking spaces, as well as other areas be hard surfaced. Anderson noted that the current expansion includes gravel surfacing around the new addition as it is a warehousing addition and will have a truck dock on its easterly side. The original building will still have the main loading dock, so not a lot of truck traffic,or any other traffic, is anticipated to use the new vehicular use area. This new area would have to travel over at least 350' of existing gravel surfacing to be reached from anyone entering the site. The applicant does not believe it makes a lot of sense to hard surface an area that has to travel over large amounts of gravel surfacing to reach it. The hard surfacing requirements are in place for drainage, aesthetics, as well as dust control, etc. The other businesses in this area also have large gravel areas so it will not be incompatible with other development sites in the area. The applicant notes the low amount of traffic that will use the area and the presence of a 40' concrete apron for the loading dock area as proof that dust control will not be an issue. The addition is primarily out of view due to its location behind the original building and the 2004 expansion. In essence, the building will appear the same as before, only longer. Anderson indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, based upon its uniqueness of the existing gravel drive area being the only means of access to the new area, and due to the low volume of use for the expansion area as a delivery purpose. Mixdorf questioned if there was any hard surfaced parking areas, as the pictures provided show many cars parked on grass. Anfinson questioned if there was any hard surfaced parking for employees,and Schroeder indicated that the site plan showed 7 concrete parking stalls. Mixdorf questioned if the Board could require hard surfacing on everything, and Anderson noted they could not, as some of it is grandfathered in,but staff can check to make sure that there are enough hard surfaced parking stalls provided. Anfinson questioned if there was a way to make sure they are providing adequate hard surfaced employee parking, and Anderson noted that staff could check into it. Mixdorf commented that he would like someone representing the company to be at the meeting to answer some of the questions that they have, and recommended tabling the request. It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by Anfinson, to table the request for one month to allow the applicant to be present at the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST TABLED. 6. Request by Rick Parker at 1107 Bishop Ave for a variance to the accessory structure provision, to allow for a 30'x60' (1,800 SF) accessory structure to be constructed with vertical metal siding. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the applicant is proposing to construct the 30'x60' (1,800 SF) building with vertical metal siding,which the Zoning Ordinance does not allow. That 5 • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT November 27,2007 Minutes additions being the only nearby residential subdivision, located farther to the east. To the west and south across Cedar Terrace Drive are industrial uses, and the homes immediately adjacent to the property in question are also located on large lots, while the Cedar River borders the property to the north. The property is screened from all adjacent properties by trees, as well as a drainage way the divides the properties to the south. The building would be constructed in the front yard,but in looking at the property, the house is located near the back of the property where there are many trees and close to the river, making it very difficult to not construct an accessory structure in the front yard. Since there is so much area between the front of the house, the request would not appear to be detrimental to the area. The actual enclosed storage area of the building would be 30'x60' (1,800 SF),which would meet the size limit requirement, however, it would have a lien-to extending 10' off of the side, thus making it 2,400 SF in size. Although the maximum size limit is capped at 1,800 SF, 6% of the lot would allow for a 7,997 SF building. The size requirement was put in place to not have accessory structures overly dominate a residential lot and look out of place. However, this lot is over 3 acres in size, and would not appear to dominate the lot or look out of place. The building would also have a height of 16'6", which is 1'6" taller than the maximum allowed in association with a one-story house. Since the property is not visible from adjacent properties, and is on a very large lot, exceeding the height limit by only 1'6" would not appear to have a negative impact on the area. If the house were to be two-stories in height, the maximum height limit would then be 18', which the building would then be in compliance. Also, the building would have vertical metal siding. Since the lot is screened from all sides, and is in a fairly remote area surrounded by large lots,the siding request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area as well. In reviewing past requests for variances to exceed the accessory building limit and to allow vertical metal siding, there have been similar requests approved when the proposed structures were less than 6% of the total lot and also typically when the property was not in the middle of a residential area, and on the fringe of the community adjacent to or within an agricultural or industrial area as this request would appear to be. Graham indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the area, as the property is located in a fairly rural area near the outskirts of the city, and the request would not appear to alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and The 2,400 SF of total accessory structures on the property would not exceed 6% of the total lot area, which is 7,997 SF. Craig Bravender spoke on the request,noting that the surrounding property owners have signed a petition in support of the request. Holdiman questioned if you could see the house from Cedar Terrace Drive, and Bravender noted that you could not. It was moved by Mohr, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the variance to allow for the construction of a 40'x60'(2,400 SF) accessory structure with vertical metal siding and with a height of 16'6", as it would not have a negative impact on the area, and the structure would not exceed 6% of the total lot size. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUESTS APPROVED. 8. Request by Tim & Lori Schneider at 464 Loma St for a variance to the 8' maximum height limit for a fence, to allow for the existing fence recently constructed at 9'6", 1'6" taller than the maximum height allowed, to remain in its current location. Anderson gave the staff report,noting that the request is to allow for a variance to the height of a fence along the north side of the home. The home faces to the east along Loma Street, and has other residential homes to all other directions. The request would allow for a 9.5' fence on the 7 ' BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT November 27,2007 Minutes the wall or fence is erected". With such a requirement, a fence in this location on top of a retaining wall of 3.5 feet would be limited to a height of 6.25' (8' minus half the retaining wall). The fence does go back deeper than the home. The variance request should cover the entire fence built to date, which would go back further than the home and deck, and the applicant is proposing to extend the fence further to the west. The assertion that it is not"raising" the grade and is "extending" the existing grade along the house would not apply to the westerly portion of the fence,west of the house and deck, as the change in grade between the property in question and the property to the north lessens to the west. Fill material used in this area would be higher than the grade on both sides, so any additional extension of the fence should be stepped down to meet the proper height of 8' above the original natural grade in this area. Anderson noted that staff recommends approval of the request,based upon its uniqueness of the sloping conditions at the site, specifically from the northern retaining wall to the house foundation, and the intent of the Zoning Ordinance would still appear to be met, as the fence would appear as an 8' privacy fence in relation to the height of the home, and from within the property in question. Tim Schneider spoke on the request,noting that he has lived there since 1991, and has been in front of the Board now 3 times, and submitted a petition of support. Schneider noted that the previous deck had no clearance below it and was at the same height as the ground along the garage and was leveled. Schneider noted that it was discussed in detail regarding the height of the fence and the change of grade. Schneider noted that he agrees with the staff analysis. Schroeder passed out a letter to the Board from Steve Patin at 473 Loma St, who is opposed to the request. Neil Miller,433 Loma St,noted that he has lived there for 52 years, and thinks that the variance should be granted. Miller noted that there have been no problems in the neighborhood until about 2 years ago. Diane Johanson,456 Loma St and the adjacent property owner, noted that she thought an 8' fence would be good, but not a 9.5' wall like the applicant constructed. Johanson noted that the fence adversely affects her property, and that sand comes through the fence and onto her grass.Johanson referred to the pictures, which shows that it is not a fence,but a wall, noting that it exceeds the height of her house.Johanson noted that she made the phone call to the city because she didn't want the fence to become a problem if she ever sells her property. Lori Schneider spoke, questioning how you determine where the 8' is measured when there is a grade separation, and noted that they only leveled the ground so that they could walk on it. Warren George,448 Loma St, noted that the entire neighborhood slopes downward towards the north. Diane Johanson commented that she understands why they leveled the grade, but they would still have plenty of privacy with a 6.5' fence and then would still meet the fence height requirements. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Mohr, to approve the variance to allow the fence to remain as currently constructed, with the understanding and agreement of the applicant that any further extension of the fence to the west be stepped down to 8'in height. Motion carried 3-1. AYES: Anfinson, Mohr, Goldsberry NAYES: Holdiman VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 9. Request to move the date and time of the regularly scheduled Board of Adjustment meeting from Tuesday, December 25, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. to Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 4:00 p.m., with a turn-in deadline of Thursday, December 6, 2007 at 5:00 p.m. Graham noted that the next regular meeting of the Board would fall on Christmas day,so if 9