Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/28/2007 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 28, 2007, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Chairperson Holdiman called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of Adjustment to order on Tuesday,July 24,2007,at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance were: Holdiman,Goldsberry, Mohr and Anfinson. Member absent was Mixdorf. Staff in attendance was Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder and Shane Graham. There were approximately 60 people from the public in attendance. I. A pprnval of the A. •nrla fnr Anglvct 2 . 2007 It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Mohr, to approve the agenda as amended.Motion carried unanimously. II. Ap?rnval of the Minutes r,f the RP jular MPPHn1g nn1 Judy 74 2007. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Mohr, to approve the minutes as submitted.Motion carried unanimously. III. Decision Items 1. Request by Invision Architecture on behalf of Allen Hospital at 1825 Logan Ave for a special permit to allow for the expansion of the hospital, including a 70,000 SF,three-story addition with 3 additional future stories, additional parking areas, and the relocation of the helipad to an area south of Dale St, and for a variance to the maximum height and minimum setback requirements. Anderson gave the staff report, noting that the request would appear to have a positive impact on the neighborhood, as it would continue Allen Hospital's growth and investment as an anchor employer in this area of the community. Anderson noted that the building would require issuance of a variance to the setback and height requirements, as the building would be 106' and the Zoning Ordinance limits the building height to 60', and the setback requirement is 2' per 1' of building height. Thus, the building, as proposed, would require a 212' setback, which it would not meet. Anderson noted that the new parking area to the west would also approval, as it is on a separate block from the hospital. Anderson indicated that the hospital is requesting to vacate Heath Street, between the parking lot to the west and the main hospital property,which would make it all one property. Anderson noted that the other main part of the expansion is the relocation of the helipad. Anderson indicated that several locations were looked at for the relocation of the helipad, and the site to the south of West Dale Street was chosen. Anderson indicated that the Planning&Zoning Commission reviewed the request at their regular meeting on August 7th, where the request was recommended for approval, subject to the condition that the helipad be located north of West Dale Street. Anderson noted that staff recommends approval of the special permit and the variance to the height and setback requirement,as the request would be in conformance with the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan,which designates the area for Hospitals, and will utilize existing infrastructure, making it a smart growth development, the request would appear compatible to surrounding uses, and the request will work in conjunction with the Highway 63 redevelopment, and subject to the condition that detailed information indicating that the request meets the parking requirements be provided prior to issuance of a building permit, and subject to the final site plan meeting all applicable city codes, including but not limited to drainage, landscaping, screening, etc. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 28,2007 Minutes parking stalls. The parking regulations state that the property shall provide 1 parking space for each 4 seats of capacity within the prayer hall. The prayer hall can accommodate 406 people, therefore the property would be required to proved 101.5 parking stalls,however that number is rounded up to 102. Therefore,the applicant will have to provide one additional parking stall to be in compliance with the parking requirements. Graham noted that the setback requirement for the building would be 2 feet per 1 foot of building height. The site plan does not show the height of the building, but it would appear that there would be adequate room to meet all setback requirements. Also, the site plan does not show a setback distance from the parking lot to the property lines, and the Ordinance requires a minimum 5' setback. The site plan also shows landscaping on the property, however a more detailed landscaping plan will be needed. Graham indicated that the proposed center would be next to a church to the east and west, which would be the same type of use, making this a compatible development with the area. Graham noted that this area of the city has had sewer capacity problems in the past, so Engineering staff would like to see more information on flows from the proposed building. Graham indicated that Engineering did receive data about the sewer flows from the applicant, which the City Engineer has reviewed and accepted. Graham handed out a copy of the letter from the applicant's engineer to the Board members. Graham indicated that staff recommends approval of the special permit, as the request is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and the request is a good transitional use between professional offices and residential, and it also represents a good infill development site. Mohr questioned what the problems were with the sewer in that area,since everyone is opposed to this request for that reason, and Anderson noted that the Engineering and Waste Management Department have received calls whenever the basements flood in that area in times of heavy rains, and they believe it is primarily due to footing tiles from homes being hooked into the sanitary sewer line, and the sanitary sewer cannot handle the additional storm water. Raja Akbar,Chair of the Board of Trustees for the Islamic Community Center, noted that they have been at their current site on W 2nd St since 1984,where the building is old and parking is a problem, and they need a new facility. Akbar noted that the majority of the traffic would be generated on Friday afternoons from 12:30-1:30 p.m., and there would generally be 70-100 people there at that time. Akbar noted that during this time there is little use of the bathroom facilities to put any load on the sewer system. Anfinson questioned if the center that was approved on Ridgeway Avenue was a different group of people, and Akbar noted that it was. Mohammad Farmi, director of educational programs at the Islamic Center,noted that he is in favor of the request, noting that their community is made up of highly educated and professional people. Farmi noted that this is not a new Center, as they have been in this area for almost 30 years serving the Muslim community and the community at large.Jerry Dikes, 1400 Garden Ave,noted that he represents the people in that area that have lived there for over 50 years. Dikes noted that the sewer system is old in that area and should have been replaced years ago, and that he was promised that the property in question was going to be used as a retention pond for water due to the water problems that they have. Dikes noted that there should be a special meeting in that area so they know what to expect, and Dikes noted that the Center should be moved to the east side over near Allen Hospital where there will be no problems with the sewer. Gary Rosenkrans, 1214 Deloris Dr, submitted a petition with 380 names on it in opposition because the sanitary and storm sewers are inadequate in that area. Rosenkrans spoke of the sewer and drainage problems in the area, and proposed a moratorium on development in that area until the facilities are upgraded in the area. Holdiman questioned if storm water detention would be required if anything was built on that property, and Anderson noted that the rainwater would go into a detention basin, where it is released into the storm sewer at the 3 • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 28,2007 Minutes SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST APPROVED. 3. Request by Elizabeth Litzkow at 1720 Black Hawk Rd for a special permit and variance for a rubble fill site within the floodway of Black Hawk Creek and the relocation of a portion of a legal non-conforming salvage yard from the south side of Black Hawk Rd to the north side of Black Hawk Rd in an"A-1" Agricultural District. Schroeder gave the staff report,noting that the site is located within the "F-W" Floodway (Overlay) District, and that the Floodway District does not allow for the placement of structures, fill or other obstructions, the storage of materials or other equipment, excavation, or alteration of a watercourse. A salvage yard is prohibited in the Floodway District,however the site is considered a legal non-conforming use. The floodway regulations also require that no use affect the capacity or conveyance of the floodway or cause an increase in the 100-year flood level. Previous analysis determined that the existence of the salvage yard creates a 0.3-foot increase in the 100-year flood level. Since that time, additional illegal filling on the property has occurred. Any filling (even when not in a floodplain) requires that the Board of Adjustment issue a Special Permit for a Rubble Fill Site. In addition, any filling in the floodway is prohibited unless also approved by Special Permit (Conditional Use Permit), including both Board of Adjustment approval and Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) concurrence. Schroeder noted that the IDNR and Federal Emergency Agency (FEMA) did give their concurrence to the fill as proposed back in 1997 as a part of the plan to move to the north side of the road (see attached letters) however the Special Permit request was denied by the Board of Adjustment. Schroeder indicated that because the salvage yard in question is located within the "A-1" Agricultural District and because it is located within the "F-W" Floodway (Overlay) District, the use in question is considered a non-conforming use. The non-conforming use regulations state that it is the intent of the Ordinance to permit non-conformities to continue until they are removed,but not to encourage their survival. It is further the intent of the Ordinance that non- conformities shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended, or be moved in whole or in part to any portion of the lot or parcel other than that occupied by such use at the effective date of adoption or amendment of the Ordinance (which in this case is considered to be the court ordered boundaries). Non-conforming uses are declared by the Ordinance to be incompatible with permitted uses in the district involved. Therefore, the relocation of the portion of the salvage yard that is located south of Black Hawk Road to the north of Black Hawk Road in an area that exceeds the court approved boundaries would require the issuance of a variance by the Board of Adjustment. Schroeder noted that staff is also aware that there was significant opposition from the adjoining residences to the north during the 1997 request, including petitions opposed to the request. There was also a petition in support of the request submitted at that time. The applicant has indicated that if approved, the area to the north of Black Hawk Road would be filled to an elevation of one foot above the 100-year flood elevation, and a solid fence erected in compliance with the requirements for salvage yards, and that the salvage material located south of Black Hawk Road would be relocated to the north side of the road. The 1997 plot plan indicates that there is 10.5 acres on the south side of the road that would be relocated into 9.4 acres on the north side of the road west of the court-approved boundaries. The applicant would also appear to be requesting that the area north of the road and east of the court-approved boundaries also be included in the special permit to allow this area be filled and have salvage material located on it,however no detailed information has been submitted. If this area were to be included, additional information would need to be provided on existing and proposed contours. Additional floodplain analysis would also be required. 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 28,2007 Minutes required, and for the parking area to be setback 17' from Highway 218, 8' less than the minimum required. Schroeder gave the staff report, noting that the applicants are proposing to build a new Holiday Inn Express hotel,which would consist of a 10,944 SF main base building with 4 stories. The proposed site plan shows a portion of the lot for the existing hotel, including a portion of the existing parking area,would be incorporated into the lot and parking area for the new hotel. The proposed site plan shows the back portion of the adjoining residential property being divided off and additional parking installed. The applicants have noted that upon completion of the new hotel, the existing hotel would be refurbished as a new brand. The "H-C" Highway 218 Corridor Overlay District requires that parking areas be setback 25' from Highway 218. The majority of the proposed parking areas are shown as meeting or exceeding the 25' setback requirement, except that a row of 12 parking stalls between the proposed building and the Highway are proposed to have a 16.9' setback. The Bulk Regulations of the "M-1" Light Industrial District limit a hotel to 3 stories or 48' in height, require a 30' side yard setback, and require a minimum lot width of 150'. Schroeder noted that the applicants are proposing to build a 4-story 53' tall building with a 28' side yard setback on a lot that is 125' wide at the building line. The site plan shows139 parking stalls between the two hotels, which based on a 130 units between the two hotels would allow up to a maximum of 18 employees between the hotels on the maximum working shift to have adequate parking to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirement. The proposed landscaping plan would also appear to meet the regulations and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The design and layout of the building, as well as the variance to the 25' parking setback requirement in the "H-C" Corridor was approved by the Highway 218 Design Review Board at their regular meeting on 7/12/07. The Board does not have review authority over the other variances needed,but did note that there are other hotels in the area with similar heights and setbacks. Staff is somewhat concerned with the variances required for the proposed site plan, as there are other alternatives that would not require issuance of a variance (or would not require as much or many variances). However, as the Design Review Board has noted, there are several other hotels in the vicinity of the site in question that have similar setbacks as requested. Surrounding hotels include: 1) the existing Holiday Inn Express at 2141 La Porte Rd with a 15' side yard setback and 2 stories, 2) Comfort Inn at 1945 La Porte Rd with a 10' side yard setback and 2 stories,3) Super 8 at 1825 La Porte Rd with a 30' side yard setback and 3 stories,4) Heartland Inn at 1809 La Porte Rd with a 30' side yard setback and 2 stories, 5) Fairfield Inn at 2011 La Porte Rd with a 5' side yard setback and 3 stories, 6) Hampton Inn and Suites at 2034 La Porte Rd with a 24' side yard setback (to canopy) and 4 stories, and 7) Candlewood Suites at 2056 La Porte Rd with a 55' side yard setback and 4 stories. The Zoning Ordinance specifically requires hotels to have the larger 30' side yard setback requirement, while other permitted uses would only require a 10' side yard setback. Schroeder indicated that the Hampton Inn and Suites at 2034 La Porte Rd was approved for a variance to allow for a 24' side yard setback to the canopy structure on 3/22/05 (front yard setback was also approved). Hampton Inn and Suites and Candlewood Suites are both 4 stories, however they are zoned "S-1" Shopping Center District,which is a site plan specific district requiring City Council approval, and allowing a flexible height requirement. Schroeder indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as the proposed development is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan, and is a good infill and smart growth development, the request would appear to be unique given that there are other hotels in the area that have similar heights and setbacks, and the proposed development would appear to be compatible to the existing development, and subject to the condition that the final site plan meets all applicable city codes, regulations, etc. including, but not limited to, drainage, 7 . BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 28,2007 Minutes site's limited/obstructed visibility, and the potential lack of reasonable return due to low visibility. Mary Kettles, representing Nagle Signs and Southtown Lounge,noted that she would answer any questions that the Board may have. It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the variance to the 40'height limit for a pole sign in the Highway 218 Corridor Overlay District, to allow for the construction of 2 pole signs, one with a height if 45'and one with a height of 48', 5'and 8' taller than the maximum allowed, due to the uniqueness of the site's limited visibility, and potential lack of reasonable return. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 6. Request by The Rose of Waterloo,LP at 421 Oak Ave for a variance to the 4' maximum height requirement for a fence in a front yard and a variance to the 20' triangle of visibility requirement for a fence, to allow for the construction of a 6' tall wrought iron fence in the front yard,and to allow for 2' x 2' brick columns within the triangles of visibility, including the corners of the property at street intersections and at the corners of the driveway entrances, and for a variance to the 5' setback requirement for vehicular use areas to allow for a parking area within 1' of the property line along Oak Avenue. Schroeder gave the staff report, noting that the applicant purchased the property in question from the City of Waterloo and is currently under construction on the Rose of Waterloo, a 64 unit senior assisted living facility. The area in question was formerly used for the Mulberry Street crossover, which was vacated and removed. The property was rezoned to "R-4, R-P" Planned Multiple Residence District in November of 2005 for the proposed development. On 7/25/06 the Board of Adjustment approved several variances on the property, including a variance to the front yard setback requirement to allow a 14' setback from Mulberry Street,a variance to the rear yard setback requirement to allow a 20'3" setback from Franklin Street, a variance to the 5' parking setback to allow the parking area along Utica Street to encroach into the street right-of- way, and a variance to the 9' parking stall width to allow the parking stalls along Utica Street to be 8.5' wide. The information submitted by the applicant for the current request asks for a variance to construct a 6' tall fence along the property line abutting Franklin Street between Oak Avenue and Utica Street(extended). However, as was determined in the previous approval, Franklin Street is the rear yard of the property, so the variance is not needed along Franklin. Mulberry Street is the narrow dimension of the property, so is therefore classified as the front yard, and the Ordinance would restrict a fence along it to be 4' in height. Also,because the building is addresses and faces Oak Avenue,which is the long dimension street frontage, the Ordinance also requires that the fence along it to be 4' in height. As noted, the proposed fence will be wrought iron, which is a non-solid fence that would not impede vision. However at the corners of the property and at the end points of the fence at the driveway entrances the applicants are proposing 2' x 2' brick columns that will be within the required 20' triangle of visibility. As noted, staff does not believe the columns will materially impede vision, but would like the Board of Adjustment's concurrence. Also, the Board of Adjustment approval in 2006 provided for the parking along Utica Street to encroach into the required 5' setback, but did not provide for the parking along Oak Avenue to encroach into the 5' setback. In reviewing the more detailed site plan that was provided for the building permit process, it was determined that the parking area will be approximately 1' from the new property line along Oak Avenue. This is due to the fact that the original property like was located 10' closer to Oak Avenue, but due to the location of the existing public sidewalk, when the property was sold to the applicant, 9 • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 28,2007 Minutes would not appear to cause a negative impact on the neighborhood. Jerry Steimel noted that he had no additional comments and would answer any questions that the Board had. It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the variance to the 3-acre minimum lot size requirement in the "A-1"Agricultural District, to allow for the existing home to be split off onto a 1-acre lot, 2 acres less than the minimum required, based on the uniqueness that the home is on public sewer and would not have a negative impact on the area. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 8. Request by Steven Newell at 935 Wisconsin St for a variance to the 10' setback requirement along the long dimension street frontage on a corner lot, to allow for the construction of a 24'x24' (576 SF) detached garage 3' from the property line, 7' less than the minimum required. Graham gave the staff report, noting that the applicant is proposing to construct a 24'x24' (576 SF) garage within 3' of the property line along dead-end Patten Ave. The Zoning Ordinance states that for corner lots with the house facing the narrow dimension street frontage, that the setback from the longer dimension street frontage shall be 1/2 the front yard setback requirement of the district that it is located in. The property is zoned "R-2",which has a 20' front yard setback requirement, so the setback along the long dimension street frontage (Patten Ave) would be 10'. Although the property is located on a corner lot, the street is a dead-end street that only serves the property in question and the property across the street. There is a commercial mini-storage facility adjacent to the east, so it appears unlikely that Patten Ave would ever be extended to the east. If the property were an interior lot, then the garage would be in compliance, as there would only be a 3' setback requirement. Graham indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as the request would appear to be unique in that the garage would be located along the dead-end street that sees little to no traffic, and the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Steven Newell noted that the street is a dead-end,with a storage facility located to the east. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Mohr, to approve the variance to the 10'setback requirement along the long dimension street frontage on a corner lot, to allow for the construction of a 24'x24' (576 SF) detached garage 3'from the property line, 7' less than the minimum required, based on the uniqueness of the garage being located on a dead-end street with no traffic. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 9. Request by Jerry Zbornik at 1607 Locke Ave for a variance to the 35% maximum lot coverage requirement, to allow for the construction of a 30'x24' (720 SF) detached garage, with a maximum lot coverage of 2,084 SF,306 SF more than the 1,778 SF maximum allowed. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the applicant is requesting the variance to be allowed to build a 30'x24', 720 SF detached garage on the property. Previously, there was a 14'x26', 364 SF detached garage on the property,which has been removed to make room for the proposed garage. The Zoning Ordinance states that a lot may not cover more than 35% of the lot with all structures. The lot in question is only 5,080 SF, and 35% of that is 1,778 SF. With the house being 912 SF, the deck being 452 SF, and the proposed garage being 720 SF,that would make for a total lot coverage of 2,084 SF, 306 SF more than the maximum allowed. In order to meet the 35% maximum, the new 11 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 28,2007 Minutes Ordinance, as the garage would be on a vacant lot without a principal permitted use. Staff has discussed the option of requesting a variance to allow the garage on a vacant lot for a temporary timeframe, such as 16 months, to give the potential new owners of the property some time before the house has to be built. Otherwise, the new owners would need to obtain a building permit for the new house right away, and it is getting closer towards the end of the current construction year, and there may not be enough time to start construction of a new home before winter. Staff is concerned with the precedent for allowing a property to exceed the 6% maximum size limit,however the request is unique in that the 840 SF garage could have been legally built if the 576 SF garage would have been attached to the house, due to the large size of the existing lot, and the current property owner was not aware of the non-compliance when he purchased the property in 2005. Graham indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood, as the garage has been on the property since 2002 with no apparent complaints, the request is unique in that the 840 SF garage could have been legally built if the 576 SF garage were connected to the house and the current property owner was not aware of the non-compliance when he purchased the property in 2005, and the request to allow the garage on a vacant lot would only be temporary, until the purchaser of the property constructs a house. John Moes noted that the previous owner of the property told him that if he had a carport, the 840 SF garage would be acceptable, so he put paving stones between the garage and the house and put a gate up and considered it a carport. Moes noted that he was planning on constructing a duplex on that portion of the property,but due to his declining health,he has decided to split and sell the property. Moes noted that he would consider putting a roof connecting the house and the existing 576 SF garage. Holdiman questioned if the carport would be necessary if the property were split, and Graham noted that the carport wouldn't be necessary, as the property would be legal. Graham noted that if the carport was constructed and the property split, then the garage would be considered attached and would not meet the 20' rear yard setback requirement. Anfinson questioned if staff would monitor the timeframe of the temporary variance, and Schroeder indicated that staff has a system to track temporary variances and when they expire. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Mohr, to approve the variance to the 1,194 SF maximum size limit for detached structures, to allow for the existing 1,416 SF of detached structures to remain, 222 SF more than the maximum allowed, and a 16-month temporary variance to allow the 840 SF garage to be split onto a separate lot without a principal permitted use, as the request wouldn't have a negative impact on the neighborhood.Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE AND TEMPORARY VARIANCE APPROVED. IV. Tlicrnccinn TtPms V. Adjournment It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Mohr, to adjourn the meeting at 7:15 p.m.Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, g- X19 Shane M. Graham, Associate Planner 13