HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/22/2007 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON
MAY 22, 2007, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
Chairperson Holdiman called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of
Adjustment to order on Tuesday,May 22,2007,at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance
were: Holdiman,Goldsberry, Mixdorf and Anfinson. Member absent was Mohr. Staff in
attendance was Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder and Shane Graham. There were 30 people
from the public in attendance.
I. Approval of the Agenda for May 77, 2(1(17
It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the agenda.Motion carried
unanimously.
II. Approval of the_NMin„tec of the Regt,lar Meeting On April 24,'007.
Goldsberry indicated a name error on one of the motions. It was moved by Goldsberry,
seconded by Anfinson, to approve the minutes as amended.Motion carried unanimously.
III. Derision Items
1. Request by the City of Waterloo for a special permit to allow for the development of the
Waterloo RiverLoop Expo, including an exhibition grounds for community gathering space,
outdoor exhibit space for conventions and trade shows, and a year-round indoor public
market, generally located hPtrvepn Park A7JP and Cmmtnprrial St, and hpt7/1PPn W 3rd St and
Washington St
Graham gave the staff report, noting that the surrounding land use is predominately
commercial,as the area is located within the central business district of Waterloo. The request
would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood, but instead would have a
positive impact by catalyzing the downtown revitalization effort. Graham noted that The City
of Waterloo recently completed the "Waterloo Downtown Redevelopment Master Plan",which
divides the downtown area into districts and lays out a plan for short and long term
redevelopment and revitalization of Waterloo's downtown and riverfront area. The Waterloo
RiverLoop Expo,which includes an exhibition grounds and public market, is identified in the
"Master Plan" as an"Economic Expansion Zone",which calls for this area to be developed into
a "multi-use outdoor facility". The City owns all of the area in question,however there are still
several buildings to be demolished as part of the redevelopment. Graham noted that there are
two privately owned properties within the two-block area that would remain, including
MidWest One Bank and Community National Bank, and one City-owned building that would
be converted into the public market building (former Chemlawn building located at the corner
of W 3rd Street and Washington Street). The public market area would provide space for local
food producers to bring their business to the downtown, and would serve as a community
space to gather and enjoy the downtown and regional products. The rest of the area would be
utilized for the exhibition grounds and outdoor exhibit space. This area would create the
outdoor space necessary to attract trade shows and conventions to Waterloo, and would draw
residents to the downtown area for community festivals and markets. This area would also
serve as a link to other downtown destinations. The site plan also shows the addition of several
new parking lots, and the reconfiguration of existing parking areas that serve the two existing
banks. Also,Jefferson Street, which runs through the two-block area in question,may be
blocked off if needed during large events.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
May 22,2007 Minutes
reuses, developers often cannot afford to do this type of redevelopment without tax credits and
other incentives, therefore these types of building generally sit for a number years becoming
unattractive nuisances. There are approximately 5 or more vacant schools with no definite plans
for redevelopment throughout the city including: Nelly Garvey,Van Eaton,Francis Grout,
"Old" Irving, Krieg and Lafayette Schools.
Schroeder noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request subject to
several conditions (building codes,parking requirements, and financial plan). To date, staff has
not seen a detailed financial plan. The Planning Commission had a lengthy discussion on the
concerns of the center potentially failing and the neighborhood being left with the proverbial
"white elephant" that does not positively influence the surrounding residential development.
Staff also has concerns, as previously mentioned above,about the presence of a former school
building sitting idle and deteriorating in the midst of residential neighborhoods. Schroeder
noted that one goal of the Local Option Tax passage was the renovation or removal of former
school buildings so we do not end up with further Lafayette School buildings, Francis Grout
School buildings,etc. Staff would request that the reversion clause that Mr. Douglas mentioned
with the Waterloo Community Schools include a provision that if the community center fails to
materialize or sustain its use of the building,that the Waterloo Schools take back possession of
the building for demolition. The City of Waterloo wants to see the positive redevelopment of
the building as much as the applicant and Waterloo School systems,but also wants to ensure it
not becoming a nuisance to the community and nearby neighbors. Schroeder noted that staff
recommends approval of the special permit, as the reuse of the building would be beneficial to
the surrounding neighborhood, the request would provide educational and recreational
services to youth in the Cedar Valley, and the request would appear to meet parking needs for
the phased approach for redevelopment, and subject to the following conditions: 1) that the
applicant work with the Building Department to bring the building within the current Building
Codes and meet all such requirements,2) that the applicant also work with the Engineering
Department on phasing in appropriate off street parking as the building is renovated, 3) that a
financial plan detailing funding sources be made available for viewing,and 4) that the reversion
clause between the applicant and the Waterloo Community Schools include the requirement
that if the community center fails to materialize or sustain its use in the building,that the
Waterloo Schools take back possession of the building for demolition or plans for pending
redevelopment within a one year timeframe.
Holdiman questioned if staff has ever required a financial plan before,and Schroeder could not
think of such an instance. Mixdorf questioned if the request is approved subject to the
conditions recommended by staff, if the applicant would need to show a financial statement
before work could begin, and Schroeder noted that it is up to the Board as to what conditions to
apply to the request,noting that the condition of viewing a financial statement was added by
the Planning & Zoning Commission in their recommendation of approval of the request.
Anfinson questioned if page 30 in the packet was the financial report that staff was referring to,
and Schroeder noted that the Planning Commission had that information,but wanted to see
more information. Michael Douglas spoke on the request,noting that it is hard for him to
disclose who is helping fund this center due to privacy rights. Douglas noted that they do have
a reversion clause and that should be good enough to guarantee that if they do not proceed, that
the building would be turned over to the school. Douglas explained the center,noting that it
would not just be a place for kids to play basketball and hangout,but it would be used for
education, elderly activities, etc. Mixdorf questioned if there was a timeframe on the reversion
clause, and Douglas noted that there is. Anfinson questioned if there would be a time period on
the reversion clause if the center closes that the building revert back to the school district, and
3
• BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
May 22,2007 Minutes
LED lighting for the gas prices and an electronic message center. It was at this time that it was
noted that the property was zoned "C-1" and that the previous sign permits had been approved
in error. Schroeder indicated that the proposed sign would be the same height and 6.43 SF
smaller than the sign that has existed for over 8 years. Also, the site in question is the only
property in the area zoned "C-1",while property to the northwest,which includes apartments
and a car lot, is zoned "C-2" and property to the southeast,which includes the Kum and Go
across 9th Street,is zoned "C-2". Other surrounding uses include residential to the southwest
and industrial to the northeast across Highway 218. The proposed sign would not appear to be
out of character with other signage in the area and would not appear to have a negative impact
on the area. The Highway 218 Corridor Overlay District regulations provide that minor changes,
including changes in signage, may be administratively approved by planning staff, however
previously the Design Review Board has requested that any signage that does not meet the
requirements of the Ordinance come before the Design Review Board for approval. The request
has not yet been before the Design Review Board for approval. Schroeder noted that staff
recommends approval of the request, as the request would appear to be unique in that the
proposed sign is smaller than the existing sign that was approved by staff in error,and the
request wouldn't appear to cause a negative impact on the neighborhood or traffic and the sign
would appear to be compatible to other signage in the area, and subject to the condition that the
request be approved by the Highway 218 Design Review Board.
Holdiman questioned if the sign would be the same as the one at Highway 63 and Fletcher Ave,
and Schroeder indicated that it would, and that all of the Kwik Star stores are upgrading their
signage.
It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Mixdorf, to approve the variance to the 40 SF maximum
pole sign size limit and 20'maximum sign height limit in the "C-1"Commercial District within the
Highway 218 Corridor Overlay District, to allow for the replacement of the existing 142.67 SF pole
sign with 136.24 SF of signage, 96.24 SF more than the maximum allowed, and to allow a 23'tall
pole sign, 3'taller than the maximum allowed, based on the uniqueness of the sign being approved
by staff in error, and subject to approval by the Highway 218 Design Review Board. Motion
carried unanimously.
VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED.
4. Request by Andy Larson at 1924 Huntingtnn Rd for a variance to the nonconforming
use section to allow for the property to change from one non-conforming use (auto
repair shop) to another (lawn care/snow removal business).
Schroeder gave the staff report,noting that the change in use to a lawn care/snow removal
business would appear to have less of a negative impact on the neighborhood than an auto
repair shop. The existing facility has become somewhat run down with some outside storage of
junk and other materials. The Ordinance provides for the Board of Adjustment to approve a
change in legal non-conforming use after making findings that the proposed use is equally
appropriate or more appropriate to the district than the existing non-conforming use, and in
permitting such a change, the Board may require appropriate conditions and safeguards. Staff
would suggest that a condition prohibiting the outside storage of any equipment or materials
would ensure that the use would have less of an impact on the neighborhood. Schroeder noted
that the applicant is requesting the variance in order to change a non-conforming use from an
auto repair shop to a lawn care/snow removal business. Neither are permitted in the "R-2"
Residence District,but the Ordinance provides that a non-conforming use may be changed to
another non-conforming use provided that the Board of Adjustment makes findings that the
5
.BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
May 22,2007 Minutes
It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the variance to the 5'maximum
distance for an overhanging balcony, to allow for the construction of an overhanging balcony
extending 6'6", 1'6"more than the maximum allowed, based on the fact that the request would not
have a negative impact on the existing right-of-way. Motion carried unanimously.
VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED.
6. Request by Otha Cook at 215 Arden St for a variance to the 37' average front yard
setback requirement, to allow for the construction of a 5'x5'5" enclosed porch,with a
front yard setback of 31',6' less than the minimum required.
Schroeder gave the staff report,noting that the request could have a negative impact on the
neighborhood, as the enclosed porch would extend past the average front yard setback of the
house to the west,however the house to the east extends significantly closer to Arden St than the
proposed enclosed porch, but because that property is a corner lot and is addressed off a
different street, it is not included in the average setback calculation, so only the home to the west
is included, and the property in question is nearly in line with the home to the west, prohibiting
any enclosed structure from being added to the front of the house without issuance of a variance.
Schroeder noted that the applicant recently took out a building permit to construct a 5' x 5'5"
unenclosed porch on the front of the home,which said unenclosed structure is permitted to
extend past the average setback. The applicants would like to enclose the porch to create an
entryway. The Ordinance has a provision allowing an existing unenclosed porch that was built
prior to adoption of the Ordinance in 1969 to be converted into an enclosed structure, even when
extending past the average setback,however for porches built after adoption of the Ordinance,
they can only be enclosed if they do not extend past the average setback. The average setback is
calculated based on the setback of the abutting lots, of which the lot to the west has a setback of
37 feet and the lot to the east has a setback of 18 feet. However, the lot to the east is a corner lot
and the home is addressed off of Moir St and not Arden St, therefore it is not included in the
average setback calculation, so the average setback is 37 feet. The house in question has an
existing setback of 36',with the proposed enclosed porch extending 5' beyond that, therefore
extending 6'beyond the average setback requirement. Although the property to the east is
excluded from the average calculation,the fact that the proposed addition will be set back 13'
further from Arden then that home may be considered a uniqueness. Also, the proposed
enclosed porch would still be setback 1 foot further than the typical 30' setback that the
underlying zoning district would require. So if this area were being developed new, the
dwelling in question as well as the surrounding properties could have been built several feet
closer to the street. The applicant has submitted a petition in support of the request signed by
both the property owner to the west and the east. Schroeder indicated that staff recommends
approval of the request, as the enclosed porch would extend past the required average setback,
but would not extend past the 30' front yard setback typically required in the "R-1" Residence
District, and despite the fact that the home to the east is not included in the average setback
calculation due to the fact that it is addressed off a different street, the enclosed porch would not
extend past the setback of this home from Arden St.
The applicant noted that the porch would not be any bigger than the previous unenclosed porch,
and that they just want to enclose it.
It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the variance to the 37'average front
yard setback requirement, to allow for the construction of a 5'x5'5"enclosed porch, with a front
yard setback of 31', 6' less than the minimum required. Motion carried unanimously.
7
• BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
May 22,2007 Minutes
Robert Thompson noted that the main reason for the fence is that they have their children and
neighborhood children that swim in their pool,and that there is a sex offender in the area and
they want to keep an eye on the kids. Thompson indicated that the fence would be 30' from the
corner so there would be enough room for visibility from the corner. Mixdorf questioned if the
solid fence that currently separates the properties now would be within the 20' triangle of
visibility if the garage were built, and Schroeder commented that it may be within the triangle
of visibility but isn't sure.
It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by Anfinson, to deny the variance to the 4'maximum front
yard fence height requirement and 20' triangle of visibility requirement, but to approve the variance
to the 20'rear yard setback requirement in the "R-2"District to allow for the construction of an
attached garage with a side yard setback of 3', 17'less than the minimum required, subject to the
existing wood fence not being located within the 20'triangle of visibility. Motion carried
unanimously.
VARIANCE REQUEST PARTIALLY APPROVED.
8. Request by Donna Rae Hickman at W of 1574 W Rig Rnrk Rd for a variance to the hard
surface vehicular use provision to allow for the construction of a 30'x45' (1,350 SF)
agricultural building without any hard surfaced vehicular use area.
Graham gave the staff report,noting that the applicant is proposing to construct a 30'x45' (1,350
SF) pole building on the property, which is currently in active production. The building would
be used for the storage of agricultural equipment,which is used on the property. Currently, the
Zoning Ordinance only exempts one and two family residences from providing hard surface
vehicular use areas. Since this building is for agricultural purposes and not for a one or two
family property,hard surfacing is required. Staff is currently in the process of amending the
entire Zoning Ordinance, of which a provision exempting agricultural uses is being looked at.
Currently, there is a gravel drive off of W Big Rock Rd that serves the property, and the building
would be located near the entrance, in an area that is currently in production. There would not
appear to be the need to pave the driveway and area around the building, as it will be used for
agricultural purposes. Graham indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as the
request would not appear to have a negative impact on the area, as it is a rural agricultural area,
and staff is currently amending the Zoning Ordinance,which would include exempting
agricultural buildings from meeting hard surface requirements.
It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Mixdorf, to approve the variance to the hard surface
vehicular use provision to allow for the construction of a 30'x45'(1,350 SF) agricultural building
without any hard surfaced vehicular use area, based on the proposed amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously.
VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED.
9. Request by Sweetwater Investments at W of.5201-5203 Swept Water Cr for a variance to
allow an accessory structure on a lot without a principal permitted use in the "R-1"
Residence District, a variance to the 1,800 SF maximum size limit for an accessory
structure and a variance to the siding requirement for an accessory structure, to allow
for the construction of a 5,360 SF stable with vertical metal siding,3,560 SF more than
the maximum allowed.
9
- BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
May 22,2007 Minutes
Other residents have also expressed concerns based on drainage and smell issues. Schroeder
noted that as noted previously, the City of Waterloo invested in the development of this area for
residential homes by extending a public sewer through the South Hills Golf Course to serve the
area. In the design and construction of the sewer,it was noted that the sewer would be able to
serve the existing South Fork Estates development, as well as the 11.46-acre parcel in question
and the 30 acres of farmland located to the west,up to Hammond Avenue. A sewer hook-on
charge is in place to offset the costs of extending the sewer, but the construction of a stable on the
entire 11.46-acre parcel could prevent the City from recouping those expenses. The entire 11.46-
acre parcel was included in the Preliminary Plat of South Fork Estates 2nd Addition,labeling the
area as"Phase II" and showing 31 additional residential lots and the extension of Sweet Water
Circle from where it currently dead ends back up to a second intersection with E Shaulis Road.
The Preliminary Plat also showed the dedication of needed utility easements so that the public
sewer could be extended to the property to the west to allow for the continued development of
residential lots. Staff was concerned that approval of the oversized accessory building on the
property in question would hinder the ability for the property in question and the adjacent
property to the west to develop,however the revised site plan shows the potential layout of the
site into future lots with the future road extension, and the proposed stable would essentially
occupy two of the future lots. An easement will need to be provided to ensure that if the area to
the west were to develop prior to the area in question developing that it could connect to sewer.
The applicant has noted that he intends to develop the property in question into residential lots
in the future, but currently has several vacant lots within the existing South Fork Estates
development that he has been unable to sell,so is not prepared to develop the additional lots at
this time. The applicant indicated that in the future when he is prepared to develop the
additional lots, he would either remove the stable or develop the lots around the stable.
However, staff feels that the development of such a facility could be incompatible with both the
existing and future residential development in the area. It should be noted that the Deed of
Dedication for the abutting South Fork Estates 2nd Addition has a provision that prohibits
horses from locating within the development. Although the property in question is not part of
the subdivision, it is directly abutting it, and was included in the Preliminary Plat approval for
the area intended as a future addition, so it would be questionable to issue a variance to allow
such a horse facility when horses would otherwise not be permitted on the surrounding
residential development. Although the fact that the surrounding ground to the west and south is
currently zoned "A-1" Agricultural District and is primarily used for agriculture may be
considered unique. Also, it may be considered unique that the property in question is a large
acreage. Staff would suggest that if the variance is approved, it should require the removal of
the stable at a point when residential lots are developed on the property in question, as such
development would eliminate the only uniqueness and could leave the large oversized building
on two fairly small residential lots if allowed to remain after the lots are developed.
Schroeder indicated that if the Board wishes to approve the request, they should do so because
the proposed stable is in a rural area, surrounded by property zoned "A-1" Agricultural District
to the west and south, and that the proposed stable is on a large acreage at over 14 acres, and
subject to following conditions: 1) That the stable use E Shaulis Road for access and not Sweet
Water Circle, 2) That an effective visual screen of landscape plantings be provided for at least 200
feet along the portions of both the west and east property lines that are across from the location
of the building,3) That the stable shall be for personal,noncommercial use of the owner of the
property containing said stable only,4) That the property owner shall dedicate to the City of
Waterloo a permanent easement of at least 30 feet prior to issuance of a building permit for the
stable,5) That the stable shall be for personal,noncommercial use of the owner of the property
containing said stable only, 6) That the variances shall expire and the stable shall be removed or
11
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
May 22,2007 Minutes
It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Mixdorf, to go into executive session to discuss matters of
litigation involving the case of Earl Baugh vs. the City of Waterloo Board of Adjustment.Motion
carried unanimously.
The Board then met in Executive Session.
It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Mixdorf, to adjourn from executive session. Motion carried
unanimously. Holdiman declared the regular session back into order.
2. Set the date and time for a special meeting of the Board of Adjustment.
It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Mixdorf, to set a special meeting date and time as
Thursday,June 7, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.Motion carried unanimously.
V. Adjo»rnment
It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Mixdorf, to adjourn the meeting at 6:50 p.m.Motion carried
unanimously.
Res.ectfully submitted,
Shane M. Graham,
Associate Planner
13