Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/24/2007 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON APRIL 24, 2007, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Chairperson Holdiman called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of Adjustment to order on Tuesday,April 24,2007, at 4:14 p.m. Board members in attendance were: Holdiman,Goldsberry, Mixdorf. Members absent were Anfinson and Mohr. Staff in attendance was Aric Schroeder and Shane Graham. There were 4 people from the public in attendance. I. Approval-of the AmPndPd Ag nrla for April ?4,2007 Holdiman noted that the variance request by Sweetwater Investments,LLC at W of 5201-5203 Sweetwater Circle has been withdrawn from the agenda by the applicant.It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously. II. Apprnval of the Mirnitcc of tlar MPPting on Marc1127, 2007. It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Mixdorf, to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. necisinn TtPms 1. Request by Struxture Architects on behalf of the Waterloo Community Schools at 714 High St for a special permit to allow for the expansion of East High School, including a 16,819 SF two-story locker room and fitness center addition located at the northeast corner of the school. Graham gave the staff report,noting that East High School is proposing to build an addition to the existing school,which would be located to the north of the existing gymnasium on the northeast side of the school. The project consists of a two-story, 16,819 SF building addition, which would house new locker rooms on the first floor and a new fitness center on the second floor. Also, approximately 5,600 SF of existing locker rooms would be remodeled as a part of the overall project. The area where the addition would be constructed is currently a parking lot for school staff, and the applicant has noted that two rows of parking would be lost,however they noted that there would still be adequate parking for staff, as there will be a new row of parking along the street in front of the addition, in addition to the other existing parking lots for staff. Also, it would appear from the site plan provided that a portion of the addition would actually be located within vacated Barclay St. Barclay St was vacated on 4/23/98, of which an easement was retained over the entire vacated area, due to there being a sanitary sewer located within the area. However, none of the vacated area has actually been dedicated to the Waterloo Community Schools, so it is technically still considered City owned right-of-way. Graham noted that the City might need to look into dedicating that vacated area to the School, while still maintaining an easement for the sewer. It would appear that the addition would not have a negative impact on the area, as the surrounding area is made up of mostly commercial and industrial uses, and the school owns a majority of the surrounding area. It would also appear that the addition would better serve the needs of the community. Graham noted that at the regular meeting of the Planning &Zoning Commission on April 3rd, the Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request. Graham indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as the request would appear to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, and the request would not appear to have a BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ' April 24,2007 Minutes required. The property currently only has an attached carport,which is in deteriorating condition, and the applicant is proposing to tear that down and replace it with a deck and landscaping. There is a "hammerhead" turn around area in the driveway, and the applicant is proposing to construct the new garage just to the east of that. The garage would be located approximately 25' from the front property line,however the garage would still be further back than the house to the west,which is only approximately 15'from the front property line. There are several other properties to the east that also have garages located in the required front yard, including one adjacent to the east,and another one to the east that appears to have been signed off on by staff in error a couple of years ago. That property may have to come before the Board at a later date for a variance as well. Most of the homes that do have the garages in the required front yard also have the homes set back quite a bit more than other homes in the area. For these homes, the most logical place to put a garage is in front of the home, as there are woods located behind the houses and there is limited means to access the rear of the properties. Graham indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as the request would appear unique in that there are several other properties in the area, including the property adjacent to the east,that have detached garages located in a required front yard, and the proposed garage would set back farther than the house to the west, and the request would not appear to alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and the applicant has submitted a petition of support from the surrounding neighbors. It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the variance to the Accessory Buildings requirement prohibiting accessory structures in a required front yard, to allow for the construction of a 32'x24'(768 SF) detached garage in a required front yard. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. IV. fiscoscinn Items There were no discussion items. V. AdjonrnmPnt It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Mixdorf, to adjourn the meeting at 4:29 p.m.Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, -XL °/,',44 Shane M. Graham, Associate Planner 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT March 27,2007 Minutes • existing and future development, and to ensure that there will be adequate parking. From the preliminary sketches provided, the building design would appear appropriate for surrounding compatibility. Graham noted that the City Engineer and Traffic Engineer have expressed concerns with the access to the property. They have noted that Ridgeway Avenue is a fairly high speed roadway and that the driveway,without turning lanes,could cause a traffic safety problem. They are suggesting that a right and left turn (deceleration lane) be required on Ridgeway Avenue for traffic entering the site. They are also suggesting that a right turn (acceleration lane) may be needed on Ridgeway Avenue for traffic leaving the site. The Traffic Engineer has also expressed concern that there may not be enough room between the road and the parking area for stacking, which could also create a traffic safety problem. He is suggesting that the parking lot be reconfigured to place the wider parking area on the north side and to reverse the parking angle on the other lanes. In meeting with the applicant,he has agreed to the traffic improvements as suggested. Graham noted that at the Planning &Zoning Commission meeting held on March 6,2007, the request was reviewed and unanimously recommended for approval, subject to the 3 following conditions: 1. The left turn median improvements, right turn deceleration lane, and parking layout, are constructed as determined by the Engineering and Traffic Departments 2. That infrastructure is properly provided to the site, and the applicant agrees to the hook onto City services now or in the future when they are within the code requirements, and 3. That the building,while only preliminary in design at this time, is appropriately designed to blend in with surrounding development-including the potential use of EFIS, stucco, brick, etc. Graham noted that staff is recommending approval of the request, as the use and design would appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses and is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map. Ibrahim Shehata, president of the Islamic Foundation of Iowa,noted that since the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting,he has been in contact with the Traffic Engineer to address some of their concerns. Anfinson questioned if the applicant was aware of the potential future industrial uses in that area, and Shehata commented that he was aware of that. It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the special permit, subject to the following conditions:1. The left turn median improvements, right turn deceleration lane, and parking larut, are constructed as determined by the Engineering and Traffic Departments 2. That infrastructure is properly ptavidec_to the site, and the applicant agrees to the hook onto City services now or in the future when they ate within the code requirements, and 3. That the building, while only preliminary in design at this time, is appropriately designed to blend in with surrounding development- including the potential use of EFTS, stucco, brick, etc.Motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST APPROVED. 2. Request by Signs & Designs on behalf of VGM Management at 1107-11 2.5 W can Marnan Dr for a variance to the "C-2" Commercial District sign regulations limiting wall signs to two sides of the building when there are more than two freestanding signs, to allow for the construction of a 40 SF wall sign on a third side of the building. Graham gave the staff report, noting that the applicant is requesting the variance in order to construct a new 40 SF wall sign on the northeast-facing wall (towards San Marnan Dr). VGM is currently expanding their professional office complex, and as part of the expansion, are adding wall signs to three different sides of the building. Currently,the applicant is constructing wall signs on two sides of the building,with one sign facing southwest towards Highway 20, and the other sign facing southeast towards Ansborough Ave. Also, the property has one existing 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT March 27,2007 Minutes monument sign at the northwest corner of the property, and a new monument sign located at the east end of the property along Ansborough Ave. The Zoning Ordinance states that a building may have wall signs on three sides of the building,however there must not be more than one freestanding sign on the property. Since there is two freestanding signs on the property, the building can only have wall signs on two sides. The sign itself will be small in nature, as the sign regulations allow for a wall sign size of up to 15% of the entire wall area. According to the applicant, the sign will take up only .0018% of the total wall area. Due to the large size of the parcel and multiple street frontages and entrances, the request for wall signs on three sides of the building would not appear to have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area. Graham noted that staff recommends approval of the request, as the request would appear to be unique in that the property is large in size and has multiple street frontages and entrances, and the request wouldn't appear to cause a negative impact on the neighborhood or traffic. Mason Fromm from Signs & Designs noted that he did not have any comments to add, and that he would answer any questions that the Board may have. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Mohr, to approve the variance to allow for the construction of a 40 SF wall sign on a third side of the building, based on the fact that the property is large in size and would not cause a negative impact on the area.Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 3. Request by CSP II LC at the SF. Cnrnpr of Madison St and Arizona St; and at tip NE C'nrncr of Mnnrop St and Arizona St for a variance to the 10' side yard setback requirement along the long dimension street frontage for a house facing the narrow dimension street frontage on a corner lot in the"R-2" One and Two Family Residence District, to allow for the construction of two new homes,with a setback of 5', 5' less than the 10' minimum required. Schroeder gave the staff report,noting that the request would not appear to negative impact on the neighborhood, as the homes would have 5' to the street right of way line along Arizona St, and there would be over 23' between the home and the traveled roadway. Also, the section of Arizona St is a seal coat street that would appear to have less vehicular traffic than the surrounding streets. There would appear to be other homes in the area with similar setbacks, and the proposed setback would not appear to obstruct the view of surrounding properties. Schroeder noted that the request would not appear to cause a negative impact on the traffic conditions in the area. The homes are proposed to be setback 5' instead of the required 10' along Arizona Street due to the narrow width of the lots to allow for a reasonably sized home to fit on the lots. The homes would still be required to meet the 20' setback from Madison Street and Monroe Street, therefore the homes would not be located in the required 20' triangle of visibility at the intersections. Schroeder noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires that on a corner lot where the home faces the narrow width of the lot, the setback along the longer dimension street frontage shall be 1/2 the front yard setback requirement of the District. The "R-2" District has a front yard setback requirement of 20', therefore the Ordinance requires that any home built on either of the corner lots in question would be required to have a 10' setback from Arizona Street, which is the longer dimension street frontage. The lots in question are only 50' wide, and the applicant is requesting the 5' variance so that a home up to 40' wide would fit on the lots, thereby leaving a 5' setback on both sides. The proposed structures would not be located within the required triangle of visibility at the intersections,and would not appear to obstruct the view of surrounding properties or vehicular traffic. Schroeder noted that staff recommends approval 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT March 27,2007 Minutes wall sign regulation prohibiting wall signs on more than two sides of the building, to allow for two 218 SF monument signs to be located a minimum of 110' apart, eight directional signs with a size of 40 SF each, and to allow for the building to have wall signs on four sides of the building. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the area, as the site is very large (approximately 53 acres). The hotel and casino is also located very far from the entrance at E Shaulis Rd, and is surrounded by vacant ground to the west, Highway 218 to the north, industrial uses to the east across Highway 218, and vacant ground and the water park to the south. Graham noted that the applicant is requesting the variances in order to construct multiple new signage on the property, in association with the new casino and hotel that is currently under construction. The applicant is proposing to construct two 218 SF monument signs at the entrance to the site, which is along E Shaulis Rd. The two signs will be angled to the southeast and southwest, so as to alert traffic coming to the casino from the east and west. Also, the applicants are proposing to construct eight 40 SF directional signs throughout the property, so as to help direct traffic to appropriate parking areas when visiting the site. The applicants are also proposing to construct a sign on each of the three sides of the Porte Cochere,which is a covered entrance canopy for vehicles. Also, there will be two 704 SF wall signs on the hotel structure, however those meet all of the sign regulations, and therefore no variance is needed. Graham noted that the Zoning Ordinance states that a property may have more than 1 freestanding sign on the property,however they must be located a minimum distance of 150' apart. The applicant has indicated that the two monument signs at the entrance to the property may be 150' apart,but they may be as close as 110' apart. The general sign regulations state that a directional sign may not be larger than 6 SF. The eight proposed directional signs throughout the property would be 40 SF each,which is 34 SF more than the maximum allowed. Also, the Zoning Ordinance states that a building may have wall signs on three sides of the building,however there must not be more than one freestanding sign on the property. Since there would be two freestanding signs on the property (two monument signs at the entrance), the building can only have wall signs on two sides. The signs that are proposed on the walls of the Porte Cochere are on all three sides (southeast,northwest and southwest). Also, one of the hotel signs will be on the northeast wall, and therefore there will be signs on all four sides of the building. Due to the very large size of the parcel (approximately 53 acres), the proposed signage would seem appropriate, as it would help the efficient and safe flow of traffic into and out of the site. The signage on the Porte Cochere will only be visible from within the site, with little visibility from surrounding properties. Graham noted that staff recommends approval of the request, as the request would appear to be unique in that the property is very large in size, and the signage would not appear out of character with the area, and the request would not appear to cause a negative impact on traffic, as it would help with the efficient and safe flow of traffic into and out of the site. Anfinson commented that the 6 SF size limit for a directional sign is a bit small, and Schroeder explained that you could build a directional sign larger than 6 SF,however then it is not considered a directional sign but is instead considered a free standing sign, which then has a requirement of being a minimum of 150 feet away from another sign, as well as being counted towards the overall size limit for freestanding signs. Schroeder commented that he wasn't sure if the 150-foot distance would be a problem,however it would put the property over the total square footage allowed for freestanding signs. Steve Alsip with Sign Productions spoke on the request, noting that this is a significant development, of which the sign regulations are generally more restraining for a development of this size and magnitude. Alsip noted that they 5