Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/27/2007 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 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,February 27,2007, at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance were: Moine, Holdiman,St.John, Mixdorf and Anfinson. Staff in attendance was Aric Schroeder and Shane Graham. There were 6 people from the public in attendance. I. Approval of the Agenda for Fehr»ary 27 7OO7 It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by St. John, to approve the agenda.Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting on January 30, 9007. It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by St.John, to approve the minutes as submitted.Motion carried unanimously. III. Derision Ttems 1. Request by Architects Schipper Kastner on behalf of the Iowa Army National Guard for a special permit to allow for additions and alterations to the existing Iowa Army National Guard facilities at 7245 W Rig Rnck Rd Graham gave the staff report,noting that the Iowa Army National Guard is proposing to expand the site,which is located adjacent to the Waterloo Airport along West Big Rock Road. The project consists of two phases: Phase 1 being the Aviation Army Support Facility,which includes a new office addition,new hangar/shops addition,new motor vehicle storage building, and new airport storage hangar,with associated paving around the new buildings. Phase 2 is the Waterloo Readiness Center (Armory),which includes a 10,818 SF 1-story office addition along the east side of the building, and a 2,739 SF single-story Unit Storage addition, which would infill the northwest corner of the existing building. Phase 2 work will also include the demolition of some parking stalls,however a new 80-stall parking lot will be built at the east end of the building. Graham noted that it would appear that the additions and new buildings would not have a negative impact on the area, as the site is fairly large (approximately 33 acres), and is located in a fairly rural area, (almost completely surrounded by the Waterloo Airport). It would also appear that the proposed additions and new buildings would better serve the needs of the community. Graham noted that at the regular meeting of the Planning &Zoning Commission on February 6th,the request was unanimously recommended for approval, subject to the condition that the final site plan meets all applicable City codes. Graham noted 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 negative impact on the neighborhood or traffic conditions, and would appear to better serve the needs of the community, and subject to the condition that the final site plan meets all applicable City codes, including but not limited to drainage,landscaping, etc. Mike Kastner of Architects Schipper Kastner commented that he could answer any questions that the Board may have regarding the request. The Board did not have any comments or questions for the applicant. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT February 27,2007 Minutes breaks at the site when not driving. Schroeder noted that staff has concern on the potential for precedent of not requiring hard surfacing,or allowing it to be delayed for lengthy periods of time. If the variance were for a fairly limited time frame it would not appear to have a negative impact. The request would also appear to be unique in that there are several adjacent commercial uses with gravel parking areas that were legally built prior to adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. Although the Ordinance requires that new or expansion parking areas be properly hard surfaced, parking areas built prior to adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1969 are allowed to remain. Therefore the temporary gravel parking area would not appear to be out of character with the neighborhood. Staff feels that it is questionable if 2 years should be considered "temporary". Often times"temporary" is considered less than 1 year (such as to get from one construction season to the next),but there may be instances where longer"temporary" variances are warranted. In general, staff feels that 1.5 years should be the upper limits of what should be considered "temporary", and would note that with any request approved as temporary, there is nothing that precludes an applicant from later requesting an extension. Staff would suggest that such extensions should only be approved if there is sufficient information provided to justify the extension, such as if relocation is pending but will occur just past an approved timeframe. Schroeder noted that staff recommends approval of the temporary variance, as the property is in somewhat of a remote area with little adjacent development, and the variance is only for a temporary basis,and subject to the condition that the temporary variance be approved for 11/2 years (August 27,2008) from the date of approval, and that the applicant either constructs a hard surface parking area in compliance with all requirements of the City of Waterloo, and approved by the City of Waterloo, or the applicant removes the business from the property in question and removes the gravel parking area unless the parking area is used as part of the occupancy of the property as a single-family home. Mixdorf questioned whether storm water detention was going to be required, and Schroeder noted that detention was not necessary if the parking area is graveled,as it is a permeable surface,however detention would be required if the parking area is constructed with asphalt or concrete. Mixdorf questioned if the cars in the picture provided in the packet were cabs, and Grimson noted that they are future cabs if any of the current cabs gets junked. Grimson noted that he is looking at the former Dewey's Pawn Shop on Independence Avenue, but cannot get a hold of the owner. Grimson noted that if he could buy that property,that he would move his business right away. Grimson noted that he has been actively looking for a place to relocate to for the past 11/2,however it could take possibly one to two more years before he relocates. St. John questioned Mr. Grimson if he would be agreeable to the 1-1/2 year timeframe that staff recommended, and Mr. Grimson noted that if he has not moved within a year and a half, that he will put down blacktop down. There was a discussion as to how long of a timeframe was needed in order for Mr. Grimson to place the gravel on his property. The Board felt that the gravel should be in place by May 1st,2007. Moine declared that he was abstaining from vote, as Progressive Tool is his client. It was moved by St.John, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the temporary variance for no more than 1.5 years (August 27, 2008) and at that time the applicant will have to construct the hard surfacing in accordance with the requirements of the City of Waterloo, or will relocate the business, with the gravel to be place on the property by May 1, 2007.Motion carried unanimously, with one abstention. SPECIAL PERMIT &VARIANCE REQUESTS APPROVED. 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT February 27,2007 Minutes VARIANCE REQUESTS APPROVED. 4. Request by Ebert Chiropractic at 1445-1449 Anshornvgh Am'for a variance to the sign regulations for a strip mall under diverse ownership, requiring a minimum distance of 150' between pole signs and a maximum size limit for all pole signs of 80 SF, to allow for the construction of a new 32 SF pole sign within 150' of another pole sign, 67 SF more than the maximum allowed. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the applicant is requesting the variance in order to construct a new 8'x4' (32 SF) pole sign on the property,which currently only has a wall sign. The building is part of a strip mall development,which is under diverse ownership, as the mall is broken into 3 separate parcels. The previous sign regulations allowed up to an 80 SF pole sign on each parcel,but that regulation has recently been changed (10/16/06). Currently, the sign regulations for strip developments under diverse ownership allow pole signs, however they must be located a minimum of 150' from any other pole sign within the development. Also, the new maximum area allowed for all pole signs within a C-1 strip development is 80 SF. The development currently has 115 SF between the two existing signs, which would appear to be in non-conformance by 35 SF,however those signs were constructed before the new Ordinance was adopted,and are therefore legal non-conforming signs. The new sign would be 32 SF,which would put the entire development at 147 SF, or 67 SF more than the maximum allowed. Graham noted that the new sign would be located less than the 150'minimum required from the other pole sign. After researching the history of the property, it was discovered that the southern most property within the development(1459 Ansborough Ave -Gas Station) was approved for a variance in 1994 to construct a 100 SF pole sign (see attached resolution). Following the approval from the Board, a sign permit was issued for a 96 SF pole sign. It is unclear whether the entire 96 SF sign was ever constructed, or if a portion of the sign was removed to bring it to its current size of 72 SF. The Board noted at that time that the variance would allow for a more reasonable use of the property, and would have no adverse impact on the area,as the area has seen similar types of requests approved in the past. Graham noted that this request would also appear to be reasonable, as the other two properties within the strip development have larger pole signs, and there are other commercial properties in the area that have larger sized signs. Also, the sign would have been permitted prior to the Zoning Ordinance amendment,which occurred shortly before the applicant submitted the sign permit application,and it may be considered a uniqueness that the other two property owners of the strip mall have larger signs less than 150' apart that were built prior to adoption of the amendment. Graham noted that staff recommends approval of the request, as the request would appear to be unique in that the other two properties within the strip development have pole signs that exceed the size and separation requirement, and the request wouldn't appear to cause a negative impact on the neighborhood, as there are other businesses in the area that have larger sized signs,and the request would allow for the reasonable use of the property. Moine questioned how far apart the sign would be from the existing sign within the development, and Graham noted that staff is unsure,and placed a call to Nagle Signs,who is the sign contractor, to get that number,however have not heard a response as of yet. Graham noted that by roughly measuring off of an aerial photograph,it would appear that the signs would be roughly 80 feet apart. Mixdorf questioned why the Ordinance was amended, and Schroeder explained, noting that it was done to encourage an overall sign development for the strip malls under diverse ownership, as well as to encourage just one pole sign instead of multiple pole signs within the strip development. Schroeder noted that this request is a bit 5