Loading...
Minutes Zoning Bd Adj 7 26 01 MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION Thursday, July 26, 2001 4:00 p.m. Auditorium, Carnegie Stout Library 360 W. 11th Street, Dubuque, Iowa PRESENT: Chairperson Mike Ruden; Board Members Randy Klauer, Jim Urell, Bill Gasper, Fred Beeler; Staff Members Wally Wemimont, Kyle Kritz and Guy Hemenway. ABSENT: None. AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE: Staff presented an Affidavit of Compliance verifying the meeting was being held in compliance with the Iowa Open Meetings Law. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. DOCKET 52-01: Application of Father Phillip Kruse/St. Columbkille Church for a conditional use permit (tabled) for property located at 1198 Rush Street to allow an adult day care center for 20 adults and four employees, in an R-1 Single-Family Residential zoning district. Father Phillip Kruse said that the adult day care is intended to provide services to senior citizens. He said there would be 20 adults maximum with four support staff. Board Members asked if St. Columbkille's Church and school facility have adequate parking for the day care. Father Kruse stated that there is plenty of parking for the adult daycare. Mike McCarron, 2110 Valley Street, stated that he is a member of the St. Columbkille's Parish and that he is in favor of the adult day care center. Staff Member Hemenway presented the staff report stating that there appears to be adequate parking and pick-up and drop-off area for the day care. He stated that the amount of activity generated by 20 adults and four staff members will be negligible in comparison to the amount of activity generated by the existing church, school and surrounding uses. The Board reviewed the criteda for granting a conditional use permit. Motion by Urell, seconded by Gasper, to approve the conditional use permit as submitted. Motion carried by the following vote: Ayo Klauer, Urell, Gasper, Beeler, Ruden; Nay-- None. DOCKET 56-01: Application of Lavern Klein for a special exception for property located at 520 Almond Street to build a detached carport 5 feet from the front property line, 20 feet required, and for a total of 1,050 square feet of accessory structures, 1,000 square foot maximum permitted, in an R-2A Alternate Two-Family Residential zoning district. Meeting Minutes-Zoning Board of Adjustment Thursday, July 26, 2001 Page 2 Lavern Klein stated that he would like to build a 20 foot by 22 foot carport next to the front of his home. Staff Member Hemenway distributed an aerial photo to the Board and outlined the proposed carport location on the property. The Board discussed the proposed location of the carport noting that the access to the carport would be from an existing curb cut along the street. The Board also discussed the location of an existing garage on the property that is accessed from the alley. Staff Member Hemenway explained lot coverage and setback requirements for this district. He stated that Mr. Klein is the owner of the adjacent residential property at 510 Almond Street. He said that there should be adequate site visibility from the carport to the sidewalk and traveled portion of the street. Motion by Gasper, seconded by Urell, to approve the special exception as submitted. Motion carried by the following vote: Ayo Klauer, Urell, Gasper, Beeler, Ruden; Nay-- None. DOCKET 57-01: Application of Vincent Manders for a special exception for property located at 569 West Locust Street to build a detached carport 2 feet from either side property line, 4 feet required, and 3 feet from the rear property line, 6 feet required, in an R-3 Multi-Family Residential zoning district. Vincent Manders stated that he wants to build a carport, with access to the alley, behind his home. The Board discusSed the location of residences and garages in the area relative to setbacks and access along the alley. The Board agreed that there are many garages that currently encroach on the alley in this area. The Board felt that the carport would not limit visibility of a vehicle backing into the alley. Staff Member Wally Wernimont discussed the design of the carport and it's location on the paved pad. He said there maybe a slight visibility problem with the carport at this location. Motion by Urell, seconded by Gasper, to approve the special exception as submitted. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye--Klauer, Urell, Gasper, Beeler, Ruden; Nay-- None. DOCKET 58-01: Application of Ben & Kathy Helm for a special exception for the property located at 2508 Jackson to construct a 24 foot by 30 foot detached garage, for a total of 1,656 square feet of accessory structures, 1,000 square foot maximum allowed, in an R-2A Alternative Two-Family Residential zoning district. Ben Helm discussed his request stating that the doors for both garages would be oriented toward each other. Staff Member Hemenway presented the Board with aerial photos of the site. Mr. Helm stated that he needs additional garage space to enable him to store a boat and car. Staff Member Hemenway stated that the garage will meet all required setbacks and that the Board is only reviewing the size of the structure. He said that the combined square footage of all accessory structures on this site exceeds the 1,000 square foot Meeting Minutes- Zoning Board of Adjustment Thursday, July 26, 2001 Page 3 maximum permitted. Mr. Helm presented a letter from an adjacent property owner in favor of his building project. Staff Member Hemenway discussed the staff report explaining lot coverage, the garage's orientation on the property and the relatively large size of Mr. Helm's double lot. He stated that the garage would straddle the property line, therefore, joining two lots. Motion by Urell, seconded by Gasper to approve the special exception request as submitted. Motion carried by the following vote: Ayo Klauer, Urell, Gasper, Beeler, Ruden; Nay--None. DOCKET 59-01: Application of Michael & Marilyn Thill for an special exception for the property located at 1625 Rhomberg Avenue to leave an existing fence in the front yard as erected, 5 % feet in height, 4 feet allowed, in an R-2A Alternate Two-Family Residential zoning district. Mike Thill stated that he checked with zoning regarding setbacks and heights for fences prior to construction of his fence. He said he built his fence in good faith and he thought the fence met code requirements. He distributed a petition signed by residents in the neighborhood stating their support for the fence. The Board examined the petition and a letter from the adjacent property owner, George Cayro, 1629 Rhomberg. Mr. Cayro stated in the letter that his neighbor's fence is an asset to the block and the neighborhood. He said that it enhances not only the Thill's property but his own. He said that the fence is aesthetically pleasing and adds privacy to the back yards. Mary Cayro, 1629 Rhomberg, stated that she feels that the fence is aesthetically pleasing, well built, and improves the value of the property. She said it is in line with the fence on their lot. Deloras Koster, 1275 Dunnlieth Court and granddaughter of the adjacent property owner Mrs. Latmer, read a letter that submitted by Mrs. Latmer. She stated that the fence obstructs her grandmother's view to the street. Board members discussed the fence height and location and its impact on the view from the front porch of the residents of 1623 Rhomberg to the street. Marilyn Thill stated that she thought that they were in compliance with the existing ordinance because the fence is 10 feet back from the sidewalk, and is less than 7 feet in height. Darlene Kaufrnann, 1499 Reeder Street, stated that she felt that the fence at this location blocks her mother's view to the street. She said that the fence should be moved back. The Board discussed the fence location and the setback requirements in R-2A districts. Meeting Minutes- Zoning Board of Adjustment Thursday, July 26, 2001 Page 4 Staff Member Wernimont outlined the staff report stating that the fence is 10 feet from the sidewalk but only 6 feet from the front property line. He discussed the permitting process for building a fence, and height requirements for a fence located in the front yard. Chairperson Ruden stated that the Board should review the fence request as though it has not already been built. He said that the Board should review the special exception criteria. Board Member Urell stated that the intent of the fence ordinance is to prevent blocking view from the adjacent property and that he feels this fence does indeed block the view. Motion by Urell, seconded by Gasper, to approve the special exception request as submitted. Motion was denied by the following vote: Nay--Klauer, Urell, Gasper, Beeler, Ruden; Ayo None. DOCKET 60-01: Application of Todd & Tami Swift for a special exception for property located at 1260 Alta Vista to build a 24 foot by 15 foot detached garage, 0 feet from the south side property line, 6 feet required, in an R-2 Two-Family Residential zoning district. Todd Swift stated that the existing garage is dilapidated and he wants to demolish it and build new, larger garage on his property. Chairperson Ruden asked ifthe existing garage was built on the property line. Mr. Swift said that it is built on the property line. Mr. Swift stated that the neighbors are in support of this project. Staff Member Wemimont outlined the staff report stating that the garage will replace the existing garage with a larger new garage. He said that the detached garage should have very limited impact on public safety or for the use on adjacent properties. He recommended that, if approved, the Board require a site survey to establish the property line. Motion by Gasper, seconded by Urell, to approve the special exception request with the condition that a site survey be obtained. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye- Klauer, Urell, Gasper, Beeler, Ruden; Nay--None. DOCKET 61-01: Application of Steven Kopp for an special exception for the property located at 567 Loras Boulevard to convert a duplex to a three-plex, with 5,460 square foot of lot area, when 6,000 square foot is required, in an R-4 Multi-Family Residential zoning district. Steven Kopp presented his application to the Board explaining the dimensions and layout ofthe current duplex. Mr. Kopp discussed the parking in the neighborhood stating that he provides 5 off-street parking spaces for his duplex. He also stated that he has received Historic Preservation Commission approval for the exterior changes to the building. Staff Member Hemenway explained that the property was converted from a four-plex to a duplex. He said that there is adequate parking based on the ordinance requirements. He Meeting Minutes-Zoning Board of Adjustment Thursday, July 26, 2001 Page 5 also reiterated that Mr. Kopp has received Historic Preservation Commission approval for his exterior building modifications. Motion by Urell, seconded by Gasper, to approve the special exception request as submitted. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye---Klauer, Urell, Gasper, Beeler, Ruden; NaymNone. DOCKET 63-01: Application of HSSR Associates/Medical Associates Realty for a conditional use permit for the Lot 10, northeast comer of Medical Associates Campus to allow development of a senior housing campus including 88 assisted living units, 28 independent apartments and 11 duplexes, with access to Aggie Street, in a PR Planned Residential zoning district. Jerry Bourquin, representing HSSR Associates, stated that HSSR Associates had received prior approval from the Zoning Board of Adjustment for their initial development. He stated that HSSR would like to add additional assisted living units~ He stated that Market Studies indicated the need for additional assisted living facilities. He stated that this complex would not be adding staff, just units. Mr. Bourquin explained the new layout for the proposed complex. He stated that the additional 22 assisted living units should have very little impact on traffic or parking. He stated that these extra units would only generated about 11 additional vehicle trips per day. Staff Member Kritz presented the staff report explaining why a new hearing is required for the conditional use permit. He stated that the addition of the units represented a significant change to the previously approved conditional use permit. He stated that dudng development review the Fire and Engineering Departments were consulted regarding the new development and had no concerns with it. The Board reviewed the criteria for granting a conditional use permit and discussed the minor changes to the original facility. Motion by Gasper, seconded by Urell, to approve the conditional use permit with the condition that any vehicular connection between the Medical Associate camp and the subject property be limited to a gated emergency vehicle access only. Motion carded by the following vote: Aye--Klauer, Urell, Gasper, Beeler, Ruden; Nay--None. DOCKET 66-01: Application of Elaine Frey for an special exception for property located at 2003 Chaney Road to build a 26 foot by 17 foot addition, 12 feet from the front property line (Hillcrest Road), 20 feet required, or to build an 8 foot fence along the Hillcrest frontage, 4 foot maximum permitted, in an R-2 Two-Family Residential zoning district. Elaine Frey stated that she is in the process of making her house handicap accessible. She stated that she has applied for funding for the handicap conversion. She said if she does not receive funding for the conversion and addition on the back of her house she wishes to place a fence along the same building line as the proposed addition. Meeting Minutes-Zoning Board of Adjustment Thursday, July 26, 2001 Page 6 Staff Member Hemenway presented the staff report. He explained that the subject property is a corner lot that has 20 foot setbacks from both frontages. He stated that the current structure is built approximately 12 feet from the front property line and that the applicants want to make their addition or fence flush with the Hillcrest Road side of the house. He stated that any fence in this neighborhood should not exceed 6 feet in height because it would be out of scale and character with the existing built environment. He distributed a map of the subject property and surrounding properties. The Board discussed the property layout and fence height. Motion by Urell, seconded by Gasper, to approve the special exception request to build a 26 foot by 17 foot addition, 12 feet from the front property line (Hilicrest Road), or to build a fence along the Hillcrest frontage, with the condition that the height of the fence not exceed 6 feet. The motion was approved by the following vote: Ayo Klauer, Urell, Gasper, Beeler, Ruden; Nay--None. DOCKET 67-01: Application of Anthony Petty for a special exception for property located at 2815 Davenport to enclose an existing carport 2 feet from the rear property line, 6 feet required, and 2 feet from the east side property line, 6 feet required, in an R-1 Single- Family Residential zoning district. Anthony Petty spoken in favor of his request stating that he wants to enclose a carport to use it as a shed. He said that he tore down an old shed in his yard and now he needs additional storage space. He said the existing carport is very small and is ideally suited for storage of lawn equipment, not for a garage. Staff Member Wernimont outlined the staff report stating that because the applicant has requested approval to enclose a carport he recommends that the applicant provide two additional paved off street spaces in order to meet current parking requirements. Board Member Klauer asked about the violation history on this property. Mr. Petty said he had his friend remove the illegal vehicles and that he will not use the shed to store junk. He said that he agreed to create the additional off-street parking next to his carport location as requested. Motion by Urell, seconded by Klauer, to approve the special exception request with the condition that the applicant pave two off-street parking spaces on the subject property. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye--Klauer, Urell, Gasper, Beeler, Ruden; Nay-- None. DOCKET 68-01: Application of Kevin Althaus to approve a special exception for property located at 2061 Jeffery Drive to build a 24 foot by 24 foot detached garage, 2 feet from the south side property line, 6 feet required, in an R-1 Single-Family Residential zoning district: Kevin Althaus said that he wants to remove a dilapidated garage and replace it with a new one 2 feet from the side property line. He said that he will replace the existing sidewalks and driveway as part of the project. He said he has talked with his neighbors about the Meeting Minutes-Zoning Board of Adjustment Thursday, July 26, 2001 Page 7 project and none of them have raised any concerns. He distributed a note from one neighbor in support of his project. He stated that because his lot is pie-shaped, a 2 foot encroachment is the closest that the proposed detached garage will be to the property line. He stated he wants to align the garage with his driveway to make access easier. He asked Board Members if he could alter his request to a 26 foot by 26 foot garage: Planning Staff notified him that in order for him to be able to legally alter his request for 24 foot by 24 foot to a 26 foot by 26 foot garage, rs-notification would be necessary. They stated that an additional fee would not be required. Motion by Gasper, seconded by Klauer, to table the special exception application to the next meeting at the applicant's request. Motion carried by the following vote: Ayo Klauer, Urell, Gasper, Beeler, Ruden; Nay--None. DOCKET 35-01, 36-01, 37-01: Planning Staff distributed a letter from the applicant requesting to withdrawal the application because a co-location site was found for the tower. Motion by Gasper, seconded by Urell, to withdraw the applications for Dockets 35-01,36- 01, and 37-01. Motion carded by the following vote: Aye Klauer, Urell, Gasper, Beeler, Ruden: Nay--None. DOCKET 64-01: Application of Telecorp Realty/Whalen & Company, Inc. for an conditional use permit for property located at 1700 South Grandview Avenue (Louis Murphy Park) to construct a 190 foot monopole telecommunication tower, where 150 foot is allowed; and set back 75 feet, 190 feet required, from the west side properly line (Highway 151/61), in an R-1 Single-Family Residential zoning district. The Board decided to hear the both Docket 64-01 and 65-01 simultaneously. Russell Douglas, representing Telecorp Realty, explained the process that the wireless services used for cell towers and antennas. He stated that they attempt to co-locate but they could not find a site near enough to cover their service area. He stated that the topography of this arsa made finding an adequate site very difficult. He briefly touched on the proposed tower sites' ability to meet the criteda for granting a conditional use permit and variance. Mike Singer, Whalen & Company, described the tower location and height requirements. He said that the tower could be co-located with up to three additional cardem. He said that the tower will not be lighted and will be painted blue to match the existing power poles in the park. He said the base will be small and screened. He said that the tower has been placed so as to preserve all the large mature trees in that portion of the park~ He said the City will receive additional rent from service providers who wished to co-locate on their tower. Mr. Singer stated that they initially looked at 150 foot tower, which would have been marginally adequate for their purposes but would not, however, have been co-locatable as required by the City. He said that the 150 foot tower would have had poor RF coverage. Meeting Minutes-Zoning Board of Adjustment Thursday, July 26, 2001 Page 8 Chairperson Ruden stated that the site diagram did not demonstrate that the proposed call tower would be aligned with the existing tower poles. He also said that Telecorp did not demonstrate that a 150 foot tower would not work at this location. Mr. Eagleson, P,F engineer for Telecorp, showed the Board an RF coverage prorogation map for a 150-foot tower. Kevin Kane, 795 Laurel Street, asked what additional users would be allowed on the tower. He stated his concerns with electro-magnetic fields that may be generated by future users. Mike Singer stated that the lease language mandates co-location be limited to cellular communication providers only. Staff Member Kritz outline the staff report discussing the tower locations within the City including the nearest towers on Cedar Cross Road and the South Industrial Park. He said that because of Dubuque's topography more towers are necessary. He said that 150 feet high towers are not always co-locatable. Staff Member Kritz discussed setback requirements and potential tower failure stating that it was unlikely that the tower would impact the highway. Staff Member Kritz also discussed the screening requirements for the equipment compound. Board Member Klauer said that he would like screening to be placed around the entire compound. Staff Member Kritz stated that the 190 foot tower would not require lighting and that the applicant has offered to paint the tower blue. The Board reviewed the criteria for granting a conditional use permit. The Board felt that the tower met all the criteria. Chairperson Ruden voiced concarn with Criteria Number 6 because a call tower along the bluff in the park may not be in harmony with its surroundings. The Board reviewed the criteria for granting a variance. Motion by Gasper, seconded by Klauer to approve the variance request as submitted. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye-- Klauer, Urell, Gasper, Beeler, Ruden; Nay--None. Motion by Gasper, seconded by Klauer, to approve the conditional use permit with the conditions that 1) only monopole be allowed 2) that the monopole be painted blue to match the existing power poles, and 3) that the equipment be fenced and the compound be screened with vegetation. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye- Klauer, Urell, Gasper, Beeler; Nay-- Ruden. DOCKET 62-0'1: Application of Bressler Outdoor Advertising/Harold & Jocille Weber staff's to appeal interpretation of sign separation for a proposed billboard located at 44 Main Street. Chris Stevens, representing Bressler Outdoor Advertising, distributed a diagram of the timeline of the nine month process for the sign permit review. He stated that he was in compliance with all sign regulations at the time he submitted his application. He stated that he first expressed interest in placing a sign at 44 Main Street location in December of 2000. He stated that Guy Hemenway signed and dated the state application and that his sign location met the City criteria for an on-premise sign. He stated that he made app~lication for State certification in December of 2000 and submitted his state permit on 15 of March, 2001. He said that the City implemented an off premise sign permit moratorium on January 15, 2001. Mr. Stevens stated that on March 8th the State approved Meeting Minutes- Zoning Board of Adjustment Thursday, July 26, 2001 Page 9 his application in that he was informed by the City of Dubuque on March 22"d that the application would not be consider because a permit moratorium was in place. He said there wes a text amendment drafted that increased the required distant between billboards. He said moratorium wes extended to May 21" and, subsequently, this location became ineligible for an off premise sign. He said he agrees that Bressler does not meet the sign separation, however, he feels the Bressler Company has a vested right to use this location because they had applied for a permit prior to the sign permit moratorium. Mr. Stevens address the spacing issues saying that he felt his sign wes oriented towerd Highway 52 and, therefore, should only be separated from other structures along Highwey 52. He stated that both the proposed billboard and the existing billboard could not be seen simultaneously from the Highway. He said that separation is for structures but that the proposed sign would be painted on a building and, therefore, is not a structure. He said Bressler is only hanging the sign, not building a structure. He explain that he would like to improve the visual appeal of the Weber's building because it is currently run down and in need of exterior cosmetic repair. He said that the proposed sign would have goose neck lighting and some lattice work below. He said that the building is on property that is zoned Light Industrial. And that billboards are permitted in this district. He said that the billboard will generate additional revenue for the property owners. He asked the Zoning Board of Adjustment to approve the sign location. He stated that he feels that the Board could grant a variance for the sign separation. Staff Member Kritz read the process for an appeal. Staff Member Hemenway said that Bressler's appeal only questioned the sign separation interpretation made by the Planning Services staff. Assistant City Attorney Tim O'Brien said that the Board can choose to review anything presented to them. He said that the Board has option to affirm, modify, or reverse the Staff interpretation of the Ordinance. The Board discussed the vested right issues raised by Mr. Stevens and reviewed the timeline submitted. The Board concentrated on the dates that the sign permit was formalized and the dates the moratorium wes implemented. Board Members agreed that both signs were oriented toward the Locust Street Connector and that 750 foot separation requirement was applicable. Board Members agreed that the sign permit moratorium was in effect when th Bressler filed the formal application on March 16 , 2001. Staff Member Hemenway said that a permit is not officially issued until he has all the pertinent information and has signed-off on the permit and forwarded it to the Building Department. Board Members discussed the difference between on-premise and off-premise signage, which may be placed on the business property by the owner. Staff Member Hemenwey explained the difference between on-premise and off-premise signage. He also explained the intent of moratorium and discussed the line of sight verses the amount of billboards in an area. Staff Member Hemenway explain the text amendment stating that the proposed billboard will be odented toward not only highwey 52 but also towerd the Locust Street Connecter. He also discussed the orientation of the existing billboard at 99 Main Street. He stated that the distance between the billboards is less then the required 750 feet, at 325 feet, for a federal aid primary highway. Staff Member Hemenwey noted that appeals must be based on the grounds specified on the appeal application. Meeting Minutes- Zoning Board of Adjustment Thursday, July 26, 2001 Page 10 Mr. Stevens explained that when he applied for other billboard permits from the City, the City Staff have asked for state approval first. He said that if you just consider the separation of the billboard, Mr. Hemenway's interpretation is correct. He said, however, that the Board should consider when the application was received and that Bressler Outdoor Advertising had vested rights. Mr. Hemenway reiterated that permits are not issued until state approval is received. He also stated that he was not able to issue any permits until the moratorium was rescinded. Mr. Hemenway stated that it was prudent to receive state approval prior to issuance of a permit because, if approved and a building permit was issued, someone could illegally erect a sign in violation of state regulations. Staff Member Kritz stated that the State's requirements are not as strict as the City's. Board Member discussed when the application was taken and the timeline for issuing of a building permit for signage. Staff Member Hemenway stated that there were two items of information not submitted on the original application, which include a site diagram and the sign location and size, and a mural design that Mr. Stevens had discussed with him. Staff Member Hemenway reiterated that the complete application was received on March 16, 2001. Staff Member Kritz discussed the standards a granting an appeal. The Board discussed the arguments regarding the appeal and felt that staffs interpretation of the sign separation was correct. Motion by Klauer, seconded by Gasper, to affirm the interpretation of a Staff regarding sign separation. Motion was affirmed by the following vote: Aye- Klauer, Urell, Gasper, Beeler, Ruden; Naymnone. MINUTES & NOTICES OF DECISION: The minutes of June 28, 2001 meeting and Notices of Decision for Dockets 41-01,42-01,43-01,44-01,45-01,46-01,47-01,48-01,49- 01,50-01,51-01,52-01,53-01,54-01,55-01 were approved unanimously of submitted. ITEMS FROM STAFF: ITEMS FROM BOARD: ITEMS FROM PUBLIC: ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kyle L. Kritz, Associate Planner Adopted