Loading...
MInutes Zoning Bd Adj 1 25 01 RECEIVED Oi FEE~ -'7 P~ ~.: 3~ CL~/Ci~,'s Office MINUTES ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION Thursday, January 25, 2001 4:00 p.m. Auditorium, Carnegie Stout Library 360 W. 11th Street, Dubuque, Iowa D? FT PRESENT: Chairperson Mike Ruden; Board Members Vicky Bechen, Jim Urell, Bill Gasper and Fred Beeler; Staff Members 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 4:05 p.m. DOCKET 96-00: Special Exception (tabled from December 21, 2000) Ken Moore/Moore Land Development to erect a 7 foot high fence in the front yard (Radford Road), 4 feet maximum permitted, in an R-1 Single-Family Residential zoning district and an R-3 Multi-Family Residential zoning district. The applicant was not in attendance. Motion by Gasper, seconded by Urell, to table the special exception request to the next regular meeting. Motion was approved unanimously. Chairperson Ruden directed City staffto contact the applicant and request that he attend the next regular meeting. DOCKET 01-01: Variance/Marty and Nancy McNamer/2100 Asbury Road/to enlarge an existing free-standing sign for a total of 62 square feet, when 40 square feet maximum is permitted, in an OS Office Service zoning district. Marty NcNamer reviewed his request, asking to enlarge an existing sign to enable him to advertise a new office building with additional tenants. He stated that the existing regulations do allow him to add a second free-standing sign; however, with only one access to Asbury, he believes enlarging the existing sign is more logical and would have less impact on the neighborhood. Staff Member Hemenway reviewed the staff report, noting that the Board has the authority to restrict the applicant to only one freestanding sign, as a compromise in granting the additional square footage. Minutes - Zoning Board of Adjustment January 25, 2001 Page 2 Motion by Gasper, seconded by Bechen, to approve the variance request, with the condition that only one freestanding sign be permitted on the property. Motion was approved by the following vote: Aye - Bechen, Gasper, Beeler and Ruden; Nay - None. DOCKET 02-01: Conditional Use Permit/Medical Associates Realty/HSR Associates Inc./to allow development of a senior housing campus, including assisted living, independent apartments and condominiums, in a PR Planned Residential zoning district. Scoff Franklin and Jerry Bourquin, representing HSR Associates, Inc., outlined their project, stating that the complex includes an assisted living center surrounded by condominium units. Mr. Franklin stated that assisted living clients are sedentary, and the assisted living center would have 60-64 units. Mr. Franklin said the complex would generate approximately 300 vehicle trips per day, which included staff and visitors. He said that if the property were to be developed for single-family homes, it would in all likelihood, generate more traffic than the proposed assisted living complex. NOTE: Jim Urell entered at 4:10 p.m. Mr. Bourquin reviewed the layout of the proposed complex, stating that the development would create a social context and a neighborhood atmosphere. He said that those folks residing in the assisted living portion of the complex would average 85 years of age. He said that the loop of residential units ringing the assisted living complex would buffer the neighbors. He stated that the access was configured as it is, is because of the steep grade of the property. He discussed the interior traffic contiguration and its connection to existing City streets. He said that there will be a gated secondary driveway to the Medical Associates campus for emergency access only. He said that the elderly population would generate minimal traffic. James Holz, 1489 Marjorie Circle, introduced his wife, Melissa. He said that they were opposed to the access, not the project. He said that semi truck traffic cannot get through Marjorie Circle because on street parking creates a narrow passage. He said that there are no stoplights at Pennsylvania Avenue, which makes the intersections hazardous. He read a petition of opposition containing 88 signatures from neighbors. Mr. Holz stated that he feels that the applicant's contention that the property would only generate 300 vehicle trips per day is optimistically Iow, given the number of condominiums, assisted living units and the visitors and employees that will be associated with it. He stated that he feels the access should be redirected through Medical Associates campus to the Northwest Arterial. John Leicht, 1514 Marjorie Circle, stated he is opposed to the entrance to the facility. He said that the facility would increase traffic in the neighborhood, and exacerbate existing traffic problems on Pennsylvania Avenue, which are generated by Hempstead High School. He said the surface of his road is in disrepair and this would add to the problem. He stated that Marjorie Circle has parking on both sides and is hard to negotiate, especially when snow is piled on the sides of the street. Minutes-Zoning Board ofAdjustment January 25,2001 Page 3 Kevin Bryson, 1542 Madorie Circle, stated he is opposed to the facility because of traffic concerns. Randy O'Mara, 1525 Lucy Ddve, said he is opposed to the request because of potential traffic problems created by the facility. He said that Hempstead High School traffic in this area is already intense. Randy Ambrosy, 1593 Marjorie Circle, said he is opposed to the development. He said that it would generate additional traffic, including buses and parcel post vehicles. He said that many students from Hempstead High School currently park in the neighborhood. He said that during the construction process, equipment would damage the streets in the neighborhood. Peggy Gibson, 1636 Marjode Circle, said she was opposed to the request because of traffic. She said that the additional traffic will back up at stop signs along Pennsylvania Avenue. Mike Breese, 1554 Lucy Drive, said he wants his subdivision to remain quiet. He said that he is opposed to the proposed entrance, and is strongly opposed to the development. Karen Leubka, 1660 Marjorie Circle, said she is opposed to the development because of the additional traffic generated. Bob Hartig, representing Medical Associates, spoke in favor of the request, stating that this style of eldedy housing is needed. He said that the HSR project is similar to a former project that was approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. He stated that Marjode Circle and Lucy Drive ware both stubbed into this property because they were originally designed for residential access. He stated that this is an R-3 residentially zoned area. Rick Kretz, 1469 Marjorie Circle, stated he had traffic concerns regarding the project. He stated that children's safety would be at risk if this project was approved. He stated he is concerned with potential run-off problems generated by the new development. Terry Leicht, 1514 Marjorie Cimle, said she liked the project; however, she has concerns with the traffic it would generate. Susan Staggs, 1615 Marjorie Circle, stated she has traffic concerns regarding the project. She stated she feels the access to the facility should be from Medical Associates campus. Jean Woodyard, 1578 Lucy Drive, said she is opposed to the access design. She said that elderly clients would have to drive along Marjorie Circle and out onto Pennsylvania and all the way around to access services at Medical Associates facility. Thomas Barton, 1625 Donovan Drive, said he is concerned with traffic safety on Pennsylvania Avenue. He said that Marjorie Circle is often hard to negotiate because it's narrow with parking Minutes-Zoning Board ofAdjustment January 25,2001 Page 4 on both sides. He saidthatsevenotherneighbom in his neighbo~oodareopposedtothe facili~ because ofits access. Jeffand Ca~eTimmerman, 1481Madode Cimle, saidthatthey are opposed ~ the facili~ access because oftraffic concerns. Chades Davis, 1588 Lucy Drive, said that the development, as proposed, is good, but the access configuration is bad. He said that Associates Drive would be a more appropriate access for the facility. Dawn Cook, 1481 Lucy Drive, stated she believes the project is a worthy one; however, that the access, as shown, is inadequate. She said that the developer has underestimated the traffic that would be generated by the project. She said access should be redirected to Associates Drive. Richard Grothe, 3808 Andrea Street, said he is opposed to the facility because of traffic. He said if access is redirected to Medical Associates campus, there would be no emergency access necessary for the facility. Scott Franklin stated that there would be no access for employees of either the elderly care facility or Medical Associates to the facility, only a gated emergency access for fire safety. He said that assisted living complexes generate little traffic. He said that the elderly generally venture out only during Iow traffic periods. He said there will be only one delivery by a food service truck once a week. Jerry Bourquin stated that this would be typical residential development, just with older citizens. He said that 16 duplexes for seniors wilt not generate much traffic. He said that seniors are generally quiet neighbors and generate less traffic than standard single-family developments. Staff Member Kritz outlined the staff report, discussing the history of the neighborhood and subdivision development of this area. He said that the subdivision was platted and began to be built in the late 1970's. He said that Donovan, Welu and Aggie streets were stubbed to serve the balance of the property for access for residential development. He said when the Medical Associates planned development was approved in 1994, Donovan was permanently stubbed and used as an emergency access only. He said that Medical Associates property remains isolated so that none of the traffic from that facility can be funneled into the neighborhoods. He said that the original R-3 designation is part of the original PUD for this area and was always intended for residential development. He said it could currently be developed for a range of housing types from single-family homes up to six~plex apartment-style buildings. He discussed the gated access to the Medical Associates facility for the elderly. He stated it would be possible to have a secure gated access that could be used by clients of the facility to access Medical Associates campus. Chairperson Ruden asked ifAggie Street is intended to be a through street to Pennsylvania. Staff Member Kritz stated no, and that traffic can use Lucy, Marjorie or Donovan Drive to access Pennsylvania Avenue. Staff Member Kritz stated that Aggie Street was stubbed in t~ 1990s Minutes-Zoning Boar of Adjustment Janua~ 25,2001 Page 5 before Medical Associates Planned Unit Development was created. He said that Aggie Street currently has 31 feet of pavement. He said that street widths in this subdivision are typical for local and collector streets. He stated that a semi could be required to come through the gated access from Medical Associates, therefore avoiding traversing streets in the neighborhood. Chairperson Ruden inquired about storm water drainage and retention. Staff Member Kritz said that City Engineering could manage storm water so as to direct the runoff to the southeast to Caffish Creek, and not onto adjacent neighborhoods. Chairperson Ruden asked Board Member Bechen if she feels the property value would be impacted by the additional traffic in the neighborhood. Board Member Bechen stated she feels that the traffic would generate a negative impact on property value, especially with the additional traffic generated by visitors and employees of the facility. Chairperson Ruden asked Staff Member Kritz if the access from Medical Associates to the facility is approved. Staff Member Kritz stated that there is no approved access other than the gated emergency access. When asked about trip generation figures, Staff Member Kritz stated he assumed that the employees and visitors to the facility were calculated as part of the trip generation. Board Member Bechen stated she has concerns for access in the area because cars park along Marjorie Cimle. Board Member Urell asked about trip generation figures and said that these figures were generated by examining developments of a similar nature. Board Members discussed the proposed facility stating they are concerned with traffic and truck and bus access. The Board Members reviewed the standards for granting a conditional use permit and felt that standard #8 and #3 were not met. Motion by Bechen, seconded by Gasper, to approve the conditional use permit as submitted. The motion was denied by the following vote: ,&ye - none; Nay - Bechen, Gasper, Urell, Beeter and Ruden. DOCKET 03-01: Special Exception/Jim and Despia Matheos, 290 S. Grandview/to build an addition at the rear of the residence 3 feet from the north side property line, 6 feet required, in an R-1 Single-Family Residential zoning district. Jim and Debbie Matheos reviewed their proposed project, noting that a wrong measurement of their foundation resulted in their home not being in compliance with R-1 Single-Family District standards, and that their foundation is 3 feet from the side property line instead of the required 6 feet. Staff Member Hemenway reviewed the setbacks of the R-1 district and stated that public safety or the value of adjacent properties should not be impacted by the addition. Minutes-Zoning Board of Adjustment Janua~ 25,2001 Page 6 Motion by Gasper, seconded by Urell, to approve the special exception as submitted. Motion was approved by the following vote: Aye - Bechen, Gasper, Urell, Beeler and Ruden; Nay - None. MINUTES & NOTICES OF DECISION: The minutes of the December 21, 2000 meeting and Notices of Decision were approved as submitted unanimously. ri'EMS FROM PUBLIC: Mike Pugh, representing IPCS, asked board members to consider rehearing their application which was filed in November, 2000 to place a communications tower at the Roosevelt Street location. He reviewed a letter that the Board received outlining IPCS's reasons for the rehearing. He said the Zoning Board of Adjustment did not adhere to the Federal Telecommunications Act Rules and Procedures. Therefore, he said the Zoning Board of Adjustment decision is flawed. He said that the proposed conditional use permit for the tower should be reheard so that it follows the evidentiary rules of the Telecommunications Act. He said that the act requires that evidentiary burden be placed on the Board, not on the applicant. He said that the evidence that was submitted by the neighbors was not valid or expert. He said that because the Telecommunications Act was not followed, that a rehearing was warranted. He said that IPCS guaranteed they would streamline the rehearing and he said that the company would abide by the Board's decision if the rehearing was granted and proper procedures were followed. Assistant City Attorney James O'Brien stated that the Zoning Board of Adjustment By-Laws state that there must be new evidence submitted for the Board to consider a rehearing. He stated that a Federal Court of Appeals in a Virginia Beach, Virginia case, held that the Telecommunications Act does not override local control or local rules and regulations regarding towers. He stated that Congress was adamant that local zoning control not be abolished by the Telecommunications Act. He said that the procedure followed by the Zoning Board of Adjustment was appropriate. He said that the Board abided by existing law governing telecommunication towers. NOTE: Bechen left at 5:42 p.m. Mr. Pugh stated that he felt Mr. O'Bden was wrong and that the Virginia Beach case did not overrule the Telecommunications Act. The general consensus among Board members was that they chose not to rehear the case. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Kyle L. Kritz, Associate Planner Adopted