HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-08-20-J01C 080918 BOA MinutesAGENDA ITEM:
CITY OF WAUKEE, IOWA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING COMMUNICATION
MEETING DATE: August 20, 2018
AGENDA ITEM:Consideration of receipt and file of Board of Adjustment Minutes of 08/09/18
meeting
FORMAT:Consent Agenda
SYNOPSIS INCLUDING PRO & CON: Attached is a copy of the Board of Adjustment Minutes from
their meeting held on August 9, 2018 for the City Council to receive and file of
record.
FISCAL IMPACT INCLUDING COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS:
COMMISSION/BOARD/COMMITTEE COMMENT:
STAFF REVIEW AND COMMENT:
RECOMMENDATION:
ATTACHMENTS: I. 08/09/18 Board of Adjustment Minutes
PREPARED BY:Andy Kass, Senior Planner
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC NOTICE INFORMATION –
NAME OF PUBLICATION:
DATE OF PUBLICATION:
J1C
MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 9TH, 2018 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Call to Order. The August 9th, 2018 Board of Adjustment meeting was called to order at
5:30P.M by Chairman Juan Garcia.
Roll Call. The Chair asked for a roll call and the following Board Members were present:
Breckenridge, Meyers, Garcia, Drees, and Irvin. No absent Board Members. City Staff in
attendance: Melissa DeBoer, Andy Kass, and Kathryn Purvis.
Agenda Approval. Board Member Drees made a motion, seconded by Board Member Myers, to
approve the agenda for August 9th, 2018. Ayes: Breckenridge, Meyers, Garcia, Drees, and Irvin.
Nays: None. Motion carried.
Approve the February 22nd, 2018 Board of Adjustment Minutes. Board Member
Breckenridge made a motion, seconded by Board Member Garcia, to approve the Board of
Adjustment meeting minutes for February 22nd, 2018 with an amendment to roll call. Ayes:
Breckenridge, Meyers, Garcia, Drees, and Irvin Nays: None. Motion carried.
Application for 605 6th Street.
Waukee City Planner, Andy Kass, introduced the request made by the applicant, Red Door
Property Solutions, LLC, to obtain a variance from section 301.13.c. of the Waukee Municipal
Code to allow for alterations to setbacks in a residential district. The subject property is located
east of 6th Street and south of Cherry Street.
Mr. Kass advised that the applicant is looking to split the lot, which already contains a residential
home, into 3 lots, and build 2 duplex buildings on the newly created lots. The applicant seeks to
decrease the front yard setback to 25 feet, and the rear yard setback to 20 feet. The applicant has
stated that adjacent lots have typical depths of 125 feet which provide more buildable area than
the 95 foot depth of the subject property. The applicant has also noted that, by allowing more
buildable area to the lot by decreasing the setbacks, would result in a higher value property and
allow for new homes to be built in the location.
Mr. Kass advised the Board that staff is, generally speaking, in a position to recommend against
variance requests as they do not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In lieu of a
recommendation, Staff advises that without the variance, the property can still be used as it exists
today. Staff also advises that all other bulk regulations will be met if new units are constructed.
Staff also advises that the proposed development is an infill development on a lot that was
created prior to the adoption of the current ordinance, and that, typically, unusual circumstances
arise such as this case.
Member Drees questioned who the notice was sent out to. Mr. Kass advised that the notice
would have been sent to anyone in a 310 foot radius of the property.
Member Drees questioned if there had been correspondence prior to the meeting regarding the
request. Mr. Kass advised that there was one correspondence that indicated they were against the
variance unless a privacy fence was constructed along the property line shared with evergreen
manor.
Member Drees questioned about the setback of the current apartment development known as
Evergreen Manor. Mr. Kass advised that the building set back is ______ and was approved prior
to the adoption of the current ordinance.
Korey Marsh and Tom Pezek, representatives for the applicant, advised that they were asking for
the variance in order to get the buildable space necessary for building construction, more
specifically for 2 duplex buildings.
Member Breckenridge explained that he is not bothered by the front yard setback, but rather how
close the backyard is to the property to the south. He is concerned with how the property drains
with a building on it. Mr. Marsh addressed the concern, indicating that the property is very flat,
and that storm water detention would be something to be engineered prior to building. Member
Meyers advised that there is a drainage issue in the general area of the neighborhood.
Member Garcia questioned if there was a backup plan for the property provided they were not
granted a variance. Mr. Pezek advised that the plan would be to sell them off as single family
homes rather than duplexes, or accept a loss and keep it as a single property.
Gary Porth of 500 5th Street advised that he knows the area well in all kinds of conditions and
that water sits for days after heavy storm events, especially to the east of the property. He
expressed a concern about Evergreen manor to the south, as it wouldn’t take much of a rainfall to
have the apartments flood. He also was concerned that the applicants were unwilling to provide
solid answers to the questions regarding storm water management. He read aloud a letter drafted
by the neighbor group present which encompassed his concerns, along with concerns about
maintaining the historical nature of the neighborhood, and the feel of a single family residential
neighborhood.
Member Drees reminded the residents that the area is zoned R-3- multifamily, and that is is
possible for a builder to meet requirements, not need a variance, and end up with a 2 story
apartment building. From this perspective, the neighborhood could dislike something more than
what is being presented. Mr. Porth advised it is a possibility, but that he would like a solid
answer to the storm water management. Member Drees, advised that they are asking for the
variance prior to the designs. Mr. Marsh advised that it was cost effective to see if a building was
possible before having the engineering done for storm water management.
Bobbie Vaught of 550 5th street, advised that the lot has major drainage issues. During the recent
heavy rains, water came over the street and into her basement window. She is concerned that
having buildings on the property will only increase the damage to her property. She also
presented questions on if the storm sewers in the area needed maintenance in order to handle the
water in the area.
Member Breckenridge questioned staff if there were any city projects that would be updating the
storm sewer in the area. Mr. Kass advised that there are no city projects planned in the area to his
knowledge. With this project, the applicants would need to extend the sanitary sewer lines, but
there are no street improvements required, such as adding curb and gutter.
Kathleen Cady of 640 6th Street, echoed the previous concerns for historical integrity to the area,
and water management. She advised that the previous owner was not allowed a variance to build
on the lot, and that she had looked at purchasing the property, but upon calling the city was
advised that a variance would not be granted. She advised that neighbors were not against
building on the lot, just not something so out of place or that would cause more issues.
Kent Corbie a resident of Evergreen Manor, advised that he had lived there for 18 years and that
every time there was a storm, a big lake of water fills into that lot and drains through the
apartment complex. Mrs. Cady added that this flow of storm water occurs even though there is a
storm drain on the subject property.
Greg Breuer of 620 6th Street, advised that he was shocked to see 2 story duplexes at the corner
of 8th and Cherry. With all of the construction, 6th street is heavily travelled. He also advised that
the property was currently in a state of disarray and shared photos taken earlier in the day
showing a need for property maintenance. Mr. Breuer advised that the plans and project do not
fit the property or the neighborhood.
Mrs. Cady questioned what the difference between zoning districts were. Mr. Kass advised that
the R-1 district is strictly for Single Family development. R-2 allows for one and two family
residential which covers duplexes. R-3 is for multi-family, which is traditionally used for
apartment buildings, but in an R-3 zoned district then the uses of an R-2 zoning would be
allowed. He also advised that the property has been under the r-3 district for at least 5 years.
Martha Dewitt of 550 6th street advised that part of her home was building in the 1890’s, that
there is a one room schoolhouse 2 doors down, and that putting something like this does not sit
with the historical nature of the area. She advised that the neighborhood has 2 rentals already and
they experience enough problems with that. More are not needed.
Cindy Irwin of 740 Maple Street advised that she lives next to the new duplexes built and
advised that they do not fit to the overall aesthetic of the neighborhood. Something that would be
the same with what is being proposed. Her home is also of a historical nature, and any addition
that has been added, has been done to replicate and reflect the original feel of the home.
Rita Pollick of 600 6th Street advised that her current home was built in 1910, then rebuild in the
1970’s due to a fire. 2 homes down the street were built in 1905, there is the Vince Meyer School
which is a historic building in Waukee, and the one room school house. Whatever is built in the
area needs to match the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Mrs. Pollick also indicated concern
regarding Cherry Street. The Street is Rock with overlay and has a weight capacity that would
not allow construction vehicles to drive on it without damage to the street.
Karen Dluhos of 960 Maple Street advised that staff should look to the zoning of the property
and see if it fits the neighborhood. She advised that it may be time to stop granting variances
when the bigger picture is problematic.
Mr. Pezek addressed the room stating that he appreciates their concern and feedback. He will fix
the maintenance issues. Several of the residents in attendance advised that there were
advertisements on Red Door Property’s website indicating that the lots were already split and for
sale. Mr. Pezek advised that the advertisements were not to his knowledge, but that he would see
them taken down. The point of the project was to make use of the space. Single family homes are
not out of the question, and the house is for sale with knowledge of this particular project advised
to the potential buyers.
Mr. Marsh also addressed the room, stating that storm sewer has not been analyzed at this time.
If anything, the project would help the storm water issues. Parking is not a problem as each unit
has the capacity for 4 vehicles. The utilities would obviously be marked prior to building, but on
the indicated drawing they are present.
Member Drees commented that the lot seems very buildable and that something will eventually
go there. However, this proposal does not seem to balance with the neighborhood. The advised
that the neighborhood needs to be sensitive to the fact that an interested party could build
something, perhaps something less wanted, without the need for a variance or notification.
Board Member Drees moved to approve a Variance from 301.13.C to allow for a front yard
setback of 25 feet in lieu of the minimum required 30 feet and to allow for a rear yard setback of
20 feet in lieu of the minimum required 30 feet. Board member Myers seconded the motion.
Ayes: None. Nays: Breckenridge, Meyers, Garcia, Drees, and Irvin. Motion Fails and the
Variance is denied.
Application for 16180 SE Laurel Street.
City Planner Andy Kass introduced the request for a variance from section 305.8.B.1 of the
Waukee Municipal code in order to allow for signage along a façade without public street
frontage. The applicant, Home Solutions of Iowa, seek to place signage on the east elevation
which does not contain public street frontage. The Applicant has indicated that the additional
sign would benefit the public that travels westward on SE laurel St. The applicant has also stated
that the two signs combined would be less square footage than what is allowed.
Mr. Kass advised the Board that staff is, generally speaking, in a position to recommend against
variance requests as they do not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In lieu of a
recommendation, Staff advises that all buildings and developments are subject to the contested
regulations, the sign previously allowed for a past tenant was an error, and the applicant has
provided no evidence to suggest that the sign on the east side will improve traffic flow.
Member Breckenridge commented that this allowance would be consistent with previous
allowances in past cases.
Board Member Drees moved to approve a Variance from 305.8.B.1 to allow for signage along a
non-public street. Board member Breckenridge seconded the motion. Ayes: Breckenridge,
Meyers, Garcia, Drees, and Irvin. Nays: none. Motion Carries and the variance is approved.
Application for 1150 SE Ashworth Road.
City Planner, Andy Kass, introduced the request for a variance from section 305.8. (B) 1 and
section 305.8.(B)3 of the Waukee Municipal Code to allow more than 2 wall signs per business
and for signage to be placed on a wall not fronting a public street. The applicants, AP GPP, LLC
and merchant Investments, Inc., advised that the clinic on the other side of the building has
signage that is not along a public street. The applicants also advise that without signage the
drive-thru would not be visible. Mr. Kass reminded the Board that Veridian Street is no longer a
public street.
Mr. Kass advised the Board that staff is, generally speaking, in a position to recommend against
variance requests as they do not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In lieu of a
recommendation, Staff advises that all buildings and developments are subject to the contested
regulations, the site contains a monument sign with a Jimmy Johns Logo on it, and the Board
authorized a variance for signage not along a public street frontage for a different and existing
business within the same building.
Member Drees advised that he sees how a rule is pretty Black and White, but that he believes
that the need for signage in the age of quasi and shared streets is imperative for consumers.
Member Breckenridge advised that he believes it should be consistent with previous approvals.
He doesn’t have a problem allowing signage on a private street, but he hesitates to approve more
than two signs.
Brian Malber, a representative for the applicant, advised that the additional signage may allow
the applicant to obtain highway signage from the Department of Transportation as the original
denial was due to the fact that the space is not visible from Grand Prairie Parkway. Mr. Malber
also advised that in the option that only one sign can be approved, he would choose the south
signage.
Board Member Drees moved to approve a Variance from 305.8.B.1 to allow for signage along a
non-public street. Board member Meyers seconded the motion. Ayes: Breckenridge, Meyers,
Garcia, Drees, and Irvin. Nays: none. Motion Carries and the variance is approved.
Board Member Drees moved to approve a Variance from 305.8.B.3 to allow for more than 2 wall
signs per business. Board member Meyers seconded the motion. Ayes: Meyers, Garcia, Drees,
and Irvin. Nays: Breckenridge. Motion Carries and the variance is approved.
Application for 180 Indian Ridge Drive.
City Planner, Melissa DeBoer, introduced the request for a variance from section301-11- (C) of
the Waukee Municipal code to allow for a front yard setback of 25.5 feet in lieu of the minimum
Required 30 feet for an addition to an existing garage. The Applicant, Karl Keeler, advised that
due to the curve of the cul-de-sac, a portion of the desired garage would sit partially within the
front yard setback. To adjust the location of the addition would mean that the addition could not
be in line with the existing garage like the other buildings in the neighborhood. The Applicant
has also stated that only a small corner would be located within the required setback. The
addition will increase the value of the home and allow for more off street parking.
Mrs. DeBoer advised the Board that staff is, generally speaking, in a position to recommend
against variance requests as they do not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In lieu
of a recommendation, Staff advises that most of the proposed garage would meet the setback
requirements and only a small corner of the addition would be located within the required front
yard setback. Staff also advised that the proposed garage addition could be pushed back a few
feet in order to meet the setback requirement.
Member Breckenridge questioned if there had been any opposition from the notifications. Mrs.
DeBoer advised that staff had not received any correspondence for or against the variance. The
applicant did advise that the Homeowner’s Association did approve the structure.
Board Member Breckenridge made a motion to approve the variance from section 301.11.(C) of
the Waukee Municipal Code related to 180 Indian Ridge Drive ( Lot 22, Painted Woods Plat 2)
to allow a garage addition to be built within the required 30 foot front yard building setback line.
Board Member Myers seconded the motion. Ayes: Breckenridge, Myers, Garcia, Drees, Irvin.
Nays: none. Motion Passes and a variance is granted.
Old Business.
City Planner, Andy Kass, advised there was no old business.
New Business.
City Planner, Andy Kass, advised that there would be another meeting soon as there were
recently submitted applications.
Adjournment.
Board Member Meyers moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Board
member Garcia. Ayes: Breckenridge, Myers, Garcia, Drees, Irvin. Nays: none.
The August 9th, 2018, Board of Adjustment Meeting was adjourned at 7:25 PM.
_____________________________________
Juan Garcia, Board of Adjustment Chairman
Attest:
_____________________________________
Andy Kass, Senior City Planner