Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/28/2010 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 28,2010, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Acting chairperson Holdiman called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of Adjustment to order on Tuesday, September 28, 2010, at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance were: Goldsberry, Mixdorf, and Holdiman. Staff in attendance was Shane Graham Tim Andera, and Adam Poll. There were 4 people from the public in attendance. I. Approval of the Agenda for September 98, 7010 Graham noted that the request for the expansion of a legal non-conforming use at 508 Broadway had been withdrawn by the applicants. It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the amended agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Remilar eetin nn Aiimiet 7d '7mn It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Mixdorf, to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Tlecicinn Items 1. Request by Senad Dizdarevic at 923 W 5th Street for a variance to the minimum rear yard setback requirement of 35' in the "C-2" Commercial District to allow for an addition to the existing building, with a rear yard setback of 10', 25' less than the minimum required. Andera gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting approval of the setback to allow for the construction of a 20'x 26' (520 SF) storage building located between the main building and the existing 20'x 26' (520 SF) detached garage along the alley. Andera noted that the applicant is requesting to connect the new building into the existing building and detached garage, which would then make the existing detached garage a part of the principally permitted use, which requires different setbacks. Andera noted that the property in question, as well as properties on the other side of West 5th Street are zoned "C-2" Commercial District and that properties located directly behind the site in question are zoned "R-3" Multiple Residence District. Andera noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area, as there are multiple detached garages within the immediate area that have approximately the same setback of the legal non-conforming detached garage upon the site, which was built in 1948, having a setback of 0' from the alley. Andera noted that the applicant owns the property at 919-923 West 5th Street, however, they only utilize the property addressed as 923, which is 3,040 SF,not including the 520 SF detached garage. Andera noted that the applicant has requested to construct a 20'x 26' (520 SF) building upon the site, placing it between the building they use for their construction business, and the 20'x 26' (520 SF) detached garage on the rear of the lot towards the alley. Andera noted that in order to meet the rear yard setback, the applicant would have to have the setback of the new structure be a minimum of 3' from the principal structure to consider it unattached, or attach it to the principal structure, but keep it a minimum of 3' from the existing detached structure,which would provide a rear yard setback of approximately 39'. Andera noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 35', however, if the new addition is constructed as the applicant is requesting, the entire principal structure BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SEl'1'hMBER 28,2010 Minutes Poll noted that the applicant originally began work on a 12' x 28' addition to the garage but did not obtain a building permit for the structure. Code Enforcement issued a stop work order, and the applicant attempted to obtain a building permit. Poll noted that upon reviewing the site plan, the garage was found to be too close to the alley and was found to exceed the maximum allowed square footage amount for accessory structures by 102 SF. Poll noted that according to building code any accessory structure exceeding 850 SF is required to install frost footings and the applicant had built the new garage addition on a 24" existing slab that did not contain frost footings and could not be easily installed. Poll noted that the applicant has since changed the site plan so that the new addition will be 12' x 19.5' and would no longer exceed the 850 SF limit on detached accessory structures and as it no longer exceeds 850 SF would not require frost footings. Poll noted that several other garages in the area do not appear to meet the required 5' setback from the alley with the property at 130 Williston, directly across the alley,having a garage with what appears to be a 0' setback from the alley. Poll noted that the proposed addition to the garage would exceed the maximum allowed rear yard coverage for accessory structures by 58 SF or 2.19%. The lot in question is 40' wide and the residence extends far back into the lot effectively creating a smaller rear yard then most properties in the area. Poll noted that that the applicant has provided a petition signed by his neighbors noting that they would not be affected by the addition to the existing garage. Poll noted that staff recommends that the variance to the 5' rear setback requirement for an accessory structure, to allow for the construction of a 12'x 19.5' (234 SF) garage addition, and a variance to the 30% rear yard coverage for accessory structures to allow 32.19 of rear yard coverage be granted as it would not appear to have a negative impact on the area and would not appear to alter the essential character of the neighborhood. It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Mixdorf, to approve the request for a variance to the 5'setback requirement for an accessory structure from an alley lot line, and a variance to the 30% maximum rear yard lot coverage requirement for accessory structures to allow for the construction of a 12'x19.5'addition to the existing garage, with a setback of 2'from the alley lot line, 3' less then the minimum required, and with a total rear yard lot coverage of 32.19%, 2.19% more then the maximum allowed. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED IV. Discussion Items There were no discussion items. V. Adjnirnment It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by Goldsberry, to adjourn the meeting at 4:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Adam Poll, Associate Planner 3