Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/26/2010 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 26th 2010, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Chairperson Anfinson called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of Adjustment to order on Tuesday,October 26,2010,at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance were: Anfinson, Goldsberry,Holdiman,and Mohr. Board members absent were: Mixdorf. Staff in attendance was Aric Schroeder Shane Graham Tim Andera,Chris Western and Adam Poll.There were 10 people from the public in attendance. I. Approval of the Agenda for October 76, 2010 It was moved by Goldsberry,seconded by Mohr, to approve the agenda as submitted.Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the Min„tee of the Regular Meeting on September 98, 2n10. It was moved by Golds berry, seconded by Mohr, to approve the minutes as submitted.Motion carried unanimously. III. nerision Ttems 1. Request by Upright Builders at 508 Broadway Street for a variance to expand a legal non- conforming limited alcohol sales use within 100 feet of a protected use. Poll gave the staff report noting that the applicant is proposing to expand an existing alcohol sales use by adding 636 SF for a total of 1866 SF. Poll noted that the properties along Broadway Street are zoned"C-2" Commercial District and the properties to the east are zoned"R-3",Multiple Residence District.Poll noted that the request could have a negative impact on the surrounding area due to the proximity of residential uses. Poll noted that alcohol sales locations are regulated by the zoning ordinance,which requires them to be at least 100 ft from protected uses such as residences. Poll noted that the proposed structure would be in conformance with the classification of this area as commercial on the Future Land Use Map. Poll noted that in November of 2009,the Zoning Ordinance was revised at the request of the City Council to place more stringent review upon alcohol related businesses,partly due to a large influx of liquor stores being established within the City. Council members had received numerous complaints from residents that the recent establishment of alcohol related--businesses-was-negatively impacting the City. Poll noted that the City Council adopted Ordinance No.4976 on November 23,2009,which placed a more thorough review upon alcohol related businesses requesting to be established within the City. Poll noted that the ordinance also specifically defines Protected Uses,which includes a residential use,day care center,house of worship,school,park,etc.,and in this particular instance,the expansion of the alcohol sales establishment proposed for 508 Broadway Street would not meet the requirement to be setback 100' from a Protected Use as the building would only be 65' from the residential use to the east at 442 Edwards Street which makes a variance required. Poll noted that the applicant has indicated that the proposed expansion would be used as a storage area and would not be accessible for customers. Poll noted that the City Council continues to have concerns over the expansion and location of alcohol- related businesses.There have been recent negative activities in the community in close proximity to such uses,though there is no known direct relationship at this point. Poll noted that due to the continued heightened level of concern,staff does not believe a legal non-conforming expansion should be allowed at this time. Poll noted that the use of the expansion for storage will be difficult to monitor in the future, and staff believes this would set a bad precedent. Poll noted that the Waterloo Police Department had contacted Planning staff and felt it would be appropriate to deny the request for the proposed expansion, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 26,2010 Minutes Poll noted the Waterloo Police Department have expressed no concern about the proposed expansion and noted that the location is"virtually problem free". Poll noted that staff believes due to the limited size of the proposed expansion,the fact that the expansion is extending into an existing building and does not include an addition to the building,and the history of the business in question that the requested special permit would be appropriate. Poll noted that staff has heard concern on the request from one citizen living in the area citing noise issues on weekend nights. Poll noted that the City of Waterloo Planning and Zoning Commission voted 9-0 to recommend approval of the special permit request at its meeting on October 5th 2010. Holdiman questioned how the property could be properly zoned for the use in question,but is still considered legal non-conforming.Schroeder noted that the area is zoned"C-2" Commercial District which allows the use in question,but the property in question does not conform to the alcohol ordinance,which was passed after the bar was in existence,which requires that non-limited alcohol sales establishments be located along a principal arterial street and at least 250' from a protected use unless they are approved by Special Permit and require the use be at least 100'from a protected use regardless of if the Special Permit is required. Michael Maker,Owner of the property in question,noted that the new addition would be used for a pool/billiards area. It was moved by Mohr,and seconded by Goldsberry,to approve the request for a special permit and variance to expand a legal non-conforming alcohol sales use within 100 feet of a protected use. Motion carried 3-1, with Anfinson voting against the motion. SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED 3. Request by James and Kristin Tate at 1022 Grant Avenue for a variance to the 3' side yard setback requirement for an accessory structure,to allow for the construction of a new garage with a side yard setback of 2',1' less than the minimum required. Poll gave the staff report noting the applicants are proposing to construct a new 480 SF garage,2' from the side property line,1' less then the minimum required. Poll noted that the property consists of 0.115 acres and is located 1022 Grant Avenue. The property and properties in the generalarea are zoned "R- 3 Multiple Residence District. Poll noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area,as the structure would not seem to be out of character in this area. Poll noted that several other garages in the area appear to be built with similar setbacks. Poll noted that the proposed structure would be in conformance with the classification of this area as mixed residential on the Future Land Use Map. Poll noted that if the garage were required to be 3' from the property line,it could be difficult to maneuver cars in and out of the garage,due to its close proximity to the house.Poll noted that the location of the principal residence and the shortened length of the lot would appear to limit the ability to maneuver a vehicle if the garage were built to meet setback requirements. Poll noted that it would appear that there are other garages in that area that have been built at similar rear and side yard setbacks to what is being requested,including the home directly to the south of the property in question as well as several others in the area. Poll noted that the applicant has talked to the neighbor to the west and has obtained written support to construct the new garage 2' from the side property line. It was moved by Holdiman,and seconded by Mohr,to approve the request for a variance to the 3' 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 26,2010 Minutes tighter turn when entering and exiting the garage with the ATV trailer attached. Andera noted that a similar request was heard at the June 26,2007 BOA meeting for the property at 4545 West 4th Street,just west of Hoff Road. Andera noted that particular property is also zoned"R-1" and that applicant was requesting to construct a 20'x 22' garage addition to their existing attached garage, and have a side yard setback of 5',5' less than what is required. The BOA did not see a uniqueness to the request,and felt approval of the request could set a precedence for other properties within the area to request variances to the side yard setback,and denied that variance. Andera noted that the property owner later took out a building permit for a 15' wide attached garage addition,which met the 10' required side yard setback. Andera noted that staff has had discussion with the applicant,and he has indicated he would consider agreeing to a greater setback,and reduce the width of the proposed garage to 14.5' to 15.5',which would still require a variance to the side yard setback. Andera noted that at those dimensions,the garage would still be 7' to 8'from the east property line,2' to 3' less that what is required and the applicant noted that it would appear that they would still be able to sufficiently maneuver their ATV trailer in and out of the garage from and to the rear yard. Tom Eighmey,225 Lichty Blvd,noted that in order to continue to use the property as it currently is used the garage would have to be 17' wide in order to avoid landscaping in the rear yard. Eighmey noted that the depth was 34' to be flush with the rear of the home. Eighmey noted that he had talked to the neighbors,and thought it added value to the property. Eighmey noted that he did not believe that it would be out of scale and noted that there would still be 26' between the sidewall of his garage and the neighbor's house. Eighmey noted that a 14.5' -15.5' garage would be OK. Anfinson noted that the initial request appears to be out of character with the neighborhood,but indicated that a lesser variance may be acceptable. Holdiman noted that a 12' garage could be constructed that would still allow for a 9' garage door that could still be used for most vehicles. It was moved by Holdiman,seconded by Mohr,to deny the variance to the 10'side yard setback requirement in the "R-1" Residence District,to allow for the construction of an attached garage addition with a side yard setback of 5',5'less then the minimum required.Motion failed 2-2, Holdiman and Mohr voting in favor of the motion and Goldsberry and Anfinson voting against. Anfinson noted that since the motion failed,another motion could be made. Anfinson questioned if the applicant would be ok with a 15' addition,which would leave a 7.5' setback.Eighmey indicated that he could make that work. It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Anfinson,to approve a variance to the 10'side yard setback requirement in the "R-1" Residence District,to allow for the construction of an attached garage addition with a side yard setback of 7.5',2.5'less then the minimum required.Motion failed 2- 2, Goldsberry and Anfinson voting in favor of the motion and Holdiman and Mohr voting against. Anfinson noted that as no motion passed,the request was not acted upon,and it would be added to the agenda next month. 5. Request by Home Town Restyling at 633 Home Park Blvd for a variance to the 5' side yard setback requirement in the "R-2" Residence District,to allow for the construction of a covered roof structure over the existing patio area with a side yard setback of 2',3' less then the minimum required. Andera gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting approval of the setback variance to allow 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 26,2010 Minutes Street right-of-way,and that request will be heard at the upcoming Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on November 2,2010,with final approval by the City Council. Andera noted that approval of the variance to allow for a 1' parking setback along the north side of the parking lot in question would not appear to negatively impact the surrounding area or the function of Dubuque Road. Andera noted that the north property line of 2006 Dubuque Road is approximately 42' from the gravel shoulder of Dubuque Road,and approximately 55' from the paved portion. Andera added that the site in question has an odd,irregular shape to it due to the curvature of Dubuque Road along the north side,which does limit the amount of area to be used for vehicular use purposes. Andera noted that requiring that the parking areas be setback 5'from all property lines potentially limits the vehicular use areas and vehicle maneuverability,which could reduce the functionality of the parcel. Andera noted that recently,the applicant constructed a new auto repair shop and parking area with vehicle display area in 2009. Andera noted that as a part of that development,the applicant submitted a site plan detailing the overall layout of the site. On that site plan,it showed all parking areas being setback 5' from all property lines,however,the parking area was not constructed as shown on the plans. Andera noted that Staff from Planning and Engineering have met with the property owner within the last couple of months to discuss how to remedy this situation,which included applying for a variance to the parking setbacks. Andera added that the applicant installed a recycled asphalt surface on the eastern portion of their lot to display vehicles for sale. Andera noted that since meeting with the applicant regarding the issues with the lot,the hired consultant engineer for the redesign of the site has indicated that the applicant intends to remove that recycled asphalt mixture,and no variance is be requested for the surfacing. Anfinson noted that Gene Geiger is a client and he would abstain from the request. Holdiman questioned if the encroachment agreement would affect the Board of Adjustment decision. Schroeder noted that it would not,noting that if the variance is denied,the parking area would have to be moved back 5'from the property line and no encroachment agreement would be needed and if the variance is approved and the encroachment agreement is denied,then only the 1' of parking between the property line and the sidewalk would have to be removed. It was moved by Holdiman, and seconded by Mohr,to approve the request for a variance to the 5' parking lot setback requirement,to allow for the existing parking lot to remain with a setback of 0'from the west property line and 1' at its closest point along the north property line.Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED IV. Discussion Items There were no discussion items. V. Adjoiirnm.nt It was moved by Mohr, seconded by Goldsberry, to adjourn the meeting at 5:05 p.m.Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Adam Poll, Associate Planner 7