Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/26/2011 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON APRIL 26, 2011, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Chairperson Anfinson called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of Adjustment to order on Tuesday,April 26,2011,at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance were:Anfinson, Goldsberry,Sass,Holdiman. Board members absent were: Mohr. Staff in attendance was Aric Schroeder,Shane Graham,Tim Andera and Adam Poll.Councilperson Steve Schmitt was also in attendance. There were 11 people from the public in attendance. I. Apprnval of the Ag-nrla for April 76,2011 It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by Sass, to approve the agenda as submitted.Motion carried unanimously. II. Apprnval nf the Minntec nf the Regular Meeting nn March 72, 7n11 It was moved by Sass, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the minutes as submitted.Motion carried unanimously. III. necision Items 1. Request to rescind the variance approved by the Board of Adjustment on March 22,2011 for Hajrudin Dzehverovic at 910 W.5th St for a variance to the 100' setback requirement for a limited alcohol sales use from a protected use,to allow for the establishment of a new limited alcohol sales use 0'from a protected use (620-622 Grant Ave),100' less than the minimum required,as the property proposing the alcohol sales use is a grandfathered use and does not need a variance approval. Schroeder gave the staff report noting that on 3/22/11 the Board of Adjustment approved a variance to the alcohol sales provisions of the Zoning Ordinance at 910 W 5th St to allow for the establishment of a limited alcohol sales restaurant less than 100'from a protected use,with the conditions that there be no outside seating area or consumption of alcohol outside of the building and a condition that the hours of operation be limited to 9:00 a.m.to 9:00 p.m.Schroeder noted that staff had initially determined that the variance was needed,based on an indication that the previous business,J&D Billiards,which was a non- limited alcohol sales use,had been closed for more than one year,and therefore had lost its legal non- conforming(grandfather)status. However,subsequent to the Board's Action,the City of Waterloo received documentation from the Alcoholic Beverages Division of the State of Iowa that J&D Billiards was operational though at least July 6,2010,which means that the site has been closed for less than one year, and therefore the site does have legal non-conforming status and can be re-opened as a non-limited alcohol sales use without requiring any variance by the Board of Adjustment.Schroeder noted that therefore,the approval of the Board of Adjustment was unnecessary,and the conditions that were placed on the approval are not enforceable. Schreoder noted that it would be staff's suggestion that the Board of Adjustment should take action to rescind their action of 3/22/11 approving a variance for a limited alcohol sales use at 910 W 5th St to be less than 100'from a protected use. It was moved by Goldsberry,seconded by Sass, to rescind the variance approved by the Board of Adjustment on March 22,2011 for Hajrudin Dzehverovic at 910 W.5th St for a variance to the 100' setback requirement for a limited alcohol sales use from a protected use, to allow for the establishment of a new limited alcohol sales use 0'from a protected use(620-622 Grant Ave),100'less than the minimum required, as the property proposing the alcohol sales use is a grandfathered use and does not need a variance approval.Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE RESCINDED BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT April 26,2011 Minutes Andera noted that the applicants are proposing to construct a 32 SF brick monument sign directly in front of their property at 1809 University Avenue. Approximately 22 SF of the proposed sign would have a translucent background and translucent lettering,which could potentially emit more light upon the surrounding area. Andera noted that the Ordinance allows for self-illuminated signs,but only when the background is opaque and the lettering is translucent. Currently,the applicants have a small pole sign at their entrance off of Knoll Avenue,and it appears that it is illuminated at night from a spotlight upon the ground. Andera noted that the applicant has recently purchased 30'x 125' parcel of land from the state owned 40'x 125'parcel directly to the north of their building. The state still maintains ownership of the north 10' of the parcel,and the applicant is proposing to construct the new sign on the parcel they have recently acquired. Andera noted that staff believes that the new sign will not have a negative impact upon the surrounding area,as the sign is located a considerable distance from nearby existing residential uses. The nearest residential property is 1309 Englewood Avenue,which is directly to the west. Andera noted that if the sign is constructed near the center of the applicants lot directly in front of their parking area,the new sign will be approximately 160'from that house. Also,there is a detached garage at 1309 Englewood Avenue that shields the house from the sign. Staff does not believe that a considerable amount of light would illuminate from the sign that would cause a significant disturbance to the surrounding area. Andera noted that there are 3 commercial/office uses to the east of the site at 1305 and 1315 Knoll Avenue,and 1709 University Avenue,and the new sign would not have a negative impact upon these businesses. It was moved by Holdiman,seconded by Goldsberry, to approve a variance to the R-4 District sign regulations prohibiting a self-illuminated sign to be constructed with a translucent background, to allow for the construction of an 8'x4'self-illuminated sign with a translucent background.Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED 4. Request by James and Lynn Gehrke at 243 Windcnr Dr for a variance to the 7' side yard setback requirement and the 30' rear yard setback requirement in the "R-1" One and Two Family Residence District,to allow for the construction of a new deck on the rear of the home,with a side yard setback of 2',which is 5' less than the minimum required,and a rear yard setback of 23',which is 7' less than the minimum required. Poll gave the staff report noting the applicants are requesting to build a deck behind their home which would be-2' away from-the existing privacy fence on--the side of their-home and 23'-from the rearproperty line. Poll noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the area. The proposed deck would be visually screened by a 6' privacy fence along the north property line.Poll noted that in addition,many homes in the neighborhood do not meet the side yard setback requirements including the home at 225 Windsor Drive that appears to have a 1' setback from the south property line. Poll noted that decks are considered accessory structures and when attached to a home, decks are required to meet the same setbacks required of the home. Poll noted that there is some question if a variance to the rear yard setback would be needed as the Zoning Ordinance notes that unenclosed porches are not to be counted against the rear yard setback. Poll noted that in most other cases in the Zoning Ordinance, decks and unenclosed porches are treated similarly. However, a deck is not specifically noted as not counting against the rear yard setback creating a potential gray area in the current Zoning Ordinance.Poll noted that the proposed ordinance would allow a deck to extend up to 25% into the required rear yard setback and effectively would allow for a 22.5' rear yard setback. Under the proposed ordinance,the proposed deck would not need to obtain a variance as the proposed rear yard setback is 23',which would be 0.5' more that is proposed to be required. Poll noted that staff would note that several other homes in the area do not meet minimum side and rear 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT April 26,2011 Minutes Anfinson questioned why the request did not include a variance to allow for vertical metal siding. Schroeder noted that a variance to allow vertical metal siding was passed in November of 2007 by the Board of Adjustment. Rick Parker,the applicant,noted that he purchased a new motor home in late 2007 that was taller then his previous motor home and that is the reasoning for the request. It was moved by Sass, seconded by Holdiman, to approve a variance to the 15'maximum height limit for an accessory structure, to allow for the construction of a new 30'x60'accessory structure, with a height of 17'7", which is 2'7"taller than the maximum allowed Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED 6. Request by Dan Deery Motor Co. at3900 Alrrandra Dr for a variance to the 5' parking lot setback requirement, to allow for the expansion of their existing parking lot along the south property line,with a setback of 0',which is 5' less than the minimum required. Graham gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting the variance in order to expand the existing Dan Deery Chrysler-Jeep-Dodge dealership parking lot by 10' to the south,just west of the existing building and yet to be constructed building addition. A variance is needed to the 5' parking lot setback for the expansion to the south,as it would exceed the 5' setback requirement as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Graham noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood,as the expansion would be located along the south property line,which abuts a City- owned drainage way,which is 100 feet in diameter. Commercial uses surround this property, including MediaCom directly to the south,Wal-Mart to east and Menard's to the north across San Marnan Dr. Graham noted that the property in question was used by Dan Deery Toyota,but has since changed to Dan Deery Chrysler-Jeep-Dodge. As part of the relocation,an expansion of the service and parts departments is being mandated by Chrysler. Graham noted that the applicant is noting that due to the existing location of the departments,the expansion must be located to the south and west ends of the building. Graham noted that the addition to the west end of the building will meet all setback requirements,however, the addition to the south will not. The applicant did receive a variance in January of 2010 in order to construct the addition with a 0' setback along the south property line. Graham noted that in conjunction with the variance request approved in 2010,the applicants also purchased a 10'x120'piece of the drainage way that the City owned-which-allowed room-for that building expansion to the south. The building addition has not yet been constructed,as it now appears that a larger addition will be needed. As part of the larger building addition,the applicant is proposing to purchase the remaining 10' strip of drainage way that runs west to their western most property line, which is 288' in length. This would allow for the larger building addition,but it would also allow for the remaining area not needed for the building addition to be used to expand their existing parking lot 10' to the south. Graham noted that it would appear that the parking lot now sits at a 0' setback from the south property line, and staff is unclear how the parking lot was constructed with that setback to begin with. However,the applicant is asking for the variance in order to expand the parking lot,which would legalize the setback. Graham noted that due to the fact that there is no abutting property to the south other than the city-owned drainage way,the variance request would not appear to cause a negative impact on the area. Graham noted that the applicant has talked with the City Engineer regarding the drainage way,and the City Engineer has indicated that the purchase of the 10'x288' remaining piece of the drainage way would not impact the drainage way and its ability to channel water or negatively impact its capacity. Graham noted that there is floodplain associated with this drainage way,however the floodplain does not extend to the area that the applicant is proposing to purchase. 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT April 26,2011 Minutes fill were brought into the site to fill the floodplain area, a fill plan would need to be submitted for review. Andera noted that staff is concerned with the 3-year temporary variance timeframe,as previous hard surfacing variances that have been approved in the past have been for a one or two year timeframes. Andera noted that staff would recommend that if a temporary variance is granted,that it only be for a 2-year timeframe. The applicant has noted that they are hoping to build a new mosque upon the site in the next 3 years,based on a site plan that was approved by the BOA in March of 2007. Andera noted that if in 2 years the applicant has not begun construction of the new mosque,they will either have to remove the gravel parking lot and driveway,or come before the BOA again to request a time extension to the variance. Andera noted that there does not appear to be a lack of reasonable return or a uniqueness associated with the request. Andera noted that the request could have a negative impact upon the surrounding area,as a precedent could be set to potentially allow for surrounding developments to utilize non-acceptable surfacing. However,due to the temporary timeframe,staff would be supportive of a 2-year temporary variance as a 2-year timeframe would appear to be consistent with previously approved hard surfacing variance requests and staff believes that due to the temporary timeframe,the request would not have a negative impact upon the surrounding area with the condition that that the driveway approach from West Ridgeway Avenue be constructed with an appropriate hard surfacing,and a culvert be installed under the new driveway approach to allow for drainage in the area. Ibrahim Shehata,the applicant,noted that there was no difference in this plan that what was proposed in 2007. Schroeder questioned where the driveway would be.The applicant noted that the driveway would be on the far west side. Schroeder noted that the variance only would apply to the parking lot and drive to the property line,and noted that the curb cut area must be hard surfaced and in addition,median and turn lane improvements would be requested which would include extending the median cut and installing a turn lane.Shehata noted that he would address the improvements with engineering. It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve a 2-year temporary variance to the hard surface parking requirement, to allow for the construction of a new parking lot and driveway on the property, to be constructed with a non-approved surface (gravel).Motion carried unanimously. 2-YEAR TEMPORARY VARIANCE APPROVED IV. Adiniirnment It was moved by Mohr, seconded by Goldsberry, to adjourn the meeting at 4:52 p.m.Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Adam Poll, Associate Planner 7