Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/24/2011 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON MAY 24, 2011, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Chairperson Anfinson called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of Adjustment to order on Tuesday,May 24,2011,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,Chris Western,Shane Graham,Tim Andera and Adam Poll. Councilperson Steve Schmitt was also in attendance. There were 13 people from the public in attendance. I. Approval of the Agenda for May 94, 7(111 It was moved by Sass,seconded by Holdiman, to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the Min»tes of the Regular Meeting nn April 96, 7(111 It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by Sass, to approve the minutes as submitted.Motion carried unanimously. III. fecision Ttems 1. Request by LeRoy Hall at 3550 Kimball Ave for a variance to the required number of parking stalls to allow for 56 stalls, approximately 35 stalls less than the minimum required. Anfinson noted that as he represented the applicant he would be abstaining from voting on this request. Poll gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting a variance to the required amount of parking stalls provided on his property at 3550 Kimball Avenue as two of the businesses at this property are well established and the applicant noted that he has a parking agreement with the property immediately to the north at 3510 Kimball Avenue. Poll noted that the property consists of 1.01 acres and is located on the west side of Kimball Avenue midway between Rachael Street and Brookeridge Drive and is zoned"C-1, C-Z",Conditional Zoning District. Poll noted that the request could have a negative impact on the neighborhood as there are currently known parking concerns at the site. Poll noted that the request could have a negative impact on traffic conditions as lack of sufficient parking spaces could create issues where vehicles are forced to park in a location that would obstruct traffic. Poll noted that the proposed request would appear to be in conformance with the classification of thisarea as Mixed Use Commercial on the Future Land Use Map within the City of Waterloo Comprehensive Plan adopted September 22,2008. Poll noted that the original site plan amendment for the site that was approved in 1993 allowed for the development of the site as a drycleaners and office complex.The original site plan called for a 3000 SF building with 23 parking spaces with the possibility of a similar sized building and additional parking in the future. Poll noted that the site plan was amended in 1995 to allow for two 6000 SF buildings including a video store,drycleaners and retail space and 63 parking spaces. Poll noted that in 1996 the site plan was once again altered to the existing layout that allowed for 10,980 SF building with 56 parking stalls provided. Poll noted that in 2003,a site plan amendment was passed to allow for a sports bar to be located at the building. At the time,the sports bar was planned to be approximately 2500 SF (15-25 Stalls),a video store was located in the building and was approximately 6000 SF (30 Stalls),a Great Clips measured approximately 1000 SF (4-6 Stalls) and a CD Warehouse store measured approximately 1000 SF (5 Stalls). Poll noted that in total,these uses would have required at a minimum of 54 parking stalls,with 56 stalls provided. Poll noted that after that time,LJ's took the place of the original sports bar and expanded to their current BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT May 24,2011 Minutes must park in the lot at 3510 Kimball after 5 pm, and that no changes be made to the existing parking lot layout.Motion carried 3-0 with Anfinson abstaining. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 2. Request by Suzzanna Dell at 3h76 Pearl T,n for a variance to the residential fencing regulations requiring a 20' visibility triangle measured from the property line for a fence to be constructed with a 5' visibility triangle,15' less then required. Andera gave the staff report noting the applicants are requesting to erect a 6'privacy fence within the 20' triangle of visibility at the intersection of the driveway and Pearl Lane. Andera noted that the request could have a negative impact on the surrounding area by setting precedent to allow solid fences to encroach into the required 20' visibility triangle. The current Zoning Ordinance requires that any solid fence stop 20'from the point of intersection of driveways,alleys or streets to provide motorist with an unobstructed view. Andera noted that the point of intersection is measured from the property line at where the 2 vehicular use areas intersect. Andera noted that staff is currently in the process of revising its Zoning Ordinance,and this particular section of the Ordinance would be revised,which places the point of intersection at where the driveway intersects with the edge of the street roadway. Andera noted that with the proposed ordinance the applicant could measure 20'back from this point of intersection at the street,rather from measuring 20' back from the property line. The new fence would be placed up to the property line along the east,west portion of Pearl Lane,and have a 5' visibility triangle where the driveway intersects with the sidewalk. Andera noted that the request could have a negative impact on traffic in the area, as those entering and exiting the driveway could have limited visibility due to the fence encroaching into the 20' triangle of visibility,however,staff feels that there will still be a sufficient amount of space to view vehicular and pedestrian traffic while entering and exiting the site, as long as a 5' triangle of visibility is provided. Andera noted that the applicant has indicated that in their letter addressing the Board of Adjustment that the area to the west of their house is used for their outdoor area,and to maximize the amount of space along the west side,they are requesting that the new fence be able to go as close as possible to the intersection of the driveway and the sidewalk,noting that the proposed ordinance would allow for a fence to be placed there. Andera noted that the applicant has indicated that there will be a sufficient amount of space to provide for visibility when exiting their driveway. Andera noted that staff recommends the request as the request would not appear to have a negative impact or alter the essential character the area, the request would appear to be unique,as staff is currently revising the provision pertaining to the 20' Triangle of Visibility,and the proposed-fence at 3626 PearlLane would be permitted-under the revised provision, and staff has not heard any opposition to the request. It was moved by Goldsberry,seconded by Sass, to approve a special permit for a variance to the residential fencing regulations requiring a 20'visibility triangle measured from the property line for a fence to be constructed with a 5'visibility triangle, 15'less then required as the request would not appear to have a negative impact or alter the essential character of the area, the request would appear to be unique, as staff is currently revising the provision pertaining to the 20'Triangle of Visibility, and the proposed fence at 3626 Pearl Lane would be permitted under the revised provision, and staff has not heard any opposition to the request.Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED 3. Request by Dennis Franzen at 4175.Suburban Dr for a variance to the Accessory Structure provision prohibiting an accessory structure to be located within a required front yard,to allow for the construction of a 12'x24' addition to the existing detached garage,which will extend 2' into the required front yard. Graham gave the staff report noting that the applicant is requesting the variance in order to construct a 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT May 24,2011 Minutes It was moved by Goldsberry,seconded by Sass, to approve a variance to the 30'required rear yard setback, to allow for the construction of a new 18'x16'deck, with a rear yard setback of 24'3", 5'9"less then the minimum allowed as it does not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood, the lot is an irregular shape making it difficult for the homeowner to meet the required setback, most of the lots in the area are fairly large and deep with many of the lots being approximately 150'deep and the request is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map and the Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED 5. Request by John and Janet Robinett at 1777 Rvtler Ave for a variance to the 1800 SF size limit for accessory structures and a variance to the Accessory Structure Provision prohibiting accessory structures within a front yard,to allow for the construction of a 24'x24' (576 SF) accessory structure,which will create 1872 SF of accessory structures,72 SF more the maximum allowed and be partially located within the front yard. Graham gave the staff report noting the applicant is requesting the variance in order to construct a 24'x24' (576 SF) addition,which will extend 4' into the required front yard.The garage would also exceed the 1,800 SF total size limit for accessory structures by 72 SF. Graham noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood,as the garage would still appear to be located behind the front of the adjacent home to the west,which is the only other home on that side of the road. Also,the garage would still be located 50'from the front property line. Graham noted that the property currently has a 24'x54' (1,296 SF) detached garage located to the west of the home,and the applicant would like to construct a new 24'x24' (576 SF) garage to the east of the home. The area behind the house does have a fenced in area with a patio,so the garage may not be able to be constructed in line with the front of the house unless the garage were made smaller. Also, there are large trees located near the east property line,so moving the garage further east may not be feasible as well. The house does sit at an angle with a front yard setback of 54'. Graham noted that only 4' of the 24' garage would extend past the front of the house and into the required front yard.Graham noted that it would also appear that even with the garage extending past the front of the house,it would still be located behind the front of the adjacent house to the west. Graham noted that the reasoning for not allowing detached garages in a front yard is so that there is uniformity in neighborhoods,and also so that garages do not become the major visual focal point of a property. Graham-noted-that in-this-instance,the-garage-will-onlyex-tend out past thehouse by-4 -and-it-would also appear that the garage would not stick out past the front of the adjacent home either which would appear to lessen any negative visual impact that having a garage in a front yard may normally create. Graham noted that the Zoning Ordinance states that the total size of all accessory structures may not exceed 850 SF,or 6% of the lot size,with a maximum square footage of 1,800 SF allowed. The property currently has a 24'x54' (1,296 SF) garage on it already,and with the proposed 24'x24' (576 SF) garage,it would put the property at 1,872 SF,which is 72 SF more than the maximum allowed. Graham noted that the lot in question is fairly large (68,460 SF,or 1.5 acres),and if you were to take 6% of that lot size, that would equal 4,107 SF. This property would be well under that 6% number,but the ordinance limits the property to 1,800 SF. Graham noted that this area is fairly unique in that a number of the lots in that area are fairly large,and this particular area is fairly rural in nature,with only 1 additional home located on the north side of Butler Ave in that block. Graham noted that based on that, requesting to exceed the size limit by 72 SF would not appear to cause a negative impact on the surrounding area. Graham noted that staff recommends the variance request as the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood or traffic conditions and the garage would only extend 4' past the front of the house,and would appear to be located behind the front of the adjacent home. 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT May 24,2011 Minutes VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED IV. AdjrnirnmPnt It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by Goldsberry, to adjourn the meeting at 4:47 p.m.Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Adam Poll, Associate Planner 7