HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/22/2010 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON
JUNE 22, 2010, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
Chairperson Anfinson called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of
Adjustment to order on Tuesday,June 22, 2010, at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance
were: Anfinson, Goldsberry, Mixdorf, Mohr and Holdiman. Staff in attendance was Noel
Anderson, Aric Schroeder,Shane Graham,Tim Andera and Adam Poll. There were 5 people
from the public in attendance.
I. Apprnval of the Ag-nrla fnr June 77, 71)11)
It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion
carried unanimously.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting nn May 75, 7010_
It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by Holdiman, to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion
carried unanimously.
III. necision Items
1. Request by Steve Davis at 1704 Glenny A71P for a variance to the fence requirement
prohibiting a 6' tall fence in a required front yard and prohibiting a solid fence within the
20' triangle of visibility, to allow for the construction of a 6' fence within a portion of a
required front yard on a corner lot, and to allow a solid fence within the 20' triangle of
visibility from a neighboring driveway.
Poll gave the staff report, noting that the request would appear to have a negative impact on the
surrounding area by setting precedent to allow fences over 4' tall to be constructed in the front
yard of a home past the front of the house. Staff would note that as proposed, the fence would
extend 11' further north then the most northern part of the home facing Glenny Avenue and
would appear to be out of character for the neighborhood as it would extend past the front yard
setback of the home and the other homes nearby that face Glenny Avenue. Poll indicated that
the request would not appear to have any negative impact on traffic in the area. Although the
visibility would be reduced for the driveway to the south. There would still be approximately
14' of space between the fence and Minnesota Street, which would appear to be adequate space
for any vehicle using the drive to be visible to any traffic. The owner of the property to the
south also signed a petition of support for the variance.
Poll indicated that the applicants are requesting to erect a 6' privacy fence in the defined front
yard of their property, but this area functions as a side yard for the home. The Zoning
Ordinance defines the front lot line of the property to be "the narrowest dimension of the lot
lines abutting the street." In this instance, the home is addressed off of Glenny Avenue and faces
in that direction, but the narrow dimension of the lot is along Minnesota Street. In addition, the
driveway is located directly east of the home and prevents the fenced area from being extended
in that direction and the home is pushed to the south side of the lot and only has a 12' yard
available on that side, which the Zoning Ordinance considers as a side yard but functions as the
rear yard of the home. Poll noted that the applicants have noted that this fence is necessary for
the safety of their children from both the traffic along Minnesota Street and from crime. The
applicants noted that they own a dog and that a 4' tall fence would not be tall enough to prevent
the dog from jumping the fence. Poll indicated that the proposed fence would not allow for a 20'
visibility triangle to be present within the triangular area in a yard bounded by the lot line, a
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
June 22,2010 Minutes
2. Request by Roosevelt Taylor at 311 Tnwa St for a variance to the Off-Street Parking
provision requiring parking areas to be provided on the same lot as the principal permitted
use, to allow for vehicles to park on a vacant lot located across an alley from the principal
permitted use.
Andera gave the staff report, noting that the applicant is requesting to construct a new 52' deep
single-family house upon an 80'x 94' (7,520 SF) vacant lot in the 100 block of St. Croix Drive, 1
block west of Logan Avenue (Highway 63), approximately 1 mile north of Donald Street. Staff
initially signed off on a site plan in early September of this year, and a building permit was
issued for the new house. The applicant labeled a front yard setback of 21' from the front
property line to the front of the attached garage,which extends past the living area of the
proposed house. From doing aerial photo measurements at the time the site plan was
submitted, it appeared that the neighboring houses at 118 and 138 St. Croix Drive had an
average setback of approximately 21' to 22'. It was later determined by a building inspector
that the proposed house would extend approximately 5' in front of the neighboring homes.
Staff did visit the site after the concern was raised, locating the property pins, and determined
that the house at 138 St. Croix Drive is 26' from the front property line. The house at 118 St.
Croix Drive has a setback of approximately 26', therefore, the average setback for the
neighboring properties is 26'. Initially with a setback of 21' from the front property line, the
applicant would be meeting the minimum rear yard setback of 20' for the "R-2" District,
however, moving the house 5' to the north would only leave 15' for the rear yard setback.
Andera noted that it would appear that the lot in question is fairly wide (80'), as the proposed
house would be meeting the side yard setbacks, however, the lot in question is fairly shallow
(94') compared to other lots within the area, which average about 130' in depth,which could
potentially be considered a uniqueness. There are 2 lots directly to the east that also have a
depth of 94', and the property at 118 St. Croix Drive does have an existing detached garage that
would exceed the 20' required setback for a principal permitted use, however, the Zoning
Ordinance does allow a detached garage to be 3' from the rear and side lot lines. The applicant
could potentially construct a detached garage upon the property and meet the required
setbacks. Staff does believe though that a variance to the rear yard setback would be more
acceptable, as the non-conforming setback would be in the rear of the property, and keeping the
proposed house inline with the existing houses along the street would maintain the
characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood, and the request would appear to be unique
with the issuance of a building permit, based on the assumption that the proposed 21' front
yard setback would meet the average setback requirement. Andera indicated that staff
recommends approval of the request, as the request would not appear to have a negative
impact on the neighborhood, and the property would appear to be unique, as the shallow depth
of the lot does potentially constrain the property owner from having an attached garage, as
other lots in the area with the same lot configuration only have detached garages, and a
building permit has been issued.
Mixdorf questioned how many cars could be parked there, and Andera indicated that only 2
vehicles were parked there when staff did a site visit. Mixdorf indicated concerns with paving
the entire lot and parking a lot of vehicles on it. Graham indicated that the applicant has been
parking several vehicles on it and it doesn't appear that he wants to do anything else with the
property other than park his own vehicles on it.
It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by Mohr, to approve the variance to allow for vehicles
to park on a vacant lot located across an alley from the principal permitted use, subject to a
condition that no more than 4 vehicles can be parked on the property, and subject to a signed
3
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
June 22,2010 Minutes
Linnenkamp indicated that he has the approved building permit for the garage located across the
street. The RV is 35'38' long, and would not fit on the lot with the garage on it. Linnenkamp
indicated that the lot in question is not developable, and parking an RV on it will not affect the
essential character of the neighborhood. Linnenkamp indicated he has no plans to change the
property; he just wants to park his RV on the lot. Anfinson questioned what the building on the
property was used for, and Linnenkamp indicated that the previous owner used it for his own
personal reasons, such as tying fishing lures, and holding card games. Mixdorf commented that he
was concerned with setting precedence. Holdiman commented that the applicant makes a valid
point in regards to the unique shaped lot with the only access to the property coming from an
alley. Anfinson commented that he thinks a bad precedence would be set if the variance is
approved.
It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by Mohr, to deny the variance to allow for an RV to park
on a vacant lot located 4 lots to the north from the principal permitted use. Motion carried
unanimously.
VARIANCE REQUEST DENIED.
4. Request by Rousselow Family Properties at 359 Rork Wand Am'for a variance to the 25'
rear yard setback requirement in the "M-1" Light Industrial District, to allow for a setback
of 5'8", 19'4" less than the minimum required, a variance to the 5' side yard setback in the
"M-1" Light Industrial District, to allow for a setback of 4'1", 11" less than the minimum
required, a variance to the 8' parking setback requirement from street right-of-way and 5'
parking setback requirement from buildings in the Highway 218 Corridor Overlay District,
to allow for a parking lot setback of 0', 8' and 5' less than the minimum required, and a
variance to the 28 parking spaces required, to allow for the property to provide 8 parking
stalls, 20 less than the minimum required.
Poll gave the staff report, noting that the applicants have indicated their desire to move Leer's
Cycle Center from its current leased location directly north of the proposed site to the new
location at 359 Rock Island Avenue. The proposed site would need several variances to meet
both parking and setback requirements for the proposed buildings. Poll noted that a variance
for the number of parking spaces would be needed as the applicant's site plan shows eight
parking spaces, but the required amount of parking would be 28 spaces. The applicant has
indicated that 8 spaces would be enough for both employees and customers to park. Staff does
have some concerns that no parking spaces have been dedicated for the existing office building.
The applicant is in discussions with the owner of the property to the east of the site in question
to lease 10 additional parking stalls. In addition, the applicants have indicated that there is a
triangular piece of property on the north side of Rock Island Avenue that could provide 12
additional parking spaces, but would require a parking setback variance. Poll noted that a
variance to the parking setback would also be required. Properties located within the Highway
218 Corridor Overlay District require an 8' setback from the street right-of-way and a 5' setback
from buildings, and the applicant is requesting a 0' setback from both the right-of-way and
building. Staff would note that several properties in the area along Fletcher Avenue currently
have a 0' parking setback and this would not appear to be out of character for the
neighborhood. Poll indicated that an existing office is located on the site in question that would
not be part of Leer's Cycle Center and would be leased out by the applicant. Because this
building would have a separate use on the same lot, it would be required to meet the minimum
setback requirements for the "M-1" Light Industrial Zoning District. A variance would be
needed for the side yard set back which would require 10' separation between the proposed
showroom and existing building and plans indicate that there would only be 9'1", 11" less then
5