Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/22/2009 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 22, 2009, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Chairperson Anfinson called the regular meeting of the Waterloo Board of Adjustment to order on Tuesday, December 22, 2009, at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance were: Holdiman, Goldsberry, Mohr, Mixdorf and Anfinson. Staff in attendance was Aric Schroeder, Shane Graham, Tim Andera and Adam Poll. There were 4 people from the public in attendance. I. Approval of the Agen.da for December 27, 2009 It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by Mohr, to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the Mirnitec of the Regular Meeting nn November 74 7f1(19 It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by Mohr, to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Derision Ttems 1. Request by Signs and Designs on behalf of Southtown Restaurant at 206 Rnpp St for a variance to the sign requirement allowing wall signs on only 2 side of a building located in the Highway 218 Corridor Overlay District, to allow for the construction of a new 3'x12' (36 SF) wall sign on a third wall of the building. Andera gave the staff report, noting that the applicant is requesting to install a 3'x 12' (36 SF) wall sign on the south side of the building facing towards the recently constructed Holiday Inn Express at 2127 La Porte Road. The Highway 218 Overlay Ordinance allows for wall signs on no more than 2 walls, and issuance of a variance would be necessary to allow for the proposed sign. Currently, there are 3 wall signs on the north face of the building facing towards the car dealership at 2033 La Porte Road, and 1 wall sign facing towards La Porte Road. The applicant has noted within their application that they have recently put in a new entrance on the south side of the building facing towards the Holiday Inn Express, and that the new sign will help make travelers staying at the hotel aware that the restaurant is next door. The parking lot for the hotel runs directly south of the restaurant, and easy access for the customers can be gained through the new doorway. The applicant has gotten the signatures of the 3 abutting property owners, including the owner of the hotel property, noting that they have no objections to the proposed sign. Currently, planning staff is revising the Zoning Ordinance to allow for buildings have signage on a 3rd wall. Andera noted that the property in question also received approval for a variance to allow for a 2nd pole sign within the Highway 218 Corridor Overlay District, which only allows for 1 pole sign at a location, as well as allowing those signs to exceed the maximum 40' height requirement within the corridor on August 28, 2007. On the submitted site plan from the August 2007 BOA meeting, the applicant showed a 45' pole sign at the driveway entrance with La Porte Road, and a 48' pole sign at the east end of the property abutting Highway 218. Upon a visit to the site by staff to take photographs for this month's BOA meeting, staff noticed that neither the 45' or 48' pole signs have been constructed. However, since the property in question has received BOA approval for a 2nd pole sign, another variance would be needed to allow for a 3rd wall to have signage within the "M-1" Light Industrial District, as the underlying zoning district only allows for 2 walls to have signage if the site has 2 poles signs, or has been approved for 2 poles signs. Andera indicated that staff recommends approval of the variance request. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT December 22,2009 Minutes between the garage in question and the neighbor's garage at 2008 West 4th Street. At their November 3, 1998 meeting the Board of Adjustment granted a variance to the side yard setback requirement of 3' to allow for the neighbor at 2008 West 4th Street to construct a 18'x 24' (432 SF) detached garage 1' from the side property line abutting the property in question. The applicant has noted that there is approximately 34" between both accessory structures. The existing garage will exceed the minimum 5' setback requirement from an alley, as it appears the garage is approximately 10' from the alley line. Andera noted that the applicant has noted in their grounds of appeal that building plans for the garage, with its location, as well as a scale drawing/aerial photography were submitted prior to the building permit being issued. The approved site plan was submitted on June 18, 2008, however, it is the responsibility of the property owner to insure that the proposed structure is meeting the setbacks as indicated on the site plan. It would not be appropriate to issue approval of the variance due to the new garage being located in the wrong location as indicated on the site plan. However, due to the neighbor receiving approval of a variance in 1998 for the same exact request, and the applicant submitting a petition of approval for the request with the signatures of three neighboring property owners, staff believes that approval of the variance would not be detrimental to the surrounding area. Andera indicated that staff recommends approval of the variance request. Holdiman questioned if the applicant placed the garage where he showed it on the site plan, and Andera noted that he did not, and that a building inspector noticed that it was closer than 3' from the property line when inspecting the garage. Luke Osterhaus indicated that his concrete contractor poured the concrete closer than 3' and the garage was placed in that location. It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Mixdorf, to approve the variance to allow a setback of 1'from the side property line for an accessory structure. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 4. Request by James Rooff at W of 1923 F. Ridgeway Avp for a variance to the 41.5' average front yard setback requirement, to allow for the construction of a new single family home on the lot, with a front yard setback of 21',20.5' less than the minimum required. Poll gave the staff report,noting that the Zoning ordinance states that the front yard setback shall be the average of the abutting homes or closest thereto on either side. The property to the east has a 47' front yard setback and the property to the west has a 36' set back causing any new home being built on these lots to require a 41.5' front yard setback. The minimum front yard setback requirement for an"R-4" Multiple Residence District is 20 ft for a one and two family dwellings. The property at the corner of E. Ridgeway and Wisconsin has a 17' front yard setback and is located 2 lots west of the proposed home. The area of the home that would be in violation of the front yard setback would be an attached garage on the front of the home. According to the submitted plans, a second attached garage would also be constructed in the rear. Staff would note that the home could still be constructed without the variance but this would reduce available garage space from 1,152 SF to 576 SF. Poll indicated that staff recommends approval of the variance request. Anfinson noted that he would be abstaining from voting, as he has represented the applicant in the past. James Rooff noted that the K-Mart parking lot is located directly across the street, and would like the headlights from cars deflected onto his garage instead of inside of the house, and that is why he would like the garage to be in front of the house. 3