Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/28/2009 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON JULY 28, 2009, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Chairperson Anfinson called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of Adjustment to order on Tuesday,July 28, 2009, at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance were: Holdiman, Mixdorf and Anfinson. Members absent were Goldsberry and Mohr. 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 Agenda for July 78, 711(19 It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by Mixdorf, to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting on June 73,2009 It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by Holdiman, to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Tlerisinn TtemS 1. Request by the Joel Harris at 432 Locust St for a variance to the 35' rear yard setback requirement in the"R-4" Multiple Residence District, to legalize an addition constructed onto the existing building,with a rear yard setback of 14',21' less than the minimum required. Andera gave the staff report, noting that the applicant owns the existing 3,636 SF commercial building in the 400 block of Locust Street, 1 block from West 4th Street. Staff initially signed off on a site plan on February 22, 2008 for the applicant for the construction of a 22' x 25' (550 SF) addition,filling in the space between the existing office building and the 26' x 30 (780 SF) detached garage on the back portion of the lot, however, staff failed to notice that the proposed new structure would be attached to the principal building on the lot. In order to meet the rear yard setback,the applicant would have had to have the setback of the new structure be a minimum of 3' from the principal structure to consider it unattached, and meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Since initially pulling a permit in February of 2008 for the new structure, the applicant has increased the size of the new building to 22' x 34' (748 SF), however, extending the building towards the side property line, thus not increasing the non- conformity of the rear yard setback. Andera noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum rear yard setback of 35', however,the entire principal structure now has a setback of 4' from the platted alley line. The Zoning Ordinance does allow for a property owner to measure their rear yard setback from the centerline of the alley, in which in this case, the alley is 20' wide, therefore, the building setback would be 14'. There are many detached garages,as well as principal permitted structures, specifically noting the houses at 1017-1019 and 1013 West 3rd Street, within the immediate area that currently have a setback equal to or less than what the current structure has at 432 Locust Street, therefore, a precedence has been set in the area. Allowing the structure to remain as is would not appear to have any negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood, as it would appear to meet the already dense characteristics of the neighborhood. Andera indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as it would not appear to have a negative impact on the area, the property would appear to be unique, as a precedent has already been set in the surrounding neighborhood with principal permitted structures being closer to the alley line than what is required of the Zoning Ordinance, and staff signed off on the site plan in error, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 28,2009 Minutes Kimball Avenue overpass over Highway 20. Room was needed to allow for the sloping of the overpass over Highway 20, and that is why the property line is angled the way it is. The proposed building could move back in order to meet the setback requirements, however, the applicant is proposing to split off that portion of property to the east in order to construct a mini-storage facility in the near future. A preliminary plan submitted to staff shows the proposed office building being located 22' from the rear property line, and there would be a 20' minimum setback. So the building could only be moved 2' to the east,which would still require a variance. Due to the angled property line, and due to the fact that only a small portion of the building would be located closer than the 20' setback requirement, a uniqueness would appear to be present. Schroeder indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as the property would appear to be unique, given the unique lot and the fact that only a portion of the building would be closer than the 20' setback requirement, and the request would not have a negative impact on the surrounding area. It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by Holdiman, to approve the variance to allow a front yard setback of 10'. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 4. Request by Signs and Designs on behalf of Midtown Development, LLC at 501 Sycamore St for a variance to the"C-3" Commercial District sign regulations allowing a maximum size of 40 SF for a projecting sign, and a maximum projection over public property of 5', to allow for a 42 SF projecting sign that projects 7' from the building, 2 SF larger and 2' further out than the maximum required. Graham gave the staff report, noting that the applicants are proposing to construct a 42 SF corner projecting sign on the Blacks Building at 501 Sycamore Street,which will advertise a new business inside of the building, Bourre Lounge. The sign would project 7' from the corner of the building, at the corner of Sycamore Street and E 4th Street. The Zoning Ordinance allows a projecting sign, however, it is limited to 40 SF in total area, and can only project out 5' from the building. Since the sign will be 42 SF, it will be 2 SF over the maximum size allowed, and since it will project out 7', it will be 2' out further than the maximum allowed. The Zoning Ordinance has a provision in it that allows a projecting sign to be a maximum size equal to the linear length of the wall it is on, however limits it to a maximum size of 40 SF. If the sign were allowed to be a maximum size of the wall length, then the size of the sign could be 300 or 98 SF,based on the wall length of 300' along Sycamore Street and 98' along E 4th Street. Also, the building has a permanent concrete canopy that extends 8' out from the building. The sign being proposed would have a projection of 7',which is 2' more than the maximum allowed by the Ordinance, however it would be 1' less than the current canopy extends. The sign would be located above the concrete canopy,which could restrict its visibility if it was required to only project 5' out from the building. Graham noted that based on the very large size of the building(its the largest building in the downtown), and the small nature of the sign, the request would not appear to be out of character for the area, and would not have a negative impact on any surrounding properties. Graham indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as the proposed sign would not have a negative impact on the surrounding businesses and would not impede the sight of pedestrians or vehicular traffic, and the request would appear unique in that the building is very large in size compared to the sign size, and the building also has a concrete canopy that extends out further than the proposed sign. Anfinson questioned if this was the location where Techline used to be, and Schroeder indicated that it is, and that they are already out of the building and into a new location. 3