Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/28/2008 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 28, 2008, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Chairperson Holdiman called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of Adjustment to order on Tuesday, October 28, 2008, at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance were: Anfinson, Mixdorf, Goldsberry and Holdiman. Member absent was Mohr. Staff in attendance was Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Shane Graham and Tim Andera. There were 10 people from the public in attendance. I. Approval of the Ag-nda for Ortnher 7R, 7n0R It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the agenda as submitted.Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the Minutes o f+ham Reeg lar Meeting on September 73,20n8 It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Mixdorf, to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. J)ecicion Ttemq 1. Request by Waterloo Community Schools at 214 High St for a special permit to allow for the construction of a 90'x110' (9,900 SF) indoor athletic facility and 10'x50' (500 SF) office, and for a variance to the 49' setback requirement, to allow for the building to have a setback of 14' from Lime St,35' less than the minimum required. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the 90'x110' (9,900 SF) and 10'x50 (500 SF) building is going to be used as an indoor training facility for both the baseball and softball teams at East High School. Currently,they share a practice area in the lower gym, which is inadequate for their needs. The building would be located where an existing tennis court and handball courts are located,which is just to the west of the baseball field. The building would be constructed with charcoal gray metal siding with an orange metal roof, in order to match the schools color scheme. Graham noted that staff is concerned with the use of vertical metal siding, which is not permitted on residential properties, due to the fact that it is not compatible, however the site in question is located in the middle of the East High School campus with primarily non-residential uses surrounding it, therefore the siding may be appropriate. Graham noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires that the building maintain a setback from all property lines that is equal to twice the height of the building. The building height is 24.5', so therefore the required setback would be 49'. The building would be located approximately 14' from the property line along Lime Street, so the variance is required. Since the school owns all of the surrounding property, the variance would not appear to have a negative impact on the area. Graham indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as the proposed building would appear to better serve the needs of the students and the community, and the request is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Dan Weidman, 632 Conger St,noted that parents and alumni are raising money to construct the building,and that they want to use the building in order to build skills in the kids that utilize it. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Mixdorf, to approve the special permit to allow for the construction of a 90'x110'(9,900 SF) indoor athletic facility and 10'x50'(500 SF) office, and for a variance to the 49'setback requirement, to allow for the building to have a setback of 14' from Lime St,35'less than the minimum required. Motion carried unanimously. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT October 28,2008 Minutes that staff recommends approval of the request, as it would appear to be unique in that the proposed sign is smaller than the existing sign that was approved by staff in error, and the request wouldn't appear to cause a negative impact on the neighborhood or traffic and the sign would appear to be similar to the already existing sign at the site. Brian Bovy with Kwik Star spoke on the request, noting that they are proposing to upgrade the sign to a new electronic sign. Bovy noted that they recently found out that the existing sign was too big. Graham noted that this request is the same as a recent sign size limit variance granted at the Kwik Star on W 9th St. It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the variance to the 80 SF maximum pole sign size limit in the "C-1"Commercial District, to allow for a 89.41 SF sign, 9.41 SF more than the maximum allowed. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 4. Request by Le Mar K Enterprises, LLC at 127 Center St for a variance to allow for the expansion of an existing legal non-conforming gravel parking/vehicular use area. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the property currently has a 40'x60' (2,400 SF) welding shop located on it, as well as an existing legal non-conforming gravel vehicular use area along the west side for vehicular use and parking. There is an existing 24'x30' (720 SF) concrete slab located behind the building, which the applicant would like to construct a storage building on. The slab is currently surrounded by grass, and if the building is constructed, the applicant would like to extend the existing gravel vehicular use area in front of the proposed building, and to the west side of the building, which would connect in with the existing gravel. In addition to the property in question having a gravel vehicular use area, the properties to the west, south and north all have gravel vehicular use areas as well. Also, the gravel vehicular use addition would appear to be a small amount, and it would be located behind the existing building,which would keep it screened from the road. For these reasons, the request would appear to be reasonable, and would not have a negative impact on the surrounding area. Graham indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as it would appear unique due to the fact that the only way to access the new building would be to drive over the existing gravel driveway, the area is used for industrial purposes, and many of the surrounding properties have gravel vehicular use areas as well, and it would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood, and would be located behind the existing building, making it hardly visible from the road. Anfinson questioned why the existing gravel parking area was allowed, and Schroeder noted that it was there at a minimum before 1982 and is grandfathered in.Jeremy Kruth, 1235 Independence Ave, noted that they want to expand, as they are running out of storage room in the existing building. Mixdorf questioned if there was a building in that location in the past, and Kruth indicated that there wasn't a building there, but just a slab of concrete. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the variance to allow for the expansion of an existing legal non-conforming gravel parking/vehicular use area. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT October 28,2008 Minutes yard setback requirement for a home in the "C-1" District, as well as most other residential districts, is 20', and the proposed garage would be 35' from the front property line. Due to the fact that the house sits towards the rear of the lot, requiring the garage to be located behind the front of the house may seem unreasonable. Also, there is a home located adjacent to the south, of which it would appear that the garage would still be located behind the front of that home. Graham indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as it would appear unique in that the garage would remain 35' from the front property line,which is a larger setback than any residential district requires for a home, the existing home on the property is located towards the rear of the lot, making it potentially difficult to construct a garage that meets the Ordinance requirements, and the request would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood, or traffic conditions. Anfinson questioned if the garage were moved back 15', if it would be in compliance with the setback requirements, and Graham noted that it would, as it would not be past the front of the home. Anfinson commented that there would appear to be sufficient room to move the garage back to meet the setback requirement. Chris Howard with Champion Garage Builders spoke, noting that the land is flat where the want to build the garage, and that the land is hillier the farther back on the lot you go. Howard noted that the proposed location of the garage would be easily accessible from the existing driveway, and that the lot is unique in that the house sits far back on the property. Howard noted that the garage would be in line with the home to the south and sits back farther than most homes from the front property line. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the variance to the Accessory Structure provision prohibiting accessory structures to be located within the required front yard, to allow for the construction of an accessory structure in a required front yard. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 7. Request by Emin Alibegic at 327 Euclid Ave for a variance to the 10' setback requirement along the long dimension street frontage on a corner lot, to allow for the construction of a 24'x24' detached garage, with a setback of 0', 10' less than the minimum allowed. Graham gave the staff report, noting that the applicant is proposing to construct a 24'x24' (576 SF) detached garage on the property, which would be located 3' from the east property line and 0' from the south property line. Currently, there is no garage on the property. The setback from the east property line would be in compliance (3' minimum required), however, the minimum setback requirement along the south property line is 10', and the applicant is proposing the garage at 0'. The property is located on a corner lot and is addressed off of the narrow dimension street frontage, and the Zoning Ordinance requires that along the longer dimension street frontage, structures must maintain a setback of 1/2 the front yard setback requirement for the Zoning District that it is located in. The property is zoned "R-2", which has a 20' front yard setback requirement; therefore, structures along the long dimension street frontage must maintain a 10' setback. Graham indicated that staff has some concerns with allowing the garage to go right on the property line,as garages typically have between and 1' and 2' overhang. If the garage were constructed along the property line,then the overhang would extend over the city-owned right- of-way. While doing a site visit of the property, staff talked with the property owner to the south at 337 Euclid Avenue,who was outside raking leaves at the time. The property owner informed staff that they went to the Board of Adjustment back in 1984 for a variance to 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT October 28,2008 Minutes SF of accessory structures to be associated with the home,814 SF more than the 850 SF maximum allowed with any one or two family dwelling. Without issuance of the variance, the applicant would either have to remove the garage and shed, or build a new home to replace the home to be demolished, although even if a replacement home were built, either the shed would have to be removed or a variance to the accessory size limit would still be required, as the 792 SF garage and 80 SF total 872 SF, 22 SF more than the maximum allowed. Schroeder noted that staff is concerned that the request could set precedent to allow accessory structures to exceed the 850 SF maximum. Other similar requests to exceed the accessory structure maximum have been denied, including requests at 514 Sherman Avenue on 06/24/03, 423 Fowler Street on 08/20/03, 1727 Plymouth Avenue on 04/26/05, 5 Rainbow Court on 09/27/05, 1200 Baltimore Street on 06/26/07, and 635 W 9th Street on 10/23/07. The request at 514 Sherman Avenue was perhaps the most similar request (see attached minutes), as it involved an applicant that owned a lot with a home and garage, and purchased an adjoining lot with a home and garage and demolished the home and garage. The applicant then requested a variance to allow them to build a new 716 SF garage on the vacant lot, which would then be tied to the lot with their existing home and existing 440 SF garage, which would have caused 1,156 SF of accessory structures to be associated with the home. The request was unanimously denied by the Board of Adjustment due to the fact that it didn't meet any of the criteria for granting a variance and would set precedence. Schroeder noted that the current request is different from the 514 Sherman Avenue request in that the applicant is not proposing to build a new garage but is requesting to be allowed to keep an existing garage and shed. Approval of the request could set precedent to allow accessory structures to exceed the 850 SF maximum, however the precedent could be limited to requests involving existing accessory structures where an applicant owns two adjacent homes and one home is demolished due to being a dilapidated structure. This would appear to be a unique situation and it would not appear likely that many other requests to exceed the accessory size limit would involve an applicant owning two adjacent homes and requesting to demolish one home due to being a dilapidated structure but requesting to keep existing accessory structures that were associated with the demolished home and have them be tied to the remaining home. Schroeder indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, the request would appear to be unique, given that the applicant owns two adjoining lots with dwellings with existing accessory structures, and one of the homes will be demolished due to being in a dilapidated state, and no change in the existing accessory structures is proposed, and the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the area and would create a very limited precedent, and subject to the condition that a restrictive covenant is recorded tying the lot and accessory structures where the home is to be demolished to the lot with the remaining home. Holdiman questioned if the existing home was torn down, if a new home could be constructed without a variance, and Schroeder noted that a new home could be constructed, as it is a lot of record, but it would still need a variance to the 850 SF max size limit for accessory structures. Anfinson questioned how the applicant received a building permit for the garage in 2002 if it put the property over the 800 SF max size limit at the time, and Schroeder explained that the shed could have been constructed after the garage was built, and since the shed is less than 120 SF, staff would not have reviewed it. William Gronen, 310 Lindale Ave, noted that he lived on Riverside Dr, but his house was flooded out, so now he is going to live at 310 Lindale Ave. Gronen noted that the house at 314 Lindale Ave is uninhabitable, and that the shed was put on the property prior to 2002. Anfinson questioned if the garages on both properties were the same, and Gronen noted that the garage at 310 Lindale Ave is insulated and has heat and air conditioning,while the garage at 314 Lindale Ave is a normal garage that isn't insulated. 7