Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/23/2008 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2008, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Chairperson Holdiman called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of Adjustment to order on Tuesday,September 23, 2008, at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance were: Mohr, Mixdorf, Goldsberry and Holdiman. Member absent was Anfinson. Staff in attendance was Aric Schroeder and Shane Graham. There were 16 people from the public in attendance. I. Approval of the A• •nda fnr September 23, 2008. It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Mohr, to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the Minntec of the Rejilar Meeting on Au. ict 7h, 7ffX It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Mohr, to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Decision Ttpme 1. Request by Charles Anders at 1302 Grant Ave for a variance to the 35% maximum lot coverage requirement and the 30% rear lot coverage requirement to allow for the construction of a 22'x24' (528 SF) detached garage, with a maximum lot coverage of 1,684 SF, 284 SF more than the 1,400 SF maximum allowed, and a rear lot coverage of 528 SF, 72 SF more than the 456 SF maximum allowed. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the applicant owns the 2,600 SF property that the home is on, as well as recently acquiring the adjacent 1,400 SF parcel,for a total lot size of 4,000 SF. Currently, there is a 14'x9' (126 SF) attached garage on the property,however it isn't even large enough to fit a vehicle in, so it is just used as a storage area. The applicant would like to have a two-stall garage to park and keep his vehicles safe. The proposed garage would be 22'x24' (528 SF), which is a standard size two-stall garage. Graham noted that the Zoning Ordinance restricts the size of accessory structures in two ways: 1) by limiting them to 850 SF, and 2) by not allowing a garage to cover more than 30% of the rear yard. The garage would meet criteria 1, as it is only 528 SF,however the garage would cover more than 30% of the rear yard. The rear yard is 1,520 SF, of which 30% is 456 SF, so the proposed 528 SF garage would be 72 SF over the limit. Also, the Zoning Ordinance limits the maximum square footage of all structures on a property to 35% of the lot size. In this case, the lot is 4,000 SF, of which 35% is 1,400 SF. The property currently has 1,156 SF of structures on it,leaving only 244 SF remaining. The proposed 528 SF garage would be over the 35% maximum size limit by 284 SF. Graham noted that although both the maximum lot coverage and rear lot coverage would be exceeded, the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the area, as it would allow for the property to have a garage on it to store and protect vehicles. Also, the surrounding properties all have garages, with many of them being of a similar size. Graham indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as it would appear unique in that the property does not have a garage on it currently, and that many of the surrounding properties have two-stall detached garages; without the variance,the property would be limited to a one-stall garage only, which may be overly restrictive, and the request would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood or traffic, and subject to the condition that the applicant sign and record a restrictive covenant tying the two lots together. Charles Anders noted that he plans on taking out the existing driveway that goes to the existing BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 23,2008 Minutes Schroeder noted that the proposed sign is similar to signage that other similar special permit and "R-3" and "R-4" uses have, including other school facilities and church facilities. Some of these similar facilities with similar signage have had the signage since prior to adoption of the current sign requirements in the Zoning Ordinance, while others have received approval of a variance to the requirements. Examples of electronic message boards in an"R-3" or "R-4" District that were recently approved by variance include the Day Star Jewelry sign at 3641 Kimball Avenue and the Cedar Valley Eye Care sign at 909 E San Marnan Drive. Schroeder noted that the proposed sign is in the middle of the East High school facility campground. The closest non-school related facilities are two churches located to the southwest at 633 Walnut Street and 118 High Street. Other surrounding land uses include a railroad yard to the northeast, commercial uses further to the west and south, and residential uses further to the southeast, south of Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, over 700' from the location of the proposed sign. Schroeder indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as the proposed sign would appear to be similar to signs permitted on other similar uses, including some recently approved by variance, and the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood given the location of the sign, the surrounding uses, and distance to the nearest residential uses. Mason Fromm with Signs and Designs spoke on the request, noting that East High is the only major school that does not have a message center sign. Fromm noted that the sign would far removed from any other uses, and that the school administrator can control the sign effects. It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Mohr, to approve the variance request to allow for construction of a 60 SF self-illuminated wall sign with flashing and moving parts. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. IV. Discussion Items There were no discussion items. V. Adjoiirnmont It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Mohr, to adjourn the meeting at 4:23 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, _ 1/ Shane M. Graham, Planner II 3 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 26, 2008, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Acting Chairperson Anfinson called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of Adjustment to order on Tuesday, August 26, 2008, at 4:05 p.m. Board members in attendance were: Anfinson, Goldsberry and Holdiman. Members absent were Mixdorf and Mohr. Staff in attendance was Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder, Shane Graham and Assistant City Attorney Tim Boller. There were 16 people from the public in attendance. I. Approval of the Agenda for AiOuct% 7110R It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the Min»tec of the Reg:fi1ar Meeting nn July 79, ?mg It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Decision Items 1. Request by the Tim & Dawn Glass at 2106 Grand Rlvd for a variance to the 75' minimum lot width requirement in the "R-1" One and Two Family Residence District to legalize a lot that was split that has a lot width of 70', 5' less than the minimum required (tabled at the 07/22/08 meeting). Schroeder gave a brief overview of the request, noting that this request was tabled at last months meeting. Schroeder indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as the property would appear to be unique, given that the property was split in 1989 and a home existed on the lot for over 18 years despite not meeting the minimum lot width. Also the lot width is similar to several lots located along the south side of Grand Boulevard, and denial of the variance would appear to deny a reasonable return on the property, as the property is zoned for residential purposes and denial of the variance would prohibit a house from being built on the lot. There would not appear to be any other reasonable use for the lot. Schroeder indicated that 2 phone calls were received in opposition to the request, one from Greg Harter of 2035 Grand Blvd, who noted that the lot was too small to build on, and one from Greg Hoekstra of 2112 Grand Blvd,who noted that the previous home was in disrepair, the sale of the lot would be for financial reasons only,and the proposed building is not the best quality. Tim Glass passed out a handout,which showed drawings of proposed homes, which would be in character with the neighborhood. Glass noted that the survey of the lot shows it to be 9,993 SF, which is 10% larger than the minimum required in the "R-1" District. Glass noted that there would be adequate separation, as there is 60' to the nearest house. Anfinson questioned if the applicant lived in Cedar Rapids, and Glass indicated that he does. Glass indicated that he would either sell the lot or build the new home,but would not live there. Glass noted that he was unaware of the 75' lot width requirement at the time that the lot was split. Clair Brooks, 2123 Grand Blvd, questioned why other neighbors in opposition were not mentioned, and indicated that the lot is small and is out of character with the area.Jeannie Steele, 2100 Grand Blvd, noted her opposition to the request, noting that the lot was created illegally,and that the lot is narrow and slopes and has never been maintained, and would not be consistent with the neighborhood. Tom Graves, 2120 Grand Blvd, noted his opposition to the request, and agreed with previous neighbors comments. Graves noted that the north side of Grand Blvd has a totally different look and are twice the size of the lots on the south side of the road. Glass noted that the homes BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 26,2008 Minutes 3. Request by Josh Brady at 709 Clough St for a variance to the Accessory Structure provision restricting an accessory structure from being located in a required front yard, to allow for the construction of a 24'x24 (576 SF) accessory structure to be constructed in a required front yard. Graham gave the staff report, noting that the applicant is proposing to construct a 24'x24' (576 SF) detached garage on the property, which currently has no garage on it. The home is located on a corner lot, of which the home faces the longer dimension street frontage, and is located only several feet from the southern property line (the home was built in 1901, and is a legal non- conforming structure). The Zoning Ordinance states that no accessory structures may be constructed in a front yard. The Ordinance defines a front yard on a corner lot as the area between the narrow dimension street frontage and the home. In this case, almost the entire property is considered a front yard, as the narrow dimension street frontage is located along Kingsley Avenue to the north, and the home is located only several feet from the south property line. Therefore, there is no location on the property where an accessory structure could be located without a variance. Graham noted that the applicant is proposing to build the garage 10' away from the home, which would still put it almost entirely behind the adjacent property, which is addressed off of Kingsley Avenue. Although the proposed garage would be located in the front yard of the property in question, the garage would still be located behind the adjacent home, thus not creating a negative visual impact on the neighborhood, and would allow the property owner to have a garage for vehicles. Graham indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as the garage would still be located behind most of the homes in that area, which would appear to be a uniqueness, without the variance, no accessory structure could be built on the property, which could lead to a lack of reasonable return, and the request would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood or traffic. The applicant indicated that the aerial photo explained the situation. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the variance request to allow for the construction of a 24'x24 (576 SF) accessory structure to be constructed in a required front yard, given the unique lot. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 4. Request by Dave &Joyce Riley at 3.39R Mt. Vprnnn Dr for a variance to the 3' setback requirement for an accessory structure, to allow for the construction of an 18'x20' freestanding deck, with a setback of 0' along the side and rear property lines. Graham gave the staff report, noting that the applicant is proposing to construct an 18'x20' (360 SF) freestanding deck along the rear corner of the property. There is an existing sunken patio that has cracked up concrete and an old tree stump, and the deck would be elevated to be 1' above the natural grade of the property, in order to utilize the space. The applicants would also then raise the height of the existing 6' tall fence to match the height of the fence along the natural grade.Staff would point out that the fence could be raised,however the maximum height limit for a fence in the rear yard is 8'. Graham noted that since the deck is not attached to the house, staff is considering this an accessory structure,which would require a 3' setback from the side and rear property lines. The applicant is proposing to build the deck right up to the fence,which is located along the 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 26,2008 Minutes and subject to the condition that the final site plan meet all applicable City codes, including but not limited to drainage, landscaping, etc, and subject to a recommendation of approval from the Planning &Zoning Commission. Larry Niegowski with Howard R. Green spoke on the request, noting that the large parking area behind the building would be a covered area for mail trucks. Niegowski noted that there would be 72 carriers, plus an additional 2-4 staff people at the facility, with the busiest times in the morning when they pick up the mail and at the end of the day. Niegowski noted that there would be no retail services at this location, and that they are planning on downplaying the signage at the site. It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the special permit request to allow for the construction of a 39,238 SF carrier annex facility, subject to the condition that the final site plan meet all applicable City codes, including but not limited to drainage, landscaping, etc, and subject to a recommendation of approval from the Planning&Zoning Commission. Motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST APPROVED. 6. Request by Phil Westemeier at 130E F-Tnlstain Pl for a variance to the 50' average front yard setback requirement, to allow for the construction of new home with a front yard setback of 32', 18' less than the minimum required, in order to replace an existing home destroyed by a fire. Graham gave the staff report, noting that the applicant is proposing to construct a new home on the property,which would replace the existing home on the property that was destroyed by a fire. Once the old home is destroyed, the new home has to be built in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance,which states, "the front yard setback shall be the average of the abutting homes or closest thereto on either side". Since the property is located on a corner lot, there is only one home abutting it, and that house sits approximately 50' from the front property line. Therefore, the front yard setback required for the new home would be 50'. The applicants are proposing to construct the new home 32' from the front property line, which would be 18' closer than the Ordinance requires, however it would only be 4' closer than the existing home. The applicant has noted that the home needs to be closer to the front property line due to there being an in-ground pool located behind the house. The new home is going to be 50' deep, and if it had to meet the 50' setback requirement, that would put the rear of the home almost on top of the in-ground pool. Also, the property located 2 lots to the east would appear to have a front yard setback of approximately 32', as well as other lots in the area having similar setbacks. Graham indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as the new home would have a similar front yard setback as other homes in the area, without the variance, it may be difficult to construct the home due to the location of the in-ground pool, and the request would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood or traffic. Janelle Westemeier indicated that they would like to stay in the neighborhood, and noted that she submitted a petition of support from 2 surrounding property owners. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the variance request to allow for the construction of new home with a front yard setback of 32', 18'less than the minimum required. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 5