Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/22/2008 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON JULY 22, 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,July 22, 2008, at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance were: Anfinson, Mohr, Mixdorf and Goldsberry. Member absent was Holdiman. Staff in attendance was Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder and Shane Graham. There were 10 people from the public in attendance. I. .Approval of the Agenda for July 29, 2008 It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Mixdorf, to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting on June 24, 2008 It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Mixdorf, to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. ferisionitems 1. Request by Koch Construction on behalf of GE Railcar Repair Service at 70n Nevada St for a variance to expand a legal non-conforming use, to allow for the construction of a 15'x30' (450 SF) storage building at the existing railcar service facility. Graham gave the staff report, noting that the applicant is proposing to construct a 15'x30' (450 SF) storage building, which would replace a similar sized building that was destroyed by the recent floods. The area was originally zoned "U-1" Unclassified District, however all areas that were zoned "U-1" were rezoned to "A-1" Agricultural District on the official Zoning Map on 6/15/68. The use is a principal permitted use in the "M-2" Heavy Industrial District, so a variance is required to expand the legal non-conforming facility. The city is looking into rezoning a major portion of land along the Cedar River where it is currently zoned "A-1" Agricultural, as most of the uses in the area are non-conforming uses that would normally be seen in the "M-2" District. The Planning & Zoning Commission has recommended approval of the rezoning of that area to "M-2, P" Planned Industrial District on 11/1/05,however that request has never been forwarded to the City Council because of complications regarding the writing of the legal description. Graham noted that this property was before the Board of Adjustment before for a similar variance on 11/3/05 in order to construct a new storage building, which was granted by the Board, as there weren't any negative impacts on the surrounding area. Graham indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area or traffic conditions, and although zoned "A-1", the area is made up of primarily industrial uses, and the area is made up of many legal non-conforming uses. Schroeder commented that the proposed rezoning of that area would require a survey, since the legal description was too complicated, and the request has since fallen through the cracks. Schroeder commented that individual properties could request rezones on an individual basis if they wanted to. Anfinson questioned if the property were rezoned, if the building would be allowed, and Schroeder answered yes. Jeff Koch with Koch Construction noted that the flood damaged the original building, and that they just want to replace that building with a new one. It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by Mohr, to approve the variance to expand a legal non- conforming use, as there would be no negative impact on the area, and the city is looking into BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 22,2008 Minutes approval process at that time, as surveys could be taken to the Recorder's Office to be recorded. Tim Glass noted that he had the property surveyed and the lot is 9,993 square feet. Glass noted that there is a force main line that the property can connect to city sewer. Tom Graves, 2120 Grand Blvd, noted that he was opposed to the request, as the lot is too small for a home. Graves noted that the home before it was a rental and was in very bad shape. Graves noted that the lots on the south side of the road are 80', while the lots on the north side are 125'. Tom Abbas, 2048 Grand Blvd, indicated concern on the slope of the property to the rear of the lot, and that there would not be much room up front for a home. Kurt Meredith, 2100 Grand Blvd,noted that he was opposed to the request, as the lot is not conducive for a home. Meredith expressed concern about the maintenance of the property if it isn't sold. Glass noted that the house was torn down because it was an eyesore, and he was not made aware by the manager of the property that the house was in that bad of condition, and when he was made aware of the condition, he tore the house down. Glass noted that he would either build a home in character with the area, or he would sell the lot. Meredith noted that he had to call the city to report an unsafe structure, and that there was no maintenance or care for the property. Abbas commented that the home would be crowded on the lot and would not look good. Mixdorf commented that he would be abstaining from the vote as he is good friends with the surrounding property owners. It was moved by Mohr to deny the request.Motion died for a lack of a second. It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Mohr, to table the variance request for one month. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST TABLED. 3. Request by R&J Auto at F of 4051 UnivPrsity A71P for a variance to the 25' rear yard setback requirement in the "C-2" Commercial District, to allow for the construction of a 30'x36' (1,080 SF) building, with a rear yard setback of 12', 13' less than the minimum required. Graham gave the staff report, noting that the applicant is currently operating an auto sales business from the property in question, and is currently leasing space in the building adjacent to the west at 4051 University Avenue for their office and storage space. The applicant is proposing to construct a new office building and storage building on the property, in order to move the operation out of the adjacent building. The 44'x46' (2,024 SF) office building would appear to meet all setback requirements,however the storage building would not, as the site plan shows it being located 12' from the rear property line. The "C-2" Commercial District has a 35' rear yard setback requirement, however there is a provision that if the front yard setback is increased over the 20' minimum, then the rear yard can be reduced by the same amount, however the minimum rear yard setback shall be 25'. The front yard setback of the building has been increased from 20' to approximately 160', therefore the rear yard setback would be 25'. Since the building is being proposed at 12', it would still be 13' short of meeting the 25' setback requirement. Graham noted that staff has been working on some modifications and changes to the Zoning Ordinance, of which one would be to decrease the rear yard setback requirement from 35' to as little as 10' if the front yard setback is increased by the same amount. However, that change has not been adopted, so 25' is the current rear yard setback requirement. Based on the fact that there are adjacent buildings located near the property line, as well as the fact that the proposed Ordinance change would allow for the building to be constructed in its location, it would not 3 APPLICANT(S): Jamy Smith 1130 Independence Avenue, Waterloo, 50703 DESCRIPTION: Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a rubber roof on the two front dormers facing Independence Avenue, as well as possibly installing a rubber roof on a portion of the rear of the house, which currently has a flat roof and air conditioner unit placed on it. The applicant has also noted that they would possibly like to install a gable roof on the two front dormers. STRUCTURE RATING: The house is rated as a "C" structure for architectural significance and is eligible as contributing to a district. In terms of historical significance it is rated as an "A" structure and is eligible as contributing to a district. The home is located on the south side of Independence Avenue, approximately mid-block between Colorado and Arizona Streets. STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing to replace the existing flat, sheet metal roof on top of the two dormer windows facing Independence Avenue with a rubber roof. The applicant has noted that currently,they are having leakage problems due to water not properly draining off of the roof. The applicant noted that the current roof is not visible from the street, and the addition of a rubber roof on top of the dormers would have very limited visibility as well. The applicant is also planning to put a rubber roof on a back portion of the house, where currently an air-conditioning unit sits, noting that the roof leaks as well there. Staff feels the addition of a rubber roof would not have a large impact on the historic structure, as the visibility of the roof on the dormers, and the back section of the house have none or very limited visibility from the street. The applicant has also noted interest in possibly installing new gable roofs on top of the dormers to allow for better water flow, and to prevent further leakage. Staff does have a concern altering the roof line and changing the current flat roofed dormers into gabled roof dormers, due to the roof being one of the most important functional elements of a historic structure. Staffs feels that installing a rubber roof instead would fix the problems of leakage, and at the same time, maintain the historical roof line of the house. The Design Guidelines for Historic Buildings states under recommendations for Roof Lines (P. 11): to preserve the original form, configuration and pitch of the existing building. The Design Guidelines for Historic Buildings states under non-recommendations for Roof Lines (P. 11): that elements such as new dormers, vents, etc., diminish the building's historical character. If such elements are added, they should be placed at the rear of the structure or in an area minimally visible from the street. .