Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/29/2008 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON MAY 29, 2008, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Chairperson Holdiman called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of Adjustment to order on Thursday, May 29, 2008, at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance were: Holdiman,Anfinson and Goldsberry. Members not in attendance: Mohr and Mixdorf. Staff in attendance was Aric Schroeder and Shane Graham. There were 6 people from the public in attendance. I. Approval of the AgPrda for May 29, 2008. It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the agenda as submitted.Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular /Teeting on April 22, 7nn8 It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Decision Items 1. Request by Tom & Nancy Dallenbach at 3575 Cedar Terrace Dr for a variance to the 1,800 SF maximum size limit for accessory structures, to allow for the construction of a 24'x35' (840 SF) detached garage, with a total size of all accessory structures of 2,232 SF, 432 SF more than the maximum allowed. Graham gave the staff report, noting that the applicant owns a 3.7-acre parcel of land on Cedar Terrace Drive,just north of E Shaulis Road, and wants to construct a 24'x35' (840 SF) accessory structure on the property, in addition to the 1,392 SF of accessory structures that already exist on the property, for a total of 2,232 SF of accessory structures,which is 432 SF more than the maximum allowed. The Zoning Ordinance restricts the total size of all detached accessory structures to 6% of the lot size up to a maximum of 1,800 SF. Currently, there are 4 accessory structures on the property (as stated on the Black Hawk County Assessor's Website), totaling 1,392 SF. Although the maximum size limit is capped at 1,800 SF, 6% of the lot(161,172 SF) would allow for a 9,670 SF building. The size requirement was put in place to not have accessory structures overly dominate a residential lot and look out of place. However, this lot is over 3 acres in size, and would not appear to dominate the lot or look out of place. Graham indicated that the property is located near the outskirts of the city, with several homes located along Cedar Terrace Drive to the north and to the south of E Shaulis Road. There are also several homes located along E Shaulis Road farther to the east and west of Cedar Terrace Drive. To the west of the property is Stainless Plus, which is a light industrial use and to the north and east of the property is farm ground. The property is fairly secluded from surrounding uses,as there are trees that separate the property from the light industrial use to the west, farm ground to the north and east, and residential use to the south across E Shaulis Road. Since the lot is screened from most sides, and is in a fairly remote area near the fringe of the city, the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area. Graham noted that in reviewing past requests for variances to exceed the accessory building limit, there have been similar requests approved when the proposed structures were less than 6% of the total lot and also typically when the property was not in the middle of a residential area,and on the fringe of the community adjacent to or within an agricultural or industrial area as this request would appear to be. Graham indicated that staff recommends approval of the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT May 29,2008 Minutes they are all located on significantly larger lots that allow them to have larger accessory structures. Staff has concerns with this request, as it could set a precedent to allow properties to exceed the 850 sf maximum size limit allowed for accessory structures. The Board has previously denied similar variance requests, such as 635 W 9th St on 10/23/07 and 1200 Baltimore St on 6/26/07. The applicant can build an 850 SF garage and still be in compliance with the Ordinance. Another option would be to purchase some additional land from the neighbor to the west,as that lot is very large,which could give the lot size necessary in order to construct the size of structure that he would like. Also, the applicant could build an attached garage addition behind the existing attached garage that could be accessed through the existing detached garage. Graham indicated that staff recommends denial of the request, as there would not appear to be a valid uniqueness associated with this request, and the applicant would appear to have other options that would not require the issuance of a variance, and the request could have a negative impact on the neighborhood,by setting precedent to allow properties to exceed the 850 SF maximum size limit allowed for accessory structures. Laverne Gage spoke on the request, noting that he is requesting the variance because he has several vehicles, including a motorcycle and trailer, and wanted to build a building to keep them all in instead of leaving them outside. Gage noted that he has a petition of support from surrounding neighbors, as long as the garage looks like the house,which he said it would. Anfinson questioned the square footage of the house, and Gage indicated that it was 1,150 SF. Holdiman questioned if there was enough room along the side of the house to get to the garage, and Gage indicated that there was 12' along the east side of the house where he could access the rear yard and garage. Leo Gage, father of the applicant,noted that he is a co-signer of the house, and indicated that he does not want the garage to look out of place, so it would be sided like the house. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Goldsberry, to deny the variance request, as there is no uniqueness and no reason to grant an exception to the Ordinance.Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST DENIED. 3. Request by Jet Lounge at 451 W Parker St for a variance to the 61 parking stalls required for a bar, to allow for the property to provide 50 parking stalls, 11 stalls less than the minimum required. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the applicant is proposing to more than double the size of the existing bar, the Jet Lounge, and as part of that expansion, some of the existing parking lot will be lost. The existing 30'x60' building is located along the northeast corner of the property, and the 37'x60' addition would be constructed along the west side of the building. The parking requirement for a bar is 1 parking space for every 3 persons of maximum occupancy, as determined by the Building Inspections Department. They have determined the maximum occupancy to be 182 persons, and therefore, 61 parking stalls are required. The applicant has submitted a detailed site plan, showing the location of the addition, as well as the new layout of parking stalls. The site plan only shows 50 parking stalls provided,which is 11 less than the 61 required. There is an 80' wide strip of land to the west, between the property in question and 505 W Parker Street,however the railroad company owns that land,but the City has an easement to use the strip of land for road purposes. The area is part of the right-of-way of David St,but the street was not developed in this block. The bar maintains this area as an extension of their parking lot. The site plan does not show any parking on this area, as it is not their property, but they have indicated that they would try to contact the railroad for a possible easement or to purchase the land. If the land is purchased or an easement granted,the parking requirements could be met. But at the current time, no contact has been established between the 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT May 29,2008 Minutes less than the minimum required. Also, the building would be located 16' from the new front property line, and the Zoning Ordinance has a provision that states that a new building can match the setback of an adjacent building. The applicant's existing building to the north would appear to be located 19.5' from the front property line, so the building in question would be located 3.5' less than the 19.5' required. Graham noted that the property is located along a dead-end street that does not see much traffic. The property to the west located at 303 Thorson Avenue is located only 12' from Ashland Avenue, so there would appear to be the uniqueness of having other structures in the area that are closer than what the Ordinance requires. Given the fact that there are other properties with less than a 25' setback, as well as the fact the applicant owns land on two sides of the property and the property is located along a dead-end street that doesn't see much traffic, the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the area. Laverne Lehman noted that he wants to build a new shop on the property for his business, as he has been in a 2,400 SF building for 24 years and would like a larger building in order to get all of his equipment inside. It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the variance to allow for the construction of an 9,440 SF building with a front yard setback of 16', 3.5' less than the minimum required, and a rear yard setback of 15.5', 9.5' less than the minimum required.Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUESTS APPROVED. IV. Minor Site Plan Amendment 1. Concurrence of the Board to temporarily change the location of access for an approved rubble fill site located on the 600 block of W Louise St, as approved by staff. Schroeder explained the request, noting that the original approved special permit had a condition that didn't allow access to the property from Louise St. Schroeder indicated that the railroad sold some land to A-Line Iron and Metals, who fenced the area, and thus eliminated the original access to the property. Schroeder noted that the rubble filling of the property is done, and now they want to cap it with a few feet of clean dirt, which should not take much time. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Goldsberry, to concur staffs approval to temporarily allow access to the property from W Louise St.Motion carried unanimously. V. Tlicr»csinn Ttemc There were no discussion items. VI. Adjournment It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Goldsberry, to adjourn the meeting at 4:48 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, • Shane M. Graham, Associate Planner 5