Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/29/2008 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 29, 2008, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Chairperson Holdiman called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of Adjustment to order on Tuesday,January 29, 2008, at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance were: Holdiman, Goldsberry and Anfinson. Board members not in attendance were: Mixdorf and Mohr. Staff in attendance was Aric Schroeder and Shane Graham. There were 9 people from the public in attendance. I. Approval nf the Aglenrla for January 79, 7(1(1R It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the agenda as submitted.Motion carried unanimously. II. Apprnval nf the Miniitec nf the Re. ilar Meeting nn December 711, 7(1(17 It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Dericion Items 1. Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for the 2008 calendar year. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Goldsberry, to nominate Craig Holdiman as Chairperson and Larry Anfinson as Vice Chairperson for the 2008 calendar year.Motion carried unanimously. 2. Request by Signs & Designs on behalf of Clubhouse Iowa, LLC at 2016 Sparc St for a variance to the "S-1" Shopping District sign regulations restricting wall signs to a maximum of 3 sides of a building when there is only one freestanding sign, to allow for a wall sign on a 4th side of the building. Graham gave the staff report, noting that the property is zoned "S-1" Shopping Center Commercial District, and has an existing 3 tenant space commercial strip mall. Advance Auto and Sprint currently occupy two spaces,while the third tenant space at the south end of the building is soon to be occupied by a "Vision For Less" store. The applicant has requested to place a 66 SF wall sign along the side of the south wall, which faces Crossroads Blvd and the mall. The east wall is the front of the building, and has space for advertising for each tenant. Advance Auto,which is at the north end of the building, has signage on the north and east wall, and Sprint, which is in the middle of the building, has signage on the east and west walls. Therefore the proposed sign on the south wall would be the fourth wall with signage. The Zoning Ordinance provides that only three sides of the building can have signage, therefore the variance is required. The fact that the property has street frontage on 3 sides with visibility from all sides of the building would appear to be a uniqueness. Graham indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, based on the uniqueness of the building having street frontage along 3 sides and visibility from all 4 sides, the potential lack of reasonable return due to low visibility, and no negative impact on the surrounding area. Mason Fromm with Signs & Designs spoke on the request,noting that the area is a highly dense shopping district, and is in a very visible location. Fromm indicated that the wall that the sign would be located on has an entrance to the store on it. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT January 29,2008 Minutes fence along the east property line, indicating that a contractor also put up that fence and at no time has anyone indicated to them that the fence was in violation. The applicants have indicated that Country Estates, the contractor that took out the building permit and constructed the current fence, took down the previous 6' fence and built the new fence in the exact same place,just replacing the wood fence with a vinyl fence. The applicants have indicated that Country Estates did not mention any concern about the fact that the fence extended in front of the house because it was replacing a fence that had been there for several years. Schroeder indicated that because the previous fence was built in 1982, it would not have been a legal non-conforming structure, however even if it had been a legal non-conforming structure, the Ordinance provides for a legal non-conforming structure to continue, however if such a structure is removed, any replacement structure must be rebuilt in full compliance with the Ordinance, except as otherwise varied by the Board of Adjustment. Despite the fact that there was a previous fence in a similar location, and despite the fact that a permit was issued for the current fence with an unclear site plan, this does not legalize the fence, nor guarantee issuance of a variance. However,the fact that a similar fence was located in the same position for several years could be considered unique, as has been considered with similar fence height variance requests, such as 360 Drynan Dr (variance approved 11/23/04) and 464 Loma St (variance approved 11/28/06). The property at 360 Drynan Dr also involved a building permit for the fence that was approved in error by staff, which was also considered a uniqueness. Schroeder noted that with this request staff would suggest that more detail should have been required before the permit was approved, however the permit was not approved by staff in error, as the site plan does not indicate that the fence would be in violation. Schroeder indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as Staff has recognized that a 6' privacy fence was located in the same location since at least 1982, and the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood or on traffic conditions. Anfinson questioned if the fence would cause any line of sight issues, and Schroeder noted that there was no driveway near the fence, so there would be no line of sight issues. Holdiman questioned if the Board should be concerned with the encroachment agreement, and Schroeder noted that they wont deal with the encroachment agreement, but just the variance. Cora Turner spoke on the request, noting that they had a fence on the property for 29 years, and they just replaced that fence. Turner noted that they didn't know that they were in violation of any Ordinances. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the variance request to allow for the 6' tall fence to remain in its current location past the front of the house, based on the uniqueness of replacing an old fence in the same location and due to no line of sight issues.Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 5. Request by Midwest Sawdust, Inc at 193n n.sagp A7JP for a 2-year temporary variance to the hard surface vehicular use requirement to allow for a gravel vehicular use area. Graham gave the staff report, noting that the applicant is proposing to construct a new 100'x120' (12,000 SF) building on the property to be used for the business, Midwest Sawdust. The building would have doors on the west side of the building for trucks to load and unload. The applicant is proposing to gravel this area instead of using an approved hard surface for a period of 2 years. Also, there will be an area for parking stalls on the north side of the building. The parking stalls themselves would be hard surfaced, however the area in front of the parking stalls is proposed to be gravel as well. The 2 existing buildings on the property were constructed in 1999 and 2001, and both of those buildings are located within the city limits of Evansdale, however the access and driveway to those buildings is within the Waterloo City limits. That driveway is 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT January 29,2008 Minutes to be subdivided, and that the lots to be created must be within 1 foot of the average lot width. The applicant's lot has a width of 200', and the average lot width of all lots within a 250' radius is 89.8'. The applicant's existing home is located to the east of the lot, and the applicant is proposing to divide the lot so that the existing home, which is a rental property,is on as small of a lot as legally possible, with the lot with the existing home to be 54' wide, and the vacant lot to be 146' wide. Because the width of the existing lot is more than double the average of the lots within 250', there is no way that the existing lot could be subdivided without issuance of a variance, as no mater how it was subdivided, the lots would be more than 1' different from the average. Schroeder noted that Staff is currently reviewing the Zoning Ordinance, creating multiple amendments and updates, and are proposing an amendment to this provision, however even with the amendment as currently proposed, the request would still require issuance of a variance. The property in question is zoned "R-2" Residential District, and the proposed lots will meet all other lot size and lot width requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The request would appear to be unique in that there is a wide range of lot widths within the neighborhood, including numerous lots to the west and north with even smaller lot widths than the lot width proposed by the applicant, however there are also a few lots in the area with significantly larger lot widths. Schroeder indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as the property would appear to be unique given the wide range of lot widths within the area, and the fact that there are several lots with similar or even smaller lot widths than the proposed lots. Derrick Reedy indicated that he had no comments regarding the request, but would answer any questions that the Board may have. It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the request, based on the uniqueness of the wide range of lot widths in the area.Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 8. Request by Derrick Reedy at 61 R Rishnp Ave for a variance to the Subdividing of Lots requirement to allow for the lot to be divided in two, with lots to be created that are not similar in size to those existing in the area. Schroeder gave the staff report, noting that the applicant owns the 16,730 SF parcel with existing home at 618 Bishop Ave, and is proposing to subdivide the lot in two,with the western lot having the existing home on it and the eastern lot having the ability for a residence to be located on it, which would be addressed off of Calhoun St. The Zoning Ordinance states that a residential lot may be subdivided if there is sufficient property to create lots of similar size to those in the area. The Ordinance goes on to state that the size is determined by averaging all lot widths within a 250' radius of the lot or lots to be subdivided, and that the lots to be created must be within 1 foot of the average lot width. The applicant's lot has a width of 239', and the average lot width of all lots within a 250' radius is 100.5'. The applicant's existing home is located to the west of the lot, and the applicant is proposing to divide the lot so that the existing home, which is a rental property, would be 20' from the new property line, that way the existing home will meet the minimum rear yard setback requirement. The lot that would be created with the existing home is addressed off of Bishop Ave, and the lot width of 70' would not change based on the division. However, the vacant lot to be created would only have frontage along Calhoun St, with a lot width of 153'. Because the width of the existing lot is more than double the average of the lots within 250', there is no way that the existing lot could be subdivided without issuance of a variance, as no mater how it was subdivided, the lot would be more than 1' different from the average. Staff is currently reviewing the Zoning Ordinance, 5