Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/25/2007 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2007, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Chairperson Holdiman called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of Adjustment to order on Tuesday, September 25, 2007, at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance were: Holdiman, Goldsberry, Mixdorf and Anfinson. Member absent was Mohr. Staff in attendance was Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder and Shane Graham. There were approximately 4 people from the public in attendance. I. Approval of the A. -nda for September 75, 7M7 It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the agenda as amended.Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular 1VMeeti on August 28 7gn7 It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Mixdorf, to approve the minutes as submitted.Motion carried unanimously. III. Decision Items 1. Request by Invision Architecture on behalf of the Waterloo Community Schools at 1.515 T,ngan Am'for a special permit to allow for the construction of the new Logan Middle School, including a 98,000 SF building, 150-stall parking lot and related recreational facilities. Graham gave the staff report, noting that the site plan shows the location of the building,which would be just to the southwest of the existing school. In addition, the site plan shows a new running track and football field to the west of the new building, and a new baseball field and shot-put area to the south of the new building. Access to the new school would come from the extension of Esther Street from the east, as well as utilizing an existing entrance along W Louise Street to the north that the existing school currently uses. The site plan also shows the parking area to the south of the building,which has a total of 150 parking stalls, and a bus loading area to the east of the building. Graham noted that the parking requirements for a middle school are 1 parking stall for each person regularly employed on the premises, as well as 1 parking stall for each classroom. There would appear to be approximately 35 classrooms,however the number of employees has not been determined. It would appear that the number of parking stalls would be sufficient to meet the parking requirements. Graham noted that the setback requirement for the building would be 2 feet per 1 foot of building height. The side elevation diagram provided shows a peak building height of 31'6". Therefore, the building would need to be setback 63' from all property lines. At its closest point, the building would appear to be a minimum distance of 90' from the property line, which would meet the setback requirements. The existing school building would most likely be reused and is not planned on being demolished, but for what type of use has not been determined at this time. Graham indicated that the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed this request at their September 11th meeting, where it was unanimously recommended for approval. Graham indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as the request would appear to have a positive impact on the area and would better serve the needs of the community, and the request is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and subject to the condition that the final site plan meet all applicable City codes, and subject to the condition that the existing sanitary sewer is adequate for the sanitary flow from the new school. Graham indicated that he • n BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • September 25,2007 Minutes multi family development in the area, and the site plan would appear to provide sufficient space to meet all required regulations, including density, setbacks, etc.Motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST APPROVED. 3. Request by Todd &Saprina Jamason at 216 Frederir Ave for a variance to the 8'3" side yard setback requirement and the 30' rear yard setback requirement in the "R-1" One and Two Family Residence District, to allow for the construction of a 21'x28' attached garage addition, 2' from the side property line, 6'3"' less than the minimum required, and to allow for the construction of a 16'x24' addition to the home, 5' from the rear property line, 25' less than the minimum required. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the applicant is proposing the 21'x28' (588 SF) garage addition in order to have a double-stall attached garage on the property, as the property currently has 2 detached single-stall garages, of which one does not have any street access. The garage would be located 2' from the south property line, in the same location as one of the existing detached garages. The second addition would be for added living space, which would be constructed where the second detached garage was located, which was removed to make room for the addition. That addition would be located 5' from the rear property line, which is actually along the side of the house. Graham noted that the property is located on a corner lot, and the Zoning Ordinance states that the front yard is to be considered along side the narrow dimension street frontage, with the rear yard being opposite of that. Although the house is addressed off of Frederic Ave, the narrow dimension street frontage is along Hillside Ave, therefore the home addition has to conform to the rear yard setback requirement of 30'. The garage addition would be built along side the south property line, which is considered the side yard, which the Ordinance requires a setback of 10% of the lot width measured at the building line, which in this case would be 8'3". The request would not appear to be out of character with the neighborhood, as many of the homes in the area have 2-stall garages. Also, with the house being located where it is on the lot, it makes it difficult to construct any sort of addition without the issuance of a variance. Graham indicated that staff recommends approval of the variances, as the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood, as many of the homes in that area have double-stall garages, and the property is unique in that the home is located back a ways from both street frontages, making it difficult to construct an addition to the home without the issuance of a variance. Todd Jamason handed out some diagrams of what the additions would look like and photos of the property for the Board members to see. Jamason noted that one of the garages was demolished before they knew that they needed the variance. Jamason noted that the placement of the home on the property away from the street does create a uniqueness. It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the variance requests, as the request would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood, and the property is unique in that the home is located back a ways from both street frontages, making it difficult to construct an addition to the home without the issuance of a variance. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUESTS APPROVED. 4. Request by the City of Waterloo on behalf of Black Hawk County Union Council at 1695 Rurtnn A VP for a variance to the 20' front yard setback requirement in the "R-4" Multiple Residence District, for the purpose of relocating the front property line to allow for the 3