Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/24/2007 . MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON JULY 24, 2007, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Chairperson Holdiman called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of Adjustment to order on Tuesday,July 24,2007, at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance were:Holdiman, Goldsberry, Mohr and Anfinson. Member absent was Mixdorf. Staff in attendance was Aric Schroeder and Shane Graham. There were 5 people from the public in attendance. I. Approval of the Agenda for July 24, 2007 It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the in„tes of the Begulat.MPPting nn pine %O 711117 It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. 'Decision Items 1. Request by Roger & Rebecca Wooden at 37.5R T,nralin Dr for a variance to the 15' setback requirement along the long dimension street frontage on a corner lot in the "R-1" Residence District, to allow for the construction of a 14'x26' (364 SF) attached garage addition located 11' from the property line,4' less than the minimum setback required, and a variance to the 20' triangle of visibility requirement for a fence, to allow for a solid fence within the 20' triangle of visibility at the intersection of Ansborough Ave and Olympic Dr to remain in its current location. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on traffic conditions, as the addition would be approximately 50' from the curb of Loralin Dr, and approximately 25' from the curb of Olympic Dr, and thus would not appear to impede the line of sight for vehicles at that intersection. The location of the solid fence within the 20' triangle of visibility would not appear to impede the line of sight at the intersection of Ansborough Ave and Olympic Dr, as there would appear adequate room for site visibility at the stop line. Staff has received one phone call from a resident who expressed concern that the fence does hinder the line of sight. Graham indicated that the Traffic Operations Department did an analysis of that intersection,and determined that the fence would not have a negative impact on the traffic visibility. Graham indicated that the applicant's are proposing to build a 14'x26' (364 SF) attached garage to the existing house at 3758 Loralin Dr. Currently,the property has a 503 SF two-stall attached garage. The property is zoned "R-1",which has a 30' front yard setback,however the property is on a corner lot, and the regulations for a corner lot where the house faces the narrow dimension street frontage allows for the setback along the longer dimension street frontage to be 1/2 the front yard setback. Therefore, the setback requirement along Olympic Drive would be 15' since that is the longer dimension, and the applicant is proposing the attached garage to come to within 11' of the property line,which is 4' less than the minimum setback required. The addition would still be a minimum of 11' from the property line, in addition to approximately 15' of right-of-way before the road, leaving approximately 25' from the side of the proposed garage to Olympic Drive. Also, there is a legal non-conforming 6' privacy fence,which would screen the garage addition. - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 24,2007 Minutes It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Mohr, to approve the variance to the 15'setback, requirement along the long dimension street frontage on a corner lot in the "R-1"Residence District, to allow for the construction of a 14'x26'(364 SF) attached garage addition located 11'from the property line, 4'less than the minimum setback required, but to deny the variance to the 20' triangle of visibility requirement for a fence.Motion carried 3-1. VARIANCE REQUEST PARTIALLY APPROVED. 2. Request by Donald Verbraken at 1949. T.a fayettt St for a variance to the non-conforming use of structure section to allow for the expansion of a legal non-conforming use of structure (Office for Paint& Wall Covering Business), and a variance to the 20' rear yard setback requirement in the "R-2" Residence District, to allow for the construction of a 14'x18' (252 SF) addition to the rear of the building, with a rear yard setback of 17', 3' less than the minimum setback required. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the applicant bought the property in 2004 in order to convert the former barbershop into an office for his paint and wall covering business. The property is zoned "R-2" Residence District, which does not allow for either the barbershop or the office,however a commercial business has existed in that building since 1956, which is prior to adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1969,which means the building was occupied by a legal non-conforming use. However,whenever there is a change from one non-conforming use to another, the Board of Adjustment must first approve it. It would appear that when the applicant purchased the property in 2004 and converted it into the office, that approval was never granted. Graham indicated that a barbershop is listed as a principal permitted use in the "C-1" Commercial District,whereas an office is listed as a principal permitted use in the "R-4" Multiple Residence District, which is a more restrictive zoning district. Therefore, the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood, as the office would appear to be a less intensive use with less traffic than the previous use of the building as a barbershop. The applicant is proposing to construct a 14'x18' (252 SF) attached garage addition onto the rear of the existing building. Graham noted that the Zoning Ordinance states that no non- conforming use shall be enlarged, extended,constructed,reconstructed, moved, or structurally altered except in changing the use of the structure to a use permitted in the district in which it is located. Therefore,the variance to expand a legal non-conforming use is required. Graham noted that the addition would be located 17' from the rear property line,however the Zoning Ordinance requires a 20' rear yard setback for an attached structure. If the garage were to be detached, it would normally be allowed to be located 3' from the rear property line, however there is a 10' access easement along the north property line to allow access to the neighboring property at 1939 Lafayette St. There is 31' from the rear of the building to the rear property line, so options for an addition seem to be limited, as the largest addition could only be 10' without the issuance of a variance. The addition of the garage on the property would not appear to have an impact on the required parking,as the office would only be required to provide 3 parking stalls, and those would still appear to be available. Graham noted that the request for the variance would not appear to have a negative impact on the surrounding area, as the garage would store a vehicle that may otherwise sit outside on the property, and the addition is fairly small in nature. Graham indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as building an attached addition on that small of a lot and still meeting setback requirements would appear to be difficult, the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood, as the new use is a less intensive use and the expansion is relatively small, and staff has not heard any opposition to the request. 3 ' BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 24,2007 Minutes It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Mohr, to approve the variance to the "R-2"Residence District sign regulations restricting self-illuminating signs, to allow for the construction of a 32 SF monument sign, with 16 SF of the sign being self-illuminated with translucent background and opaque lettering, subject to the condition that the light is to be turned off by midnight each night. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 4. Request by staff for the Board of Adjustment to adopt a general rule allowing for a legal non-conforming use to change to another legal non-conforming use when the proposed use is permitted in a more restrictive zoning district than the previous use, and when all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance are met. Schroeder explained the memo,noting that the Board has historically approved requests to change a non-conforming use by reviewing each case first,however the provision in the Zoning Ordinance allows the Board to adopt a general rule where if a proposed change in non- conforming use was consistent with the general rule, that the change would be allowed and wouldn't require approval from the Board. Schroeder noted that staff recommends that the Board adopt a general rule which would allow a legal non-conforming use to change to another legal non-conforming use when the proposed use is permitted in a more restrictive zoning district than the previous use, and when all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance are met. Schroeder indicated that any change in use to a use that would be permitted in the same zoning district or less restrictive district would still need to come to the Board for approval. Anfinson indicated that it would be a good idea, as this type of request is fairly rare in the first place. Holdiman indicated that he had no problem with the general rule It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Goldsberry, to adopt a general rule allowing for a legal non-conforming use to change to another legal non-conforming use when the proposed use is permitted in a more restrictive zoning district than the previous use, and when all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance are met. Motion carried unanimously. GENERAL RULE REQUEST APPROVED. IV. nisruscion Items V. Adjnulrrimint It was moved by Goldsberry, seconded by Anfinson, to adjourn the meeting at 4:51 p.m.Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Shane M. raham, Associate Planner 5