Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/26/2007 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON JUNE 26, 2007, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Chairperson Holdiman called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of Adjustment to order on Tuesday,June 26, 2007, at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance were: Holdiman, Goldsberry, Mohr and Anfinson. Member absent was Mixdorf. Staff in attendance was Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder and Shane Graham. There were 35 people from the public in attendance. I. Approval of the Agenda fnr Jane 76, 7M7 It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the agenda.Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Reg„l r Meeting on May 97, 2007. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. III. Decicion Items 1. Request by Burg Investments, LLC. at 171-177 Frns Dr for a special permit for more than one residential structure on a lot,to allow for the development of 3 duplexes, in addition to 2 existing duplexes on two lots zoned "R-2" One and Two Family Residence District, and for a variance to the requirement allowing more than one principal structure on a lot provided that yard and other requirements of the Ordinance are met for each structure as though it were on an individual lot. Schroeder gave the staff report,noting that the applicant is proposing to purchase the 1.5 acres in question, which consists of two parcels. The first has frontage along Rainbow Drive and has a private street, Eros Drive, running through it, as well as two existing duplexes located on it. The second parcel is vacant and located just west of Eros Drive. The applicant was originally proposing to build one duplex north of the existing duplexes along Rainbow Drive and four duplexes on the vacant parcel, for a total of 7 duplexes or 14 units. Prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on the request, the applicant reduced the request to only include 3 additional duplexes. The proposed duplexes would be two story 26' x 28' structures,with each floor including a one-bedroom unit. Schroeder indicated that it would appear that the proposed development would meet all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance,except the requirement that, if divided, that a 50' wide common easement of access be provided to the dwellings. Based on the width of the lot and the placement of existing and proposed buildings, it would appear that the widest access easement that could be provided would be 30-40 feet between the existing north duplex and the property line. This is already an existing situation, as the existing duplex to the south would already have less than a 50' wide access,however to place additional structures on the less than 50' wide access easement would require issuance of a variance. The site plan shows the location of the proposed dwellings but does not show the parking areas or driveway connection to Eros Drive. However, there would appear to be adequate room for a driveway and parking areas. Schroeder noted that staff has received several calls and e-mails in opposition to the request. At that point the request was for 5 additional duplexes. The opposition has indicated that the request is for too many units,creating traffic congestion,noise, drainage and sewer problems,and lowering property values, and suggesting that the layout and design of the proposed duplexes would not be compatible to the surrounding • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 26,2007 Minutes Scott Schneider, 1150 Pleasant Valley Dr, noted that he would like to see the property developed, but not the way the applicant has proposed,noting that he would only like to see 2 new duplexes constructed. Judy Allen, 1163 Rainbow Dr,noted concerns with water drainage from the property in question onto the homes along Pleasant Valley Dr. Richard Ulffers, 1521 Pleasant Valley Dr, indicated that he would hate to see the property values decline in this area. Audrey Pratt,1101 Rainbow Dr,noted that the applicant wouldn't be a good landlord based on the property that he owns just down the street. Schroeder explained the difference between what the applicant was asking for and what staff was recommending. Prior indicated that they are not against development, and indicated that they have no problem with 2 duplexes with staff's recommendations. It was moved by Mohr, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the special permit to allow for the development of 2 additional duplexes and a variance to allow for a less than 50'wide access easement, subject to the following conditions: 1) The size of the proposed duplexes shall meet or exceed the size of the existing duplexes on the property and shall not exceed 1.5 stories, and 2) The location of the proposed duplexes shall include one duplex on the west side of Eros Drive and one on the east side of Eros Drive north of the existing duplex, and that all duplexes shall face Eros Drive. Motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL PERMIT &VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 2. Request by Kevin Kalsem at the SF enrner of Hammond Ave aid F. Orange Rd for a special permit for a rubble fill site. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the applicant is requesting the special permit in order to fill an area of 100-year floodplain on the property. The filling of the area would allow for a larger area of the property being out of the 100-year floodplain, which would allow for future development on the property. A portion of the property is within the floodway,of which no new development is allowed and no filling is being proposed or would be allowed. The site plan submitted shows the existing contours of the property, and the area to be filled. The Special Permit section of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the applicant also supply information regarding the number of cubic yards necessary, the final elevations and an estimated length of time to complete the filling. The site plan shows a total of 11,180 cubic yards of fill to be used, with a final elevation of 897 feet at the closest point to the floodway, approximately 6 feet higher than the existing elevation at its lowest point. Also, the filing should be complete within 2 months. Graham indicated that the Planning &Zoning Commission at their June 5, 2007 meeting reviewed the request, where it was unanimously recommended for approval. Graham indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the area or traffic conditions, the request would appear to be in compliance with applicable zoning regulations with approval of the special permit, and the request is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan, and subject to the condition that that no fill material shall be placed within the designated floodway. Paul Helland, engineer for the applicant, noted that he could answer any questions that the Board may have. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Mohr, to approve the special permit for a rubble fill site, subject to the condition that no fill material shall be placed within the designated floodway. Motion carried unanimously. 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 26,2007 Minutes floodplain,just not the floodway. Holdiman questioned if Alter Trading to the west was within the 100-year floodplain, and Schroeder indicated that it was, and that they do have materials within the floodplain area. Carol Wendell, 1015 South Hill Dr,with Chase Auto Parts, indicated that the EPA requires that salvage yards have their runoff water tested. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the special permit to expand the approved recycling yard and to remove a condition of the original approval prohibiting a 150'x150' triangular area from being fenced and used for the salvage yard, and to approve a variance to the solid fence requirements to allow for a chain link fence to be used for 800 linear feet at the northwest corner of the property. Motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 4. Request by A-Line Iron and Metals, Inc. at 1500 David f t for a special permit to expand the approved recycling yard in the "M-2" Heavy Industrial District, west of the existing facility on land recently purchased from the Chicago Central Railroad and on that part of David Street proposed to be vacated. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the applicant is requesting the special permit in order to expand the existing recycling yard to the west,on land recently purchased from the Chicago Central Railroad. The railroad owned a large portion of land adjacent to the existing recycling yard that they did not have a use for,so the applicant purchased it with the intentions of expanding the existing operation. The recycling yard has been in operation since well before adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1969, and the request for expansion to the west would not appear to have a negative impact on the area,as much of the surrounding area is comprised of industrial uses. Graham indicated that the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed this request at its June 5, 2007 meeting,where the request was unanimously recommended for approval. As part of the expansion, the applicant is requesting to vacate a portion of David Street that divides the expansion area from the existing operation. Although David Street does not actually run between the properties (it ends at the entrance to the recycling yard), it is shown in the plat book as right-of-way along the west property line of the existing yard all the way to the north property line. Graham noted that there would not appear to be a need for this portion of right-of-way, as it is not used, and the request for vacating that portion of right-of- way has been recommended for approval from the Planning&Zoning Commission to the City Council. Graham indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as it would not appear to have a negative impact on the area or traffic conditions,it would appear to be in compliance with applicable zoning regulations with approval of the special permit, and it is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan, and subject to the condition that the final site plan meets all applicable city codes including, but not limited to fencing of the salvage yard as required by the Zoning Ordinance and subject to the vacation and conveyance of David St. If the vacation and conveyance of David St is not completed, the area shall not be included in the salvage yard and all required fencing to separate the existing and proposed yard shall be completed within 1 year of approval of the special permit. Anfinson questioned if any salvage activity was being conducted at the nearby site owned by Alter Trading, and Schroeder noted that they have been approved to use it, but that it is not really used. Chad Hoverstein with A-Line Iron and Metals noted that they are ready to move ahead with the expansion. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Goldsberry, to approve the special permit to expand the approved recycling yard, subject to the condition that the final site plan meets all applicable city 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 26,2007 Minutes Race) to have no fencing, as there are no objections from neighbors and would seem compatible with the area. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 6. Request by Arlin Zevenbergen at S of 31 7_37R Cataract Ai,p for a 6-month temporary variance extension to the "R-3" Multiple Residence District requirement for accessory structures, to allow for 2 storage garages that once were accessory to an apartment complex to be on a vacant lot without a principal use, approved for a 2-year timeframe on 7/26/05. Schroeder gave the staff report,noting that the applicant originally owned the Carriage Hill apartment complex at 312-328 Cataract Ave, and in January of 2005 sold the complex,but split a portion of the property to the south,which included 2 storage garages that were constructed as accessory to the apartment complex, and retained the garages for himself, creating the zoning violation of having 2 storage garages on a vacant lot without a principal permitted use. The applicant noted that he would like to build a permitted use to go with the garages in the future, which would then make the parcel legal since the garages would be accessory to a principal permitted use. The applicant requested and was approved for a 2-year temporary variance to have the accessory structures on the lot without a principal permitted use on 7/26/05. That temporary variance will expire in 1 month, and the applicant is requesting a 6-month extension. The applicant has noted that he is willing to move forward with a plan to develop the lot, however he is requesting that the City of Waterloo vacate the portion of Edgemont Ave that is a paper street and not opened to public traffic to allow for additional space for the development. Schroeder noted that staff is working with the applicant with both his plans for development and his request to vacate the street,but the process has been slowed by the fact that there have been questions raised if the section of street should be vacated or kept as right-of-way so that at some point in the future when the area develops the street connection could be completed. There have also been questions raised regarding utilities located within the right-of-way and what the interest is of other abutting property owners along the area proposed to be vacated. Staff does have some concerns on allowing accessory structures on a vacant lot without a principal permitted use,however the request is for a temporary time frame only, and the applicant is working with the City on developing plans for a principal permitted use or uses to be built on the property that would legalize the existing garages. Originally, the applicant was proposing to build several duplexes on the property,however garages that are accessory to single-family homes or duplexes are limited 1,800 SF. The garages in questions total 6,336 SF. Multi-family development is not limited to the 1,800 SF, so at a minimum a 3-unit or larger multi-family building will have to be constructed. Schroeder indicated that staff recommends approval of the request, as it is for a temporary time frame only, therefore not setting precedent, and it would not appear to cause a negative impact on the neighborhood, as the property will not look any different than it is now, and subject to the condition that the garages will be used for personal storage only,and will not include any commercial activity such as being rented or leased out, as the property is zoned R-3 Multiple Residence District,which does not allow commercial uses. Anfinson questioned what would happen if nothing happened with the property after the time frame expired,and Schroeder noted that the property would be in violation and staff would issue a violation. Arlin Zevenbergen spoke on the request,noting that he will build regardless if the street is vacated or not,but it would be a smaller scale if it wasn't. Zevenbergen indicated that he intended to build 2 duplexes within the original timeframe, but it was determined that duplexes would not meet the requirements of the Ordinance, so at a minimum he would build a 7 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 26,2007 Minutes VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 8. Request by Terry Kezar and David Roeder at 1700 RaltimnrP St for a variance to the 850 SF accessory structure size limit requirement,and a variance to the 10' setback requirement along the long dimension street frontage on a corner lot, to allow for the construction of a 27'x34' (918 SF) detached garage in the same location as the current garage, 2' from the property line. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the applicant's are proposing to tear down the existing 18'x24' (432 SF) garage in order to construct a new 27'x'34' (918 SF) garage in the same location. The existing garage was built in 1930, and is only located 2' from the north property line along Byron Ave. The Zoning Ordinance states that for corner lots with the house facing the narrow dimension street frontage, that the setback from the longer dimension street frontage shall be 1/2 the front yard setback requirement of the district that it is located in. The property is zoned "R- 2", which has a 20' front yard setback requirement, so the setback along the long dimension street frontage (Byron Ave) would be 10'. Although the existing garage currently does not meet the current setback requirement, it is a grandfathered use since it was built prior to adoption of the current Zoning Ordinance. Once that garage is removed, any new garage would have to comply with the current setback requirements. Graham noted that the request to build the garage in the same location of the current non-conforming garage would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Also, the applicants are proposing to construct a 27'x34' (918 SF) detached garage. The Zoning Ordinance limits the size of detached structures to 850 SF. The request to exceed 850 SF would not appear to be a unique situation, as the applicant just wants a larger garage than what is allowed. Graham noted that staff has concerns with this, as it could set a precedent to allow properties to exceed the 850 sf maximum size limit allowed for accessory structures. The applicant can build an 850 SF garage and would also appear to have other options, such as building an attached garage. Graham indicated that staff recommends approval of the variance to the 10' setback requirement along the long dimension street frontage on a corner lot to allow for the construction of a detached garage in the same location as the current garage,2' from the property line be approved,as the request would appear to be unique in that there is an existing garage in the same location, and would be located along the dead-end street that sees little to no traffic, and the request to build the garage in the same location of the current non-conforming garage would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Graham indicated that staff recommends denial of the variance to the 850 SF accessory structure size limit requirement to allow for the construction of a 27'x34' (918 SF) detached garage, 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. Terry Roeder spoke on the request,noting that they want to build a larger garage, and that they talked to their neighbors and they don't have a problem with the larger garage. Roeder noted that the garage would only be two feet wider than what is allowed. Dave Roeder spoke,noting that he has worked with the school to store some football equipment for them, and also noted that he wants to help keep the neighborhood clean. Mohr commented that there are other garages in the area that are bigger than their garage, and Schroeder commented that there may be larger garages in the area than the garage they have now, but they probably aren't larger than the garage that the applicants are proposing, as far as he was aware of. Schroeder 9 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 26,2007 Minutes Greg Sadler spoke on the request, noting that they moved into the house 4 years ago, and that the porch behind the existing garage is a 3-sided sunroom, and they want to keep that open, so they don't want to extend the garage to cover it up. Sadler noted that he talked to neighbors on both sides of his property, and they are in favor of the request. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Mohr, to deny the variance to the 10'side yard setback requirement in the "R-1"One and Two Family Residence District, to allow for the construction of a 22'x22' (484 SF) attached garage, with a side yard setback of 5', 5' less than the minimum required, as there is no uniqueness. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST DENIED. 10. Request by Bradley Bell at'Muat gin W 4th.St for a variance to the 23 off-street parking stalls required for a dormitory, to allow for 3 parking stalls, 20 less than the minimum required. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the applicant operates a corn detassling operation and busses in employees for the one month that it takes to detassel the corn. The applicant would provide meals, lodging and transportation services. The applicant is in the process of purchasing the former church building at 901 W 4th St in order to convert it into dormitory type housing. The building would only be used for one month out of the year during detassling,while the rest of the time it would sit vacant. The applicant has stated that they only need 3 parking stalls, as the only vehicles that would be on the property are 3 buses,which are used to transport the occupants to and from the property in question. The applicant does have an agreement to lease 3 stalls from the adjacent property (addressed 915 W 4th St) in order to park the 3 buses overnight. Graham noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires that dormitories provide 1 parking stall for each 4 persons that can live in the dormitory. The applicant has stated that the maximum number of people that can occupy the building is 90; therefore 23 parking stalls would be required. The former church building was built in 1911, and currently does not have any on-site parking. It is unclear where church patrons parked when the church was open. Graham noted that this particular request would appear to be unique, in that the building would only be occupied for 4 weeks per year, and none of the occupants of the building would have vehicles, as they would be bused from the site early in the morning and return late in the evening. Graham indicated that staff recommends approval of the variance, as the request appear to be unique, as the building would only be used for 4 weeks out of the year,with none of the occupants driving personal vehicles, as transportation services would be provided by way of the three buses, and the request would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and subject to the use of the building as a dormitory only,with transportation services provided by the owner of the dormitory and not housing any occupants requiring any parking accommodations for personal vehicles. Anfinson questioned how staff would know if the residents wouldn't have cars, and Bradley Bell noted that they are H2A workers, who are immigrants who are only in the country for 4 weeks to detassel and have no vehicles. Mohr questioned what improvements would be made to the building, and Bell noted that they would add bunk beds and showers. Anfinson questioned how many people would occupy the building,and Bell noted that the building is rated for 90 people, and that the residents would all be over the age of 18. Question arose as to who would take care of the property (lawn care and snow removal),and Bell noted that his sister lives in town and would take care of that. 11