Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/28/2006 • MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON November 28, 2006, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Chairperson Moine called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of Adjustment to order on Tuesday, November 28, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance were: Moine, Holdiman, St.John, Mixdorf and Anfinson. Staff in attendance was Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder and Shane Graham. There were 12 people from the public in attendance. I. dinprnval of the TVTin„+A� r,f+1� RPonlar Mec tir, nn Ocfoher 7� 20Q6 It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by St. John, to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the agenda for Nnvcmbpr 98, 7O(lh It was moved by St. John, seconded by Holdiman, to approve the agenda as submitted.Motion carried unanimously. III. fecicion Ttemc 1. Request by Ramona Davis at 1220 W 3rd.St for reconsideration of a variance to the 30.5' average front yard setback requirement to allow for an enclosed porch within 23' of the front property line, 7.5' more than the maximum allowed, which was denied at the 10/24/06 meeting. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Holdiman, to reconsider the variance request. Motion carried unanimously. Schroeder gave the staff report, noting that the Board of Adjustment reviewed this request at their regular meeting on October 24,2006 and unanimously denied the request. Since that meeting, it was noted that an additional uniqueness that could be pointed to, which was not discussed during the previous meeting, is the fact that despite being 7.5' past the average setback, the enclosed porch will still be 23' from the front property line,which is 3' more than what the typical front yard setback requirement for the "R-3" Multiple Residence District would be. Schroeder noted that if this area were being developed new, the dwelling in question, as well as the surrounding properties, could have been built several feet closer to the street. Schroeder noted that staff is currently proposing multiple amendments resulting in a major update of the Zoning Ordinance, and has been reviewing the proposed amendments with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Since the Board acted on the request, staff is proposing an amendment to the Ordinance that will change the current provisions regulating an unenclosed porch. The Ordinance currently has a provision that allows such a porch (if built prior to adoption of the Ordinance in 1969) to have a portion of it be enclosed to create an entrance way (vestibule). The provision currently restricts that enclosure to 1/4 the distance out into the required front yard and 1/4 the width of the home, as the provision was intended to only allow for a small enclosed entryway. Staff has determined that in many of the older neighborhoods (where such unenclosed porches were common prior to 1969) homes were built on smaller or narrower lots with layouts that make it very difficult for an owner to create additional living space, and these older homes were typically built much smaller than what the current standard for homes are. Schroeder commented that it is staff's opinion that in order to keep such neighborhoods thriving and re-investing in themselves, the Ordinance needs to be more flexible to allow increased living space, and that a logical place to create that flexibility would be to allow such unenclosed BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT , November 28,2006 Minutes spilling into the public street. Graham noted that the two menu signs would have limited or no visibility from Highway 218 and the new construction of the restaurant would appear to enhance the overall appearance of La Porte Road and the Highway 218 Corridor. Graham noted that staff recommends approval of the request, as denying the variance would appear to deny a reasonable return of the property, the new menu signs would have limited visibility from Highway 218, and staff is looking into amending the Zoning Ordinance, which would allow the number and size of the proposed menu signs. Moine questioned what staff was proposing for a new square footage limit, and Schroeder noted that a number has not been set, as it hasn't been discussed by staff in detail as of yet. Schroeder noted that outside of the Highway 218 Corridor regulations, menu signs are not mentioned in the Ordinance. Anderson commented that McDonald's has noted that they have not seen any communities that have limitations on the size and number of menu signs. Anderson noted that staff would look at other communities to see what their regulations are for menu signs. Jim Heilman, area construction manager for McDonald's,noted that by adding a second ordering point, that they are able to get more cars onto the property (4-5 more cars on the lot), and they would be able to take more orders at the same time,which provides faster service. Heilman noted that all new McDonald's and rebuilds would have the double ordering system installed. It was moved by St. John, seconded by Mixdorf, to approve the variance to the 32 SF maximum size limit for a menu sign in the Highway 218 Corridor, and a variance to the provision allowing only one menu sign per property, due to the potential lack of reasonable return, the new signs would have limited visibility from Highway 218, and staff is currently looking at amending the regulations for menu signs.Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUESTS APPROVED. 3. Request by Rivers Edge Christian Church at 1247 Cedar Rend St for a special permit to allow for the continued use of two 12'x60' portable classrooms (previously approved on a temporary basis ending October 2006). Schroeder gave the staff report, noting that the applicant went before the Planning & Zoning Commission in October of 2002 in order to receive a special permit to be allowed to move two 12'x60' portable classrooms onto the site to be used for Sunday School classes. The Commission recommended approval of the request for a temporary time frame of 4 years. The Board of Adjustment, on October 22, 2002, approved the special permit for a 4-year timeframe. Graham noted that the four years have expired, and the applicant wishes to receive another special permit in order to continue the use of the portable classrooms, but this time they are asking that there be no timeframe attached. The applicant noted that they would be removed once a permanent structure is built, however they have not indicated a timeframe as to when that will happen. The applicant has indicated that their church (formerly called the Waterloo Church of Christ) recently split into two, so they currently have fewer members at the site in question and are not ready to build a permanent building at this time. Graham noted that the portable classrooms are located to the west of the existing church building, so the classrooms are not visible from Broadway St, however they are visible from the residential area to the south and west. Staff does have some concerns with not having any sort of timeframe, as there would be no guarantee that the portable classrooms would ever be removed. Graham noted that at the Planning &Zoning Commission meeting on November 7, 2006, the Commission recommended approval (8-2 vote) of the special permit request for a two-year timeframe, with no additional extensions, based on the fact that the church has already been granted a four-year timeframe. 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT . November 28,2006 Minutes Council approved the appeal primarily due to the location of the lot along W 13th St that is a low traffic street that dead ends to the north into the Cedar River and dead ends to the south at Highway 218. Schroeder noted that the applicant owns the 60' x 140' (8,400 SF) vacant lot and is proposing to construct a 40' x 110' (4,400 SF) commercial mini-storage building. The applicant is proposing to build the building at zero lot line along W 13th Street, which is considered a side yard (Ordinance requires 25' because the property is a corner lot with the structure facing the longer dimension street frontage). The applicant is proposing to build the building 5' from the alley, which is considered the rear yard (Ordinance requires a 25' rear yard setback but allows 1/2 of the alley to be included in the setback,which would require the building to be 8.5 feet from the alley line). The proposed building would have 11 overhead doors on two sides,with 11 doors facing 13th St along the zero lot line setback, and 11 doors facing the westerly side property line. The building would be 20' from the westerly side property line, and the applicant is proposing to pave the entire 20' for the driveway, which would cause the driveway to be at zero lot line (Ordinance requires 5'). On 3/23/99 the Board of Adjustment approved a variance to allow the applicant to build a mini-storage building at 193 W 13th St(across the road) with similar setback requirements. There are also other buildings in the area with similar setbacks. That building at 193 W 13th St also has a zero lot line along W 13th Street with multiple overhead doors and one long driveway connecting to the street. If approved the applicant will have to provide details on storm water detention and landscaping provisions will also be required, and based on the proposed layout, there may not be adequate space for storm water detention and landscaping. The only potential grass areas will be the northerly 25' and the southerly 5'. The northerly 25' would appear to be the high point on the property, and the property slopes away from there, so may not work as a storm water detention area, but may work for a landscaping area. There are two existing mature overstory trees in front of the property within the right of way along Black Hawk St. Schroeder noted that staff recommends approval of the variance requests,as the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the area and would appear to be the minimum variance needed to make possible the reasonable use of the property, and the property would appear to be unique, given the size of the lot and setbacks of other adjacent businesses, and would appear to be similar to the setbacks approved by the Board of Adjustment at 193 W 13th St. Ralph Ulrich, builder for the applicant, spoke on behalf of the applicant, noting that the other buildings have not created a problem in that area, and the new building would create additional income for the City. It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the variance to the side and rear yard setback requirement, vehicular use setback requirement, and variance to the number of required landscaping points, as the request would not have a negative impact on the area, and the size of the lot would appear to be unique.Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUESTS APPROVED. 5. Request by Deer Creek Development on behalf of Gold's Gym/Mauer Eye Center and Divine Spa at the SW corner of W Ridgeway Ave and Greyhound Dr for a variance to the required number of parking stalls to allow for the two businesses to provide 470 parking stalls, 100 less than the 570 required. Anfinson noted that he has a conflict of interest and will not take part in the discussion or vote. Anderson gave the staff report,noting that the request is to allow for a variance to the parking regulations. The Zoning Ordinance requires 1 parking stall per 100 sq. ft. of gymnasium space, and 2 spaces per court. Furthermore,the parking requirements for the Mauer Eye Center would be required at one space for every 150 sq. ft. With the Gold's Gym encompassing 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT November 28,2006 Minutes It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the variance to the 35'rear yard setback requirement, based on the fact that nothing would change with the property except where the property line is situated. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 7. Request by Tim &Lori Schneider at 464 T,nnia St for a variance to the 4' maximum height limit for a fence in a required front yard to allow for the existing 6' fence to remain in its current location within the required front yard. Schroeder gave the staff report, noting that the applicant is requesting a variance to allow for a 6' solid fence in the front yard to remain in its current place. The Zoning Ordinance states, "On interior lots,no such fence shall exceed eight feet in height in the side or rear yard and four feet in height in the front yard." The applicant has noted in a letter to Staff that the 6' privacy fence in the front yard existed prior to him purchasing the home in 1991, and Staff has recognized this as a uniqueness. Staff has no record or documentation on when the 6' foot fence was constructed and if it was constructed before 1969 when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted. If this were the case, this would make the fence a legal non-conforming structure. Schroeder noted that on three different occasions the applicant has completed repair work on the fence; in 1995, 2001 and 2006. This year, the applicants replaced the existing vertical pickets that had begun to rot out with the cedar-toned boards. However, the applicant didn't obtain a building permit to do so, which is required for such work. Mr. Schneider has submitted a petition signed by two adjacent neighbors who have no objections to him keeping the 6' privacy fence in the front yard. The neighbor at 472 Loma Street, who signed the petition,has his property abut right up to the 6' privacy fence. Schroeder noted that staff recommends approval of the request, as staff has recognized that the 6' privacy fence was built prior to the applicant purchasing the property in 1991, and the fence has existed for some time and would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood. The applicant has submitted a petition of support. St. John questioned if there was a petition of objection on the request, and Schroeder noted that there was not. Anfinson questioned if a legal non-conforming use were to be repaired if it would still require a variance, and Schroeder noted that it would still need a variance because the repair work exceeded 50% of its value and once that is exceeded it is not legal non- conforming anymore and must be built in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. Anfinson questioned how this request came about, and Schroeder noted that the property went before the Board a few months ago for a side yard setback variance for an existing deck, and at that time staff noticed the fence but didn't research it in depth. Schroeder noted that since then, the planning office received an anonymous complaint questioning if the fence was legal. Anfinson expressed concern that staff was taking a different approach with this request compared to similar requests in the past. Schroeder commented on several other similar requests, and explained the differences in those requests compared to this request. Holdiman questioned if a building permit would have been denied if the applicant would have come to the planning office first, and Schroeder noted that planning staff would not have signed off on the building permit,but would have let them know of the option of going before the Board of Adjustment. Anfinson questioned how far out the fence was, and Schroeder noted that it goes approximately to the front property line. Lori Schneider spoke on the request, noting that the fence has been there for a very long time, and that the neighbors have a lot of things in their driveway that they don't want to look at, including a boat and a camper. Schneider noted that they were not aware that a building permit was needed to replace the boards that were rotted out, noting that they did not replace the posts. Schneider noted that several of her neighbors 7