Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/24/2006 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON October 24, 2006, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Acting Chairperson Holdiman called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of Adjustment to order on Tuesday, October 24, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance were: Holdiman, St. John, Mixdorf and Anfinson. Chairperson Moine arrived at 4:10 p.m. Staff in attendance was Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder and Shane Graham. There were 14 people from the public in attendance. I. Approval of the Mirnitec of the Regular Meeting nn C + h 7c 7nni It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Mixdorf, to approve the minutes as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the agenda fur Octnher 74, 7006, It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by St. John, to approve the agenda as submitted.Motion carried unanimously. III. Decision Items 1. Request by Peters Rock Temple at 11.5 Center St for a Special Permit for the establishment of a church in an existing building in an"M-1" Light Industrial District, and a variance to the 24' setback requirement for a church to allow the building to be within 6' of the side property line. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the request was before the Planning &Zoning Commission on June 6, 2006, but was tabled due to insufficient plans provided by the applicant, however updated plans have now been submitted. The applicant's plans are to convert the existing 24'x36' (864 SF) vacant building into a church facility. The property currently does not have any paved parking,but rather a fairly small graveled area that has existed on the property. The Zoning Ordinance requires that the church provide 1 parking stall per 4 seats of maximum occupancy. The maximum occupancy, as determined by the Building Inspections Department, is 34. Based on that, the number of parking stalls required would be 9. The new site plan shows a paved parking area,with 14 parking stalls provided,so it would appear that the parking requirements would be met. Graham noted that the proposed reuse of the property for a church facility appears to conform with the Comprehensive Plan, as a church is allowed in any zoning district,however there has been concern raised from a neighboring property owner,who is concerned about such a use being located in a predominantly industrial area, as there is noise and truck traffic that are generated by such industrial uses. The applicants noted at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting that they are aware of industrial uses in that area, and are aware that there may be noise and truck traffic. At the regular meeting of the Planning &Zoning Commission on October 3, 2006, the special permit request was recommended for approval. Graham noted that a variance would also be required to the side yard setback requirement for a church,as the Zoning Ordinance states that a church must have a building setback of"2 feet per 1 foot of building height". The building in question is 12' tall, and therefore the setback must be 24' from all property lines. It would appear that the front, rear, and side (west) yard setbacks would be met, however the building sits approximately 6' from the east property line, 18' less than the minimum required. Since the building has existed for some time, the variance request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Graham noted that staff is currently in the process of amending the Zoning Ordinance, and one of the amendments would be to change the setback requirement for a church to the setback requirements of the underlying BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT October 24,2006 Minutes requirements. The Ordinance requires a minimum lot size of 8,000 SF per duplex, front and rear setbacks of 20' (therefore 40' total between buildings), side yard setbacks of 5', and minimum lot width of 70' per duplex. As shown on the site plan provided by the applicant(with either option 1 or option 2), the proposed and existing duplexes would meet the required side yard setbacks, but would not meet the minimum lot width of 70'. In addition, for option 1, the request would not meet the average front yard setback of 50', and would not meet the minimum 20' setback for the existing duplex (or the 20' rear yard setback for the proposed duplex) (minimum of 40' between duplexes is needed,whereas the site plan shows 26.5'). Also for option 1, it would not meet the minimum lot size of 8,000 SF. The applicant could legally build a single-family home on the property in addition to the existing duplex without the issuance of any variance. The existing duplex is a non-conforming use due to the fact that it is on less than a 70' wide lot,but was legally converted to a two-family dwelling prior to adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1969. The building was constructed in 1940, and City Directories indicate it was converted from a single-family home to a duplex prior to 1969. Staff is concerned that the stacking of the duplexes can be out of character with a neighborhood and could have a negative impact on the area by placing a duplex either out in"front" or back "behind" an existing dwelling. Schroeder noted that although the request is somewhat unique given the existing non-conforming duplex on the lot and the development to the west, which has multiple duplexes stacked in a similar fashion, as well as two additional single-family homes back behind the duplexes on the end of the private street. The property owner of the development to the west has also been in contact with staff as to the development of additional duplexes,which also may require issuance of a variance. Schroeder noted that staff recommends denial of the variance to the minimum lot width, minimum lot area, and front yard setbacks, as the request would appear to set precedent to allow for duplexes with less than the required minimum lot size, lot width, and setback requirements, and the applicant would not appear to lack a reasonable return on the property, as the existing duplex can remain and it would appear that the applicant can construct an additional single-family home on the lot without the issuance of a variance. Anfinson questioned what variances would be required for option 2, and Schroeder noted that a variance to the 70' minimum lot width would be required, and that was it. Adam Burg spoke on the request, noting that he would prefer option 1,because he could then build a 4-car garage behind the existing duplex for all of the tenants' cars. Moine questioned if the applicant went with option 2, if there would still be room for a garage, and Burg commented that there probably wouldn't be enough room for both the duplex and garage. Anfinson commented that he didn't see a problem with option 2, as there are similar duplexes in the area. Mixdorf questioned if the duplexes to the west could be subdivided, and Schroeder noted that they couldn't because they wouldn't meet the minimum lot width and lot size requirements. Mixdorf questioned if the applicant could build a garage in the rear if option 1 was approved, and Schroeder noted that he could. Burg questioned if option 2 was approved, if he could request a variance to build the garage in front of the existing duplex. Moine questioned how close a detached garage could be built from the house, and Schroeder noted that a garage could be built within 3 feet of a house. The current owner of the property noted that if the variance is denied, that Mr. Burg would likely decline to buy the property,noting that he is hopeful that it would get approved so he could sell it so he could retire. It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by Holdiman, to approve the variance to the 70'minimum lot width to allow for a duplex on a 66'wide lot(option 2).Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT October 24,2006 Minutes began the work. Moine expressed his concerns on the precedence that the request would set. St. John questioned if there were any other variances like this that were granted in the past, and Schroeder noted that he couldn't think of any. Mixdorf questioned if a screened in porch was considered an enclosed porch, and Schroeder noted that a screened porch is not considered an enclosed porch. There was a discussion about the ability to screen in the porch if the variance were denied. Moine commented that it would at least have a 4' wall with the screening, which would provide some security over a completely unenclosed porch. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Holdiman, to deny the variance to the average front yard setback requirement, based on the fact that the request does not meet the criteria for the issuance of a variance. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST DENIED. 4. Request by Troy Deeds at 145R Huntington Rd for a variance to the 1,158 SF maximum square foot size limit for accessory structures to allow for the construction of a 24'x32' (768 SF) detached garage,with total square footage of all accessory structures of 1,392 SF, 234 SF more than the maximum allowed. Schroeder gave the staff report, noting that the request could have a negative impact on the neighborhood by, setting precedent to allow other properties to exceed the 6% max lot coverage for detached structures. Schroeder noted that the property owner is requesting the variance be granted due to the uniqueness that the next-door neighbors on both sides having detached structures exceeding the 6% maximum lot coverage allowed. The neighbor to the east at 1452 Huntington has 1,169 SF of detached structures on the lot,which were built in 1964,before the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1969. 6% of that lot is 1,158 SF, so the lot is only 11 SF over the 6% limit. Since it was built before 1969, the structures are legal non-conforming. The neighbor to the west at 1464 Huntington was approved for a variance in August 2006 to construct a 60' x 26' (1,560 SF) detached structure. Before approval of the variance for this property, there was 1,914 SF of detached structures. According to Part V, General Regulations, 2A-7 (A,4, b), "No such non-conforming structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its non- conformity, but any structure or portion thereof may be altered to decrease its non-conformity." The neighbor to the west was decreasing their non-conformity by having 354 SF less of accessory building area as before. The requesting applicant will have 1,392 SF if the variance is approved, so it will actually have less square footage than 1464 Huntington and more square footage than 1452 Huntington, but does not have the uniqueness of having legal non-conforming structures as both the of those sites. Schroeder noted that staff recommends denial of the variance, as exceeding the 6% maximum lot coverage for detached accessory buildings would set a precedent in the area for others to do the same, and the applicant would appear to have other options that would not require the issuance of a variance. Anfinson questioned how this request came about, and Schroeder explained that they did obtain a building permit, but it was for a 20'x24' garage,which would leave them below the maximum allowed of 1,158 SF, but they decided to build the 24'x32'garage under the realization that if the variance were denied, that they would remove a portion of the existing garage to bring the property under the maximum size allowed. Troy Deeds spoke on the request,noting that they are building the new garage farther away from the rear of the house to open up the lot more. 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT October 24,2006 Minutes Adjustment meeting. The special permit ensures that the request meets necessary conditions and safeguards for its operation. It would appear that the site plan for the church would meet the necessary conditions, which include adequate space for parking and limited impact on traffic, and all utilities serve the site. Graham noted that the applicant wishes to expand the existing church,which the addition would be a stand-alone 50'x50' (2500 SF) building located just to the north of the existing church building. The site plan does not show the building crossing the north property line, which the church also owns. The new building would be used for classrooms for the church, and not as a sanctuary. The building would also have an office, kitchen, restrooms and two storage rooms. Since the building will only be used for classrooms,and not as a sanctuary, there will not be any additional parking required. Graham noted that a variance would also be required to the rear yard setback requirement for a church, as the Zoning Ordinance states that a church must have a building setback of"2 feet per 1 foot of building height". The building in question is 20.2' tall, and therefore the setback must be 40.4' from all property lines. It would appear that the front and side yard setbacks would be met,however the building would be located 28' from the rear property line, 12.4' less than the minimum required. Graham noted that staff is currently in the process of amending the Ordinance,which one of the amendments would be to change the setback requirements for a church to that of the underlying zoning district. Graham noted that the property is zoned "R-2", which normally has a 20' rear yard setback requirement, and the building in question is proposed to have a 28' rear yard setback. Graham noted that staff recommends approval of both the special permit and variance request, as the request would not appear to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, and the variance would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood or traffic conditions, and subject to the recommendation of approval from the Planning & Zoning Commission. The Pastor of the church noted that if they expand in the future, it would not be any further towards the rear property line. It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by St. John, to approve the special permit and variance to the rear yard setback requirement to allow the building within 28'of the rear property line, subject to a recommendation of approval from the Planning&Zoning Commission.Motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 7. Request by Invision Architecture on behalf of the Grout Museum at.5(15 Smith St for a special permit to allow for the expansion of the existing museum, and a variance to the 79'4" setback requirement for a museum to allow the addition to be constructed within 17'7" of the rear property line and 13'3" from the side property line. Graham gave the staff report,noting that this request is similar to the previous request, in that it is going backwards through the process, and will be heard by the Board before the Planning &Zoning Commission. Graham noted that the applicant is proposing a 30,895 SF addition to the existing 28,440 SF Grout Museum,which will be utilized for the Sullivan Brothers Iowa Veterans Museum. The property is zoned "C-2" Commercial District, and a museum is allowed in that zoning district, upon approval of the special permit. The surrounding land use is mixed, with commercial uses to the north and east across Highway 218, with a park located to the west, and a church located to the south. There are residential uses located farther to the west and south. It would appear that the addition to the existing museum would not have a 7 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT October 24,2006 Minutes & Zoning Commission. Graham noted that the applicant wishes to convert the old printing business that was in the approximate 15,000 SF building into the Dan Gable International Wrestling Institute and Museum. The property is zoned "C-3" Commercial District, and a museum is allowed in that zoning district, upon approval of the special permit. The surrounding area is predominately commercial, and the museum would be located in what is known as the "Sports and Entertainment District", as noted within the Downtown Waterloo Master Plan Update. The museum would be in close proximity to other similar uses within that District,such as Young Arena and 5 Sullivan Brothers Convention Center. The request to convert the existing building into a museum would not appear to have a negative impact on the area, but instead will help serve as a catalyst to the for continued growth within the Sports and Entertainment District. Graham noted that a variance will be required to the front and side yard setback requirements for a museum, as the Zoning Ordinance states that such a use must have a building setback of "2 feet per 1 foot of building height". The building in question is 21'1" tall, and therefore the setback must be 42' 2" from all property lines. It would appear that the building is approximately 65' from the rear property line, so the rear yard setback requirement would appear to be met. Staff is currently in the process of amending the Zoning Ordinance, and one of the amendments would be to change the setback requirement for a museum to the setback requirements of the underlying Zoning District. The property in question is zoned "C-3" Commercial District, which normally allows buildings to be built at zero lot line, which would appear to be the front and side yard setbacks for the existing building. Based on the surrounding area, the variance would not appear to have a negative impact on the area, as there are similar buildings in the area that have a zero lot line setback. Graham noted that staff recommends approval of the special permit and variance requests, as the request would appear to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, and the variance request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood or traffic conditions, and subject to a recommendation of approval from the Planning & Zoning Commission. It was moved by St. John, seconded by Holdiman, to approve the special permit and variance to the setback requirement to allow the building to remain at zero lot line, subject to a recommendation of approval from the Planning&Zoning Commission.Motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 9. Request by Gardner Construction on behalf of Vic Fuller Salvage at 211.E F. Mitehpll A71P for a special permit to allow for the construction of a 40' x60' (2,400 SF) building within the existing salvage yard. Schroeder gave the staff report,noting that the applicant has an existing salvage (recycling) yard on the property in question and is requesting approval for a special permit to allow for a new 40' x 60' building within the approved recycling yard. The proposed building would be located east of the existing office building and scale, in the middle of the salvage yard. The proposed building will utilize vertical metal siding,but given the location of the proposed building in the middle of an existing salvage yard, the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the area. The property is within the Highway 218 Corridor Overlay District, so will also have to be approved by the Highway 218 Design Review Board. The proposed building would appear to meet all setback, parking, and other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. It would appear that the site plan for the proposed building would meet 9