Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/22/2006 • OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON August 22, 2006,IN THE MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Waterloo Board Chairperson Moine called the regular monthly meeting of the Board members fn Adjustment to order on Tuesday, August 22,2006,at 4:00p• attendance were: Holdiman,Moine,St.John and Anfinson.Member nnot City ey Jim present:AttorMn xdorf. Staff in attendance was Noel Anderson,Ari 10peopleSchroa er,Shane from the public in attendance. Walsh and attorney Tim Boller.There were U�2'.5r20IIb' I. ApP It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the minutes as submitted.Motion carried unanimously. II. Apr moved b St. John, seconded by Holdiman, to approve the agenda as submitted. Motion It was y carried unanimously. III. D.ecisiorateras 1. Request by Lewis Spilker at 1"64 Hunting an Rd for a variance to the maximum square foot size limit for accessory structures to allow for the consa lowed ction of a 60'x26' (1,560 SF) detached garage,402 SF more than the 1,158 SF maximum Graham gave the staff report,noting that the applicant is requestinthe Xvari c26isting xo be allowe detached d to construct a new 26'x30' detached garage,and would keep one garages currently on the property,for a total garage coverage e each other(on the p 1,560 )operty. The property w th a currently has what appears to be 3 different garages abutting total square footage of 1,914 SF. The Zoning Ordinance states5 0SF b calculating 6% of the lot � r accessory structures,the total square footage shall not exceed 850 SF,but may exceedy size not to exceed 1,800 SF.The lot in question is 19,305 Sf, of which a%is 1,1 8h SF.The iprt would d 1,560 SF detached garage would be 402 SF more than the maximum be 354 SF less than what is currently on the property. Looking at e The County Assessor' ss website, records indicate that the total size of the detached garages is indicated that there is a total of 2,340 SF of detached structures,however, after is a4 to SFvEveny staff, it was determined that the total square footage of the detached though there are discrepancies between the 3,the new garage would still be 272 SF smaller than the lowest estimate of the 3,which would appear to be a uniqueness. Graham noted that staff recommends approval of the variance, as the request would not appear to cause a negative impact on the neighborhood or traffic conditions, and ess than what is cure size of the re would ently y on the exceed 6% of the total lot size, the garage would still be 402 SF l property (based on staff's measurements),which would appear to be unique. at Anfinson questioned how all the garages tthat were built beforeere in the first e, and the 6°/Gprovis on wanoted s enacted. e garages are legal non-conforming structures It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by St.John, to approve the variance to the maximum square foot size limit for accessory structures, based on the fact that there will be less total square footage of accessory structures than what is currently on the property.Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 22,2006 Minutes both houses appear to be 25' from the front property line, as well as the house in question. Therefore,the roof structure could only go out 1/4 of 25', or 6.25' past the front of the house. Currently,the deck extends 11.5' past the front of the home,and it is unclear as to how the deck was allowed to be built at that setback, as that would appear to be in non-compliance. It is unclear when the deck was built, as there are no building permit records for it,however if it was built prior to any Ordinance which regulates it, then it would be grandfathered in. It would appear that 3 houses to the east,addressed 1455 Liberty Ave,has an unenclosed front porch also,however that appears to extend to within 10' of the front property line,whereas the property in question is approximately 14' from the front property line. The request would not appear to alter the essential character of the neighborhood,as the deck already exists,and only a roof structure would cover it, and there is a home nearby that would appear to have an unenclosed porch extending out further than the one in question. Graham noted that staff recommends approval of the variance request, as the request would appear to be unique in that there is a house nearby that has an unenclosed porch located closer to the front property line than the property in question, and the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood or traffic conditions. It was moved by St.John, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the variance to the open porch provision allowing an unenclosed deck or porch to extend 5.25'past the maximum required, due to the uniqueness that a nearby property has a porch that extends closer to the front property line, and also the porch would not have any visual impact, as it is surrounded by shrubs.Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 4. Request by Joe Minard Construction at Smith n f 109 F. Tnznnr Park Dr for a variance to the 10 stall parking requirement for a fast food type restaurant to allow for a total of 6 parking spaces,4 less than the minimum allowed. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the applicants are requesting the variance to be allowed to provide 6 parking stalls on the site instead of the required 10 stalls. The use of the property would be for a coffee shop with 2 drive up windows only, and no walk up window. Graham noted that the Zoning Ordinance does not specifically list parking requirements for such an establishment,but the closest use listed in the Ordinance would be a fast food type restaurant with a drive up window,which requires a minimum of 10 parking stalls. The proposed use of the property for a coffee shop would appear to be unique, in that there will be no walk up window or seating areas on the premises, and therefore no need for 10 parking stalls. The applicant has noted that during the busiest shift,there would be a maximum of 3 employees. With the 3 employees at the shop at any one time, that would still leave 3 additional parking spaces available. Also, the size of the lot is fairly small (9,147 SF), so requiring 10 parking stalls on the property may be difficult to accomplish. Graham noted that the applicant would also need a variance to the 23'6" rear yard setback requirement to allow the building to have a 20'6" rear yard setback, 3' less than the minimum required. The "C-2" Commercial District has a front yard setback requirement of 20' and a rear yard setback requirement of 35' (55' total setback). The Ordinance,however,has a provision that allows a building that increases its front yard setback to decrease its rear yard setback in direct proportion thereto. In this case, the building will be setback 31'6" from the front property line,which is 11'6" more than the minimum required. Therefore, the rear yard setback requirement may be reduced by 11'6" from 35' to 23'6". The site would appear unique, as the lot is only 72' deep, and the building is only 20' deep, and it still does not meet setback requirements. Graham noted that staff recommends approval of both variance requests, as the request would appear to be unique in that the use would not need 10 parking stalls, as there are drive up 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 22,2006 Minutes 6 areas of the proposed recycling yard to be appropriately screened to meet the requirements of 8 ft. solid fencing. The site plan also shows 46 additional parking stalls,which meets the minimum requirements for parking spaces, even if the existing 29 spaces around the existing building at 1346 W Airline Hwy were sold separately. Schroeder noted that the applicant has been approved for a special permit to operate a recycling yard from the property, and has obtained the required license from the City Council to operate such a recycling yard,however no recycling operations have yet occurred on the property. The Fire Department had stated that they would require a private fire hydrant to be located on the site. Staff had received opposition from an adjacent property owners to the original request to establish a salvage yard,however the approval to allow the yard has already been given and this request is limited to the issue of the construction of a new building. Schroeder noted that the process for the special permit is going backwards, as typically the request would go before the Planning &Zoning Commission for a recommendation first, and then to the Board for final approval, however the applicant wanted to expedite the process,so it is coming before the Board first. Schroeder noted that staff recommends approval of the special permit,subject to a recommendation of approval by the Planning &Zoning Commission, as the request would not appear to have any type of negative impact on the area, the request would appear to be in compliance with applicable zoning regulations with approval of the special permit, the request is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan for this area, and the proposed building is within the approved salvage yard. It was moved by St. John, seconded by Holdiman, to approve the special permit, subject to a recommendation of approval by the Planning&Zoning Commission, based on the fact that the request would not appear to have any type of negative impact on the area, the request would appear to be in compliance with applicable zoning regulations with approval of the special permit, the request is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan for this area, and the proposed building is within the approved salvage yard.Motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST APPROVED. 6. Request by VGM Management,Inc. at 1111 W San Marnan Dr for a variance to the 5' parking lot setback requirement to allow for the parking lot to be within 5' of the property line. Schroeder gave the staff report,noting that The applicants are currently undergoing a major expansion to the existing professional office development, and as part of that development are proposing a parking area that would be within 0.5' of the new property line along San Marnan Dr. A portion of the right-of-way was recently vacated and conveyed to the applicants to accommodate the development,however additional right-of-way could not be vacated to avoid the need for the variance do to the location of utilities in the area, and to ensure that sufficient right-of-way will remain for future road improvements, such as additional turning lanes at the intersection of San Marnan Drive and Ansborough Avenue. Despite the fact that the proposed parking will be only 0.5' from the property line, the parking area will still be approximately 80' from the roadway along San Marnan Drive, due to the extra wide right-of-way, even after the recently vacated portion. Based on this distance of the parking area to the actual roadway, the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the area or on traffic conditions in the area. Schroeder noted that staff recommends approval of the variance, as the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the area or on traffic conditions,the parking area will be over 80' to the actual roadway of San Marnan Dr, and the site plan is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, allowing for infill development in the Primary Growth Area. 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 22,2006 Minutes 'u 8 proceedings,the judge expressed concern on the presence of alcohol on the premise and Mr. Baugh stated he would agree to no alcohol (served or carry in) as a way to mitigate the concern. 3) That an effective visual barrier consisting of a solid 6'fence and a single row of plantings consisting of spruce,firs,or pines spaced at a maximum spacing of 15 feet apart shall be provided along the entire east property line (with the plantings on the east side of the fence). One of the primary reasons that the Special Permit was denied was due to the incompatibility of the proposed use with surrounding uses,particularly the Amusement Park to the east,and that concern is enhanced by the fact that the area between the uses is very open,much of it being designated as a floodway that would not allow additional development. 4) That a 6'fence shall be provided along the west and north property line. Concern was also raised as to the security of the abutting uses,and such a fence,even if chain link,would deter individuals from crossing from one property to the other. 5) That the hours of operation shall be limited as determined by the Board. Concern was also raised that the proposed use would have significantly different hours of operation than the surrounding uses,with the peak times being later at night when none of the surrounding uses are operating. 6) That any signs or advertisement on the premise shall not depict any specified anatomical areas or specified sexual activities as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. And 7)That approval of the Special Permit,with conditions,is being granted to comply with the Court Order dated July 31,2006,however if that Order should be stayed, withdrawn, or reversed on appeal,the Special Permit shall be considered null and void without further action by the Board of Adjustment. City Attorney Jim Walsh explained that if the Board were going to discuss litigation strategies or options that the Board does so in executive session, as council who is representing the case is present.Walsh noted that executive session is permitted under the Open Meetings Law,Section 21.5 (1) (C) for that purpose. Holdiman questioned if the special permit is granted, and then the ruling gets reversed,if the applicant could run an adult business until such a decision, and Schroeder commented that that may be correct, and that is why he expressed concern that approving the special permit may not be in the City's best interest if there are pending appeals that may overturn the request. Schroeder noted that the Court Order did not specify a time frame for approving the special permit. Robert Hearity, attorney for Earl Baugh,noted that his client applied for the special permit in July of 2005, and can only be held to any special conditions pertained at that time,noting that the court clearly would not have contemplated adding any additional special conditions,because that would be illegal. Hearity noted that it is their position that the Board is not in compliance with the court order,as it has been 22 days since the Order was entered, and his client still does not have the special permit. Hearity noted that any special conditions that pertained when his client applied for the special permit would pertain now, and his client has complied with all special conditions, such as being issued a theatre license. Hearity noted that the theatre has been approved for 47 seats, and the parking lot requirement is 1 space for 3 bodies, so 16 to 17 parking spaces is sufficient,noting that Mr. Baugh has 16 parking spaces and is in compliance. Hearity noted that the fire inspector has signed off on the theatre, and everything that has been required of Mr. Baugh he has complied with. Hearity noted that Mr. Baugh has never been in violation of any other state law, and will not be in violation of any law, and just wishes to conduct business at the site. Hearity noted that the Board should just issue the special permit and let Mr. Baugh get on with his business, as there is nothing illegal about his business. Hearity advised the Board that they are dealing with a Pt Amendment exercise, and a prior restraint on a 1st Amendment exercise, and that puts them in a special category. Hearity noted that they have litigated twice, once before them and once before the Court, and a third time at the last hearing,noting that there is no evidence,but rather fears, speculations, and complaints, and no evidence or studies that show the concerns are real. Hearity noted that the special conditions that were set out by staff would shut his client 7 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT August 22,2006 Minutes to It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by St. John, to adjourn from executive session.Motion carried unanimously.Moine declared the regular session back into order. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Holdiman, to table the special permit request on the advice of legal council and with due respect to the court, until there is a final ruling from the Court on the Motion to Enlarge or Amend the previous Order. The Board believes that the Motion has merit, and a ruling is imminent and should be forthcoming very soon, and the Board may be jeopardizing its right to appeal by issuing the special permit at this time.If the court overrules the motion to Amend or Enlarge, then the Board shall schedule a special session as soon as possible to issue the special permit.Motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST TABLED. IV. fisrp csiar, Items There were no discussion items. V. Adjournment It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by St. John, to adjourn the meeting at 5:52 p.m.Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Aric A. Schroeder, Senior Planner 9