Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/25/2006 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON July 25, 2006,IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Chairperson Moine called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of Adjustment to order on Tuesday,July 25, 2006,at 4:05 p.m. Board members in attendance were: Holdiman, Moine and Anfinson. Members not present: Mixdorf and St. John. Staff in attendance was Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder and Shane Graham. There were 18 people from the public in attendance. I. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Mee+,, o Ju e 77, 7006 It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Holdiman, to approve the minutes as submitted.Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the agenda fnr July 2F 2006. It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the agenda as submitted.Motion carried unanimously. III. Decision Items 1. Request by Harley &Saundra Wildes at 1.500 Raltimnry If for a variance to the 4' front yard maximum fence height requirement and the 20' triangle of visibility requirement to allow for the construction of a 6' privacy fence. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the request could have a negative impact on the neighborhood,by setting precedent to allow fences above 4' in a required front yard and within the 20' triangle of visibility. However, this property is located on a corner lot and the house sits quite a ways from Baltimore St, and the fence would only go to the midpoint of the house and not to the front of the house. Also,the fence would extend only 8' in front of the garage, leaving approximately 20' from there to the road for visibility purposes. For these reasons, it would appear that this particular request would not appear to cause a negative impact on the neighborhood. Graham noted that the request would not appear to cause a negative impact on the traffic conditions in the area, as the privacy fence would not affect the line of sight at the corner of Baltimore St and Holm St, and the fence would extend only 8' in front of the garage, leaving approximately 20' from there to the road for visibility purposes. Graham noted that the applicants are requesting the variance to be allowed to construct the 6' privacy fence in order to replace an existing 4' chain link fence that is currently on the property. The Zoning Ordinance states that for corner lots,where the home is facing the narrow dimension street frontage, that a fence may not be taller than 4' from a point starting at the back of the house all the way to the property line along the longer dimension street frontage and back to the rear yard. The applicants are proposing to build the fence 14' past the rear of the house to a point that is between the front and back of the house. The reasoning behind the fence height requirement on a corner lot is due to the visibility concerns that a 6' tall privacy fence may obstruct the view at an intersection. It would appear that the fence, at its closest point, would be 85' from the front property line, and adding to that the extra right-of-way before the actual street, it would appear that there would be ample room for visibility purposes from the intersection. Graham noted that the applicants also would need a variance to the 20' triangle for visibility requirement. Along any driveway, corner or alley intersection,a solid fence must not be placed within the 20' triangle so as to ensure that there is adequate visibility for vehicles. The proposed fence would be in that triangle,however it will only be extending out 8' past the front of the garage. There is another 20' from where the end of the fence would be located and the street, and there is no sidewalk located BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 25,2006 Minutes impact on the neighborhood,as the proposed senior assisted living facility will provide a good buffer use between the commercial and industrial uses to the west and the residential uses to the east. The proposed structure would have greater setbacks than many other buildings in the area. The lot in question is an entire City block,and could have a building built on it that meets all setback requirements,but given the uses and setbacks of surrounding uses, the proposed request would not appear to alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Schroeder noted that the applicant is proposing to purchase the land from the City of Waterloo to construct a 64 unit senior assisted living facility. The area in question was formerly used for the Mulberry Street crossover, which has recently been vacated and removed. The property was rezoned to "R-4, R-P" Planned Multiple Residence District in November of 2005 for the proposed development. Schroeder noted that the applicants are proposing to build the structure with a front yard setback of 14' from Mulberry Street,and a rear yard setback of 20'3" from Franklin Street, and are also proposing to build a portion of the parking for the facility so that in would encroach out into the right-of-way of Utica Street,which is a dead end street. The Ordinance requires the parking area to be 5' from the property line. The site plan also shows the parking spaces along Utica Street to have an 8.5' width instead of the 9' required. Schroeder noted that staff recommends approval of the variances, as the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the area, and the property would appear to be unique, given the multiple street frontages and setbacks of adjacent buildings. Holdiman questioned if the development would have the correct amount of parking stalls required,and Schroeder answered that it would meet the parking requirements. It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the variance to 20'front yard setback, 35'rear yard setback, 5'parking lot setback and 9'minimum parking stall width, due to the uniqueness of the multiple street frontages, setbacks of surrounding uses, and that there is no opposition to the request.Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUESTS APPROVED. 4. Request by Ibrahim Bacevac at 1.365 F. Shaulis Rd for a variance to the average lot width requirement to allow for the creation of two buildable lots, with lot widths of 92.3', 34.7' less than the 127' required average lot width. Schroeder gave the staff report,noting that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood, as the proposed residential lot is surround by other residential lots, and although the proposed lots would be 34.7' narrower than the average of all lots within 250', the area has a diverse range of lot widths and the proposed lot width of 92.3' would appear to be similar and compatible to the area, and is a larger lot width than the originally proposed 85' lot width for the western lot,which was approved for a variance in April. The abutting lot to the west has a lot width of 95',32' less than the average, and there are 10 lots located south of Shaulis Rd that are within the 250' radius that have a lot width of 80',47' less than the average and 12.3' less than the width of the proposed lots. Schroeder noted that the request does not appear to have any negative impact on traffic in the area. The proposed lots would require additional driveways onto Shaulis Road,which is classified as a collector. Engineering has noted concerns on the increasing traffic counts on Shaulis Rd,but during the previous variance request indicated that an additional driveway would be permitted. It is unclear if the applicants would propose an additional driveway for the easterly lot or would share the existing driveway that will be on the middle lot with the existing house. Schroeder noted that the Engineering Department has noted that a 3rd access would be granted for the 3rd lot if the request is approved. Schroeder noted that the Zoning Ordinance states that a residential lot may be subdivided if there is sufficient property to create lots of similar size to 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 25,2006 Minutes a 12'x14'10" (178sf) addition to the existing 672sf detached garage,with a total lot coverage of 1970sf,340sf more than the maximum allowed,and total rear yard coverage of 850sf, 108sf more than the maximum allowed. Schroeder gave the staff report,noting that the applicant is proposing to build a 12' x 14'10" (178 SF) addition to his existing 24' x 28' (672 SF) garage,with total detached accessory structures of 850 SF. The Zoning Ordinance limits detached accessory structures to 850 SF, however also limits the total rear yard coverage to 30% and the total lot coverage to 35%. The property has a total lot size of 4,657 SF,35% of which is 1,630 SF. The property has a rear yard of 2,182 SF (36.67 x 59.5),30% of which is 655 SF, and 34% of which is 742 SF. The property currently has 1,792 SF of total lot coverage,which is already 162 SF over the 35% total lot coverage maximum of 1,630 SF based on the size of the lot. Staff is unclear how the property came to exceed the 35% maximum, but it appears to have occurred when an 8' x 26' roof canopy was added to the rear of the building sometime around 1995. Schroeder noted that in 1997 the applicant went before the Board of Adjustment requesting a variance to the maximum accessory structure limit(was 800' then) and a variance to the 30% maximum rear yard coverage. That variance request was denied on September 23, 1997,however the action was reconsidered on November 25, 1997 when the applicant requested to reduce the size of the addition to only 120 SF, so that the variance to the accessory size limit was not required and only the variance to the 30% maximum rear yard coverage was required. The Board approved a variance to exceed the 30% maximum rear yard to allow 34% maximum rear yard coverage. The Board did not grant a variance to the 35% total lot coverage and there was apparently no discussion on the fact that the property was already exceeding the 35% total lot coverage. The applicant never built any garage addition,and recently approached staff about building the larger 178 SF addition, given that the accessory size limit was increased from 800 to 850 SF. However, despite the fact that the property would still be in compliance with the 850 SF max, the property would be increasingly exceeding the 35% maximum total lot coverage and exceeding the 34% maximum rear yard coverage approved by the 1997 variance. The applicant cannot build any additions to the house or garage without a variance to the 35% total lot coverage,which is already being exceeded. Schroeder noted that if a variance to the 35% total lot coverage were approved,the applicant could only build a 70 SF addition to the garage unless another variance to the maximum rear yard was approved allowing more than the 34% approved in 1997. Schroeder noted that staff is concerned that approval of a variance to the 35% total lot coverage or additional approval of a variance to the already approved 34% maximum rear yard coverage could set precedent for other requests. There would not appear to be any uniqueness with the property. The lot is somewhat small,but is a similar size to many of the other lots in the neighborhood,which would appear to meet the minimum requirements. The property 2 lots to the east at 906 Bertch Ave has an identical lot size and somewhat similarly sized house and garage, but is only at 34.7% total lot coverage and 27% rear yard coverage. Schroeder noted that staff recommends that the variance to 35% maximum lot coverage and increased variance to the 30% rear yard coverage requirements to allow for a 178 SF addition be denied, as there would not appear to be a valid uniqueness, and the request could alter the essential character of the neighborhood,as it would set precedent by allowing other property owners to exceed the maximum size requirements. Schroeder noted that staff would recommend that a variance to the 35% maximum lot coverage and increased variance to the 30% rear yard coverage requirements to allow for a 120 SF addition to the detached garage, with a total lot coverage of 1,912 SF (41.1%) and total rear yard coverage of 179 SF (36.3%) be approved, as the request would appear to be unique given the fact that the Board of Adjustment approved a variance to allow for a 120 SF addition in 1997 but did not address the need for a variance to the total lot coverage requirement. 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT _ July 25,2006 Minutes expressed his concern on approving a variance to the accessory size limit. There was a discussion by the Board about possible driveway alternatives. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Holdiman, to deny the variance to the 850 SF maximum size limit for accessory structures, as there is no valid uniqueness and there would appear to be other options that would not warrant the issuance of a variance.Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST DENIED. 7. Request by Neal Seemann at 2230 Tndpp ndenep Am'for a variance the non- conforming use provisions to allow for the expansion of a non-conforming use in the "A-1" Agricultural District to construct a 40' x 96' structure accessory to an existing legal non-conforming auto sales business with customarily incidental auto repair in a"C-1" Commercial District. Schroeder gave the staff report,noting that the property in question is divided with approximately the front 263.5 feet being zoned "C-1" Commercial District and the remainder of the property being zoned "A-1" Agricultural District. The property has been zoned as such since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1969. Prior to adoption of the Ordinance an auto sales business was established on the property. Upon adoption of the Ordinance, an auto sales business became a permitted use in the "C-2" Commercial District, and given the property in question is zoned "C-1", the use became legal non-conforming. Schroeder noted that the Board of Adjustment approved a variance on November 4, 1971 allowing the previous property owner (Lloyd Thompson with Thompson s Used Cars and Trucks) to expand the legal non-conforming use by allowing an existing building to be remodeled to be used as a repair shop for incidental repair work in upgrading cars for resale. The applicant has recently been cited for expanding the use of the property to include major auto repair not incidental to the auto sales and salvage vehicles and material. The applicant is working with the City towards bringing the property into compliance and has removed some salvage vehicles and material, and has indicated that approval of the variance allowing him to construct the proposed building will allow him to bring the property into compliance with the Ordinance by moving the remaining salvage vehicles and material into the building. Schroeder noted that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood, as the proposed commercial building is directly adjacent to other commercial buildings, including a car wash directly to the east, and the building will allow the applicant to eliminate the outside storage of salvage vehicles and material while allowing an existing legal non-conforming business to remain. Schroeder noted that the property is partially zoned "C-1" Commercial District along the front,while the remainder of the property is zoned "A-1" Agricultural District. The property has several commercial buildings located upon it,including the main showroom and service building which is 1,344 SF and two storage buildings totaling 2,456 SF. The existing buildings are located within the "C-1" area,with the southerly most building located just inside the "C-1" area adjacent to the "A-1" area. The use of the property is an auto sales and repair shop,which is not permitted in either the "A-1" Agricultural District or the "C-1" Commercial District. An auto sales business with incidental auto repair is listed as a permitted use in the "C-2" Commercial District,but the use in question is a legal non-conforming use,with the auto sales business established before adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and approval of a variance in 1971 allowed the non-conforming use to expand to include incidental auto repair in conjunction with auto sales. The applicant is proposing to build a 40' x 96' 3,840 SF storage building just south of the existing buildings in the "A-1" Agricultural District. Historically the non-conforming commercial business primarily occupied the "C-1" portion of the property, but portions of the 7 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT July 25,2006 Minutes 8. Request by Tim & Lori Schneider at 414 Ennia St for a variance to the 8' side yard setback requirement in the"R-1" One &Two Family Residence District to allow for the existing deck to remain in its current location within 1' of the side property line. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the applicants are requesting the variance to be allowed to legalize the existing deck on the property,which is built within approximately 1' of the side property line. The Planning Department was notified about the violation from the Building Department, after the applicant was building a small triangular addition onto the existing deck. Planning Staff looked into it, and found that a building permit was issued for a deck in 2000,however the site plan only showed the deck on the rear of the house and not extending past the side of the house. It appeared that the original site plan showed the deck being built along side of the house,however staff notified the contractor at that time that they had to maintain an 8' side yard setback,of which there would then be no room for a deck out past the side of the house. The contractor then erased the deck along side of the house on the site plan, and was approved to build the deck on the rear of the house,however a year or two later, the applicants decided to build the deck along side of the house on their own,without first checking with the Planning &Zoning Office. Had the applicant first contacted the Planning & Zoning Office,staff would have notified them that the deck would not be in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. Graham noted that the area is zoned "R-1" Residence District,which has a side yard setback of 10% of the lot width. The lot in question is 80' wide,and therefore must maintain an 8' side yard setback. It would not appear that the house even meets an 8' side yard setback,however the house was built before the Zoning Ordinance was adopted, so the house would be allowed to stay in its current location,however any additions to the side of the house would not be allowed unless a variance were issued. Although this area is zoned "R-1",many of the homes in this area have setbacks that more closely resemble the "R-2" District, which has a 5' side yard setback. The Board has approved variances in the past for properties in this area to exceed the setback requirement,however in those cases the proposed setbacks were closer to 5', and not to within 1' like this request. Graham noted that staff has received calls in opposition to the request,including the property owner to the north who is the most affected property owner. Graham noted that staff recommends denial of the variance,as the request could set precedent for allowing additions to be built within 1' of a property line, and the request would not appear to have a valid uniqueness. Tim Schneider spoke on the request,noting that he has lived there since 1991, and that he was born and raised in Waterloo and Cedar Falls. Schneider noted that it is really only a wooden sidewalk, and he did request a contractor to submit for a building permit in 2000,however he never saw the site plan until recently. Schneider noted that the site plan may have been altered back in 2000,however he intended that the contractor get a building permit for the area in question. Schneider noted that the uniqueness of a substantial fall in elevation from south to north, and have had drainage problems. Schneider noted that his property is approximately 40 inches higher than the property to the north, and that when he rebuilt the retaining wall he tried to help the drainage so that it would drain to the street and not directly onto the neighbor's property. Schneider noted that it is more of a sidewalk than a deck that allows them to conceal the drainage tile that keeps the water from draining directly onto the lot to the north. Schneider noted that he could build a concrete sidewalk with no zoning issues. Anfinson questioned how the deck got built, and Schneider noted that he built it and didn't feel like he had to get a building permit. Schneider noted that the deck is not attached to the house, and since he didn't put footings on the deck he didn't think a building permit was necessary. Moine questioned if the deck needed a building permit, and Schroeder noted that the new building code requires 9