Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/25/2006 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON April 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,April 25,2006, at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance were: Moine,Holdiman, Mixdorf,St.John and Anfinson. Staff in attendance was Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder and Shane Graham. There were 15 people from the public in attendance. I. .Approval of the Minutes of the R g nn Marrh 98, 2006 Hearing no additions or corrections,Moine approved the minutes as submitted. II. Approval of the agenda for March 28) 2006. It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the agenda as submitted.Motion carried unanimously. III. Old Rncinecq 1. Reconsideration of the request by Kaleen Kirchner Hanson at 902 l.ngan Am'for a variance to the 4' fence height requirement in the front yard to allow for a 6' privacy fence to extend past the front of the house, and a variance to the required 20' triangle of visibility, denied by the Board on 5/25/04. Schroeder explained the request,noting that the applicant's were requesting a variance to the 4' fence height requirement in the front yard to legalize a 6' fence that was partially constructed in the required front yard. At the May 25,2004 meeting the Board determined that there was no valid uniqueness or lack of reasonable return and that the request would set precedence allowing other properties to exceed the fence height requirements. The applicant's lowered a portion of the fence brining it into compliance,however the fence along the north property line extends approximately 50' past the front of the house at a height of 6',which is not in compliance with the fence , a regulations. There is approximately 20'of fence along the north property line that is the required 4' in height,however this portion of the fence is a solid fence and extends into a required triangle of visibility from the intersection of the road and the neighboring driveway, so is also not in compliance. Schroeder noted that there would also appear to a be non-compliance issue with a portion of 6'tall fence that extends between the house and Conger Street,as well as a non- compliance issue with a solid fence that may extend into a required triangle of visibility at the intersection of Conger Street and Highway 63. Staff has contacted the Hanson s and requested that they submit a timeline for bringing the fence into compliance. If a timeline for compliance is not submitted a letter of official notice of violation will be sent indicating a time period for compliance before a citation would be issued. The applicants have indicated that they will attend the meeting to request that the Board re-consider portions of the variance request. Schroeder noted that the house to the north (922 Logan Ave) extends approximately 30' closer to Logan Ave (38' closer if the porch is included). Staff would recommend approval of a variance allowing the 6'tall fence past the front of the home at 902 Logan to a point that is even with the front of the home at 922 Logan Ave (an unenclosed porch is not considered the front of a home) given the uniqueness that the abutting property owner could legally build a 6'fence along their property line to this point. The Board can also consider if they want to allow the fence to continue past the front of the home an additional 8'to the front of the unenclosed porch,however staff does not include this as part of their recommendation of approval,as the abutting property owner would also be restricted to a 4' tall fence along this part.Schroeder noted that staff does not recommend approval of a variance to BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT April 25,2006 Minutes being used as a storage building in a residential neighborhood. The applicants have indicated that there was conflict within the congregation,which led to the delay in the completion of the church,but have indicated that they are now ready to proceed with the completion of the church facility. The proposed 12' x 52' addition would be located on the west end of the building and would be used to house bathrooms,a kitchen,and a storage/janitor room. The proposed addition would extend 4' into an area shown as a paved drive on the original site plan, but the current site plan shows the elimination of this drive as well as another drive that connects the two parking areas on either side of the building. The proposed addition would still be 30' from the property line along Creston Avenue,which would appear to meet the minimum setback requirement of 2' per 1' of building height. The proposed building layout shows a 36' x 42' (1,512 sf) sanctuary. The Zoning Ordinance requires that the use in question provide 1 parking stall per 4 seats of maximum seating capacity,which is calculated as 1 person per 7 sf of floor area. That would equate to a maximum seating capacity of 216 persons, and thus require that the church provide 54 parking stalls. The applicant's site plan shows sufficient parking for 57 stalls. The proposed use of the property for a church facility would appear to conform with the Comprehensive Plan, and the proposed addition would not appear to have a significant impact on the area. Schroeder noted that the Zoning Ordinance does have a provision that allows minor changes to an existing special permit to be administratively reviewed and approved by staff,however due to the location of the proposed addition and the length of time between the issuance of the original special permit and the proposed completion of the church facility,staff determined that the request would not be considered minor and would be required to go through the special permit approval process. Schroeder noted that at their April 4, 2006 meeting, the Planning,Programming, and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request. Schroeder noted that staff recommends approval of the request, as the request is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, and the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the area,and subject to the following condition;that all required facilities for the legal occupancy of the facility for a church be completed within 6 months, including installation of the required parking and landscaping and installation of all required facilities to meet the building code. Schroeder noted that the applicant did not have a problem with the condition, as they were planning on having it completed by August,which is shorter than the time frame suggested. Graham noted that he has received a few phone calls regarding the request,however the callers were just concerned that the church be completely finished and not abandoned, and did not have any other concerns. It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by St.John, to approve the special permit request, based on the fact that it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and subject to the 6 month time frame as noted in the staff report.Motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST APPROVED. 2. Request by Champion Garage Builders at 739 Prnsp rt R/vd for a variance to the accessory structure setback requirement of 3' to allow for the construction of a detached garage,with a side and rear yard setback of 1'. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the property currently does not have a garage on it,as the previous garage was demolished in 2001 (as demo permit records show). That garage, according to the applicant,was located right along the southern (side) property line. It is unclear what the setback was for the previous garage along the eastern (rear) property line however. The applicant is proposing to build the new garage at 1' from both the side and rear 3 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT April 25,2006 Minutes homes in that area, including the 2 adjacent properties,which would appear to be a uniqueness, and the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood or traffic conditions, and the applicant has submitted a petition of support. It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by St.John, to approve the variance to the accessory structure front yard requirement, based on the uniqueness of the property having the house located so close to the alley, and based on the fact that the garage would still be located behind the abutting homes. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 4. Request by Aspro, Inc. at 2049 W A;rlinp FTvly for a variance to the 25' front yard setback requirement in the"M-1" Light Industrial District to allow for the construction of a 20'x40' building with a front yard setback of 2'. Anderson gave the staff report,noting that the request is to allow for a variance to the front yard setback for the construction of a new industrial building on the site. The site is located on a corner lot,with the narrow dimension street frontage along Wagner,but the address on West Airline Highway. The request would allow for a 20' x 40' building to be built as shown on the map, generally just east of the easterly most access point along West Airline Highway. The majority of the site is used for material storage for rocks, sand,and other construction materials associated with a concrete plant. A physical visitation to the site will show the lack of good locations for such a building without disrupting the location of storage for the piles of differing materials. It would appear more beneficial to have the building closer to the road than to try and store materials closer to the road and have the building located further back. The right-of-way for West Airline Highway widens in this area tremendously. To show this, rough estimates show that the building at 2353 West Airline Highway (same side of road, further to west) is setback approximately 20' from its property line,but approximately 56' from the actual roadway. The proposed building would be setback 2' from its property line,but approximately 70' from the actual roadway. With the use of the property as a large open space use,and the unusually large amount of right-of-way, it would appear there are some unique characteristics to this site. The City of Waterloo Zoning ordinance requires a 25' setback for the front yard of buildings within an industrial district. Anderson noted that this is a corner lot with the longer dimension street frontage being the one in question, the addressing of the lot from West Airline would make it meet the front yard setback along this side as well as the Wagner side (which would normally be the front yard as determined by the ordinance definition of a corner lot due to the narrow dimension). Anderson noted that staff recommends approval of the request based upon its uniqueness of the right-of-way setback; corner lot orientation requiring to front yard setbacks, and use of land for large open space material storage. The intent of the Zoning ordinance would still appear to be met as there are no other nearby buildings which will have impeded vision,visibility,nor will the building appear closer to the road than other buildings in the immediate vicinity. It was moved by Mixdorf, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the variance to the 25'front yard setback requirement, based on the uniqueness of the right-of-way setback.Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 5. Request by Howard Allen at N of 1409 T.a Pnrtp Rd for a variance to the 25' rear yard setback requirement in the "M-1" Light Industrial District to allow for the 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT April 25,2006 Minutes Schroeder gave the staff report,noting that the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood,as the proposed commercial building is surround by other commercial uses,including two business in the immediate vicinity (1401 Jefferson St and 1330 Commercial Street) that have similar setbacks. The proposed structure would closely match the existing setbacks of the other buildings in the area. The lot in question is a very small lot at only 3,600 SF, making it difficult to build a building of a reasonable size without issuance of a variance. Schroeder noted that the applicant owns the 3,600 SF parcel and is proposing to construct a 45' x 45' (2,025 SF)commercial storage building. The property in question is a small 60' x 60' lot,making it difficult to build a building of a reasonable size without issuance of a variance (10' x 55' would be the maximum building that could be built without issuance of a variance). The applicant also owns the property at 1409 Jefferson Street which has a contractor business located on it. The rear 60' of the lot at 1409 Jefferson Street abuts the rear yard of the lot in question,and the applicant uses this portion of the abutting lot for a storage area,so the proposed building would still have a significant setback from the closest structure. The abutting business at 1401 Jefferson St has a zero lot line setback along Jefferson Street and is approximately 6 or 7 feet from W 12 Street. An adjacent business at 1330 Commercial Street has a zero lot line setback along Jefferson Street. Schroeder noted that staff recommends approval of the request, as the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood and would appear to be the minimum variance needed to make possible the reasonable use of the land, and the property would appear to be unique, given the size of the lot,and setbacks of other adjacent businesses. Mixdorf questioned if there was a storm water detention plan for that property, and Schroeder noted that the applicant has been in contact with the Engineering Department,noting that the detention area would be located along the rear 10' of the property. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Mixdorf, to approve the variance to the 25'front and rear yard setback requirement, as the request meets the criteria for granting a variance, and based on the unique size of the lot and other lots in that area.Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 7. Request by Joel Cizek at 77 w 1 tith St for a variance to the 25' rear yard setback requirement in the"M-1" Light Industrial District to allow for the construction of a 14'x50' building addition,with said addition to be 3' from the rear property line. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the applicant built a 96'x50' commercial storage building in 2001, and now is proposing to build a 14'x50' addition onto that existing building. The required rear yard setback in the "M-1" Light Industrial District is 25',however when the original building was built, the original site plan showed the building at a 17' rear yard setback, however staff noted at that time that the building would need to maintain a 25' minimum rear yard setback. The building was apparently constructed with a 17' rear yard setback, but staff was not aware of the violation. Now the applicant is proposing a 14' addition,to bring the building to within 3' of the rear property line. Because the building was built closer to the rear property line than the Ordinance allowed in 2001, a variance will be required for the existing building, in addition to the addition, as it would appear to encroach 8' into the required rear yard setback. The lot adjacent to the east is a vacant lot with many trees located on it, and it would appear difficult for that lot to ever develop, as it doesn't have a direct access to a street. There is street right-of-way located adjacent to that vacant property,however the street has never been developed. Given its location, and the fact that the addition would be built at the rear of the building facing a vacant wooded lot, the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the area. 7 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT April 25,2006 Minutes to be similar and compatible to the area. 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 5' less than the width of the proposed lot. 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 those in the area. The Ordinance goes on to state that the size is determined by averaging all lot widths within a 250' radius of the lot or lots to be subdivided, and that the lots to be created must be within 1 foot of the average lot width. The applicant's lot has a width of 276', and the average lot width of all lots within a 250' radius is 127'. The applicant's existing home is located near the middle of the lot so the proposed westerly vacant lot would be smaller than the easterly lot. The applicant has noted that she has not determined what the exact dimension of the westerly lot will be,but is asking for permission for the westerly lot to be as narrow as 85' (42' less than the average) but would not want the lot to be any wider than100' (27'less than the average). With this range,if the westerly lot were approved to be as narrow as 85', then the easterly lot would be 191' (64' more than the average). However, if the westerly lot were only approved to be as narrow as 100', then the easterly lot would be 176' (49' more than the average). Because the width of the existing lot is more than double the average of the lots within 250', there is no way that the existing lot could be subdivided without issuance of a variance,as no mater how it was subdivided one or both of the lots would be more than 1' different from the average. Only a lot that was almost exactly double the average would be able to be subdivided so that the lots to be created are within 1' of the average. Schroeder noted that staff is currently reviewing the Zoning Ordinance creating multiple amendments and updates,and are proposing an amendment to this provision,however even which the amendment as currently proposed,the request would still require issuance of a variance. The property in question is zoned "R-2" Residential District, and the proposed lot will meet all other lot size and lot width requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The request would appear to be unique in that there is a wide range of lot widths within the required 250' radius, including several lots with similar or even smaller lot widths than the narrowest lot width proposed by the applicant. Schroeder noted that staff recommends approval of the variance, 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 wide range of lot widths within the 250' radius, and the fact that there are several lots similar or even smaller lot widths than the proposed lots. Schroeder and Graham both noted that they have received some phone calls regarding this request,however none of the callers were in opposition to the request, but instead just curious as to what was happening with the property. It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by St.John, to approve the minimum lot width variance, based on the fact that the lot in question is larger than most lots in that area, with the lot width being a minimum of 85'.Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 9. Request by Camil Zonic at 1010 Anchnrnugh Am'for a variance to the 35% maximum lot coverage requirement to allow for the construction of a 26'x14' addition to the existing home,with a total lot coverage of 1,578 sf, 160.5 sf more than the ma ximum allowed. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the applicant is proposing to construct a 26'x14' (364 sf) addition to the existing home on the property. Currently, there is a 630 sf home, a 144 sf unenclosed deck, and a 440 sf detached garage on the 4,050 sf lot. The Ordinance restricts total 9