Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/28/2006 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON February 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,February 28,2006, at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance were: Moine,St.John, Holdiman and Anfinson. Member not present was Mixdorf. Staff in attendance was Noel Anderson,Aric Schroeder and Shane Graham. There were 21 people from the public in attendance. I, Approval of flip Min»tee of the T?egiil+« Aif...fi _ T______ 31 n0U r r -- Hearing no additions or corrections,Moine approved the minutes as submitted. II. Apprnval of the agnria for Fpbr»ary 7R 91106 It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by St.John, to approve the agenda as submitted.Motion carried unanimously. III. Old Business 1. Review of the request by Jerome & Nancy Muntzing at 1110 l,iminvr Dr for a variance to the 4' front yard fence height limit to allow for a 6' fence to extend past the front of the house, denied by the Board on 07/01/04. Schroeder explained that the request was denied by the Board of Adjustment on 7/1/04,noting that the Board determined that there was no valid uniqueness or lack of reasonable return and would set precedent for allowing other properties to exceed the fence height requirements in the required front yard. Schroeder noted that the fence is currently in non-compliance with the fence regulations,which is why the Board requested that the item be placed back onto the agenda for review. Schroeder noted that the applicants have contacted the Planning &Zoning staff,and have indicated that they will bring the fence into compliance, but have indicated that there will be some parts that need to be ordered in order to convert the vinyl fence from 6' to 4',and that the parts have been ordered,however they may take up to 8 weeks to get there. The applicants commented to staff that they would be converting the fence themselves, and asked that they be allowed some time, specifically up to July 1st, to bring the fence into compliance. Moine questioned if there would be any enforcement penalty involved for delaying it, and Schroeder noted that a penalty would only be involved if a citation were issued. Moine questioned that if the fence weren't brought into compliance by July 1st if a citation would be issued, and Schroeder noted that one would be issued. 2. Review of the request by Kaleen Kirchner Hanson at 907 Logan Ave 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, denied by the Board on 5/25/04. Schroeder explained that the request was denied by the Board of Adjustment on 5/25/04, noting that the applicants brought a portion of the fence along the house into compliance,however there are still some areas that are not in compliance. Schroeder pointed out that the fence along the north property line is 6' tall and extends beyond the front of the house, and a 4' tall solid portion of fence along that north property line that lies within the 20' triangle of visibility, as well as a 6' tall portion that is currently in the required front yard along Conger Street. Schroeder noted that the applicants have called the Planning &Zoning office, and indicated that they wouldn't be able to attend this meeting and asked if the item could be placed on next month's agenda for further BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT February 28,2006 Minutes It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the special permit request. Motion carried unanimously. SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST APPROVED 2. Request by Joshua&Jennifer Hubrig at F of 41.57 North Am'for a variance to the required average front yard setback requirement to allow for the construction of a new home with a front yard setback of 25',22' past the average setback of 47'. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the applicant is proposing to build a new home on a vacant residential lot located just east of 4152 North Ave,which is just inside the city limits off of Foulk Rd. Graham noted that the "R-2" District has a 20 foot minimum front yard setback, however the Zoning Ordinance requires that for undeveloped lots,that the front yard setback be the average of the abutting homes or closest to on either side. Since there is no house located to the east of the property, only the setback of the abutting house to the west is counted. That house, addressed 4152 North Ave,has a front yard setback of approximately 47',so the Ordinance would require that the new house be built with a 47' front yard setback also. Graham noted that the applicants are proposes to build the house with a 25' front yard setback,which is more than the 20' minimum that the "R-2" District normally allows. The applicants have pointed out that they want to keep the new house in line with the rest of the homes along North Ave,which would appear to have a 25' front yard setback. Graham noted that the request would appear unique in that the home to the west of the property in question has an irregular front yard setback compared to the rest of the area. Graham noted that staff recommends approval of the request, as the new home would not be any closer to the front property line than many of the existing homes in that area,which is a uniqueness, and the request would not appear to cause a negative impact on the neighborhood or traffic conditions. Anfinson questioned if the adjacent property owner approved of the request, and Schroeder noted that they did sign the petition of support. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Holdiman, to approve the variance request, based on the uniqueness of the average setback of the existing homes, and the adjacent neighbor is in support.Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED 3. Request by Comprehensive Systems, Inc at 4049 Richland Dr for a variance to the required average front yard setback requirement to allow for the construction of an addition to the existing structure with a minimum front yard setback of 19',29' past the average setback of 48'. Graham gave the staff report, noting that the applicant is proposing to build an approximate 24'x56' addition to the existing structure at 4049 Richland Dr. The "R-2" District has a 20 foot minimum front yard setback,however the Zoning Ordinance requires that the front yard setback be the average of the abutting homes or closest to on either side. Since there is no house located to the west of the property, only the setback of the abutting house to the east is counted. That house, addressed 4035 Richland Dr,has a front yard setback of approximately 48',so the Ordinance would require that the addition be built with a 48' front yard setback. The property line along Richland Dr is uniquely shaped in that the property line curves with the curve in the road. Graham noted that the addition would still be a minimum of 19' from the front property line at its closest point, in addition to approximately 15' of right-of-way before the road,leaving at least 34' from Richland Dr. Graham noted that the house is currently being used for a family home for the mentally challenged, and the applicant has noted that the addition is necessary, as BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT February 28,2006 Minutes place to regulate the amount of water runoff during rainstorms, as residential developments are not required to have water retention in place. Schroeder noted that the excess 52 sf essentially equates to a wooden deck with a roof, and therefore it would appear that there would not be a significant amount of water runoff as a result. Schroeder noted that staff recommends approval of the request, as the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the area, as the portion of the home that exceeds the maximum lot coverage is a wooden deck with a roof and would not appear to cause excessive amounts of water runoff,and it appears that there was an error by staff as the site plan was initially reviewed and it was not caught that the proposed home would exceed the 35% maximum lot coverage. Anfinson questioned what the lot width was and if there were minimum requirements, and Schroeder noted that the lot width was 40 feet, which doesn't meet the minimum requirements,however it is a lot of record,which can be built on. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by St.John, to approve the variance to the 35% maximum lot coverage requirement, based on the uniqueness of the lot size, and it wouldn't have a negative impact on the area.Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 6. Request by Black Hawk Kennels at 3041 Ranehorn Rd for a variance to the floodway regulations and variance to the non-conforming structures regulation to allow for the reconstruction of a 100'x40' (4,000sf) legal non-conforming structure located in the "A-1" Agricultural and Floodway District. Schroeder briefly explained the request,noting that the applicants were supposed to have some engineering data on the flood elevations on the property,but have not yet gotten it, so staff would recommend tabling the request for 1 month until that data comes in. It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by St. John, to table the request for 1 month.Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUESTS TABLED. 7. Request by Don Cox at 207 Nnrimnr St for a variance to the 7,200sf minimum lot size requirement for a two family home in the R-3 Multiple Residence District to allow for the conversion of a one family home into a two family home with a lot area of 6,919 sq. ft., 281 sq. ft. less than the minimum. Graham gave the staff report,noting that the applicant is proposing to convert the existing single family dwelling into a two family dwelling at 202 Norimer St. Graham noted that the applicant has actually already started converting the dwelling into a two family unit, as the building permits that were taken out did not require review by the Zoning Office because it was not indicated at that time that the permits were to convert the dwelling into a two family unit. However, after it was brought to the attention of the Zoning Office of the intention of converting the single family dwelling into a two-family dwelling, staff made the property owner aware that the two-family dwelling did not meet the minimum lot size for such a dwelling. The Zoning Ordinance requires that a two-family dwelling have a minimum lot size of 7,200 sf, and the lot in question is only 6,919 sf, which is 281 sf less than the minimum required. Graham noted that there would appear to be some other options that would not require the issuance of a variance, however. The property to the south has a lot size of 6,919 sf,which is above the 6,000 sf minimum lot size for a single-family home, and the applicant could buy a small strip of land 5 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT February 28,2006 Minutes Schroeder gave the staff report,noting that the request could have a negative impact on the neighborhood,by setting precedent to allow dwellings with less than the required rear yard setback. There are provisions which allow commercial structures to have a lesser rear yard setback,and staff is contemplating a potential amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would allow the required rear yard setback to be decreased in direct proportion for every foot the front yard setback is increased over the required setback, down to a lesser minimum rear yard setback. The existing structure is setback over 115' from Merriman St. However, given the location of the existing structure is in the far northwest corner of the property, if the variance were approved and the structure were allowed to be converted to a dwelling,it may become difficult for any additional structures to be built on the remaining portion of the lot, as the Ordinance does not allow for an accessory structure in a required front yard. Schroeder noted that the applicant owns 3 lots totaling 21,384 SF at the northwest corner of Merriman Street and Halstead Street. The south lot was purchased by the applicant from the City of Waterloo under the condition that a house would be built on the combined three lots. On March 8, 2002 the applicant obtained a building permit to construct a home with an attached garage on the property (meeting all requirements of the Ordinance including setbacks). On April 23,2002 the building permit was revised to be a dwelling with no attached garage, and a 24' x 32' "tool shed". The applicant constructed-the ac essory builduig but neverstaffed construction on the dwelling. Schroeder noted that the Ordinance does not allow for an accessory structure on a lot without a principal permitted use,however when a building permit for both is taken out at the same time,the accessory structure can be built first as long as construction of the house begins within 6 months and then progress continues on the construction of the house. The applicant has now indicated that he does not intend to build the dwelling as indicated on the building permit, and is requesting to convert the existing accessory structure into a dwelling. The applicant has indicated that the structure is 6' from the property line to the west(which is a side yard and abuts an un- open platted alley),and 12' from the property to the north (which is the rear yard). If the accessory structure is 6' from the property line to the west,conversion of the structure to a dwelling would be in compliance with the minimum side yard setback of 5'. However,staff questions if the structure meets the 5' setback. The applicant's driveway connects to Merriman St within the alley right of way before it curves over on to the applicant's property, and the existing structure appears to be located in close proximity to the alley line. If the structure were less than 5' from the alley line (and unless the alley is vacated and conveyed to adjoining property owners) the structure would require a variance to the side yard setback if it remains an accessory structure. If allowed to be converted to a dwelling, the Ordinance allows for V2 of the alley to be included in the setback, so a side yard setback variance would not be required. The existing structure is approximately 12' from the rear property line,which would not meet the required rear yard setback of 20' if converted to a dwelling,however as noted previously,staff is currently looking at a potential amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would allow the required rear yard setback to be decreased in direct proportion for every foot the front yard setback is increased over the required setback, down to a minimum not yet determined. If such an amendment would be adopted, the structure may meet the minimum rear yard setback for a dwelling. In addition to the increased setbacks for the structure to be converted to a dwelling, there are many changes that the Building Code will require for the existing garage to meet the minimum standards of a single- family home, including a requirement that the structure have a frost footing foundation and hard surface floor as opposed to the existing structure with no footings and a dirt floor. Other requirements will include a rated firewall between the garage portion and the dwelling portion, plumbing and electrical, and many other requirements. The Chief Building Inspector has stated that based on the current condition of the structure he feels it would be highly unlikely that the applicant would be able to convert it into a dwelling to meet all requirements of the Building 7 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT February 28,2006 Minutes was recently demolished but the existing 24' x 24' garage was left on the property, in violation the Zoning Ordinance. Code Enforcement notified the property owner of the violation, indicating that a dwelling would need to be constructed, or the garage removed. The applicant subsequently submitted the variance request to allow the structure to remain on the property. Schroeder noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires that accessory buildings be located on the same lot as a principal permitted use. This provision prevents stand-along garages without a principal permitted use,which can detract from the residential character of a neighborhood. Staff allows an accessory building to be located on a vacant lot when abutting the lot with an applicant's dwelling located on in if the applicant agrees to sign and record a restrictive covenant form that prohibits the lots from being sold separately,unless a home is built on the vacant lot. Staff has not allowed the restrictive covenant form to be used if the lots do no abut,but the Board of Adjustment has granted variances when the lots do not abut(if the applicants agree to the restrictive covenant), however these have typically been situations where the lots do not abut due to being divided by an alley. Schroeder noted that staff does not feel that such requests should be allowed when divided by a street or other privately owned property as with this request. Schroeder noted that staff recommends denial of the request, as it could have a negative impact on the area by setting precedent allowing accessory structures on a vacant lot without a principal permitted use,the property would not appear to be unique, and the circumstances creating the hardship were created by the applicant, and the applicant would still appear to have a reasonable use of the property,as a dwelling can legally be built on the property that would meet all requirements, or the accessory building could be moved onto the lot with the existing dwelling at 235 Lewis St. Anfinson stated that he would abstain from discussing or voting on the request, as he has represented the applicant in the past and it is a conflict of interest. Damm noted that he called the Building Inspections Department about a demolition permit and asked the building official if it would be ok to leave the garage and the inspector said that it depended on how the house was torn down. Datum noted that when the demolition permit was taken obtained, that it was not indicated that they would need to demolish the garage. Damm noted that it wasn't until 3 days after they took out the demo permit that they were notified that the garage could not remain on the property. Moine questioned what the difference was in the way that the house was torn down, and Datum noted that the basement walls and floor needed to be removed if another house were to be built on the property, and you could cave the basement walls in and cover them if no house were to be built on the property. Damm noted that the Building Department was aware of the way that the house was going to be torn down, and that another house could not be built on the property. There was a discussion on the fact that the Building Department is separate from the Planning and Zoning Department and that they do not always know what the Zoning requirements are. Schroeder noted that communication between the departments needs to be improved. Holdiman noted that staff's concern on the use of a restrictive covenant when crossing a road,but noted that the request is unique, as Lewis St is a dead end street. Holdiman expressed concern on the fact that a demo permit was issued and they were not told that they needed to demolish the garage. It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by St. John, to approve the variance, due to the uniqueness of a demolition permit being taken out with no requirement that the garage be demolished, and the uniqueness of the dead end road more resembles an alley, subject to a signed and recorded restrictive covenant tying the two lots together.Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 10. Request by Rory Willett at N of R53 CInn,PrdalP A71P for a variance to allow an accessory structure on a vacant lot without a principal permitted use, and a variance to the maximum accessory structure size limit of 1,021 sq. ft. for the purpose of constructing a 9