HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/22/2005 MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON
November 22, 2005, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
Chairperson Moine called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of Adjustment to
order on Tuesday, November 22, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance were:Moine,
Holdiman, Anfinson and Mixdorf. Member not present was St. John. Staff in attendance was
Aric Schroeder and Shane Graham. There were 20 people from the public in attendance.
I. Approval of the Minutes of the Rescheduled Meeting nn November 3, 9005
Hearing no additions or corrections, Moine approved the minutes as submitted.
II. Approval of the agenda for November 22, 9005
It was moved by Anfinson, seconded by Holdiman, to approve the agenda as submitted.Motion carried
unanimously.
III. Derision Items
1. Request by Jim Cook at 4f.3e-4O44 rngan Ave for a special permit to allow for the
construction of a mini-storage business on property zoned "C-2" Commercial District.
Graham gave the staff report, noting that the applicant is proposing to construct a 5,200 square foot
mini-storage facility on the property in question. Currently, there is an office building and a garage on
the property, which would remain, and the mini-storage facility would be constructed to the east of the
existing buildings. In 2004, an amendment was made to the Zoning Ordinance regarding mini-storage
facilities. Previously, the use was not listed in the Ordinance, however it most closely resembled a
storage warehouse facility which is allowed in the C-3 District. The amendment made a mini-storage
facility a principal permitted use in the M-1 Light Industrial District, and also lists it as a principal
permitted use in the C-2 Commercial District, upon approval of a special permit. Graham noted that the
reasoning behind that was to review the location for compatibility of surrounding uses, highest and best
use of the land, and proximity to a major thoroughfare. Graham noted that the property has previously
been used for a commercial use, and the use as a mini-storage facility would appear to be compatible for
the property in question. Graham noted that it would appear that all zoning requirements would be met,
including setbacks, paved area and parking. Graham noted that staff recommends approval of the
special permit, as the site is zoned commercial and has been used for commercial purposes in the past,
the request is in accordance with the Future Land Use Map, which shows the site as commercial, and
the use would appear to be a compatible use given the surrounding uses, and subject to the condition
that a 6' tall solid privacy fence be placed along the easterly side of the vehicular use area to screen the
residential properties to the east, and subject to the recommendation of approval from the Planning&
Zoning Commission.
It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by Anfinson, to approve the special permit request, based on staff
recommendations and subject to placing a 6'tall privacy fence along the easterly side of the vehicular use area to
screen the residential property to the east, and subject to the approval by the Planning&Zoning Commission.
Motion carried unanimously.
SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST APPROVED.
2. Request by the City of Waterloo at 1615Bishop Ave for a variance to the hard surface
parking requirement to allow for the vehicular use area of the recycling station to be
constructed with recycled asphalt.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
November 22,2005 Minutes
subdivided, the lot width would not be different than the lot width of the current lots, however if the
lot size as calculated by total square feet of the proposed lots is compared with the average lot area of
the lots within 250', the proposed lots would appear to be smaller than the average lot size. The
average lot size for all lots within 250' is 10,235 SF. The lot sizes of the 6 parcels that would be
created by subdividing the 3 lots are as follows: 8,990 SF; 9,686 SF; 9,710 SF; 9,875 SF; 9,908 SF;
and 11,531 SF. Schroeder noted that when the 3 proposed vacant lots are combined with the
existing vacant lot, the parcel would have a lot size of approximately 40,621 SF, which would have
sufficient area for the proposed 16-unit apartment complex. The proposed lots for the properties at
617 and 609 Downing have single-family homes on them, and would also meet minimum lot size
requirements. However, the proposed lot for 527 Downing has a 3-unit apartment complex on it,
which requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 SF, whereas the proposed lot size for that parcel is only
9,875 SF. Schroeder noted that the Zoning Ordinance (Part V, 2A-7 (N))requires that for lots that do
not have at least 40' of street frontag
e, that an exclusive unobstructed private easement of
access be
provided with a minimum width of 50'. The applicant is proposing an access easement to the
proposed apartment complex that would be between the homes at 609 and 617 Downing Ave, and
would only be 27' wide. Schroeder noted that there is an existing garage associated with the home at
609 Downing that would appear to be within the path of the proposed access. Schroeder noted that
despite the fact that the property is zoned "R-3" Multiple Residence District and the proposed 16
unit apartment complex would be a permitted use, the area has been primarily been developed with
P Y
P
single family homes, particularly the homes in the immediate vicinity along Downing Ave. There
have been some single family homes in the area that have been converted to two or three family
apartments, and there are also duplexes and multiple family homes located further to the south and
east along Black Hawk Road, Solar Dr, and Lunar Lane. However, the general character of the area
immediately surrounding the property in question along Downing Ave is low density single family
residential, and the proposed 16-unit apartment complex would not appear to be compatible to the
surrounding uses, particularly since the building would be right in the back yards of several single
family homes, and would provide its only means of access through a very narrow access easement
between and in very close proximity to two single family homes. Schroeder reviewed the 3 criteria
for granting a variance, noting that there would not appear to be a lack of reasonable return, the site
would not appear to have a uniqueness, and the request would appear to have a negative impact on
the area. Schroeder noted that staff recommends that all 3 variances be denied, as the primary reason
for the requirement that the lots to be subdivided be of a similar size to adjoining lots is to ensure that
development that occurs is compatible with the surrounding development, and based on the lot sizes
and uses of surrounding lots, the proposed development would not appear to be compatible, there
would not appear to be any uniqueness that would warrant the issuance of any three requested
variances, and the proposed development would appear to have a negative impact on the area.
Don Cox spoke on the request, noting that he is proposing 1-bedroom units and thought that would help
with any concerns that the neighbors might have about children in the proposed complex. Cox noted that
there has been no more than a dozen children in the 35 years that he has owned his apartment complex,
noting that the apartment would not be attractive to college students as well. Cox noted that the project
would have to meet all rules and regulations, and noted that he would build garages and a privacy fence.
Moine questioned if the existing garage was in the way of the access easement, and Cox noted that the
garage would be turned sideways and moved over so it would be out of the way of the access easement.
Cox noted that he had talked with the fire department, which indicated that 27' would be adequate to get
fire trucks on and out of the complex. Moine questioned the ability to turn around a fire truck, and Cox
believed that the lot was big enough to accommodate a turn around. Cox noted that he did not submit a
more detailed site plan, as he did not want to spend the money until he knew he could build. Moine
questioned if the applicant had gotten a petition of support from the neighborhood, and Cox stated that a
friend of his made some calls to see if there were any concerns, and noted that there was only 1 home
3