Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/03/2005 • MINUTES OF THE WATERLOO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON November 3, 2005, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL Chairperson Moine called the regular monthly meeting of the Waterloo Board of Adjustment to order on Thursday, November 3, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. Board members in attendance were: Moine, St. John, Holdiman, Anfinson and Mixdorf. Staff in attendance was Noel Anderson, Aric Schroeder and Shane Graham. There were 7 people from the public in attendance. I. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting on September 27, 7005 It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by St. John, to approve the minutes.Motion carried unanimously. II. Approval of the agenda for November 3, 2005 It was moved by St. John, seconded by Holdiman, to approve the agenda as submitted.Motion carried unanimously. III. Derision Ttems 1. Request by GE Capital Railcar Service on behalf of Black Hawk Economic Development, Inc. at M0 Nevada St for a variance to expand a legal non-conforming use to allow for the expansion of the existing railcar service facility. Graham gave the staff report, noting that the applicant is proposing to construct a 35'x70' (2,450sf) storage building in order to store equipment that is used on the site. Currently, the equipment sits outside, and the applicant has noted that there have been cases of vandalism and theft of the equipment because it sits in the open. The area was originally zoned "U-1" Unclassified District, however all areas that were zoned "U-1" were rezoned to "A-1" Agricultural District on the official Zoning Map. Graham noted that the use is a principal permitted use in the "M-2" Heavy Industrial District, so a variance is required to expand the legal non-conforming facility. Graham noted that the city is looking into rezoning a major portion of land along the Cedar River where it is currently zoned "A-1" Agricultural, as most of the uses in the area are non-conforming uses that would normally be seen in the "M-2" District. The applicants have noted that they do not want to wait for the rezone, as they would like the building built as soon as possible. Graham noted that staff recommends approval of the request, as the City is looking into rezoning the area that would make the facility a permitted use, as many of the businesses along the Cedar River are non-conforming uses already, and the request would not appear to have a negative impact on the neighborhood, as it would help keep the equipment indoors. It was moved by St. John, seconded by Holdiman, to approve the variance to expand a legal non-conforming use, based on staff recommendations.Motion carried unanimously. y VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 2. Request by Ron Erne at 2955 T.afayPtte St for a variance to the hard surface parking requirement to allow for the vehicular use area of the mini-storage business to be constructed with recycled asphalt. Anderson gave the staff report, noting that the area in question is a 2.5-acre parcel zoned "M-1" Light Industrial that has an existing house and garage located along the east side of the property, and the first phase of a mini-storage business on the west side. The parcel abut to Blowers Creek along the westerly property line,but the area is not in a flood hazard area due to a letter of map amendment removing the area dated 2/22/2000. Anderson noted that the Ordinance requires hard BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT November 3,2005 Minutes building 1 to occur anyway.Any remaining gravel not to be used or must be paved or removed after 2 years. Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. 3. Request by Brian Baker at 1R23 Epping P1 for a variance to the 10' side yard setback requirement in the "R-1" district to allow for the construction of a single stall attached garage addition, with the garage being 6' from the side property line. Graham gave the staff report, noting that the applicant has noted that the garage would be 8' from the side property line and not 6'like the request originally stated. Graham noted that the applicant is proposing to build a 10'x20' (200sf)single stall attached garage addition to the existing attached 576sf garage. This request was before the Board at the 9/27/05 meeting, however that request also included a variance for the attached garage to exceed the main base square footage of the house. Since then, the applicant has been in contact with our office and has noted that a 24'x24' (576sf) portion of the attached garage is being converted to living space, and is therefore not counted towards the square footage of the garage. Therefore, with the 200sf addition, the total square footage of the attached garage would be 776sf, which is less than the main base square footage of the home. The applicant is now just asking for the variance to the side yard setback requirement to allow for that 200sf addition to the attached garage. Graham noted that the applicant is proposing to place the garage at 8' from the property line, and the property is zoned R-1 residential, which has a 10%lot width setback. The property is approximately 100' wide, and therefore must maintain a 10' side yard setback. However, most of the houses in the area have setbacks that more closely resemble the requirements of the "R-2" district, which has a 5' side yard setback, and there are examples in the area where garages are built near zero lot line.Also, there was a property on Oak Park Circle just a couple of blocks away that recently went through the variance process to exceed the side yard setback requirement,which was approved. That request was to build an attached garage at 4' from the side property line, whereas this request would still maintain an 8' side yard setback. Graham noted that the applicant has pointed to the fact that the neighboring house would still be approximately 40' from the property line, and also has a petition of support from that property owner. Graham noted that staff recommends approval of the request, as the homes in that area have setbacks that more closely resemble the setbacks of the "R-2" district, and the garage would still be 8' from the side property line, and the request would not appear to cause a negative impact on the neighborhood, as there are other properties in the area that have similar setbacks. It was moved by Holdiman, seconded by St. John, to approve the variance to the side yard setback requirement, based on staff recommendations.Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCE REQUEST APPROVED. , 4. Request by Ibrahim Sabanagic at sin niPnr„P A V P.for a variance to the 8' side yard setback requirement in the "R-1" District to allow for a single-stall attached garage addition to be constructed 5' from the side property line. Graham gave the staff report, noting that the applicant is proposing to build a single-stall garage addition to allow the applicant to have a 2-stall attached garage. It is unclear however, what the exact size of the garage will be, as the applicant has not provided us with that data. The only thing he has provided on the site plan is the distance to the neighbor's fence, which he has labeled as 14 and 9/12``'s feet. It is also unclear whether that measurement was taken from the house to the property line or to the fence, as there could be a difference between the two. Graham noted that the 3