MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FORT DODGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2016

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FORT DODGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2016 MEMBERS PRESENT: JP Mansfield, Steve Hoesel, Troy Anderson, Jeanne Gibson MEMBERS ABSENT: Jen Crimmins STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Maggie Carlin and Carissa Harvey Steve called the August 9 th, 2016 meeting of the Fort Dodge Board of Adjustment to order at 5:30 p.m. with roll call of the members. Minutes from the June 7 th, 2016 meeting were reviewed. Troy made a motion to approve the minutes, Steve seconded the motion. Vote was taken and motion passed by those present. Old Business - None New Business Case # North 16th Street: Request for Variance to signage regulations of the Single- Family Residential (4RS) District ( O). Maggie presented the staff report. The Fort Dodge Community School District is requesting a variance from signage requirements of the Single-Family Residential (4RS) District for the Duncombe Elementary reconstruction project at 615 North 16th Street. While Section H.11 does exempt school uses from signage regulations, such exemption applies only if the one sign is less than 32 SF. The monument sign proposed has a core sign face area of 32 SF but also consists of 2 decorative brick columns on each side of this sign face area. In entirety, the proposed monument sign has total a total sign square footage of 60 SF, as a monument sign's square footage is measured from the finish grade to the top of the structure and from one end of the structure to the other. A variance request has been submitted to allow for installation of a monument sign totaling 60 SF on the Duncombe Elementary redevelopment site when the Ordinance allows for up to 32 SF. The 4 Findings of Fact items were reviewed: 1. The Board granted a special exception to allow for this school use in April. While school uses are exempt from these residential signage regulations if installing 1 sign with less than 32 SF, the School District is in need of additional signage square footage for a monument sign totaling 60 SF. This 60 SF sign includes 28 SF worth of brick decorative columns and 32 SF of core signage area. 2. Similarly zoned properties have also been granted a special exception for a similar-type use, as similar sign cases have been reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment in years past.

2 Recent School District sign cases heard and approved by the Board have included the new Middle School, the School Administration Building, and Cooper Elementary. 3.The additional signage square footage requested greater than the 32 SF will be for the purpose of installing decorative brick columns on each side of the actual sign face area. These brick columns have been incorporated into the design of the sign to help complement the architecture of the new building and to also give this sign more of a presence from 6th Avenue North. 4.The sign specifications proposed are consistent with other approved signs at educational facilities situated as being within the Single Family Residential District. If this property were situated as being within a non-residential zoning district, the monument sign as proposed would be permitted. Alternatives: 1. Approve the request for variance to allow for installation of the monument signage proposed. 2. Approve the request for variance to allow for installation of the monument signage proposed, with conditions established by the Board. 3. Deny the request and thus require all sign ordnance requirements be upheld for this property at 615 North 16th Street. Meaning, that any sign proposed must stay under 32 SF. 4. Table the request pending additional information from the public. Staff recommends approval of the sign variance request, as the 4 Findings of Fact items can be answered favorably for the applicant and the dimensions proposed do not seem excessive for this location. Steve asked if there were any comments from the public. Maggie said no. Steve opened for Board discussion and noted it appears the 4 criteria have been met. JP made a motion to approve the variance request. Troy seconded the motion. Vote was taken and approved with all ayes. Aye: 4. Nay: 0. Motion Carried Case # th Avenue South: Request for Special Exception to allow for installation of multiple detached signs ( P.3.d). Maggie presented the staff report. Rees Truck & Trailer is requesting a special exception to allow for installation of a new detached monument sign on their property at th Avenue South. Under previous Sign Ordinance requirements, this property is permitted only 1 detached sign. City Council recently approved a Sign Ordinance text amendment allowing properties with 250 lineal feet or more of street frontage in Commercial or Industrial Districts to install up to 2 detached signs if granted a special exception. At least one of the below criteria must be met when a special exception request is submitted to allow for multiple detached signs: 1. Franchise or contract requirements; 2. Multiple entrances, logically spaced; 3. A large frontage; or

3 4. Other supporting evidence as deemed reasonable by the Board, proving the multiple signs to be necessary. With this text amendment to allow for 2 detached signs if any of the above items are met, all new signage proposed must be monument. All existing signage must be monument, unless an existing legal pole sign exists in good repair. Repairs may be made to an existing pole sign, but those repairs must not result in more than 50% of the sign's value. A total of 3 detached signs currently exist on this Rees Truck & Trailer site. These detached signs include: an abandoned billboard sign (which must be removed per Ordinance requirements); a 'Rees' pole sign which will remain; and a 'Mack' pole sign which will be removed and replaced with the new monument proposed. New sign must be at least 5' off of all property lines. The Board will be considering a special exception request to allow for installation of 1 new detached monument sign at Rees Truck & Trailer with 1 existing pole sign remaining. The following Ordinance requirements were presented for the Board's review: Site must have at least 250 linear feet. The Rees Truck & Trailer site has a total of 263 linear feet of street frontage. This item is satisfied. In order to grant 2 detached signs at this location (1 existing, 1 new), at least one of the following must be met: 1. Franchise or contract requirements*; 2. Multiple entrances, logically spaced; 3. A large frontage; or 4. Other supporting evidence as deemed reasonable by the Board, proving the multiple signs to be necessary. *Franchise or contract requirements. Rees Truck & Trailer, a Fort Dodge business, is licensed as Mack Truck dealer through a franchise agreement. In 2014, Mack began franchise rebranding effort. As part of Mack dealership requirements, the new 'Mack' signage must stand alone; meaning that one monument sign displaying both 'Rees' and 'Mack' would not be permitted per franchise agreement requirements. A sign permit is on file for the existing 'Rees' pole sign that will remain. The existing pole sign that will remain is recognized as being legal, pre-existing, non-conforming. Ordinance requires that the existing detached signage must be in good repair; meaning free of rust, no fading, no cracks, all light fixtures are lit, and other acceptable maintenance requirements. Staff feels this item may be met by establishing, as a condition of special exception approval, that routine maintenance be performed on the existing 'Rees' sign on the poles and sign cabinet area. Alternatives: 1. Approve the special exception request to permit installation of the new monument sign proposed, meaning this site at th Avenue South will have a total of 2 detached signs (1 Rees, 1 Mack).

4 2. Approve the special exception request to permit installation of the new monument sign proposed, meaning this site at th Avenue South will have a total of 2 detached signs (1 Rees, 1 Mack), with conditions established by the Board. 3. Deny the request and thus not permit installation of a second detached sign at this location. 4. Table the request pending additional information or comment from the public. Staff recommends approval of the special exception request to permit the installation of a new monument sign at th Avenue South, with the following conditions: 1. The abandoned billboard sign shall be removed within 30 calendar days of special exception approval and also prior to sign permit approval of the new monument sign. 2. All existing wall signage without a sign permit must be removed, or a sign permit must be obtained, within 30 days approval of special exception approval and also prior to sing permit approval of the new monument sign. 3. Routine maintenance must be performed on the existing 'Rees' pole sign so that the poles and cabinet are in good repair. This incldues fixing the crack in the sign face area. Maintenance must be done prior to sign permit approval of the new monument sign Steve asked if this sign would have an electronic reader. Maggie stated that not currently as proposed. Carissa noted that if they wanted electronic signage, a sign permit would need to be obtained. This may or may not require BOA review. Steve asked if there were any public comments received. Maggie stated no. JP stated this is a site improvement with the abandoned billboard coming down. Steve asked for any audience comments. Steve Kersten spoke on behalf of Rees. Stated franchise requirements for need of separate detached sign. Troy asked for clarification on if Mr. Rees has reviewed and understands the conditions of approval. Paul Rees has reviewed and is eager to have this sign installed. JP made a motion to approve the request per Staff's recommendations. Troy seconded the motion. Vote was taken and approved with all ayes. Aye: 4. Nay: 0. Motion Carried Case # South 25th Street: Request for Variance to allow for reuse of abandoned sign ( V). Maggie presented the staff report. Steve Wunschel, FD CC Properties, LLC, is requesting a variance from sign requirements regarding reuse of an abandoned, pre-existing, non-conforming sign at 304 South 25th Street. The abandoned, pre-existing, non-conforming sign is over 30' tall and was constructed in 1983 prior to adoption of the City's pole sign height requirements in If a pole sign were to be constructed new at this location today, the maximum sign height would be 20'. Such reuse of the abandoned pole sign proposed is in the form of refacing, and the sign will be used to advertise the new use of this site (used car site). 4 Findings of Fact items were reviewed:

5 1. The abandoned sign requirements of the City's Sign Ordinance are not a district-specific requirement but are rather citywide. This verbiage is included so that signs do not sit in disrepair on abandoned sites for months/years on end. Firestone formerly occupied this location until early On March 14, 2016, a sign notification letter was received by the previous Firestone property owner warning that the sign must be removed after 90 days of abandonment. The Sign Ordinance also states that after these initial 90 days of sign abandonment, if such sign is not removed, the City may issue a letter requesting the owner to remove the sign within 30 days; if the owner fails to remove the sign during this next 30 days, the City will remove and such removal costs will constitute a lien against the property. The initial abandoned sign warning letter was mailed to former property owner to serve as a notification letter only so that the City had documentation for starting this 'shotclock' for the 90 day abandonment timeframe. The new property owner had no knowledge of the former property owner receiving this initial 90-day notification letter. The new property owner purchased this property on June 17th prior to the City issuing the next sign letter that would have requested that the sign come down within 30 days (or the City could remove it). The City could have mailed this next 30-day removal letter starting June 12th but did not. 2. Routine maintenance may be performed on signs that are recognized as being non-abandoned, pre-existing, nonconforming. However, all properties proposing to reuse a nonconforming, abandoned sign would not be able to unless granted a variance for this same request. Again, this abandoned sign removal requirement of the Sign Ordinance exists so that non-conforming, abandoned signs are eventually removed overtime throughout the community and are replaced with new signs that meet current Sign Ordinance requirements. Something that may be considered is the timeframe for which this sign could have been considered abandoned (June 12th) and when a new owner purchased this site (June 17th). 3. The special conditions that exist for this abandoned sign is the short amount of turnover in property ownership between the former owner and the new owner, FD CC Properties, LLC. The new owner had no control that the follow-up 30-day removal letter was not mailed to the former owner. If a follow-up letter would have been mailed to the former property owner between June 12th-June 16th, the former property owner may have taken action and removed the sign. 4. There may be distinction for this case in that this site was 'turned over' from one use to the next in a timely manner. The abandoned sign removal requirement of the Sign Ordinance exists so that signs do not sit vacant for so long that they begin to fall in disrepair. A new property owner purchased this property 5 days after the sign was determined to be abandoned. Such purchase occurred during a time of 'limbo' where the City issued an initial 90-day abandoned sign notice to the former property owner but did not issue the final 30-day removal warning letter. Alternatives: 1. Approve the request for variance to allow for reuse of an abandoned, pre-existing, nonconforming pole sign at 304 South 25th Street.

6 2. Approve the request for variance to allow for reuse of an abandoned, pre-existing, nonconforming pole sign at 304 South 25th Street, with conditions established by the Board. 3. Deny the request and thus require all sign ordnance requirements be upheld for this property at 304 South 25th Street. Meaning, the abandoned pole sign must be removed altogether. If the property owner is wanting to install a detached sign, would need to be constructed new and built to Sign Ordinance requirements. 4. Table the request pending additional information from the public. Staff recommends that if the Board grants this variance, the distinguishing factor(s) should be reflected in the meeting minutes; including discussion on what sets this case apart from any future abandoned sign reuse cases that the Board may hear. If the Board grants approval, Staff recommends the following as a condition of reuse approval: 1. That routine maintenance be performed on the pole sign's poles and cabinet frame area, including but not limited to sandblasting and painting. Steve asked if any public comments were received. Maggie stated no. Steve asked for any audience comments. Steve Wunschel, the property owner, spoke. Stated that he was unaware the former property owner received the initial warning letter. The purchase of the property took longer than anticipated, as the sale had to go through Firestone's corporate office. Steve Wunchsel stated that he is working on improving this site for the used car lot. Steve asked for Board comments. Troy noted that a distinction can be made for this abandoned property in that the follow-up 30-day letter was not mailed to the former property owner. If this is done and not removed after 30 days, the City can remove. If no letters are mailed to former, the City could start process over with new owner. This situation was caught in a limbo of responsibility between the 2 owners. Jeanne made a motion to approve the variance request per the Staff's recommendation. Troy seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken as follows: JP: aye Steve: nay Troy: aye Jeanne: aye The special exception was approved with a 3 ayes and 1 nay. Aye: 3. Nay: 1. Motion Carried Case # th Avenue North: Request for Variance to allow for increased housing density within the Multi-Family Residential (2RM) District than what was granted in Case #1018 ( E) Maggie presented the staff report. The applicant, FB Phillips, LLC, is requesting a variance for increased housing density to allow for up to 72 apartment units at the Phillips Middle School Site at th Avenue North. The requested 72 units is 24 more units than what is allowed per the

7 Multi-Family Residential (2 RM) District provided the site's total acreage. The requested 72 units is also 5 more units than what was previously granted by the Board of Adjustment in a December 2013 case. 2RM District Regulations: The 2RM District allows for up to 21 units per acre. The Phillips Middle School Site (including their portion of the vacated 4th Avenue North) is a total of 100,500 SF, or 2.31 acres. The 72 units proposed amounts to 31 units per acre, or 1 dwelling per 1,395 SF. This new 2016 request is the result of further research by the developer of the Fort Dodge market. The developer has found this project to be more viable if there are more studio and 1-bedroom units than the 2 and 3-bedroom units as originally proposed. By designing this space for more studio and 1-bedroom units, this leaves additional interior space for the incorporation of an indoor parking area. So, while more dwelling units are proposed in this Phillips Middle School building (67 vs. 72), there are 25 less bedrooms are proposed (124 vs. 99 bedrooms); additionally, 6 more exterior parking spaces are proposed (73 spaces, 27 of which are in 5th Avenue North Right-of-Way) and at least 8 interior parking spaces are now proposed inside. Bedroom Type: Studio Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom 13 4 TOTAL BEDROOMS: This 2016 request is to allow for up to 72 units at th Avenue North. If this variance is granted, the 2013 variance will be considered void as this 2016 request would take its place. If this 2016 request is denied, the granted 2013 variance request will remain in effect, and the developer can only establish up to 67 units in this building. Findings of Fact items were reviewed: 1. The property was used as a school from 1922 until The developer is able to convert the building into apartments, provided it remains eligible for historic tax credits and the project remains viable for the developer. Historic tax credit eligibility places state and federal restrictions on the project, creating a unique situation. No portion of the existing structure may be demolished, which could mitigate the variance request for more units. Between 2013 and 2016, the developer has determined that additional studio and 1-bedrooms should be incorporated into this project (versus 2 and 3-bedroom units). Studio and 1-bedrooms units take up less of a footprint than 2 and 3 bedrooms. As such, the developer is proposing 5 additional units and 8+ interior parking stalls with the additional square footage available on the interior, all while keeping the existing outer shell of the building the same per historic tax credit requirements.

8 Also noted that no portion of a front lawn may be converted to additional parking if utilizing historic tax credits. 2. Literal interpretation of the Ordinance may eliminate the ability to reuse the historic structure given current market implications. This site is unique in that the existing historic building has occupied a majority of the lot since 1922, and the developer must utilize the existing shell of the structure due to historic tax credits. 3. Parking requirements for the City's Multi-Family Residential District are regulated by number of dwelling units (and not number of bedrooms in each of those dwelling units). So, while the developer is proposing 25 less bedrooms with these 5 additional units, a variance is necessary for this increase in units. With this reduction in total amount of bedrooms, this leaves additional interior space for 8+ indoor parking spaces. 4. The variance would provide for a higher density (24 more than Ordinance, 5 more than 2013 request). This project is unique in that it proposes to reuse Phillips Middle School, rather than tear it down. A multi-family residential adaptive reuse of this site would be consistent with the character of the neighborhood, as the neighborhood is comprised of multi-family residential, single-family residential, and churches. The 4 Findings of Fact items were already answered favorably for the applicant's requested 67 units in The updated 2016 request from is further investigation by the developer as to what can be accommodated for in the building given the current housing market. Alternatives: 1. Approve the request for variance to allow an increase in the number of units in the building (allowing up to 72). 2. Approve the request for variance to allow an increase in the number of units in the building (allowing 72), with conditions established by the Board. 3. Deny the request and thus not permit the redevelopment as proposed with this 2016 request; if denied, the granted 2013 variance will remain in effect. 4. Table the request pending additional information from the public. Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow an increase in the number of units in the building (allowing up to 72), subject to following conditions: 1. The number of bedrooms proposed remains at 99 or less. 2. That the developer secure a lease with the City to utilize the south portion of 5th Avenue North for parking, as has been used in the past. Steve asked if any public comments were received. Maggie stated no. Steve asked for any audience member comments. Shawn Foutch, the developer, spoke. Stated this was a result of further research. He was able to achieve additional parking stalls on site than originally anticipated and also now proposing interior.

9 Jeanne stated that she voted for this project back in 2013 for the betterment of the community even though she had some personal reservations. She believes that this updated 2016 request is a better option than what was approved back in Jeanne likes the idea of less bedrooms and additional parking on site and inside the building. JP made a motion to approve the variance request per Staff's recommendations. Troy seconded the motion. Vote was taken and approved with all ayes. Aye: 4. Nay: 0. Motion Carried Comments and questions from the public - none Other Steve wished Jeanne a happy belated birthday. The Board attempted to sing 'Happy Birthday'. Adjournment JP made a motion to adjourn. Troy seconded. Meeting adjourned at 6:16 p.m.