MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FORT DODGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 3, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Hoesel, JP Mansfield, Jeanne Gibson, Jen Crimmins, Troy Anderson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Maggie Carlin Steve called the October 3 rd meeting of the Fort Dodge Board of Adjustment to order at 5:30 p.m. with a roll call of the members. Minutes from the September 5 th meeting were reviewed. Jen made a motion to approve the minutes. Jeanne seconded the motion. Vote was taken and motion passed by all. Old Business - None New Business Case #1096 Request for 6' variance to required rear year setbacks to allow for construction of an attached garage within required setbacks of City's Single-Family Residential District (6RS) for property at 2817 22nd Avenue North (Section 17.07.04.E). Maggie summarized the staff report for this variance request. Property owners at 2817 22nd Avenue North are requesting a variance to encroach into required rear yard setbacks for an addition onto the existing attached garage. The request is for a 1-stall addition onto the attached 2-stall garage. This property at 2817 22nd Avenue North is situated on a corner lot within the City's Single-Family Residential (6RS) District and has the following minimum setbacks for primary structures: 20' front (north and east); 20' rear (west); and 6' side (south). The owners are proposing construction of a 14' x 26' addition onto the west side of their existing attached garage structure, which will encroach 6' into the required 20' rear yard setback at this location. The 20' north front yard setback and 20' south year yard setbacks will be met for this addition. Evaluation of Variance Criteria: Section 17.06.02 of the City's Zoning Ordinance states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a variance from the terms of the Ordinance if not contrary to the public interest, and where a special condition results in an unnecessary hardship when literal enforcement is applied. A variance may not be granted unless and until four criteria are favorably met: 1. Do special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structure, or buildings in the same district? While the subject property is situated on a 9,600 SF parcel, when the 6RS District requires a minimum 6,000 SF, this property is situated on a corner lot with two front yards which limits the
amount of buildable space on a parcel. If this property were situated on an interior lot, the attached garage addition would be permitted, as this would be considered a side yard and not a rear yard. The way the Zoning Ordinance reads for rear yards of corner lots is that the rear yard is always opposite the shortest street frontage; this is the case unless the parcel is square, or almost square in a 4:3 ratio - if the parcel is square/almost square, then the 20' rear may be applied to either yard opposite the front (and then the 6' side would be applied to the other). The parcel at 2817 22nd Avenue North, having dimensions of 120' x 80', just misses this square/almost square requirement, meaning that the 20' rear is applied to the west property line since this is opposite the shortest street frontage. 2. Would literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district? The general purpose and intent of the ordinance, relative to rear yard setbacks, is to ensure fire/building code safety and adequate light and air with respect to neighboring properties and the general welfare. With respect to fire safety, the building code can be met for the addition proposed. With respect to adequate light and air - the applicant may be deprived of how a side yard is logically interpreted at this location vs. how the Zoning Ordinance interprets a side yard at this location. The front door of the house at 2817 22nd Avenue North faces north; logically, the rear yard would be interpreted as opposite where the house is situated - however, since the west property line is opposite the shortest street frontage, what is logically considered a side yard at this location is actually considered the rear yard per the Zoning Ordinance. Attached are neighboring letters of support from the following properties: 2816 22nd Avenue North (immediately north of 22nd Avenue North); 21112 North 29th Street (immediately south of property); and 2121 North 28th Street (immediately west of property). 3. Do the special conditions and circumstances result from the action of the applicant? The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. If this same lot were situated on an interior lot (rather than a corner lot), the proposed garage addition would be permitted, as the west property line would be considered a side yard and the 6' setback would be met. Or, if this house were constructed facing North 29th Street (rather than 22nd Avenue North), then the west would seem more like a true 'rear' yard for this location. 4. Will granting the variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district? Granting a variance will permit the applicant to construct an addition to a garage included as part of a primary structure, which is a permitted use of the 6RS District. This is a reasonable and practical use given the existing location and composition of this lot. Other properties in the 6RS District would be permitted to build a 6' garage addition within 6' of their interior property line. Options for the Board exist to approve, approve with conditions, table, or deny. Staff Conclusions / Recommendations Subject to public comment, Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow for the attached garage addition as proposed, subject to the following conditions: That if proposing any driveway work done out in the right-of-way, that this work must meet Statewide Urban Design and Specifications (SUDAS) relative to maximum Page 2 of 7
driveway width requirements and that prior to any such work done, a right-of-way excavation permit be obtained from City Engineering. Jeanne asked if this could be a potential text amendment in the future? Maggie noted it seems like we do run into corner lot situations and that the City is wanting to do some text amendments to the City s residential zoning districts. Staff will need to do some further research. Steve asked if any public comment has been received? Maggie noted that other than the neighbor support noted in the staff report, no further comments/concerns have been received. Jen made a motion to approve the variance request, subject to staff s recommendations. Troy seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken as follows: JP: aye The variance request was approved with 5 ayes. Case #1097 1236 North 29th Street: Request for 7' variance to required rear year setbacks to allow for construction of an attached deck within required setbacks of City's Single-Family Residential District (6RS) (Section 17.07.04.E). Maggie summarized the staff report. The property owner at 1236 North 29th Street is requesting a variance to encroach into required rear yard setbacks for a new attached deck onto the rear side of the house. The request to allow for construction of an 18' x 19' deck over an existing concrete patio at this location. Noted that patios can extend into a required yard, while decks cannot for the rear yard. This property is situated on an interior lot within the City's Single-Family Residential (6RS) District and has the following minimum setbacks for primary structures (which, applies to decks): 20' front (east); 20' rear (west); and 6' side (north and south). If this deck is constructed as proposed, it will encroach 7' into the required 20' rear yard setback at this location. All other setbacks will be met. Analysis of Issue Evaluation of Variance Criteria: Section 17.06.02 of the City's Zoning Ordinance states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a variance from the terms of the Ordinance if not contrary to the public interest, and where a special condition results in an unnecessary hardship when literal enforcement is applied. A variance may not be granted unless and until four criteria are favorably met: 1. Do special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structure, or buildings in the same district? This property is situated on an interior lot comprised of 10,500 SF, which is typical of its surroundings and is exceeding the minimum lot size of the 6RS District at 6,000 SF.The ranchstyle home was built in 1967 and is currently meeting all minimum setback requirements for a primary dwelling. The house was constructed with an attached garage loading from the north with Page 3 of 7
a curved driveway in; due to the layout of the lot with the garage in front, this pushes the house itself further back into the lot when compared other homes within this block area. While these lot characteristics may not be unique enough to prove difficult circumstances, the structure itself may also be looked at when considering this variance request. As the applicant's photos show, the home was designed with a rear facing door elevated over the patio. It is unclear if the dwelling was originally designed to have a connected deck off the rear of it or not. 2. Would literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district? If denied, the owner may be deprived of rights enjoyed by other residential-zoned properties that have also been granted a variance to allow for a deck encroachment into a required yard. Since 2000, there have been 11 variance cases heard regarding a deck encroaching into a required yard; all of which have been granted. This research of past Board of Adjustment cases suggests that research should be done for a potential text amendment, but this will take additional research, and the owner is wanting to construct the deck yet this construction year. 3. Do the special conditions and circumstances result from the action of the applicant? The way in which the structure's rear facing door is elevated about the ground by several feet is not the result of the applicant, as the owner did not construct the home. From just a quick review of the existing site photos provided by the applicant, Troy Brandt, City Building Official, has noted that it appears the existing steps leading up to the rear door would not be code compliant if constructed new today. Construction of a deck may help eliminate this building code non-conformity. However, with the existing house setback from the property line at 31', there is 11' of buildable deck area at this location to still meet the required 20' rear yard setbacks. The owner is wanting this deck to be 18' deep instead of 11' to allow for additional maneuverability on this deck. In discussions with the City Building Official, there are no ADA deck standards to provide guidance for this case, beyond just a 5' turnaround area. Per online research, the average rear deck is between 300-400 SF (LandscapingNetwork); this request is for a 342 SF deck. 4. Will granting the variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district? Granting a variance will permit the applicant to construct a deck in the required rear yard setback at 1236 North 29th Street as proposed on the attached site plan drawing. This is a reasonable and practical use given the existing location and composition of the house relative to the lot. Options exist for the Board to approve, approve with conditions, table, or deny. Staff Conclusions / Recommendations If the case if approved, staff recommends the following condition be placed as part of the approval: that all applicable building code items will apply as part of building permit approval, including that this deck will require ledger board with frost free footings (at least 48"). Jeanne again asked if this could be something considered for a potential text amendment. Maggie agreed and noted that it is strange that the 1978 Zoning Ordinance allows deck encroachments into the front yard and not the rear yard. JP made a motion to approve the variance request, subject to staff s recommendations. Troy seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken as follows: Page 4 of 7
JP: aye The variance request was approved with 5 ayes. Case #1098 211 South 9th Street: Request for 3' variance to allow for construction of a detached garage entered from alley 12' off property line, where Ordinance requires 15' (Section 17.08.01.E). Maggie summarized the staff report. Grace Lutheran is requesting a variance to encroach into required alley line setbacks for construction of a new detached accessory garage on property at 211 South 9th Street. The request would allow for construction of a new 24' x 24' garage to replace the existing garage at this location. This property has the following minimum setbacks for garages at this location: 15' alley (north); 4' side (east); and 20' front (south and west). If this new garage is constructed as proposed, it will be constructed 12' south of the alley, meaning it will encroach 3' into the required 15' alley line setback at this location for a portion of this garage. All other setbacks will be met. Analysis of Issue Evaluation of Variance Criteria: Section 17.06.02 of the City's Zoning Ordinance states that the Board of Adjustment may grant a variance from the terms of the Ordinance if not contrary to the public interest, and where a special condition results in an unnecessary hardship when literal enforcement is applied. A variance may not be granted unless and until four criteria are favorably met: 1. Do special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structure, or buildings in the same district? This area is unique in that there is a public alley that splits the Church site and the Church parking lot site. By Zoning Ordinance interpretation, these two sites are considered separate lot areas because the alley splits these parcels (so the 15' alley setback would apply to the garage); however, these sites are connected to each other in a sense because the Church, through their 2001 building addition project, was granted a variance to parking stall counts, so long as they maintain at least 20 parking stalls in this 'off-site' parking lot area. The block in which Grace Lutheran Church is situated in was originally platted 100+ years ago as having a typical, straight alley through it. In 2001 as part of the Church addition project, the alley was rerouted to slant diagonally where the alley is adjacent to the Church area. Prior to this alley relocation, the existing garage had a conforming alley setback. The request today is to tear down and replace back the garage in its existing location, so no increases to non-conforming setbacks are proposed. As the current parking lot layout exists, this is the only place to construct back a garage without losing any of the required 20 parking stalls. The existing/proposed garage location will be tucked back away from the street frontages. Page 5 of 7
2. Would literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district? The Church/Church parking lot areas were granted a special exception to continue operating within this Residential Historical (RH) District. A permitted accessory use of the RH District is a private garage, which is the use intended for this new garage. If denied this variance request, it appears there are no alternative options to reconstruct this garage at this location. As part of this alley reroute in 2001, driver/site visibility was taken into account as part of the alley's design. 3. Do the special conditions and circumstances result from the action of the applicant? The Church is requesting enclosure of a bus, which is not an uncommon vehicle for a Church to have.the Grace Lutheran Church structure itself (excluding addition areas) was constructed prior to any zoning parking requirements. In 2001, as part of the structure addition, the Church was able to construct additional parking stalls where there parking lot currently exists (formerly vacant lot, except for existing garage structure) to help better take into account parking needs. It appears no other options exist for construction of a new garage structure on this site, as the number of parking stalls cannot be impacted. By constructing a new, taller garage, this will allow parking of the bus in this new garage, which will free up a parking lot space where the bus had previously been parking. 4. Will granting the variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district? Granting a variance will permit the applicant to construct a garage that is closer than 15' off the alley for just the new garage's western portion - the remaining portion will be in conformance with this 15' alley setback, as the alley then moves diagonally north. This is a reasonable and practical use given the existing location and composition of this lot where a public alley splits the Church parking lot and Church structure use. Section 17.06.02.C. of the City's Zoning Ordinance further elaborates on the Variance, that in addition to the four criteria, the Board shall find that 1) the reasons for the request justify the variance; 2) it is the minimum variance possible; 3) granting the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance, and 4) will not be harmful to the neighborhood or detrimental to public welfare. Options exist for the Board to approve, approve with conditions, table, or deny. Staff Conclusions / Recommendations Subject to public comment, Staff recommends approval of the variance request to allow for the deck addition as proposed, subject to the following conditions: That as with all other properties in Fort Dodge, Municipal Code, Section 10.20.045 applies; meaning that the Church cannot park except for the purpose of loading and unloading, and in no case shall a vehicle be parked so as to obstruct traffic in the alley. Prior to construction of the new garage, an administrative site plan application will be required. Prior to construction, a building permit will be required; related to this permit review - frost footings will be required. That the parcels (Church parcel and parking lot parcel), while separated by an alley, must remain in common ownership of one another; to help ensure parking lot count is being met and to ensure that there is a primary structure (Church) in addition to the accessory structure (garage). Page 6 of 7
Steve asked for clarification on if this is a special exception or a variance. Maggie noted variance since we are looking at setbacks. Steve noted that the variance request is only for the setback portion on the garage s west side, since it meets the 15 on its east side. Jeanne asked if the garage is currently non-conforming for its setback? Maggie noted that yes, it currently sits 12 south, and they are proposing back in this same area. They cannot shift further south within impacting their parking stall count. Steve asked for public comments. Maggie stated that none have been received. JP made a motion to approve the variance, subject to staff s recommendations. Jen seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken as follows: JP: aye The variance request was approved with 5 ayes. Other. Maggie noted that an amendment to the Board of Adjustment s By-Laws is proposed, as previously discussed during the September 2017 meeting. Proposed for change is the official meeting time of the Board of Adjustment. If this amendment is ultimately approved by Council, the new official meeting time of the Board will be 4:30 p.m. instead of 5:30 p.m. for regular meetings. Troy made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed Board of Adjustment By-Law amendment. JP seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken as follows: JP: aye Council will consider amendment at their next meeting. Comments and questions from the public - none Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 6:01 p.m. Page 7 of 7