Board of Adjustment

MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 25, 2012 - 4:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bang, Members Casey, Hoshor, Sawyer and Winter, Planning Director Rian Harkins, Chief Building Inspector Marv Hansen and Secretary Deb Pruss. ABSENT: None Chairman Bang read a statement that this meeting was preceded by publicized notice in the Fremont Tribune and the agenda displayed in the lobby of the Municipal Building and posted online at www.fremontne.gov; and distributed to the Board of Adjustment, Mayor and City Council on June 20, 2012 and is open to the public. Chairman Bang also stated a copy of the agenda was kept continually current and available to the public at the office of the City Planner, 400 East Military and a copy of the open meeting law is posted continually for public inspection located near the entrance door by the agendas. Moved by Hoshor, seconded by Casey to approve the legality of the meeting. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 5 ayes. Motion Carried. It was moved by Hoshor, seconded by Sawyer to dispense with the reading of the Minutes of the May 29, 2012 Regular Meeting and approve as distributed. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 5 ayes. Motion Carried. Chairman Bang stated the general public is invited to address the Board of Adjustment regarding any item on this agenda at this time or wait until discussion of their request is taking place. No public comments were received.  Continued consideration of request of Matt A. Sukstorf to construct a 14’ x 12’ deck attached to the primary structure without the required 6’ buffer for the detached garage at 1225 East 6th Street. Article 7, Section 704. R2 – Moderate Density Residential District. Planning Director Harkins stated this property is east of Bell Street along 6th. It is an existing single family home. It is older and built well before this Zoning Ordinance was adopted. The applicant is proposing a deck that is 14’ x 12’ to the rear of the house. Only the one corner would be visible from the street but it not only attaches to the house but is basically attached to the garage as well. Harkins stated there are a couple of alternatives they could do. The applicant basically tried to locate the proposed deck in an area that would give them at least some play space or green space for a back yard but they could move the deck around. Staff was recommending denial based on a lack of hardship. Harkins stated if you moved the deck from where it is proposed toward the side lot line leaving about three feet that would get it away from the garage so it wouldn’t be attached to the garage. That would give some buffer space between the deck and the garage but also leave some side yard. Chairman Bang asked if the applicant would then be encroaching on the side lot line. Chief Building Inspector Hansen stated if it is not over three feet high the applicant can get within three feet of the side lot line with a deck. Member Sawyer asked how close that would put the applicant. Planning Director Harkins stated it would put the deck three feet from the side lot line. Hansen stated it would be at least three feet from the garage and it would help fire wise. Page 1 of 5 Applicant Matt Sukstorf of 1225 East 6th was present. He stated basically he would like to keep the deck behind the house as traditional placement for privacy and keep it behind the house from other people’s view. Chief Building Inspector Hansen asked the applicant how far from the corner of the house is the deck. Applicant stated the way he is proposing it would about line up with it. Hansen stated that is not how it is drawn in the back-up. Applicant stated if he has to get away from it, it would be about five and a half feet out from the west side. Hansen stated the drawing doesn’t show the deck out to the corner. Harkins stated the sketch shows the deck offset from the corner. Member Sawyer questioned the scale of the drawing and said maybe it is three feet. The applicant stated it was probably six inches or so. Member Sawyer thinks the distance from the garage has to be kept because of requirements by the Fire Marshall and fire code. Applicant stated it is already attached to the garage from the house as there is a lean-to. Chief Building Hansen stated this was probably something that was put up without a permit. Chairman Bang asked about the awning on the sketch and if that was what was attached. Harkins asked if the deck itself was attached to the garage now. Applicant stated there is no deck. Harkins then asked if the lean-to part was the awning that the applicant was referring to. Applicant stated that is there right now. Member Sawyer stated the applicant could do a 14’ x 9’ deck and that would be at least three feet away. Planning Director Harkins stated it should be preferably six feet away from the garage. Harkins informed the applicant they were trying to see if they could meet somewhere in the middle rather than just totally saying no. Chairman Bang stated the sketches don’t match up. He believes the applicant’s sketch states there is 31’ from the garage to the property line. Applicant stated that would be to the fence as he doesn’t know where the actual property line is at. Bang stated the colored drawing shows that there is a big space between the bold, what is presumed the property line, and where the fence is. Planning Director Harkins stated the Assessor’s Office and all the information the City had indicates a 50’ wide lot, which would mean the fence would actually be the neighbor’s fence or the property owner’s fence put on the neighbor’s property based on what they were seeing as far as lot dimensions with the County Courthouse. Member Sawyer stated you could take the 12’ off from the side deck from the 31’ and that leaves 19’ over to the side yard, which must not be true. Otherwise, you would have plenty of room over there if there is 31’ to the garage. Chief Building Inspector Hansen stated he didn’t think there was that much room there but that is what the applicant’s measurements show. Member Winter stated it looks like there is about 20’ as it is only 50’ wide and they have a huge garage. Hansen stated the lot is on 50’ and the garage isn’t on the property line and is already over the 50’. Chairman Bang stated if you on the other side of his property line it is going through his neighbor’s house. Bang asked the applicant if it was his property that goes all the way over to the fence that his neighbor has (1217) next door. Bang stated it would be on the east when the applicant questioned if it was the west side. Harkins stated the front door faces north. Bang stated the drawing we had was then backwards. Chairman Bang stated it was hard to tell when it was not known how the property sits in relationship to their property lines. Planning Director Harkins stated he could have Public Works sit down with the applicant and try to help him identify where the property pins are if they wanted to delay another month. Chairman Bang stated the applicant could also try to find them. Harkins asked the applicant if he came off the corner of the house and erected a deck that was 9 or 10’ wide and 14’ deep so it wasn’t as wide but the length was still there so it wouldn’t necessarily be attached to the garage as you would have a couple feet separation, would that be something that was acceptable? Applicant stated they would like to keep it as large as possible so they can entertain on it and have his parents over. Bang asked if there was a door coming out of the back of the house that he is trying to go onto the deck. Applicant stated there is a sliding door right near the corner of the house. Harkins asked if the deck hugged the southwest corner of the house and was 9 or 10’ wide would the applicant still be able to go from the sliding glass door onto the deck. Applicant stated he could do so. Member Sawyer told the applicant he could go longer and narrower but the big thing is to stay away from the garage. Moved by Winter, seconded by Sawyer to approve the request contingent upon the deck align with the side of the house and be no closer than 3’ from the garage and applicant can have the 14’ depth that he Page 2 of 5 is requesting or deeper as long as it is within regulation Roll Call Vote showed 4 ayes – 1 nay (Bang). Motion Carried.  Consider request of Casey’s General Store to erect an addition with insufficient street side yard setback at 821 South Broad. Article 4, Table 4-3. GC – General Commercial District. Planning Director Harkins stated this is the existing Casey’s store. The applicant is requesting to erect an addition and the material they have submitted to the City has concluded that most of the addition falls within all of the setback requirements except for 15 inches. Basically 15 inches is in order to accommodate exterior walls to the addition. Because of the minimal amount, staff is recommending approval and willing to go along with the variance request. Galen Karas, representative for Casey’s General Stores, was present. Member Sawyer asked what the addition would be used for. Mr. Karas stated it will have a store room. Mr. Karas stated this would be at the back of the store in the left hand end of the store. He stated there is a hallway and the women’s restroom is on the left and the men’s roof is on the right. The men’s room would come around behind the women’s room in the addition and the coolers would come down along the back wall in an “L” shape and be in the addition and then there is a storeroom behind it. Member Sawyer asked if the men’s room would be in the new addition. Applicant stated it would be. Sawyer stated the applicant would have a certain minimum grading that you have to have for wheelchairs, etc. Sawyer stated that is probably why the applicant would have to go another 15”. Mr. Karas stated a lot of it has to do with the equipment. The kitchen is going to be expanded and it is hard to explain in detail but that much room is needed to get everything in there. Chairman Bang asked if any parking would be lost that is required. Bang believes there is parking on that end that is there now. Mr. Karas stated they would probably be losing two parking places with the 16’ addition. Chief Building Inspector Hansen stated they shouldn’t have to lose any parking. Hansen stated they are parking on the south end now but they are only losing 15” out of 15’ so they can’t get two cars in 15’ anyway. Chairman Bang stated he just wanted to make sure they weren’t creating a hazard. Planning Director Harkins stated that typically right now the applicant will use that area to back their trucks into to unload but most of the parking is still in the front of the building or there are a couple of stalls on the north side. Bang just wanted to make sure we were not two stalls short of what they are required to have. Moved by Winter, seconded by Hoshor to approve the request. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 5 ayes. Motion Carried.  Consider request of Mike Welbes to construct a concrete driveway approach with insufficient front and side yard setback at 1528 West 10th Street, Fremont, Nebraska. Article 9, Section 909. R1 – Single Family Residential District. Planning Director Harkins stated this is an area on the southwest side of the City. The applicant basically reconstructed their driveway and tried to put some additional concrete down in order to have a parking space for their camper and found out at that point as they were getting ready to pour the approach that part of the approach they wanted to do they had to have the variance for. They are essentially asking for a variance to do an additional couple of feet of driveway approach in order to have what they consider an adequate turnaround and park their camper on their property. Member Sawyer stated according to the drawing the radius goes into the neighbor’s yard. Chief Building Inspector Hansen stated the neighbor’s yard doesn’t run that far. Hansen stated it is out in the City right-of-way. Applicant Mike Welbes of 1528 West 10th Street was present. Mr. Welbes stated he originally widened his driveway to accommodate his camper. The streets are real long and there are no sidewalks. In doing so, he was able to get two cars in his driveway and get one off the street so his kids aren’t turning into the street. The other scenario is when his camper is not there then somebody can park at the end of his driveway. There again, if his kids enter into the street there is no visibility there. Page 3 of 5 Chief Building Inspector Hansen stated City Ordinance does not allow parking in the front yard setback except in front of a garage. Chairman Bang asked if this was a single car garage. Applicant stated it was a two car garage and he has pictures. Chief Building Inspector Hansen stated to meet code the applicant shouldn’t have a driveway pas the corner of the garage. Applicant stated he had pictures of all the homes down his block and each one is wider than the garage. When he did that, he was trying to conform to the rest of the block. Chairman Bang asked if the driveway was wider than the house now. Inspector Hansen stated he thought it went to the property line. Applicant passed around pictures for the Board to look at. Applicant stated preferably he would like to move it over about 6 inches so he could open his vehicle doors to get in and out. He stated he would like to be able to load it on the concrete so he is not walking in the grass. He stated he didn’t have room to enter and exit vehicles and just needed a couple extra inches. Applicant states it conforms with all the other houses on his street. Bang stated that the drawing before them is not the way the condition exists of the way it shows the driveway. Planning Director Harkins stated the information was passed along but it just was not completed. Applicant was doing the variance request and maps were being put together in the middle of the applicant repaving the driveway. Harkins stated the variance request is for just the approach. Chairman Bang stated that each one of these can be different situations and they might have more property over there to the side than the applicant. Member Sawyer asked if the concrete was poured up to the property line. Applicant stated he added the concrete on. Member Hoshor asked if it was up to the property line. Applicant stated it was about 8” from the property line. He stated it was at least 6” because it goes to his fence and his fence is at least 6” inside the property line. Chairman Bang asked for affirmation from Chief Building Inspector Hansen that you can have an approach wider than your house if you have a drive alongside the house. Hansen stated alongside the garage as you can park there. Bang stated that was the only way you can have an approach beyond the house. Member Sawyer asked if the other drives put in up and down the street are o.k. Chief Building Inspector Hansen stated he didn’t know when they were put in. If they were put in before 2000, it was before the Zoning Ordinance change. Member Hoshor asked if the pictures provided were all neighbors. Applicant stated it was all on his block. Sawyer stated several of those they could drive alongside the house. Chairman Bang asked the applicant if he could state his hardship for the Board again. He stated his neighbors enjoy a wider approach. He would like the same. Applicant was asked how many cars he can park in his driveway now. Applicant stated two cars with the addition. Sawyer stated cosmetically it would look better. Applicant stated the curb on the mailbox side is already broken on the approach and he would like to re-pour the approach and make it all look good. He doesn’t want to spend a lot of money on it if it is going to turn out to look just like it does now. Sawyer stated by doing it the applicant would conform to the way the neighbors look rather than look like he has his job half way done. Applicant stated exactly. Member Sawyer was of the opinion that it would look out of place the way it is. Member Hoshor stated it looked like an improvement. Moved by Hoshor, seconded by Sawyer to approve the request. Roll Call Vote showed 3 ayes – 2 nays (Winter and Bang). Motion Failed.  Consider request of Mark Denny to construct an addition with insufficient rear yard setback at 2449 North Business Park Drive, Fremont, Nebraska. Article 4, Section 405. LI – Limited Industrial District. Planning Director Harkins stated this property was originally split off from the property to the north and then other variances were granted as the building was expanded on so the applicant is basically coming back for a variance request to do an additional garage bay to their building. This is on the west side of town. The request for this addition as far as the variance would maintain a 10’ setback that has been previously approved with other variance requests. They need a rear yard setback variance because right now it is a 25’ rear yard setback that is required in the zoning district. As you can see in the drawings, Page 4 of 5 the proposed addition as far as the setback they are proposing would be at that 10’ setback line at the corner similar to what is there for the other corners as you look to the south and the north on the building. Applicant Mark Denny of 1726 County Road 19 was present. Mr. Denny stated he thinks it is a 5’ setback as what he had approved instead of a 10’. Mr. Denny stated it is a 10’ but he was given a variance to do 5’. There is a 33’ easement on the back of that property so there is nothing that can but up against that lot line. Mr. Denny stated three corners would hit the 5’ mark. Chairman Bang stated Mr. Denny is basically going to line the back corner with the other three corners and the front would just come out straight out. Chief Building Inspector Hansen he thought it was 10’ from the property line. Chairman Bang asked if 25’ is required. Applicant Denny stated a 25’ setback is required on the front. Bang informed him on the rear also and they allowed it at the time to be 10’. Applicant Denny stated he did this twice as the first time he tried to get a front setback of 20’ and the Board allowed him to go 5’. Denny stated he thought it was 5’ that he had as he tried to do a front setback to get the extra 5’ on the front but it was denied and he had to go 25’ front he front and 5’ from the back. Planning Director Harkins stated if it is 10’ and the Board approves it, can Mr. Denny live with that. Applicant Denny stated no, because it won’t work. He is trying to do a 20’ x 20’ bay. Harkins stated if the corners lined up with the other corners, he could live with it. Denny stated he could if all the corners were matched if it would parallel with the rest of the building. Planning Director Harkins stated in spite of the lack of complete knowledge of the distance, if the Board were to approve it they could just make the motion that the corner would have to line up with the other corners. Member Hoshor stated they assume when they see this diagram that is what it shows and it should be included in the motion. Chairman Bang asked what would happen in front with the paving as wasn’t there some variance to paving and landscaping. Applicant Denny stated he would just extend the paving out. Moved by Hoshor, seconded by Sawyer to approve the request providing all four corners are the same distance from the line and the front is parallel to the front of the existing building so it puts is equal to what applicant originally has. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 5 ayes. Motion Carried. Meeting adjourned at 5:12 p.m. Page 5 of 5