Board of Adjustment

MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 27, 2012 - 4:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bang, Members Casey, Hoshor, Sawyer (arriving at 5:22), Winter and Alternate Member Friedrich, 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 August 22, 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 Casey to dispense with the reading of the Minutes of the June 25, 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.  Consider request of Deb Ladehoff to construct an off-street parking facility with a variance to the required paving at 4100 North Broad Street, Fremont, Nebraska. Article 9, Section 906b. GI – General Industrial District. Planning Director Harkins stated an updated location map and aerial photograph of the property was supplied as staff had inadvertently gotten the site to the north. Harkins stated this is a variance request to essentially have gravel or crushed rock for parking for a truck parking facility along north Broad Street. The applicant has indicated it is too cost prohibitive to do asphalt or concrete parking for the entire area that they are looking at. They are proposing to do essentially a transient truck parking facility for businesses associated or similar businesses to theirs. Essentially because of the fact that the hardship displayed is one of convenience, staff has recommended denial. Also stated in the staff report is if Board of Adjustment chooses to allow the variance that you do so with some additional landscaping and buffering standards particularly along street frontages. Harkins stated both the applicant and their agent were present for questions. Marlin Brabec, Don Peterson and Associates, 100 East 6th was present. Mr. Brabec distributed additional information for the Board of Adjustment to consider and review. A brief overview of the project and what they are asking for is outlined in the information. Mr. Brabec stated the Board of Adjustment has a lot of power and what is decided tonight really the only regress that the owner has is to just report so it is serious what they are considering. Brabec stated to deny something in this kind of a Page 1 of 7 project is very serious business. Brabec stated he has provided a description of the property. What they are proposing is a fenced and lighted storage area for a combination of semi tractor trailers and also parking for campers, boats, etc. in the back of the property. Brabec stated the parking area would be to the west and on the front part of the land with an operation of storage available and possibly storage for boats, campers, etc. to the back eastern portion of the land. The entire land will be a combination of white rock and concrete. At the present time, there is 23,240 square feet of concrete in place on the property. White rock will be weed free, well graded and maintained. Electrical outlets will be provided and they are necessary for cold weather for engine heaters to avoid overnight idle, which is the engines running unattended at slow speeds to aid in the starting of these engines in cold weather. At the present time in Fremont it is illegal to park heavy trucks on City streets overnight and long-term idling or running the trucks overnight in cold weather is already outlawed in several western states including California and will most certainly be part of the requirements the EPA has here in Nebraska eventually when it goes nationwide. At the present time, the property is overgrown with weeds, it has accumulated junk and trash, is unkempt, an eyesore on our doorstep on the north edge of Fremont. There is a neighborhood of truck services such as the diesel service shop directly across the highway to the west, the Sapp Bros. Petroleum, which is a combination, mostly paved but also has white rock parking on the eastern portion of that lot. Merritt Trailer, which has concrete to the building, however, the majority of the parking is also white rock and Country Truck Sales to the north, which is all white rocked except for small areas around the building. There is the truck wash directly behind the immediate area. In fact, there is white rock parking behind the hotel just to the north and to the east. It is obviously a good fit for this type of area. Brabec stated Mr. Harkins mentioned the area is a hardship because of the cost of paving and that is not necessarily true. Brabec stated they were considering in talking about it that there hardship is the fact that no one else in the area is required to do this. Mr. Brabec stated he has taken pictures of other properties and the Planning Commission was supplied with those. All these are white rock. The property is islanded on the west by Highway 77, by Country Truck Sales on the north and by Burlington Northern Railroad to the east and to the south by the State of Nebraska spoils area. It is adjacent to the viaduct that crosses the Burlington Northern tracks and an excellent place for this type of operation. Brabec stated a diagram was provided of what they are proposing to do and indicated the entrance is easily accessible to semi trailer tractor combination. It is going to have a gated area for driving in. The State of Nebraska provided the entrance on Judy Street to this property so that should be up to code as far as regulations from the State of Nebraska. It has concrete and is a paved street in there. There is no rock that will be going on the public access. The area that is outlined is the concrete area, which is 195 feet of frontage on the front, 101 feet east to west. The diagram includes old buildings that are there. There is a steel building, which used to be a watershed at some time that will be removed. There is an old scale house that is junk and a steel building to the east. The area does at the present time have electrical service to it and there is water there so the electrical service is not being used at this time. It has a dead meter and there is no income to the City for that. The next picture is an overall view taken from the top of the viaduct looking down on the property. Johnson Equipment is to the north and there is no pavement on Johnson Equipment. You can see there are stands for the old anhydrous tanks there and the property is certainly in need of some kind of change. The next pictures are pictures of the concrete area. There are paved entrances and plenty of room to park a truck as well as coming off the highway to go into the parking area. Mr. Brabec stated in going into the smaller displays, you can see what the applicants have been doing with their present property. It is kept up and clean. Mr. Brabec pointed out that Country Truck Sales was all rock except for right around the apron of the building. There is Johnson Equipment, which isn’t even rock, but just grass and Victor’s Implement that is all rock. Mr. Brabec stated he felt they had a good case and would be glad to answer any questions. Chairman Bang asked if there was just one entrance and exit off the property. Mr. Brabec stated there was just one as there is no need for two. He stated it was far enough back that a semi can pull off there Page 2 of 7 and be completely off the four lane both on Judy Avenue as well as coming in at the entrance where the gate will be located and that is all concrete. Mr. Brabec stated Harold Johnson from Central Valley Ag is present as they are the seller. Brabec stated the property goes to the abandoned Sheldon property road. Brabec stated this would definitely be an improvement for the City. Harold Johnson from Central Valley Ag was present. He stated that a picture was worth a thousand words obviously and he was ashamed to stay Central Valley owned that spot. It would definitely be an improvement. They have anxious buyers and it would definitely improve the site. Planning Director Harkins asked Mr. Brabec how many of his examples existed before 2000. Mr. Brabec stated he was sure Merritt Trailer didn’t and he was sure that Diesel Services changed hands since then and he was also sure that the Country Truck Sales wasn’t there before then and the general storage was not there. Chief Building Inspector Hansen stated Diesel Services changing hands doesn’t trigger paving. Hansen stated the truck wash is paved to 100’ back from the property line in general industrial. There is a provision to waive it after you get 100 feet back. Brabec felt they were over 100 feet and thought the front was 101 feet. Hansen stated there was a road on the north too. Brabec stated he used that facility and didn’t believe it was paved 100 feet back. Hansen stated Country Truck Sales was given a variance because there were no customers to be driving out there as it was just display, no vehicles, other than when he moves one in and out. Brabec stated he drove through there less than a month ago. Hansen stated that was one of the provisions that he got the variance for was that there was suppose to be no public allowed to drive back there. Brabec stated this was a property that was more or less abandoned, it’s under the viaduct. This isn’t just truck storage but it would be other storage also. There are no neighbors around as far as any interference or intrusion for lighting or sound or anything and it’s in an area that is perfectly in line with the other trucks in the area and the other services in the area. Chairman Bang stated the concern is the dust from the traffic if there is a lot of traffic, especially with storage units and everybody going in and out of the storage units. Bang stated that is why they have at least paving around the storage units themselves. Brabec stated it would be open storage, it is going to be a gated area and you will have to have either some kind of a code. It will not be something where people can just drive in there as it will be a secured area. It will be a 6’ chain link fence with wire on top and gates across the driveway. Alternate Member Friedrich asked if there were any objections as to what was recommended that the applicant not only provides screening to the north and west sides of the property in a form that does not include chain link fencing; as well as landscaping areas between the screening and the right-of-way for the highway. Mr. Brabec stated true screening is almost impossible as the viaduct is almost 20’ above the property and you are looking down into it. Chairman Bang stated it would help cut down some of the dust. Brabec felt he didn’t think they would have that kind of traffic as they are maybe talking about one or two trucks a day coming in and out of there as this is a place where they can park and have their truck safe and not broken into and be able to plug it in when it is cold when they are in town. Planning Director Harkins stated the additional landscaping part you would want to focus primarily toward the access point off of Broad Street as doing shrubs and things like that would help catch any dust that would come off but would also help to provide additional screening. You have the viaduct so you’ve got height and you can’t help the fact that you are looking down into the property but you have the viaduct providing some form of buffer on top of that screening as well. If you are doing a fence other than chain link, that’s one buffer and then that additional landscaping toward the northwest corner would be that additional screening that staff was mainly thinking of when the recommendation was written. Applicant Ladehoff was present. She asked if they were thinking more of a privacy fence. Her concern with that would be if they had a privacy fence then they could have theft and it wouldn’t be clear traffic seeing things either. You wouldn’t want that. You can’t have the bushes close to the road or entrance Page 3 of 7 as you have the trucks swinging in. Harkins stated he was not thinking huge tall bushes. He was thinking some as even small ground cover helps catch any dust that does come off either the road onto your property or from your property to the road. Even something that is just a foot or two high does a lot in that scenario. Harkins stated he understood the issues with the security aspects but asked if the applicant was providing any kind of area lighting. Applicant stated they would be and Harkins stated that would mitigate a lot of the security issues. Another property was discussed that was outdoor storage, storage units and the required paving. Harkins stated the paving requirement was relaxed because the drainage patterns were poor on the adjacent streets and it was felt that making that applicant pave the property would cause too much runoff and, therefore, street flooding that would back up onto his property and cause additional problems not only for the traffic flow but access and egress from his site. Applicant asked if he had screening for his property. Harkins stated he does that the Board and the Planning Commission did make him do fencing and some of that is chain link though. Applicant stated that is what theirs would be. Applicant asked if the chain link fence was considered screening. Harkins stated that is what they allowed at that time. Applicant stated they are looking at a chain link fence with three rows of barbed wire on the top. Member Friedrich stated he felt anything would be somewhat of an improvement. Moved by Friedrich to approve the request with the notation of putting some landscaping towards the northwest corner of the property. Chairman Bang asked how landscaping would be defined. Planning Director Harkins stated subject to the applicant providing landscaping in the form of flowers, shrubs and landscaping of a similar nature in the northwest corner. Member Hoshor asked if would be stipulated how much height is required as if it is going to catch dust it has to be taller than a foot. Harkins stated there will be some low lying dust that will catch but it is mainly designed to just help provide something to improve the look of the site. If you are going to allow the applicant to just do a chain link fence then eventually the chain link fence can still be seen and it still looks like a chain link fence. If you want anything beyond that, you have to do it with either having them do a different fence for screening or with some landscaping in front of the fence to help soften that up. Member Winter asked if the fence should be set back 15’ from the lot line. Member Friedrich recommended the applicant go 15’ back, put in some landscaping with a minimum height of 1 foot. Chairman Bang asked if there was any concern about barbed wire on top of a fence. Chief Building Inspector Hansen stated it was allowed in General Industrial Districts. Chairman Bang also stated all of the concrete remains that the driving in and out, the traffic pattern will all be through this concrete area. Motion was seconded by Casey. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 5 ayes. Motion Carried.  Consider request of Rick Leonard to erect an accessory structure (shed) with insufficient side yard setback at Woodcliff Lakes, 980 County Road W, Lot 1196, Saunders County, Nebraska. Article 4, Table 4-3. RL – Lake and River Residential Zoning District. Planning Director Harkins stated this is a lot in Woodcliff. Essentially the property owner is trying to add on and the shed is essentially in the way. The applicant is looking for a variance in order to move the shed to a different spot on the lot in order to facilitate additional expansion of his property or the house. Because of the way the house is laid out on the lot and because of where the property line sits, there is essentially only one direction to expand the house and that is in this direction back toward the road. Because of the unique nature of the lot and the fact of the requirements being the way they are, that’s why you see the staff recommendation of approval. Chairman Bang asked if we had a layout of the lot. Harkins stated the aerial after it is pretty much all we have and stated staff is going to start recommending some additional information from applicants from now on and are trying to work to get that. Chairman Bang suggested a site layout. Moved by Winter, seconded by Hoshor to approve the request. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 5 ayes. Motion Carried. Page 4 of 7  Consider request of Timothy V. and Stephanie L. Edwards to erect a six foot fence with insufficient street side yard setback at 944 North Edearl Lane. Article 4, Table 4-2. R1 – Single Family Residential District. Planning Director Harkins stated the applicant is asking for a fence essentially to screen in a patio area. They are asking for a variance to do that because of the street side yard requirement they desire to do the privacy screening from the patio essentially for privacy. They feel it would add to the use and keep traffic and other neighbors from just intruding too much. This is part of a privacy screen they are trying to do on the two sides of the patio and the one side actually meets current code so we have told them they could go ahead and do that part. This part here that is proposed in the dash line on the aerial is the part that needs the variance because of the street side yard setback. Applicant Tim Edwards of 944 North Edearl Lane was present. Mr. Edwards passed around pictures of the fence and the property from different angles on the street. He stated they obtained the permit to go ahead and put up a free standing privacy fence to screen off their patio from a couple different views and not block people from seeing the street when they pull out of their driveways. The different views in the pictures show how the fence looks at 6’ tall. They were given the opportunity of taking the fence down or cutting it down to 4’. Since his wife is the one that is out on the patio, she really does not like people watching her, staring at her when she is sitting out there drinking her coffee because she is the only one out there. There were some neighbors that moved across to the north side of their house which is where the fence is on the north side of the patio. All they are trying to do is block their access to just ogling her. There is nothing really wrong with the neighbors but there are four or five adult males out there sitting in front of the garage and they do not speak English and it makes her very very nervous. The cheapest most economical way to alleviate the problem is to limit their view and that is what they are trying to do. Chairman Bang asked if there is a hardship that you can’t meet the codes and be in compliance with the 15’ setback. Applicant stated the fence is already 6’ inside of a chain link fence and the patio itself exceeds the north side of the house and it is right at the boundary of the patio. Planning Director Harkins asked if the house is truly 14’ 6” from the property line to the north side of the house. Applicant stated it was. Harkins asked if he could move the privacy screen in 6” and basically drop it in the patio and then you would be 15’. Applicant stated it would be right in the middle of the gate as there is a gate there and stated he had pictures of that fence where it sits at the gate as it is right at the post. Applicant stated the only real problem he could see with the fence being where it is located is that it is already inside of landscaping and already inside of a chain link fence would be a hazard to vehicular traffic when they are trying to pull out on the street. The pictures already showed that the neighbors and people downstream from this fence and from their property and it does not block in any way their views nor will it. Chairman Bang stated the Board has a tough time with privacy fences out in the street yard setback. Applicant stated unfortunately his house according to the City has his front on the north on 10th Street and the front of his house is east or west on Edearl. Applicant stated there is nothing on his house that matches up with the front of any other house on the block. Applicant stated his front on Edearl matches fine. Alternate Member asked Chief Building Inspector Hansen why the City would recognize the north side as his front. Hansen stated he didn’t know but it doesn’t meet front yard setbacks so it is not considered the front because 15’ is the required setback off of 10th Street. Chairman Bang stated the Board has granted some leeway with the privacy fences before and in this case 15’ meets code, your house is at 14’ 6” we have allowed the fence to be at 14’ 6”. We have given a little bit but not to go out any further than the house with the privacy fence. Planning Director Harkins asked the applicant if he wanted to keep it off the corner of the house. Applicant stated the whole idea is to screen off the existing patio so that his wife can be out there without being ogled. Bang stated the applicant could cut some holes in your patio and put the fence even with the house. Applicant stated that would not be easy and he was trying to do it the easiest simplest way to do it and still have it look decent. Mr. Edwards stated if he had to move it that far he will have to cut the fence down so that he would have access to the gate, otherwise, it would block off access to the gate. The fence is exactly as long as the patio itself is. It is 16’ from the house to the edge of the patio. The fence is 16’ long. Page 5 of 7 Moved by Winter, seconded by Hoshor to deny the request. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 5 ayes. Motion Carried. Applicant questioned where he goes from here and what does he do with the fence. Alternate Member Friedrich asked if the Board could make a stipulation if the applicant moves the fence back to even with the house that we would allow the fence. Chief Building Inspector Hansen stated Member Winter would have to be asked if he would reconsider the motion. Applicant asked if he would have to take the fence down. Chairman Bang stated the fence would have to come down. Applicant asked about the building permit. Chief Building Inspector Hansen stated he could put the fence up legally. Planning Director Harkins stated he could put the part that runs north/south he could do legally. Applicant stated he didn’t have any part that runs north/south. Harkins stated that was not the way it was communicated originally. Applicant stated it was a free standing fence running east and west. Alternate Member Friedrich asked Member Winter if he would consider allowing the fence if he would stay flush with the house. Chief Building Inspector Hansen stated he has to be 6” beyond the house to not have a variance. He has to be 15’ but the house is 14’ 6”. Chairman Bang stated he could be allowed to move it to be even with the house which would give him 6”. Member Winter amended the motion that fence could be flush with the house on the north end of his house running along the east/west line, which would be 14’ 6”. Seconded by Friedrich. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 5 ayes. Motion Carried.  Consider request of Frank Blazek, II to construct an attached garage with insufficient rear yard setback at Woodcliff Lakes, 980 County Road W, Lot S-1123 (1110 Cottonwood Lane), Saunders County, Nebraska. Article 4, Table 4-2. RL – Lake and River District. Planning Director Harkins stated the owners are looking at trying to sell the property and at the present time it has been on the market for a while. They are having difficulty selling it because of the lack of a garage. Because of the lot layout and the house layout, there is pretty much only a couple of spots to do that. Both of those would require encroaching upon the rear yard setback of the lot. The proposed garage addition goes in at the shortest point, 11’, as far as a setback between the garage and the property line and at its greatest point it is 16’ roughly. Because they are trying to maintain some setback requirements, staff has recommended approval primarily because of the desire of the applicant to maintain some setback but also the fact of the hardship that is created is based on the lack of other directions or alternatives and also because of the lot layout and the layout of the house on the lot. Chairman Bang asked if this setback would meet Saunders County requirements. Chief Building Inspector Hansen stated it would not. Barb Hammond and Don Boldizsar, agents for the seller, PJ Morgan Real Estate stated it would be a two car garage. They stated they virtually had the property on the market for about two years. The biggest obstacle has been no garage. It is a 3,000 square foot home and is actually on the larger side for Woodcliff. People would just like a garage. Chairman Bang asked if it was an existing shed. Mr. Boldizsar stated it was a little shed that is there now and a propane tank. Ms. Hammond stated the applicant is trying to comply as best as they can with the layout of the lot. As you can see, there is a fairly significant angle and there just really is not a straight line to work with to have that setback be. They stated they would still maintain that rock drive and parking on the side. Chairman Bang stated a car parked in front of the garage doors would stick past the property line. Alternate Member Friedrich stated that is why he wanted to make sure they were maintaining that rock drive and parking. Planning Director Harkins stated as a point of information, even if the property line was at right angles all the way around the lot you might be able to fit a small vehicle parked in front of those garage doors but it would get close to that property line. Moved by Friedrich, seconded by Winter to approve the request. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 5 ayes. Motion Carried. Page 6 of 7  Consider request of Mitchell Burt to construct an addition with insufficient rear yard setback at Woodcliff Lakes, 980 County Road W, Lot S-1089, Saunders County, Nebraska. Article 4, Table 4-3. RL – Lake and River District. Planning Director Harkins stated the applicant is requesting to construct an addition to the house. It is toward an area where the road actually curves around. The house actually sits on the property and then an easement that they have been allowed to build on as well. Because of the way the lots and the easement sit as well as in relation to the house, again, there is only so many places to build. They have buildable spaces outlined in their proposed site plan but the proposed addition tries to get something that actually curves with the road and the property line rather than trying to go out and build in space where it might actually make it more difficult to make something harmonious with the existing cabin. Dan Martinez with APEX Land Surveying was present as well as Mr. Burt to answer any questions. This is a lot that is part of the original development. It was discovered at some point in time that the existing cabin and deck on the southeast portion of this site plan actually encroached across the property. It did not encroach onto a neighboring lot. This just happens to be part of the common ground. If you have seen the plat of Woodcliff, the streets aren’t 30, 50, 80’ strips, they are jogged. As you approach from the east going west, it is an open area and then as you get in front of Timber Lane on the southwest side of this lot the homes start to get set at an angle to the street He also shows a storm drain location at a time when Woodcliff did central water and central sewer that may have been during the late 1980s. The line that runs through the cabin and the deck is the existing long line and the dash area is a record of easement that allows that structure to stay there. There is no additional construction being allowed or expansion but it does allow the existing structure to be maintained there. There is currently a shed that sits 5 ½’ feet back from Timber Lane on the front yard setback and just about 2’ off the other adjacent side yard lot line. Martinez stated one of the conditions was about the location of the shed and whether it would come down. Mr. Burt asked me the question could he relocate it. Martinez stated he told Mr. Burt as long as it met the setback requirements that it could be relocated. Planning Director Harkins stated he could relocate it anywhere inside the setback line. Applicant Burt stated he would probably destroy it as that area is all beach. Harkins stated applicant would have to be 6’ away from the primary structure. Moved by Friedrich, seconded by Winter to approve the addition with the note that the shed is either moved or torn down unless they move on the back part or the lot or shorten the addition to maintain the 6’. Bang stated just meeting the code of the distance from the shed to the structure. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 5 ayes. Motion Carried.  Study Session Item: Zoning Ordinance Review. Tom Sawyer arrived for the Zoning Ordinance Review. Planning Director Harkins stated one of the things that came out of the new Comprehensive Plan was a rewrite or an update of the new Zoning Ordinance or creating a new Zoning Ordinance. The City has a consultant on contract to start that process so we will be looking at that in the next month and getting that process started. As part of a series of feedback, part of their scope of work will be to meet with the Board at different points to get input but to help jump start that process he wanted to do a Study Session so the Board had an opportunity to give feedback as far as things to consider or look at whether they be variances the Board has dealt with or other aspects of the Zoning Ordinance that need to be looked at and re-evaluated. Chairman Bang suggested looking at Woodcliff. Planning Director Harkins stated other issues might be older and smaller lots regarding setbacks, parking, landscaping, fencing and more signage. Harkins stated these will be some of the things that will be looked at with a consultant and they may talk to some of the Board directly as well. Meeting adjourned at 5:38 p.m. Page 7 of 7