Board of Adjustment

MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 24, 2013 - 4:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PRESENT: Members Casey, Friedrich, Sawyer and Winter, Alternate Member Brown, Planning Director Rian Harkins, Chief Building Inspector Don Simon and Secretary Deb Pruss ABSENT: Chairman Bang Due to the absence of Chairman Bang, Planning Director Harkins 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 19, 2013 and is open to the public. Harkins 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. A copy of the open meeting law is posted continually for public inspection located near the entrance door by the agendas. Roll Call showed five members present. Meeting is hereby declared to be duly convened and in open session. It was moved by Sawyer, seconded by Casey to dispense with the reading of the Minutes of the May 28, 2013 Regular Meeting and approve as distributed. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 5 ayes. Motion Carried. Planning Director Harkins 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 Roger Chisholm to allow a lot split with insufficient side yard setback, Lots 13 and 14, Block 13, Westside Addition (northwest corner of South and Morrell Streets), Fremont, Dodge County, Nebraska. R2 – Moderate Density Residential District. Planning Director Harkins stated the lot split was essentially approved by the Planning Commission subject to any and all variances being approved by the Board of Adjustment. The applicant is looking to split one large lot into two. This apparently is a location where there were two lots originally, merged into one and now this owner wants to separate them again. Everything around the property is R2 – Moderate Density. However, to do the lot split creates three substandard side setbacks or interior side yard setbacks as well as a street side yard setback. As you can see from the graphics staff prepared, the setbacks vary that we have proposed going anywhere from 4 ½ to 6 ½ feet. In the R2 District as a matter of record, the interior side yard is a 5 foot setback for a one to one and a half story and a 7 foot setback for a two to three story building. The street yard setback is a 15 foot. So, the main cause for concern would be primarily on Lot 14 as there is not a sufficient street side yard setback nor do we have an interior side yard setback. Lot 13 is a one story building and we are proposing a 5 and 5 ½ foot interior side yard setback. When staff was given the application to do the lot split, we were kind of left with trying to guess where to best put the property lines so we basically have kind of drawn it in what we thought was the most reasonable spot. Member Sawyer asked the question of on the west side of Lot 13 is 5 ½ feet all that side yard was at that time probably when it was built. Harkins stated probably. Sawyer stated on Lot 14 if the applicant tore the house down is it big enough that somebody like Habitat could build something in there. Harkins stated it was possible as you would have to again with other examples to use Habitat a lot of their Page 1 of 4 houses have that long narrow look and they would have to do something like that in a location like this in some form or fashion. There is also, as Don is pointing out a provision, and this is on page 7-3 of the code that talks about corner lots. Harkins read that the required setback shall not reduce the buildable width of any corner lot to less than 24 feet. Appropriate setback adjustments shall be allowed to maintain this minimum width so somebody could come in, whether it be Habitat or anyone else, and actually build. If Mr. Chisholm wanted to knock that house down and put up a new structure to sell basically to flip the property, he would still be allowed to do that. Member Sawyer stated he looked at that house and it looks like a good option. Sawyer stated that was up to the applicant though. Planning Director Harkins stated one house is in much better shape than the other one. Sawyer stated he just wasn’t sure if something happened to the other if he would be able to build on it again or not. Harkins stated that provision that Don just highlighted allows you to get down to that certain size if all else fails. Member Friedrich asked if we had a code that says that lots have to be 40’. Harkins stated he was talking about the minimum lot width. Harkins stated in the R2 the minimum lot width for single family detached is 60’. Essentially we would have to grant a variance for that as well at this time. Friedrich stated he hasn’t even applied for. Harkins stated that is true. Member Sawyer stated he had no idea what the applicant’s plans are. Friedrich stated if the Board went ahead and approved this we are opening up a can of worms because now you are saying you can have a 36’ lot because he has not applied for a variance on the lot size nor proving any type of hardship. If we open that up right now, that’s a whole can of worms. Sawyer asked if he should be applying for the variance on lot size also. Harkins stated there is a couple of ways we can look at it. We can do the separate action for the minimum lot width. You can grant a variance as part of the matter of record now or you can have him come back and do a separate action. You could leave it where he would have to come back later if he wanted to but you would essentially allow these two uses to continue. That gives him the option of having these two properties as they are and then if he wanted to do something later where the minimum lot width might come into play. Sawyer stated the side yard variance should be combined with the minimum lot width variance. Harkins stated that is the question. You can combine them all now or you can have him come back later. Sawyer asked if he has to advertise it that way. Member Friedrich stated that is the other problem he has. He hasn’t posted this at all. Harkins stated the signs have been posted. Harkins stated he went numerous times and posted signs. Friedrich stated he went twice and didn’t see them. Harkins stated he posted the signs three times that he has created and then the one sign that Deb wrote he posted it as well on Friday. Friedrich stated he went by twice and hadn’t seen them. Sawyer stated he went by today but that doesn’t mean anything as how much rain did we have over the weekend and the wind that went through today. Sawyer stated maybe we should check the neighbor’s yard. Harkins stated in a couple of the cases, in two cases that he knows, people down in that neighborhood have called in and said I know there was a sign there and there is not one there now. So if you needed that up for some reason you might want to bring one back down and post it and that’s what we have done. Friedrich’s only concern is that we have to put something in there about the lot sizes. Sawyer asked if we can do that right now. Harkins stated you can do that right now as a matter of the record without necessarily setting a precedent. It is just a matter of whether or not you want to. Harkins stated he didn’t see it as a large issue. You have lots like this especially in this part of the City that are very narrow and so anytime we deal with lot splits like this that are subject to variances that is going to be an issue potentially. Sawyer stated personally he would like to see him be able to do it he just wants to make sure we do it right. Member Friedrich stated he had no problem with him doing it but he just doesn’t want somebody else coming back up here six months from now saying you let him do it and I want to split this and here’s two lots that are 35 feet. Sawyer stated everything is on a per case basis. Friedrich stated he wants to make sure one way or another everything is covered. Harkins stated if you continue to do it now at this stage he thought they were okay. Planning Commission’s directive and desire was that we continue if we get cases like this where someone is coming in to do a lot split but they don’t have the sufficient setbacks that they approve the lot splits subject to any and all variances being granted. Member Friedrich stated to Harkins that he was saying we could do the setback part today but yet he can’t do anything until he comes back for a lot size variance. Harkins stated there are three options. One grant all the variances now including the minimum lot width so the setbacks and the minimum lot width. That is option one. Option two is you can grant the setback variances now and have him come Page 2 of 4 back for the minimum lot width, the variance and you can have him do that right away. Option three would be you tell him to do that if and when he decided to do anything with the property. So if he were to knock down a building and then want to build something new, then he would have to come back. Member Sawyer stated he would consider number two so we can get it all done now. I wouldn’t even mind if we did it all at this meeting but if we don’t know if it’s been written and advertised that way. Friedrich stated it hadn’t. Secretary Pruss stated the applicant would have to pay an additional application fee if he comes back. Harkins stated that was correct. Harkins stated we could continue and re-advertise. Friedrich stated he didn’t have to pay to reapply but he just has to come in and change it. Harkins stated if you basically continue and we have to re-advertise then he wouldn’t have to pay but we would have to re-advertise the item to include this part. That way it meets open meeting law requirements. Sawyer asked if time is of the essence in this. Harkins stated he hasn’t indicated that he has to move right away so delaying isn’t going to be an issue. Member Winter stated if the applicant tears one of the houses down he needs to get back to having the proper minimum side yards. Sawyer stated it is on the minimum lot width. Chief Building Inspector Simon stated the applicant can build a 24 foot wide house on here still though. Sawyer asked if we were talking about Lot 13 more, the minimum lot width. Member Brown stated he didn’t think Lot 13 would change ever. He might build on 14. Friedrich stated if you grant a split without something in there. Harkins stated he thinks the bigger issue Curt is raising is neither lot meets the minimum lot widths if we approve this split. So the question is there has to be a variance for that as well. Friedrich stated the minimum for a R2 is 60’ and neither lot meets this. Member Winter states we have given a lot of lead way on lots and stated this is probably a 100 year old lot. Friedrich stated they usually have some in for a variance and we would be doing this without even a variance. Harkins stated you have to remember the variance was originally directed by Planning Commission. This item was directed to bring to you from Planning Commission at their request. Friedrich is stating he has to have all the variances. Harkins stated you can either do all the variances now or you can continue. We will re-advertise to include this and then bring it back in a month. Friedrich stated he doesn’t mind him doing this and he understands why he is doing it and his hardship but he thinks we better have all our ducks in a row before we stamp an okay on this. Harkins stated if you would be in trouble on anything it would be and it’s a stretch potentially but it would be granting the variance for the minimum lot width without advertising it. Sawyer stated this is a very old part of town and that’s what they really call original town. Friedrich stated he is going back to what it was originally and I don’t have a problem with but we could possibly get in trouble for creating something that wasn’t advertised. Member Brown asked if that is where the lot was split before. Harkins stated to the best of his knowledge yes. Sawyer stated probably because number 14 has been there a long time and number 13 has been built probably 30 years ago. Friedrich just wanted to make sure all bases were covered. Harkins stated he thought they could probably because they were advertising the item and it has been advertised for a while and been looked at in terms of a lot split, we know there has to be variances so personally he thinks they are okay. Member Brown stated if the applicant knocks that down he has to come back to us to get a variance. Harkins stated code states you can still do a 24’ wide house regardless. Friedrich stated if it is not a big rush why not just continue it and have him come back and have it all in a row so next month he walks in and we say okay. Harkins stated the options are to either defer and we will re-advertise to include the minimum lot width or you can approve everything now. Harkins stated it the Board is deferring or postponing, there would be no additional fee because you are continuing the item. We would just amend this application and we would put up a new sign to re- advertise. That’s option two. Sawyer stated we should do something that is not going to cost the applicant more money. Friedrich stated we continue it, re-advertise and vote on it next month when all the paperwork is right. Sawyer stated everything should fall in line. Member Winter asked if there were any lots in town that are 36’ wide. Harkins stated I’m sure if we were to go back and actually look we would find some. Winter stated maybe a couple. Friedrich stated technically since this was two lots and then combined it originally probably to the best of their knowledge probably was that. If it was only lot for the whole time, then Friedrich stated he would have more problems with it but since it was originally two lots combined and now he wants to go back he doesn’t have a problem with that as long as all the paperwork is correct. Page 3 of 4 Moved by Friedrich, seconded by Winter to recommend continuing the request and re-advertise for both the setbacks and the lot size variance. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 5 ayes. Motion Carried. Meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Page 4 of 4