Board of Adjustment

MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AUGUST 26, 2013 - 4:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bang, Members Casey, Friedrich, Winter and Alternate Member Brown, Planning Director Rian Harkins, Chief Building Inspector Don Simon and Secretary Deb Pruss ABSENT: Member Sawyer 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 21, 2013 and is open to the public. 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. 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 Friedrich, seconded by Casey to dispense with the reading of the Minutes of the July 29, 2013 Regular Meeting and the August 13, 2013 Special 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 Kent Hartung, dba Turner Ranch Properties to erect new storage facility with insufficient front yard setback and a variance to paving requirements at 3250 West 23rd Street. GI – General Industrial District. Planning Director Harkins stated this is a variance for a storage building west of the Airport and north essentially of the Natura area. It backs up to US Highway 30 and is just fronting on West 23 rd Street. The proposed structure is a storage facility. There are two storage buildings like this on the site currently and the applicant is basically looking for the same variance for this building that they were granted back in 2000 for the first two builds as he wrote in the staff report. The variance at that time was under Section 703-C, which is on Page 7-2. It is an accessory site issue. Because they are within so many feet of the center line of the US Highway, they have to be set back from that. In order to get that setback distance from the center line, they need to be essentially 7 feet from the front setback, or the front property line which is where you see when you look at their site plan. Staff put in an aerial but when you look at the second part that they put in on their plot plan, you’ll see the two existing buildings are 7 feet as far as a setback. What they are proposing is the same 7 foot setback from the front and then basically a little over 25 feet from the rear of the bypass. This is for as they wrote a 42’ x 112’ x 16 foot storage building. It would be on the same site line as the two existing buildings. Harkins stated the applicant is present as well if the Board had questions for them. Member Friedrich asked about waiving the paving. Harkins stated there is no discussion in the minutes from that last case as to why they waived the paving requirements but there was a variance granted for it. Member Winter asked if it was even required back. Harkins stated it was in 2000 so it might have been just before this Ordinance took effect or before it was adopted so that might have been part of the Page 1 of 4 issue. There is nothing conclusive to determine one way or another that he could find. They are asking for the paving requirements now basically to match what is already there though. Also the fact that in a number of industrial areas like this in the past, it has been a waiver essentially or a variance granted for paving. Kent Hartung, 1820 East 19th Street, Fremont, NE was present. Member Winter asked the applicant if he owned the rest of the ground. Applicant stated he did except for the corner acre that the house is sitting on. Member Friedrich asked the applicant how many storage units he planned on putting up. Applicant stated he thought he was going to stop right here. Chairman Bang asked if there was any paving on the existing site now. Applicant stated no. Bang asked about the approach. Planning Director Harkins stated it was all gravel. Chief Building Inspector Simon stated that John Deere, across the street from the applicant, was on gravel also. Applicant stated right. Harkins stated paving variances have been granted for self storage like this in the past. In fact, some of those variances have been granted for areas that are much smaller in size than this whereas this applicant is trying to basically just keep the gravel essentially around the building. Harkins stated staff has recommended approval based on the hardship present from the right-of-way of the highway as well as the fact that they don’t see a detriment overall to the character of this area. Chairman Bang asked if the setback for the new building would be 7 foot, the same as the others. Harkins stated that was correct. Bang stated it was not noted. Harkins stated it is not directly noted but that is what they are looking at. Basically they are looking on the plot plan to line up the building at the same plain as the two existing ones, which would make that 7 feet. Moved by Casey, seconded by Friedrich to approve the request. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 5 ayes. Motion Carried. Consider request of Dana Skinner to erect 6’ wood privacy fence over the allowable 48” height at 905 North Locust Street, Fremont, Dodge County, Nebraska. RI – Single Family Residential District. Planning Director Harkins stated this is in an R1 Zoning District. Section 707 of the zoning code allows up to 42 inches in the street side yard. The property faces on Locust. Ninth Street would essentially be the street side yard. What the applicant is looking at trying to do is essentially a small screen fence for the utility boxes that are sitting in the easement. That area that they see for example on the aerial, the yellow dot, is where the utility boxes are and then the red would where they are proposing to place the fence for 6 feet and that is basically just to screen the utility boxes off from the back yard and the house. Member Friedrich stated a 42” fence would cover the top of those utilities. Chief Building Inspector Simon stated there are actually more than just one box. There are about half a dozen boxes that are different sizes. Simon stated he didn’t even know what they all are. Chairman Bang stated there were three boxes and it would take almost a 6 foot fence to hide them. There is an electrical meter on one. Bang stated his question is that 6 foot leg that is running north/south coming right out to the property line? Chief Building Inspector Simon stated the 6 foot high fence he needs a variance for is approximately 10 feet running north and south. He could still run east and west there without a variance as he would be flush with the house. Bang stated he would have to be 15 feet back from the property line. Simon stated that was correct. Bang didn’t think any of the fence was conforming right now, either the east/west leg or the north/south leg would be. Simon stated they would be around that 10 x 10 easement. Bang stated that it was a 15 foot setback from the property line right. Harkins stated that was correct. Simon stated if that’s what the zoning is as that house looks like it is closer though. Bang stated it was very close as you couldn’t fit a vehicle on the driveway without hanging onto the street. Harkins stated unless it was a smart car essentially. He stated it was a case where this is one of those houses that was built before the current code so the easement that runs north/south along the back of that property the north/south leg would be pretty much right on that easement line essentially. They could, as Don said, get the east/west leg back to that 15 foot but they would still need the variance for the north/south leg. Bang stated which would be 15 feet long if he is going to run it right up to the property Page 2 of 4 line. Harkins stated it would as they were trying to keep it close and somewhat tight to the actual boxes but give some room to work around the boxes in case a worker had to get to those for some reason. Simon stated he was surprised the applicant is not here. His hardship he stated was that he inherited the house and he is back from Colorado trying to fix it up. His mother passed away but he said every night on the deck there seems to be somebody working in those boxes so there is no privacy at all. He said you can be on your deck and they show up in vans. Simon stated he doesn’t know what they do, if they are switching gear, starting or stopping something or resetting or rebooting but that was his hardship. Friedrich asked at night? Simon stated yes in the evening. He said at all times they are coming and going and doing things at those boxes. Planning director Harkins stated if you look closely you’ll see the property line runs essentially right along where those boxes are. Alternate Member Brown asked if that would create a hardship with these two driveways, not only his but his neighbor’s. Member Casey stated that’s what she was looking at. Brown asked if they will be able to see oncoming traffic backing out. Chief Building Inspector Simon stated he didn’t think there was any type of a clearance issue with the fence, where it was with that 6 foot. Brown stated that is why he would like to see a 42 inch fence that would be perfect there. Simon stated his options, if everyone was against the 6 foot, would be to maybe go 42 inches but it is still suppose to be 50% clear open like picket. I don’t know if you want to go board on board or give him anything there but the applicant basically wanted to hide that and felt he would put up whatever he was told to put up. Member Brown stated the neighbor could have been at the meeting if they were worried about it. Chairman Bang stated he was concerned about putting the east/west leg outside in the right-of-way as well. Chief Building Inspector Simon stated it was probably a good idea to move that back. There is something there. He doesn’t remember if it is an overhead clothes line but there is something back there. He doesn’t know if the shed is an issue that is back there as well. Simon feels it is a good idea to keep it 15 at least on that side. Member Winter asked if the applicant was going to live in it. Simon stated no that he was trying to sell his mother’s house and that is a selling point. Member Friedrich stated if it was set back 15’, the east/west leg, could we give him the angle from a 6 foot down to 42 inches? Planning Director Harkins told them they could do that. Friedrich added with 50% clear though. Harkins stated yes. Chairman Bang stated the applicant is not far from totally running it east/west of the house. If he is going to have a 15 foot leg running north/south and a 20 foot leg running east/west. Brown started applicant must like it open there for some reason. Chief Building Inspector Simon stated there are trees there. He thought when he met the applicant and looked at it, 10 foot by 10 foot was the approximate area but he knows there are trees, there are bushes, and there is a pad of concrete out in front of the pedestals. There seemed to be a lot going on there. Member Friedrich asked if there was an existing fence with that house going off the house towards the west. Simon stated no. The neighbors there have an existing fence. There is an existing wood fence. Friedrich stated on the north/south part on the back property. Chairman Bang stated part of it is wood and then it switches to chain link about half way through the property. Friedrich stated with the trees there and the bushes there he doesn’t know why he is putting a fence there to block the view and he just doesn’t see the hardship for the little jog there. Member Casey asked if the utilities have an easement back there. Harkins stated they do. It’s a 10 foot wide easement so essentially that shed, which the structure would be really yellowed and dingy, is right in that easement. Chairman Bang stated if they ever needed to get through there the applicant would have to remove the fence and put it back up. Members Friedrich and Casey replied the next owner would. Casey also mentioned the title insurance. Alternate Member Brown stated he didn’t really mind it but thinks the fence needs to be 42 inches. Harkins stated the applicant could do 42 inches now without any variance. Member Casey stated that won’t hide the boxes is that correct. Simon stated if it was 50% clear it’s not going to hide it. Harkins stated it won’t totally mask it which he thinks the applicant is looking to do ultimately. Member stated he was thinking the north/south. He doesn’t see a problem if we let him drop it down to 42 inches and make it solid. Member Friedrich asked if the applicant would move the east/west back to the 15 foot. Brown stated he didn’t mind the east/west at all for some reason. Member Brown stated it’s not going past the house. Winter stated it was past the house a little bit isn’t it. Maybe three or four feet. Brown started he thought it was inside. Chairman Bang stated it was out if the house isn’t conforming right now. So the house is closer than the 15 feet. To put the fence in, you would have to be 15 feet away from the property line. Planning Director Harkins stated when he Page 3 of 4 drove by it and looked at it he didn’t get out and measure it but he would say probably seven or eight feet from that south wall to the property line and this is just another example of having a house that probably at one time might have conformed to setback requirements but with the setback requirements that we have now in this code it doesn’t and so how do you make things fit as you go? Harkins stated if the Board wants to allow keeping at 42 inches on part of it and moving it and only allow a variance for maybe the 50% see thru requirements, we can certainly communicate that to the applicant. Chairman Bang stated we could give them a couple options. Bang would certainly be willing to let the applicant have the east/west fence even the whole way across the back yard as long as he didn’t go out further than the house is existing. We have allowed that. Applicant might be 3 feet into that 15 yard side yard setback but as long as he didn’t go any further than the house was the south side of the house. Friedrich stated and not do the north/south. Bang stated either way that line shouldn’t be out any further than the house and whether he wants to put it half way or whatever he is doing he can hide them. Harkins stated he can do that or he can step back the full 15 feet and then just run the fence so it is on the setback line and then it would just be a question of whether or not we allow it to be totally solid or not. He could do off the corner of the house and do a partial or completely. He thinks the applicant is open to basically doing anything we are willing to allow him to. He just wants to hide that in that area. Aside from 15 feet off the property line and at least 50% see thru, staff didn’t have a lot of options in terms of other than what we have already described with the 42 inches without having to pursue a setback variance of some kind. Member Casey asked if he put a full fence on the east/west instead then he wouldn’t need to have that little jog out and it would hide it too. Harkins stated that was correct that it would. As the Chairman said, even if it only went part way across it would still mask those utility boxes, which again is his goal. Member Brown asked if the north/south one was his fence or the neighbor’s fence that he is just trying to match up to it but not that it matters. Harkins stated it was hard to tell. That fence on the west property line, which in this case would be the rear of the property, is partially wood and partially chain link. He’s not sure whose it is or if it’s half and half. Member Friedrich asked if the chain link is on the south end or north end. Bang stated the chain link is on the north half. Chief Building Inspector Simon stated the chain link might be his and the wood is the neighbor to the west. Member Friedrich stated what he was hearing from everybody is that they are o.k. on the east/west fence staying parallel with the house six foot all the way correct. Bang stated the applicant can’t come any further south than the end of the house. Friedrich stated he would make that a motion. Member Winter seconded the motion. Planning Director Harkins stated for the record the motion is for approval of a street side variance parallel with the house. Chairman Bang stated that was correct and if the applicant wants to extend anything outside of that, it would have to be by code. Alternate Brown asked if something should be put in the minutes about not past the edge of the house. Friedrich stated you can’t go any further than the south edge of the house. Chief Building Inspector Simon stated that was fine. He thinks that works for the applicant. Harkins stated we just wanted to make sure we had it on the record correctly. Roll Call Vote showed all members present voting aye – 5 ayes. Motion Carried. Meeting adjourned at 4:56 p.m. Page 4 of 4