Board of Zoning Appeals - Special Meeting

I wish to speak on the behalf, you must be signed in, keep all comments respectful, and just to remember to state your name. With that said, I'll go ahead and call the meeting for June 22nd to order. If you're able to rise, please do so for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Oh, sorry.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands,

Thank you all. Just want to double check with the board that no one's been talked to before any petitions being discussed tonight. Hearing none, we'll move forward. Can I get a roll call, please?

Mike Nichols. Scott Highlander. Sam Payne. Isaac Chavez. Charles Bates.

We will take a look at the minutes from May 13th. Looks like we don't have everyone here, so we will table these minutes. Is that correct, fellas? All right. Taking a look at the minutes from June 10th. Oh, we got three of us. Yeah, we got all of us here. I will open a motion to accept the minutes for June 10th meeting. Yeah, you were here.

Yeah, because we had the same conversation, and you were correct. You weren't here at the meeting before that, but you were here at the last one.

Okay, the last meeting, yeah.

Yeah. So we can approve June 10th. I'll make a motion we approve the June 10th meetings. Second. All right, person's second roll call, please.

Mike Nichols.

Aye.

Sam Payne. Aye. Isaac Chavez. Aye.

All right, with the petition being discussed tonight, there's no conflict. Just double-checking. Hearing none. We are ready to hear the staff report. The staff report is for a public hearing docket two zero two six two zero one four petitioners have yet Sol Sol audio Requesting a developmental standard variance for the following the variance is to allow the placement of the restoration of a house damage due to a fire and to allow an addition to the house that will be over 50% impervious ratio and a fence on a B residential district. Ms. Listissel, can we please have the staff report?

I'm sorry.

I think there's a fence.

No, I did not get the fence from the last.

Okay, I'm sorry. So just 50% impervious ratio, nothing after that.

And then to reestablish the legal nonconforming structure. You read the first one correctly. This is the second one that didn't have fence. Just an addition.

Okay. All right, can we please have the report, please?

You can. So, as noted, there's two developmental standards of variances. The first is from UDO 903.02 to allow renovation of a legal non-conforming dwelling that sustained more than 50% of its pre-damaged value in damage from a fire. It's legal non-conforming with regards to setback, which is why then it falls under variances, and two variants from Unified Development Ordinance 304 to allow the site to have an impervious surface ratio of 51% instead of the permitted 50% in the B residential district. This property is zoned B residential, and it's a conforming use in the district, being a single-family dwelling. All adjacent properties to the petition site are also zoned the same at B residential. So this site is the east half of lot number eight in block three of the Cohen and Crothers addition on the north side of West Wabash Street between South Fourth Street and South Third Street. There is a single family dwelling on the lot that's approximately 1,200 square foot. It's legal nonconforming with regards to its front and side setbacks. That would be the south and the east. from what would be currently required in the Unified Development Ordinance. The dwelling recently sustained near total interior damage from a fire, which caused them to exceed the costs of 50% of the value to repair, but the exterior remains intact and reusable. According to 903.02, when a structure is damaged by fire, flood, explosion, or other casualty to more than 50% of its pre-damaged value, it may not be restored except in conformity with the regulations of the zoning district where it's located. But then it goes on to state that if it's sustained greater than that 50% of its pre-damaged value and damage, then it may come to the Board of Zoning Appeals to request permission to be reconstructed as it sat before so that those things can be considered on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, as noted, the petitioner is asking for a second variance to allow a 10-by-14 addition to be placed on the damaged dwelling, of course. as they repair the dwelling itself, which would place the property at 51% of the impervious surface ratio coverage instead of the permitted 50%. According to the site plan provided by the petitioner, the room addition will not be increasing the legal nonconformity of the setbacks to either the south or the east. for where the house sat before the fire and still does sit. It's just the inside that's gutted. On the second page, you can see a zoning map that just kind of indicates what's in this area. And then we actually did a 3D image in this case to give you a better view of where this sits. But the east side of the house is almost exactly on the property line with the alley. And then the south side sits just a few feet in, but it does not meet what the current setbacks would be. You can see there... is an accessory structure. They're kind of to the northwest on the same property. This is a half lot, so where you see that lawn ending, that's all the property that exists with this house. It doesn't have a full lot. On the third page, you've got the site plan that shows you where that addition is going to sit and that it will not be increasing the nonconformity to the south from what's been there historically. Like all staff reports, I'm not going to read it, but I've gone ahead and listed the two ordinances that are relevant out of the UDO so that you can see those if you wish to refer to them. In terms of an analysis, the Unified Development Ordinance in 203.12 specifies three findings that must exist in order to grant a variance. The first is that the approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. So in this staff report, we kind of did these together. Although I would note you could approve one and deny the other when you get down to that point. But in terms of the variance request to reestablish the legal nonconforming use, this dwelling was built here in 1900 according to tax records. To staff's knowledge, it has not created anything injurious since it has been on the petition site all these years, nor have any complaints been received. In regards to the variance request from UDO 304, the impervious surface, the proposed room addition will be in a vacant corner of the existing footprint, kind of squaring off the house. It also does not appear to create anything injurious to the community. Since it will be on the west side and will not extend closer to any property line than the existing front footprint, the effect will not be greater than what has been here since 1900. to the use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. So again, no complaints have been received about the existing use of a single-family dwelling in this location, and approving either variance request does not appear to adversely affect the property values of the area around the petition site. The existing structure is crowding a road and an alley, not a neighboring house. The dwelling cannot be rebuilt without getting some type of variance and renovating it back if it's going to go in that same footprint that it has been for several years. Allowing it to reestablish should not affect property values nearby any differently than what's been there historically. Since this is an alley intersection, it's unlikely that cars would come from two directions at high speeds. And there does appear to be about 12 foot from curb to front of house, plus there's on-street parking between the curb and the street. So there is adequate room for somebody exiting the alley at a normal speed to see what's coming around at them from both directions in front of the home. The addition simply squares off the front portion of the dwelling. So it would appear the proposed renovations and the addition would be an improvement for the immediate vicinity. Finally, the strict applications of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. So to deny the variance requested under 903.02 would create a practical difficulty for the dwelling to be rebuilt at all. This lot is only a half lot. So unless the house was downsized substantially, and there is a minimum size for a house required in Frankfurt, so you can't just go to 400 square foot and call it good. Even if it were to move back, it would then end up needing variances from the accessory structure, the rear property line. There's nowhere you can put a house this size, which is a modest size at 1,200 foot, anywhere on this property without needing a variance from something. The exterior of the house, if it had been damaged to the point where it had to be torn down from the fire, then staff would examine looking to see if it would be better to move it back and grant variances from the rear and the accessory structure with a little more space from the road. But given the exterior is reusable in place, it would seem to create more practical difficulty to try to remove it, then file for other variances to move it back and then rebuild if they were granted. Insurance might also be unwilling to tear it down completely, given the exterior and the foundation remain structurally solid. Having a vacant lot here would not seem to be a better use in an existing neighborhood. And with only roughly 60 foot by 60 foot of space, there doesn't appear to be any reasonable way to use this lot for a house and an outbuilding without some kind of variances of some kind from something. So consequently, staff would recommend to approve the developmental variance from the I see a typo and my staff would recommend to approve both developmental variances, one from UDO 304 and the other for UDO 903.02 to allow the legal nonconforming use to be reestablished and to grant the impervious surface ratio of 51% with two conditions. First, that nothing may extend further towards Wabash Street or the alley than the existing house sits. and the addition must be built to the size and location indicated in the site plan. So just making it clear that we're just giving a variance to continue the existing structure, not to get even closer. And two, if for some reason during construction, the house unexpectedly needs to have the south and or the east walls torn down once repairs commence, but before they are completed, then the applicant should return to the BZA to discuss if it would be better to grant variances to the north and maybe the west and go ahead and shift the house a little closer to the 15 foot and five foot setbacks. But as noted, that condition is just there as a, I've seen situations where people think something's reusable and then they get into it with insurance and they discover there's major issues. So my feeling as staff would be if this house were to suddenly come all the way down, then it might be better. It's right on the property line on the alley. It might be better to move it another five foot in and grant a variance from the garage. But as long as the exterior walls are not moving, I think there's a solid practical difficulty here in allowing it to continue.

Thank you, Liz. At this time, we'll hear from the petitioner. Okay. At this time, we'll open discussion for the public. El Solo preguntó si ustedes tienen algún comentario o algo más que informar al comité.

And then for the record, can you tell us in English what you...

Yes, I just translated to the petitioners and asked if they had any comments or any questions regarding their petition.

And they said no, I understood correctly. Okay, perfect. Just making sure if anyone's watching online, they were able to follow that. Thank you. Gracias.

Okay, I'll close public discussion. At this time, I will open discussion for the board.

I have some questions for Rod. The fire damage to the inside of that property and the water damage from cleaning out the fire, has that all been considered in this? Because, you know, as long as I do that, that material cannot be used. Anything that's scorched or burnt, as far as your structural goes,

The inside structure of the house is where the damage was. All the exterior walls and everything that comes off of the exterior walls is sound. There's not an issue. All of the damage was in the exterior part of the house.

You mean the interior?

Yes, sorry, the interior part of the house. So that's what's going to be removed. exterior, the structure, the floor, all of that is fine. It looks like to me, Sam, is what happens. The ceiling come in and protected most of the floor from the water damage because it'd actually be surprised on what the damage. It's like everything come in and protected it from the water and the exterior of the house is, it really is in good shape.

The reason I asked that question is when I went down by there today and I looked at the west side of the house, it looked like that west wall had been burnt pretty badly.

It's actually on the inside. It's not yet melted. The siding on the outside of the house and there was some OSB board that actually protected the studs and everything on the inside. That just comes from what he'd escaped through the overhang. is what caused that damage on the west side. And that just vinyl siding, it got hot. So it melted.

You eased my mind.

Like I said, I went through the house thoroughly with the gentleman sitting right here. The contractor and the homeowner himself was there. And I was actually surprised that the exterior of the house did not. It just really didn't resist. walls so the restructure and all that framing is i i think personally i think it can be real actually rebuilt fairly i'm not going to say it's going to be easy but somebody that knows what they're doing i've seen a lot worse get repaired sam

Okay. That's what I wanted to hear.

So, sorry, I was just going to sum up really quick because everybody listening online has no idea what Rob said. So, Rob Bogue, building inspector. Administrator? I always get his title wrong. But he responded that he's personally been through this house and that the damage is all on the inside. And because of the way the ceiling collapsed and everything, there was more protection than you might expect from structural damage from the fire to the floor, the ceiling structure and the walls. The melted siding that was discussed came from heat coming out of an overhang, but did not make it through the OSB into the framing. Did I sum that up?

Yeah, correct.

Okay, perfect.

Rob, maybe you know, where did the estimate of the greater than 50% come from?

Yeah, I can answer that. So typically we look at the assessed value of the house with the county recorder.

Your department?

Yes, whichever person gets to it. I looked at it in this case and pulled it. But we would use that, and then 50% of that is what they can spend no more than. Now, if somebody wants to provide a recent appraisal, like within the last few months, we could use half of that as well, but an appraisal has a cost to it. In this case, they didn't have an appraisal in hand and didn't want to go spend, you know, six to 800 to get it versus coming here. So if we don't have an appraisal, then we use the assessed value. So in this case, I'm trying to remember, I think that 50% was around 35,000. You get to it really quickly on most structures, unless they're like brand new and have been assessed, you know, if it's a brand new house assessed it, $300,000, you have a little more room, but a lot of this older housing stock, its assessed value is significantly less than what it would necessarily sell for. So it might be sitting around $100,000. You divide that. It doesn't take much work to get to that value.

Tell me, under the new assessment that they've just done on the property, the assessed value would only be $70,000 for that house?

I have it somewhere. I pulled it and highlighted it. Do you have it? Because I was going to say, I went and pulled it. Okay, so the assessed value, and I actually physically went to their office to make sure I had the right number. The assessed value is $77,900. So 50% is $38,950. Based upon what they need to do, we believe they will spend more, and so do they, more than $38,950. Thus, the BZA needs to look at whether or not this nonconformity needs to be eliminated or isn't causing an issue of concern in this situation and can be allowed to continue. So you have the power to do both. The ordinance doesn't say there's a point at which you can't grant them the approval to reestablish it. It just says that if it's that more than 50%, then we want to consider it because the point at which it's damaged, if it's creating a problem, is the point at which to say it needs to change.

Thank you.

No problem. Thank you. Oh, yeah, and Grace handed me the third thing. The estimate for repairs is $68,500, so it's more than that. Sorry, I was like, I don't know what the third paper is. All right, thank you.

Any other comments or questions? Hearing none, we'll close discussion for the board. At this time, we'll call for a motion.

Can we approve both of them?

If you're approving both, yes, I think you can do them both in one motion.

I'll make that motion.

Do you want that with the conditions on the staff report or without?

I'll second.

We have first and a second. Roll call, please, Grace.

Mike Nichols.

Aye.

Sam Payne.

Aye.

Isaac Chavez. Aye. All right.

The application passes. Do we have any other old business?

We do not have anything else. I just, as always, definitely appreciate you guys being willing to come in and help. We try not to do a bunch of special meetings, but with a fire, the situation was definitely a little extenuating, so we didn't want to delay them more than necessary.

Thank you.

Appreciate your willingness to help us with that.

Anything else, guys? All right. Take a motion to adjourn. All right. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Thank you guys for coming.

You guys can work with Rob and Grace to get your permits from here.