HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-02-01 Minutess
oss
ire
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, February
1, 1993, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 heat
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
PROTOCOL
Gerald Boyd, Don Mills,
Meadows and Thad Hanna
Marion Orton,
Larry Perkins, Lonnie
Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, Daryl Revelle, Mark
Haguewood, Greg House, Cleve Carlisle, Marge Branch, and Brian
Prudhomme
Ms. Don Mills called the meeting to order. She explained the format of
meeting.
It was noted the first applicant was not present. It was decided to hear the
first case when the applicant was present.
the
APPEAL NO. BA93-5 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF ARRA AND BULK REQUIRffiffiiTS
FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH - 20 E DICKSON ST.
The first item to be heard was a request for a setback variance on property
located at 20 East Dickson Street requested by the First Baptist Church. The
property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and R -O, Residential -Office.
Mr. Conklin explained the request had been made in order to allow a five foot
variance from the required 15 foot setback for screened parking along Highland
Avenue. He noted the applicant had stated the variance was requested to maximize
the limited parking that was available on the south side of the lot. He stated
other reasons why the applicant believed the variance should be granted included.
its design with the porte-cochere, it provides handicapped access into the
building, it would function as the main entrance into the building; and it would
allow automobiles to enter the lot off of Dickson Street and exit onto Highland
Avenue.
Mr. Conklin stated staff agreed with the applicant that parking was limited on
the south side of the building. He recommended the Board of Adjustment approve
the request for a variance.
Mr. Gary Jackson, architect for the church, explained the only area they were
requesting the variance on was the stretch of property at the southwest corner.
He pointed out the remainder of the main parking lot, at the north end of the
building, would meet the requirements. He explained new administration offices
were being provided immediately north of the subject parking lot and the number
of parking spaces would been needed through the week. He further stated the
subject lot would be for visitors to the church and the handicapped.
Ms. Mills asked if Mr. Jackson thought traffic would stack up on Dickson with
people using the drop off area.
Mr. Jackson explained he did not think that would be a problem because it would
just be used by a few people. He stated the majority of the church members used
the northern lot.
Ms. Mills stated she was mainly referring to people turning off of College onto
Dickson. She pointed out there were three or four churches in the area and
parking was a problem.
l0 3
•
•
Board of Adjustments
February 1, 1993
Page 2
Mr. Jackson stated it was a double -wide lane and a double -wide drop off. He
pointed out that to reverse the flow of traffic to the drop off area would mean
the passenger would be unloaded on the wrong side of the vehicle. He advised
that had been discussed at length.
In response to a question from Ms. Mills, Mr. Jackson stated the main entrance
into the church would be the north entrance and he believed most members would
use that entrance.
Mr. Boyd pointed out that, should a problem arise with vehicle stacking, they
could just change the direction of the arrows.
Mr. Jackson agreed.
Mr. Boyd stated the part the Board was concerned with was rather minor and he
could not see any reason to deny the request.
MOTION
Mr. Boyd moved to grant the variance.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
APPEAL NO. BA93-4 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS
DARYL RRVELLE - 935 OAKLAND AVE.
The next item was a request submitted by Daryl Revelle for a variance of the bulk
and area requirements (setbacks) for property located at 935 Oakland Avenue. The
property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential.
Mr. Conklin explained the request was for a 9 foot variance. He advised the lot
was 50 feet wide, 140 feet deep and was already developed with a single-family
home on a corner lot. He further stated a carport was proposed to be accessed
from a 20 -foot alleyway located west of the site. He pointed out there currently
was no driveway onto the property.
He advised the proposed additions would not be encroaching into the required
setback any further than the existing house. He stated that historically, corner
lots were platted using the same lot width and depth as interior lots. He
further stated that today developers platted subdivisions with corner lots having
a greater width than the interior lots to account for larger front yard setbacks
and mitigate the impacts of automobile traffic on two sides of the lot.
Mr. Conklin expressed his belief that granting the variance would allow the
applicant to utilize the site in a manner that was consistent with other
development in the neighborhood. He stated the preservation of existing single-
family homes in the neighborhood was desirable to development of residences
allowed under the current R-3 zoning. He reminded the Board they had tabled a
variance request on the subject property in December, 1992, because the applicant
had not presented a specific project. He recommended granting the variance.
Mr. Revelle explained he was proposing an addition to an existing structure. He
stated they were adding a 25 x 15 foot addition and a carport to upgrade the
existing house. He pointed out the addition would be in line with the existing
structure.
Ms. Orton asked why they would bring the driveway from the alley rather than the
street.
Joy
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
February 1, 1993
Page 3
Mr. Revelle explained there was a drainage ditch adjoining the street which would
be difficult to cross; that the alley seemed to be the best area to enter the
property. He stated the alley was at grade and that there was already a drive
into the property from the alley.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Me. Little stated there was a city
requirement that driveways be paved 12 1/2 feet in from the street. She stated
the Planning Commission could waive that requirement. She advised the carport
was situated at the best location for the lot.
Mr. Boyd pointed out if the addition ran to the east and west rather than north
and south it would come close to staying within the required setbacks.
Ms. Little noted the home was already nonconforming.
In response to a question from Ms. Orton, Mr. Revelle stated the storage shed
currently existing would be eliminated.
Mr. Boyd
lot only
he would
stated he did not like the request but, the fact that it was a corner
50 feet wide would leave only a 17 feet in which to build. He stated
reluctantly go along with it.
Ms. Mills stated she had driven the area and some structures sat even closer than
the subject property. She noted there was a conglomeration of structures and
setbacks.
MOTION
Ms. Orton moved to grant the variance.
Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
APPEAL NO. BA93-6 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULB REQUIREMENTS
GREG HOUSE - 1011 E. MISSOURI WAY
The next item was a request for a variance of area and bulk requirements'
presented by Greg House for property located on the west side of Assembly, east
side of Missouri Way and south of Dogwood (proposed address is 1011 E. Missouri
Way). The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential.
Mr. Conklin advised the property was currently undeveloped. He stated the
applicant had requested a five-foot variance from the Assembly Road side for the
proposed house. He explained the applicant owned lots 3, 4, 5, and 6 which were
located between Missouri Way and Assembly Road. He further explained the
applicant was proposing a property line adjustment between lots 5 and 6 (20 feet
into lot 5) and lots 4 and 5 (10 feet into lot 4). He stated the property line
adjustment was being applied for in order to construct the house further away
from the existing house on lot 6 and to be able to minimize the variance that
would have to be granted in order to construct the subject house.
Mr. Conklin explained the configuration of the proposed lot was long and narrow
and had double frontage (on Assembly Road and on Missouri Way). He pointed out
that, because of the frontage on two streets, there was a 25 -foot setback from
each street line, creating a long, narrow buildable area. He advised that, if
all setbacks were met, the applicant would be able to construct approximately a
15 foot wide (at the center) by 144 foot long house.
Io5
Board of Adjustments
February 1, 1993
Page 4
He further noted that, by adjusting the property line between lots 4 and 5 to the
south, would allow the applicant to move the proposed house south onto lot 4 and
meet the required setbacks from Missouri Way.
Mr. Conklin informed the Board there was existing vegetation on the site and
surrounding land was heavily wooded. He stated there were two large trees
existing on the site with one tree having a 30 -inch diameter and the other having
a 24 -inch diameter. He noted staff agreed with the applicant that loss of trees
should be minimized on the subject site by designing the house around existing
trees. He further advised he believed the lot configuration and presence of
natural vegetation resulted in creating an extraordinary circumstance for the
site. He also noted that, due to the hilly terrain and development of the area
over many years, there were varying setbacks throughout the area. He advised -
that granting a variance of five feet would not be detrimental to the
neighborhood.
Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the variance request.
Mr. House explained that, when they had purchased the lots, it had appeared from
the plat there would not be a problem building on lot 6. He stated when the lot
was scaled on the plat page it appeared there was almost 30 feet of building
area. He stated he had hired a surveyor to double-check the boundary lines and
found there was only 15 feet of building area. He further explained they had
decided to obtain a property line adjustment and then found the house would end.
up on top of a beautiful tree. He presented photographs of the two trees they
were trying to save. He advised the other reason they were requesting the
variance was to have a better balance of homes on lots 4, 5 and 6. He also
explained there would be no visual impact on the neighborhood if the setback was
granted because of a steep bank at the back of the property.
Mr. Boyd advised he was glad they were discussing the request before the house
had been built. He expressed his belief this type of variance was what the Board
of Adjustment was about. He stated the subject lot was extraordinarily difficult
to build on.
Mr. Conklin requested that, should the Board of Adjustment approve the variance,
it be done subject to the lot line adjustment being approved by the city.
MOTION
Mr. Hanna moved to approve the variance as requested, subject to the lot line
adjustment being approved by the City.
Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
APPEAL NO. BA93-7 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS
CLEVE CARLISLE & EARL GILBERT - 563-565 W. 6TH ST.
The next item was a request for a variance of area and bulk requirements for
property located at 563 - 565 West Sixth Street presented by Rick Osborne on
behalf of Cleve Carlisle and Earl Gilbert, owners of C & G Welding. The property
is zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial, Light Industrial.
Mr. Conklin explained the lot was currently developed with C & G Welding Company
which had been doing business at the location for 11 years. He advised the
applicants had requested the 15 foot variance because the State Highway
Department was widening West 6th Street which would reduce the applicant's
required front setback, thus making the structure nonconforming.
fob
Board of Adjustments
February 1, 1993
Page 5
Mr. Conklin advised that, under the I-1 zoning, the requirement for a front
setback was 25 feet. He pointed out this case was similar to another case along
6th Street (D & C Electric) which the Board of Adjustment had acted upon when
nonconforming setbacks were to be created by the State Highway Department.
He explained the applicant was concerned that, should the building be destroyed
more than 50% of its replacement value, it could not be replaced at its existing
site. He advised that granting a variance at this time would insure the property
owners would be able to reconstruct the building in the same location if it were
to be damaged.
Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the variance request since the nonconformity
had been created entirely by the State Highway Department's current widening of
6th Street.
Mr. Rick Osborne, representing C & G Welding, explained the applicants did want
to stay in the same location. He advised there had been a machine shop at that
location for over 30 years, basically the same business. He stated Mr. Carlisle
and Mr. Gilbert did not want to be put out of business, that they were working
men and still owed money on the business.
Ms. Orton asked what they planned to use for parking.
Mr. Osborne pointed out on a map that the wrecker service adjoining the machine
shop would have to be removed in order to put a drive to the back for parking.
Mr. Meadows asked where the pavement would be located in relation to the front
of the building.
Mr. Conklin stated it would be approximately 20 to 25 feet.
Mr. Boyd expressed his belief the buildings had served their useful life and, if
the State would pay to take them down, there was room in the back to rebuild.
Mr. Hanna explained that whether they granted the variance or not had very little
to do with what the State offered. He stated they were talking about putting 2
people out of business who earned their livelihood by working from the building.
He pointed out Mr. Boyd's definition of a useful life and the applicants' was
obviously two different things. He explained that, if they did not grant the
variance, the applicants would be out of business. He further explained it would
take two to four years to get their money from the State which would put them in
a bad position. He stated the State was not valuing the property along 6th
Street very high which was a burden on the working man.
Mr. Boyd explained that, when they had a chance to bring a property into
conformance, to let the older buildings stay was contrary to good sense. He.
further stated he did not believe it would put the company out of business. He
advised they might not be able to build a structure as nice as they liked, but
the State would give them some money for the building.
Mr. Hanna stated they could not make their decision on what they thought the
State would pay.
Mr. Osborne stated the Highway Department offered less than a third of the
applicants' debt. He stated that with the equity, they were offered a fourth,
or even fifth, of the value of the land and building.
Ms. Orton suggested they could grant a variance but, should the building be
partially destroyed, it could not be replaced at the same location; that the
variance be granted for the life of the building.
101
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
February 1, 1993
Page 6
Mt. Hanna related personal experiences with the State's system of appraising
property and noted the appraisals were quite low. He stated that, if the
building burned down, he was sure they would want to rebuild the building further
back from the street.
Mr. Osborne stated they just needed a variance in order to get the front of the
building torn off and replaced.
Mr. Carlisle stated they would not have to take off the front of the building,
just remove the parking lot.
Mr. Meadows pointed out if the variance was not granted, they would have to
remove 15 feet to make the building conforming.
Mr. Boyd stated there could not be any entrances or parking on 6th Street. He
pointed out if a truck tried to pull into the doorway, the trailer would be out
in the street.
Ms. Mills stated there would be a drive-through.
Mr. Boyd stated that, in that case, there would be no problem in eliminating the
parking and entrances on the street side. He pointed out that was what they
required of D & C Electric.
Mr. Osborne stated it was their intent that the trucks would come into the
building from the back.
Mr. Carlisle stated there would be a 40 foot driveway on the west side and 20
foot driveway on the east side.
Mr. Boyd asked if they were going to block up the garage door.
Mr. Osborne stated they would need the door for ventilation but it would not be
used for vehicles.
Mr. Boyd asked where the door for the business would be.
Mr. Carlisle stated he had not thought about it.
Mr. Osborne stated they could prohibit parking in the front.
Ms. Orton asked if the overhead door on the north end would remain.
Mr. Osborne stated it would not be an entrance or exit but would be used for
ventilation to the shop.
MOTION
Mr. Perkins moved to grant the variance with the stipulation there would be no
parking nor vehicular access at the front of the building; that if the building
fell under the guidelines of Section 160.138, it would have to be replaced
conforming to all setback requirements; and the building to the west of the
subject property (Boyd's Wrecker Service) was not included in this variance.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion carried 5-1-0 with Mr. Perkins, Mr. Meadows, Me. Orton, Ms. Mills and
Mr. Hanna voting "yes" and Mr. Boyd voting "no".
fob
Board of Adjustments
February 1, 1993
Page 7
APPEAL NO. BA93-8 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK RSQUIRBMENTS
MARGE BRANCH - 2423 REVERE PLACE
The last appeal request was a request for a variance of area and bulk
requirements presented by Brian Prudhomme and Marge Branch for property located
at 2423 Revere Place. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential.
Mr. Conklin explained the site was currently being developed with a single family
home within the Park Place, Phase IV, Subdivision. He advised that, when
setbacks were originally measured, the contractor measured them from the curb
instead of the property line. He noted the City had not become aware of the
setback violation until contacted by the owner/developer. He further advised
that all building permits stated in bold lettering that "property lines can only
be accurately determined by a survey. The street is not the front of the
property line."
Mr. Conklin stated two separate "checks" had been made to assure the setbacks
would be met: one at the time the building permit was issued when the
owner/developer signed the setback guarantee, and again at the time of footing
inspection, the contractor indicated a property line which was measured by the
building inspector and signed by the contractor.
He noted the setback error was realized by Marge Branch, the property owner, who
then contacted the City to find out how to rectify the situation. He further
advised that the Park Place covenants required building setbacks of 40 feet from
the property lines.
Mr. Perkins asked if a city inspector had measured the setbacks at the time the
footings were inspected.
Ms. Little stated the builder informs
located. She explained the inspector
feet but the measurement was the curb
the inspector where the property line is
did the measurement and noted it was 29
line, not the property line.
Mr. Brian Prudhomme presented pictures of the structure and a copy of the floor
plan. He stated he had made the assumption the property line was located from
the curb and all of his measurements were from the curb. He admitted he was
fully responsible for the error. He advised he was 6.7 feet into the setback
line.
He further noted he had talked to Traci in the Planning Department regarding the
40 foot setback required by covenants but had been informed the City only
enforced a 25 -foot setback. He advised the Board he had not had any problems in
the past and assured them this would never happen again.
Ms. Little advised the Board she had initiated two new forms in an attempt to
eradicate this type of problem -- the Certificate of Owner and a footing
inspection form.
Ms. Branch pointed out only the garage was in the setback, none of the house.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Prudhomme had noticed none of the other houses along the
street were in line with the subject structure.
Mr. Prudhomme explained there was a drainage problem at the back of the lot and
he had decided to construct the home at the front setback line to avoid any
flooding problems.
Mr. Boyd asked about the 40 -foot setback. He stated that, while the City did not
enforce the 40 -foot setback, the Property Owners Association would do so.
•
101
Board of Adjustments
February 1, 1993
Page 8
Mr. Prudhomme stated he had submitted the plan to the Property Owners Association
showing the house to be 30 feet back from the curb and the plan was approved.
Ms. Little pointed out the City had not discovered this error, that the owner had
discovered it and contacted the City.
Mr. Meadows stated he had noticed the house immediately because it was so close
to the road.
Mr. Boyd stated the request did not meet any of the criteria they used to grant
a variance. He further stated theoretically they could require the builder to
take the garage off the front and put it at the back.
Mr. Hanna asked if the subject lot was the last lot on the street.
Ms. Branch explained it was the last building lot on the street. She stated the
Homeowner's Association owned the lot beside the pool but she had noticed a sign
had gone up on that lot. She advised one house could be built on that lot.
Mr. Hanna stated the Homeowner's Association had put the 40 -foot setback in the
covenants to protect the integrity of the neighborhood and there was no one
present at the meeting to complain about this house being in the setback. He
further stated that it was apparent the builder was not trying to fool anyone,
that they could have gotten the building finaled and no one would have known.
Mr. Boyd pointed out that, when they applied for title insurance, the setback
problem would have come out.
In response to a question on notification, it was determined the Homeowners
Association had been notified of the variance request and hearing.
Me. Mills asked Steve Johnson, City Inspector, if he had any comments regarding
this case.
Mr. Johnson stated he did not believe Mr. Prudhomme intentionally constructed the
house in the setbacks. He further noted the contractor pointed out the property
lines from which he measured the setbacks.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Prudhomme explained the property had
been surveyed and stakes had been placed on the corners approximately 1 foot from
the curb. He noted the property had now been re -surveyed.
MOTION
Mr. Hanna moved to approve the variance as requested.
Mr. Meadows seconded the motion.
The motion carried 4-2-0 with Mr. Hanna, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Mills
voting "yes" and Mr. Boyd and Ms. Orton voting "no".
Ms. Little advised the Board the applicants for the Sign Appeal variance,
Justin's Clubhouse, had requested this item be tabled. She explained the tenants
were working together to have one sign for all tenants.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Me. Orton stated on the second page, the third paragraph from the bottom, should
read "She pointed out that this was a smaller area than a large shopping center
1(0
Board of Adjustments
February 1, 1993
Page 9
yet they were considered a shopping center and only had one on-site, freestanding
sign."
Me. Mills stated the minutes of the January 18, 1993 meeting would stand approved
as corrected.
The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m.