Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-10-07 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND SIGN APPEALS A meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Board of Sign Appeals was held Monday, October 7, 1996 at 3:45 p.m., Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain St., Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Thad Hanna, Michael Andrews, Marion Orton, Larry Perkins, Gerald Boyd, and Bob Nickle. STAFF PRESENT: Rich Lane and Heather Woodruff APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes were approved as distributed. NEW BUSINESS BA96-23.00: VARIANCE FROM SETBACK DUB DUNAWAY- NE CORNER OF YVONNE DR. AND COLETTE AVE. The first item on the agenda was submitted by Dub Dunaway for property at the northeast corner of Yvonne Drive and Colette Ave. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 8,126 sq.ft. The request was for a variance from the required 20' rear building setback. (A 10' variance). Mr. Lane stated Mr. Dunaway had split the property in May of 1996 from an original tract of .39 acres. The proposed structure (approximately 1,600 heated sq.ft.) would be situated on approximately .187 acres. He added the footing had been dug approximately 10' in to the rear setback, but the slab had not been poured. He added the staff recommended denial of the variance request. The recommendation was based on the staff's finding that the four criteria required by ordinance for approval of variances had not been achieved In addition, the staff had determined the proposed structure could be constructed without obstructing any of the required setbacks. Mr. Dunaway stated they had to decide whether to re -dig the footing and place a smaller house on the lot or build a smaller foundation and go up two stories but neither one of those options would go in the neighborhood. Mr. Perkins questioned, if the whole yard to the north could be split into a buildable lot. • Mr. Dunaway did not believe it could be. /o2 /0 • Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals October 7, 1996 Page: 2 Mr. Boyd questioned the purpose of the lot line adjustment. Mr. Dunaway stated it had been done before he bought the property. Mr. Boyd question why he could not build inside the setbacks, noting there was plenty of room to the north. He added Mr Dunaway might have to change the design of the home, but he would not have to change the size of the home. Mr Dunaway stated he knew it would be possible, but he wanted to use what was there. Mr. Boyd stated Mr. Dunaway had created smaller lots out of a large lot, which had been consistent with his neighbors and that he should build within the constraints of the split. Mr. Hanna commented the neighboring home looked very close and questioned the distance between the two. Mr. Perkins replied it was approximately 18'. • Mr. Lane added they had inspected the neighboring house and it was within the setback. Mr. Walter Lee Brown, an area resident, expressed concerns about moving the house west to Collett. Mr. Nickle explained the request was for the rear setback, explaining the term setback did not always mean the front setback. Mr. Gene Gordon, an area resident, questioned if they were wanting to move the house closer to the street. Mr. Hanna stated they had not made that request, only for the variance in the rear Mr. Nickle questioned if there had been any plans for a patio or back deck. Mr. Andrews questioned if the 10' setback variance included the overhang or was it dust the slab. Mr Dunaway stated the request included the overhang and they had not planned a patio or deck in the back. Mr. Brown stated the neighbors were opposed to the variance and they were requesting the City • to enforce the regulations. foq Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals October 7, 1996 Page: 3 Ms. Orton stated she did not feel the item met the criteria for a variance and that there were other options available. MOTION Mr. Boyd moved to deny the request. Ms. Orton seconded the motion. The request was denied unanimously. /I0 • Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals October 7, 1996 Page: 4 • BA96-24: VARIANCE FROM A BUILDING SETBACK JACK DUNN- 311 W. SPRING STREET The next item on the agenda was a request submitted by Jack Dunn for property at 311 W. Spring Street. The area is zoned R -O, residential office. The request was for a variance from the following: 1. The required front building setback of 30' to 11.5' (19.5' -variance). 2. The required west side building setback of 10' to 9' (1' variance). 3. The required area minimum of one acre (43,560 sq.ft.) to 6,050 sq.ft. (37,510 sq.ft. variance). Mr. Lane explained this was a non -conforming lot and contained a 70 -year-old structure, which had been built before the zoning code. The building currently encroched the front required setback of 30' by 10'; it was currently in disrepair and lacked a roof. The applicant proposed to replace the previously existing porch ( on the front) and add a high-pitched roof with a dormer to be used as a second story. The house with the porch addition would encroach the front setback by 19.5', with the overhang obstructing the west side setback by 1'. The total proposed square footage of the structure after the additions would be approximately 1,722 sq.ft. The applicant's intent was to make the additions "architecturally harmonious with the surrounding properties". He added the staff recommended approval of the request, with the exception of the front setback as requested. They would support a variance on the front set back of 17'. It would change the dimensions on the front porch from 6' X 10'. He added the ordinance allowed for porches to be rebuilt with a variance with a maximum dept of 6' and 1' on either side of the door. The staff felt they could compromise and keep the width, but needed to reduce the depth to 4'. He added it would have a disability accessible ramp on the east side and with the 4' depth it would still be useable. Staff recommended approval, subject to the removal of a storage shed to the rear. Mr. Dunn presented a picture showing how the existing neighbors' porches lined up along the street. He added the additional 6' porch would put the house back in line with the other homes to the west and the east. It was an aesthetic addition that would help shelter people trying to get into the office. He did not feel a 4' deep porch would be as attractive and it would not line up with the other homes along the street. Mr. Nichol questioned if the 6' was from the north end of the gable or the north end of the footing. Mr. Lane commented it was from the overhang. Mr. Dunn stated they were going to replace the porch exactly as it was; he was attempting to line • up the porches like they had been. • Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals October 7, 1996 Page: 5 • • Mr. Hanna commented it was a great improvement to the property and thought they should grant the variance to line up the porches. Mr. Nickle questioned the parking. Mr. Dunn stated that since there were three good trees which he was trying to keep, he was going to have two parking spacing in the front and the rest in the rear. Ms. Orton question how his parking lot would tie in with the other parking lots. Mr Dunn stated he would like to have an L-shaped green space with some Bradford Pear trees to help connect the two parking lots. Mr. Andrews question how much of the existing structure was he going to use. Mr. Dunn stated he was using all the foundation and the sidewalls. Mr. Nickle stated he was making a significant improvement in the neighborhood. He felt if they reduced the porch to 4' it would not look proportionally correct. He appreciated the improvements in the neighborhood. MOTION Mr. Boyd moved to approve the item as requested. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The item was approved, unanimously. ill