Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-12-02 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, December 2, 1996 at 3:45 p.m., Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain St., Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Thad Hanna, Michael Andrew, Paul Wilhelm, 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 BA96-29.00: VARIANCE FROM SIDE BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENT JEFFERY WHITHAM- 3075 SUMMERSHADE DRIVE The first item on the agenda was submitted by Crissa Barnes on behalf of Jeffery and Carie Whitham for property located at 3075 Summershade Drive. The property is zoned R -I, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.48 acres. The request is for a variance from the required side building setback of 8' to 6' (2' variance). The staff recommended approval of the variance as requested. This recommendation was based on the achievement of the four criteria required by ordinance for approval of variances. It was the staffs belief that the variance would not adversely affect adjacent properties or make the structure out of character with the surrounding properties. Mr. Lane stated the variance was for an existing structure in Brookbury Subdivision, which obstructed the west side setback by 2'. At the time the structure was built (1995), the builder (Robert Schmidt) realized the home was too close to the west property line and promptly applied for a property line adjustment which received administrative approval on 12/1/95. Mr. Boyd asked if the applicants had been involved in another request for a variance in this subdivision. Mr. Lane stated they had not. He added another property line adjustment to the west was not possible. Mr. Nickle asked if lot 19 had any objections or questions concerning this variance. Mr. Lane stated no one had called regarding this item. Ms. Barnes stated the corner of the eave of the house was in the setback by two feet. Mr. Perkins asked if the footprint of the house was in the setback. Ms. Barnes replied it was just the overhang in the setback. Ms. Whitham, original owner, explained they had tried to correct the problem with a property line adjustment, but /y/ Board of Adjustments December 2, 1996 Page 2 the survey had been done incorrectly. Mr. Perkins explained the reason for the setback was to allow emergency vehicles between homes. Mr. Whitham defended by saying that the cave of the house, where it infringed on the setback, was 14' tall. Mr. Hanna asked at what stage of construction they realized the house was in the setback. Ms. Whitham stated they were conducting the final inspection before anyone realized it was in the setback. Mr. Boyd asked how they had found out about this problem. Mr. Whitham replied he thought they had corrected the problem with the property line adjustment, but when the second survey was done for the sale of the home, they discovered the error. Ms. Orton moved to approve the variance. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The roll was called. The item was approved unanimously by a vote of 7-0-0. • Board of Adjustments December 2, 1996 Page 3 BA96-30: VARIANCE REQUEST FROM FRONT BUILDING SETBACK RICHARD WOMMACK- ARCHIBALD YELL BLVD The next item on the agenda was submitted by Richard Wommack for property located at Archibald Yell Bvld. and is zoned R -O, Residential Office. The request is for the following: I. A variance from the required front building setback (Archibald Yell) of 25' (with screening) to 5' (1" to 22' variance due to angle). 2. A variance from the required front building setback (East Ave.) Of 25' (with screening) to 15' (10' variance). The staff recommended denial of the variance as requested believing it was possible to reconfigure the proposed building (i.e. reduced size, or two-story) to minimize setback obstruction. Staff would be more supportive of variances from the north and west property lines. If the applicant insists on the building layout, he could pursue a property line adjustment and/or street vacation of East Avenue which would accommodate the building without obstructing setback. Mr. Lane explained the proposed building would obstruct the west front setback (East Ave right-of-way) by 10' and the south front setback from 1" to 22' (Archibald Yell) due to the angle of the street. Parking for the office would be on the southwestern corner of the lot with the building situated on the northeastern corner. Access to the property is off of Block Street. • Mr. Perkins asked how the building encroachment would affect visibility along Block Street. • Mr. Lane did not believe it would affect the visibility because of the retaining wall and the parking lot along the lower portion. He added the applicant would argue that it was unlikely that Archibald Yell would ever be widened or East Street built. Mr. Wommack believed the variance should be granted based on those reasons. Mr. Lane commented it was possible for Archibald to be straightened in the future. He asked the applicant to consider reconfiguring the building to make it less intrusive into the setback. He suggested a possible lot line adjustment to the property to the west and the possibility of vacating East Avenue or a two story building to reduce the size of the building foot print. Mr. Wilhelm asked who the adjacent property owners were and whether they were willing to sell part of their property. Ms. Jill Jacoway stated she owned the lot behind the proposed building Mr. Lane stated the staffs biggest concern was having the building so close to Archibald Yell. They would be sitting almost in the entire front setback. Mr. Hanna asked how far the proposed structure was from the property line and the retaining wall. Mr. Wommack stated the building would be three feet from the property line and twenty-three feet from the road. Mr. Perkins asked if the only entry was off Block Street. Mr. Wommack explained the existing north -south lots had been bisected when Archibald Yell was created, leaving these odd shaped lots. He had not been responsible for the shape of the Tots. He believed there was no chance of the wall being removed or the street widened. /YZ • • Board of Adjustments December 2, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Wilhelm asked if Mr. Wommack had purchased the lots before the construction of Archibald Yell. Mr. Wommack stated it was after. Mr. Wilhelm commented Mr. Wommack should have realized the implications when he purchased the lots. Mr. Wommack stated he did not realize it at the time because there was a little house on the lot that now has been removed. He added they could put little, if anything on the property as it existed in triangular form. If they were granted the variance, they would have a usable building area of 70' X 30'. The alternative of moving the building back would cause more damage to the property, because the site sloped uphill. It would increase the dirt removal and the retaining wall they would have to construct behind the building. He did not believe the width bf the variance should be important because it would always be that way because of the retaining wall. Mr. Perkins asked if he had considered a two story structure, since most of the expense was in the foundation and the roof. A two story structure would decrease the building foot print so no variance would be required. Mr. Sean Womack stated the client base was older and many of them would not be able to climb stairs. Ms. Orton asked where the clients would be parking. Mr. Wommack stated they would be parking in the right-of-way of the southwest corner of the lot. Ms. Jacoway asked if they were allowed to build up to her property line. Mr. Lane stated there was a 10' setback unless they were granted a variance. Mr. Nickle stated that vacating East Street would eliminate the need for the variance on the east side of the property. Mr. Wommack stated there were no utilities in the right-of-way of proposed East Street. Ms. Jacoway believed Mr. Wommack's building would improve the neighborhood, but she was not willing to give up anything she owned for free. If she had a right for 10' setback from her property line, then she wanted that 10'. Mr. Hanna commented the way the variance was written it would not affect her property. Mr. Lane suggested they prescribe a variance to the north and to the west. Mr. Perkins commented there was not a representative of the property to the west here. Mr. Wommack stated the building to the west was rented. Mr. Perkins stated they would have to limit their scope today to what the applicant was requesting because none of the other adjacent property owners were present. Mr. Boyd commented he was inclined to grant the request (provided nothing else would be added to the Tots) because of the unusual shape of the lots. The total area of the two lots were adequate to build on and if they were to widen Archibald they would have to condemn the entire lot. • Mr. Hanna stated he would be more inclined to give him the variance for the setback than he was to require them to ask the City to vacate a street. • • Board of Adjustments December 2, 1996 Page 5 Ms. Orton wondered if an architect would consider placing the structure down so close to the retaining wall. Mr. Wommack stated they had a triangular building drafted, but they felt it would create a funny looking building and would be difficult to sell when he retired. Mr. Wilhelm expressed concern about the portion of the building that stuck out into the road. He added unusual lots tended to produce some of the more interesting buildings. He encouraged Mr. Wommack to hire an architect and look at this more carefully. He thought it would benefit him. In addition to being able to fit the building on the lot, he would have a more interesting structure that might bring him more notoriety and presence. He suggested using a sawtooth approach to the design. He would almost get the same square footage, without a variance. Mr. Wommack stated this was a utilitarian building in a utilitarian section of town and it could not support an expensive building. Mr. Wilhelm replied it did not have to be expensive, but it would be to his credit if he could develop something more saleable. Mr. Wommack stated they were wanting to use a standard metal structure to cut expenses. Mr. Wilhelm explained metal buildings did have some flexibility. This one could have two or three components. Ms. Orton agreed with Mr. Wilhelm. She thought something a little more imaginative could fit onto the lot and be more attractive, yet still be utilitarian. Mr. Wilhelm added the setbacks were not only for future roads but, they were to allow for utilities or other elements that needed to run along the road. He added, although some people thought of this area as a bad part of town, it was also a major entrance into the town. Mr. Wommack replied they could doll it up all they wanted to but once they got up to the retaining wall they were not going to have a good view. Mr. Hanna suggested they reduce the variance by a few feet. He asked Mr. Wommack if he would be willing to accept a lesser variance. Mr. Nickle suggested they change the floor plan to an L -shape, which would reduce the need for variances, but not the square footage. Mr. Wommack stated he would not have any objections to changing the floor plan if he was able to find a company that could make the metal frame building. Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Wommack would consider tabling this item to give him time to check into the metal frames. Mr. Wommack stated he had no objection. Mr. Perkins stated they would table the item until the first meeting in January. Mr. Lane stated they would have to advertise and notify adjacent property owners. • OTHER BUSINESS /yy • • • Board of Adjustments December 2, 1996 Page 6 Mr. Andrews submitted a letter stating his reluctance to grant variances for buildings which were built on lots that were too small.