Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-05-05 MinutesMINUTES 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, May 5, 1997 at 3:45 p.m., Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Perkins, Gerald Boyd, Marion Orton, Robert Nickle, Thad Hanna, Paul Wilhelms, and Michael Andrews. STAFF PRESENT: Tim Conklin and Heather Woodruff APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF Minutes were approved as distributed. BA97-7.00: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR CHLOE HOWELL CHLOE HOWELL- 112 S. UNIVERSITY The variance request was submitted by Chloe Howell for property located at 112 South University, south of Putman Street and east of University Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and contains approximately 0.25 acres. The requests were: A variance from the required rear building setback of 25' to 20' (a 5' variance for the proposed structure), a variance from the required side setback of 8' to 6' (a 2' variance for the existing structure), a variance from the required front setback of 25' to 13' (a 12' variance for the existing structure), a variance from the required rear setback on 25' to 19' (a 6' variance for the existing structure). Mr. Conklin explained the property was currently zoned I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial, however, the Planning Commission had recommended approval of R-2 rezoning. The itemwas in process before the City Council He noted the existing structure contained three units and the applicant wanted to build an additional duplex on the site. There were two variances requested for the existing structure. The proposed structure would also encroach into the setback approximately 5' along the east boundary line (rear setback). In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Conklin stated I-1 did not allow for residential uses as a principal use. He added this was a non -conforming situation. He believed the structure had been in existence longer than the zoning map. Mr. Perkins questioned the distance to the railroad. Mr. Conklin stated there was approximately 52' to the railroad tracks from the property line. Mr. Nickle questioned the requirement for a 25' rear setback. • • Board of Adjustments May 5, 1997 Page 2 Mr. Conklin stated there was a 20' required setback in R-1 zoning and a 25' setback in R-2 zoning district. The applicant's original request had been for R-3 zoning which would have allowed a 20' rear setback, however because of the terrain of the site and the required parking the staff had recommended R-2 zoning. In response to a question from Mr. Perkins, Mr. Conklin stated the proposed structure would be two stories, but because of the hill, the structure would look like a one story. In response to a question from Mr. Wilhelms, Ms. Howell stated the shed would be removed. In response to a question from Mr. Perkins, Mr. Conklin stated the two Tots had been combined to create one. Mr. Wilhelms expressed concerns about the placement of the proposed structure. He cautioned another variance might be required after construction, if the builder was not extremely careful in staking the building. Ms. Howell presented plans for the proposed structure. Mr. Boyd questioned if she was going to have eaves, noting a discrepancy in the plans. Mr. Wilhelms repeated his warning. He noted the plans were not very developed. Ms. Howell stated she had not fine tuned the plans because she was waiting for the variance. Mr. Wilhelms cautioned she would have to live with the variances she was requesting. He cautioned about changing the plans, dimensional errors and/or eaves Mr. Boyd noted there was no room for mistakes. Mr. Wilhelms stated it was better to have all her plans developed, before the variance was granted because, as she was redrawing the plans, she might want to change some of the dimensions. He added her plans could not be considered construction documents. He added construction documents would allow her to work accurately with the contractor. Ms. Orton asked if the Board could grant an additional one foot variance to allow for an overhang. Mr. Boyd asked if Ms. Howell's site plan would satisfy the staff's requirement for a building . permit. a3 av • Board of Adjustments May 5, 1997 Page 3 Mr. Hanna explained that if the structure was constructed in the setbacks, then she would not be able to get title insurance. She would have to come back for another variance. Ms. Howell stated she wanted to do things right. She requested another variance for additional space. Mr. Nickle suggested an additional foot on the front setback. He noted there was an additional foot in the rear noted on the plan. Mr. Perkins asked how tall the proposed structure would be. Ms. Howell stated it would be two stories on the north side because of the terrain. Mr. Andrews suggested an additional two foot variance to the rear rather than one in the front. Mr. Perkins stated there would be a 25' setback in the front including an eave with a 7' variance in the rear. • EXISTING STRUCTURE MOTION Mr. Boyd moved to approve the variances for the existing structure. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0-0. PROPOSED STRUCTURE Mr. Perkins stated they had modified the request for a rear variance to a 7' variance. The front setback would remain at 25' including the overhang. Mr. Andrews moved to approve the request. Mr. Wilhelms seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 6-1-0. Mr. Boyd voting nay. • Board of Adjustments May 5, 1997 Page 4 BA97-8.00: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR REAR BUILDING SETBACK BEN HALL -627 LEVERET STREET The variance request was submitted by Jonathan Womack on behalf of Dr. Ben Hall for property located at 627 Leveret Street and zoned R-3, High Density Residential. The request is for a variance from the required rear building setback of 20' to 8' (a 12' variance) and a variance from the required side setback of 8' to 1' (a 7' variance). The staff recommended approval for a variance of the existing footprint of the detached garage as shown on the site plan (including the 16' separation between structures) provided: 1. Adequate parking to serve the use was approved by the City and located on-site. Staff notes that the present site plan was inadequate to determine whether adequate parking can be provided on site. 2. Work was initiated to bring the structure up to code within one year. Mr. Conklin explained this was an existing garage built in 1970's which had been finished out. It was located at the back of the lot with access from an alley. The request was for an 8' setback (a 12' variance) from the west property line and a setback of 1' from the overhang on the south property line. The site had an existing single family home on it. The applicant was wanting to convert the garage into two dwelling units. The staff had some concern with the parking as shown on the plan. A more detailed parking lot plan would need to be provided before the City could issue any building permits for this structure. Mr. Andrews asked if the parking lot would be paved. Mr. Womack stated the parking lot would be black topped or concreted. Mr. Andrews recommended a stop sign be located in the alley way. Mr. Womack stated they were considering creating one to two units. Mr. Conklin stated the staff had recommended approval, noting the structure had been in existence for 27 years and there were similar structures in the area. Mr. Wilhelms did not believe the use of the structure was open for discussion. Mr. Nickle expressed concern regarding parking for three units. Mr. Conklin stated one parking space was required per bedroom. • • • Board of Adjustments May 5, 1997 Page 5 In response to a question from Mr. Andrews, Mr. Womack stated to make the renovation financially feasible they would need to be able to use the garage as a rental. He added the original garage had been set up for an apartment. Mr. Boyd asked if the dimensions of the existing house had been checked to see if a variance was needed for it. Mr. Womack stated the lot was 85' wide with the house located in the center. Mr. Boyd suggested making the variance apply to the existing garage also. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the item subject to all staff requirements. Ms. Orton seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-2-0. Boyd and Andrews voting nay. ac • • • Board of Adjustments May 5, 1997 Page 6 BA 97-9 000 REQUEST FOR A FRONT VARIANCE FOR SECOND DWELLING UNIT KATHLEEN KINTER- 1723 N. GARLAND AVENUE, The variance request was submitted by Kathleen Kinter for property located at 1723 N. Garland Avenue. The variance request is for a 19'8" setback (a 5' 4" variance) for a proposed detached second dwelling unit. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The staff recommended approval of the requested variance for the structure shown on the site plan. Staff further recommended that the variance be void if work had not commenced within one year Mr. Conklin stated the second dwelling unit had been approved by the Planning Commission. In essence, the City had caused the need for the variance by requiring additional right-of-way and the required 16' separation between the buildings. Mr. Nickle suggested making the setback 6' instead of 5'4". Mr. Wilhelms questioned the requirement for the 16' separation. Mr. Conklin stated the City required separate dwellings to be separated by 16', basically two 8' setbacks. He noted this site was large enough for two separate dwelling units. Mr. Boyd asked why the structure had not been moved toward the west. Ms. Whiteside stated there were some large trees they did not want to remove. Mr. Nickle believed the dedication of right-of-way deserved special consideration. He was willing to make it a 6' variance instead of a 5'4". MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve a 6' variance. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. • Board of Adjustments May 5, 1997 Page 7 BA 97-10.00• REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCES PINE TREE INVESTMENTS -305 W. LAFAYETTE STREET. The variance request was submitted by Morgan Hooker on behalf of the applicant for property located at 305 W. Lafayette Street, at the southwest corner of Rollston and Lafayette Streets. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 0.16 acres The request is for a 15' setback (a 35' variance) from Rollston Avenue and a 11' setback (a 19' variance from Lafayette Street and a 30' setback (a 20' variance) from Campbell Avenue. The staff recommended approval of the following variances: 1. A 15' setback (a 35' variance) from Rollston Avenue for the footprint of the proposed building as shown on the site plan. 2. A 11' setback (a 19' variance) from Lafayette Street using the same footprint as the existing structure's building footprint as the setback for any new structure built on the site. 3. A 30' setback (a 20' variance) from Campbell Avenue for the footprint of the proposed • building as shown on the site plan. • 4. A 5' parking lot setback with screening along Campbell Avenue. 5. A 10' parking lot setback with screening along Lafayette Street. Mr. Conklin stated the site was zoned R -O, Residential Office. There were three 30' setbacks along this property and one 10' side setback with approximately 1200 square foot of buildable area When there is parking between the structure and the street the setback increased to 50' which would leave approximately 500 square feet of buildable area. The site was restricted with the setbacks. The applicant proposed to demolish the existing structure and construct offices at this location. He added parking would be required with a structure. The Planning Commission would be deciding whether or not a shared parking agreement may be approved for the site. The applicant had met with the University Baptist Church and they had agreed to shared the parking. The applicant had proposed a parking lot which was unacceptable to the staff since it did not meet the ordinance requirements. The parking spaces could not be located in the right-of-way or back into the street. He suggested an alternative to the applicant's proposal, which would meet the City's ordinance, but would need a variance for parking lot setbacks with screening. Normally there would be a 15' setback from Campbell and a 15' setback from Lafayette. With screening, the setback could be reduced to 10' and 5'. Mr. Wilhelms asked if there was parking inside the building. 2? • • Board of Adjustments May 5, 1997 Page 8 Mr. Conklin replied the garage door was for storage. Mr. Boyd questioned the number of required parking spaces. Ms. Stacey Issinghoff, Hoffman and Sharp Design, stated if they were to build a full basement and have the first and second floor, the required parking would be 24 spaces. They had an agreement with the University Baptist Church to use their parking lots. The basement would not be developed, but they were calculating the parking as if it were. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Conklin stated the property to the south was also zoned R -O. In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Hooker stated the existing structure was not worth the money to restore it. The offices were already leased, if he completed the project. The basement area would be used for storage. In response to a question from Mr. Andrews, Mr. Conklin stated the staff felt the existing structure, in comparison to surrounding buildings, was close enough to the right-of-way. Mr. Hooker, stated his tenants needed all the floor space he could get. Mr. Conklin recommended the Board's approval be subject to the Planning Commission Approval of the shared parking agreement and parking lot design. Mr. Wilhelms noted Lafayette was more of a major street than Campbell or Rollston. He suggested making Campbell and Rollston a 15' setback, which would give Lafayette reasonable setbacks. He noted most cities parked under the buildings. Mr. Sharp replied it was harder to construct an office building in town than it was further out of town. He added, if they were to look at the lot from an aerial view, they could see all of the surrounding parking lots. The church was willing to share its parking with them because they did not need it most of the time. Mr. Wilhelms stated they would need some type of parking for handicap and service. He suggested proportioning the setbacks. Mr. Conklin stated the applicant wanted to accommodate some parking on the site. He questioned the amount of buildable area the lot should be allowed. • Mr. Sharp believed having the entrance come in off Campbell would work well with their plans. He noted Campbell was a much slower street and there would not be another curb cut off • • • Board of Adjustments May 5, 1997 Page 9 Lafayette. He was willing to amend the variance request to shorten the setback along Lafayette, and develop the parking along Campbell. Mr. Wilhelms did not believe it would work well because the grades were steep. Ms. Issinghoff stated they would have to do extensive grading and construct a retaining wall. She believed the retaining wall would kill the oak tree on Lafayette. Mr. Conklin stated the staff, as well as the Planning Commission, supported shared parking agreements, so they would not be required to build parking on the site. It was the applicant's desire to provide parking on the site. Mr. Nickle stated he would be in favor of moving the building further back from Lafayette. Mr. Wilhelms asked the applicant if he would like to table the item, noting the Boards concems and develop a new plan or the board could state the variances and see if the applicant could conform to them. Mr. Hanna suggested going ahead and granting variances. Mr. Conklin suggested granting two variances, one for the structure and another for the parking. MOTION Mr. Wilhelms moved to approve variances for the proposed structure: Lafayette 15' variance which would leave a 15' setback Rollston 17' variance which would leave a 13' setback Side 2' variance which would leave an 8' setback Campbell 18' variance which would leave a 32' setback Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. MOTION The motion carried by a vote of 6-0-0. Mr. Nickle moved to approve variances for the parking lot: Lafayette 5' variance which would leave a 10' setback Campbell 10' variance which would leave a 5' setback 30 • • • Board of Adjustments May 5, 1997 Page 10 The motion was subject to the Planning Commission approving the shared parking agreement. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-1-0. Mr. Andrews voting nay )1 • • • Board of Adjustments May 5, 1997 Page 11 AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS Mr. Perkins stated the number and times of meetings needed to be changed in the Bylaws. Mr. Conklin stated two meetings were required in the bylaws, but lately there had not been enough applications for two meetings a month. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to change the meeting dates to one meeting a month on the first Monday of each month. Mr. Wilhelms seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 6-0-0.