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.