Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-08-04 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, August 4. 1997 at 3:45 p.m., Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS REVIEWED ACTION TAKEN 1. BA97-13 2. BA97-14 3. BA97-15 4. BA97-16 5. BA97-17 6. BA97-18 7. BA97-20 8. BA97-21 9. BA97-22 .00: Variance .00: Variance .00: Variance .00: Variance .00: Variance .00: Variance .00: Variance .00: Variance .00: Variance (Marilynn Bullard) (Cary Arsaga) (Wesley Burgess) (Ozark Building) (Jim Bob Wheeler) (Edwin Draughon) (Marcella Wilson) (Julie Brents) (1062 Broadview Dr.) MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Gerald Boyd, Marion Orton, Robert Nickle, Thad Hanna, and Michael Andrews. Tim Conklin and Heather Woodruff Minutes were approved as distributed. BA97-13.00: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR FRONT SETBACK MARILYN BULLARD- 516 N. HIGHLAND The variance request was submitted by Marilynn Bullard for property located at 516 North Highland Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. The variance request is for 15' front setback (10' variance) to allow for a new front porch. Recommendation: The staff recommended approval of the requested vanance as shown on the site plan submitted with the application. Mr. Conklin stated the applicant had removed an existing front porch and was in the process of rebuilding it, when she was informed she needed a building permit. When she applied for the permit it was discovered the new porch would be located in the setback. Ms. Marilynn Bullard stated she was not aware that she needed a building permit. y2 • • • Board of Adjustments August 4. 1997 Page 2 There was no public comment. Mr. Nickle thought it was an improvement to the home. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to approve the variance as requested. Ms. Orton seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0-0. • • Board of Adjustments August 4. 1997 Page 3 BA97-14.00: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE FRONT SETBACK CARY ARSAGA-116 NORTH HIGHLAND AVENUE The variance request was submitted by Cary Arsaga for property located at 116 North Block Street. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial. The variance request is for a 2' front setback (3' variance) to allow for a deck to be built. Recommendation: The staff recommended approval of the requested variance for the proposed deck, as shown on the site plan. Mr. Conklin stated the applicant would have to go before the Planning Commission for the expansion of the building and parking issues related to it. He explain anytime a building was expanded in the C-3 zoning district, the developer had to provide additional parking. The applicant was allowed to appeal to the Planning Commission to request a waiver if there was public parking within 600' of the building. He added there were public parking lots within 600' of this building. Mr. Arsaga stated the deck would be used as an outdoor cafe. Mr. Hanna questioned the number of parking spaces the deck would replace. Mr. Conklin stated Mr. Arsaga had onginallv tried to work with all the tenants in the complex to build a deck across the entire front of the building. Mr. Hanna asked if there would be a fence or guard rail along the south side of the deck. He asked if there would be a parking space next to the deck. He expressed concern about the deck running into the parking lot. Mr. Conklin replied there would be a parking space next to the deck. Mr. Hanna expressed concern about cars being so close to the deck. Mr. Conklin stated the traffic superintendent had looked at the project and they did not voiced any concerns about it. Mr. Nickle asked if the handicap ramp would still be accessible if a vehicle parked in the space. He recommended someone from ADA look at the project. • Mr. Arsaga stated the store would be more wheelchair accessible with the deck than it was currently. yq • • • Board of Adjustments August 4. 1997 Page 4 Mr. Boyd asked if the Planning Commission would address handicap accessibility. Mr. Conklin stated it was up to the applicant to design handicap accessibility to meet federal regulations. Mr. Nickle expressed concern about pedestrian accessibility. Mr. Arsaga replied the sidewalk would be two feet from the proposed deck. Mr. Andrews asked if a 15' deck could serve the same purpose as the proposed 18' deck. Mr. Arsaga replied he needed the additional space. He believed an 18' deck would look better. PUBLIC Ms. Glenda Case, adjacent business owner, expressed her concerns about the deck blocking her business visually. She also expressed concern about the traffic pulling in and out of the parking lot. Mr. Hanna stated the deck would be an improvement to the area. Mr. Boyd explained to Ms. Case that the Board of Adjustments could not address the issue of the applicant building the deck. They were to address the additional 3' requested. The applicant was allowed to build the deck or a building within 5' of the property line. Ms. Case argued the tables and umbrellas would block the view of her business. Mr. Arsaga felt the deck would draw attention to the area. Mr. Nickle asked Mr. Arsaga if he would build the deck if the variance was not granted. Mr. Arsaga stated he would have to discuss reducing the size of the deck with his land lord. In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Ms Case stated she had discussed the deck with her landlord in the beginning when Mr. Arsaga was planning a deck for the entire complex, but she had not spoken with the owner about the smaller deck. In response to a question from Mr. Hanna, Mr. Arsaga stated the landlord was not in favor of the deck along the entire front of the building. He was concerned about the deck taking up all of the off street parking. yS • • ' y6 Board of Adjustments August 4. 1997 Page 5 Mr. Hanna thought the deck would improve the street and storefront and would increase business. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to approve the variance as requested. Ms. Orton seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 4-1-0. Andrews voting nay. • • Board of Adjustments August 4. 1997 Page 6 BA97-15.00: VARIANCE REQUEST FROM SETBACKS, LOT SIZE AND LOT WIDTH WESLEY BURGESS- 713 OAKLAND The variance request was submitted by Wes Burgess for property located at 713 Oakland Avenue. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential. The variance request is from the requirements of §160.034 (D) R-3 High Density Residential, Bulk and Area Regulations and § 160.117 parking Lot perimeter Landscaping Setback Requirements. Recommendation: the staff recommended approval of the requested variances as shown on the site plan submitted with this application. Staff request that if construction has not begun on this project, as shown on the attached plans, within one year the variance will be revoked. Mr. Conklin explained the applicant was requesting a variance for a 50' lot width for a triplex (a 40' variance), a variance for a 12' setback for a parking lot (a 3' variance), and a variance for a 7,000 square foot area for a triplex (a 1,000 square foot variance). He noted R-3 zoning allowed 23 unites per acre. The applicant intended to construct two studio apartments above a garage and one unite at ground level. The applicant had planned to have two parking spaces in the front of the garage. The garage entrance would be from the south. Mr. Wes Burgess stated "triplex" was a misleading term. His personal residents would be next to two small apartments. He and his wife had bought the property as an investment. In response to a question from Mr. Andrews, Mr. Burgess stated the drawings included a one foot overhang. PUBLIC Mr. Frank Angelo, 967 Eagle, stated the lot was too small for three units. He added there was not enough room for three cars. Ms. Julie Tackher, an adjacent property owner, stated she was opposed to the triplex. Mr. Hanna asked Mr. Burgess if he would be interested in only one unit. Mr. Burgess did not believe the additional unit would have a greater impact in the neighborhood. Two units would be more economically beneficial. He added there would never be more than five people living on the property. He did not believe he was overbuilding the lot. • Mr. Boyd explained to the public that the applicant's request was allowable under the current zoning. The variance requests were for lot square footage and lot frontage. 47 • • • Board of Adjustments August 4, 1997 Page 7 Mr. Conklin explained the lot was nonconforming because of the 50' of frontage. The minimum lot width allowable by the ordinance was 60'. By code a single family home was all that could be built on the lot. He noted a duplex in an R-3 zoning requirement a minimum 60' width with 6,000 square. Mr. Boyd noted a duplex would only require a 10' variance. Mr. Nickle questioned the third request for a screening variance. Mr. Conklin explained parking lots required a 15' setback and screening. Mr. Nickle did not believe there was enough room for parking. Mr. Conklin noted the requirement for parking was based on the number of bedrooms. Mr. Boyd replied a one bedroom did not mean there would only be one person living there. Mr. Angelo noted the heavy traffic from the church and the school. He expressed concem about the additional traffic. Mr. Nickle felt a duplex would have fewer visitors than a triplex. Mr. Boyd commented he could only approve a duplex. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to grant a variance for a duplex with 50' of frontage (a 10' variance) and a 12' setback for parking with screening (a 3' variance). Mr. Hanna seconded motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0-0. Mr. Andrews cautioned Mr. Burgess about building into the setback. te • • • Board of Adjustments August 4, 1997 Page 8 BA 97-16 00: VARIANCE (THE OZARK BUILDING) OZARK BUILDING- 2 N. COLLEGE The variance request was submitted by Richard Alexander on behalf of Ozark Building, L.L.C. for property located at 2 North College. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial. The variance request is for a 3' setback (2' variance) from the Center Street right-of-way. The variance requested by the applicant is to allow the existing building to have a 3' setback from the Center Street right-of-way. The applicant has requested a vacation of right-of-way that would allow the building to conform to setbacks. However, because of time constraints and uncertainty as to whether the City Council would vacate the right-of-way, the applicant has requested the variance at this time. Recommendation: the staff recommended approval of the variance requested for the existing building as shown on the site plan. Mr. Conklin explained the variance was for the south wall which encroached into the setback. The purpose of the variance was for the renovation. The request was for the existing building. He added the applicant was going to request a street vacation. Mr. Jim Foster, architect, stated the developers were about to make a major investment to convert the building to modem commercial space. The variance would allow the developers to proceed with their plans. MOTION Mr. Andrew moved to grant the variance as requested. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0-0. • y9 • • • Board of Adjustments August 4. 1997 Page 9 BA 97-17 00: VARIANCE (JIM BOB AND JOAN WHEELER) JIM BOB WHEELER- 2416 HONEY LANE The variance request was submitted by Jim Bob and Joan Wheeler for property located at 216 Honey Lane. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The variance request is for a 23' front setback (2' variance) to allow an existing house to remain in its present location. The newly constructed house (garage section) encroaches 1.42' into the front setback of Honey Lane. Since the setback is also designated a utility easement, the owner will also have to seek a vacation of that portion of the easement through the Planning commission and the City Council. Recommendation: the staff recommended approval of the requested variance as shown on the site plan submitted by the applicant. Mr. Boyd question how many homes the applicant had built. Mr. Conklin stated it was the first home. He added the applicant had made an effort to site the home properly on the lot. Mr. Andrews felt it had been an honest mistake. Mr. Boyd noted they were trying to keep the home as far away from the road as possible. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to approve the variance as requested. Ms Orton seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0-0. So • • • Board of Adjustments August 4. 1997 Page 10 BA97-18.00: VARIANCE (EDWIN AND GAYLE DRAUGHON) EDWIN DRAUGHON- 504 EAST LAFAYETTE STREET The variance request was submitted by Craig Hull on behalf of Gayle Drughon for property located at 504 East Lafayette Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The variance request is for a 21' setback (4' variance) to allow for a carport to be installed on an existing cement slab. Recommendation: the staff recommended approval of the requested variance as shown on the site plan and elevation drawings submitted with this application including material, colors. and design of the carport. Mr. Conklin explained the applicant intended to make the carport match the home both in trim and color. They had submitted elevation drawings. He noted the house was on a corner lot which required two 25' setbacks. Ms Drughon stated she had spoken with all her neighbors about the carport. There had been no objections. There was no public comment. Mr. Boyd felt it was a reasonable request. MOTION Ms. Orton moved to approve the variance as requested. Mr. Andrews seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0-0. 51 • • • Board of Adjustments August 4. 1997 Page 11 BA 97-20.00: VARIANCE (MARCELLA WILSON) MARCELLA WILSON -1273 SOUTH WASHINGTON AVENUE The variance request was submitted by Chris Martin on behalf of Marcella Wilson for property located at 1273 South Washington Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. The variance request is for a 22' front setback (3' variance) to allow a new house to be built with 1339 square feet and a two car garage. The vanance requested by the applicant is to allow for a new house with a 22' setback from 13th Street property line. The corner lot is currently vacant and was purchased by the applicant several years ago. Recommendation: the staff recommended approval of the variance. Mr. Conklin stated the applicant was requesting a variance to allow a home to be constructed on the 50' lot. A variance was not recommended for the existing shed. He noted non -conforming lots owned by the same person could be sold separately if they were not owned by the same person when the zoning ordinances were adopted by the City Council. In response to questions from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Conklin stated the address was based on the direction the house was facing. He assumed the address would be from 13th street. Mr. Boyd felt it was a reasonable request. Mr. Andrews expressed concern about the applicant building to close to the setback line. Mr. Martin requested an additional foot to allow room for error. MOTION Mr. Andrews moved to grant a 4' variance. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0-0. S� • • • Board of Adjustments August 4. 1997 Paee 12 BA 97-2.00: VARIANCE (JULIE AND STEPHEN BRENTS) JULIE & STEPHEN BRENTS- 217 N. LOCUST AVE. The variance request was submitted by Daryl S. Rantis on behalf of Julie and Stephen Brents for property located at 217 north Locust Avenue. The property is zoned C-3, Central commercial. The request is for no side setback (10' variance) for an addition to the existing house. The variance requested by the applicant is to allow the edge of the proposed second story addition and carport to extend into the side setback. Recommendation: the staff recommends approval of the variance requested for the proposed second story addition and carport as shown on the submitted site plan and elevation drawing. Mr. Rantis, architect, stated the applicant was planning a two story addition. The request was for part of the facade and the covered parking, which was going to be a translucent panel. He noted all the living space would be within the setback. He noted if the building was to turn commercial, the owners would be able to construct to the property line. Because the use was residential, they were required to meet the setback. He requested three zero lot lines for the addition. He stated the applicant was not willing to place the addition in the rear because it would reduce the green space. The proposed addition would not reduce the green space. It would increase the value of the neighborhood. Mr. Boyd noted the Board had granted variances for carports in the past. Mr. Conklin confirmed there were no setbacks in C-3 between commercial buildings. However, the Planning office had required 10' building setbacks between residential structures in a C-3 zoning district. Mr. Nickle felt the addition would be an improvement to the neighborhood. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the variance as requested. Ms. Orton seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0-0. s.) • • • Board of Adjustments August 4. 1997 Page 13 BA 97-22.00 VARIANCE (1062 BROADVIEW DRIVE) BMP DEVELOPMENT- 1062 BROADVIEW DRIVE The variance request was submitted by Mark Marquess of BMP Development. Inc. for property located at 1062 Broad View Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request is for side setbacks of 7' (1' variance) on the east and 7' (1' variance) on the northwest of the existing house and 6' (2' variance) on the west for an existing deck. The west eave of the existing house encroaches .41 feet into the west setback, the east eave of the existing house encroaches .47 feet into the east side setback and the rear deck encroaches 1.61 feet into the west side setback. Recommendation: the staff recommended approval of the requested variances as shown on the site plan submitted with this application. Mr. Mark Marquess, applicant, explained the home originally had a small covered deck. The home was being constructed for the parade of homes. Pnor to the parade they sold the home. The buyer had made a lot of changes. The deck was the last item added the home. The buyers asked to have a larger deck, in the rush to have the home ready for the parade the builders agreed to extend the deck. The foreman did not check the site plan. In response to questions from Mr. Nickels, Mr. Marquess replied the deck was added at the request of the home owner. He added they normally checked to make sure they were within the setbacks, however, they had been in a rush to complete the deck for the Parade of Homes. Mr. Boyd asked who owned the lots to the east and west. Mr. Marquess stated he owned both of the adjoining lots. The home owner was agreeable to removing the deck, but the deck did not affect anything. He noted there were no utility lines on that side of the property. He accepted responsibility for the errors. He added his company had constructed over 500 homes in Fayetteville and they had only been before the board on other time. Mr. Andrews noted there had been several vanance in 89 and 90. Mr. Marquess explained the errors had been made by the original partner. The variances had been for a one block area. The second request had been for error made by a new superintendent. Mr. Conklin stated the applicant provided computer generated site plans for their building permits They even conducted surveys for lots in the flood plain. He believed this developer went the extra mile to provide good information to the city. sy • • • Board of Adjustments August 4. 1997 Page 14 In response to questions from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Conklin replied anything over 30" in height would have to meet setback. Mr. Nickle asked if building permits had been pulled for lots 23 and 25. Mr. Marquess stated they had not, however, they were getting ready to pull a permit for lot 22. Mr. Nickle stated he did not have a problem with the variance, but requested that the buyers of lots 23 and 25 be notified of the variance on lot 24.. Mr. Marquess suggested placing a notice on the deeds. Mr. Boyd suggested correcting the problem by a lot line adjustment. Mr. Marquess replied lot 25 was a small and difficult lot to build on. Lot 23 had a pie shape. The lots were not wide, but deep. Mr. Conklin noted the fee for a property line adjustment was $200 plus the cost of the legal descriptions. Mr. Marquess stated he was willing to notify the buyers of the adjacent lots of the error. Mr. Conklin stated if would be difficult to keep tract of error from owner to owner. Mr. Nickle did not know if it was worth the trouble. Mr. Marquess stated the home was a nice home for the addition. He noted thy had made a mistake, but they had used every method available to them to prevent the error. Mr. Conklin noted most of Mr. Marquess homes were on the setback lines most of the time. In response to questions from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Marquess stated typically one of their superintendents would lay the site out. He added they were one of the few builders that had a superintendent on site to lay out a house. He stated they had no excuse, other than they had made a mistake He noted they had built over 500 home in Fayetteville and had only been before the Board of Adjustments only three times. Mr. Nickle asked the number of homes they had constructed since 1992. Mr. Marquess thought they had built over 300 homes. He added they tried to do a good job. SS • • • Board of Adjustments August 4. 1997 Page 15 Mr. Nickle felt 3:300 was a good percentage and added the mistake could have been caused by the rush to complete the home before the Parade of Homes. MOTION Ms. Orton moved to grant the vanance as requested. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 3-2-0. Boyd and Andrews voting nay. 5(9