HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-09-15 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,
September 15, 1997 at 3:45p.m., Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W.
Mountain Street Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gerald Boyd, Marion Orton, Robert Nickle,
Thad Hanna, and Michael Andrews.
STAFF PRESENT: Tim Conklin and Heather Woodruff
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF
Minutes were approved as distributed.
NEW BUSINESS
BA 97-19 00: VARIANCE (ANIMAL CARE CLINIC)
DONALD STANTON- 903 WEST NORTH STREET
The variance request was submitted by Donald W. Stanton for property located at 903 West
North Street. The property is zoned RO/R3, Residential Office and High Density Residential.
The variance request is for no front setback (25' and 30' variances) for the existing building and
addition.
The existing 805 square foot building is almost entirely located in the front setback area. The
proposed 893 square foot addition will also be almost entirely located in the front setback area
The Planning Commission approved the conditional use request to expand this use into an R-3
zoning district on September 8, 1997.
Staff recommendation: The staff recommends approval of the requested variance as shown on
the site plan submitted with this application for the existing structure and proposed addition.
Mr. Conklin stated the Planning Commission had approved a conditional use for the addition
into the R-3 zoning district. He noted the property had two zoning R-3, High Density
Residential and R -O, Residential Office He explained the R-3 zoning required a 25' setback
from the street right-of-way for the North Street property line. The R -O zoning required a 30'
setback. He stated the staff's recommendation was to grant a variance for the existing building
and the proposed addition as shown on the site plan. He noted the altemative to the variance was
to locate the addition in the rear, which would place the parking along North Street. The staff
preferred the parking in the rear
Mr. Boyd asked if the building or addition would be in the right-of-way.
• Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals
September 15, 1997
Page 2
•
•
Mr. Conklin replied the existing structure did extend partially into the right-of-way. He stated
the addition would be placed outside the right-of-way. He added the city did not have the
authority to allow the applicant to construct in the right-of-way. He stated the highway
department had purchased right-of-way in the early 80's which took part of the building.
Mr. Nickle questioned the width of North Street.
Mr. Conklin thought the highway was four lane.
Mr. Boyd expressed concern about the shrubs on the corner of North and Storer street which
impeding vision.
MOTION
Mr. Nickle moved to approve the item subject to staff comments.
Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 5-0-0.
• Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals
September 15, 1997
Page 3
•
•
BA 97-23.00; VARIANCE ( CHARLES O'DONNELL)
CHARLES O'DONNELL- 740 EAST LAFAYETTE STREET
The variance request was submitted by Charles O'Donnell for property located at 740 East
Lafayette Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. The variance request
is for a 14' front setback (11' variance) for a new 12.33'X 18', 222 sf. Family room located on the
east side of the house. The applicant chose this location because of the floor plan and design of
the existing house
Technically, this lot has frontage on both Lafayette Street and Tanglewood Ave. A variance is
required for the front setback to the east (Tangelwood). The street is located east of the right-of-
way that adjoins this lot
Staff recommendation: the staff recommends approval of the requested variance as shown on
the site plan submitted with this application for the proposed addition.
Mr. Conklin stated the street was not located within the right-of-way adjacent to the lot. The
applicant was requesting a variance of 11' for a 14' setback for a room addition. He noted the
street had moved over time because of the stream on the west side The staff recommended
approval of the variance request due to the location of the street and the two 25' front setbacks.
Ms. O'Donnell stated the corner of their lot was located in the middle of Tanglewood. She
added the road had only been paved a short period of time.
Mr. Conklin noted the variance would allow a 14' setback between the building and the right-of-
way the city was not using.
The applicant noted the property to the north was not buildable.
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.
Sq
Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals
September 15, 1997
Page 4
BA 97 24.00: VARIANCE (VIRGINIA D. DAVIS)
VIRGINIA DAVIS- 3033 NORTH OUAIL CREEK DRIVE
The variance request was submitted by Virginia Davis for property located at 3033 North Quail
Creek Drive. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. The variance request
is for a 12' rear setback (an 8' variance) for a 185 square foot screened porch addition. The
applicant intends to make the screened porch to match the house with regard to type of roof and
siding.
The setback is also a utility easement which will require a portion of the utility easement to be
vacated by the City Council in order to allow the structure to be built in this location.
Staff recommendation: the staff recommends approval of the requested variance as shown on
the site plan submitted with this application subject to the City Council vacating that portion of
the utility easement that this proposed structure will encroach.
Mr. Conklin stated the applicant did not want to locate the deck to the north because of the utility
room. The site was also limited by a 20' drainage and utility easement. The easement vacation
would have to go before the city council. The applicant would not submit an application for a
vacation until this board granted the variance. If a variance is granted, it would need to be
subject to the approval of the vacation of the utility easement. The variance was for a 12' rear
setback (variance). He noted the staff recommended approval
Mr. Boyd asked if the applicant was planning to use the existing concrete slab as a foundation for
the addition.
Ms. Davis stated she was wanting to cover the existing slab with a screen porch.
Mr. Boyd asked if the new footings would be required. He questioned if the applicant would
need to pour new footings.
Ms. Davis stated her builder felt the slab would support the structure.
Mr. Conklin stated the addition would need to meet building codes.
Mr. Boyd comment he was not in favor of the variance, because the surrounding lots were very
similar.
Ms. Davis stated if she had constructed the home, it would have conformed to the setbacks while
allowing room for a porch.
• Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals
September 15, 1997
Page 5
MOTION
Mr. Hanna moved to approve the variance as requested, subject to the utility easement vacation.
Ms Orton seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 3-2-0. Boyd and Andrews voting nay.
Mr Conklin suggested to Ms. Davis that her contractor consult with inspections before
continuing with the vacation.
•
•
•
t,l
• Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals
September 15, 1997
Page 6
•
•
BA 97-25.00: VARIANCE (WAYNE KELLER)
WAYNE KELLER- 3 NORTH DUNCAN AVENUE
The variance request was submitted by Richard P. Alexander on behalf of Wayne Keller for
property located at 3 North Duncan Avenue. The property is zoned R-3, High Density
Residential. The existing parcel contains 12,075 square feet of lot area and is developed with two
detached dwelling units. The variance request is for a 5,353 square foot lot (647 square foot
variance) in order to create two lots with each lot containing one dwelling unit. The remaining
lot would be a legal lot and contain a total of 6,721 square feet.
Staff recommendation: the staff recommends approval of the requested variance as shown on
the site plans submitted with this application subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. The Planning Commission approving the requested lot split.
2. The structure on each lot shall not be enlarged in area or in number of dwelling units.
Mr. Conklin stated the lot contained a older home with an apartment building which had been
constructed four years ago. The apartment had been allowed to be constructed because of the lot
width and square footage. The applicant was now wanting to split the property, however the
because of the location of the buildings the lot could not be divided equally and still met
setbacks. The staff had recommended approval with the condition that the structure could not be
enlarged in area or in the number of dwelling units. These conditions would prevent the home
from being split into different dwelling units.
Mr. Boyd asked where the parking was located for the house.
Mr. Alexander replied the parking for the house was located in the parking lot for the apartments.
Mr. Conklin stated the applicant was willing to provide a parking easement for the home.
Mr. Nickle asked the purpose of the lot split.
Mr. Alexander replied the applicant wanted to sell or mortgage the house separately. He added
the easement would transfer with the house. It would be owned by the apartment complex, but
maintained by the home.
In response to questions from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Keller stated the original building permit had been
for a garage with an apartment. He had been informed if he were to split the apartment off, he
would have to meet setbacks and parking.
W4
• Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals
September 15, 1997
Page 7
•
•
Mr. Alexander noted the lot was surrounded by large apartment complexes. This lot was lower
density than the surrounding properties. He added square footage could be added to the lot by
creating a dogleg layout, but the lot would be irregular shaped. Its only purpose would be to
meet the minimum square footage.
Mr. Conklin stated the house met the city code in regards to lot area. The parking regulations
required the each single-family home provide two off street parking spaces. He noted this was an
older home, which was constructed with out the ordinance. The owner was willing to provide an
easement granting two parking spaces. The lot split would not change the appearance of the
property.
Mr. Boyd was not comfortable creating a lot with no parking. He requested Mr. Alexander to
draft a parking easement. He expressed concern about future problems with the parking
easement and separate owners.
Mr. Hanna suggested moving the proposed property line to the east to make part of the parking
lot part of the property belonging to the single-family home.
Mr. Boyd stated he would prefer a straight property line which would create one small lot and
one regular sized lot. He suggested changing the lot line to 8' east of the apartment overhang.
Then the Board would only be granting a variance for the small lot.
MOTION
Mr. Boyd moved to grant a variance in lot size for the parcel of land that will contain the
apartment building that will result from a property line being placed 8' east of the overhang.
He added the approval would be contingent upon the Planning Commission's approval of the lot
split.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 5-0-0.
(03