Loading...
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