HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-01-05 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND SIGN APPEALS
5�-
A meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Board of Sign Appeals was held Monday, January#
1998 at 3:45 p.m., Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gerald Boyd, Marion Orton, Robert Nickle, Thad Hanna,
Paul Wilhelms, and Michael Andrews.
STAFF PRESENT. Tim Conklin and Sharon Langley
Mr. Boyd called the meeting to order and explained the procedure.
BA97-30.00: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE - SETBACKS & FRONTAGE
CLAY BASS - 327 WEST MEADOW STREET(pp 484)
The first item, a variance request, was submitted by Clay Bass for property located at 327 West
Meadow Street. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office. The variance request is to
reduce the setback on the front of the existing house to 19 feet, 8 inches ( a 10 -foot, 4 -inch
variance) to bring the existing house into conformity and to reduce the setback on the rear of the
lot to 11 feet, 6 inches (a 13 -foot, 6 -inch variance) in order to allow a four -unit apartment to be
constructed. Also requested is a variance from the required 90 feet of frontage to the existing
80.1 feet.
Mr. Conklin explained the site contained approximately 12,873 square feet and was currently
developed with a single family home. He advised that, in addition to the single family home on
the site, the applicant had proposed a four -unit apartment building. He explained the proposed
four -unit apartment building created the need for two of the requested variances: (1) the proposed
unit would encroach 13 feet, 6 inches into the rear setback; and (2) a variance was needed for the
required lot width since the lot had frontage of only 80.1 feet and, in order to construct 3 or more
dwelling units, lot frontage of 90 feet was required. He went on to say the applicant had stated
the requested rear setback variance was needed in order to save mature trees on the site. He
advised the front setback variance was for the existing house since the house encroached 10 feet
4 inches into the setback
He advised the Planning Commission had approved a conditional use for the existing single
family home and a 4 -unit apartment building (a total of five units) at the December 8, 1997
meeting subject to the following conditions:
1) Compliance with Section 160.105, Conditions governing applications of conditional uses;
procedures, of the zoning code;
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment
January 5, 1998
Page 2
2) A Board of Adjustment action which would allow construction of the proposed four unit
apartment building on a lot without the required frontage;
3) The project would be constructed as shown on the site plan;
4) The conditional use limited the lot to five dwelling units. The conditional use required that
the existing single family home would not be converted into additional dwelling units; and
5) The applicant had been required to provide legal proof of the existance of a 10 -foot alley being
east of the subject tract running between Meadow and Center Streets. No building permit would
be issued until the proof was provided.
Mr. Conklin reviewed the adjacent land use and zoning. He recommended approval of the
requests subject to the same conditions as required by the Planning Commission and the front
setback variance only applying to the existing structure footprint.
Mr. Clay Bass, the applicant, introduced himself, his wife Kathy, and Bob Kelly, the architect for
the project.
Mr. Kelly explained they had tried to keep the proposed structure in character with the
neighborhood. He pointed out there was a significant walnut tree in the middle of the lot and
advised they had shifted the proposed structure back in order to save the tree.
Ms. Bass advised the tree was 6 feet 2 inches in diameter and they were very interested in saving
the tree.
Mr. Boyd and Mr. Andrews both questioned the number of bedrooms to be constructed.
Mr. Conklin explained the Planning Commission had approved four one -bedroom apartments to
be constructed per the plans presented at the Planning Commission meeting.
Ms. Bass stated each apartment contained 665 square feet.
Mr. Kelly pointed out that, if they constructed more than one bedroom apartments, they would
have to request a variance on parking since they only had room for 4 spaces.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Conklin advised there was no parking for the
existing house except the street but it was an existing condition. He advised they normally did
not require parking for an existing structure unless the existing structure was being changed.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment
January 5, 1998
Page 3
Mr. Boyd asked if the zoning code required any particular amount of turning space behind the
parking spaces.
Mr. Conklin stated 24 feet was required.
Mr. Kelly stated they had 23 feet with a 2 -foot overhang of the parking stall.
Mr. Conklin advised the original plans had been modified to allow the parking as shown. He
noted the tenants would have to use the alley for ingress/egress. He further noted the Solid
Waste Department had contacted the applicants and discussed location of the dumpster. He
further noted there had been previous discussion as to whether the alley existed. He advised the
applicant had the burden of proof regarding the existence of the alley. He further stated the
applicant had not yet shown any proof.
Mr. Kelly explained the legal description of the tract referenced a 10 -foot alley on the east. He
further advised Mr. & Mrs. Bass owed a tract on the east side of the alley and the legal
description of that tract defined the 10 -foot alley. He also noted the alley was shown on the city
plats.
Mr. Conklin advised staff had not seen the legal descriptions of other property owners which
adjoined the "alley" and did not know if the alley was mentioned in the legal description of those
properties.
Mr. Boyd questioned whether the walnut tree would survive construction of the proposed
structure.
Mrs. Bass advised Gerald Klingamon, a horticulturist at the university, walked the site and made
recommendations of ways to save the tree. She explained Dr. Klingamon believed that, due to
the age of the tree and the depth of the roots, it would be saved. She further noted they had saved
a 90 year old tree on the adjoining lot when they constructed a duplex.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Kelly advised it would not stress the tree as much
if they could start the construction in the winter.
Mr. Nickle pointed out there was a 15 -foot alley on the old plat. He expressed his belief that, if
the alley had not been formally closed, it would still exist. He asked the best way to determine
whether the alley existed.
Mr. Conklin stated he believed an abstract would be necessary. He stated it was unclear if the
alley existed and, if it existed, whether it was 10 or 15 feet wide.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment
January 5, 1998
Page 4
MOTION
Mr. Andrews moved to approve the variance requests contingent upon the conditions set forth by
the Planning Commission and that the front setback be only for the existing structure and that the
10 -foot variance on lot width be only for what had been approved by the Planning Commission
(the existing house and 4 units).
Mr. Wilhelm asked if it was the applicant's intent to cover the parking spaces.
Mr. Kelly stated they were not asking for a cover for any parking spaces within the setbacks.
Mr. Nickle seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment
January 5, 1998
Page 5
BA98-1.00: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE (SETBACK)
ROBERT TOGNI - 810 APPLEBURY DRIVE (448)
The next item was submitted by Paul Bynum of Coldwell Banker/Faucette Real Estate for
property located at 810 Applebury Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential.
The variance request is to reduce the setback on the south side of the existing house to 6.3 feet (a
1.7 foot variance) in order to bring the existing house into conformity.
Mr. Conklin advised the single family home had been constructed between 1985 and 1987 but
the setback violation had not been discovered until December, 1997 when the survey was
completed on the house. He noted the house was located in a single family home neighborhood
and the adjacent house to the south was located approximately 30 feet from the side property
line.
He advised staff recommended approval of the requested variance.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Conklin advised Vernon Tarver was the builder;
however, the footings and foundation were already in when Mr. Tarver purchase the house and
completed it.
MOTION
Ms. Orton moved to approve the requested variance.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment
January 5, 1998
Page 6
BA9S-3.00: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE ( SETBACKS & FRONTAGE)
PBR MANAGEMENT & REALTY - 676 N. GARLAND (pp 444)
The Last item was submitted by Carmen Lehman of Arnold Lehman builders, Inc., for property
located at 676 North Garland Avenue. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential.
The variance request is to allow a three unit apartment building with each unit containing two
bedrooms on a lot containing 60 feet of frontage. The required frontage for three apartments is
90 feet. The applicant has also requested a 25 -foot front setback variance from the Master Street
Plan future right-of-way requirement of 55 feet from the centerline of Garland Avenue
Mr. Conklin explained the site was currently undeveloped and was adjacent to apartments to the
south and a single family home to the north. He advised the site previously had a single family
home which was converted into three apartments but was destroyed by fire on August 19, 1995.
He stated the applicant had requested a variance in order to construct a three unit townhouse that
would contain two bedrooms in each unit. He stated the required off-street parking was one per
bedroom which corresponded to six parking spaces. He advised staff had concerns with
providing six to seven parking spaces when there potentially could be as many as 12 students
living in the three townhouses since the site was adjacent to the University of Arkansas campus
to the west. He explained the site could be developed with two units without having to seek a
variance and, depending upon the size of the duplex, would allow adequate room to develop
more parking.
He further stated the second variance request was to site the building on the Master Street Plan
future right-of-way line (a 25 -foot setback variance). He explained state law and the zoning
ordinance required that setbacks be measured from the master street plan right-of-way
requirement. He want on to say Garland Avenue was classified as a Principal Arterial which
required a total of 110 feet of right-of-way or 55 feet from center line. He pointed out Garland
Avenue currently had 25 feet of right-of-way from centerline which resulted in the need of an
additional 30 feet of right-of-way. He explained the additional right-of-way placed the proposed
building approximately 5 feet into the future right-of-way and 25 feet into the front setback line.
Mr. Conklin stated staff recommended denial of the requested variance for a 60 -foot lot to be
developed with three dwelling units and front setback variance but did support development of
the site with two apartments as provided by ordinance.
Mr. Boyd asked why the tenants could not park in the front of the proposed structure.
Mr. Conklin stated parking was allowed in the front. He also noted that, with the property being
so close to the university, there could be a potential parking problem on the site. He further
advised the State Highway Department was considering widening Garland Avenue from North
Street to the university. He added that, unfortunately, the Highway Department did not yet know
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment
January 5, 1998
Page 7
how much right-of-way they would be taking, nor from which side of the street they would take
the right-of-way.
Mr. Nichol expressed his belief most of the right-of-way would be taken from the west side of
the street.
In response to a question from Mr. Wilhelm, Mr. Conklin stated the majority of the houses along
Garland were now set back from the existing right-of-way, not the proposed right-of-way.
Mr. David Burner, a partner in PBR Management & Realty, pointed out the property was zoned
for a duplex and their option had been to either construct a duplex with 3 bedrooms on each side
or construct 3 townhouses with 2 bedrooms each. He noted the parking ratio would still be the
same. He agreed they could still construct a duplex instead of a tri-plex but a variance would still
be required.
Mr. Andrews pointed out there would be 6 bedrooms with either plan.
In response to a question from Mr. Wilhelm, Mr. Boyd advised the Board of Adjustment could
not change the right-of-way but could give a zero variance.
Mr. Burner also advised the plan was for the parking to be on the lower level of the lot at the east
end.
Mr. Nickle noted he preferred the parking to be at the rear of the tract.
Mr. Burner advised they were building the units for their children, so they would have housing
while at the university. He assured the Board the building would be nicer than the average
townhomes or apartments.
Mr. Jack Page and his aunt, Barbara Harrell, of 678 Garland, were present as adjoining property
owners. Mr. Page expressed concern regarding the tract having room for three units
Ms. Harrell noted parking at the rear of the tract would not be good for her property. She also
advised there was already a parking problem in the area.
Mr. Page also advised that, when the previous house on the subject tract burned, a great deal of
filler material was put on the lot.
Mr. Burner assured him they would not be cutting any corners in the construction of the
buildings.
•
Board of Adjustment
January 5, 1998
Page 8
Mr. Wilhelm questioned the 30 -foot variance for lot width.
Mr. Conklin explained a duplex could be constructed on a 60 -foot wide lot but a tri-plex required
90 feet of frontage.
Mr. Wilhelm asked if the applicant was aware the lot was 60 feet wide when they purchased it.
Mr. Burner stated they were aware the lot was 60 feet wide, that it was zoned R-3 and that they
could construct a duplex. He explained they liked the location so much, they decided to purchase
the property and request a variance to construct a tri-plex. He added they would prefer three 2 -
bedroom units rather than two 3 -bedroom units.
Mr. Boyd asked if the variance was couched in terms of the front property line.
Mr. Conklin explained the setback variance was based on the Master Street Plan, measuring 55
feet from the centerline (for right-of-way) plus the additional 25 feet.
Mr. Boyd asked the measurement of the proposed building from the existing front lot line.
• Mr. Conklin stated granting the variance as requested would place them on the property line.
•
Mr. Boyd pointed out Garland was a State Highway and did not have to construct the street to the
City's Master Street Plan.
Mr. Conklin agreed but noted the City paid for the taking of additional right-of-way on behalf of
the state and it was important that new structures were not placed within the proposed right-of-
way.
Mr. Boyd noted that, if the variance was 55 feet from the centerline of Garland, there still would
be a sidewalk and greenspace between the building and the paved portion of the street.
Mr. Wilhelm asked if they would be conferring special rights to the applicant if they approved a
30 -foot variance on the lot width.
Mr. Boyd stated someone had zoned the property R-3 and there were other non -conforming lots
within the R-3.
Mr. Wilhelm pointed out the tract was constrained in getting in a driveway and the proposed
units on the property. He expressed his belief that, just because there was enough square footage,
did not mean the lot was suitable for a triplex; that a lot needed adequate square footage and
frontage.
•
•
Board of Adjustment
January 5, 1998
Page 9
Mr. Boyd pointed out they could construct a 4 -bedroom duplex which was more intensive usage
of the lot than a triplex with 2 bedrooms each.
Mr. Nickle asked if the applicant was aware, when they purchased the lot, of the proposed
expansion of Garland Avenue.
Mr. Burner stated they had not been aware of any proposed expansion. He further stated the
proposed structure had originally been larger but they had shrunk it down in order to meet the 25 -
foot setbacks. He advised they had reviewed numerous plans for the lot but the one presented
seemed the best.
Mr. Conklin noted the applicant had presented elevation drawings. He asked if the north
elevation would have windows.
Mr. Burner stated the bedrooms would be on the back with a hip roof.
Mr. Conklin advised there were also times when the building did not match the elevation
drawings and cautioned the Board to make that a part of the conditions of approval, if they
decided to approve the request.
Mr. Andrews stated the only reason he was seriously considering the variance was the quality of
the building. He asked how the applicant could redesign the site in order to meet the setback
requirements.
Mr. Conklin stated the parking could be at the front with the building set further back on the
tract.
Mr. Nickle stated he favored having the parking at the rear of the lot.
Mr. Andrews asked why staff thought two apartments with 3 bedrooms each was better than
three apartments with 2 bedrooms each.
Mr. Conklin explained staff was trying to limit the number of units in order to provide more
parking on the site.
Mr. Boyd noted 3 bedroom units tended to attract families more than 2 bedroom units.
Mr. Conklin also noted that, in R-3 zoning, the ordinance required any structure over 20 feet in
height have one foot additional setback for each foot over 20 feet in height.
• Mr. Hanna asked the applicant if they would be willing to construct a buffer since the neighbor
•
•
Board of Adjustment
January 5, 1998
Page 10
was concerned about parking lot noise.
Mr. Burner stated it depended on the type of buffer the Board might want. He explained they
still had not decided whether to have enclosed patios.
Mr. Nickle suggested a 6 -foot privacy fence to which the applicant agreed.
MOTION
Mr. Nickle moved to grant a 30 -foot wide variance to allow for construction of 3 2 -bedroom
units conforming closely to the elevation drawings as presented to the Board of Adjustment and a
25 -foot front setback from the Master Street Plan (i.e., 55 feet from the present centerline of
Garland) and further that the applicant construct a 6 -foot privacy fence along the north property
line from the westemmost point of the structure to the easternmost point of the property.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion carried 5-1-0 with Wilhelms, Nickle, Andrews, Boyd and Hanna voting yes and
Orton voting no.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The December 1, 1997 minutes were approved as distributed.
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
•
Table of Contents
Bass, Clay (BA 97-30.00) 01/0698
Togni, Robert (BA 98-1.00) 01/0e98
PBR Management and Realty (BA 98-3.00) 01/0698
HMT of Fayetteville (BA 98-2.00) 03/02/98
January, Bobbie Jean (BA 98-4.00) 03/02/98
January, Tom (SA 98-1.00) 03/02/98
The Parnell Group, Inc. (BA 98-6.00) 03/16/98
Community Bank - Weddington Drive (BA 98-7.00) 03/16/98
Community Bank- Crossover Road (BA 98-8.00) 03/16/98
Fennel, Joe (BA 98-9.00) 03/16/98
Wilson, John Vernon (BA 98-10.00) 03/16/98
The Parnell Group, Inc. (BA 98-6.00) 04/06/98
Walker/Wilson Properties (BA 98-11.00) 04/06/98
Davis, Stephen L. (BA 98-12.00) 04/06/98
Smith, Harvey Jr. (SA 98-2.00) 04/06/98
The Parnell Group, Inc. (BA 98-6.00) 04/06/98
Bradberry (BA 98-14.00) 05/04/98
•
•
•
•
MOTION
U
SECOND
AtAti
M. Orton
V
R. Nickle
v
T. Hanna
P. Wilhelms
1/
M. Andrews
r./
G. Boyd
1/
• 4-0- 0
•