HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-03-01 Minutes•
•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND SIGN APPEALS
A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals was held on Monday, March 1,
1999, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED
Approval of Minutes of 01/04/99
BA99-2: Wedington Place, pp401
MEMBERS PRESENT
Michael Andrews
Gerald Boyd
Thad Hanna
Chuck Nickle
Marion Orton
STAFF PRESENT
Janet Johns
Brent Vinson
ACTION TAKEN
Approved as amended
Approved
MEMBERS ABSENT
Larry Perkins
• Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
March 1, 1999
Page 2
•
•
BA99-2: VARIANCE
WEDINGTON PLACE, pp401
This item was submitted by Bruce Adams for property
addition. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density
7.733 acres. The request is for a 10 foot setback along
of phase 1 and lot 4B of phase 2, with a variance of 15
located in lot 4 of the Wedtngton Place
Residential, and contains approximately
the east/west property line between lot 4A
feet.
Roger Trotter and Bruce Adams were present on behalf of the project.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommended approval of the variance as requested.
Committee Discussion
Vinson: The Planning Commission recently approved the preliminary plat and large scale
development. Refer to lot 4 and lot 4A. There is a building setback and drainage easement. The
easement was originally supposed to be 25 feet from the property line on lot 4B and 4A. They
are proposing to reduce that to 10 feet on each side because of the design of the building. After
reviewing this, staff concluded it would not effect anything because the property owner owns
both pieces of the property. It would not encroach on anyone else.
Trotter: As I understand, the reason for this request is because of the financing
mechanism.
Vinson: As I understand it, they have to deal with one phase at a time.
Johns: This is a senior housing project and tax credits have been applied for. They are
allowed "x" number of tax credits per project which resulted in their having to phase this project.
Trotter: There would not be a lot line between the buildings had it been financed and
credited as one parcel.
Hanna:
Vinson:
Hanna:
done.
If this wasn't two lots and this was one piece of land, this wouldn't be an issue.
That is correct.
If this is for tax credit purposes, it is not his intent to sell it as soon as he gets it
• Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
March 1, 1999
Page 4
•
•
Nickle: If this area was considered the rear set back they met the 25 feet. I consider they
met the rear set back. The split of the lot created the rear set back.
Trotter: I'm sorry that I can't offer more about the financing and the way this request came
forward.
Andrews: I live 150 yards from this thing. I don't see anything wrong with this
Boyd: It will shade your house. How many stories is this building?
Trotter: Two stories. The original large scale that was approved for this lot was a three
story building. This is a much nicer layout and design with the green space in the back. Before
it was just a big, long building with three stories. This is a much nicer looking building with a
lot more infrastructure as far as the street all the way through that has to be built with phase I.
Boyd: Is this cleared for added sewage? There at least 144 more toilets.
Trotter: We were assessed a fee for the Hamstring lift station. We are aware of the sewage
treatment issue.
Vinson: We have been including a warning in all staff reports on large scale development
and preliminary plat that there is a possibility of a moratorium in the future. We have not been
directed to go any further than that. That is a concern.
Hanna: Do you remember how many units were in the first approval of this project?
Adams: The unit mix in each of the 72 unit complexes will be 100 bedrooms. Bathrooms
match the bedrooms, so there will be 100 bathrooms for the unit per building and common
restrooms on the ground floor near the office. So, approximately 105 units along with the
laundry and all that. In the last submission, there were 132 units. I believe we are proposing
approximately 10% less.
Orton: How soon after you do Phase I are you planning to do Phase II?
Adams: The Phase II will be driven by Arkansas Development Finance Authority. In their
approval, they have an annual review. We will be 9 or 10 months into the annual review cycle
once we actually being Phase I. So within a year or less we will start Phase II.
Orton: So the second phase could be affected by a moratorium
Adams: Depending on when a moratorium were to come into affect. My understanding on
• Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
March I, 1999
Page 3
•
•
Vinson: That is correct.
Boyd: But they can be sold separately if we grant this variance. Why couldn't you have
designed it to stay 25 feet back?
Trotter: I expect Bruce to be here.
Vinson: I believe the tax credit issue came into play after it was designed and submitted
for review.
Trotter: The lot line is internal to the project.
Nickle: In most cases this would be considered a side yard setback as opposed to a rear
yard. It becomes a rear yard setback because it has frontage on two streets.
Trotter: If phase one was built and phase two for some reason didn't get built, then the
setback could be revised. Do you have a mechanism for revisiting?
Vinson: We could add that as a condition.
Boyd: I don't understand why with a huge tract of land like this, you go into it knowing
what our rules are and you can't design it to meet those requirements?
Trotter. There is detention back in here. We wanted to create more of a green space in the
rear of the building.
Boyd: Why are you taking the one tree down?
Orton: It's an Osage Orange.
Nickle: I agreed with Mr. Boyd's philosophy as to why couldn't it have been designed to
meet the regulations but I think it got designed and then they had to create 2 lots because of their
financing mechanism. If this was one tract, it would not be an issue. The design was in place,
etc. They had to create Lot 4A and Lot 4B and build in 2 phases. The lot split generated the
problem because of the way it was set up for tax credits. I think if they had known on the front
end that it would have been designed differently.
Orton: What is senior housing?
Trotter: It's retirement age people on fixed income.
• Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
March 1, 1999
Page 5
•
•
the moratorium is because of the large scale approval on the entire subdivision, we have been
approved under that large scale in demand capacity for the moratorium
Hanna: The question Mr. Boyd asked and we haven't heard an answer to was why didn't
you build the project with the 25 feet set backs?
Adams: The reason we are requesting the variance is obviously the size of the building and
our decision with the unit mix. The project was conceptualized as a single project under a single
large scale approval. Because of the dollar limitations that Arkansas Development and Finance
Authority has upon allocation of tax credits, we are restricted in a single phase application to
doing no more than what we have proposed here. We have applied for the maximum number of
tax credits. With that in mind, we conceptualize this as one project although we will be
constructing in two phases. It requires two legal descriptions, two loans recorded, two tax credit
applications.
Nickle: You designed the project in place as one piece of land and this was caused by the
financing mechanism having to spread the credits over more than one annual allocation in order
to do that. So this is a financing mechanism caused problem. If they had all of those tax credits
available initially, you would have gone ahead and build the project as designed on one piece of
land.
Adams: From a development and construction standpoint it would be better for us to do
both buildings at once. We do have limitations because of the --
Boyd: I would still like to know why, when you designed it, you didn't design it so it
could be split.
Adams: So the lot could be split without the variance?
Boyd: You have all the copies of the zoning regulations and the rules -- did you know
that was going to be problem?
Adams: No. We didn't know whether that would be defined as a side yard or a rear yard
setback. If it were a side yard, we wouldn't have this issue. But because we are fronting on two
streets, these are deemed as rear yards. If it was a side yard, we would be within compliance.
Boyd: And that is why you put 25 feet in the back in addition keeping away from the --
Adams: That setback is from the residential area. The intent is with our roof limitation.
That set the criteria for the setback at this point. We have tried to minimize the impact on the
residential neighborhood to the back.
• Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
March I, 1999
Page 6
•
•
Nickle: That seems desirable from the people in the adjoining residential area.
Adams: If you look at this, it 25.32 and the setback is driven here by the building height
and building limitations and it also meets the rear yard setback of 25 also. The limitation is set
by the roof height. We could not push that any closer even though that's deemed to be a side
yard. We have a height limit issue.
MOTION
Mr. Hanna made a motion to grant BA99-2.
Mr. Nickle seconded the motion.
Roll Call
Upon roll call the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 5-0-0.