Loading...
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.