HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-04-05 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 April 5, 1999 at
3:45 in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Michael Andrews
Gerald Boyd
Thad Hanna
Bob Nickle
Marion Orton
Larry Perkins
STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT
Steve Cattaneo
Tim Conklin
Janet Johns
Brent Vinson
Minutes of Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
•
April 5, 1999
Page 2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Nickle: Please correct my name to read "Bob Nickle."
Johns: Pardon me. I will correct that.
Perkins: Please make that correction and enter the Minutes into the record.
•
•
• Minutes of Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
April 5, 1999
Page 3
•
•
BA99-3: VARIANCE
SIXTH STREET DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, pp484
This item was submitted by Richard Alexander of Sixth Street Development Company, L.L.C.
for property located at 339 Rollston Avenue. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and
contains approximately 0.13 acres. The requirements are: a 50 foot setback from the street right
of way, and a 10 foot setback from the side property line. The requests are for a setback of 35
feet (15 foot variance) from the west property line, a setback of 18 feet (12 foot variance) from
the east property line, and a setback of 9 feet (1 foot variance) from the south property line.
Richard Alexander and Rob Merryship were present on behalf of the request.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of all variances necessary to allow the building to be used for
residential purposes. Staff recommends at 18 foot setback (variance of 12 feet) to the east and a
9 foot setback (variance of 1 foot) to the south. The parking spaces proposed on the site plan are
unacceptable by city design standards in that they back out onto the street. The applicant
currently has a building permit to remodel this structure to "single family residential." Parking is
not necessary for residential structures and the structure meets rear (west) setbacks so long as
parking is not installed there.
If the Board agrees to grant the requested variances, a new building permit must be issued
showing the use of this structure as "office" and making provision for accessible access to the
first floor of the building, accessible restroom facilities, and an accessible route to those restroom
facilities. Other items to be included are parking which meets city design standards, sidewalks
provided on both Campbell and Rollston Avenue and screening to the residential properties south
and north of the property.
Board Discussion
Perkins: The current permit is for office or residential?
Vinson: The building permit information that was provided by the applicant was for single
family residential. Staff does not support a change in the use.
Boyd: What is it now? Office or Residential?
Vinson. That's up to the applicant.
Alexander: The structure is an 1898 structure. I think over the years it has probably been used
• Minutes of Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
April 5, 1999
Page 4
as offices. It looks like it was a duplex at one time and I'm fairly certain it was single family at
the time we bought it. The structure has been there since 1898. Other than the request to do an
office, we don't need a variance because it is grandfathered and we didn't increase the size.
What we're trying to do there is -- we bought that property for about $50,000 and we thought we
would be able to renovate it as is but when we got into it, the back end was so far gone with
termites and rot that we had to tear that part off and reconstruct it. At the end of the day, we will
probably have $100,000 or more in that particular piece of property if we do the type of job that
we like to do. We have done several projects around town where we have renovated older style
buildings like that and we try to do a high end renovation with nice crown mold and landscaping
and those type of features. The reason we are requesting office is we have had some interest in a
professional office. What we would really like to have is the ability to choose or see who comes
to try to rent that project. It's in an R -O zone. It's our position that for the non conforming
nature of the lot which is probably hampered by being on two streets, we could do a professional
office there as a matter of right because it is in an R -O zone. The special circumstance that exists
in this instance is that there are 2 street fronts. A literal interpretation of the ordinance puts the
front setback somewhere in the first 1/3 of the structure and the back setback somewhere in the
middle of the structure. The lot and the setbacks and the parking were all non conforming.
There was parking on the back side of that building and always has been parking on the back side
• of that building. The City has made certain findings of fact, although I think that is more
properly the job of the Board of Adjustments. I have drawn up some findings of fact that I think
state our position if the Board members would care to review them. I think they set forth the
reasons why I think that our application is well taken. Starting at the top, it says:
•
A. General Regulations/Application. A variance shall not be granted unless and until
an application demonstrates -
1. Special Conditions. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are
peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable
to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district.
Finding: The land has two street fronts, one to the east and one to the west. The structure is
located in an area in the district with special conditions such as narrow streets and non
conforming structures, lots, setbacks and parking.
Alexander: There are two streets, Rollston and Campbell. Both of those streets are about 2
blocks long. They start on Dickson and they end of Lafayette. This structure is very old. It has
been there since 1998.
2. Deprivation of Rights. That literal interpretation of the provision of the zoning
regulations would deprive the application of rights commonly enjoyed by other
properties in the same district under the terms of the zoning regulations.
• Minutes of Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
April 5, 1999
Page 5
•
Finding: That literal interpretation of the provisions of the zoning regulations would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district.
Professional offices are allowed as a matter of right on other properties in the district that do not
have the above special circumstances.
Alexander: Professional offices are allowed by right in R -O zoning. The only reason we have
a question here is because of special circumstances, i.e. the lot being non conforming and the
structure is non conforming and the setback are non conforming.
Perkins: Do you know any others in the immediate neighborhood there that enjoy this?
Alexander: There is one on the corner of St. Charles and Lafayette. The UBC has their
church offices on the corner of Campbell and Lafayette.
Perkins: Parking is not really an issue there.
Alexander: I don't think parking is really an issue here. There is plenty of parking in the
back. One of the issues with the staff was that if we parked there, we would be backing out into
the street. There are approximately 12 properties on Campbell Avenue. All of them back out to
Campbell Avenue starting with Club 36, Razorback Laundry, Nick's Restaurant, Campbell
Avenue Suites. I have taken some pictures which show the back side of Campbell Avenue which
is where all the parking for these buildings are. We could probably conform to the parking but
our site plan as it is, is that there are 4 large, very beautiful hardwoods on the back of the
property and we tried to devise a site plan which did minimal damage to the root systems and
would allow us to park 4 cars right at the back. Again, parking has always been done on this part
of the property. We tried to do a something besides a solid concrete pour so we plan to pave only
the tire tracks. There is ample room for 4 parking spaces and there always has been parking on
that part.
3. Resulting Action. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result
from the actions of the applicant.
Finding: The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant. Applicant did not make the two street fronts the non conforming structure, setbacks
and parking.
4. No Special Privileges. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the
applicant any special privileges that is denied by Zoning, Chapters 160-165, to
other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district.
• Finding: Granting the requested variance would not confer on the applicant special
Minutes of Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
April 5, 1999
Page 6
privileges that are denied by Zoning to other lands, structures, or building in the same district.
The district is zoned R -O. Applicant wants to use the structure as a professional office.
Professional offices are allowed as a matter of right in an R -O zone.
5. Nonconforming Uses. No nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or
buildings in the same district, and no permitted or nonconforming use of lands,
structures or buildings in other districts shall be considered grounds for the
issuance of a variance.
Finding: No nonconforming uses of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same
district, and no permitted or nonconforming uses of lands, structures, or building in other districts
were considered.
Alexander: Having an office there would be less of an impact than having single family or
multi family activity going on.
C. Consideration by the Board of Adjustments.
1. Bulk and Area. Applicants for variances of bulk and area requirements shall be
considered by and may be approved by the Board of Adjustment.
2. Public Hearing. A public hearing shall be held
Finding: A public hearing is scheduled for April 5, 1999.
3. Findings. The Board of Adjustment shall make the following findings:
A. Minimum Variance. That the reasons set forth in the application justify the
granting of the variance, and that the variance is the minimum variance that will
make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure.
Finding: The variance requested is the minimum variance that would make possible the
reasonable use of the land, building, or structure.
Alexander: Our contention is that in order to do the quality job that we are trying to do here
and have done in the past. We will have to spend monies that are probably at the high end of the
rental market. I think the neighborhood gets a better structure that way but in order for us to have
a reasonable chance to recoup our investment, we feel that we need to have a reasonable change
to rent that to a multiplicity of tenants, either single family or office depending on who would
want to rent that structure. It is my contention that to determine reasonable you need to take into
account the amount of rehabilitation and the cost of rehabilitation of the structure. It would be
• Minutes of Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
April 5, 1999
Page 7
•
reasonable for the Board to take into consideration that we are doing a higher end rehabilitation.
1. Harmony with General Purpose. The board of Adjustment shall further
make a finding that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with
the general purpose of the intent of Zoning, Chapter 160-165, and will not
be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public
welfare.
Finding: The granting of the variance would be in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of zoning and would not be injurious to the neighborhood. The neighborhood is a mixed
use neighborhood of office/commercial/retail/multifamily and single family structures.
Alexander: This particular piece of property is located in a neighborhood comprised from
Rollston to Campbell Avenue on the east and west and Dickson Street and Lafayette to the north
and south. The properties at the one end of Campbell are predominantly commercial retail and
restaurant. Between Rollston and Campbell, there is a 50,000 square foot multi mixed use
development of retail, office, commercial, and family space. Out the west side of the property,
the predominant use of the area is parking. From the southwest to the property, the first building
is Shulertown which is presently slated to be a nonalcoholic night club. Directly west of the
property are church offices and directly northwest of the property are also church offices. On the
east side of Campbell Avenue, there is the mixed use development at the corner. There is an
abandoned single family structure that hasn't been occupied in several years. There is a multi
family structure on the corner of Watson. I think the houses on the east side of Rollston are
predominately single family. There may be multi family in there. At the far end of Campbell
Avenue there is an abandoned multi family dwelling. Most of the is either single family or
duplex. I think the one directly north of the property is either a multi family or a single family.
My point is the area is a very heavily mixed use neighborhood consisting of professional office,
parking --
Hanna: That one is not abandoned. It's to be renovated.
Nickle: The first time it was going to be an office. The second time is was a 6 or 8 plex.
Alexander: I took the pictures to demonstrate that I don't believe that the project we are
proposing which is a 1,000 square foot professional office in that neighborhood is out of
character or injurious.
Perkins: What is the minimum parking spaces required for 1,000 square feet R -O structure.
• Vinson: For the structure he has proposed, it was 4 spaces. A requirement for office use is
• Minutes of Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
April 5, 1999
Page 8
•
to have the parking spaces on the property. That is why staff --
Perkins: He does have to have 4.
Vinson: One of those has to be handicap.
Alexander: If the variance is granted, I plan to request a variance on the parking because the
parking never was or is conforming at this point. There is parking back there. More than 4 cars
park back there and have parked back there in the past.
Perkins: Is staff's main concern the backing out onto Campbell.
Vinson. Yes.
Conklin: We don't allow more than 3 cars to back out onto a public street. If you have
more than 3 you have to construct a parking lot with a 4 foot aisle space and 9x19 parking
spaces. When we looked at this, we were trying to figure out how a parking lot could be
developed on this site. It was difficult. We cannot see how it would work.
Alexander: Planning has the ability to waive 25% of the parking. Additionally, the UBC all
of that area back there is parking which is not used during the day.
Boyd: Can they get off site parking?
Conklin: They can apply to the Planning Commission for a shared parking agreement.
Boyd: You could get a couple of parking spaces from UBC.
Alexander: Yes, and they have given that to us in the past In order to take that next step, I
must get the variance. I couldn't put the cart before the horse. I had to come to the Board of
Adjustments and get the variance for the setback.
Boyd: We could grant you okay with your variances for residential purposes and okay for
office if you get off site parking.
Alexander: Yes. I would be glad to do that.
Vinson: It is true that the Planning Director could waive 25% of the parking spaces if she
felt that was something that should be done.
• Alexander: Which means I would comply because we only have 3 spaces then.
• Minutes of Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
April 5, 1999
Page 9
•
•
Boyd: You can't have more than 3 spaces?
Conklin: You cannot have more than 3 spaces backing onto a street. The purpose of that is
people are walking on sidewalks --
Boyd: There are 2 possible ways to getting this --
Alexander: I could do a curb cut and put parking in the front. There is enough room to do
parking in the front. We have landscaped that and put in a nice picket fence across there. I just
as soon not do that. I could do it.
Vinson: There would be sidewalks needed on both Rollston and Campbell.
Conklin: I just wanted to clarify a couple of points that Mr. Alexander made during his
presentation. Yes, the property is zoned R -O. A lot of the area downtown is zoned R -O and it is
developed with single family homes, duplexes, and other types of uses. Anytime you convert a
use or change a use, you have to comply with our ordinances and that is what we're looking at.
Do you have the parking that is required for that office use? Another thing that was mentioned
was how is the property being used. If it was used for an office 5 years ago and was discontinued
for more than 6 months, it reverts back to the residential use. The permit that was issued was for
a residential remodel. The current permit on file with the city is for a single family residential
home remodel. There is not a permit for an office use. If there was, our staff would have looked
at the issue of parking at that time. It was not until the variance came up that the parking issue
came up on that.
Alexander: The reason is when we first began the project we didn't realize the damage. We
initially thought we would do single family. After we got into the project and realized the money
we would have to spend, we approached the staff and we were told that the way to approach
getting an office would be to first come to the Board of Adjustments and get a variance. Then, if
the variance was granted, fill out the permit for office use which we plan to do. If the Planning
Director waives 25%, we wouldn't have an issue with parking and/or if UBC granted one parking
space, we wouldn't have an issue with parking and/or we could put parking in the front. We feel
that we can overcome the parking issues by a variety of methods.
Boyd: A variance in the front wouldn't be enough.
Alexander: We have 17 feet between the building.
Boyd: You need a 50 foot setback. With a 95 foot lot --
Andrews: You're willing to get a new permit for an office. Will you be making provisions
•
Minutes of Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
April 5, 1999
Page 10
for accessible access to the first floor?
Alexander: The first floor has access from the Rollston side. It is all one level.
Andrews: Accessible restroom facilities?
Alexander: They are ADA right now.
Andrews: Sidewalks on Campbell and Rollston?
Alexander: I would ask for a variance on the sidewalk on Rollston because there is no
sidewalk on Rollston and it would be in the middle of the yard and it wouldn't go anywhere. To
me this is a philosophical debate. If the City wants to encourage the renovation of this particular
part of town and even in just this particular area, there are many houses that are substandard: the
one on the end, the one at the three sisters project; two doors up the house is in very bad shape
and I have talked to the owner about selling it It would require a massive investment of money
to save it. Many of the houses in this particular area are substandard and in very bad shape. If
the City wants to encourage the development of this particular area of town, then it has always
been my contention that these types of variances are appropriate in an area where literally all of
the lots and all of the structures and all of the parking and all of the setback are nonconforming.
To have an R -O zone in an area where all of the structures, all of the setbacks, all of the lots are
nonconforming and take a position that you can't do an office unless they conform, then you
really don't have an R -O zone. Additionally, this zone is much more heavily mixed use than
probably any area of town. We have done a lot of projects in this part of town. We've spent a lot
of money and we do good projects. In one block area, we have added multifamily, single family,
office and commercial. Part of what made that possible was developing the properties and see
who came. In the end a very nice mix was had in terms of plenty of residential, low impact
professional offices, and high quality of building. I honestly thing that we are doing a good thing
in terms of beautify the neighborhood. It's a dilemma trying to fit what I perceive to be the
wishes of the City in developing this part of town and making it look nice with very rigid zoning
requirements. Even after this hearing there will be other issues. Again, we go back to whether or
not we want this type of thing to happen. The type of money we are spending there, we need all
the help we can get to make that work.
Public Comment
Jim Hill, an adjoining property owner, was present and spoke in opposition to using this property
as an office and supported the staff recommendation.
Kelly Moore, an adjoining property owner, was present and spoke in support of the using the
property as professional office as long as he would have the same option to change the use of his
Minutes of Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
April 5, 1999
Page 11
property.
Alexander: This area is zoned R -O. What is the neighborhood? If the neighborhood is
Rollston and just a few houses around that, it is predominately residential. If the neighborhood is
the two blocks of Campbell and Rollston, that is predominately commercial. The entire west
side of Campbell is commercial or parking. There are 2 or 3 law offices there. I'm not
advocating changing the nature of the area. I think the area is mixed use. I think it's a great area
for mixed use if we want to see that part of town survive. We've added more residential than we
have taken away in that part of town. I'm asking for the opportunity to rent as a professional
office. The professional office that would likely be there would be very low impact. Four
parking spaces are required if round up from 3.3 on 1,000 square feet. I think the impact of a
professional office on that street would be less than residential. You would have the benefit of a
restored property which increases the value of all the property around. Other properties may
want variances to do other things to keep up with the changing nature of that part of town. I live
on Dickson Street. I've got the library next door. I've got offices up the street. I'm two doors
down from the Washington County Courthouse. That is a good thing. We're not advocating
doing anything radical. I think what we're asking for is to take in the true nature of the
neighborhood and to allow a use that is permitted as a right but for the fact that all of these lots
and structures are nonconforming.
Vinson: How many square feet is this structure?
Alexander: Roughly 1,000.
Vinson: You don't know how many square feet? On the site plan it says 1,156 square feet
and I came up with a number almost like that, too.
Alexander: If you count the porch --
Vinson: My parking ratio number was 3.8. I did round up to get 4 spaces.
Nickle: You're requesting 4 parking places based on that requirement or would you just as
soon have 2 or 3 parking there?
Alexander: It can amply handle 3. Both of the properties directly to the north park behind the
building and back onto Campbell.
Jeannie Hill, an adjoining resident, was present and spoke in opposition to the project.
Further Board Discussion
Minutes of Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
April 5, 1999
Page 12
Vinson: I want to restate this is an R -O area and business is allowed in R -O but staff does
not feel the lot is large enough to have the required parking spaces to make it a business use.
When they change uses that is when a variance is required.
Cattaneo: There could be parking in front of the building but the problem is that there could
not be van accessibility at the back of the building.
Alexander: There is on street parking in front of the building.
Vinson: The curb is almost all the way to the fence and would not allow ADA
accessibility.
Nickle: I don't have any questions at this time.
Orton: How many people would be working at this office?
Alexander: Probably 3.
Orton: Doesn't that take up the available parking except room for 1 customer.
Alexander: UBC has the entire west side of Campbell as parking and I've talked with them
before and they have shared that. It is empty during the day which would be the time of use. If
it's a professional office, it's doubtful you would have parking problems. There is parking in
front.
Orton: You're saying the employees would be parking off the property.
Alexander: Directly across the street directly behind the building.
Boyd: How wide is Rollston Street?
Alexander: I don't really know. There is parking on the west side.
Orton: My feeling is that it's okay for a residence but to try and do something as office I
would not be in favor of.
Hanna: The property on the corner of Rollston and Lafayette got parking from UBC.
Vinson: That is correct. They also had parking on site.
Conklin: We did vary the landscaping from the street.
• Minutes of Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
April 5, 1999
Page 13
•
Hanna: Both owners in the neighborhood are here. They both present good views. Both
put money into the neighborhood and both want the long term viability of the neighborhood to be
intact. I have lived in that neighborhood. There wasn't anyone down there for a long time and it
was scary. I've noticed more homes there. Redevelopment of Dickson Street is not going to stop
and this is good for the whole neighborhood. It fulls the definition of R -O zoning. It's an old
part of town and we have to use common sense here. An office enhances the neighborhood
because there is less noise at night. There are pros and cons. They are zoned R -O and they have
the right to office. The only thing is the parking. If they provide assurance from UBC for a
couple of parking spots --
Perkins: They could have a circular drive where you don't back out at all
Conklin: We spent a lot of time trying to figure a way to make it work. Remember the
permit was for single family home.
Nickle: If you do a circle drive it will be more paving, etc and the trees won't make it. I
would like to see those tree remain. I'm not a strong believer on the domino effect. With the
proximity to the commercial area, I can see people not wanting to spend money on renovation to
keep it residential. Some people want that French Quarter flavor with all that going on around
them. I would rather see them put 2 or 3 parking spaces and preserve those trees which to me
adds a residential character.
Boyd: What bothers me is Rollston Street. It is narrow. If there is parking on the west
side, in my opinion, there shouldn't be. I don't think it will be for long. In 5 to 10 years, that
will be one way as it should be.
Perkins: Before we can issue a variance on the Campbell Street side, if you had some
alternate designs for us to look at or alternate means then I would feel better.
Alexander: We could get that.
Perkins: We would table this until we could can see that.
Vinson: You could make it a condition.
Nickle: They could present that to staff.
Alexander: If we can't do that, then we wouldn't have a variance. That would at least give us
the chance and we could work that out.
• Boyd: If they do handicap parking in the front, wouldn't they have to change their
Minutes of Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
April 5, 1999
Page 14
variance?
Vinson. They would need a 50 foot setback from Rollston Street. Can you get a handicap
parking place in the front?
Alexander: Yes. Or we could have a handicap in the back and do a ramp going to the porch.
Perkins: With no further variances being requested?
Alexander: No. There would have to be a 50 foot on the front.
Vinson: They would need a variance in the front as well.
Perkins: That alters this appeal. We might go in favor with what staff recommends on the
side that they looked at Then place conditions on any motion that may be passed today that
would require explicit plans to accommodate parking.
Alexander: We would have the variances for residential purposes.
Perkins: If it's purely residential, you wouldn't be here.
Alexander: The staff said we had to have a variance.
Vinson: Only for the change in use.
Conklin: You expanded your building to the west by 3 plus feet. Is that true or is that false?
Alexander: No. It was not expanded. The deck went out another 10 feet and we torn the deck
off.
Conklin: Minus the deck, has the structure been expanded to the west?
Perkins: The enclosed space is now larger than the original building.
Alexander: I think we enclosed what was an eve on the west side.
Conklin: So, the square footage has been increased?
Alexander: I don't think it has.
Perkins: I don't know about the expansion of your enclosed space but your variance is not
Minutes of Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
•
April 5, 1999
Page 15
•
•
really addressing it.
Conklin: Yes, it is. On the survey, the line is 3 feet further to the west. This variance does
address that addition.
Alexander: There was a deck that went out there. Your ordinance doesn't read enclosed area
it reads from the structure.
MOTION
Mr. Andrews made a motion to approve a variance on the east setback which is a12 foot
variance, the south setback is for a 1 foot variance unconditionally. The west setback is a 15 foot
variance conditioned upon a parking agreement with UBC or adding parking while preserving
the trees to meet the 4 spaces required under the City's code.
Further Discussion
Boyd: I think we should provide a variance in the front to allow a 32 foot variance so
parking could be allowed in front. We don't have to get involved in the parking issues.
Perkins: They have to ask the Planning Commission for a parking variance and they must
come apply for the office building permit.
Andrews: There are about seven conditions on the front page of the staff report which need
to be included.
AMENDED MOTION
Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve a 12 foot variance on the east setback, a 1 foot variance on
the south setback. The applicant must apply for an building permit for office use making
provisions for ADA access to the first floor of the building and ADA accessible restroom
facilities. All parking must meet city design standards. Sidewalks must be provided on both
Campbell and Rollston and screening to the residential properties south and north of the property.
In order to meet the parking requirements if the Planning Commission approves same, a 32 foot
variance would be allowed on the east if necessary and/or a 15 variance on the west would be
allowed if required to meet the parking requirements.
Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
Roll Call
Minutes of Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals
April 5, 1999
Page 16
Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 6-0-0.