Loading...
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.