HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-08-02 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, August 2, 1999 at 3:45 p.m.
in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED
BA99-12: Superior Federal Bank ATM, pp521
BA99-14: Marr, pp484
BA99-15: Wilkin, pp370
PA99.-15:.Ka.,,,n Sign. 483__ --
MEMBERS PRESENT
Gerald Boyd
Michael Green
Thad Hanna
Marion Orton
Larry Perkins
STAFF PRESENT
Tim Conklin
Janet Johns
Brent Vinson
ACTION TAKEN
Approved
Approved
Approved
Apr o ed----- -
MEMBERS ABSENT
Michael Andrews
Bob Nickle
STAFF ABSENT
None
Transcript of the Board of Adjustment Meeting
• August 2, 1999
Page 2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Perkins: The August 2 Board of Adjustment meeting is now in session. The first item of
business would be approval of the minutes from the July 6 meeting. There was one change under
the members present and members absent. Mr. Green should be added to members absent.
•
•
•
•
•
Transcript of the Board of Adjustment Meeting
August 2, 1999
Page 3
BA99-12: VARIANCE
SUPERIOR FEDERAL BANK ATM, PP521
This item was submitted by John Carpenter on behalf of Superior Federal Bank for property
located at 1369 West 6th Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and
contains approximately 1.147 acres. The requirement is for a 55 foot right of way from the
centerline of Razorback Road and Highway 62 plus a 50 foot building setback from both
__Razorback Rd. and Highway 62. The request is for a 36 foot building setback (a 14 foot
variance) along Highway 62 and no building setback along Razorback Road (a 45 foot right of
way.)
John Carpenter and Mike Phillips were present on behalf of the request.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the request of a 36 foot building setback along Highway 62 and a 45
foot right of way with no building setback along Razorback Road. The ATM could be located
further from the right of way on Razorback Road and still provide adequate circulation on the
site. If the Board of Adjustment decides to approve the request, the following conditions are
recommended:
1. The approval should also be based on the site plan provided and a time limit placed on
the variances that the ATM be constructed within one year from the date of approval or
the variances become void.
2. The ATM shall be relocated at the owner's expense at the time Razorback Road is
widened.
Committee Discussion
Perkins: Does staff have any input on this?
Conklin: We do recommend denial of this request. They are asking for a 36 foot building
setback along Highway 62 which would be 45 feet of right of way from the centerline and no
setback along Razorback Road. After going out to the site and looking at what land is available
to site this facility, there are other options where this could be placed where it would be further
from the actual street nght of way. If you do recall, we approved ATM machines for
Community Bank at Spot Not Car Wash on Wedington Road and Highway 265 and then one for
Simmons Bank at the corner of Highway 45 and 265. Razorback Road currently is 2 lanes. Our
concern in locating it there is that in the future when that road is widened they would have to
relocate it. Based on the size of their site, if they put it to the east of their drive on Highway 62,
Transcript of the Board of Adjustment Meeting
August 2, 1999
Page 4
that location would be more appropriate.
Perkins: On page 1.7, you're saying east of the driveway --
Conklin: There is currently a pay phone located there and if they located in that area, that
would be more appropriate. As staff, we did discuss with them locating the ATM machine -- if
you've been out there -- the back wall of the automatic car wash -- possibly locating it there. It
looked like it would be a good_location._ After talking with Mr. Carpenter,_ they were_concerned _
about the soap and spray coming back around the building and if you leave it on machines and
stuff like that it can become corrosive and hurt the machine. So, somewhere on this site, they
have to get it far enough away where it's not going to get sprayed with that soapy water. As
staff, we're willing to work with them to try to find a different location but at that point along
Razorback Road, we just feel like there are other locations on this site that they could put this
ATM machine.
Carpenter: The reason that the bank chose this location, naturally, is for visibility purposes.
We realize that we're asking for a variance. Our question is that if there would be one we would
move that at our own expense at the time Razorback Road was widened. That is a point we do
not have a problem with whatsoever.
Perkins: Has staff taken into consideration, the visibility driving north on Razorback Road
with the shrubbery and rail fence that is there now and the ATM looking back to the east.
Conklin: No, we did not. You mean, if we relocated it further north -- at the current
location, with the existing shrubs back there, it does appear that it is 30 to 36 feet back, it
shouldn't be a problem at that location with visibility
Perkins: Did I understand you to say then that there is compromise?
Carpenter: We'd be glad to.
Perkins: Not moving later but relocating it right now?
Carpenter: Preferably this is our ideal location for the visibility factor of people coming down
Razorback. I understand some of the comments at the other locations but we feel that to
optimize the site location, it would have to be closer to the corner of Razorback.
Perkins: Typically, would your traffic go west in front of the ATM and then exit to the
south? Would that be the traffic flow going through there?
• Conklin: Currently, they have the ATM machine situated where you would have to either
•
•
•
Transcript of the Board of Adjustment Meeting
August 2, 1999
Page 5
make a "U" turn as you come off of Highway 62 to get to the window or come off of Razorback
Road going north to be on the right side.
Boyd: To be on the right side.
Conklin: Yes. Other ATM machines that we have approved in the past have brought them
out away from the curb so if you are coming in off of Highway 62 you could pull in between the
_ _...
curb and the parking area and access your ATM machine.
Boyd: Do you have a roof on there?
Phillips: No.
Conklin• If the Board of Adjustment does vote to approve it, we have recommended 2
conditions. The approval should be based on the site plan provided and a time limit placed on
the variance that the ATM be constructed within 1 year from the date of approval or the variance
becomes void and that the ATM shall be relocated at the owners expense at the time Razorback
Road is widened. If you do approve it, so the City or the state highway department is not going
to be required to compensate them for relocating this facility.
Public Comment
None
Further Discussion
Green: I have a question. Do we have any idea what the time frame is for widening
Razorback Road might be?
Conklin: I do not have a time frame on that. I would expect that with all the activity and
development at Baum Stadium that some time in the near future, Razorback Road would be
widened.
Green: There is certainly going to be some pressure, I think, to widen that pretty quickly
and if they did then you would have to find an alternate location on that site, anyway. I wonder
if we're really doing them a favor by letting them go there if it's only going to be for a couple of
years. It's not my decision.
Boyd: My feeling is that if it's visible from both Sixth Street and Razorback, people are
going to enter the Sixth Street entrance into there and then they are really going to have to drive
through the lot or drive around and do a "U" turn and come back out. I think it would be better
Transcript of the Board of Adjustment Meeting
• August 2, 1999
Page 6
•
•
to put it in the location that staff suggested even though there might be slightly less visibility
Orton: I think they'll find that with all of the traffic on Razorback and going out to the
baseball field and to the bypass, there is going to be traffic and I think they'll find it at the
alternative location.
Hanna: In trying to be consistent, I think the last one, not counting the one at 45 and
Crossover for Community Bank; at the car wash out on 16, if I remember correctly, on the front
and west side of the property -- my point being that I'm trying to be consistent --
Perkins: Aren't there 2 on that one street?
Conklin: Are you talking about the one on Wedington Drive. That one was pushed up to
that front property line and as staff I am trying to be consistent here, too.
Hanna: As a board, I think we need to be consistent. Community wanted it and at that
time, we discussed moving it. I think Shell Spivey was here and told us -- wasn't it put on a
concrete slab so they could pull it back 15 feet. I really don't see much difference between this
piece of property and the Wedington piece of property. I think at that time, his response was
they would pay to have it moved. If they are willing to assume the cost of moving it and if it's
not an eye sore and if it doesn't obstruct traffic flow --
Perkins: Any other input?
Phillips: The alternate location is by the pay phone? If we are going to access that, they
would have to back up to get out. There is no extra drive around the car wash bays.
Conklin: We looked at that, too. If it's a Sunday afternoon and it's hot out and everybody
is washing their cars, you're going to have conflicts. You may even have conflicts at this area.
Right now, you're assuming the cars are going to enter from Razorback Road and go north and if
there are cars lined up in here and they enter from 62, somehow, they are going to have get
turned around to get to that ATM. Another alternative and I think you've addressed that all
ready, was to bring it back off that curb and create a drive aisle through there. Yes, it does push
it further out into the automatic car wash lanes. This morning when I was out there looking at it
again, it does appear there is adequate room. But, there was no one out washing their car.
Hanna: What did you propose to them the first time?
Conklin: Put it over on the east side of their drive, over by the pay phone. The argument
that they brought forward was that this way it at least provides traffic 2 ways to back out keeping
it on that side.
•
•
•
Transcript of the Board of Adjustment Meeting
August 2, 1999
Page 7
Perkins: The way the recommendation is structured is with the 2 conditions that you
spelled out, the current location and absorbing the cost of relocating is the staff recommendation
as far the appeal today. Right? Unless we reach a compromise here.
Conklin: After going out there and looking at it, it looked like there were other locations
where it could further back out of that future right of way on Razorback Road. That was the
basis of the recommendation and how to get it as far back from the that future right of way. It
looked like on this site there were other locations where you could possibly do that. Highway 62
is already 5 lanes. I would expect Razorback Road would impact this side the most.
Perkins: It's my understanding you want the appeal considered the way it was submitted.
Carpenter: Yes. We would move it.
Perkins: Any other input? Any further discussion of the panel? Do we have a motion to
approve or deny the appeal as submitted with the recommendations by staff as shown on the
agenda?
MOTION
Hanna: I recommend that we approve the request as submitted with the stipulations of the
planning department on there.
Green: I'll second.
Roll Call
Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 3-2-0. Mr. Boyd and Ms. Orton voted against
the motion.
Transcript of the Board of Adjustment Meeting
•
August 2, 1999
Page 8
BA99-14: VARIANCE
MARR, PP484
This item was submitted by Bret Park on behalf of Donald Marr for property located at 2 West
Mount Nord. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately
0.58 acres. The requirement is for a 35 foot right of way and a 25 foot building setback from
Maple Street. The request is for no building setback from Maple Street or a 23 foot variance.
•
•
Bret Parks and Stacy Eisenhoff were present on behalf of the request.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance based on staff findings and with
the following conditions:
1. Variance approval shall be based on the site plan for the new garage.
2. If the garage is not constructed within one year from the date of approval, the variance
shall be voided.
(Amended) The garage will be started within one year. If the garage is not constructed
within three years from the date of approval, the variance shall be voided.
3. The garage shall meet or exceed the historical integrity of the existing garage and all
landscaping shown on the site plan shall be provided.
Committee Discussion
Perkins: This request is for no building setback from Maple Street.
Conklin: Staff has recommended approval of this variance request When we say no
building setback from Maple Street, we are actually talking about no building setback from the
future right of way for Maple Street. Maple Street is classified as a collector street and requires
70 feet of right of way total. If you'll refer to page 2.15 in your agenda, there is currently an
existing garage that's almost sitting on the property line on Maple Street on the north side of this
lot. They plan to demolish that garage and the proposed garage that's shown on here would be
approximately 15 feet away from their actual property line. The master street plan requires the
additional right of way and therefore, they are just asking to be allowed to build up to that future
right of way line, if at some time in the future, Maple Street is ever widened. Staff has
recommended approval. We placed 3 conditions on the approval They are trying to build a nice
garage that will be compatible with this neighborhood and staff does support this variance
Transcript of the Board of Adjustment Meeting
August 2, 1999
Page 9
request.
Perkins: Any questions from the panel? Is Mr. Parks present?
Parks: Yes.
Perkins: Do you have any additional comments on this appeal?
Parks: We had 2 primary design determinants. One was to maintain a historical
relationship between the garage which is similar to a carriage house. It is somewhat separate
from the house. That kind of determined it's location rather than having it right next to the house
and attaching the garage. The other determinate was to accommodate an adequate and safe
turnaround space for vehicular access. It's impossible to back to out of that driveway because it
is so narrow. The only thing I would like to ask is if we could have longer than 1 year to execute
this. Construction could occur in a couple of phases over 3 years. Could we have 3 years to
execute this? We would really appreciate it. Although currently the plan is to do it all right
away but if we have to stage it because of the landscape plan and that kind of thing, we would
like to have more time.
Conklin: I have no problem extending it to 3 years
Perkins: To begin within 1 year and be completed within 3 years.
Conklin: That will work.
Perkins: Fair enough. There are 2 other drawings here. One shows an alternative that you
are not interested in. Does this represent this drawing here?
Parks: No. That was an alternative that shows it within the existing setback line. That is
too close to the house for historical integrity.
Vinson. At the bottom of the pages they are captioned as alternative 1, alternative 2,
alternative 3 and the proposed design solution is the one after that.
Perkins: This is the one they most desire.
Vinson: Yes.
Conklin: That is correct. They tried to show different locations and how to meet the
ordinance requirements. One other thing to keep in mind is that this lot is a double frontage lot.
It has 2 streets on each side. Demolishing the existing garage is going to improve the situation
•
Transcript of the Board of Adjustment Meeting
August 2, 1999
Page 10
and building up to that future right of way line shouldn't be a problem.
Vinson: They wanted to let you know they had explored alternatives and that there was a
reason behind the placement of the garage.
Perkins: Anyone else present who wishes to comment on this appeal?
Boyd: It looks to me like in relocating the garage, following all the arguments that they
have -- why is it necessary to put a pool room and a greenhouse in the setback? Those could be
relocated somewhere.
Eisenhoff: We're incorporating those two spaces with the garage as one structure. The
landscape plan includes the pool and they will need a pool equipment room and the greenhouse is
articulating the garage and is a place to start seeds for the landscaping that is occurring on that
property.
Boyd:
garage.
You're eliminating about a 400 foot garage and replacing it with an 800 foot
Parks: The current garage is not adequate.
Boyd: I realize -- well, what size is it?
Eisenhoff: It's 20 feet wide and I believe there is a photograph in your packet.
Boyd: Yes, I see it. There's no measurement or dimensions.
Eisenhoff: You can't open the car door in the current garage. If the client chose to keep that
structure and if anything happened to it like a natural disaster or anything happened, they could
not rebuild it.
Boyd: My point is it doubled in size roughly, when you eliminate the old one and put the
new one in. The whole thing is built in on a vary narrow parcel. You're asking for a 100%
variance. If you can't get a car in any other place, do you need to add the additional pool
equipment room. That's an awfully big pool equipment room first of all A greenhouse?
Eisenhoff: I would like to add that the existing garage is 538 square foot and the new
structure would be 750 square feet so it's increasing by 212 square feet.
Boyd: It's 20 by what? How deep is it?
•
•
Transcript of the Board of Adjustment Meeting
August 2, 1999
Page 11
Eisenhoff: I don't have a scale with me.
Perkins: It's 20 by 25.
Boyd: 25? My point is that it grew.
Parks: I would like to acknowledge that it is larger. It's larger to accommodate the
client's request for functions, We are determinine this as a minimum requirement to park a car
or the size of a functional garage for the client.
Boyd: A functional garage and pool room and greenhouse. This is a pretty big lot here.
Green: It looks to me that they are going the proper way. Right now the garage is located
in the right of way. At least they are clearing everything out of the right of way. Even though it
is all going to be in the setback. It would be easier to bring it in architecturally and otherwise
having it all pushed together there instead of having a separate little house stuck out there in the
woods. You're going to have to have an equipment room somewhere if you're going to have a
pool. It doesn't really bother me that they are doing that all in one building. The whole deal is
this is the best solution for setting it in the setback. I've tried to see an alternate way myself.
You have some site restrictions with the narrow lot. I'm not sure what options would be other
than creating some historical problems.
Boyd: Is this a swimming pool?
Parks: It's a small swimming pool.
Boyd: It's an unusual shape.
Parks: Do you have a suggestion?
Boyd: No. I'm just observing.
Hanna: The existing garage is right on the wall. What's the distance between the wall and
Maple Street.
Conklin: Approximately 15 feet.
Hanna: From the wall of the new garage? I'm talking about the rock wall that borders
Maple Street. The garage is built right along that. It's so high. I don't think you'll be able to see
this from Maple Street. From that rock wall, how far back is the new, proposed garage?
Transcript of the Board of Adjustment Meeting
• August 2, 1999
Page 12
Conklin: I scaled approximately 15 feet.
Hanna: My point is, you won't hardly see that from Maple Street.
Conklin: I would tend to agree with you. I had to go out there and I slowed and looked up
and I have never noticed the existing one before along that street. Yes, this will be set back
approximately 15 feet up that hill that is currently wooded with trees on it and I'm not sure
visually how much you are going to see from Maple Street.
Hanna: That is so narrow in there. There's a wall along the south side. It's never going to
be widened. Never say never but --
Conklin: A collector street is a 36 foot wide street back of curb to back of curb. It would
take some significant grading and they would have to do something with that retaining wall if
they ever did. It's not in our plans to widen that street currently.
Hanna: My point is this is an improvement.
• Orton: I don't see that the siting of this garage is going to detract from the historical
presentation there. There's landscaping and so forth.
•
Perkins: Any further discussion? Do we have a motion?
MOTION
Hanna: I make a motion to accept the variance as requested with the exception that we
add to point number two on the staff recommendation that the garage must be completed within
3 years.
Orton: Second.
Roll Call
Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 4-1-0. Mr. Boyd voted against the motion.
Transcript of the Board of Adjustment Meeting
• August 2, 1999
Page 13
BA99-15: VARIANCE
WILKIN, PP370
This item was submitted by Chad Needham on behalf of Rolf Wilkin for property located at
1905 E. Mission Blvd. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and contains
approximately 4.26 acres. The requirement is for a 55 feet from right of way from the centerline
of Highway 45 plus a 50 foot building setback. The request is for a 27 foot setback or a 23 foot
variance.
Chad Needham and Dennis Becker were present on behalf of the request.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance based on staff findings and with
the following conditions.
1. Variance approval is based on the provided site plan.
•
If the remodeling is not constructed within one year from the date of approval, the
variance will be voided.
3. The color scheme for the building and awning shall match those represented on the color
rendering provided.
4. All signage on the building shall meet City standards.
Committee Discussion
Perkins: Does staff have any input on this, please9
Conklin: Staff is recommending approval of this requested setback variance This is a
variance for an existing portion of the building that currently encroaches in the potential right of
way based on the master street plan. They want to add a covered walkway under the north end of
the building. This used to be the old Dillons grocery store on Highway 45. There will be a
Eureka Pizza and other leasable tenant space within the building. With our 55 foot right of way,
refer to page 3.11, it indicates what our existing right of way is and what our future right of way
would be, plus a 50 foot setback. We are requesting just that portion which would be the
northwest corner of that building, to allow them to go ahead and remodel the building and build
that covered walkway on the front of the building. It will improve the appearance of the building
and staff does support that variance request.
•
Transcript of the Board of Adjustment Meeting
August 2, 1999
Page 14
Perkins: Right now, the current building is that much out of compliance.
Conklin. That is correct.
Perkins: This awning --
Conklin: This awning -- is correct.
•
Perkins: We're just dealing with the very northwest comer of the building.
Conklin. When they brought their building permit in for this remodeling it was discovered
that with our existing master street plan and additional right of way that would be required, we
would not be able to allow them to build that covered walkway. Therefore, we advised them to
go to the Board of Adjustment and seek a variance. It does make the building more attractive.
Perkins: Is Mr. Needham present?
Needham: Yes.
Perkins: Do you have any additional comments on this?
Needham: We plan to remodel this building. It's kind of an eye sore that's there now. I
think we've come up with a pretty good plan on how it Looks.
Perkins: There will be other businesses in this complex, too. Correct?
Conklin: Yes. It is currently zoned C-1 and allows for professional office, retail, grocery
stores, and restaurants.
Boyd: Do you own all the land included in that plat?
Becker: The parking lot is within the C-1. The corner situation is a result of extending the
canopy and to get some continuity across the face of the building. You might note that this is
spot zoning. This is the only C-1 around. With the exception of the 50 feet, everything was built
according to the code. We could pull off the canopy but we have cars out there parking anyway
We're looking for continuity in the aesthetics. The building is set at an angle and it's just that
little corner there.
Public Comment
• Lisa Kramer was present to inquire regarding the plans for the building and further inquired as to
Transcnpt of the Board of Adjustment Meeting
August 2, 1999
Page 15
how the building got built encroaching into the right of way.
Perkins: Let staff comment on the encroachment.
Vinson: When this was built it did meet the setback requirements of the city. The awning
is what causes it to be 23 feet. The actual building is only a couple of feet.
Conklin:_ The setback is from the future nght of way associated with our master streetplan
which has been adopted by the City Council. It requires 110 feet of right of way total. That's 55
feet from the centerline. That's a boulevard. If you look at the cross section it includes a 6 foot
sidewalk, a 10 foot green space for trees and a curb and 2 travel lanes, a median, 2 more travel
lanes -- that's what has been adopted by the City of Fayetteville. When the applicant came in for
a building permit to put the awning on, it was discovered that the additional right of way would
encroach in the setback. The future right of way is where we measure the setbacks. That way we
don't have structures being built in areas where we expect streets to be widened. It was
approximately 27 feet from the future street right of way. Normally, you would need 50 feet.
They are requesting a 23 variance from the 55 feet from centerline of the new right of way.
Kramer: Is it the width of the awning or the length of awning that is causing this?
Conklin: It's the northwest corner.
Kramer: What is the awning made out of?
Needham: It's not canvas or anything like that.
Kramer: It's some kind of metal?
Becker: It's got a metal roof and it's got concrete facia and columns.
Conklin: When they applied for a building permit and we discovered this, our opinion is it
will look better to allow them to extend that awning into the setback area instead of cutting it off
and trying to do something else.
Kramer: Do they have a certain number of parking spaces based on how much is there and
it's intended use?
Becker. It meets all the requirements as it is with the exception of this little corner that
doesn't meet the setback requirements.
Conklin: The parking requirements for retail are 1 space per 250 square feet. They are not
•
Transcript of the Board of Adjustment Meeting
August 2, 1999
Page 16
different for restaurants.
Kramer: They're not?
Conklin: No.
Kramer: How much of the square footage will be restaurant? Do you know?
•
•
Wilkins: Instead of a restaurant, it's pizza. There's no dining traffic.
Kramer: The cars come and go delivering and that sort of thing.
Conklin: With regard to the use of the building, it's currently zoned C-1 which is
commercial. We're not even discussing what use is appropriate. Those uses are listed in our
zoning ordinance and when they come in to do the tenant finish outs for this building, we'll issue
something called a certificate of zoning compliance and make sure the use is allowed under that
C-1 zone. That's how we handle new businesses going in to verify that they are appropriate and
are allowed under our zoning ordinance.
Emmy Anderson was present.
Anderson: The lot south of Dillons -- are there any plans for that? We're concerned in the
neighborhood what goes in there. This does affect people above you. We're concerned about
Harp's and their lights and they're not friendly at night. You can see them all the way across the
mountain. There are people on different levels there. The noise is terrible. Nobody notices that
before it happens to you. There's a constant string of cars on 265.
Wilkins: We're not going to redevelop the property at all. We're going to utilize what is
there It is an eye sore. It's dangerous and rotting and the roof could come down so we want to
do something very similar that looks nice. We're not planning to rezone or take out any trees.
The lighting is a concern. We live in the same area and we definitely want to decrease the
impact on this corner.
Melanie Dietzel was present.
Dietzel: I'll be your neighbors almost across the street. I'm concerned about the lot south
of you that is R-1.
Wilkins: Yes.
Dietzel: That's directly across from me. I concerned about it. Are there plans to change
Transcript of the Board of Adjustment Meeting
• August 2, 1999
Page 17
the zoning on that?
Wilkins. No. We have no plan for that at all.
Perkins: That's something we can't discuss at this Board anyway.
Hanna: We can discuss it, we just can't do anything about it. One good thing that comes
out of a.forum like this when the neiehborhood does come out is that it allows the neighbors and
the developers to discuss what their concerns are. A lot of times, the developer listens to the
neighborhood and tries to work with them. It makes it friendly and you're not strangers.
Louis Kramer was present.
Kramer: I am delighted to hear that you're going to make it better looking. One thing that
would make it much more attractive and inviting to your customers is to choose much more
aesthetic lighting than what is presently there. It's pretty awful. You drive around and
something just glares at you it doesn't look like a place to want to go into. My other question is
are you going to have big delivery trucks and if so, where are they going to go?
• Wilkins: That's a good question. We do have a delivery truck that delivers during the day.
•
All our delivery trucks that come in --
Kramer: That back of the buildmg or the side?
Wilkins: They usually pull into the front.
Kramer: Not where you're going to put the awning?
Wilkins: He's only there for 20 minutes while he's unloading.
Kramer: All the businesses will be right there?
Becker: There is access in the rear.
Kramer: Are there any plans for improving the back part of the acreage?
Wilkins: We will want to take care of our location and improve the parking lot. We'll plant
trees or whatever it takes to beautify this corner. The R-1 tract is something that we haven't
discussed yet but we have some options there.
Dietzel: It was beautiful before.
Transcript of the Board of Adjustment Meeting
• August 2, 1999
Page 18
Kramer: Does your property stop short of the forest?
Wilkins: The entire property is broken into 2 zones. A residential section and a
commercial section. The commercial is really what the building and parking lot is on and the
residential is on the corner and it's not built on and we don't have any plans for that. We just
want to improve what's existing.
Kramer: You've done good work in front of a lot of very concerned neighbors.
•
•
Doug Kinsey was present.
Kinsey: My concern was is the traffic. The traffic is incredible. It's getting worse and
worse by the day. With the business back there, once every 2 weeks we'll have a wreck right in
front of my house. People fly over that hill and rear end the car turning. We haven't had many
to speak of but with business there again --
Further Committee Discussion
Perkins: Any further discussion.
Green: Probably the best thing that helps to make a building look more attractive is to
have it occupied and used. I really hate to see a building set there to decay and become an eye
sore and a social problem, too. Also an economic problem -- I'm glad to see you're doing
something about it.
Boyd: If we denied this application, they could go ahead and use it for the same purpose
by cutting off a little corner like that house up on 71 bypass. I'm sure everyone has driven by
that site and they just diagonally cut off a little corner of the house.
Perkins: This was a good opportunity to air some concerns and get some feed back from
the developers which never hurts.
Kinsey: I remember that a gentlemen got run over and killed right there.
Kramer: Is there anything we can do about reducing that speed limit?
Perkins: None that I know of. We don't have much control of that.
MOTION
•
Transcript of the Board of Adjustment Meeting
August 2, 1999
Page 19
Boyd: I move that we grant the variance.
Green: Second.
Roll Call
Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 5-0-0.
•
•
Transcript of the Board of Adjustment Meeting
• August 2, 1999
Page 20
BA99-16: VARIANCE
KAPPA SIGMA, PP483
This item was submitted by Ron Tabor of Xi Corporation on behalf of Kappa Sigma for property
located at 711 W. Dickson St. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential and contains
approximately 1.47 acres. The requirement is a 20 foot setback. The request is for an 8 foot
setback or a 12 foot variance for the proposed addition and a 6 foot setback or a 14 foot variance
for the chimney.
•
Ron Tabor and Charlie Whiteside were present on behalf of the request.
Committee Discussion
Perkins: Does staff have input on this appeal, please?
Vinson: We are recommending approval of the variance. The variance in on the east side
of the building. What they are planning to do is demolish the back part of the existing structure
and build back a 3 story apartment. The east side is what we are concerned about. The east side
and the front part of the structure are approximately 8 feet from the property line and they would
like to be able to build to that point with the rest of the building. If you look on page 4.14. They
plan to start within the year.
Perkins: Would you show me what they plan to do?
Conklin: On page 4.14, this area right here is existing. The back part of the building they
are planning to demolish that. On page 4.15, is the addition they would like to add using the
same setback as the existing setback for the building up front which is an English Tudor style
building. It's approximately 8 feet.
Boyd: What is this zoning?
Conklin: This is zoned R-3.
Boyd: Why do we need a variance?
Conklin: They would like to continue that same setback along that side of that building.
Orton: Why do they have a setback in that zone?
Conklin: Oh. Anything over 20 feet in height, we have an additional setback. The key to
•
the pu77le I have calculated the height of the building based off the elevation drawings. They
Transcript of the Board of Adjustment Meeting
• August 2, 1999
Page 21
have gabbling that matches the existing building up front and faces to the east which is facing
Nations Bank or Bank of America. Those gables are approximately 32 feet high at the very top.
You have an 8 foot setback for the first 20 feet plus 12 additional feet to get up to the 32 feet tall.
That is what the variance request is to allow that building with the 32 foot high gable length to be
approximately 8 feet from that east property line. Currently it's developed to the east as Nations
Bank or now Bank of America and just south of there is a gravel parking lot and barbeque place.
Boyd: Did we get any response from the bank? They are the only ones that are going to
•
•
be affected by that.
Orton: They don't mind.
Perkins: Do you have any additional comments?
Tabor: Since I have visited with Brent and Tim earlier, we've gone back and checked
things a little better and we're actually going to be wider than 8 feet. The original application
filed by Mr. Tucker the architect, was submitted to Ms. Little a year or so ago. He took the
closest point and I don't want to get that technical with you. I don't think it's really going to
matter. He had a fireplace on either side. This fireplace is being removed. He was measuring
approximately to the edge of our property line. We have since found that the fence is not our
property line. There is an old wall between the Bank's brick fence and our wooden fence and in
between is our wall which is our property line. It's probably going to average more like 13 to 14
feet all along that east line. That was just the figure that Mr. Tucker submitted at the time that he
first visited with Ms. Little. This is the elevation. This is the west elevation and you can tell by
the site plan, we want to orientate everything to the west side. We own the parking lot. There is
a row of nice trees here that we want to try to save. You can see it on the site plan. It just gives
the whole building a much better orientation than what we've had there all these years
Boyd: This is owned by?
Tabor: Xi Corporation.
Boyd: Not the University.
Tabor: No. A lot of them are owned by the University but not ours This is the first time
that the Kappa Sig have ever gone in for anything that there wasn't somebody here opposing it.
Whiteside: I'm President of Xi Corporation. We're very intent on renovating but we're not
disturbing the old building other than new windows. We're going to completely gut it, redo it,
and then enhance the back.
Transcript of the Board of Adjustment Meeting
August 2, 1999
Page 22
Public Comment
None.
MOTION
Boyd: I move to accept it.
Orton: I'll second.
Roll Call
The motion passed with a unanimous vote of 5-0-0.
The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
F
Prcp 1 OFZ
4 A4arroveD
'0)35 m D mo l
SAB9 - lZ
SuPdz,orz
4 AfrenjE�
143y
BA
r
9R,-14
e _ ea KIDIWa
ARE
lc
Aeov�
K iN
IS
eg94-
wit
M. ANDREWS
ASSOC
Assayr
AES>C?JT
G. BOYD
N
N
Y
T. HANNA
Pfiizave-manaj
\I
v
B. NICKLE
AEsekrr
nsse t
M. ORTON
N
\I
\J
K. PERKINS
v
\I
V
m . c�
7N
I
. .... �. -. -. .
I
Ivr
�_�w
M. ANDREWS
AEEarr
G. BOYD
1
T. HANNA
B. NICKLEC-`
M. ORTON
1
K. PERKINS
y