Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-10-04 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, October 4, 1999 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Approval of 09/07/99 Minutes BA99-21: Keating, pp289 BA99-22: Rye, pp448 BA99-23: McDonald, pp446 MEMBERS PRESENT Michael Andrews Gerald Boyd Thad Hanna Bob Nickle • Larry Perkins Michael Green • STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Janet Johns Jerry Rose Dawn Warrick ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Marion Orton STAFF ABSENT None • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes October 4, 1999 Page 2 APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 7,1999 MINUTES Perkins: Good afternoon everybody. Thank you for coming. The first item of business is acceptance of the minutes of the September 7th meeting. Are there any changes or deletions to note? MOTION Green: I move to approve the minutes. Nickle: I second. Roll Call Upon roll the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 5-0-1. Mr. Hanna abstained. • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes October 4, 1999 Page 3 BA99-21: VARIANCE KEATING, PP289 This item was submitted by Bill Keating for property located at 135 West Sunbridge. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 29 acres. The requirement is for a 10 foot side setback. The request is for a 3 foot setback which is a 7 foot variance. Bill Keating was present on behalf of the request. Staff recommended approval of the request. Board Discussion Conklin: Staff recommends approval of this variance based on staff findings and the site plan. There is one correction to the report and that is that the property line adjustment has already been approved on this property. The applicant has requested a 3 foot side setback or a 7 foot variance. Refer to page 2.6 of your agenda This development is part of the Sunbridge Business Center Development. There is an existing building under construction to the west with 28 feet of separation between the 2 buildings. Nickle: Have any of the adjoining property owners called to object? Conklin: I have not heard from anyone. Public Comment None MOTION Nickle: I'll make a motion to approve the request. Hanna: I'll second. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-0. • • Board of Adjustment Minutes October 4, 1999 Page 4 BA99-22: VARIANCE RYE, PP488 This item was submitted by Linda and John Rye for property located at 1657 Anson Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately .49 acre. The requirement is for a 20 foot rear setback. The request is for a 16 foot setback which is a 4 foot variance. Linda and John Rye were present on behalf of the request. Staff recommend approval. Board Discussion Conklin: This is a request to extend a deck 4 feet into the required 20 foot rear setback. Staff is recommending approval. The amount of deck that will be within the setback area is approximately 44.5 square feet. Please refer to page 3.13. This is the survey that shows the proposed deck. It is the south portion of the deck that will encroach the setback. Perkins: Just the southeast corner, right? Conklin: The southeast corner is the only part that would be within the 20 foot building setback. Staff does recommend approval. This is located in a heavily wooded area behind the house. If you went up there you would not be able to see it from the street. It's fully wooded. Staff feels that allowing this corner of the deck to extend into the setback would not be a problem. Perkins: Mr. and Mrs. Rye are present. Do you have anything to add to this? Rye: We like our outdoor living and we want to put the deck back in the same size that was already there. Nickle: Does this allow any fudge factor? Conklin: I guess the question is does the variance of 4 feet allow enough room for the deck to be built? Nickle: Sometimes the builder gets out there and even a slight mistake results in your having to come back. Rye: The deck will be exactly 10 feet. Board of Adjustment Minutes October 4, 1999 Page 5 Boyd: I'm in favor of this provided that we only grant the variance for the corner section of the proposed deck which will encroach into the setback. I don't see that it is necessary to decrease the entire setback line 4 feet. Conklin: Our recommendation is for the approval to be based on the site plan submitted with this application. Public Comment None. MOTION Boyd: I'Il move to grant the variance. Andrews: Second. Roll Call Upon roll call the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 6-0-0. • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes October 4, 1999 Page 6 BA99-23: VARIANCE MCDONALD, PP446 This item was submitted by Warren and Karen McDonald for property located at 435 N. Washington Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately .44 acre. The requirement is for a 35 foot street right of way from street centerline and a 25 foot front setback on Maple Street. The request is for a 13 foot front setback which is a 12 foot variance. Warren and Karen McDonald were present on behalf of the request. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The new garage must match the architectural character and integrity of the existing residence and carriage house. The new garage must be constructed within one year or the variance will become void. Board Discussion Conklin: Staff does recommend approval of this variance request based on the staff findings and the site plan subject to the conditions in the staff report. The variance that has been requested is needed in part due to the master street plan which designates Maple Street as a collector street. That is shown on page 4.11. Currently, Maple Street has a 40 foot right of way which is 20 feet from the centerline. The Master Street Plan requires 35 feet from the centerline or 70 feet total. Our setbacks are taken from the Master Street Plan right of way. We have granted variances in the past from the Master Street Plan right of way requirements. Most recently, you approved a variance from the Master Street Plan right of way requirements on Mt. Nord for Don Marr. Staff does recommend approval. Green: The only question I had was the staff report says they are requesting a 12 foot variance but the other documentation reflects a 10 foot variance. Is this for 12 feet or 10 feet? Conklin: The request is for a 12 foot variance. Hanna: We're just addressing the new garage, right? Conklin: That is correct. Hanna: The right of way is projected, but we don't know if that street will be widened.will be reality. Board of Adjustment Minutes October 4, 1999 Page 7 Conklin: A collector street is a 36 foot wide street from back of curb to back of curb. This is a historic district. I do not foresee the City actually acquiring that additional right of way in the future and building that to current Master Street Plan standards on Maple Street from College to Highway 45. They may, in the future, widen it to allow parking on one side. That might be a possibility The actual 36 foot wide street would accommodate 6 foot sidewalks setback 6 feet from the back of the curb. I don't see that occurring. That Master Street Plan right of way does encroach into the existing structure. Perkins: There is room on the lot to position the garage at the proper setback. Right? Conklin: That is a good point. Staff did visit the site. There are some existing, mature trees to the south of the proposed garage and they want to preserve those trees. That is one of the reasons why they are requesting this variance. Nickle: Does this drawing, as submitted, meet your recommendation as far as character of the neighborhood? Conklin: The elevation as shown on page 4.8 is satisfactory to staff. Nickle: That is what you are planning to build? McDonald: Yes. Hanna: What about the existing garage? Boyd: That bothers me. Hanna: Why aren't we getting a variance for that? Conklin: We've had conversations with the McDonalds about whether or not we wanted to go for the existing house and garage. They requested the variance for the new garage. If the Board of Adjustment would like to entertain granting variances on existing house and garage, we could do that. Hanna: This is an historic house. This is an historic neighborhood. It's a beautiful house. If they try to sell it, whoever buys it is going to be back here asking for a variance. It's been there for 100 years. We couldn't deny the request because they couldn't sell their house and they'd have to tear it down. My point is, why don't we clean it up now? • McDonald: We contemplated that if lightening struck the bay window on the house, would we have to get a variance in order to get a building permit to repair the bay window. If we could • • Board of Adjustment Minutes October 4, 1999 Page 8 have variances on the all the existing structures, both the house and carriage house, that would prevent us from having to come back. We don't currently have plans to modify either one. If there was ever any damage, we would like to be able to make repairs. Conklin: I'm not opposed to that. The existing house is fine with me. The carriage house or garage would have to go if they ever widened that street. Granting the variance would allow them to rebuild if it was ever destroyed. I'm not sure the carriage house or garage would be able to remain in that location. Hanna: If they wanted to sell the house tomorrow, they would have to process a variance request for the carriage house. Is that correct? Conklin: People buy nonconforming property all the time. If they want to protect what they are buying they should get a variance. Nickle: I don't have a problem granting a variance for the portion of the house that's in the future right of way. I'd rather leave that other one alone. If you grant the variance now and somebody crashes into the garage, maybe it shouldn't be rebuilt right there Boyd: I agree with that as long as the carriage house is excluded from the variance. It could very well have to be torn down. There is no reason to put an extra burden on the city having to condemn something that we've given a variance for. Green: If the street was widened to 36 feet that would be 18 feet on that side for right of way which at this time, the curb would be right at the front edge of the carriage house. The street proper would miss the carriage house but there wouldn't be any room for a sidewalk. MOTION Green: I move that we approve the variance based on staff recommendations and also grant a variance for the existing house that is encroaching into the right of way and setback. Boyd: This is excluding the carriage house? Green: Yes. Hanna: Second. Roll Call • Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 6-0-0. Board of Adjustment Minutes October 4, 1999 Page 9 OTHER BUSINESS Perkins: We have a guest with us today. Rose: I'm here mainly because I had talked to Warren McDonald and he asked me to be here. I didn't have to say anything which is even better. I haven't had a chance to sit with you as a Board. I think you do a fine job and I appreciate you keeping us out of court. Thank you very much. Hanna: I thought we'd done something wrong. Rose: Tim and I have talked about trying to enforce what the street plans are. There are 2 situations which come up. There is the title insurance problem and condemnation problems if you ever try to construct the street. The plan is there and who knows what will happen in the future. Conklin: I would like to introduce Dawn Warrick. She is the new Associate Planner. Brent Vinson has resigned and she taking over his duties. Formerly, she was the Development Coordinator. Nickle: Where are we on our sign ordinance changes? Conklin: Bert Rakes has dropped off a draft of that and I will try and get to that as soon as possible. Andrews: A couple of meetings ago, we asked Mike McKimmey about enforcement of the sign ordinance with regard to the Exxon station. Boyd: Exxon has a pole sign on 6th Street. Apparently, they applied for a sign appeal and a condition of that approval was for them to remove the pole sign. That has not been done and we asked for enforcement. Rose: It's like hitting a gnat with a sledge hammer. There's not very much you can do except to ask that they comply. If they don't, there's nothing intermediary that you can do. I would have to take them to court, get an injunction, and make them take it down. Andrews: Can the City not take it down and bill them? Rose: It doesn't work that way. They could counter sue me because I have diminished the value of their land and call it a taking under the constitution and all of the sudden I'm in federal court with 700 attorneys on the other side. What starts out as a very simple issue of • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes October 4, 1999 Page 10 taking down a sign all of the sudden is out of hand. I'm not sure we can create any way to write them a ticket or fine them. The enforcement question has been asked a lot in the 10 years I've been City Attorney. You are dealing with state and federal law that prevents you from writing a ticket. You have to have due process. There is a difference between criminal violations and civil violations. The failure to remove the sign is not a criminal violation. It's more of a civil violation and due process requires you to take it through the courts The only other alternative is that if they are in violation of one of our ordinances, you can choose to prosecute criminal or civil. Civil prosecution is the injunction which I've already talked about. Criminal prosecution would be through Municipal Court. Violation of our ordinance is not up there with burglary and murder. They aren't going to do hard time. Municipal court's basic function is to try to get people to conform to the law and not punish them. Other than that, I don't have anything. I don't have a magic rabbit to pull out of the hat. Let me check with Bert about the Exxon matter. Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. P Ge 10F1 „ __ ._..,d1104 IT miuur - APPf3v® AS DC.Id-srED BA` '`iE Acv P� -.77 meDO APP2OV Bait-z3 PE12. vgelickleF rII7l GCAT AliSp kVA _ Fn EM ST14 H- S F- 0fZ l e M. ANDREWS y an \/ y G. BOYD \I m 7 t\I T. HANNA I N \/ \ ABSTR B. B. NICKLE —_ alb \/ \ \' M. ORTON yl,scarr s AtsrT ^ ssa K. PERKINS y ,, y GSI mm. N \f m N