HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-05 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, September 5, 2000 at 3:45
p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED
Approval of the Minutes
BA 00-8.00: Variance (Coffey, pp 565)
MEMBERS PRESENT
Larry Perkins
Michael Andrews
Michael Green
Thad Hanna
James Kunzelmann
Joanne Olszewski
STAFF PRESENT
Tim Conklin
Dawn Warrick
Sheri Metheney
ACTION TAKEN
Approved
Approved
MEMBERS ABSENT
Marion Orton
STAFF ABSENT
Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 5 2000
Page 2
Approval of Minutes
Perkins:
Olszewski:
Perkins:
Welcome to the September 5, 2000, Board of Adjustments meeting. Before we
get started here I would like to welcome our next new member here Joanne
Olszewski.
Thank you.
She now rounds up the total membership of seven. First item of business would
be to consider approval of the minutes for the August 7, 2000, meeting. Does any
one have any changes or additions or remissions to make to that? None having
been heard, please enter the minutes into record.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 5 2000
Page 3
BA 00-8.00: Variance (Coffey, pp 565) was submitted by Margaret Coffey for property located
at 1906 E Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains
approximately 0.61 acres. The requirement is for a 25' setback on Ray Avenue. The request is
for a 8.3' setback (a 16.7' variance). The requirement is for a 25' setback from the designated
Master Street Plan right of way on Huntsville Road. The request is for a 19' setback (a 6'
variance).
Perkins: That brings us to our first and only appeal for the day which is BA 00-8.00 it is a
variance request submitted by Margaret Coffey for property located at 1906 E.
Huntsville Road. The request is for two setback variances. Does staff have
background on this please?
Warrick: Sure. This property is located at 1906 East Huntsville Road. It's catty corner to
Tyson's Mexican Original east plant at the corner of Ray Avenue and Huntsville
Road. There is a small rock house on the property currently. It was built more
than thirty years ago. At this time the owner is looking for variances in order to
expand the existing structure. She would like to convert it. It's a single family
home currently. She would like to convert it to a duplex. That is the future plan.
In order to add onto this building in any way shape or form, it needs to be
conforming. The only way to make it conforming without tearing it down and
building completely new is to seek variances for the existing structure which is
what she is doing today. She has made application to the Planning Commission
in order to convert this structure to a duplex. In the R-1 zoning district that it's
located in, it does require a conditional use. This item is set to be heard by the
Planning Commission on September 11, 2000, should this variance be approved.
There is also a free-standing garage you can see on some of the maps in the back
of your packet. There is a free-standing garage behind the house, that garage is
not being considered for variances at this time. It may be taken down in the
future, it's not something that would be added onto or changed at this point in
time. I mentioned that this is diagonally across from the Mexican Original plant,
surrounding properties are very different. To the north there are single family
homes, to the east there is an antique shop, to the west there is a church and then
to the south there is a vacant piece of property, Tyson Mexican Original and
Washington County Head Start There is a real mixed bag of uses in this
particular area. Based on the findings that start on page 1.3, staff does
recommend approval of the variances and those variances that are specifically
being requested are first, a setback variance from the front facing Ray Avenue.
The ordinance requirement is twenty-five feet. The existing structure is sitting at
approximately 8.3 feet from that property line. That constitutes a 16.7 foot
variance. The second setback variance that is necessary is the front setback from
Huntsville Road which is a principal arterial. As you know, we have to consider
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 5 2000
Page 4
what the Master Street Plan requires for a right-of-way when calculating what
those setback variances would be and the required setback would be 80 feet from
the centerline of Huntsville Road. The existing structure is sitting at 74 feet from
centerline which would constitute a 6 foot variance in that location. Maps that
would probably best describe what is going on here are going to be towards the
back of your packet, starting on page 1.13. That shows the existing structure.
The Master Street Plan building setback line is shown in there and the six foot
difference there and then the 8.3 difference from the property line adjacent to Ray
Avenue. That's pretty much what we have got. Staff is recommending approval
of these requested variances and I would be happy to answer any questions.
Perkins: Now any decision we make today is irrespective of the intended future use, it's
strictly the setbacks?
Warrick: Absolutely.
Conklin: The Planning Commission will have to hear the Conditional Use request for the
duplex and act on that.
Hanna: Is this Conditional Use just for this structure itself as it sits?
Warrick: The Variances would apply only to the rock house that is the front structure on
this lot. We are not suggesting that they apply to the garage.
Hanna: This is going to be converted into a duplex, is this going to be added onto or is
this house going to be split?
Warrick: My understanding is that it would be an add-on.
Hanna: Would the add-on build into the setback also?
Warrick: I did not contemplate that the setback variance would extend to a new structure,
that it would only cover this portion of the existing. That's probably something
that we can clarify better by making it a condition of this approval I didn't
specify that. That was what I was contemplating at the time.
Perkins: Is it privy of this Board to concern itself with the future intended use?
Conklin: Yes. You have in the past with regard to Lake Hills Church. That church that
was not built. You ran into setback variances. The applicant is here, she might be
able to better explain where the addition will occur.
Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 5 2000
Page 5
Perkins: Okay. Ms. Coffey, do you have any input on this issue?
Coffey: I didn't get an architect to draw any plans, l drew them myself. I don't know if
this will help with the question or not but this is what I intended to do. (Showing
drawing) This is the rock house that exists and there's the garage. I would like to
put apartments in here and have this side look like this as much as possible with a
two car garage there. My mother is old and I would like to have her live with me,
so I would like to make an addition on here. I don't know. I didn't realize that
this house... I knew that my garage was off but I didn't realize my rock house was
off too.
Perkins: Well the corner lot catches a double -whammy. It's twenty-five feet each side.
Conklin: This portion of your house...
Coffey: This much of it is off?
Conklin: Yes. That's within that setback that's required under our Master Street Plan and
Code. But it looks like, with your addition coming off the side right here, there's
room right here. This is the fifty-five feet from centerline plus the twenty-five
feet which is that line right there so you are meeting setbacks.
Perkins: Another street cut.
Coffey: I was planning on, I have a front yard here, and I was planning on making kind of
a circular driveway. There is Happy Hollow School up here and I have a little
parking place here plus this little place into the garage. When I park here there is
a hazard, my daughter even had a fender -bender from backing out, so I thought
this would kind of alleviate that with the drive-through with my mother driving
and everything. I was worried about that. I don't know now, can I do that?
Conklin: This is going to be a state highway and the Arkansas Highway Transportation
Department is going to have to issue a curb -cut permit on that. I'll have to take a
closer look at your distance there and the Planning Commission may not let you
do that.
Warrick: We have to look at that as part of the Conditional Use, I believe.
Conklin: You may not be able to get your access.
• Coffey: I may not be able to have another little driveway here? I already have a driveway
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 5 2000
Page 6
here.
Conklin: You might have to come through your back yard. Not onto Arkansas 16 East.
Coffey: Okay. This is really what I wanted to do because of the price but if you could
give me a change of zoning, I might be able to build a duplex here. I wouldn't
want to tear my house down.
Warrick: All that this Board can consider is setback variances to determine whether or not
your structure as it is can achieve variances in order for you to add onto your
existing structure.
Coffey: Okay.
Perkins: Since we have brought up the topic of a duplex, are we conferring special
privilege that is not shared in this R-1 District.
Warrick: This Board is not granting the duplex approval.
Perkins: I'm kind of having trouble separating this.
Conklin: It's subject to approval of the Conditional Use.
Warrick: We are not requesting that the duplex be approved in any way, shape or form at
this point in time. In order for Ms Coffey to add on, even if she were to add a
room to her existing single family residence, in order to modify that residence in
any way, we could not issue a building permit unless that lot and structure on the
lot were deemed conforming. That's done either by it being conforming or by a
variance being granted or some other action.
Conklin: Basically, you are looking at a building footprint. Should that building footprint
be allowed? That setback.
Coffey: What do you mean by footprint?
Conklin: The setbacks for the structure. Should they be allowed? For that particular
structure.
Hanna: That was why I was asking, because I was wondering if the duplex was going to
go out this direction.
Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 5, 2000
Page 7
Warrick:
Hanna:
Conklin:
Hanna:
Olszewski:
Perkins:
Olszewski:
Perkins:
Warrick:
Olszewski:
Warrick.
Olszewski:
Warrick:
Olszewski:
Warrick:
Hanna:
•
That's a really good question and that's something that I would recommend that it
be tied specifically to the existing rock house.
The reason is because she has so much room. It's such a big lot. There is
obviously room to have a duplex.
It's adding on.
I just wondered which direction it was going. Not that I had formed my opinion
yet, I was dust curious which way it was going. She answered that. It's going
where she has the setbacks alright.
So, you mentioned Dawn, that it would be a Conditional Use but wouldn't it
always be on the footprint?
It's not a Conditional Use.
Right. What did you say about it would be a condition of?
To change this to where you could build a duplex in on R-1 lot.
I was recommending that the Board make a condition in granting the variance that
it only apply to the existing footprint.
Wouldn't that always be the way it is?
Not necessarily.
So if we didn't do that then technically...
It could cover the lot.
It could cover the lot in which case she could actually with the bulk in width and
probably it could go the whole length and she could divide it in half and have two
R-1 houses.
Yes. It really just depends on how you format your recommendation and your
vote.
But you could do a duplex by right in an R-1.
Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 5 2000
Page 8
Warrick. No. It requires Planning Commission action.
Perkins: That's why I wanted to restrict it just to the house.
Conklin: Basically, you are looking at the existing footprint of the house.
Perkins: Bring the existing house into conformity.
Warrick: So anything added would have to conform to today's setback requirements.
Olszewski: If we voted for that, she doesn't have to do anything with that garage from us?
Warrick: Correct. It can remain as an existing non -conforming structure as long as it's not
contemplated to be expanded.
Perkins: If it ever burned down, she could not rebuild it because it hasn't been approved.
Green: This six foot variance along Huntsville Road, there is a lot of plans for expanding
Huntsville Road through there to the extension of Highway 16 and all that, this
isn't in any way going to get into any of that future plan for widening Huntsville
Road is it?
Warrick: I believe that six feet being pretty minimal when we talk about the distance from
centerline that would be necessary to create a principal arterial. My best guess is
that it would not hinder the expansion of Highway 16 east in that location.
Generally, within the fifty-five feet from centerline that's necessary for half of a
principal arterial, you have quite a bit of leeway. You still have right-of-way
beyond the actual pavement, beyond the green space necessary, as well as the
sidewalks to have a little bit of flexibility.
Perkins: I suppose any motion we form here could make it be in there that should it
become an issue that it would at the owner's expense to bring it into conformity
should this highway get in the way.
Warrick: Sure. It would be one of those things that as the Highway Department comes
through and acquires right-of-way and does their planning, we have very little, if
any, control over what they determine to be necessary for their means. So if they
were to go through and require additional right-of-way beyond that, then it would
be a negotiation between the property owner and the Highway Department.
Green: It would be out of our hands.
Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 5, 2000
Page 9
Warrick: Pretty much.
Perkins: Any further discussion?
MOTION:
Green: Mr. Chairman, I move that the request for variances be accepted for the existing
house only.
Hanna: Second.
Perkins: We have a motion and a second, any further discussion? Would you call the roll,
please?
ROLL CALL:
The Motion was approved on a 6-0-0 vote.
Perkins: Ms. Coffey, your request for the existing property passes as submitted.
Coffey: Thank you. I appreciate it.
Perkins: Do we have any old business to bring up? Any new business to bring up? We
stand adjourned. Thank you very much for your time.
•
'EGA-
?k
Lc_
64
�
DO
-Mt
,,LO
MOTION
G(fC
X A
SECOND7
J
L. Perkins
M. Andrews
M. Green
V
T. Hanna
/
J.
yKunzelmann
J. Olszewski
M. Orton
ACTION
VOTE
L- 0-0
•