Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-01-02 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, January 2, 2001, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN Approval of the Minutes Approved Page BA 00-12.00: Variance (Hensen, pp 523) Approved Page BA 00-13.00: Variance (Bryant, pp 562) Approved Page BA 00-14.00: Variance (Stout, pp 562) Approved Page SA 00-5.00: Sign Appeal (St. Paul's Episcopal Church, pp 484) Approved Page MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Larry Perkins Michael Andrews Michael Green Thad Hanna James Kunzelmann Joanne Olszewski Marion Orton STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin Sheri Metheney • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes January 2, 2001 Page 2 Approval of Minutes Perkins: Good afternoon everybody and welcome to the January 2, 2001, meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustments and later on Board of Sign Appeals. I hope everybody had a pleasant holiday season and that your new year's resolutions are still in tact. The first item of business will be the review of minutes of November 6, 2000, meeting. All of you should have received a copy in your packet. Are there any changes or corrections to be made? If not, please enter those into record. • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes January 2, 2001 Page 3 BA 00-12.00 Variance (Hensen, pp 523) was submitted by Brett & Shirley Hensen for property located on the north 50 feet of Lot 2 Block 2 of McCrimmons Addition. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0 22 acres. The requirement is for a 20' rear setback and a 15' side setback (south). The request is for a 11' rear setback (a 9' variance) and a 10' side setback (a 5' variance). Perkins: That brings us to our first appeal, BA 00-12.00 submitted by Brett & Shirley Hensen for property located on Locust Street just south of Archibald Yell. The request is for an 11' rear setback (a 9' variance) and a 10' side setback (a 5' variance). Does staff have any background on this please? Conklin:. Yes. This is a variance request, actually two variances are being requested as part of this application. If you turn to page 1.11 in your agenda, there is a site plan the applicant has provided. What was applied for and what was showing on the site plan did not exactly match so I did write the staff report based on this drawing that's on 1.11. The first variance is a rear setback variance. The ordinance requires 20 feet. The applicant is requesting an 11 foot setback with a 9 foot setback variance and that's to the east of the building. The second variance is a 10 foot side setback variance. The ordinance requires for 15 feet, so they are asking for a 5 foot variance and that's back down towards the south. It is contiguous to an R-2 zoning district. This is a vacant lot currently that's adjacent to the auto parts store on the corner of Locust and Archibald Yell. One of the findings that staff has to make as required by ordinance is that the applicant cannot cause a need for the variance. It's difficult for staff to make that finding, therefore, we have recommended denial of the above variance request. Looking at it they could redesign the building and meet both those setbacks. Overall, I _do understand what the applicant is trying to accomplish on the site to provide additional storage area for his existing business. Once again, it's difficult when the applicant has designed a structure that causes a need for a variance. This use is not allowed by right in the C-2 zoning district. If this is approved or denied and if it's denied and they still go forward with the plan that meets their setbacks they will be required to get a Conditional Use from the Planning Commission for storage in a C-2 zoning district. You don't have any authority to grant that approval for that use at this meeting today. Once again, staff is recommending denial. If you have any questions, I will be more than happy to answer them at this time. Perkins: Is Mr. Hensen present? T.Hensen: Yes. Both of us are. Perkins: One of the reasons for recommending denial of a variance is, special conditions, that • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes January 2, 2001 Page 4 T.Hensen: Perkins: T.Hensen: Perkins: T.Hensen: B.Hensen: T.Hensen: Perkins: T.Hensen: Perkins: T.Hensen: none exist. Do you have any input on what special conditions are with this property that would require you to build the way you are planning? —From -our -standpoint -we -do. This isan.area that is unusual. It's not like a level piece of land. We are on the side of a hill here. In order for us to meet our needs and to be able to continue business in this area we've got to be able to have a certain amount of feet to add to what we have now to operate. It's hard for me to explain without you all looking at it. In order to do business or to justify the investment you've got to have a certain amount of feet to make it feasible to do. Anything below 3,600 square feet is really not feasible to do and for us to continue business at this location. I think you have pictures of it there. We have a natural situation at the back. It would also correspond to the business or to the building next to it. Is this basically a mirror image of the building you have now? Yes sir. You wanted to lighten the two rear walls up and then the front wall comes to your existing building front wall? Exactly. Basically those are the reasons. This is Brett, my son, who actually owns the business. Do you have something? I don't have anything to add to that. It's very very important that we have this to continue the business because it's just outgrown itself. When we bought the property from Mr. Klinger originally he gave us a letter and said he would make it a part of whatever file he was referring to, he's an attorney. He said that there would be no objections to variances or whatever is involved to continue the business of T&T Auto Parts. I don't know what bearing it has on it but he did give us that from the owner's standpoint. Is that property line about where the fill stops on the south edge? It goes on past that fill several feet. Not over to the fence row? The stake is still in the rear of the property. Not these people but some people prior to • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes January 2, 2001 Page 5 Perkins: T.Hensen: Perkins: T.Hensen: Perkins: T.Hensen: Metheney: T.Hensen: Perkins: T.Hensen: Perkins: Conklin: Perkins: Conklin: them took the front stake down so I don't know exactly to the inch where it is. The fence line is pretty close to our property. From this picture here where you got that one storage van, does this one on the south approximate about where your wall would be on the new building? Yes sir. In fact it might be a little to the north of that. There were some better pictures of that. I guess it's in the permanent file. Is the new building going to be the same height of the old building? Are you building that to where they line up? We are trying to. So the new building will be taller than the old building? Yes. I think it's going to be 18 feet. We are trying to get as close as possible to that. It's probably going to be a little bigger. Can you state your name please? Tom Hensen. How far will the south wall of the existing building be from the north wall of the new? How much space between them? It should -be -about -15 -feet -It should -be -somewhere between 12 and 15 feet. Do you know what the minimum distance between two buildings like that needs to be? In a C-2 zoning district, there is zero setback. They just have to meet building code. They've got the 3,600 foot building could be shifted to the north. As they stated the site does drop off to the south and when I did meet with Brett Hensen, we did talk about originally connecting the two buildings together. Since then, they have apparently changed their mind and are going to keep them separate. The one building, how much higher do you think it is Brett, up above? What's the difference in finished floor elevation from the new building to the existing building? • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes January 2, 2001 Page 6 B.Hensen: Hanna: Conklin: Hanna: T.Hensen: Hanna: Perkins: Hanna: Perkins: 17. I don't know that it's quite that much but it's probably pretty close to that. So if it weren't for that steep grade from the lot to the existing building, they could put —the building- right beside it correct? Or they talked about adding on to it, yes. The reason it's 10 to 15 feet apart is because of the drop right? Yes. My point is, if the terrain was flat they wouldn't be here for a variance because they could build it right up against the building but because of the unusual terrain, they can't. They -are -limited. A lot more fill. -Right. That would not be feasible. Sir, you are the neighbor to the south, do you have any input on this? PUBLIC COMMENT - Swain: T.Hensen: Swain: T.Hensen: Swain: T.Hensen: I'm James Swain. I just wondered if it was approved would they be willing to put up a barrier or a fence. We haven't met. You're Jim? Right. The problem that we ran into on the other one, the other building was the way the terrain laid, a fence built would actually not be any higher than the land itself. What the city did in that case was they said that the way the land laid that it really didn't do any good to build a fence because it wouldn't really separate the two pieces of property. Does that make sense? I have a survey if you want to get a copy of it. I have a survey on it. Thank you. • • Board of Adjustment Minutes January 2, 2001 Page 7 Conklin: With regard to screening to the south, this will have to be approved as a Conditional -Use and as staff we will be making a recommendation to what appropriate screening there would have to be between the Swain's house to the south which is zoned R-2 and this commercial -development. There is screening already required for that. -That was another concern I had with granting the variance to the south is I believe your house was recently remodeled probably in the last ten years or so, just the amount of separation available between the two structures. That's more of a land use issue. It did concern me with regard to putting up a metal building that close to a residential neighborhood. T.Hensen: Green: -T.Hensen: B.Hensen: I understand what these folks are saying but to back up to the other question was, if you build a fence right here there is not going to be much difference in the land itself. In other words, the top of the fenceis going to be about the level of the land and if it's of any concern to Tim on that, even if we went over another five feet and built the building, a privacy fence there really wouldn't be of any good whatsoever if we built it without the variance. It's a difficult situation and I can appreciate the concem on it. Have -you -considered if you really just move the building just five feet to the north, it's going to be a little bit of a cut and fill more than what you have but that would eliminate the need for a variance on the south and then if you eliminated one parking space, that would pull it nine feet forward to the west and you wouldn't need a variance there also and you would still have the same size building. -We-considered all -of that and we -were trying -to make the two buildings look nice and - -be aesthetic and so on and so forth. Also, parking is pretty precious. On the back side of this it's what I would call a natural screen, it's just a lot of weeds and bushes back —there-and-there-is nothing behind that-lot.--It''s-an-open-lot behind it with weeds and trees and screen like you might have if you planted flowers or anything else It has a natural screen behind it. Like I said, parking is so precious. We were hoping to line the two buildings up. One thing that I might add to what Tom said in regard to going further toward the north toward the existing building, that base was built up for that original building to be built and there is a lot of heavy rock and so on and so forth in there to hold that up and if you cut into it, it might compromise the foundation base for the existing building. T.Hensen: Have you seen that sir? Green: Yes. • • Board of Adjustment Minutes January 2, 2001 Page 8 T.Hensen: Green: T.Hensen. Perkins: Conklin: T.Hensen. Conklin: T.Hensen: Conklin: T.Hensen: Conklin: You could go over five feet but that would be a lot of work. It's a pretty challenging site. It certainly would clear up some of these problems though. — Justfivefeet-would-make a big difference there I think. I don't think it would to Jim because whether the building is here or here is going to be basically the same to Jim. That's not going to change. It is an eighteen foot building so five feet away would be less visual encroachment on his property. The Planning Commission is still going to have to address this issue. They could make a determination that this. use is compatible and appropriate for this neighborhood. I might address that. For some reason when we originally had the property rezoned or the people that we were buying if from did, they recommended that we, they knew what we were building, they knew it was going to be an auto parts store and they recommended that we go C-2 for a wholesale type business. I don't know why. That was 25 years ago. They recommended to go C-2 with a variance. It offers more control for the neighborhood instead of just rezoning it to industrial to allow warehousing by right. They can address the issues of compatibility of neighbors with appropriate screening and landscaping. They suggested that we go C-2 and get the variance. We didn't have any problem with that as long as we could have a store. It's been an asset to the City. We've been there 25 years and we've always kept it nice and no complaints from the neighbors. Just so the applicant is aware, when the Commission takes a look at your Conditional Use they will also be looking at your building materials and we do have design standards. You may have to do something else other than the metal siding on the south side of the building most likely. Even under the circumstances? I understand. I'm just putting you on notice right now. 1 don't want you to think your plans are approved here with regard to the way the building looks. • B.Hensen: We've discussed that some in the past and I have some understanding of that. I'm with • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes January 2, 2001 Page 9 you. Conklin: Okay. Perkins: Does anyone else have input on this? Hanna: I think there is some merit to what he said. That business has been there for a long time. It's really kind of in a bad location, you can't hardly see it from the highway. It's been an asset to the community and they've always kept it nice and the lay of the land is bad. I think if it was flat they could go make the cut I think they would be willing to shove it right up against the building because they can do that in a C-2. I think because of the unusual lay, I don't really have a problem as long as they meet the design standards. That's a different point. I think they have become an asset to the community and let them expand so they can survive there or you are looking at moving somewhere else on the outskirts of town or close to downtown. I think it's not that unreasonable to request. Andrews: I agree with you on the south side of that, the lay of the land causes you to push that building over but what I'm wondering about is the east side, with what Mr. Green said, if the same rule really applied or the same mode of thinking applies to it, then the backside, yes it's an empty lot now, will it always be an empty lot? I know that the owner's of the property were notified and are not present to speak for themselves but if we aren't maybe making something on that side that isn't necessary there. That was my thinking on it. I don't know about both of them yet. Olszewski: I have a question for the neighbor. You mentioned that if they are going to build it, you would like them to have a fence but my question to you is what is your preference regarding the building? Swain: I don't care if they build it, as long I have a sound barrier there from the noise of the trucks. Perkins: Does screening address that sort of issue? Conklin: Conditional Use is also going to take a look at access from the street to the building. How much truck traffic are you going to have to the overhead door? T.Hensen: One a night. They deliver to use in the evening. • Board of Adjustment Minutes January 2, 2001 Page 10 Olszewski: Have other neighbors been notified too? I know with the holidays and stuff, and the ice storm. Conklin: We sent out the notifications. Whether or not I can guarantee they got there, I don't know. When did your notification arrive at your house? Swain: I heard about it from Mr. Perkins. Conklin: You didn't receive a letter? Swain: No, not yet. Olszewski: That would be a concern to me, how the neighbors felt. T.Hensen: Actually, Jim is really our only neighbor. There is nothing else around us Even across the street. B.Hensen: Across the street is Mr. Klinger, who has already, as Tom mentioned he approved of any kind of project like that. He's the only other one. Conklin: I got one returned, Tim Klinger, one returned from R.H. Mays on South Church. I'm not sure exactly how many people were notified. There was a sign that was put out in the front. It's been out there at least 10 days, a public hearing sign. Perkins: We've got discussions centered on the boundary request to the south being the least objectionable from the parties that are present here today but the east boundary seems to be at issue here. On continuing a non -complying boundary on the rear setback. Are we steering towards a motion to look at maybe approving one boundary but not both? Is that sort of the trend we are heading towards? Kunzelmann: I sort of feel it's preferable to have the buildings line up not to have it being offset. Green: Can I clarify one thing? Is this existing building along the east side there, is that going to line up with your proposed building on the east? Is your existing building lined up on the east side? T.Hensen: Yes sir. • Green: So the building itself is already at the 11 foot setback on that property line as well? • • Board of Adjustment Minutes January 2, 2001 Page 11 T.Hensen: Green: Yes. I just wanted to clarify that. I don't think I have any objections to the variances subject to the neighbors. The neighbors are going to be the most critical with that. The building -is already there and has already established a certain setback line along that east side. Kunzelmann: Along that same concern, the return notice on South Church Street which is the east boundary. Hanna: Conklin: Hanna: That is a vacant lot right? There is a lot there that is vacant but there is also a house back behind there too. The structure is shown on there. - We are talking about the east line of both buildings on the east side being the same. That building has been there for twenty-five years. Have you had any complaints from the neighbors on your east? B.Hensen: None that have been directed to me. T.Hensen: Conklin: Tim did you say there is a structure behind that? _ It does show_a_structure on"our_map_up_on_ Church. Street. T.Hensen: I don't think there is one there. There is one to the north of that, an old house, but it's behind the other building. Conklin: Hanna: Perkins: It may have been demolished in the past two years or so. I don't disagree with what you are saying. I think visually on this 1.11 if we had the drawing of the other building on there, it would have made it more clear, it wouldn't make any sense to move this one up 9 foot when the other one is already back there because that would look funny. If there has never been a problem with that back setback. In twenty-five years if we haven't had complaints from the neighbors. I don't have a problem with the variance the way it's requested. You want to make a motion? • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes January 2, 2001 Page 12 MOTION: Hanna: Green: Perkins: I'll make a motion we accept the variances requested. Second. We have a motion to accept and a second. Any further discussion? Call the roll please ROLL CALL: Upon roll call BA 00-12.00 is approved on a vote of 5-1-0 with Mike Andrews voting "no". • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes January 2, 2001 Page 13 BA 00-13.00 Variance (Bryant, pp 562) was submitted by Gregg Spencer on behalf of Jessie Bryant for property located at 908 S. College. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.21 acres. The requirement is for a 25' front setback and a 8' side setback. The request is -for -a 22.3' -front setback-(a-2..Tvariance) and .a.2.6'--side-setback (a.5.4' variance).. -. BA 00-14.00 Variance (Stout, pp 562) was submitted by Gregg Spencer on behalf of Betty Stout for property located at 101 E. 11`". The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0 15 acres. The requirement is for a 25' front setback. The request is for a 5' front setback on 1 lth (a 20' variance) and 16.5' front setback on College (a 8.5' variance). Perkins: That brings us to our next variance request BA 00-13.00 s submitted by Gregg Spencer on behalf of Jessie Bryant for property located at 908 S. College. This request is for a 2.7 foot variance on the front setback and 5.4 foot variance for a side setback. Staff, do you have information on this? Conklin: Yes. I've actually combined 13 and 14 together and I did that in order to be able to look at both of them together. About a month ago we were approached with a property line adjustment application for these two homes located on College and 11"'. They were two existing lots. Each of the homes were sited in a manner that they couldn't split the property or adjust the property lines with a standard east/west line, they had to jog it around. They tried to get it as close as possible to meet the setbacks but it was impossible to meet them. What we ended up with was a property line _adjustment in_order_for_them_to_sell the houses off individually. The woman that owned both houses requested to be able to do that so we are trying to figure out how to make that feasible. We ended up with two lots that each met our R-2 zoning district requirements which is 60 feet of frontage and at least 6,000 square feet. So, that's what we ended up with. However, the placement of the existing structures and how they are close to the side property line, front property lines, we would never be able to make it conforming so as a condition of that property line adjustment approval, we asked them to come to the Board of Adjustment. This is an older area. It's near Walker Park, near where the new Senior Center is going to be built. We are recommending approval on all the variances. I did check with the surveyor, Alan Reid, this survey shows the edge of the wall of the building, not the overhang, so I did increase them by 2 feet and made our approval of recommendation based on what's shown on the survey with the 2 foot additional with the overhang around the structures. I know it's a little messy with all the different numbers and requests but I tried to identify all the structures in case they were ever damaged more than 50% they could rebuild them back in the same place. This is an example of how our R-2 zoning district regulations really do not work in these older areas of Fayetteville. Setbacks don't • • Board of Adjustment Minutes January 2, 2001 Page 14 work, side setbacks don't work. The houses are closer to the street. Porches are closer to the street and it's something I'm going to try to work on this next year to take a look at these older areas of Fayetteville and look at more appropriate type of regulations so they don't have to come before you every time. That's basically it. One of the individuals Jessie Bryant who's a Quorum Court member bought one of these structures. Perkins: Mr. Spencer? Conklin: Mr. Spencer is not here this afternoon. I would still like to go forward, if you don't mind, hear the request and vote on it. Perkins: Both 13 and 14 in one motion? Conklin: Yes. Perkins: Does anyone have any discussion about these two? MOTION: Green: I certainly don't have a problem with the request. It's an administrative thing. In these older areas we are going to have to find ways, like Tim says, to be able to cope with that. We certainly can't start modifying and wacking of eaves and overhangs of these older buildings just because they don't conform. I would move that both variances be approved. Kunzelmann: Second. Perkins: We have a motion to approve both BA 00-13.00 and BA 00-14.00 and a second. Any further discussion? Call the roll please. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call BA 00-13.00 and BA 00-14.00 were approved on a unanimous vote of 6-0-0. Board of Adjustment Minutes January 2, 2001 Page 15 SA 00-5.00: Sign Appeal (St. Paul's Episcopal Church, pp 484) was submitted by James Foster on behalf of St. Paul's Episcopal Church for property located at 224 N. East Street. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 2.01 acres. The request is to reduce the minimum lot size required (5 acres) to 2.01 acres. Perkins: This is the meeting for January 2, 2001, of the Board of Sign Appeals. There is a Sign Appeal 00-5.00 submitted by James Foster on behalf of St. Paul's Episcopal Church. Mr. McKimmey do you have background on this please? McKimmey: I do have background for you. The request, after much discussion on how to find a sign to work on this site, what was arrived at and the variance request was derived from this discussion. They want to put a wall sign sitting at 45 degrees to the intersection at Dickson and East. It conforms to all the parameters with the exception of one for an area sign and I made a recommendation that they approach a variance on that basis. We have history on the request that is similar in nature, where we have granted a variance for properties that were less than five acres. It's a 32 square foot sign on a brick wall that cuts the corner in a fence line around the property. This would be the_only_freestanding sign on the lot. I support it on_that basis. It's fairly self- explanatory. The question is they are somewhat short of the required acreage. Perkins: At 3 foot 7 inches, it's not going to be any taller than the existing chain link fence. In fact, it will be a little bit shorter. McKimmey: . Itwould conform in a line of an iron fence. It will be in line with the existing fence line. The question is do you see fit to grant an area sign in every respect except for acreage? They need a variance for 2.99 acres. They have 2 01 acres and are shy of the 5 acres by 2.99 acres. Perkins: Are you Mr. Foster? Foster: Yes. I'm James Foster. Perkins: Do you have any input on this? Foster: One question Tim was asking was why there is two different drawings of the sign and _one shows a -dark background.and.one_is_the-drawing we submitted as a colored version and is a lighter drawing. The darker color is what resulted from copying the colored version. We don't seem to have the colored version in the room here unless Tim has it. • • Board of Adjustment Minutes January 2, 2001 Page 16 Conklin: I don't have it in my stuff. McKimmey: I have some drawings that were submitted here in a larger format than in your packet. Perkins: Is it the northwest corner? McKimmey: Yes. This northwest corner here, it will sit and truncate the two fence lines. Foster: The proposed sign is brick. It has detail to the brick construction across the size, it has a cast stone cap to it and it will be aligned approximately the same as the new wrought iron fence that will replace the chain link fence around the property right now. St. Paul's Church is one of the churches really hidden from the public. It's very hard to find that church. We are looking for a presence on Dickson Street. By having it on a 45 degree we give back some of that comer back to the public with a landscape area to contribute towards upgrades and fixing the street, sidewalks and landscape. That's the idea, let people find the church and do it with a sign that is tastefully done, fitting with the new wrought iron fence. The brick will match the brick of the new addition we are doing of the parish hall. Conklin: The Board of Adjustment did look at the variance request for the new parish hall probably two or three months ago. That's gone to the Planning Commission now and has been approved and a Large Scale Development done. Perkins: —Further discussion? MOTION: Andrews: I don't see a problem with it. It looks like a very reasonable request for what they are wanting to do. St. Paul's is a benefit to our community and it would be a good addition there on Dickson Street and it's very tastefully done. Kunzelmann: I have a small question. Is the flemish crossbond going to continue all the way to complete that last cross pattern? Foster: We can adjust that. It should complete the cross but the lower portion is running bond, we'll change it to make the two lower courses running bond. It's actually a sloping site. It's going to slope down so it will make it a complete cross there. • Perkins: We have a motion, is that a second? • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes January 2, 2001 Page 17 Kunzelmann: Second. Perkins: Any further discussion? Will you call the roll please? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call SA 00-5.00 is approved on a vote of 5-0-1 with Michael Green abstaining. Perkins: Thank you for your time. Do we have any old business? Any new business? We stand adjourned. • • BOA Mtg. 01-02-01 Minutes 11-6-00 BA 00-12.00 Hensen, pp 523 BA 00-13.00 Bryant, pp EP CO— IL} 562 OD 1 MOTION 4t ilia, C ,{c-e.l'i SECOND l( -,Q .n htnzu nn L. Perkins f V M. Andrews Iwvl ¥ M. Green 1 T. Hanna J. yKunzelmann J. Olszewski y(.IM. Orton AJ �1RJ Q ii ACTION roVe i� of 40proved f < VOTE 15 - 1 �`Le • Q - O • • • BOA Mtg. 01-02-01 B • Stout, I 0-14.00 I,, 62 SA 00-5.00 St. Paul's Episcopal Church, pp 484 MOTION Mare]] s SECOND n� L. Perkins M. Andrews Y M. Green \ Win T. Hanna\f J. Kunzelmann \ \ r J. Olszewski L i M. Orton a__ OSC CS-1— ACTION App( u cd- +-1-pproucd VOTE D - 0 5' O'-