Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-05 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, March 5, 2001, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Approval of the Minutes Page 2 BA 01-4.00: Variance (Starling, pp 444) Page 3 MEMBERS PRESENT Larry Perkins James Kunzelmann Michael Green Thad Hanna James Kunzelmann STAFF PRESENT Dawn Warrick Sheri Metheney ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Marion Orton Joanne Olszewski Michael Andrews STAFF ABSENT Board of Adjustment Minutes • March 5, 2001 Page 2 • • Approval of Minutes Perkins: Welcome to the March 5, 2001, meeting for the Board of Adjustments. The first item on the agenda is the minutes from the February 5, 2001, meeting. Are there any changes to be noted? There is none noted. Please enter those into the record. Board of Adjustment Minutes • March 5, 2001 Page 3 • • BA 01-4.00: Variance (Starling, pp 444) was submitted by Greg Starling for property located at 536 Storer Avenue. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential and contains approximately 0.32 acres. The requirement is for a 25' front setback on Douglas Street and an 8'side setback on the south. The request is for a 19.3' front setback (a 5.7' variance) and a 7.2' side setback (a 0.8' variance). Perkins: That brings us to appeal BA 01-4.00 submitted by Greg Starling for property located at 536 Storer Avenue. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential and contains approximately 0.32 acres. The requirement is for a 25' front setback on Douglas Street and an 8'side setback on the south. The request is for a 19.3' front setback (a 5.7' variance) and a 7.2' side setback (a 0.8' variance). Staff, do you have information on this appeal? Warrick: Sure do. Let me start by getting everybody familiar with the location of the property. This is a single family home located at the southeast corner of Douglas and Storer Avenue. The property is surrounded by a variety of different uses. This property is almost on campus. To the north there is a parking lot for St. Thomas Aquinas, the Catholic church on campus. To the south there is a single family residence. To the east there is a University parking lot, on the other side of the alley. To the west there is a Christian Student Center. All these adjacent properties are in the same zoning district, the R-3 zoning district, as the subject property. I mentioned that this is a single family residence. It was constructed in the early 1940's and was used for a good period of time by the Episcopal Diocese as a parsonage and there was a chapel added to the structure at some point in time. The house has been owner occupied by the Starling's since 1988. The structure, as it is existing on the property, is non-compliant with a couple of setback requirements. I'll try and show you what those are on one of these plot plans in your packet. Probably the best one to look at is going to be on page 1.14. It really is not very out of conformance especially on the south side. The south is adjacent to that single family residence. The structure was originally built as 7.2 feet from the property line on the south. The requirement is 8 feet. In order for the existing structure to be conforming, there would be a variance of 0.80. On the north, adjacent to Douglas Street, the existing structure is also encroaching the 25 foot required setback and the structure sits 19.3 feet from that property line which makes that variance necessary. Both of those variances are being requested not only to make the existing structure conforming, but to provide the applicant with the opportunity to make additions to the structure on the north and south. In fact, on the site plan on page 1.14, the blocked in area that's marked "A", that is an addition proposal. You can see that would basically square off the structure on that corner. It would also need the variance for that 5.7 feet because it would also encroach the 25 foot required setback on the north side. Also, on the south side, an addition proposal marked "B" is shown on that site plan on 1.14. That would be to enlarge an existing storage room within the • Board of Adjustment Minutes March 5, 2001 Page 4 structure. The other part of the variance that would apply on the south side is shown on this plot plan as "D" labeled "new garage". The applicant proposes enclosing the existing garage for living space and building a new garage at the rear of the structure. The new garage could meet setback requirements if it were situated 0.80 feet to the north. The applicant is requesting that it be also granted the variance on the south side so that it's in line with the current wall to the east of the existing house structure. "C" labeled on your site plan is a new back porch. It doesn't really need any of these variances to be added. It's just shown on there as a part of the proposed addition that the applicant is looking at. With regard to findings, an owner occupied non -conforming structure does have the opportunity of being expanded or enlarged by 25% of the existing square footage provided that the 25% of addition or enlargement space meets setback requirements. That again is why the applicant is requesting the setback variances because the proposed additions or expansions would not comply with those requirements, 25' on the north and 8' on the south. I think everything else is pretty well stated in the report. The applicant is here and I'm sure will answer any questions that you have and I would be glad to do the same. • Green: Just one question that I have on this, the present garage has access off of Storer Street and on the new proposed garage, the access will only be from the alley? Starling: Yes. Green: Are there any problems with access from the alley that you know of? Warrick: That's a platted alley, it is paved and maintained. It provides the only access to a University parking lot and a couple of other facilities back in that area. At this point in time, of course that's why it's there is to provide the access, it is a well maintained and very utilized alley. So, I don't think that it is a problem having more access off of it. Green: I just didn't want that alley to be closed at some point. Warrick. I don't foresee that being a potential vacation. Starling: That is bothersome to me. Perkins: Sir, for the record, your name please? Starling: I'm Greg Starling, the applicant. The University shows that they are going to close that • alley. I don't know how they can do that. On their new plan, they show a structure • Board of Adjustment Minutes March 5, 2001 Page 5 across the end of that alley. In fact, on the other side of Storer there is an alley but it's not the same spot, which is the only access to the backs of some of those buildings. The University also shows a building across that alley. Warrick: I'II tell you that the University Master Plan is not something that we typically utilize in our staff review on these applications. That is an interesting point. All I can say with regard to that is that the University is a State Land Grant facility, it's a higher government agency than the City. Therefore, we have very little control over their comings and goings, street closings and openings and things like that. I would hope that the neighboring properties would have the opportunity of being involved in the planning process at the University level but, like I said, that's not a plan that we've utilized. I did not consider that when I was looking at the staff report. Green: That University does not own the property? Starling: I'm the owner. • Green. There would have to be some kind of purchase agreement or condemnation or something before they could take that, I would assume. • Starling: Green. Starling: Everyone thinks it belongs to the University and use it like it does. Is that going to present a problem in putting a garage back there? If that alley were closed, it would certainly be a problem because there is no other access. I really wouldn't see the alley being closed because there are just too many structures along that alley and that's the only access, off of that alley. I own another house just to the south and the only parking for that house is off the alley. Green: It's obviously going to affect a lot of people so we agree that it's a separate issue than the granting of the variance. Starling: Kappa Kappa Gamma House has a good sized parking lot and the only access to it is off the alley. It's the same, at the Student Center Chapel has a parking lot and the only access to it is off the alley. I wouldn't see that they could easily close that alley. It would certainly be a problem to me if they did, for more than just this reason. • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes March 5, 2001 Page 6 PUBLIC COMMENT: Perkins: Did you have anything, sir, to add to this? Unknown: I'm just an interested party from Diocese of Little Rock for St. Thomas. We support this. Perkins: You support the project? Unknown: Yes. COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Hanna: The only question I had to make sure, he has this in decimals 19.3 feet, are we sure that's 19.3 and not 19 feet, 3 inches for all of his dimensions? Usually it's done in feet and inches and I don't have a problem in decimals. Warrick: All the dimensions that I measured off and looked at, with regard to the site plan, were decimals. Hanna: Okay. I just wanted to make sure there was no confusion. Warrick: That is the way I wrote up the amounts of variance requested. That should be reflected correctly on the front page of your staff report. Hanna: Right. I just wanted to make sure. MOTION: Green: If there is no other discussion, I move that we grant the variance. Hanna: I'll second. Perkins: We have a motion and second, any discussion to this? If not, call the roll please. ROLL CALL: Upon roll call BA 01-4.00 is granted on a unanimous vote of 4-0-0. • Board of Adjustment Minutes March 5, 2001 Page 7 Perkins: Thank you for your time. Good luck with your project. Starling: Having never done this before, I would like to ask you a question. How does this get recorded so that when I apply for a building permit? Warrick: Good question. In the Planning Division we have a process of documenting things based on location. We will, of course, get the minutes typed up and entered into the record as an official document of approval You'll be sent a copy with a transmittal letter stating that your item was approved and you'll have a copy of the minutes for your file. When you pull your building permit, we will look at your property on our maps and check files with regard to the map page that your property is located on and we'll note the Board of Adjustment action and make note on your building permit that it was an approved variance. Starling: I suppose that if for some reason I didn't do all of this construction and sold the house, would there be any problem with this variance on the selling of that house? • Warrick: The variance goes with the property and, actually the variances that you've requested make the structure itself a conforming structure. Therefore, there will not be any encroachment causing title problems when you did sell the home. It does carry with the property. Starling: That variance is a separate matter from the variance on the new structure? Warrick: Actually the way that it was granted was a variance on the lot in that location. Perkins: It wasn't restricted to just the wing that you are building, with that dotted line it went the whole length of the property. Hanna: The bottom line, if you were going to sell the house, you probably would have come to see us anyway because you would have to proceed with a variance to get title insurance, possibly, even if you weren't going to build on it. Starling: I didn't when I bought it. Hanna: I know, you got lucky. We see them all the time. Warrick: It generally depends on whether or not the lending institution requires a survey on the • property and that's how these are triggered a lot of times. Board of Adjustment Minutes March 5, 2001 Page 8 Hanna: Or perhaps maybe you got unlucky because if it happened when you were buying it, then the seller would have had to pay for it instead of you. Starling: Possibly it didn't precipitate this because I paid cash for it. Warrick: There you go. Perkins: We have a lot that the sale is contingent upon whatever is decided here. Starling: Thank you all. Perkins: If we have no other business, we stand adjourned. Thank you all. • • • BOA Mtg. 3-5-01 Minutes of the 2-5-01 meeting BA 01-4.00 Starling, pp 444 MOTION GREEN SECOND HANNA L. Perkins Y M. Andrews Absent M. Green Y T. Hanna Y J. Kunzelmann Y J. Olszewski Absent M. Orton Absent ACTION A"Pet Approved -Duerl VOTE 4-0-3