Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-01 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, October 1, 2001, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Approval of minutes from the September 4, 2001 meeting. Page 2 VAR 01-8.00: Discussion item (Harden, pp 610) Page 3 VAR 01-22.00: Variance (Doyle, pp 399) Page 5 VAR 01-23.00: Variance (Agrawal, pp 399) Page 8 VAR 01-24.00: Variance (Doyle, pp 399) • Page 9 VAR 01-26.00: Variance (Bass, pp 484) Page 10 VAR 01-27.00: Variance (Eldridge, pp 485) Page 12 MEMBERS PRESENT James Kunzelmann Michael Andrews Thad Hanna Michael Green Joanne Olszewski STAFF PRESENT Dawn Warrick Kit Williams • David Whitaker Renee Thomas Jay Pence ACTION TAKEN Approved No action Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Larry Perkins Marion Orton STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes October 1, 2001 Page 2 ROLL CALL: Approval of Minutes Green: Andrews: Warrick: Green: Andrews: Olszewski: Green: ROLL CALL: Green: Warrick: Upon the completion of roll four board members were present with Perkins and Orton being absent, Hanna arrived at 4:00 p.m. I will call the meeting to order. My name is Michael Green. I am acting chairman today in Larry Perkins' absence. We will try to get through our agenda. The first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the last meeting. Has everyone had a chance to read those? Are there any corrections or additions that should be made? I think we were just passed out new pages 22 and 23 that had a couple of corrections that I called in. There were two amendments that Mr. Andrews pointed out on those two pages and you have revised copies today. Do you want to take a minute to verify that? Are there any other corrections or additions? I move that we accept the minutes from the last meeting. I second it. We have a motion and second to approve the minutes with corrections to pages 22 and 23. Any other discussion? Call the roll please. Upon the completion of roll call the minutes for the September 4, 2001 meeting were approved by a vote of 4-0-0. We still have a quorum with our four people so we are continuing. That is correct. • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes October 1, 2001 Page 3 Discussion item requested by Board of Adjustment Chairman. Review of action taken by Board of Adjustment on June 4, 2001 concerning VAR 01-8.00: Variance (Harden, pp 610) was submitted by Roderick W. Harden for property located at 5169 Cattail Court. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0 34 acres. The requirement is a 20' rear setback. The request is a 10' rear setback (a 10' variance). Green: The next item is concerning old business which is a discussion of an item to review action taken by the Board of Adjustments on June 4, 2001 concerning Variance 01-8.00. This variance was Harden, pp 610 submitted by Roderick Harden for property located at 5169 Cattail Court. As you remember, this was called backup as a clarification by Chairman Perkins and we had some discussion and some information by the City Attorney and both sides ofthis issues made statements concerning the actual status ofthis rezoning which had been approved previously. Are there some additional items? Williams: Let me give a brief update if I could Mr. Chairman. We have heard some more things. We have discussed some more things in the City Attorney's office with the attorneys representing both parties. The Home Owner's Association as well as Mr. Harden. However, at this point in time Mr. Harden is in Fort Sill, Oklahoma. We believe he is or will very soon be called to active duty. Because ofthat, I believe some of you are aware of the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act, which means that all legal proceedings are stayed when someone gets called into service. I don't know as a fact that he is actually on active duty as we speak today. I am going to require a copy of his orders for my files so I can be sure that in fact has happened. Because ofthat I told both his attorney and also Pete Estes representing the Homeowners Association, and Pete was aware ofthis too, that I think the Board of Adjustments at this point is stayed from any further action that you all can do. We have to wait until Mr. Harden would be released from active duty and would return before the board could take any further action. 1 have heard that there is some likelihood that this situation can be resolved by itself without us having to go back and do any further action but we won't know until it is actually done. We are very hopeful that it will be resolved. At this point in time I don't think that the board can take any action until Mr. Harden is released from active duty. I will follow up on this and like I said, I do want to get a copy of his orders to put in the file so that you will know that in fact this is the case. Green: Does this also stay any statute of limitations? Williams: Yes, it basically just tolls everything. It is a stay for everything, court action as well as administrative action but it also will toll the statute of limitations so that they can't come back in and say well you didn't do anything because we can't do anything. That is about my full report on that. I wanted to introduce everyone to David Whitaker, the Assistant • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes October 1, 2001 Page 4 City Attorney. I have asked David to sit in to your Board of Adjustment meetings on a regular basis in case you all might have any legal questions. I would certainly ask that you inquire upon David if you do have any legal concerns about anything that comes up, planning staff of course is ready to give their interpretation of the planning ordinances but there might be other legal issues that would come up. Please rely upon David and David's advice for that. We are here just to help and serve. If you don't need our advice then don't ask it. We are certainly here and ready to give it if you all feel the need at anytime. With that, I am going to leave and leave David here for the rest of the meeting. Unless you have any questions about the Harden case? Green: Are there any questions? Ok, thank you. Green: Is there any other discussion on this other than it will be stayed? Ok, we will move on then. • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes October 1, 2001 Page 5 VAR 01-22.00 Variance (Doyle, pp 399) was submitted by Al Harris of Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Charles Doyle for property located at 4742 Dover Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.25 acres. The requirement is for a 25' front set back. The request is for a 23.1' front setback (a 1.9' variance) on Dover Street and a 23.5' front setback (a 1.5 variance) on Desarc Way. Green: Our first order of new business, actually, there are three variance requests that are very closely related and probably all of the logic and the findings are the same with any three of those. If you would like we can keep those separate or we can discuss them as three of a kind and then vote on them separately. What does the Committee wish? Andrews: I'm in favor of discussing all three ofthem at once and then doing a separate vote if that is fine with everybody else. Green: Warrick: Alright, Dawn can you give us some background on these three? I will try to give some background in a manner that is understandable. These variances all did come to the Planning Division together. The applicant is the same on each ofthem. The builder was the same on each of them. Refer to page 2.8 which is a survey that shows all three lots together. Let me start by giving you some sort of reference on where these things are. These are three single family lots, single family homes, located in the Fieldstone Subdivision. They are at the corner of Dover Street and Desarc Way. Item No. 2 is the corner piece which is identified on that survey as lot number 64, item number 3 is lot number 65 and item number 4 is lot number 66. They are all three immediately adjacent to each other. The contractor is the applicant and is the owner of two of the lots currently, lot number 66 and lot number 64. Lot number 65 has sold and is owned by another individual. The contractor is making this variance request on their behalf. In each of these cases there are encroachments to the front setback. On the comer lot there are encroachments on both street frontages. They are relatively small encroachments. I believe the largest is a2%foot encroachment into the front required 25 foot setback. Each of the others is 1.9 or less as far as the size of the encroachment. The applicant's statement with regard to why this encroachment occurred was contractor error at the time of construction. One thing that is somewhat unique to these three together is that the lot lines for lots number 65 and 66 are being adjusted in order to accommodate an additional encroachment that is not requesting a variance at this time. I believe the building on lot number 66 was constructed too far to the east and encroached the side setback adjacent to lot number 65. Lot line adjustments are pending. The applicant has requested lot line adjustments. There is enough room, thank goodness, in this situation to stagger those lines enough to accommodate a new encroachment and provide for the required setbacks for • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes October 1, 2001 Page 6 Green: Olszewski: Warrick. Olszewski: Warrick: Olszewski: Warrick: all of these structures. That is something that is happening in addition to the actions that are before you. It is something that also stems from the same situation of contractor error in siting these structures on the lots. The two lots that are currently under contractor's ownership, 64 and 66 were finaled in December, 2000. They were built at the same time approximately. On lot number 65 the house was constructed earlier and it was fmaled in May, 2000. It came first and then the other two were built after. I believe that that covers just the general information. Staff is recommending approval of the variance requests in each of the situations with the condition that the variance only apply to the existing structures and not be conferred to any additions or modifications to the structures in the future. Therefore, we won't see a perpetuation of an encroachment. Any new addition or modifications on any of these structures would have to comply with setback requirements in the R-1 zoning district if these are approved as recommended. I believe that the contractor is here and he might be able to answer any questions that I'm not able to yield. For the record I should state what these variances are. We usually state what particular number they are. The first one is VAR01-22.00, the second one is VAR 01-23.00 and the third one is VAR 01-24.00 for lots 64,65 and 66. Are there any questions? I note that the original contractor is now deceased is that correct? Yes, that is correct. As I was reading this, because I always ask you who the contractor is and you keep a list. Would it be possible when these are written up and they say they are due to a contractor's error that we would name the contractor in the future so that as a matter of public record, anyone who s reading this would see that? Would that work? Yes Ma'am. I can certainly do that. I thought that it might be listed in here. Yes, it is listed in this particular one but I know that that was in the letter. Predicting your question, I did check through our log to see whether or not this contractor had other variance requests There is one that is also in this general area in the Bridgeport subdivision that was processed and approved in May, 2000 also a front setback encroachment. Olszewski: Thank you. • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes October 1, 2001 Page 7 Green: Would the contractor like to say anything? Doyle: My name is Charles Doyle, I was partners with my brother but I was not active at that time in doing this. He located those things and all these properties are items that he did. He is deceased now and I'm just trying to correct, follow up and dissolve all business for this company so I can have everything taken care of. Green: MOTION Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Doyle? Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to say anything about this item? Lets take the first one, VAR 01-22.00, is there a motion? Andrews: I'll move that we pass the variance according to staff recommendations and for 1.9 feet and 2.5 feet as shown on the attached site plan. Olszewski: I'll second it. Green: Ok, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Call the roll please. ROLL CALL: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 01-22.00 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. • Board of Adjustment Minutes October 1, 2001 Page 8 VAR 01-23.00 Variance (Agrawal, PP 399) was submitted by Al Harris ofCrafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Charles Doyle for property owned by Anand Agrawal and located at 4766 Dover Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.25 acres. The requirement is for a 25' front setback. The request is for a 23.35' front setback (al .65' variance). Green: The next item is VAR 01-23.00 for lot 65. Is there any discussion or a motion on that one? MOTION Andrews: I'll move that we pass the variance request of 1.65' setback as shown on the site plan with staff recommendations. Olszewski: I'll second it. Green: Ok, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Call the roll. • ROLL CALL: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 01-23.00 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes October 1, 2001 Page 9 VAR 01-24.00 Variance (Doyle, pp 399) was submitted by Al Harris ofCrafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. on behalf of Charles Doyle for property located at 4782 Dover Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.25 acres. The requirement is for a 25' front setback. The request is for a 23.3' front setback (a 1.7' variance). Green: The third piece of property is VAR 01-24.00 for lot number 66. MOTION Andrews: I'll move that we pass the variance requested of 1.7' setback according to staff recommendations. Olszewski: I'll second it. Green: Ok. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Call the roll please. ROLL CALL: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 01-24.00 was approved • by a vote of 5-0-0. Green: The motions passed on all three pieces of property. • • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes October 1, 2001 Page 10 VAR 01-26.00 Variance (Bass, pp 484) was submitted by Clay Bass for property located at 327 W. Meadow. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.29 acres. The requirement is 25' front setback. The request is for a 19' front setback (a 6' variance). Green: The next item on the agenda is VAR 01-26.00 by Clay Bass for property located at 327 W. Meadow. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.29 acres. The requirement is 25' front setback. The request is for a 19' front setback (a 6' variance). Can you give us some background on this one Dawn? Warrick: I have a minor modification to your description as well. It should state the requirement is a 30' front setback, the request is for a 19'8" front setback, a 10'4" variance. This particular property is located on Meadow Street. You can find that property on page 5.19 which is a close up map. It is located on the south side of Meadow between School and Locust in the middle of the block. It is in the downtown area It is zoned R -O, Residential Office. Currently on the site there is one single family home and four multifamily units, four single bedroom units. Back in 1998 the Board of Adjustment as well as the Planning Commission approved variances and a conditional use in the instance of the Planning Commission for these multi family units to be added to the rear of this property. Currently the single family home is existing in the location that is at 19'8" from the front property line which is the variance that has been requested today. The previous variance that was granted for the existing structure was tied specifically to that structure. Mr. and Mrs. Bass would like to remove that single family home and erect a new one. They would like to use that front setback that was previously granted for the existing structure. Because the approval was tied specifically to the structure that was on the ground at the time in 1998 and that still exists on the lot, staff felt that it was appropriate to bring this new request to you since it will be a variance for a new structure and not necessarily what was existing because that was what was considered when the original variance was brought to you. Staff is recommending approval of the variance request We recommend with that approval three conditions. The first that the variance only apply to the proposed structure, no future additions or modifications shall encroach any required setbacks without approval from the Board of Adjustment. Second, that the single family home shall not be converted into multi family residential units without review and approval by the Planning Commission. Additional density in the R -O zoning district, greater than what is existing on the site would require additional approval. The third condition recommended would be that this structure shall be constructed within one year from the date of approval or the variance at that point would be considered null and void. I believe that the applicant is wanting to construct this immediately. The reason that this came before you is because they applied for a building permit. They are ready to actually go forward and start work on the project. There is a site plan included in your packet and that is on page 5.9. You can kind of see undemeath • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes October 1, 2001 Page 11 there is a dashed line that indicates the existing footprint of the structure, the current house that is on the lot, and then they have new lines showing the proposed new home that the Basses are wanting to construct The architect for the project was trying to get me a better site plan but was unable to, he was having computer problems when I made that request last week. Mr. and Mrs. Bass are here if you have any questions for them or for staff. Green: Ok. There are no problems that you know of as far as future widening of the street that would create a problem there? Warrick: That is a good question. There is currently adequate right-of-way to meet that definition and the defined street section is ok in that location. We don't anticipate the necessity for additional right-of-way in this location. Green: Ok. Any questions for Dawn? Would the applicant have anything to say or add to this? Bass: No, she summed everything up that we were asking. Green: Are there any questions for the applicant? Any comments from the public? MOTION Andrews: I don't see a problem with us granting the variance. It looks like the only solution they can do, to rebuild ahouse on that property. I think it would be a reasonable variance to grant to the applicant. Green: Is there a motion? Andrews: 1'11 turn that into a motion. I will recommend we approve the 10'4" setback variance as shown on the site plan including staff recommendations. Kunzelmann: Second. Green: Ok. We have a motion and a second to approve the variance with the staff recommendation and conditions. Any other discussion? Call the roll please ROLL CALL: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 01-26.00 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes October 1, 2001 Page 12 VAR 01-27.00 Variance (Eldridge, pp 485) was submitted by Tim de Noble on behalf of William & Martha Eldridge for property located at 409 E Lafayette St. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.22 acres. The requirement is for a 25' front setback. The request is for a 19' front setback (a 6' variance) Green: The next item on our agenda is a VAR 01-27.00 submitted by Tim de Noble on behalf of William & Martha Eldridge for property located at 409 E Lafayette St. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.22 acres. The requirement is for a 25' front setback. The request is for a 19' front setback (a 6' variance). Can you give us some background Dawn? Warrick: This project is located on Lafayette Street. It is between Walnut and Olive. It is in the Washington Willow Historic District and is about half a block east of St. Joseph's school and church facility on the south side of Lafayette. The structure is obviously existing. It was built in 1885. Right now the main structure sits on the 25' setback line. The applicant is looking at adding an overhang to the front of the building and also a shelter over the front porch to extend out into that setback and provide shelter at the front door and to also and some erosion and drainage problems that are occurring with the house. That would include the proposal for a 1'1 I 'A" extension of the existing eave that is along the whole front edge of the property and then a cover over the porch which would be 6' deep. That is where the 6' total variance is going to come in to play. I believe that covers the main request. This is a somewhat unique situation in that the building was existing prior to any zoning ordinances coming into effect for the city, but still met the requirements. Normally you don't really see that. You see older structures pushed closer to the street. The structures adjoining this, in the general neighborhood, many of them preexisted zoning and many of them do have encroachments This particular addition that is proposed is minor when you look at some of the other encroachments in the area and I believe that it is for a substantial reason in that it is going to better protect the historic property. It should hopefully provide for a building that would last longer than it would without these additions. The applicant's architect has provided some elevation drawings that do show the proposed addition and the way that it would modify the elevation of the structure. I believe that it is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and with the existing structure on the site. Staff is recommending in favor of the two variance requests with one condition. That be that the variance apply only to the proposed overhang and to the porch extensions on the north elevations of the existing structure and the applicant and architect are here to answer any questions you may have. Green: Ok. First question I have of course, is with future widening of Lafayette Street. • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes October 1, 2001 Page 13 Warrick: Green: DeNoble: Lafayette has adequate right-of-way. Any other questions? Any comments from the applicant? I would clarify one thing, I don't think I made it obvious in my letter. The existing porch actually already encroaches. The porch slab is 6' out from the house so it is alright 19' from the right-of-way. The porch overhang which unfortunately, dumps all the water on anybody coming to visit them, extends 41/2 feet into the 25'. Warrick: The overhang is probably the only part of the structure that actually encroaches. The porch is ok, it is less than 30" in height. Green: Are there any questions or comments from any of the members? Is there a motion anyone would like to make? MOTION Olszewski: I recommend the 6' variance with the staff recommendations as listed. Andrews: 1 second. Green: This will also apply to the 1' 11 'A" variance for the overhang right? Olszewski: Yes. Green: Ok, there is a motion and a second to approve the two parts of the variance and in accordance with staff recommendations for its condition. Is there any other discussion? Call the roll please. ROLL CALL: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 01-27.00 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. • • • ir rVariance rS\ VAR 01-22.00 (Doyle pp 399) VAR 01-23.00 Variance (Agrawal, pp 399) VAR 01-24.00 Variance (Doyle, pp 399) MOTION -Fnd reu,5re finku� SECOND OiS� + kaws, /(UY,,,,t nh L. Perkins ,LTJ M. Andrews Y Lt) ) M. Green t T. Hanna ( 1 t J. Kunzelmann 9 YLO J. Olszewski 0 M. Orton / al 0 ACTION if-yetou CO vrgovED keetoo&D VOTE - b -0 5- 0 -o 5.0. 6 • • • ONet‘ h qy� VAR 01-26 00 Variance (Bass, pp484) VAR Variance 01-27.00 pp 485) (Eldridge, MOTION r 0 I sa �) SECOND 1 KO 1 Vitt IS f yiel to l L. Perkins 0 M. Andrews M. Green _ T. Hanna. t J. Kunzelmann V 0 J. Olszewski M. Orton 0 ACTION WM IVPNObp VOTE fiy DO D -D ky