HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-11-05 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, November 5, 2001 at 3:45 p.m. in
Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN
Approval of minutes from the October 1, 2001 meeting.
Page 2
VAR 01-25.00 Variance (Pancake, pp 522)
Page 2
VAR 01-28.00 Variance (Crandall, pp 484)
Page 6
MEMBERS PRESENT
Larry Perkins
Marion Orton
James Kunzelmann
Michael Andrews
Thad Hanna
Michael Green
Approved
Approved
Approved
MEMBERS ABSENT
Joanne Olszewski
STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT
Dawn Warrick
David Whitaker
Renee Thomas
Tim Conklin
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 5, 2001
Page 2
ROLL CALL: Upon the completion ofroll six board members were present with Olszewski being
absent.
Approval of Minutes
Perkins: Good afternoon. I would like to call the November 5th meeting of the Fayetteville Board
of Adjustments to order. The first item of business is to approve the minutes from the
October 1st meeting. Were there any changes to be made? None having been heard,
please enter those into the record.
VAR 01-25.00 Variance (Pancake, pp 522) was submitted by Colleen M. Pancake for property located
at 302 S. Gregg Street. The property is zoned RS, Residential Small Lot and contains approximately 0.16
acres. The requirement is for a 25' front setback. The request is for a 11' setback (a 14' variance). The
required lot width for a single family home is 60', the request is for a 50' lot.
Perkins: That brings us to our first variance appeal today, VAR 01-25 for property located at 302
S. Gregg Street. This application was processed by the City of Fayetteville on behalf of
Colleen M. Pancake for a setback variance and a width variance. Does the staff have any
input on this please?
Warrick. This is a piece of property we've been working on for quite a few weeks at this point. It
is located between Center Street and Prairie Street on South Gregg Street. This particular
part ofthe city is primarily developed as residential and is not consistent with the zoning
that applies to the majority of this property, which is industrial. Ms. Pancake worked with
the Community Development Division in order to do some needed repairs to her home and
obtained some block grant money to do that. In order to achieve the repairs, the
Community Development Department, as a condition, is required to be able to obtain a
permit before they actually issue the money to the applicant. In order for us to be able to
issue a permit for this particular piece of property, for any change or modification to the
structure, we first had to do a couple of things through city process. The first of those
things was to get the zoning ofthe property into accordance with the use of the property.
Of course, the use of the property is a single family home. The zoning was industrial, at this
point in time it has been rezoned to R -S, Residential Small Lot which is more appropriate
for the area. It brings the use in conformance with the zone. However, even the
Residential Small Lot zoning district is a little bit inconsistent with some ofthe lots that were
platted prior to the current zoning regulations going into effect in 1970. Therefore, they
don't represent the size lots that were in existence at the time before the current zoning was
adopted. We are still needing to take care of variances in order for Ms. Pancake to have
the repair work done on her home which is necessary to bring it up to current code and
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 5 2001
Page 3
for her to have a more workable bathroom. The front setback requirement for an R -S
zoning district is 25'. Ms. Pancake's house sits at 11' from the front property line.
Therefore, a 14' variance is requested along the front setback area. The lot width
requirement for a single family home in the R -S zoning district is 60', that is the smallest lot
width that our zoning addresses. However, this lot and several others in the area only have
50' of lot frontage, therefore, a 10' variance is requested for the lot width requirement. I
think that brings us up to date on what is going on. Staff understands that there is an
inconsistency in zoning with the south Fayetteville area and we are right now researching
and trying to determine what the best plan of action would be to better address those
problems that are occurring in that area. In order to help this particular applicant to get her
project under way, we needed to bring her project forward independent of any other
activity that we may see in the future. We've talked about possibly doing a rezoning on
a grander scale, taking in several properties, so that we can make more of that area
consistent with zoning. Most of that property is developed residentially. However, all of
the pieces that adjoin the railroad, which this property does, were zoned Industrial at the
time the city wide rezoning was undertaken in 1970. We are still looking at taking care of
more of that area. We do need to take care of this particular applicant in order for her to
get the repair work done in her home. Staff is recommending in favor of the applicant' s
request.
Green: I have a question.
Perkins: Ok.
Green: Gregg Ave. narrows right there north of the property. Are there plans to widen Gregg
down through there at a later date?
Warrick: This portion of Gregg is not designated as a higher level street on the city's master street
plan. No, at this point in time there are no plans on widening Gregg.
Green: If we decided we need to do that later on, we could end up having to condemn the
property?
Warrick: Possibly. However, if you'll look at the map that is on page 1.11, you' 11 see that the
properties that are on the west side of Gregg have significantly greater setbacks and there
may be more potential to obtain property there. Whereas, the single family homes for the
most part, on the east side are closer to the street and line up.
Kunzelmann: I have one question. It is a possible typo. Under recommendation on the first page, staff
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 5 2001
Page 4
recommends approval for a requested 14' front setback variance and a 10' lot width? I
think it is a 50' lot width.
Warrick: Oh, it should be a 10' variance in the lot width just to be more specific.
Perkins: Are you Ms. Pancake?
Pancake: Yes I am
Perkins: Did you have anything to add to this?
Pancake: We are attempting to establish a neighborhood association and possibly develop a possible
park, if we could get it attached to the trails. It is a concern in our neighborhood.
Perkins: That is the open space south of your house on the same side of the street?
Pancake: Yes. At the bend, it is a community garden. It is owned by the city right now.
Warrick: It is city owned property. We had contemplated on bringing that forward as a rezoning
in the not so distant past but that was withdrawn and no further plans are in action at this
point in time on that property. We do understand that the neighbors do like that and are
very interested in maintaining it as their garden if possible.
Pancake: And hopefully as a pleasant stopover on a trail.
Hanna: I'm just curious, did you rezone that lot to R -S?
Warrick: At this point in time, no. There are some other lots in this area that are zoned residentially,
some spots that have come through for very similar reasons. They needed to obtain
proper zoning in order to get a building permit or in order to do some modifications to the
structure, but, and you can see spots of them here and there on the map on 1.11. For the
most part, this area is generally zoned Industrial.
Perkins: Any further discussion? Can we hear a motion?
Motion:
Kunzelmann: I move for approval of VAR 01-25.00 with staff recommendations and conditions of
• approval.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 5, 2001
Page 5
Green: I'll second.
Perkins: 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 01-25.00 was approved by
a vote of 6-0-0.
Perkins: Your variance passes, good luck to your project.
•
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 5 2001
Page 6
VAR 01-28.00 Variance (Crandall, pp 484) was submitted by Marc Crandall for property located at
110N. School Street The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.29
acres. The requirement is for a lot width of90' for 3 or more dwelling units. The request is for a 77' wide
lot (a 13' variance).
Perkins: That brings us to our next item of business, VAR 01-28 00 This was submitted by Marc
Crandall for property located at 110 N. School Street. This is a requested lot width
variance of 13'. Staff, can we have your input on this please?
Warrick: Mr. Crandall has achieved a conditional use from the Planning Commission for this infill lot.
Currently there is one single family home on the lot, it is zoned Residential Office. The
Planning Commission, on October 8th, granted approval of Mr. Crandall's request for a
four unit, multi -family dwelling on this lot. There were several conditions placed on that
conditional use application by the Planning Commission and one of those was to achieve
a variance by the Board of Adjustments for the lot width requirements. In a R -O zoning
district, for three or more dwelling units, the requirement is 90' of frontage. This particular
lot has 77', that is along North School Street. This lot also has access by an alley at the
rear which is where the parking will be developed off of the alley, at the rear of the
property. There are some site plans and elevation drawings from the Planning Commission
meeting included in your packet because we thought that they were important. Staff is
recommending approval ofthe requested 13' variance in lot width with the condition that
all of the conditions of approval of that conditional use request also apply to the variance
granted.
Perkins:
Crandall:
Mr. Crandall, do you have any input Sir?
No, 1 don't think so. Staff and I have gone over this quite thoroughly I think. I think we
meet all of the other zoning requirements in terms of total square footage and everything.
It isjust that that whole area is difficult to find a lot that will meet with the R -O standards
for multi -family. I think that we have got a pretty good project and I hope you will
approve it.
Perkins: There was some mention about the neighbors having expressed concern over parking with
the project. Have you heard any new concerns?
Warrick: Initially the neighbors were concerned. Mr. Crandall went before the Planning
Commission twice with this project and modified it between the two meetings after having
met with several ofthe neighbors and addressed their concerns as well as concerns of the
Planning Commission. Since that second meeting and the approval by the Planning
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 5 2001
Page 7
Commission, staff has not heard any comments or questions from any neighbors.
Perkins: So all of your parking will be off the street then?
Crandall: Our lot is here. We actually reduced the number of units and increased the number of
parking spaces.
Perkins:
Crandall:
Warrick:
You began with six units?
Exactly, we're down to four.
This structure will be set back from School Street an additional 5' in order to
accommodate the master street plan right of way needed for the historic collector.
Perkins: Any other input? This plan that you have illustrated on 2.9 is a good drawing of what the
project will end up looking like?
• Crandall: Yes, I think the Planning Commission was very specific about what they wanted.
Motion:
Green: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve VAR 01-28.00 with staffs recommendations and
conditions.
Hanna: I'll second.
Perkins: 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 01-28.00 was approved by
a vote of 6-0-0.
Perkins:
Crandall:
Perkins:
Mr. Crandall, your appeal went through as requested. Good luck with your project.
Thank you, I appreciate it.
Do we have any new business to bring up today or any old business? Thank you very
much for your time, we are adjourned.
• Meeting adjourned. 3:50 p.m.