Loading...
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.