Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-03 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF • THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, June 3, 2002 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN • • VAR 02-13.00: Variance (Archer, pp 481) Page 2 VAR 02-14.00: Variance (Zimmerman, pp 447) Page 5 MEMBERS PRESENT Michael Andrews Joanne Olszewski Michael Green Bob Nickle Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Marion Orton James Kunzelmann STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Shelli Rushing Dawn Warrick Kit Williams ReneeThomas Board of Adjustment • June 3, 2002 Page 2 ROLL CALL: Upon the completion of roll call, four members were present with Mr. Kunzelmann and Mrs. Orton being absent. • • Approval of -Minutes Green: At this time I will call the meeting to order. I want to welcome all of you to the June meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustments. The first item on the agenda is the approval or consideration of minutes from our May 6, 2002 meeting, are there any corrections or changes that anybody would like to make? Hearing none, we will consider those minutes approved. VAR 02-13.00: Variance (Archer, pp 481) was submitted by Julian Archer for property located at 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 37.79 acres. The requirement is for a 100' setback from a R-1 zone. The request is for a 75' setback (a 25' variance). Green: The first time on the agenda is a variance submitted by Julian Archer. The property is located at 2231 Markham Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 37.49 acres. The requirement is for a 100' setback from an R-1 zone. The request is for a 75' setback, which is a 25' variance. Dawn, do you have some background? Warrick: I am going to turn the show over to Shelli Rushing but before I do that, I would just like to introduce Shelli Rushing. She is an Associate Planner in our office. She has been with us for over a year. You guys haven't seen her because she has been assigned to other duties such as long range planning and some other projects. While I am out on maternity leave later this year, she will be your sole staff support and will be working on these variance requests. She will be a valuable resource to you and she has written the staff reports for today so I will turn it over to Shelli. Rushing: This particular property originally did house horses and some other barnyard animals for a number of generations up until about the mid 1990's. At that time, the owners decided not to maintain horses until they could build a new barn. They are wanting to replace that bam because it was in poor repair. The acreage around it was zoned R-1 in 1970 and once those animals were removed and six months passed, the non- conforming condition of permitting those animals to stay in that residential zoning district was no longer a nght for those property owners. Recently they did request a building permit to build the new bam. They intended to replace the old barn and reestablish the use of the property for boarding and training horses by the property owner. Because of the residential zoning, the staff made the applicants aware that the uses that they were proposing were not permitted and that the rezoning would be Board of Adjustment • June 3, 2002 Page 3 necessary. They did seek a rezoning, which was granted by City Council on May 21" of this year. The applicant at this time is proposing to construct the barn approximately 6,300 sq.ft. in size, it is approximately 600' from the applicant's house, 500' from the applicant's grandparent's house and about 1,000' from any other—residential structures The supplementary_zoning_regulations ave a requirement that any use that is consisting of the boarding or training of farm animals, specifically horses, must be setback 100' from any R-1 zoning district. In this case there is an R-1 zoning district adjacent to this site which houses a city owned water tank. In order to meet that 100 setback that is required would require them to move the bam back into a wooded area and would require removal of a number of trees. Therefore, for this particular site they are requesting a 25' variance in order to allow the 75' setback. Just a couple of points, at this time we are recommending that the requested setbacks be approved. That the variance only apply to the barn structure and that any future alterations or additions must comply with zoning regulations, including any required setbacks. Just a couple of points on this, in this particular situation, the R-1 zoning district which kicks in that requirement, is a water tower. It is not being used as a residence, it probably will not be used as a residence and should have no negative impact from the barn. • • Green: Is there any question or discussion from the members? Nickle: Couldn't the city rezone the tank property P-1 or something? Wouldn't that be more appropnate than R-1? Warrick: It is something that the City could contemplate. Nickle: It has been done before. Warrick: The R-1 property that we purchased from the Archers in order to place the City's water tower, was zoned R-1 in the city wide rezoning in 1970 so when we purchased it we didn't change the zoning at that point in time, it just remained as it was As Shelli mentioned, the Archers recently came before the City Council and requested a zone change for a good portion of their property including the site of the barn. Of course, they are rezoning the property around it, basically down zoning it to the A-1 district for the purpose of the barn. It is kind of a what happened first situation. Williams: I think Mr. Nickle makes a good point. We probably ought to do it at some point. However, it would take a considerable amount of time for the City to go back through the process and read the ordinance through and everything that would delay the Archers so I would suggest that even though you're right and we ought to do that, you probably should grant the variance at this stage and not hold them up anymore. Board of Adjustment June 3, 2002 Page 4 Warrick: In the future if they did have additional projects on the property and we did downzone or change the zoning of the water tank site then they would not have this particular 100' setback requirement because then they would be adjacent to a district other than residential Green: Is Mr. Archer here? Winston: My name is Winston. I live in that grandparent's house that is referenced. I am just here to answer any questions if I can. Green: Your name again, I'm sorry. Winston: Winston Winston. Green: Are there any questions for Mr. Winston? Nickle: I went up there Saturday afternoon and not only is there a wooded section on that west side, it also starts to drop off pretty good so I can see why they want to put it logically where it would be and don't see any problems. I don't see the water tank is going to be affected. Warrick: We haven't had any complaints from neighbors. Green: Is there any further discussion or a motion or anything? Motion: Nickle: I would make a motion that we approve with appropriate staff comments. Andrews: Second. Green: There is a motion and a second to approve the request for variance subject to staffs recommendations, call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 02-13.00 was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Green: The variance request passed, thank you. • Board of Adjustment • June 3, 2002 Page 5 VAR 02-14.00: Variance (Zimmerman, pp 447) was submitted by Stacey Zimmerman for property located at 1026 E Rebecca Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.27 acres. The requirement is a 8' side setback and a 25'front setback. The request is for a 4' side setback (a 4' variance) for an existing structure; a 3' side setback (a 5' variance)Joma proposed garage; anda 10' frontsetback.(a151_variance) for the proposed garage. • • Green: The next item on the agenda is a variance request submitted by Stacey Zimmerman. The property is located at 1026 E Rebecca Street and is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, containing approximately 27 acres. The requirement is a 8' side setback and a 25' front setback. The request is for a 4' side setback, which is a 4' variance for the existing structure and a 3' side setback, which is a 5' variance, for a proposed garage and a 10' front setback, which is a 15' variance for a proposed garage. Shelli, can you give us some background on this? Rushing: There are three requests for the setbacks at this time. The first one is on the existing structure which was built in the 1920s. This was prior to any other structures being built on that street. The property does have some mature trees, a maple and a very old oak. The site and the surrounding area is all zoned R-1 and is used for single- family residential. This particular site does have some drainage issues. The storm water is running down the driveway and seeping into the basement. They are attempting to improve that situation. On the existing structure there was an addition made prior to the current owners, who purchased the property in 1989. That addition encroaches into that side setback of 4' so the applicant is requesting a variance for that existing encroachment. The applicant is also proposing to construct a single car garage and they are requesting two setback variances on this particular proposed garage. It is on the southeast corner of the site. The garage is approximately 336 sq.ft. and there is an existing carport on the structure. They are proposing to enclose that carport and make a bedroom out of it and to improve some of the drainage, place the new driveway in front of the proposed garage and remove the old driveway. They are proposing to save two of the trees on the site, one tree will be removed. This tree that they are proposing to remove is in poor condition according to the applicant. In order to ensure that the existing structure is conforming, they are requesting that variance for the west side setback and to preserve those trees, improve their drainage issues, and maintain the character of the house. They are requesting the other two setbacks, the front and side setback also. There are some photos for you to take a look at that were provided by the applicant. They start on page 2.12. On that page, you can see the structure itself. There is a description of the house itself where they are proposing to enclose the carport. On page 2.13 it shows you the direction of the storm water runoff. On page 2.15 she is showing where some of the trees are, which ones will be saved, which ones will be removed with the proposed garage location. There is also a site plan on page 2.11 to show you where that Board of Adjustment June 3, 2002 Page 6 proposed garage will be and where that west side setback is currently encroaching onto that required setback. The applicant has spoken with the neighbor to the east who has indicated that they are in support of the proposed location. That neighbor would prefer to see as many trees as possible remain on that site. • Green: Rushing: Green: Zimmerman: Green: Andrews: Green: Motion: Andrews: The curb cut for the driveway will be removed and moved further to the east right? As I understand it, yes. Are there any questions for Shelli? Judge Zimmerman, would you have anything to add? I am just here in case you have any questions. Dawn has been very helpful. Great. It is a beautiful setting out there and I think that will be a fine addition. Are there any questions or discussions? I took a look at it and it looks like the most reasonable solution to putting a carport and garage addition and helping with the drainage problems. I think it is a very reasonable request. Is there a motion? I will move that we approve the variance with staff recommendations, one, two and three. Olszewski: I will second. Green: Roll Call: Green: Warrick: There has been a motion made and a second to approve the variance request with the three stipulations that staff has recommended. Shall we call the roll? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 02-14.00 was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. The motion passes, good luck with your project. That is really the only items on our agenda for discussion. Is there any other new business that would come before this Committee? Staff has nothing further. Board of Adjustment June 3, 2002 Page 7 Green: With no further business, this meeting is adjourned. Meeting adjourned: 4:01 p.m. •