Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-04-01 MinutesBoard of Adjustments April 1, 2002 Page 1 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, April 1, 2002 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN VAR 02-8.00: Variance (Wilson, pp 444) Page 2 VAR 02-9.00: Variance (Barber, pp 254) Page 6 VAR 02-10.00: Variance (Lloyd, pp 484) Page 11 Approved Approved Approved MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Marion Orton James Kunzelmann Joanne Olszewski Michael Andrews Michael Green STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick David Whitaker Tim Conklin Renee Thomas Board of Adjustments April 1, 2002 Page 2 ROLL CALL: Upon the completion of roll call, four members were present with Mr. Green being absent. Approval of Minutes Orton: The first thing we are to do on the agenda here is the election of a chair person. What is your desire? Kunzelmann: I move that we table that until our next meeting when we have more members present. Olszewski: I second that. Orton: All in favor say aye, opposed say nay. Roll Call: The motion to table officer elections was tabled with the majority saying aye. Orton: I am the temporary Chairman. We will have the approval of the minutes of the last meeting and those of you that were here at the last meeting, do you see any corrections that need to be done? No? Hearing none, the minutes are approved as we received them. New business, the first item on the agenda is VAR 02-8.00 for Wilson. It was submitted by Raymond Smith, attorney, on behalf of Glen David Wilson for property located at 1120 Lindell Ave. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains .29 acres. The requirement is for a 50' front setback, the request is for a 15' front setback. That means a 35' variance for the existing structure and a 5' front setback, that is a variance of 45' for a proposed cooler to be placed on a concrete pad. Staff, would you like to give us an explanation? Warrick: This project is located on North Street. The address is on Lindell because it is basically an island that is surrounded by North, Lindell and Oakland. The property is occupied currently by Elenita's Mexican Cafe and the reason that the variance request is being brought is a requirement from the Department of Health with regard to the food preparation and cooling areas that are necessary for the restaurant to operate properly. They need to install an additional cooler and because of the location of the kitchen within the facility and the requirement that unprepared food can not be carried through the dining area, that it be delivered to the kitchen or storage area and for those reasons they are needing to place a cooler and they don't really have a place within the structure that is appropriate that meets those conditions of the Department of Health. The applicant has proposed to install a concrete pad at Board of Adjustments April 1, 2002 Page 3 the southeast corner of the structure that would house this cooler, a piece of equipment that is 7' 10" wide by 15'6" long and it stands 7 '/2' tall. Because of those conditions, because of the height of it, it does have to meet the setback requirements. They are proposing to locate this on this concrete pad and to add a door from the kitchen facility out so that they can access the cooler. It would also be accessible from delivery trucks from the exterior of the restaurant. Staff is recommending in favor. This particular site, like I mentioned, is surrounded by right-of-way and therefore is surrounded by very large setbacks, 50' setbacks wherever it is adjacent to a street right-of-way. The property has housed a restaurant or a food related business since its inception, since it was developed. Staff is recommending in favor of the request with three specific conditions. The first is that an 8' tall wooden privacy fence be constructed along the south and east sides of the proposed concrete pad to provide a screen between the cooler location and the street right-of-way and adjoining property to the east. The second condition is that landscaping be installed between the south side of the structure and the street right-of-way. This landscaping shall consist of at least one tree every 30 linear feet as provided under U.D.O. § 166.14. That is the commercial design standards site standards. Condition number three, that the variance shall apply only to the existing structure and to the proposed addition for the cooler equipment. Any future alterations or additions must be reviewed by staff and may require additional variance requests for consideration by the Board of Adjustment. Staff has received signed conditions from the applicant, they are in agreement with those conditions and I will note that I did receive a call from the adjoining property owner to the east. There is really only one other property on this small island surrounded by rights of way and it houses Johnny Carson's Hair Salon. The property owner, Rick Osborne called late last week to let me know that he has no objections to this request. I did want to add that there is a setback reduction option in the C-2 zoning district that staff has chosen to encourage the applicant to employ. That is why there are duplicates listed in the chart where I would normally list out the ordinance requirement and then the setback that is being requested. You will see on this one that for the existing building without the setback reduction and of course, the ordinance requirement is 50' setback. The proposal is 15' which would require a 35' variance. In a C-2 zoning district, with the landscaping that staff is recommending as a condition of approval for this variance, the C-2 setback could be reduced from 50' to 25', that means that the amount of variance request also reduces by that much and so the variance that you would be granting, as long as the landscaping is installed, would reduce from 35' to 10'. That is for the existing structure. Likewise, the reduction would apply to the cooler facility that they are proposing and reduce the 45' variance to a 20' variance. That is part of the reason that the recommendations on the conditions are stated the way that they are, so that we can reduce the amount of variance necessary by employing these conditions. It will also bring this development more into keeping with what current Board of Adjustments April 1, 2002 Page 4 commercial developments require as far as landscaping along the property lines. That is all I have. Orton: Is that an optional amount not set now? Warrick: Orton: Warrick: The 25' is an option that is allowed, that is correct. They need more than that which is why we are still looking at a variance. I see. When will that be decided? That won't make any difference today here? We don't vote on the reduced right? No, the reduced setback is an option that an applicant can employ based on their proposal with landscaping. That is something that they can choose to do. For this particular application staff is recommending that as part of the conditions that that be employed so that the landscaping is installed in addition to granting a variance. The city will receive the improvement to the site in line with today's current commercial design standard requirements. Orton: Is there anyone from the audience who would like to speak? First of all, I should ask Mr. Smith, do you have something that you would like to add to this? Smith: No, she has more than adequately covered our request here and we certainly agree to the conditions as recommended by staff. Orton: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this? Does anyone on the committee have questions? Kunzelmann: I have a question either of Mr. Smith or the staff. One of the staff's recommendations is an 8' tall privacy fence on the east and south sides. I was curious which side of the cooler will the door be facing? Will it be visible from the street on either side? Smith: No, the door will be on the north side of the cooler equipment and the privacy fence will be on the south and the east sides. Kunzelmann: Ok, so the west side of this cooler will be facing this outdoor patio? Is that correct? Smith: Yes and the privacy fence will be painted a color that will harmonize when the building colors there will make it less noticeable. Orton: Are there any other questions? Board of Adjustments April 1, 2002 Page 5 Kunzelmann: The condensing unit for the cooler, is it on top of the cooler or is it beside of the cooler? My concern is that the whole cooler be covered by that 8' privacy fence. Sometimes if the condensers are on the top it wouldn't. Smith: It will extend up above the height of the cooler and the compressor. Orton: Would anyone like to make a motion? Motion: Olszewski: I move that we grant the variance in accordance with all of staffs recommendations as written here. Kunzelmann: I second that. Orton: Is there any further discussion? Would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 02-8.00 was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Orton: The variance is granted and good luck. I enjoy eating there so I'm glad you're still in business. Board of Adjustments April 1, 2002 Page 6 VAR 02-9.00: Variance (Barber, pp 254) was submitted by Brandon Barber for property located at 3121 Tartan Way. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.25 acres. The requirement is for a 8' side setback. The request is for a 1' side setback (a 7' variance). Orton: The next item on the agenda is VAR 02-9.00 submitted by Brandon Barber for property located at 3121 Tartan Way. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.25 acres. The requirement is for a 8' side setback. The request is for a 1' side setback (a 7' variance). Staff'? Warrick: This property is located within the Huntington Planned Unit Development. It is a subdivision that is fairly well established. There are still some lots that are building out within that development. Many of the lots are on short cul-de-sacs, which is the case with this particular lot. It is pie shaped. The rear of the lot adjoins common area that is owned by the Property Owner's Association for the development. I mentioned that Huntington is a Planned Unit Development, which means that in consideration for different lot configurations the applicants, at the time that the subdivision was developed dedicated greenspace that would be owned in common throughout the development by the Property Owner's Association. You can tell best on your map on page 2.13 that some of the areas within the development just aren't platted. That is common area that is owned by the Property Owner's Association and you can tell how the subject property is uniquely shaped and backs up to some of this common area. Also, when the subdivision was developed the developer chose to require increased front setbacks from the street rights of way. In this particular case along the cul-de-sac, the requirement is 30' and along Tartan Way where it is a straight shot the requirement is a 35' front setback. Those are not standard setbacks within the R-1 zoning district throughout the city, those are special to Huntington. Basically because of the shape of the lot, the size of the house that is being constructed on the lot and the increased setbacks the applicant is requesting a variance to allow for the addition of a deck at the rear. The rear is being calculated as a side setback for the purpose of this variance and for the building permit because this lot has two street frontages. When there are two street frontages we consider those both fronts and then calculate the other two sides of the lot as sides and require the 8' setback in those locations. I did contact the President of the Huntington Property Owner's Association to insure that they did know that the variance was being requested adjacent to property that was owned by the Association. She had been made aware of the request by the Architectural Review Committee and was in the process of notifying people that she felt were going to be most affected by this type of request. I did not hear back from the Property Owner's Association or from any individual property owners. I did encourage her to make them aware of the meeting, make sure that they came and spoke if they had any questions or comments. Board of Adjustments April 1, 2002 Page 7 There may be some folks here from that area that I haven't yet spoken with. Staff is recommending in favor of this particular request. I have recommended four conditions that I felt were appropriate to the variance request and they are as follows: 1) That the variance shall apply only to the proposed deck as stated in the applicant's written request. 2) No additional living space or other structure shall utilize this variance. 3) The deck shall remain open and shall not be screened or enclosed. 4) Proof of approval of the project by the Architectural Review Committee of the Huntington Property Owner's Association to ensure compliance with the covenants of the subdivision prior to the issuance of the building permit for the proposed deck. I wanted to make sure first of all that we didn't extend the structure itself, as far as living area, back to this one foot setback point. That a deck I feel, can be considered a little bit differently because it is open area. It is of course a walking platform and stairs but it is not necessarily a room. Of course, then I felt it was very appropriate that the Property Owner's Association be involved in the approval of this project and that they be included in that so for those reasons staff is recommending in favor of the request. Orton: Thank you. Is there any comment from the applicant, Mr. Barber? Barber: No Ma'am. Orton: Are there any comments from the audience? Kramer: I am very new to this. I am the neighbor to the west. My name is Kramer with a "K", Leonard 3251 Charing Cross. My first concern is that this should've come up before he built the house. It is almost 90% complete. Why would one wait until now when there is really no option. Second, Mr. Catron who owned my property and that property, attempted to build three times and was denied because of the lot size. A second person bought the lot and discovered that they couldn't meet our covenants. Then another person bought the lot and wasn't told what was going on and they didn't build and now we are currently faced with something that is three times the size of the Berlin Wall on my back property line as well as a foot print that keeps water from saturating the ground and is instead going to run into my property, just as it happened to the south of me where a house does a similar thing. While I can't stop this man from doing what he is doing, I think it is rather inappropriate to bring to us at this late date and say "Here folks, this is what I want you to do. Give me a variance because the house is already there and I want to try to sell it or live in it." I find this totally uncalled for. We have a covenant and whoever designed the house didn't read the covenants or else, and I have one last comment. I am not in favor of keeping every tree in sight but there is a small flock of woodpeckers that live back there and I noticed that both of the nesting places were destroyed along with 17 Board of Adjustments April 1, 2002 Page 8 Orton: Barber: trees. That happened just out of the clear blue sky with not a word being said and they were gone. I really feel that some other adjustment should be made by this owner and builder to repay the community and certainly the neighbors. The house is built so close to the neighbor to the north that the trash from the building is on his property. That is what you see when you live there. Thank you for your remarks. Did you want to answer that? Yes. The reason for the request is because the house is for sale. The person that is interested in purchasing the home has requested a variance. They wanted it. Otherwise, we would have had this in the original proposal. We did take the plans to the Architectural Committee and got approved for building the home. As far as the specs and everything, building on that lot, which is a very unique lot, we thought that this house, and we also talked to other neighbors who are glad that we are building there and this was noted at the Architectural Committee. Secondly, that is why we are here with the request is that there is a person interested in purchasing the home that wants a deck off of his office and this is the only place we could put it. That is why we are here at this stage in the building process. Orton: As far as the other comments, they have to do with drainage and so forth and not with the deck, is that right? Barber: Yes. Warrick: I would just add that this variance is not for the structure. This structure has been legally permitted and is under construction. The only request is for the deck. That is the only consideration and staff is recommending that if the board approves this variance that it be restricted to the deck and not a variance to grant additional structure beyond what is existing, which meets the required 8' setback along that property line. With regard to tree removal, the city does have a tree preservation and protection ordinance. Our current ordinance was not in affect when Huntington subdivision was developed but when a property owner develops a single family lot they are permitted to remove trees. Kunzelmann: I would also like to point out for Mr. Kramer's benefit is that one of the things that staff is approving is that this would be conditioned upon approval by your Architectural Review Committee so the concerns you have can be addressed there. If your Architectural Review Committee doesn't approve it they won't get a permit for the deck. The variance granting would not automatically mean that there is going to be a deck there. It would basically put it back in the Review Committee's ballpark. Board of Adjustments April 1, 2002 Page 9 Kramer: Orton: Andrews: Barber: Andrews: Barber: Kunzelmann: Warrick: Andrews: Warrick: Orton: Warrick: Barber: I have a deck around my house and decks don't bother me. I am just saying that I think somewhere along the line, we that were closest to it weren't even informed that there was some discussion going on about how a house would be situated on that lot. A house the size of the one to the west of me, there are two houses to the west of me, sits there on that lot very nicely. When you put a house that is about 28' wide and about 48' long and it takes up the whole blasted lot, the way it is 8' around the side, that seems to be inappropriate. Are there any other comments or questions for the board? I just want to make sure, the deck is for the second level, is that right? The first level? How far off the ground will it be? That lot starts at the back so it will be different heights. It starts at ground level... Floor level is where the back starts, then the ground slopes so floor level is lower. That would be first floor level in the front but not in the back. The back itis still the first floor level but it is up off the ground. The photograph on page 2.10 in your packet shows the rear of the structure and you can see the courses of block, which are the foundation and then basically you can see where the first floor comes in. So it would be right at about that concrete block, that is what I was wondering. It starts about three blocks and extends as the ground slopes away. Then the roof comes out over the deck? No, the deck is not initiated at this point. The way the original house was designed, there was going to be a covered deck on the back you can see from the picture. The person interested in buying the house, as a condition of buying the house, he wanted to add the deck down the side. This gentleman, if the variance passes, if this gentleman is not at this time interested in the house, we are not going to do the deck unless he purchases the house. Board of Adjustments April 1, 2002 Page 10 Orton: Are there any other questions or comments from the audience? Are we ready for a motion? Andrews: If the back of this house butted up against another piece of property I would not be in favor of this but considering the amount of space that is there between that and the other neighbors, I don't really see a problem with what he is requesting. Kunzelmann: I also am a little uneasy about this but with the greenspace that is already dedicated and a requirement to go back to the Architectural Review Committee, I think it is ok. Motion: Andrews: And since it is for ground level. If it was up on the second level I would probably have more problems with it. Unless anybody has anything else, I will put that into a motion that we accept the variance as requested with the conditions of staff. Kunzelmann: Second. Orton: It has been moved and seconded, is there any other discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 02-9.00 was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Orton: Thank you, your variance is granted. Board of Adjustments April 1, 2002 Page 11 VAR 02-10.00: Variance (Lloyd, pp 484) was submitted by Neal Hefner of Neal Hefner Construction on behalf of Eric and Charlene Lloyd for property located at 492 N. West Avenue. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.14 acres. The requirement is for a 30' front setback on West Avenue & Lafayette Street and a 15' side setback on the north & east side of property. The request is for a 25' front setback on West Avenue and Lafayette Street (a 5' variance) and 10' side setback on north & east of property (a 5' variance). Orton: The next item on the agenda is VAR 02-10.00 submitted by Neal Hefner of Neal Hefner Construction on behalf of Eric and Charlene Lloyd for property located at 492 N. West Avenue. . The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.14 acres. The requirement is for a 30' front setback on West Avenue & Lafayette Street and a 15' side setback on the north & east side of property. The request is for a 25' front setback on West Avenue and Lafayette Street (a 5' variance) and 10' side setback on north & east of property (a 5' variance). We are getting oddly shaped lots today. Warrick: This one is unique as well. This particular property, many of you are probably familiar with it. It is at the corner of West and Lafayette, it is referred to as the Old Magnolia Filling Station. It is a building that has been listed on the Historic Register. It is also a building that is in pretty sever disrepair that needs to be rehabilitated, probably pretty quickly so that it doesn't completely fall down. The property owners have gone before the Planning Commission with a request for a conditional use to renovate this structure and to occupy it with a small retail shop. The Planning Commission did approve that with a condition of course, that it come to the Board of Adjustment for variances that were necessary for the existing structure to comply with existing setback requirements in order for the use to be established and a conditional use permit to be employed. This building has been in this location for many years. It was originally built in 1925. Obviously, our zoning regulations were not in place at that point in time. In fact, we've been through two or three codes since then. The fact that it is an existing structure and the fact that it is in a location that does have historical merit, it is a historical building and we are looking at a reuse potential that will revitalize that building as well as probably some of the others in the area. Staff is very much in favor of this request. There are variances necessary on all four sides in order for the existing structure to be considered compliant in order to renovate and those are as they are stated in the request and on the front page of your staff report. Staff is recommending one condition and that is compliance with all of the conditions of the Planning Commission approval of the conditional use permit. Those conditions are listed in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting, which are included in your staff report. The conditions were relatively extensive. They went to the extent of identifying the types of materials that would be utilized, restricting outdoor lighting, Board of Adjustments April 1, 2002 Page 12 requiring sidewalk improvements, arranging for solid waste pickup at an appropriate time and location, wall signage being restricted and those were the highlights as far as the conditions that the Planning Commission placed on the project. They also even looked at the parking for the facility as well as hours of operation. With those conditions that were employed at the time of the conditional use consideration I felt it was just appropriate to carry those forward with the variance request with our recommendation. I will also say that the applicant has signed off their approval to the conditions that are included in the staff report. Orton: Mr. Hefner, would you like to comment? Hefner: Dawn has pretty well covered the whole thing. We are basically not wanting to expand the building at all from the original footprint that you see out there right now. We are basically just going to remodel it and so if you have got any other questions, we have the owners here also, if you have any other questions we would be glad to answer them. Orton: I guess I wonder if you are going to put the gas tanks back up there but that has nothing to do with this. Hefner: Someone stole those. That is why the light is imperative to get that extra security. Kunzelmann: I will move for approval of VAR 02-10.00 with all of staff's recommended conditions. Olszewski: Second. Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 02-10.00 was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Orton: We remember that tract from a long time ago and it is time that something be done. Hefner: I think it will look nice. Thank you very much. Orton: That finishes the Board of Adjustment so I will call that meeting to a close.