HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-06 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, October 6, 2003 at 3:45 p.m.
in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN
VAR 03-28.00: Variance (Station on College, pp. 445) Approved
Page 2
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
James Kunzelmann
Michael Andrews
Michael Green
Sheree Alt
Joanne Olszewski
Bob Kohler
Bob Nickle
STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT
Dawn Warrick
David Whitaker
Jeremy Pate
Renee Thomas
Board of Adjustment
October 6, 2003
Page 2
VAR 03-28.00: Variance (Station on College, pp. 445) was submitted by Tony Davis on behalf
of Kevin Kuehn for the property located at 867 N. College Ave. The property is zoned R-0,
Residential office. The request is for a reduction in Building setbacks for an existing non-
conforming structure. The requirement for the building setbacks along College Ave. is 30' from
the Street Right of Way the request is for a 10' setback (a reduction of 20'). Along Clebum Street
the requirement for the building setbacks are 30', the request for a 10' setback (a reduction of 20').
The requirement for the building setbacks along Pollard Ave. is 30'; the request is for a 20'
setback (a reduction of 10').
Green:
Warrick:
Green:
We will call the meeting of the Board of Adjustment to order. Dawn, you would
like to introduce a new member of the Planning staff, is that correct?
Yes Sir. I would like to take just a minute and introduce Jeremy Pate, Jeremy is an
associate Planner who started in our office in May. He has been completely
entrenched in development activity and we are starting to divide up our work load a
little bit more and he will be working some on Board of Adjustment variance items.
He did do a lot of the leg work and drafting of the staff report on your item that is
on the agenda today so I asked him to come so that you could meet him to at least
put a face with the name and if you have questions he will help me address them. I
just wanted to let you know that Jeremy is available for your help and assistance.
We do have another Associate Planner who started in August. Her name is
Suzanne Morgan and she also will be working on some items that are heard by the
Board of Adjustment in the future and as soon as she works up one of these items
and has something on the agenda I will introduce her to you.
Welcome Jeremy. We want to welcome all of you to our October Board of
Adjustment meeting. We did not have a regular meeting in September so at this
time we need to consider the minutes of the August 4a' meeting of the Board of
Adjustment. I suppose everyone has saw those, are there any additions or
corrections?
Nickle: Where it is called Baker it should be Becker, B E C K E R.
Green: That also occurs on two agenda items too.
Warrick: We will be glad to correct that.
Green: Are there any other additions or corrections? Hearing none, we will consider the
minutes approved subject to changing Mr. Baker to Mr. Becker. The first item on
our agenda for the Board of Adjustment under new business is an item submitted on
behalf of Kevin Keen for property on North College Avenue. This item consists of
a request for setback variances on three different sides. Dawn, can you give us
some more information?
Board of Adjustment
October 6, 2003
Page 3
Warrick:
This is a project for a site that I believe everyone is familiar with. We, in the
Planning office, have been grappling with this site for about two years now. It is
the property located at 867 N. College. It is zoned R -O, Residential Office and is
located there at the southwest corner of College Avenue and Cleburn Street. It is
the site of what was formally Nick's Auto Garage. There still sits on that site the
garage structure that was utilized for that auto repair service. The applicant that is
before you today with this request is proposing to refurbish that structure and utilize
it for multi -family dwellings. This is a project that has gone to the Planning
Commission in the form of a Conditional Use request for multi -family dwelling
units in a Residential Office district. That request was approved by the Planning
Commission and supported by staff as well as the neighborhood association for
Wilson Park, which is immediately adjacent to the site. The request that you are
looking at today includes setback variances for the existing structure where it
adjoins or is adjacent to College Avenue, Cleburn Street and Pollard Avenue. This
is a unique site in that it does have three frontages and it has a structure on it that
has existed probably since the 1940's, at least in part, and has been added onto
several times since it was originally built. Just a little history, last year probably
about 15 months or 18 months ago even, we were looking at this site with a request
for interpretation as to whether or not the use of an auto lube and tune required C-1
zoning or C-2 zoning. At that time the property owner with their representative was
processing a request to rezone the site to a commercial designation and the original
request was for a C-2 zoning so that they could reestablish the site as an auto lube
center. That as not supported by staff, it was not supported by the city's general
plan and ultimately the City Council determined that it was appropriate for the site
to remain under its R -O designation. During the time that that was being
considered through the City Council the applicant did come to the Board of
Adjustment and request that you consider whether or not the C-2 district was
required for auto lube and tune and auto repair is specifically listed as one of those
uses allowed in Use Unit 17 which requires C-2 zoning. This board determined that
auto lube service would require a C-2 zoning. That was kind of all part of a
package of requests that was circling city hall in various formats and what we ended
up with was the site remaining under the R -O designation and the determination
that yes, C-2 was the appropriate district for auto lube and repair. Back to what we
are looking at today after all of that kind of determined what was desired to happen
on the site. This applicant has looked into the possibility and is pursuing the
possibility of refurbishing the existing structure and keeping the general character
of the structure to turn it into six residential dwelling units. Parking for the project
would be located on property that is also contiguous with the site immediately south
of this structure. Right now it is a green area. There had been a house on the site
immediately south of the auto shop and it burned several years ago. Right now
what we've got before us, in order for the applicant to refurbish the structure, which
will take quite a bit of financial fortitude I believe, it is necessary for him to seek
variances so that it is considered a legal and conforming structure with regard to
setbacks, that way in the future if anything were to happen to that structure, it
would be protected at least to the extent that it could be rebuilt in its current
location. There is a lot of character to this particular building and the applicant is
Board of Adjustment
October 6, 2003
Page 4
Green:
Davis:
proposing to kind of play on that and use that as a theme for his residential dwelling
units. Specifically what you have before you are, as I mentioned, three variance
requests. The ordinance requires 30' setbacks from the front property lines adjacent
to Pollard, College and Cleburn Streets. The requests are for a 20' setback, a 10'
variance to the west, which is the Pollard elevation, a 10' setback, a 20' variance
adjacent to College to the east and also a 10' setback, a 20' variance adjacent to
Cleburn, which is the property to the north. As you know, when we consider
variance requests we do look at special conditions and site specific issues. The
existing structure does predate current zoning regulations and the adoption of the
Master Street Plan. To some degree that has impacted the layout of this site and
where new development could exist on the site. We also look at whether or not
granting a variance would allow or confer special privileges to this applicant that
are not allowed others in the zoning district or the area. The Planning Commission
has already approved a Conditional Use which allows for this structure to be used
as multi -family dwellings. Therefore, it is not a special condition for a variance to
be granted to allow that rehabilitation to occur. We also look at whether or not this
proposal, with the variances that are being proposed or requested, is in harmony
with the general purpose of the zoning district. Whether or not it would be
injurious to adjacent property owners or the neighborhood and our finding is that
the proposed front setback variances are the minimum variances necessary to
accommodate the existing structure which, again, predates current zoning
regulations. The proposed adaptive reuse of the vacant structure will provide a use
which is more harmonious with the surrounding residential properties and the
variances will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the
public health. I did mention previously that this project has been pitched to the
Wilson Park Neighborhood Association. They have been thinking about this and
considering it since July when the applicant originally went to them. Their president
did come to the Planning Commission meeting in support of this particular request.
I believe it was September 22nd when it was heard by the Planning Commission. I
will just note as an aside, before I turn it over to the applicant, the applicant is
considering the use of the existing sign post. I believe that the current owner would
like the sign as a piece of memorabilia but the applicant is proposing to put a new
sign face in the existing pylon sign that is located on the site. That sign is non-
conforming and in the future if the applicant so chooses to use that you may see that
come back to the Board of Sign Appeals, which is, of course, your other
embodiment that we will talk about later but just so you know that is a
consideration that is not before you at this time but may be in the future. I think
that is all I have.
Thank you Dawn. Would the applicant like to address us? If you would state your
name for the record.
My name is Tony Davis, I'm with the Benham Company. Do you want to see the
whole thing or do you want the bottom line?
Board of Adjustment
October 6, 2003
Page 5
Green: If there is something that is in addition to what Dawn has already informed us
about.
Davis:
Green:
I would like to show you the latest ideas of how we are going to propose to reuse
the sign. Nick has requested that he take this and put it in his basement. I would
like to again, propose that the tow truck stays with the imagery of the sign and that
it really just become the Station on College as far as the sign and the pedestals
remain. You can see a little bit of before and after. It needs some paint setback in
the pedestal and the concept is that it is all going to be red and refurbished and
painted with a white building so it is going to be cleaned up and we are adding a lot
of landscaping. I think some of the setbacks that we talked about are going to be
filled with landscaping. There won't be any cars, there won't be any paving. We
are kind of talking about yardettes, little hedge areas.
That is very interesting what you are proposing to do to that building I think that is
going to be very unusual and certainly more attractive than that existing building in
state of disrepair as it is now. Are there any questions of the applicant or Dawn?
Warrick: I would add that it is not necessarily pertinent to the variances but one of the things
that this applicant is proposing to do that we felt was very important on this
particular site was to eliminate the existing vehicular access from both College and
Cleburn completely. There will not be curb cuts accessing this site and we felt that
was a very big mitigating factor in the reuse of this structure where they currently
have overhead doors, those will be pedestrian doors for humans as opposed to
vehicles. Access to the site for vehicles will only be on Pollard Avenue for the
parking area that is south of the structure.
Kohler: Are you adding onto the footprint of the building at all?
Davis: No.
Kohler: If that rezoning had taken place and this had been a C-2 and it had been another
lube shop these variances wouldn't apply right?
Warrick: They wouldn't be mandatory. It really depends on the amount of financial
investment that is going into it. I felt like we were looking at a project that was
totally refurbishing this structure. You certainly can reuse existing non -conforming
structures and renovate them. Especially if the use is permitted and there are no
other types of zoning approvals that are necessary. There gets to be a point where
the amount of investment into that property becomes a problem just with the fact
that there is a risk.
Kohler: Ok, so this is an assurance.
Warrick: Yes, there is a risk involved with the rehabilitation of a structure and should there
be a problem in the future without variances this structure cannot exist.
Board of Adjustment
October 6, 2003
Page 6
Kohler:
Warrick:
Olszewski:
Davis:
Olszewski:
Warrick:
Kohler:
Green:
Reddig:
Green:
MOTION:
Olszewski:
Warrick:
Kohler:
This is just sort of formalizing the condition there.
Right, that's exactly what we're doing.
I would just like to thank you for taking something that is already existing and
using it and not bulldozing it down.
It has been a dream project so far. Even the neighborhood folks are saying that they
like the building.
It is very created.
The neighborhood doesn't like the traffic that was associated with this as an
automobile service type use. That is the thing that we have heard from them from
the very beginning is we understand that the building is kind of an eye con but we
do not like the traffic associated with this kind of use.
A lot of times with this sort of dramatic reuse it is often times almost more cost
effective to bulldoze it and build something new because of the cost associated with
retrofitting such a radically different use. That's even more commendable.
Are there any other comments or questions? Are there any comments from the
audience?
My name is William Reddig and I live kitty corner from the property at 44 E.
Cleburn Street at the corner of Pollard and Cleburn and am also a member of the
Wilson Park Neighborhood Association and we did stand in opposition of changing
the zoning into commercial. My wife and I have no objection to this property and
we have been quite impressed by the creativity and the idea of using it with the
three plots that are there and the design so far and our house is on the corner and it
is a 1940's house. We think it will be compatible and we are quite pleased so far.
Thank you. Are there any others? I would entertain a motion.
I will motion that we accept the variance with staffs recommendations.
We do have one recommendation and that is that the variance is applied to the
existing structure and any future alterations or additions, changes, will need to come
back to the Board of Adjustment.
Second.
Board of Adjustment
October 6, 2003
Page 7
Green: There has been a motion and a second to approve the variance as requested along
with staff's recommendations. Is there any further discussion? Shall the variance
pass?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the variance was approved
by a vote of 6-1-0 with Mr. Nickle abstaining.
Green: The variance passes. That is the only agenda item for new business of the Board of
Adjustment. Is there any other business that we need to address at this time?
Warrick: No Sir.
Green: We will adjourn the Board of Adjustment meeting.