Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-12-08 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, December 8, 2003 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. VAR 03-32.00: Variance (Spurlock/French, pp 600) Page 2 VAR 03-33.00: Variance (North Corner Apts., pp 405) Page 6 VAR 03-34.00: Variance (Trenton Block Apts., pp 445) Page 12 MEMBERS PRESENT James Kunzelmann Michael Green Michael Andrews Sheree Alt Bob Kohler Bob Nickle STAFF PRESENT Dawn Warrick Renee Thomas David Whitaker ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Joanne Olszewski STAFF ABSENT Board of Adjustment December 8, 2003 Page 2 Green: Good afternoon, I'm Michael Green, I will call this meeting to order for the December Board of Adjustment meeting. Renee, could you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were six members present with Ms. Oszewski being absent. VAR 03-32.00: Variance (Spurlock/French, pp 600) was submitted by Justin Spurlock and Haley French for property located at 1854 S. Garland Avenue. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre, and contains approximately 1.56 acres. The request is allow construction of a single family residence on a non- conforming lot of record. Green: We have a quorum. The first item on the agenda is the approval of the November 3, 2003 Board of Adjustment meeting. I was not attending that meeting but I certainly appreciate you sitting in for me Michael. It looks like you did a great job. Are there any corrections or additions to those minutes? Hearing none, we will declare those approved. The first item on the agenda is a request for a setback variance submitted by Justin Spurlock and Hailey French on some property on Garland Avenue. This is actually a lot width non -conforming lot request for a variance. Dawn, can you give us some background on that? Warrick: Yes Sir. This is a request for a lot width variance on an existing non- conforming lot of record. The lot was I believe a left over remnant after some railroad right of way changed hands and various parcels in this area were carved up to create new tracts of land. The resulting tract as you can see on your maps on pages 1.7 and 1.8 ended up with very little frontage. However, it is a rather large tract of land, especially in this zoning district and this area. The property itself contains just over one and a half acres and the variance that is being requested is a 17.4 foot variance of the lot width. The requirement is 60' and the existing lot width is 42.6 feet. As you mentioned, the property is located on South Garland Avenue, it is between 15`h Street and Cato Springs Road. It is zoned RMF -24, it is surrounded by a Light Industrial, Heavy Commercial type of zoning as well as multi -family land uses and zoning. This is categorized as a mixed use area on the city's General Plan and it functions as a mixed use area. Staff is recommending in favor of this lot width variance. Basically what this is doing is enabling this lot to be developed. We do have four recommended conditions that go along with that recommendation for approval. Those are stated on page one of your report. First is that the proposed development shall comply all development regulations for a single family home in the RMF -24 zoning district. Second, no more than one single family dwelling unit shall be constructed on the site. Third, a building permit shall be obtained for this project prior to commencement Board of Adjustment December 8, 2003 Page 3 of any work and fourth, any work within the floodplain should require a separate floodplain development permit. With that, staff is recommending in favor of this request. Green: Ok. Is the applicant here? Spurlock: I'm the owner. Green: Would you like to address the board on any of the points? Spurlock: We just want to give it to our son to build a house on. Green: I noticed that there is presently a house on this lot or is that next door to this lot? Spurlock: No, next door. There is nothing on that lot. Green: The address on the house was 1854 so I was a little confused as to whether that was going to be torn down for a house on that or if it was going to go in between the house and that old railroad right of way. Spurlock: It will go between the house and the old railroad. Warrick: We will need to coordinate with 911 addressing to get a proper address for the new structure that will be placed here that would be required through the permitting process to ensure that it has it's own address. Kohler: If we were to vote on this as per the conditions it doesn't change the zoning and someone in the future could come and put multi -family on there. Warrick: Not with this variance. The variance is necessary in order for anything to be constructed because there is not adequate lot width. Without the variance nothing could be constructed on the lot. It is necessary of course to get the variance even to build a single family home. With staff's recommended condition it would only be a single family home. Our records would of course, have to be researched and maintained in order to not allow denser development in the future. If there were something that were to come back on this lot at a later date, even if our records for some reason weren't perfect, the Board of Adjustment would again have to took at it because the lot width would not be there for us to grant the building permits for the site. Kohler: Even in the rear of the property there wouldn't be enough lot width? Board of Adjustment December 8, 2003 Page 4 Warrick: There is not frontage in the rear of the property. The lot width is measured where it adjoins the street right of way and that is what the main concern is with regard to this particular regulation. The rear of the site does have quite a bit more property and like I said, it is more than an acre and a half but the frontage is the main issue. Kohler: As a hypothetical, in the future if someone wanted to tear this house down and put a roadway back to the wider part of the lot and build multi -family units there this variance would keep them from doing that? Warrick: Yes. It would either prohibit them completely from doing that or you would again see a Board of Adjustment request for a different type of development. The request for this site, the variance was to build a single family home so staff did review it with that in mind. We also felt that it was appropriate in this particular location. Nickle: Are the development regulations for a single family in an RMF -24 significantly different than a single family in a regular single family home? Warrick: No Sir. Setbacks are a little different. The rear setback is increased in the RMF -24 district to a little higher than it would be in a single family district. Other than that, they are virtually identical. Nickle: I didn't want to place any undue burden on them if they are just going to build a single family house. Warrick: That is kind of a catch all. That is just to put everyone on notice that every regulation aside from this particular variance issue, lot width, will be applied to the project. Green: I think staff s recommendation number two there would pretty well lock it into no more than one single family dwelling unit on this property. I was wondering why item three is necessary. Doesn't everything require a building permit? Warrick: It does. This is just a belt and suspenders sort of thing. We just want to make sure that everyone is on notice that we need to follow all of the regulations and we will be looking for a building permit in order to erect a single family home on the site. Green: I guess the same one would apply to number four there that any work within the floodplain, even though there is a flood certification on the survey? Board of Adjustment December 8, 2003 Page 5 Warrick: The only unique condition to this particular site or project that would not be universal for any project in this zoning district is item number two and that is restricting the density based on the lot width. It does restrict the visibility of the site. It restricts the access to the site to some degree. That was just a consideration that we felt was appropriate. Green: Is there anyone else in the audience that would wish to address us on this issue? Ma'am, I don't think we got your name for the record. Spurlock: Judy Spurlock. Green: Thank you. Are there any other comments from the Board? MOTION: Andrews: I move that we approve the Variance as requested with four staff conditions. Kunzelmann: Second. Green: There has been a motion and a second to approve the variance along with staff's recommendations. Is there any other discussion? Shall the variance pass? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-32.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Board of Adjustment December 8, 2003 Page 6 VAR 03-33.00: Variance (North Corner Apts., pp 405) was submitted by Robert Sharp, Architect on behalf of Hometown Properties, LTD for property located on the northwest corner of Leverett Avenue and North Street. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre and contains approximately 0.87 acres. The requirement is for 25'setbacks on the street frontage on the east and north sides. The request is for a 20' setback on the east frontage (5' variance) and a 15' setback on the north frontage (10' variance). Green: The next item on the agenda is a Variance request submitted by Robert Sharp on behalf of Hometown Properties. This property is at the corner of Leverett Avenue and North Street and the request is for setback variances. Dawn, do you have further information? Warrick: Yes Sir. This site is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -Family, 24 units per acre and contains just under an acre, 0.87 acres. As you mentioned, the request is for setback variances. This particular site is fronted on three sides with streets. You will note that probably best on page 2.13, which is a close up map of the site. The south side of the site adjoins North Street. On the east is Leverett Avenue and on the north is Hazel Street. Both North Street and Leverett Avenue are classified as high level streets on the city's Master Street Plan which imposes greater setback requirements on any project adjoining those streets. North Street is designated a minor arterial with Leverett being designated a collector. In reviewing this proposal there were several considerations. As I mentioned, the Master Street Plan setbacks are one of those considerations because it does limit the available buildable area on this property. You will remember that there was two old houses on these sites. This is a collection of two to three lots that are being proposed for this overall development. Those houses could not be built back in the location that they were originally sited based on the setback requirements of today's ordinances. With regard to findings, let me start with the proposal, the proposal is a 19 unit complex in two buildings, a total of 44 bedrooms. The buildings will face Hazel Street and Leverett Avenue with the side of the main buildings facing North Street. The location of the buildings will be sited so as to cause minimal disturbance and also to save a 36" sycamore tree and valuable not only in tree canopy but just in the tree itself to the site. Some of our consideration of course went to the desirable preservation of this tree on the site. Several of the trees along Leverett Avenue were also looked at and they were deemed less valuable than this particular tree. There is also a 36" sycamore tree which overhangs the site, it is actually located on property to the west. In order not to damage that tree buildings were shifted around to provide enough area underneath that canopy that it would not be damaged. The Landscape Administrator is in agreement with this provision to provide some canopy preservation on the site. With regard to findings, staff did find that while literal interpretation of the zoning regulations would allow construction it would cause the need to Board of Adjustment December 8, 2003 Page 7 remove additional trees. The tree preservation ordinance requires preservation of a minimum percentage of tree canopy with significant trees having high priority, high importance. The 36" sycamore proposed to remain is classified, as I said, as one of those significant trees. Staff has worked quite a bit with this applicant and has been out on site several times and believes that this tree does need to be saved. Also, with regard to harmony and general purpose, granting the setback variances will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of Code § 161.13 which is our zoning requirements. Our setback reduction as requested in this location will not be injurious or detrimental to the public welfare. Rather a greater importance of tree canopy is preserved and parking located to the rear of the structures will provide benefit to the community and maintain the goals and objectives of the city's tree preservation ordinance. Staff did find that these variance requests were appropriate. We are recommending in favor of these requests with three recommended conditions. The first is that the proposed development shall comply with and be permitted pursuant to all development regulations in the RMF -24 zoning district. Second, that buildings within the proposed development shall adhere to the character, materials and overall intent as presented with the applicant's building elevations filed with the Planning Division. I have two sets of those that I will pass down. Kohler: Is there an additional site plan other than what we've got? Warrick: I have one in the file that I will pull out and let you take a look at. The third is that setbacks shall be measured from Master Street Plan rights of way pursuant to § 166. That is of course part of the mitigating factors that pushes the development area on the site towards the north and west. That is all I have. Green: Ok. I notice Mr. Sharp is here. Would you have anything further to add? Sharp: I think Dawn pretty much summed up all the issues of the development. Basically, the reason we are asking for the variance is two fold. One is it gives us better tree preservation and second, it allows us to place the building facing the street and parking to the rear to make it a much nicer development than what is typically developed with apartments. Those are the two major issues. I would also just add that the city staff in every level has been very cooperative and helpful about trying to work out a solution to this difficult site. Warrick: We will still be working on some treatments to the parking area that is there at the corner and the applicant is aware of that. In order to do everything possible to ensure that that 36" sycamore is protected. Kohler: That front building setback wise is where? Board of Adjustment December 8, 2003 Page 8 Warrick: It will be located 20' from the Leverett Avenue Master Street Plan right of way. Leverett Avenue is the one that is classified as the collector street. It is currently not of course, built to that standard and an additional setback is necessary in order to provide the future area to do that. Kohler: There is plenty of setback on the north. The Leverett and Hazel streets. Warrick: Because of the location of the structures there is a lesser setback requirement for parking than there is for structures in the parking that is there at the south end of the project. Kohler: It is a good looking building. Green: How does the front of this building sort of line with the adjacent properties to the north there, are they setback approximately the same? Sharp: The property to the north has quite a bit of parking in the front so they are probably setback a little further. Warrick: I think that is Colonial Arms to the north and I believe the proposed structure will be closer to the street. Green: It is kind of hard to see where that would fall wind shielding it. Kohler: There is one directly across Leverett that looks like it comes pretty close. Warrick: That is the Church of Christ building. The front part of the building, which is the south end of the site it does get pretty close to the street. They don't have a parking space in front of there, they've got a drive aisle and then more of their parking towards the rear. This type of development, you will see it again in the next project, does bring the structure closer to the street, it provides more of a streetscape than a mass of pavement in front of the structure adjacent to your street right of way. We are still going to achieve a tree lined sort of street scape in front of this building. There is plenty of room to still have that landscaping. You just won't have the concrete parking lot there in front of the structure kind of blocking it. Kohler: Generally speaking as a general development idea or concept pretty much always having the building closer to the street and parking in the back is a more desirable effect along the street. I think people should do that as often as possible. Warrick: It is something that staff is certainly encouraging and we have a drafted ordinance that is in fact, going to the Planning Commission next week in a Board of Adjustment December 8, 2003 Page 9 working session, that proposes to enforce lesser setbacks than what our ordinances currently require. What we have on the books right now really does push structures back off the street and encourages people to put large seas of asphalt right adjacent to the front property line. Like Bob said, it is more desirable to see the structures up front whenever it is reasonable and it typically provides a better street scape and usually a more organized design scheme. Green: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against? Davison: My name is Sharon Davison. I drive this frequently and it is a major traffic intersection. My concern, I understand about needing to save the tree and working around that, I understand the aesthetics of putting buildings closer. In this case on a corner lot with this kind of traffic I think we are setting up for a dangerous situation by building close to the street and in the Master Plan it sounds like if we grant that variance if the street goes to be widened then they are going to expect compensation. I think we need to consider this as widened. I am not sure if there is the possibility of a need for a right hand turn lane there which I can see in the future. That light is hard to get through. Eventually they are going to want a right hand turn lane right at this corner. I think we really need to consider that you are going to allow them to build where I think it will create a dangerous traffic situation. You know how fast people come down North Street, fly up there and then we are going to have all this right on the corner. Then if they need to later come in and put a right hand turn lane we are going to have given a variance and then we are going to pay dearly to compensate them for giving that. I think there is more here than meets the eye. I think we will create a dangerous traffic situation by granting this and that it really might not be appropriate as we think for safety factors and for street conditions at that location and the possibility of having to compensate this very owner who is wanting to stretch his maximum lot potential. I would like you to please consider that. Thank you. Kohler: Which street do you think is more impacted? Davison: At this point North is the speed traffic, Leverett has volume and eventually I can see a desire to put a right hand turn on North. Kohler: This isn't going to affect traffic on Leverett because there is an exit onto North, there is no curb cut on the site off to Leverett. Warrick: When it comes to the question of whether or not this particular plan allows for the future build out of the Master Street Plan the setback variances taken from the consideration that the Master Street Plan is in place. We are considering Leverett requiring a total of 70' of right of way. It does Board of Adjustment December 8, 2003 Page 10 not have that currently. When we are looking at this requirement they are proposing to be setback 20' from the future right of way as opposed to 25' from the future right of way. We believe that even with this 5' variance on Leverett Street we will still be able to accommodate our Master Street Plan which would allow for a turn lane and a collector street. It would allow for a 36' street standard with occasional or even constant turn lanes as well as sidewalks on both sides and greenspace. North Street, likewise, has plenty of right of way to be built out to a principal arterial without affecting any of the development on this site. This is a building permit project, it is not required to go through the Large Scale review process. Under our ordinances, we are required to ensure that they set the project back to comply with the Master Street Plan but we cannot require dedication of the right of way at this time. In the future if we do need to acquire right of way it will not be developed property. It will be greenspace. Therefore, the cost to the city will be less. Green: Does that answer your concerns? Davison: One more question. In anticipation of that turn lane how close to that lane then would this structure with that setback be? Warrick: 20' from the future built out street. Davison: I wouldn't want to live on that end apartment myself. Warrick: There is a greenspace between the curb. Davison: That is good then if it is accommodating that Plan. Warrick: We certainly try to ensure always that we aren't going to grant a variance and then cost the city in the future. Andrews: Rob, if I'm not mistaken, isn't your building about 100' from North Street on that side? Sharp: Yes. Andrews: It looks like you are building quite a ways from North Street. Green: Are there any other comments or questions? MOTION: Kohler: I move that we approve the Variance as stated subject to the conditions as stated. Board of Adjustment December 8, 2003 Page 11 Alt: I will second. Green: There has been a motion and a second to approve the Variance request along with the three staff recommendations. Is there any further discussion? Andrews: My only discussion is Rob if this gets built looking like this you ought to win some awards. This is probably the best looking apartment design I've seen in Fayetteville in a long time. Warrick: We are going to require that it is built that way, that's item number two. Kunzelmann: I second that comment. Green: Shall the variance request pass? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-33.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Board of Adjustment December 8, 2003 Page 12 VAR 03-34.00: Variance (Trenton Block Apts., pp 445) was submitted by Robert Sharp, Architect, on behalf of Navona Investments, Inc. for property located at the SW comer of College Avenue and Trenton Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 0.48 acres. The requirement is for 50'setbacks along both the north and east street frontages. The request is to allow 15' setbacks along the north and east street frontages (a 35' variance.) Green: The third item on the agenda is another item submitted by Rob Sharp on behalf of Navona Investments for property located on the comer of College Avenue and Trenton Avenue. This again, is a Variance request on setbacks both along the north and east street frontages. Dawn, can you add anymore to that? Warrick: Yes Sir. The property is at the southwest corner of Trenton Blvd. and College Avenue. It is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. This zoning district requires 50' front setbacks and has two street frontages. Therefore, the two other sides, the south and the west are considered sides. When they adjoin a residential district they are required to have 15' side setbacks. That is pertinent to the west. Land use to the west is residential that leads into the Wilson Park neighborhood. Remaining adjacent land uses are zoned and utilized for commercial purposes. The proposal is a mixed use three story structure which will include both residential and commercial activities. The proposal will include a structure which is located towards the front of the lot similar to the last project that we looked at with the parking in the rear. The idea is to establish an aesthetically pleasing pedestrian scale street front along College Avenue and to create a more civic minded development. In order to do this the applicant requests a variance from the required 50' setback along Trenton and College Avenue rights of way. Just a note, by right the Unified Development Code will allow for a setback reduction from 50' to 25' with additional landscaping. That is part of our Buffers, Strips and Screening. That code §166.10 is included on page 3.2 of your packet. We do have that incentive if you increase your landscaping you can decrease your setbacks. This applicant is requesting a 35' variance for a 15' setback so it is a little bit more than what our incentive would allow. It is 10' greater of a variance than what our buffer would provide. That is why we are looking at variances for these two frontages. With regards to special conditions, unique conditions to this particular lot, the lot contains a steeply sloping hillside that enders a portion of it unfeasible for construction. There are single family residential properties adjacent to the west which need to be buffered from the C-2 zoning district along College Avenue. Another important finding with regard to harmony and general purpose of the regulations, granting the setback variance request will be in harmony with the purpose of the intent of Code § 161.17 which is zoning requirements, as well as those listed for the setback reduction option. In this location a setback reduction will not be injurious or detrimental to the Board of Adjustment December 8, 2003 Page 13 public welfare rather it will support two of the goals of the City of Fayetteville General Plan 2020 which include beautification of College Avenue and the encouragement of mixed use. Just like we talked about in the previous application, it also provides that pedestrian scale structure along the street front to provide the edge to the street, which is generally lacking along College Avenue when you add all of the other parking lots and access there. There is proposed to be one curb cut into the site, which is off of College Avenue. You can see the site plan on page 3.10 and some elevations that are proposed on pages 3.12, 3.13, and 3.14. This project has been reviewed by the Wilson Park Neighborhood Association. This is an email that was received by the Planning Division on Friday. There are several quotes in here from various residents within the Wilson Park Neighborhood Association. All of the information that the Planning staff has received through the neighborhood association has been positive and in support of the application. We appreciate the applicant's representative going to the neighborhood association. It is always encouraged and when they do the neighborhoods are always very appreciative and staff feels that it is really very appropriate that they have an opportunity to understand the project. With that information, staff is recommending in favor of this request. We are with that recommending three conditions. The first is that the proposed development comply with and be permitted pursuant to all development regulations in the commercial zoning district. Second, setbacks shall be measured from the Master Street Plan rights of way pursuant to Code § 166.18. The plans will need to be revised slightly to accommodate that Master Street Plan but based on our previous conversation staff will always encourage people to accommodate the future Master Street Plan right of way. Third, additional vegetation shall be required along the street rights of way to meet the intent of the setback reduction ordinance and that goes along with the code section that is on the next page. What that would result in is an increase in the planting requirements. With this being a partially commercial structure there will be a requirement for one tree planted every 30 linear feet in the front of the structure along both street frontages, Trenton and College. In order for this Variance to be approved according to item number three, there will be a 10% increase in that area of landscaping and staff will work with the applicant on what exactly will be included in that plan but we will look at some additional landscaping to accommodate that. Kohler: You are talking about 10% over and above? Warrick: We are talking about one every 30'. Kohler: Because he is going beyond 25 down to 15 we are going to require more than intended? Board of Adjustment December 8, 2003 Page 14 Warrick: No. We are just trying to get it to what we would allow with a 25' setback. A little bit more than that is what we felt like was appropriate to apply that screening requirement. Green: Actually with your landscaping credit essentially this is a 10' variance request on both sides. Warrick: Yes Sir. Green: Rob, would you like to add anything to that? Sharp: I have some additional materials. This is what the site plan should look like when you base it on the Master Street Plan setbacks. The one we submitted was wrong because it was based on the existing setbacks. Also, here are the elevations in color that I showed to the neighborhood association. One more thing I want to share with you on the drawing that I did of College Avenue. The black dots are buildings and the pink line is the new Master Street Plan right of way. You can see how wide that is. It actually touches several buildings. The blue lines are what the existing setbacks are. You can see only one building on this whole strip meets the requirements, that is the Taste of Thai restaurant. It is sort of a disconnect from what is actually built and what is legal. Of course that is something that needs to be addressed at different levels of the government but I did want to pass this around to show you what we are asking for is very much not a special request here. We are really just bringing this building in line with the rest of the structures and hopefully the city will pick up the ball and make College Avenue the tree lined boulevard that is on the Master Street Plan. I will pass this around so you can see some of the situation that exists. The other thing is I made a mistake on interpreting Trenton Blvd. I thought that was a residential street instead of a local street so all of my drawings are based on a 40' instead of a 50' right of way. If possible, I would like to request an additional 5' variance along Trenton also. Green: It is very nice. Warrick: That would increase the variance request along Trenton to 20' unless you allow for the setback reduction which would mitigate it to 15'. Nickle: 15' setbacks along the north and east street frontages? Warrick: It would be 20' on the north and 15' on the east. That does not take into account the setback reduction. We just wanted to have pure numbers there. Board of Adjustment December 8, 2003 Page 15 Sharp: The 5' parking variance along the north. I am proposing parking within 10' of the new Master Street Plan. Warrick: The plan that was just passed around was the building highlighted in orange would allow for the Master Street Plan but you would need a 15' along College, a 20' variance along Trenton and a 5' parking variance along Trenton? Sharp: Yes. We classified Trenton as a residential street. Nickle: What is the regular requirement for setback on parking? Warrick: 15' setback from the Master Street Plan right of way, they are proposing 10'. Nickle: Ok, that is a 5' variance for parking. Sharp: I should add we are planning on screening the parking with a wall so even though it will be close to the street it still won't be a burden on the neighbors. Green: To summarize these amendments that we've got here, the actual request now Dawn can you reiterate that? Warrick: Yes Sir. The request is for three variances. The first is a setback variance for the structure along College Avenue, 15' request which is a 35' variance. The second request is for a setback for the structure along Trenton, it will be a 10' setback which results in a 40' variance. The third request is for a variance to the required setback for parking along Trenton. It is for a 10' setback which results in a 5' Variance. Green: Ok. On College Avenue the structure is 15' setback with a 35' variance, is that still the case? Warrick: Yes Sir. Kohler: Really the parking variance is sort of nullified by the fact that there is a building variance in front of the parking and the wall. Technically there has to be a variance for it. Warrick: It is stemming from the other variance. Nickle: The setback that we would be looking at on Trenton, is that to this balcony here? Sharp: Yes. Board of Adjustment December 8, 2003 Page 16 Nickle: Ok, so the building itself is a little bit further back than the balcony. Sharp: The street angles a little bit in there. Nickle: Ok, you've got a little jog in the building on the north side, is that the reason for that? Sharp: Yes. Green: Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak for or against? Bassett: I would just like to say I am Mary Bassett and I represent the property as well as the owner of the property. I have lived in Fayetteville all of my life and it is so much fun to work on a project like this with the knowledge that the owner will have going to the property. When I grew up North College was not as wide as it is now and we did have more trees than we do now. We have had a lot of people look at this property that wanted just a car lot, nothing would change other than a little building and it would all be just concrete. To have the vision that Rob has and the expense that he is going to go into putting the project there I'm very excited and appreciate that and appreciate being part of the process. Green: Thank you. Are there any other comments or questions? Priester: I am #9 Trenton. I think it is a very welcome addition and I'm looking forward to it and I'm very excited over it. Green: Could you state your name for the record? Priester: Earl Priester. It is just a parking lot now, you could put a lot of things in there and I really like the design. I like what they are doing. Green: Are there any other comments from the Board? MOTION: Nickle: I move that we approve the Variance as modified with the staff's comments. Kunzelmann: Second. Green: We have a motion and a second to approve the Variance as modified, which will be a 10' setback on Trenton Avenue, a 15' setback on College Avenue and a 10' setback for parking on Trenton Avenue along with Board of Adjustment December 8, 2003 Page 17 staff's recommendations. Is there any other discussion from the Board or the audience? Shall the request for a Variance pass? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-34.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Green: Thank you very much. I believe that concludes all of the items on our agenda. Is there any other new business that should come before this board? Warrick: I have nothing else for the Board of Adjustment. The Board of Sign Appeals that were originally scheduled for this meeting, one was withdrawn as a variance which was not necessary. The second was not able to be represented today and we have rescheduled them for January. Green: Very good. If there is no further business, the Board of Adjustment meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much for coming.