Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-02-03 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, February 3, 2003 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN VAR 03-3.00: Variance (Days Inn, pp 290) Approved Page 2 VAR 03-5.00: Variance (White River Hardwoods, pp 565) Approved Page 4 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Sheree Alt Joanne Olszewski Marion Orton Michael Green Bob Nickle STAFF PRESENT Dawn Warrick David Whitaker Michael Andrews James Kunzelmann STAFF ABSENT Renee Thomas Board of Adjustment February 3, 2003 Page 2 VAR 03-3.00: Variance (Days Inn, pp 290) was submitted by Neal Hefner Construction on behalf of Jay Surati of Days Inn for property located at 2402 N. College Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 4.12 acres. The requirement is for a 65' front setback on College. The request is for a 28.75'front setback (a 36.25' variance). Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were five board members present with Mr. Kunzelmann and Mr. Andrews being absent. Green: Welcome to the Monday, February 3, 2003 meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment. The first item of business is approval of the minutes from the January meeting. It looks like we are missing the front page of the Board of Adjustment minutes. The Board of Sign Appeal minutes look to be all there. All in favor of approving the Board of Sign Appeal minutes say aye, all opposed say nay. The Board of Sign Appeal minutes are approved. We will wait until we get the first page of the Board of Adjustment minutes to approve those. The next item on the agenda is VAR 03-3.00, it was by Neal Hefner Construction on behalf of Jay Surati of Days Inn for property located at 2402 N. College Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 4.12 acres. The requirement is for a 65' front setback on College. The request is for a 28.75'front setback (a 36.25' variance). Warrick: The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Township Road and College Avenue. The existing development is a Days Inn motel which is built in an L -shape surrounding the Suds car wash which fronts College Avenue. The applicant proposes to improve the existing motel by making changes to the facade and enclosing an exterior stairwell at the northwest corner of the northernmost building. The elevation behind Mr. Nickle on the right shows what the enclosure would look like completed. With regard to a finding of resolving actions the special conditions are that it is an existing structure that existed prior to the city's developing the Master Street Plan. The reasons set forth in the application we believe justify the variance and that it is the minimum possible proposed exterior improvements. Staff has recommended conditions with our recommendation for approval that will insure compliance with Commercial Design Standards regulations and that will limit the application of the requested Variance specifically to the proposal being considered. With that, staff does recommend approval of the requested setback Variance and those two conditions are stated on the front page of your staff report. Green: The question I had of course is that 65' of right of way actually intended to be used at sometime in the future? In other words, are we planning to increase College Avenue to a ten lane thoroughfare at some point? Warrick: That is a good question. If there were improvements made to College Avenue most likely they would be landscaping and sidewalk improvements and they would occupy that 10' or 15' of right of way that is in addition to what is existing right now. College Avenue is Hwy. 71B, therefore, it is under control of the Arkansas Board of Adjustment February 3, 2003 Page 3 Highway and Transportation Department. I am not sure, I don't believe it is on any targeted reasonably close time frame plans for improvements at this point in time. Like I said, I think that with a five lane section in that location right now any improvements would most likely be within the right of way and would consist of landscaping and sidewalks. Green: That building just north of that, that was even closer to the street curb essentially than this. I guess that would be a major undertaking to physically claim that. Warrick: That structure as well as this northern most piece are certainly non -conforming right now because they encroach the regular 50' setback as well as the extended setback for the Master Street Plan. Green: Does anyone have questions for Dawn? Is the applicant here and would you like to address us? Berry: I am Carl Berry, I work for Mr. Hefner. I am just representing the applicant if you have any questions. Green: Ok, does anyone have any questions for Mr. Berry? Nickle: This pre -dates our planning ordinance period from when it was originally built. I think it was built back in the 1960's. Warrick: Certainly that intersection at Township has been improved since the original development was put in place. Township was improved within the past two to three years. Nickle: I know that College Avenue at that time might have been four lane at most. Orton: I remember Township and that the Board of Adjustment allowed a business on the other side to become closer because they thought that will never be any wider than that going up that hill. I think of that every time we look at that corner and how Days Inn and the other businesses that are across the street as a reminder to us that we have to think more of what it is going to look like in the future and not now. Nickle: If this was much closer to the corner I would definitely take a considerable look but with as far away as it is from the corner right now I don't think that it is going to have any interference. They are going to have to tear down that building to the north for it to take effect with any acquisition. Green: I would entertain a motion concerning this item. Motion: Board of Adjustment February 3, 2003 Page 4 Nickle: I will make a motion that we approve the request with the staff comments items one and two. Orton: I will second that. Green: We have a motion and a second to approve the applicant's request with staff's recommendations for colored elevations and the proposed stairwell enclosure as stated by staff. Is there any further discussion? Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this matter? If not, will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-3.00 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Green: The Variance passes Thank you very much. Board of Adjustment February 3, 2003 Page 5 VAR 03-5.00: Variance (White River Hardwoods, pp 565) was submitted by Jim Key of Key Architecture on behalf of White River Hardwoods for property located at 1197 S. Happy Hollow Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.90 acres. The requirement is for a 50' front setback from the Master Street Plan right-of-way line and a 15' landscaped area adjacent to the front property line. The request is for a 38' front setback (a 12' variance) and no on-site landscaping (a 15' variance). The request is to install the landscaping in the street right-of-way. Green: The next item on the agenda is a Variance request by White River Hardwoods submitted by Jim Key. This is located at 1197 S. Happy Hollow Road and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The requirement is for a 50' front setback from the Master Street Plan right of way with 15' landscaped area adjacent to the front property line. This request is for a 38' front setback, which is a 12' variance and no onsite landscaping, which would be a 15' variance on the landscaping requirement. This request is to install landscaping in the street right of way only. Can you give us the background on that Dawn? Warrick: I would like to make one minor change to the actual description. With regard to the landscaped area requirement, that is actually a 10' as opposed to 15' and I am going to address that a little bit in the background I will provide you. This one is a little more complicated and I provided a lot of background information on this particular item. The property is located at 1159 S. Happy Hollow. The site consists of four large lots containing warehouses and support services for the operation of White River Hardwoods. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The lot that this particular building is on, the office building, contains approximately 49 acres. The overall tract that is owned by White River Hardwoods and consists of their project is about 3.3 acres. The proposal is that the applicant wishes to make an addition to the existing office building at this time. The building was originally constructed in 1986 and contained 3,600 sq.ft. Later the building was expanded and now it contains a total of 6,000 sq.ft. The proposal that is being brought forward right now would increase the size of that structure by 720 sq.ft. on each of two floors, an increase of 1,140 sq.ft. The request in order to make this proposed addition in the location that the applicant desires is a variance of the front setback requirement and a variance of the landscaping as was stated in the description of the project. The zoning ordinance requires that structures in the C-2 zoning district be setback a minimum of 50' from the front property line. That distance increases, as we saw in the last variance that we just considered, based on the Master Street Plan. In this particular case there is 55' of right of way from the centerline existing. Therefore, the 50' is the setback that we are looking at. The existing structure does meet that setback requirement. However, the proposed addition is located 39' from the front property line which would necessitate the 11' variance that is being requested. There are some provisions in the City's Unified Development Ordinance that would allow for a lesser setback in the C-2 zoning district. Those would be by increasing landscaping in front of the structure a 25' reduction can be achieved and that can be done administratively. That would require that a 25' landscaped area with additional landscaping other than just grass, a 10% increase of landscaping be Board of Adjustment February 3, 2003 Page 6 installed in front between the street right of way and the proposed structure. That can result in a 25' reduction in the amount of setback that is required in the C-2 district. This option could not be achieved on the proposed project without reducing the amount of parking that is existing on the site and requiring that some of the pavement be pulled up and replaced with landscaping. The existing parking lots in this location are non -conforming. They do not meet landscaping or setback requirements as they are currently installed. One issue that needs to be addressed or considered with regard to that is that the applicant is proposing a 24% addition to the existing building. The Unified Development Ordinance does require that 24% of the existing parking lot be improved to meet current standards. Staff typically works with applicants in locating required improvements and our preference is always to locate those improvements along the front property line to increase landscaping with the intent to bring the project to more consistency with current commercial site development requirements. The use of the property for warehousing and storage was approved by the Planning Commission in 1984 through a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed addition and development. The building that we are considering is the showroom and office building. That is a use by right in the C-2 zoning district. The other uses on the property, warehousing and storage, the primary use of the property, was approved by a Conditional Use. It is not a use that is solely by right in the C-2 district. The Planning Commission reviewed this back in 1982 and then again in 1984 and approved the use of the site for those purposes so what we are looking at is a use that was approved by a Conditional Use Permit for the main function and then support services office and showroom are permitted by right. With regard to required findings, special conditions, staff did not feel that there were special conditions inherent to the project site. The site itself is relatively flat and clear of vegetation. The property is largely developed with paved driving surfaces, warehousing, parking lots, and support buildings. Landscaping is located at the edges of the property. While the city's Master Street Plan does require 55' of right of way and 50' setback beyond that the existing building that we are talking about in addition to does meet those requirements, it sits approximately 52' back from the right of way at it's nearest location. With regard to a finding on deprivation of rights, literal interpretation of the provisions in the zoning regulations does not preclude the addition of offices to this project site. However, it does not accommodate the desired location proposed by the applicant. An addition in a different location or configuration on the site could comply with the setback requirements. With regard to whether the Variance would be in harmony with the general purpose of the zoning regulations, granting the Variance would allow for the expansion of a support structure that serves in use that is not permitted by right but is located in the C-2 district by Conditional Use. I think that is important to point out. The applicant does propose this addition because the business has grown and they are successful in this location and they require an increased office space to support their daily operations. With the total site containing more than 3 acres, staff believes that alternatives exist to accommodate this need without having to seek a Variance. Should the board choose to recommend Variances staff has made recommendations on conditions. Board of Adjustment February 3, 2003 Page 7 Olszewski: Warrick: Olszewski: Warrick: However, with the information and the findings that we have made with regard to this request staff does not recommend approval of the requested Variance. You said a 39' front setback and a 9' variance? It is 39' and 11'. On your site plan, page 2.23, you will see there is a dimension from the right of way line to the proposed addition which is 40'8". There is an overhang that is not being accommodated in that so I adjusted it to be 39'. Right now when we look at the parking lot there is landscaping? That landscaping is in the city right of way. You can see on that same page, page 3.23 the long line with the two dashes continued on through some of the parking area, that is the property line. Everything beyond that toward the darker line at the bottom of the page, that is all city right of way. The applicant has made a proposal, and it is reflected on page 3.23 to increase landscaping along the front property line within the right of way to mitigate the impact of the proposed addition and that is something that they have offered as far as the installation of additional shrubs through there. Nickle: Dawn, I notice you have required approval of the Highway Department so they control that in terms of whether they would allow additional landscaping in there. Green: It is Hwy. 16 I guess. Are there any other questions of Dawn? Would the applicant like to address the board? Key: I am Jim Key, I am the architect for the applicant. Yes we would. Mr Johnson and the family that owns White River Hardwoods is with us here today and Mr Johnson would like to say a few words about the business and their history if you wouldn't mind taking a few minutes to let him explain how they have grown and why the need for this office has occurred and then we would be glad to answer any questions you might have about operations or the addition and why it is what we are asking for. Johnson, B: Good afternoon. I will be brief if possible. I do think it is important that I do give a little history as to the growth at White River at this location and why this Variance is requested. This is our 25th year anniversary. Actually we started with two small warehouses at this lot back in 1977 and consequently we have joined and added onto this one and tore down one of the front ones and joined seven years back. I do have the family with me. This is Joan, Ben and Jess. We are all active participants in the business. The growth has been very steady for White River over these 25 years. Again, starting with these northern locations and progressing south. This was virtually a swamp in this primary lot we are talking about today when we first inhabited this lot. There was a lot of consideration and cost to develop this property over the years. We have taken great pride to make it consistent. As we have done so, you can see this pretty much follows how we have seen southeast Fayetteville Board of Adjustment February 3, 2003 Page 8 mature since those early years and we have even accommodated with some of the trim and the guttering and the color coordination of red and gray so it does give a very nice appearance as you can see right here from the street. I think it is important to know that White River did start locally as a supplier to the home building industry. We then went regional in our growth, national, and international. We currently supply about 20 other countries with our products which is basically an upper end decorative moulding and mill work product. We have five distinct product categories of interior mouldings. We have given our customers the latitude to choose between low cost and upper end in the decorative mill work section. 1985 is when we did go national and we have full distribution throughout the country. Some of the other statistics, we currently have 75 employees. We hit 13 million dollars in sells this last year. Our payroll amounts to 2.2 million. Our property taxes run approximately $18,000 a year. We have vendor payments of 8.5 million dollars going out, a lot of them locally. We paid a total of $98,600 in Arkansas sales tax, about $39,000 of that is local taxes. We are virtually debt free, but not totally. We need these new offices to create 6-10 new job opportunities. This growth that we are experiencing has not come without a lot of battles and a lot of expense on the marketing side. I would like to pass this out just quickly. This is just a special feature done on behalf of our customer base in Florida that was requesting this particular magazine, it is a nationally known magazine. This gives you a run down of the company and the products. Again, we have been a proponent of our location in Fayetteville, Arkansas and the great state of Arkansas because of the fact that this is wood country and we are wood people. I don't know if you all remember but Fulbrights had a very successful company on Hwy. 62 for almost a hundred years and had a well known name in the furniture and wagon business. This part of the country is known for that type of work and of course we feel like we are carrying on that tradition with craftsmanship and quality wood products. As you know this was a moving ground for timber moving westward to build the railroads so this was a very important key destination for timber coming from the Ozarks out to the prairies. That is kind of how White River got started. We need this, it might seem small here on the map but it is a very integral aspect to our growth as a company. On this end of the building both upstairs and downstairs is where our national sales and international department is headquartered and basically for us to grow the business we need more staffing of sales people. We have a goal of approximately 15 million to hit this year. As luck turns out, there is a real demand for decorative mill work in the United States and abroad and we have become an industry leader right here in Fayetteville, Arkansas. We do a lot of the trade shows that we go to and we are in 30 national publications now to promote Arkansas and Northwest Arkansas. It is a fine place to live. Also, it is centrally located so it is handy for shipping costs. We are planning a new expansion, I must mention, because it is a part of our overall five year plan. We have purchased 28 acres in the southern industrial park across from Marshalltown Tools so we do have plans on moving in the future but it will be several years before we actually can start to put the warehouses up on that property so in the interim we do need this spot to be able to grow and fund the move. We are fond of our location, we are fond of southeast Fayetteville. I mentioned all the stats, what we are trying to do is Board of Adjustment February 3, 2003 Page 9 to increase approximately 40% in the next two or three years our growth, and to do this we need the sales people and the sales space. It is imperative that we have our group stay together and stay in tact for that success to be realized. As you all know, in a small business communication is very important. We have our meetings up there, we have directional communication between people which builds sales attitudes, etc. This is an area upstairs here where we have regional managers and what we intend on doing with the six to ten new positions that we create here is to break the country apart into smaller segments to give better customer service to our customers. I also just have to add here that in 1997 I was very fortunate to be selected as business person for the state of Arkansas and I am very proud of that distinction and work hard to promote the state of Arkansas and business within Arkansas sitting on many trade associations and affiliations even with the University, etc. I would appreciate you very much granting this request. Green: Thank you. We would like to congratulate you on your success down there. That has really been an asset to the Fayetteville business community. Key: Johnson, J.: Key: Thank you all very much. If you don't mind taking just a few more minutes Mr. Jesse Johnson is going to run through the operations on our site so you can see some of the process that we went through considering how to position this addition. If you don't mind giving him just a minute to run through some of the operations you can see what we considered and why this solution was the end result of that. This building directly behind our office is our primary manufacturing facility. This comes out of the building and into our shipping and receiving warehouse where it is stored and ready to pull forward. We have a high corridor here with forklifts moving back and forth. At the same point, this is a path for UPS, FedEx and other delivery to come around to this back portion of the existing building where we accept those deliveries. Also, we have this corridor for semi -trailers to come through, make this corner, straighten out and back up into a sawdust area where we put sawdust into trailers and it goes out to local chicken houses. We need to keep a large area for these semi -trucks making their turning radius so they can back up into this area back in here. That is pretty much the logistics of this area through here and the spacing. If you were to go down there on site on any given day you could see how tight the space really is and why we have chosen this as a better location for us and also aesthetically a better location. One thing, we have considered various alternatives here. We currently have about 30,000 sq.ft. of warehouse space offsite in different locations in Fayetteville and to grow over the last few years due to the limitations of this site. From a financial standpoint, the operations of this site, the office and sales, specifically these people need to be together and function together and they have a relatively small office operation. When they first approached me I actually worked on the renovations and additions here back in 1995 and 1996, we looked at a lot of alternatives at that time to try to accommodate their needs. As they called me back now this last year to look at additional needs we were considering the possibility of expanding out to the Board of Adjustment February 3, 2003 Page 10 Green: Key: south or to the west but various limitations prevented us from doing that. We have given it much consideration. Primarily the circulation of the vehicles coming in for deliveries, the semi trucks coming in and backing out, this drive is currently here right where the curb breaks as it comes back over toward the intersection of Armstrong Road and we try to force more traffic over closer to the intersection. Our current drive here currently functions as a main egress point for trucks moving sawdust and other materials. This wide radius is really helpful to keep the trucks from having to swing out into traffic. That has all resulted in why we are here today with limitations of access and operations here we really couldn't come back to the west. Functionally it didn't work well with operations and how the existing offices functioned. We considered a second floor addition but that didn't really prove itself very viable considering the operations and how to maintain ongoing operations without going over people's heads or displacing operations for a short period of time. The overall result was that we positioned a very narrow addition here and tied in at both levels to current operations, provided for second level fire egress, accommodated some of the finished materials that we have looked at on the original building, cypress wood finished paneling to accentuate windows along this new 14' of east facade and at one point along the north facade and then we were actually proposing to repeat that at two places along the north facade which currently has nothing but the red trim so we were actually going to dress up this whole front a little bit more since we are proposing to pull it out closer to the street. The need for the landscaping here, we felt that by landscaping a 14' wide strip right here, even if we were to provide for the increased landscaping with a setback reduction 25' by 14' landscaping there that we would restrict this egress radius with trucks leaving and provide more greenspace here directly in front of the addition we felt it improved it very little. What we propose is that you consider the Variance, we would come in and plant additional shrubbery, a few more trees along the frontage, dress up more of the lineal footage of frontage as opposed to this 14', that would help with the consideration of allowing us the slight exception to the setback requirements of the bulk and area regulations and landscape requirements. That is simply what we are proposing here. We have a dyer need for the space, it is something that we can't wait for five years to accommodate and we have looked at various options like temporary portable offices but we really felt this was the best solution. I am sure that you have looked at all kinds of situations in your paths of circulation there. Just looking at it, I was wondering what it would do if you did flip the entire plan to the other side of that stairway. Functionally it probably wouldn't change much but it would be back into your circulation a little bit. Currently there is UPS and small shipping coming in and out of this backdoor with the small shipping office. There is a point right here that we marked in black and watched as trucks came and went and determined that indeed we have got a critical point here and we are actually proposing several large guard posts around this comer because as the trucks come to make this sweep to avoid some of the parking Board of Adjustment February 3, 2003 Page 11 and things that are here along this warehouse they need every inch we are giving them right here at this northwest corner. Johnson, J: They are dragging a 53' semi -trailer through there plus the semi itself and the turning radius for the trailer creates a problem. Key: The truck can turn fine but the trailer kind of drags right through here. Originally we were proposing an addition on the end of the building, we even considered just cutting a little bit back and tried to make some adjustments. We flagged and watched and Jesse has been very instrumental there with operations and the comings and goings of vehicles and trucks and access. We tried to see what we could accommodate there. The point of the building, if it were narrower could come back further. We actually have a second level egress that is currently existing on this upper level that has a stair along this end that we are having to provide and we are actually proposing a new egress as opposed to that. We did consider coming back to this corner, we also looked here at the rear. Again, we have some very tight access with forklifts and truck traffic. We have various utilities, electrical service, gas service, sewer service all back here in this area. We really couldn't come wider, if we kept it shorter and widened out a little bit we could've possibly got a truck through. We have also got a public sewer easement and a power line utility easement that runs between these properties. Nickle: You don't see all of those issues about utility easements and such on our drawings here. Key: This sewer line actually routes back to the north if I'm not mistaken. It comes back and routes through this neighborhood back to the east here. Olszewski: Dawn, in your report you said that you thought there were other places that they could do this. Warrick: I didn't specify a particular location but that was something that I eluded to in my staff report. Key: One of the things that the report did mention was removing parking spaces. We could remove these 26 parking spaces here, add the greenspace we would need. However, the consideration is with the number of spaces per square footage, we may be over with the city ordinance standpoint of one space per every 1,200 sq.ft. manufacturing. However, with the operations currently they have got 75 employees. Their parking spaces are all utilized. They have got four marked for visitors here, the rest of them are used for staff. We are really tight. The area that looks fairly open here is used for operation flow and incoming and outgoing materials and woods where we really couldn't double up the parking that we have here. Short of acquiring additional property, which there is I-1 property here to the south that is part of the Industrial Park so they would have to bring sewer and Board of Adjustment February 3, 2003 Page 12 everything to. The intent is to hopefully to displace all of this operation in 3 to 7 years to get started out there and 5-7 to actually do the operations there. Olszewski: Then this piece of property will be sold and won't be used anymore? Key: That is for some consideration. Obviously this is for the current use of the function here. These are individual tracts and can be sold individually and they think the C- 2 zoning can be used for small business operation. It is possible that at some point a rezoning will be considered. We have Industrial to the south and residential to our east. I am not sure if this is Industrial adjacent to us that has mini -storage on us. Olszewski: Your proposal for landscaping is to put more in the street right of way? Key: That is correct. We realize that we have to coordinate that with the AHTD. We have worked with Mr. Shipley with the regional office in Ft. Smith when we did this addition in the past. We worked with them to see if they would allow the landscaping to occur as we proposed. There is currently landscaping in that area. Basically what we were achieving at that point was to screen the parking from the roadway, which is what was desired. Olszewski: If we were to decide to go with staff's recommendations, it would be improvement of the existing parking lot. What would be the difference there? Key: That is something that we have not talked in detail about. What would that improvement be? Is it simply a matter of paving another 24% of the parking, is it additional interior landscaping? Warrick: It will most likely be landscaping the perimeter and interior and we would work with you to determine how to best do that. We would come up with a square footage amount based on the 24%. Key: Johnson, B: The owners and I have talked about that and they are agreeable. They would be glad to upgrade and increase the character of this area. Whatever is necessary to allow them to do what we are talking about. One of the things that we haven't discussed is that technically this is one tract of land with two buildings on it. The parking for this property is this area. We are talking about the square footage, not the overall parcel. I realize that it is a technical issue, but to effect the square footage our increase is very minimal if you consider the overall parking. The owners have committed that we would upgrade 24% of the parking lot. We are willing to work with the staff to determine what the entails and how much parking area we are talking about. We would prefer to come in and do our best and get the right shrubberies and make sure they live. We have front water here available in the office. We water now. To create a really nice sloping hedge row along the front of the curb here as designated on the design. At some point, this is all gravel lot from here to here and at some Board of Adjustment February 3, 2003 Page 13 point I do plan on paving that but I would rather not do that now. I think the additional landscaping along the front is ok. Key: One thing is interpreting the statement of 24% is take the entire parking lot, which is what is currently paved, take 24% of the total and say ok, you need X more. Olszewski: Actually, it says something about removing. Key: That is what she was proposing is that we remove all of this paving here that is off our property and remove this parking. Olszewski: On all three lots Dawn? Warrick: I am specifically talking about the lot that has been applied for for the Variance because what was applied for was a .9 acre tract of land that houses the manufacturing structure as well as the office and showroom building. We can look at that more. When I talk about improving 24% of the parking lot, those improvements would be onsite improvements, they would not be improvements to the right of way adjacent to the site. Key: Currently we have wheel stops back on the site a little further and additional top soil here to be able to do adequate landscaping because currently there is gravel here that comes up to the bank and then drops into the ditch. That break line curves on our property, part of the area slightly off the roadway there is a matter of adjusting this to get a nice perimeter landscaping green space shrubbery there on our property. What we are trying to do is not lose parking. Nickle: Do you feel comfortable that something can be worked out along those lines with the parties? Some flexibility in terms of to me, landscaping doesn't do any good if it is behind the structure way back there. Landscaping of the front is much more desirable. I understand that but on the same token I know that businesses need some road front parking for customers, vendors, etc. My personal preference is to see most of that landscaping done assuming you can get the Highway Department to go along with it out front rather than out back. To me my first question was why does this building stick out this way but it makes a lot of sense talking about your ingress and egress for those semis, etc. That is vital to your operations and it is almost the devil's choice. You have to have more office space to serve your customers and yet you still have to have the ingress and egress appropriate for the big trucks. I see why you have come up with what you have come up with just from the standpoint, and plus those utility easements that we weren't really aware of. You can go very far out that way anyway or you are going to be building on top of a sewer easement. Key: We have done a lot of additional work. The sewer was actually in when they did this addition in the past and the city didn't know it was there. Board of Adjustment February 3, 2003 Page 14 Olszewski: The issue is not about the building, the issue is the parking. The whole issue is the parking on that lot, and correct me if I'm wrong, they could do it if they did the setback and did the landscaping. They wouldn't need to come for a Variance is that correct? They have one option that they could get rid of that parking in the front, they could do this building without a Variance by giving up some of that parking and doing some of the landscaping that is required or what Dawn is recommending is an adjustment to that parking in the front which is going to create a loss of parking in front if I'm reading this correctly. Warrick: Item number one what we are talking about is 24% parking. The board is welcome to interpret that 24% to cover the entire site or to be in an area that you so choose. My original assumption was that that 24% needed to be applied to the project site with regard to the fact that we are looking at four independent tracts of land that could be independent tracts of land. Right now they are all in one development parcel. We have heard that there is consideration that in the future they could be sold off separately. The improvement for any development if the setback reduction option was utilized or if any other option is utilized it should be on the site where the development is taking place. Specifically, if we were to look at the setback reduction to allow for a 25' setback as opposed to a 50', that setback reduction should be in the area that is being added onto in front of the 25' setback area as opposed to the 50'. We do have some latitude because this is a comprehensive development site and we can look at that. The board can go in any direction it believes and I will be glad to look at that. Nickle: What area are we talking about for this one site that you mentioned, .9 acres? Can you point that out to me? Key: It is from here. All these other lines are running from east to west through here with one, two, three, four tracts so it is this section right through here. Nickle: I see. Olszewski: It seems to me that we have to be very specific about how we apply that 25' setback because if we apply it to all three lots or four lots then we have set a precedent in the future. For instance, if we don't allow it on that particular lot because it is a Conditional Use, once we allow it if you were to sell it that would go along with the next person. If we expand that to include the entire site then we have actually done a Variance that would go forward to the new buyers on all four lots so we have to be very clear of what we are granting here. Warrick: The 24% is based on the existing structure. The existing structure is 6,000 sq.ft., they are adding 1,440, that is 24% of the existing building. That is specific. That 24% needs to really be applied to the development and site around that structure. Key: We took a quarter of this parking and improved it to current standards it wouldn't require that we lose these parking spaces or if we have got 20 parking spaces here if Board of Adjustment February 3, 2003 Page 15 we have to improve five parking spaces here we would have to lose those spaces, we could not leave them there to bring this 10' of greenspace along this frontage. We could very simply come in here and put a 14' x 20' landscaped area right there and not need a Variance. We would rather not lose five spaces as opposed to the one or two for our drive there. That is why we are here today. We would rather not do this greenspace. We would rather put our money along the whole front, we would rather not lose parking to do it. Warrick: Could you still achieve some parallel spaces if you did reduce that? Johnson, J: Probably not. That is a real tight area. The other concern is that if we do a nice landscaped island here to meet that we have got semis pulling out of this exit that are going to drive right over it. Olszewski: What if you were to do parking in this other area so you could lose those spaces in the front? Key: Right now it is pretty maxxed out. There are cars parked in every space we have. We have considered developing parking around the building. With utilities coming in again. Olszewski: It seems that the trucks coming in and backing up is what is causing problems there. Key: Johnson, B: Key: If it wasn't for the truck traffic having to utilize this and loading and unloading all the materials we could probably get another double loaded row of parking in here easily. We have two lumber trucks a day unloading in that open spot plus starting at about 3:00 we have the LTL trucks, five or six different carriers load in our dock and load the outbound. You might have 3 to 5 trucks coming in and out of here. Olszewski: So to keep the parking on that particular one lot you are willing to give more greenspace along the frontage. However, that greenspace is in the street right of way. Key: This is actually on our property. What we are saying is that we probably have got room to pull our wheel stops back some and add some top soil if we had to. Olszewski: How far? Key: At this point we are talking 5' maybe at the extreme where the curb comes around parking. Board of Adjustment February 3, 2003 Page 16 Johnson, B: The thing is in 1992 when we did this original development right here we got a setback reduction and we built it per spec, we had a 10' greenspace, a 6' sidewalk and a 5' greenspace again. We did that on these two Tots and that is where the sidewalks came in. The current parking lot is to that definition that was in 1992 or 1993. This building is setback approximately 25' from the existing building, it is not anywhere near where this building is here now. In looking at it, it is not nearly as far out as this one and it is going to be very narrow. Related to where we can plant, there is some drainage CMP not very low below grade in that front area. Nickle: I see what you are talking about in that we are dealing with more than one piece of property or if we are just dealing with one but to me it seems kind of like a tradeoff where you take in money instead of parkland if you will, and say look, if you will improve this area over here and agree to maintain it etc., to me it makes no sense to have just a landscaped area like you described right there. Whitaker: My reading of the parking here with the 24% doesn't sound like it contemplates the same kind of scheme as cash in lieu of parkland. That is a whole separate statutory scheme. I don't know that it says that obviously some accommodation couldn't be made but you really have your expert as far as how to implement these parking ordinances. Like I said, I don't see any language there that says that you couldn't work to reasonable accommodations but I also don't read that it says an in lieu of swab or anything that way either. Green: If we allowed landscaping in those other lots that are adjacent to the office building and that requirement would also maintaining that. Wouldn't that maintenance requirement convey with the property or could the new property owners cover the land? Whitaker: Probably not on just these landscaping requirements for parking lots. My understanding of those is that they don't carry the same kind of maintenance requirements that the tree ordinance does. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that there would be any way to bind subsequent owners in this with the parking lot landscaping. I don't believe the requirement would pass through to the next owner. Since once they take possession if it were in compliance I don't believe they can go in and rip it out and go to a lesser debris but I don't know that we would have any enforcement action against them if they didn't maintain them. Green: They would have to get a permit to pave that right? Whitaker: Absolutely, I don't think that it could go anywhere but I don't know that we could enforce a proactive maintenance. It could just sit there and all the bushes could die. I don't think that we could make them maintain it. Obviously, any time any alteration is done it would have to come back here to the city planning staff but as far as maintenance itself we have no enforcement on subsequent owners. Olszewski: How many parking spots are in that whole lot? Board of Adjustment February 3, 2003 Page 17 Key: Seven. Olszewski: There are more than seven on the whole parcel. Key: There are 24. Olszewski: When you say 24% improvement and removing something, what does that mean Dawn? Key: Putting landscaping in front of six spaces. Warrick: It would require some landscaping, it could be landscaped islands. We always prefer that the landscaping be installed along the front property line because that gives the biggest bang for the buck as far as making a site look like it is more compliant with current design standards and development standards. This is the staff's recommendation if you choose to make a Variance. You don't have to make a Variance with staff's recommendation, you can make your own recommendations. My bigger concern is if you choose to make a recommendation or approval of a Variance is that you make the findings that are necessary to make that Variance, to make that approval. With those findings you as a board can make whichever recommendations and conditions you feel are appropriate. If you choose not to require a 24% improvement then get a Variance of the required landscaping for a parking area which is 10', which they have requested. Johnson, B: I am going to throw in another suggestion because I was looking at the overall project, I wasn't considering down the road and being broken up, etc. and I think this would be a very beautiful part of the road that would curve with the road that you could see the greenery. We could do the landscaping here because I want this to look very nice from the road as well and I think there is also room to put a little here in front of this. This is a little misconstrued, we have greenery running all the way across the front and we could add the greenery here and the hedges along the front of these two lots to give it some balance but I could also, if you agree, come in here and lose these two spots and we will do just the corner thing and put some grass and a tree and a little bench. That is still visible from the road and I think we could meet the requirements. Warrick: That would increase the amount of internal landscaping on the site. I don't think there is really much of any right now. One tree island per every 12 spaces interior for the parking lot is a standard requirement. Key: We have got 24 parking spaces, that would require two tree islands and we are offering one that is beyond the 24%. We would just like to not lose parking and that is why we are here. We could've done this cut and dry and lost a space with two spaces. Board of Adjustment February 3, 2003 Page 18 Johnson, B: 1 think we had to fight for that extra width. Johnson, J: Actually, the state wanted a bigger driveway there so that it would keep trucks in those two lanes there and not having to turn into oncoming traffic. Key: This is wider than the standard 24' curb cut for that reason. Nickle: Looking at these items here assuming we pass this and Dawn has latitude to kind of sit down with you all and try to work something out is there anything there that you feel like you couldn't live with? At worst case you are talking about 5 or 6 parking spaces or something. Key: We would gladly accept the amount of parking, green space buffer as necessary whether that be dependent on this lot or the adjacent lots. We are very willing to comply with the other recommendations that a landscape plan be submitted that landscaping be maintained that requires that a hydrant be available as required with all other things that are stated here. We acknowledge in the request for this that this is just for consideration of this 1,440 addition. Any future addition will be subject to zoning regulations, coming back to the Planning Commission or whatever is necessary for any future development. Olszewski: Dawn, if you were sitting down with them and that 24% had to do with that lot wouldn't they lose spaces in order to get it? Warrick: I feel sure that they will lose a few parking spaces. I can't say how many but I feel sure that they may lose 2 to 5 parking spaces in order to install some landscaping. Even as you proposed with the tree island, which would certainly increase. Olszewski: If it is a tree island per every twelve then you are talking two tree islands. Key: We don't have to be 100% in compliance, we are talking 24% of that parking lot, we are talking about a tree island per six parking spaces. That one tree island is twice what would be necessary for six spaces. We will gladly work with you whether it is a tree island here, whether it is pushing back a couple of spaces if we could to accommodate all of our greenspace here because of the drive width. We will do what we can to make this work. As the Johnsons have said they want to make this an attractive area. Olszewski: I want to say that I really appreciate that you would want to do that landscaping along there. What bothers me with all that landscaping along there is you were talking about earlier is that is still in the street right of way and whoever has that later, that can just go away. That is great for right now but I see the whole issue being that that might not even be there. You would've just done your building like you needed and we wouldn't be here with the front setbacks where you have that marked. Board of Adjustment February 3, 2003 Page 19 Key: If the street designation would not have changed we would have already had everything here. Johnson, B.: You can visualize here we have got the hedge running in front of the building that might count for something. The tree and the little courtyard thing here would be visible from the street so that is in addition to the landscaping. I would be opposed to putting a tree or anything out near the curb in the front because that is just going to inhibit vision. Key: We know too because we have planted a tree here in the past that has not survived because we have got about 4" to 6" of topsoil the installation of the underground drainage culvert here. Johnson, B: I know landscaping serves the purpose of creating beauty, etc. but we are going to extra pains to make the building attractive to begin with. It is a metal building but we put wood siding on this facade and you can see that it looks nice so I think there should be some consideration there. Olszewsi I think that should be one of our considerations too is something that is overall or you wouldn't be in this situation that you are. If we give a Variance on this and then later on it gets split up that Variance can't expire or can that Variance expire? Green: It would convey with that property to that extent. Whitaker: If you are going to get into what if you have also got to look at the what ifs that someone may want to come in and do something different with the property and then we may revisit the whole thing. Green: Planning Commission would have to approve that. Whitaker: As long as it continued as this use the Variance would be ok. If somebody were to request a rezoning then all bets are off once you start changing the overalls. Olszewski: Does the Conditional Use die if the owner moves? Warrick: A Conditional Use carries for the use that has been approved. Whitaker: That is for the use not the owner. That is why they are called Conditional Use Permits. Warrick: In this case a warehouse and storage of hardwoods is what we are talking about. If they were to turn over this site to someone that does basically the same thing that they do which they probably wouldn't want to do because that would be a competitor, then the use would continue and that new person could operate on the site. If they were to turn it over to a plumbing contractor or an HVAC person chances are we would revisit that and take it back to the Planning Commission Board of Adjustment February 3, 2003 Page 20 Whitaker: Green: Warrick: Green: Key: Green: Warrick: Olszewski: Warrick: Green: because I would interpret that to be enough of a change that it would need to be reheard at a public hearing with the neighbors notified and with new conditions. As I said, then all bets are off. I am still wanting to make sure that we are clear on this 24%. With 24% added to that building that corresponds to 24% increase in parking that would need to be brought up to that current landscaping standards. That 24% parking to me would be only the parking attributable to that office building need and not to other buildings on the site. Right? Yes. The 24 spaces that you counted there, is that the parking that is actually required for that office building? It is 300 sq.ft. per parking space and there are 7,420 sq.ft. It is pretty close. If you took 24% of the 23 spaces then you are still looking at the six or less parking spaces. Is it the number of spaces or is it 24% of the area including circulation with ingress and egress? That is kind of splitting hairs. Staff has interpreted that in various ways depending on the project site. We really have to look at each one individually. We can say 24 parking spaces each one of them requires a 9'x19' as far as the dimensions, calculate that out and say this is the amount of square foot that you need to improve. It is not always that exact. What we try to do is find more of a common ground with regard to what we can accomplish without mangling the site and making the improvement make as much of an impact as possible. I think we could work together to make that happen. I don't think that that is necessarily a problem. I think that reasonably we would look at the square footage or the number of parking spaces that need to be improved and take that as a general ball park. If we can work together to improve it a little bit more or a little bit less however it functions best and makes the best impact is what we are going to try to do. You can do that 24% for that one lot? I think we can do that. If for some reason we are in negotiations and we can't do that I will bring them right back to you. I would really like to find someway to accommodate the applicant in this addition because of the improvement that he is going to make to that and for the future improvements and the contribution that we would be making to the entire business community in future years. If it is going to meet the intent of what we are doing and we are acting within our limits within the particular perimeters that we can look at I would hope that we could find someway to accommodate that personally. Board of Adjustment February 3, 2003 Page 21 Olszewski: Johnson, B: Olszewski: Johnson, B: Motion: Nickle: Whitaker: Warrick: Olszewski: Warrick: Johnson, B: Warrick: Nickle: Olszewski: If Dawn is willing to work with them on that particular lot with 24% I feel better about it. I don't know if that requires you to do anything on those other lots if you decide to that is great but I personally don't think that it should be tied into this because the one thing, the only time I would like to see it tied in if you could actually do it on one property and go back 10' and do it exactly to code but already you have said you are going to have to go through there and go back 5' but you are still not going to be on your property totally. They expanded the right of way. They expanded and that probably tied into your expansion. It all works together. I am sure that we can work with Dawn and get something worked out. I am going to make a motion that we approve the request with all the staff comments that comes from everyone's input. I think Dawn has a feel for where we want to go in general. I just have one question. Dawn, based on the discussion that you gave are there any specific changes to condition number one or is that still how you would like that comment to read? I think based on the comments we may want to remove along the front property line just to allow the lead way of that landscaping being installed in other locations. What about 24% of the parking lot, should we make it specific at which parking lot we are looking at because we are not looking at the parking lot on the other two lots. You could certainly say on subject property. The description for this request only includes the .9 acres that the subject property is on. Is there any way to reduce that percentage Dawn or not? The percentage is based on the amount of addition that you are proposing. If you want to only add % of what you are doing then you could reduce it to 12 but no, it is there by ordinance. With those modifications is there anything else we need to change? What about number three, does that change at all? Board of Adjustment February 3, 2003 Page 22 Warrick: The intent of number three is that the quality of the installation, the maintenance, the provision of water, those are the landscape installation criteria that I was trying to refer to there. Johnson, B: Dawn, if we continued this hedge work for landscaping around the corner to cover this end of the building would that cover it for that footage requirement? Warrick: Olszewski: Nickle: Orton: Green: I don't want to say for sure until I have a chance to review it a little more. We are going to pass this and you all are going to work together and if you can't get it worked out we will see you again. Is there anything else I need to address in my motion? I will second it. We have a motion and a second to approve the Variance request subject to staff's recommendations items one through five with modifications to item one to read "Improvement of 24% of the existing parking lot pertaining to this property to include the removal of existing pavement to allow for the installation of landscaping." Striking `along the front property line' and then to continue "on subject property in accordance with §166.14. Is that everyone's understanding of the motion? Is there any further discussion? Shall the motion pass? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-5.00 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Green: The motion passes. We hope you are able to work something out with Dawn and we wish you lots of luck on your development and future plans. Is there any other business that should come before us at this time? Meeting adjourned: 4:59 p.m.