Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-03-03 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, March 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 03-4.00 Variance (Wesley Foundation, pp 444) Page 2 VAR 03-6.00: Variance (Corrigan, pp 446) Page 7 VAR 03-7.00: Variance (Tatum, pp 486) Page 16 MEMBERS PRESENT Sheree Alt Michael Andrews Joanne Olszewski James Kunzelmann Marion Orton Michael Green Bob Nickle Approved Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Renee Thomas David Whitaker Board of Adjustment March 3, 2003 Page 2 VAR 03-4.00 Variance (Wesley Foundation, pp 444) was submitted by Roger Boskus of Miller, Boskus, Lack Architects on behalf of Greg Taylor of the Wesley Foundation for property located at 730 W. Maple Street. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential and contains approximately 0.71 acres. The requirement is for a 25' setback from Leverett Street, the request is for a 14.25' setback (a 10.75' variance). The requirement is for a 28' setback on the north and east sides due to the height of the proposed structure, the request is for a 12' setback on the north (a 16' variance) and a 21' setback on the east (a 7' variance). Setback variances for proposed non-residential driveways on the north and east are also proposed. The requirement is for a 12.5' setback from the property line, the request is for 0' setbacks (12.5' variances) on the north and east. Green: Welcome everyone to the March meeting of the Board of Adjustment. We don't have name tags but I am Michael Green if anyone wants to address me. The first item on our agenda is the approval of the January 6`h, 2003 minutes of the board. As you may recall, there were a couple of pages missing from those minutes at our February meeting. The first thing we need to do is to take care of their minutes and their disposition, approval or what have you. Did everyone get a chance to read those last two sheets that were missing? Are there any corrections or additions that need to be made to those? Hearing none, I guess we will consider those approved. The next item is to consider the minutes of the February 3, 2003 meeting of the Board of Adjustments. Are there any corrections, comments, or additions to those? Hearing none, we will consider those minutes approved. Under new business the first item on our agenda is VAR 03-4.00 submitted for the Wesley Foundation submitted by Roger Boskus of Miller, Boskus, Lack Architects. This property is zoned R-3 and the request is for a setback off of Leverett Street and also a setback from the height requirements verses setback on the back of the property. Dawn, would you give us a little more background on that? Warrick: Sure. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Leverett and Maple streets. It is there on the corner of campus across the street from Memorial Hall. It is the current site of the Wesley Foundation. There are two structures that are existing right now. There is an activity facility with meeting space and classrooms I believe as well as the existing chapel of the cross. The chapel of the cross is historically significant. Warren C. Graves, a renown architect designed that structure and the applicant desires to save the structure and build a new facility at the rear of the property, behind and kind of around that chapel. The applicant proposes to develop a religious student facility and worship center for the Wesley Foundation. The chapel of the cross is proposed to remain. The proposed new structure will contain approximately 20,000 sq.ft., will provide 16 parking spaces underneath the structure. The facility will employ six employees during regular operating hours, 8 to 5 Monday through Friday. Worship services will be held in the evening hours with space provided in the sanctuary area for approximately 600 students or occupants. Adjacent University parking lots are proposed to be shared to provide for necessary parking. This project was the Board of Adjustment March 3, 2003 Page 3 subject of a Conditional Use request before the Planning Commission, which was approved at their February 246 meeting. The conditions of approval with that project at the Planning Commission level included the Board of Adjustment considering the various Variances necessary for the project to be built as it has been proposed. You should have a packet of drawings in your material that shows the elevations of the structure as well as the site plan that is being proposed. The front setback adjacent to Leverett Avenue is one of the Variances that is being requested. Their proposal is for a 10' and some 5' setback. Much of the area that would encroach the required setback at this location is an overhang which is an awning type structure that basically addresses the pedestrian scale desired by the architect for this elevation of the structure. There is a pedestrian entrance along this side of the building and it also draws some of the building materials into that side of the structure that are being used predominantly on the southern portion of the building and drawing from the chapel as well. I am going to address the setbacks to the north and the east which are based on the height of the structure. The building is approximately 12' from the north property line, which would typically meet the requirement for an 8' setback. However, this structure is 40' tall. The 8' setback applies to anything that is 20' in height or less so anytime you go above that you add one foot of setback to each additional foot in height so that makes the required setback on the north and the east sides 28' instead of 8'. Therefore, we have Variance requests to the north and to the east. The applicant's architect, I am going to let them speak here in just a moment, they have attempted to place the tallest portion of the structure at the lowest portion of the site to hopefully mitigate that height that will be added. That northeast corner is the lowest portion of the site. A portion of their proposal also addresses the fact that they tried to use the corner in which they have two street frontages, they tried to address those street frontages by making those very pedestrian friendly, plaza type entrances so that there is not just one large wall facing each of these streets. Unique situations, with regard to all of he Variances being requested, the site itself with regard to special conditions, we are trying to save an architecturally unique and important structure. That has driven some of the design for this project because we are having to develop around it. The condition of the site at the corner increases both of the front setback requirements adjacent to Maple and Leverett. Also, the fact that all of the surrounding properties to this particular location are University owned properties. They are unique because there is really no telling what is going to happen on those properties. Right now there are parking lots to the east and to the north. In the future it could be large classroom buildings or administrative type buildings or it could be parking structures. We really don't have control over knowing what is going to happen in those locations because it is part of the University campus and it is part of the property that is owned by the University. Therefore, it is not regulated by the city. This is a facility that directly draws from the University. It's attendance and it's user base is the University community. Therefore, it is appropriate to be located here, it is appropriate to address those University properties. The project has been developed to meet the organizational needs and projected growth of the Wesley Board of Adjustment March 3, 2003 Page 4 Foundation. Therefore, it is very difficult to compare this to anything else. It is a very unique project as well as a unique site with unique adjoining properties. I think that covers the special conditions or unique circumstances on the property. Another situation, as far as your consideration today is for setback Variances to proposed driveways. You will see on the site plan there is a proposed drive that basically circles the site on the east and north sides. That driveway will only be installed if access to the adjacent University parking lot is ever cutoff. The driveway is only proposed to be installed if that is the only way that they can get into the parking spaces that are structured underneath this building in the future. Initially access will be from the east through the existing U of A parking lot and the driveways will only be built if necessary. If they are built and are necessary the Variances that are proposed would be necessary. I think that is all I have unless you have questions for me. I know that the applicant's architect is here as well as a representative from the Wesley Foundation. Green: Does anyone have any questions of Dawn? Nickle: Just one. Dawn, Leverett carries a lot of traffic. Do you know of any plans to ever expand Leverett to three lanes or what have you? Warrick: According to current right of way it has the right of way necessary for it's designation on the Master Street Plan so additional setbacks would not be taken. Orton: Has the University expressed any opinion on the use of the church using their parking lot? Warrick: The University has signed off on a shared parking agreement. It was approved by the Planning Commission as a means of providing offsite parking for this development. Yes, they have acknowledged it and approved it. Kunzelmann: l have a question about the access from the east into the underground parking. The University is going to lose a space or two? Boskus: Actually four. Kunzelmann: I don't think it is indicated there. Boskus: I am Roger Boskus with Miller, Boskus, Lack Architects. There are three or four spaces and actually we are currently drafting an agreement with the University and the Wesley Foundation to allow this access to their parking lot. We have a verbal agreement from the University that they are going to do that because they feel strongly about what we are doing with the site and the project and not paving the entire site with driveways and what not is the right thing to do and they agree with that. They don't want to prohibit themselves from coming in and building a new School of Architecture or whatever on that in the future. They want the Board of Adjustment March 3, 2003 Page 5 Green: ability to just sever that agreement with a certain amount of notice so we have time to come in and build those. I brought some photographs and I will just take you through a few. Dawn covered it really well. That is the site plan that I believe that you have that shows the University parking that we are sharing. The site slopes 20' from corner to corner and it is really 20' across here as well. By taking the 40' mass, which this is where the 600 seat worship center is, we placed it down at the lowest end of the site so that we don't have the largest box dominating the street and the intent is to really step everything down. As you look at the elevations here, we have stepped everything down then to soften the edge as you approach the street. This is about 16' in height at the corner of Leverett and Maple and then these canopies come down to 12' so everything is bringing that building back down in scale to a pedestrian environment. This is a very, very heavy pedestrian environment. We placed a coffee shop within the building at the corner of Leverett and Maple as part of the program. I will take you quickly through the program. I will take you quickly through the program. The owner of the Wesley Foundation has a need for a 600 seat worship center and then some program spaces like recreation space, living space, and then these also become kind of overflow areas so when a service lets out students can come out and mingle and stay within the facility and not just have to leave. There will be a lot of activity in these spaces too when there is not a service or something happening within the facility. Rather than try to stack all of this stuff up in multiple levels, which kind of defeats their purpose of creating community amongst the people in the facility and amongst their parishioners, we put everything on one level. We oriented it towards the street, opened the building up completely with glass so you can see what is happening behind that facade. As you look at that next elevation you can see on Leverett Street and also along Maple Street you can see what is happening inside there. We want people to be drawn to go inside the building. The chapel of the cross is here. Rather than to completely surround the building and come right up to this edge or to tear the building down or something like that we decided to pull the building back from the chapel so as you are coming down Maple Street you will catch a glimpse of the chapel and the building won't completely dominate it. Of course the scale of it is quite a bit larger but we have done everything that we can to really enhance the beauty of the chapel and enhance the architecture of the facility. That is a floor plan that you can see of the covered parking that actually happens underneath the worship center and this is below grade in this area. That is where the chapel of the cross is but it is actually up a little bit higher. We are making a grade change between Leverett Street and between the U of A parking lot so pedestrians can actually come through the building and cut through this way or of course pedestrian traffic on the streets. I am very glad that you are preserving the chapel. Warren C. Graves was my father in law and he was very proud of that particular structure. I am glad that you are preserving that. Are there any questions of Mr. Boskus? Board of Adjustment March 3, 2003 Page 6 Orton: The present building back there will be completely demolished? Boskus: Yes. Unfortunately that building that they have is really walled off from the students and we really want to create a bridge to the students from the campus and really the building is just surrounded with brick and it is not of the right size either so they can't have the worship services that they would like to have. Within the chapel of the cross, which is where they do it now, they can host about 100 people and they really need to have the ability and the desire to expand their services. Green: I will entertain a motion if there are no other questions. MOTION: Orton: I move that we grant the Variances and look and see what the staff said about any conditions. Warrick: Staff recommended two conditions. Those are compliance with the Planning Commission's Conditional Use approval and those conditions associated with that. Also, that the Variances apply to the current project as proposed on the site plan submitted. Orton: Alt: Green: The motion would include those conditions. I will second that. We have a motion and a second to approve the Variance request subject to the two stipulations by the staff. Is there any discussion from anyone else? Hearing none, will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-4.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Green: The Variance passes. Thank you. Board of Adjustment March 3, 2003 Page 7 VAR 03-6.00: Variance (Corrigan, pp 446) was submitted by W. Cal Canfield on behalf of Ms. Jane Corrigan for property located at 320 E. Maple Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.20 acres. The requirement is for a 70' minimum lot with, a 30' front setback due to Master Street Plan requirements and an 8' side setback. The request is for a 50' lot width (a 20' variance), a 27.5' front setback (a 2.5' variance) and a 0' side setback (an 8' variance). Green: The next item on the agenda is a Variance request submitted by Cal Canfield on behalf of Jane Corrigan for property on Maple Street. This is a request of some setback variances also. Dawn, would you give us some more information on that? Warrick: Sure. This property is located at 320 E. Maple Street. It is on the north side of Maple between Willow and Walnut. You will probably remember that we saw a project on 319 Maple which is immediately south of this not too long ago. It is a real similar application and a real similar proposal. There is a narrow driveway, single car width located along the east side of the property providing access to the house. The applicant states that a detached garage was previously located at the north end of the existing driveway in the location of the proposed new garage and that is the project proposal. The applicant wishes to construct a new garage off of the existing driveway at the eastern edge of the property. The garage is proposed to be two stories containing a total of approximately 1,056 sq.ft. Maple Street in this location is a historic collector. Therefore, additional right of way is necessary along Maple Street in order to be built out according to the city's adopted plan. Because of that, staff has included with this request a front setback Variance request that would make the existing structure conforming with that Master Street Plan requirement. Another Variance request that is included with this, in addition to the side setback for the garage that is proposed is for lot width. This is an older, historic lot within the Washington, Willow area. Those lots were developed probably in the early 1920's or earlier, with 50' widths typically. Today the city standard for an R-1 or Low Density Residential lot width is 70'. Therefore, staff has included a Variance request for 20' to accommodate the deficiency in the width of the existing lot. The area for the existing lot is adequate. It meets the minimum area for an R-1 lot. Like I said, the applicant is proposing to construct this two story garage on the east side of the existing structure. They are proposing a breezeway to connect with the existing residence. Unique circumstances on this particular project are the lot width, this is an antiquated lot that was created under different circumstances in the early 1900's. The lot is consistent with characteristics of other lots in the neighborhood. If you look on your close-up view, which is a map in your packet on page 2.10, you can see that the development pattern in this area is really pretty consistent. Most of these are small houses with detached garages very similar to what is being proposed on this particular site. The location of the existing development and the location of the existing driveway really drive the proposed location of the garage. It would be virtually impossible to locate another driveway on this site to provide another garage or something that may be conforming. It may be possible to Board of Adjustment March 3, 2003 Page 8 Green: construct a garage behind the existing structure in order to have a drive come back and turn into a garage that meets the setback requirements off the side. However, that garage would most likely dominate the rear yard and take away any usable space that the applicant may have in the back of the house. Because of those unique circumstances, staff is recommending in favor of the Variances being requested. I have recommended five conditions and I am going to read those. The first is compliance with Building and Fire Codes This is specific to the proximity of exterior walls to property line, there may be restrictions because the proposal is to place this garage structure basically at the property line and because of fire and building codes they may be limited as to the number of openings or the type of construction that may be required in that location. 2) Use of the proposed garage shall be for accessory purposes only. Any second dwelling unit on this site must be approved by the Planning Commission as a conditional use permit for a second dwelling on a lot within the R-1 zoning district. 3) The proposed additions shall be constructed with materials and architectural detailing that is consistent with the existing residence on the property. 4) Elevations and building material information shall be submitted with a building permit application for the project in order to allow staff to review the final materials, colors and details to ensure compliance with condition #3. 5) Side setback variance shall apply only to the proposed garage addition. Any further development on this site shall comply with setback requirements or process a new and separate variance request for consideration by the Board of Adjustment. With those conditions staff is in favor of this Variance request. Probably the first question that I would have is since this is a two story garage, that sort of implies a garage/apaitalent but yet as far as a second dwelling unit it would be restricted on that right? Warrick: That is correct. We cannot just approve a building permit for a second dwelling unit in the R-1 zoning district. The Planning Commission is required to hear that as a Conditional Use request either for a duplex or for a detached second dwelling unit. The information that I had in the application indicated that it was an accessory to the single-family home on the site. The reason that I put the condition in there for item number two was because a second story on a garage would typically indicate that it would be used for residential purposes. That is not the intent of permitting this Variance. The intent is to permit it for the accessory use of the garage. Olszewski: Dawn, would granting this Variance give the applicant a good case for going to Planning Commission and getting a second dwelling unit? Warrick: What the Variance does is allows them to locate it where they are proposing to do so. If they wanted to erect a two story garage and meet the 8' requirement you would never see it. In this case they can't physically do that on this site. The reason that I put the condition in there is because I suspect that that may be a Board of Adjustment March 3, 2003 Page 9 thought, a contemplation of the applicant. As the board you can place any conditions or safe guards on this application that you feel are appropriate and if you feel that it is appropriate that this never function as a second dwelling unit that would be perfectly fine. This particular area and the downtown and more of the densely developed residential areas you typically see a higher density and you see those garage apartments or granny units breaking up a single-family home. We look at those as Conditional Uses because it does impact the neighborhood, it impacts the character of existing development but traditionally, that was the way that a lot of people did develop in the downtown areas. I can't say for sure that it would be something that staff would be in favor of without doing a little more research and probably hearing from the neighborhood association because I think that their comments would impact heavily on the way that this was received. It is something that I am sure could possibly be contemplated if the development goes through. Green: Ok, are there any other questions of Dawn before we hear from the applicant? Nickle: That existing shed that is back there? Warrick: It is non -conforming. I am not addressing it in this particular situation. I am treating it as an existing non -conformity. If the shed were ever destroyed it would not be permitted to be relocated in that location but as it is it can basically be maintained. Green: Would the applicant like to address the board? Jamieson: My name is Jamie Jamieson. I am here on behalf of Cal Canfield and Jane Corrigan. In regard to building fire codes, we will be in compliance. The suspect for the potential living area is justified. We are actually connecting the existing house with a 12' x10' breezeway. It is going to be a completely enclosed structure and the living area on the second floor of the proposed two story garage. It will contain a work out room on the top level. Within our request we are attempting to pull a permit for the pool at the same time. On this lower level where the garage is we want to add an accessory building inside the structure which would entail a small kitchenette and a restroom for pool use on the structure. The concerns of the neighbor and any height requirements, Mrs. Corrigan's first concern is to respect the privacy of the neighbors. I would be glad to answer any questions. Nickle: We don't have an elevation of the east wall of the garage structure, do you know if any windows are planned on the second level east wall? Jamieson: Because of fire ratings we felt that it would be a problem and any windows within the east wall have been eliminated. Board of Adjustment March 3, 2003 Page 10 Nickle: Jamieson: Green: Jamieson: Nickle: Jamieson: Green: Kunzelmann: Warrick: Andrews: Kunzelmann: Warrick: Jamieson: Warrick: Hill: Warrick: I was thinking that as well as just concern for privacy of the next door neighbor. When you build one right next to the property line like that it could appear that they are looming down on you from the windows there and that would be a concern of mine. You do not plan any openings on that east wall, especially second story? Neither first or second level. Does that have to be a one hour fire wall being that close to the property line? I would have to do some research before I could answer that question. If I understood you correctly apparently the planned use is for the owner of the house. They plan to use that as additional living space for themselves as opposed to rental? There will be no separation, it will be open to the existing home. Are there any further questions? Is there anyone from the audience that would like to address us on this issue? We don't have any comments or feedback from the property owner to the east? I have not heard from the property owner to the east. Is it owner occupied? I don't think so. I have heard from the property owners to the north and the west and Mrs. Hill did come and speak with me with regard to this application because she received notice from our office. The project site primarily the northern end of the lot adjoins Ms. Hill's rear property line and we reviewed the site plan and she did have some concerns about the location of the pool. This is an in ground pool, setbacks are not required for an in ground pool since it doesn't meet the 30" in height criteria. Are you proposing to surround the pool with any type of security or privacy fencing? Privacy fence, 5'. Did you have any other questions that we might be able to address Ms. Hill? No thank you. I will say that in situations similar to this where an applicant has proposed Board of Adjustment March 3, 2003 Page 11 basically a detached living area, that while it is primarily there to serve the applicant's use in this case as kind of a pool house or cabana we have taken those projects as potential second dwelling units to the Planning Commission because it is not for sure what happens with that use area after this particular applicant is finished using it for what they propose. It could be very easily divided off and become a rental unit and that is the kind of thing that the neighborhood needs to understand is going to happen. Before a building permit is approved for this particular site if the configuration does contain a living area and a kitchenette I will take that to the Planning Commission as a Conditional Use. Green: Ok, but merely a restroom would not? Warrick: A restroom would not and if it were an office and exercise room over the garage or in that use area that would not. What defines a dwelling unit under our code is separate sleeping and eating facilities. Once you have an area that can become that that is organized and built out for separate eating and sleeping facilities then we term that as a separate dwelling unit for all intents and purposes even though it may function for a single-family initially and that is what we will treat as a Conditional Use application at the Planning Commission level. It will need their approval. Green: Are there any other questions, comments or motions? Andrews: My comment is I can very much understand the need for a covered garage and the placement of where it is supposed to be. I can't really see the need in the second story. I understand the want for it but I am not sure I can see the need. Kunzelmann: I am wrestling with the same thing in regard to what staff was saying about the garage being located directly behind the house would lessen the use of the backyard but it is not necessarily a garage as I know a garage to be. It doesn't have to be sited there because it is not necessarily a garage so I am struggling with the same issue. Andrews: How many vehicles are able to be parked in this? Jamieson: Because of the width requirement it is only one. There is an 8' driveway and a parking lane against the house to put one vehicle in. In regard to the two story, we have an existing two story house that we are connecting to, they are keeping the same heights and roofs with some slight adjustments in levels. Kunzelmann: How much square footage is actually allocated to the car and how much square footage is actually allocated to the living space? I am trying to determine if I should call this a garage or an addition. Jamieson: The full length on our depth, which would be 24' by 10' so 240 sq.ft. will be Board of Adjustment March 3, 2003 Page 12 allocated to the garage. Kunzelmann: So divide that for the first floor and add it again to the second floor so there is more living space than garage space so it is an addition. Green: That ratio is three to one. Olszewski: Dawn, I am a little confused about what you said about taking it to the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use. Warrick: Nickle: Warrick: Nickle: Warrick: Olszewski: Warrick: Kunzelmann: Nickel: Yes. The applicant will need to apply for a Conditional Use approval from the Planning Commission for a second dwelling unit. If they do that, if they want a second dwelling unit? If they put a kitchen and bath in it. Ok, because technically it would be in our code. It meets our definition with those facilities. The one thing that bothers me is something you said earlier that traditionally people did this and this is how they would add a structure and then let the grandfathering carry it through. The only part that bothers me about this is traditionally people walked more. When I drove there today there wasn't a lot of room. There is no place to park on that street, it is going to be tight if you have two cars. Most people have two cars in a family. If you add another structure that could be a living unit and that could be a problem. The height doesn't bother me, adding on and using it for additional area for the house but this is looking very much to me like a second dwelling unit that they would have a kitchenette in it. Once that happens and we approve it then it seems like we are sort of helping it go along through that. That is a good point. I did not have information that a kitchenette was going to be installed and a restroom was going to be installed and the proposed use of the area when this information came to you. I would be more than happy to postpone this decision until the Planning Commission has an opportunity to see it if you felt like that would be more appropriate. Planning Commission has to determine whether or not it is appropriate that that use be established, that that second dwelling unit be established regardless of where it is located on the site. I think it makes more sense to establish use before location. I don't personally have any problem if they wanted to build just a garage right where this is and that is what we would be looking at. There is a little bit more Board of Adjustment March 3, 2003 Page 13 involved because of this additional space though. Even if they built just a one story garage there that wouldn't be a real issue with me but all the extra stuff involved it does look like to me it might be more appropriate if they went to the Planning Commission and got their blessing or denial and then that would give us some guidance on how to view the property. Olszewski: This is really a very good place for a garage. I was very happy when I went there and saw that they weren't going to put it back further because I thought what that would be like for the neighbors and it would take up the whole yard and all of that. This is actually right next to what looks like is the foundation on the other side of an old garage. It is a very good place for a garage. It is even, I think, a very nice place to put an addition but I am with you, I don't want to be the one that determines that there are two dwellings there. Nickle: I think that if the Planning Commission passed on it or whatever they do pass, they could come back and we could look at it. I wouldn't have any problem with it if they blessed it in some form or fashion. Kunzelmann: I agree. I also suspect the property to the east is not owner occupied and I am just curious if that owner did actually receive a notification. I was wondering what address it was sent to. Andrews: Has the owner looked at doing a garage structure but yet the additions that they are wanting being able to put the additions within the setbacks maybe directly behind the house or anything else? Nickle: They could do all of that except for the garage portion of it, that half of it they could do the other half without a setback adjustment. Green: We are probably getting into some architectural limitations very quickly. Really, as far as the existing neighborhood it is very common The neighbor to the west has their garage right up to the property line so if you are going to have a garage it seems that everyone is putting their garages right up to the east property line along there and it is very logical that they would do that. Nickle: If you actually move the garage back to let's say behind the house with the garage on the west side that would really obliterate any back yard you had reasonable use of. I think that the placement of the garage, as you said, is very reasonable and seems appropriate. I just think that probably the Planning Commission needs to do their thing first and then we can consider it after that. Warrick: I have checked the assessment information submitted by the applicant and it appears that both of the properties to the east, one at the south of the corner at Walnut and Maple and one just north of that are both owner occupied. Board of Adjustment March 3, 2003 Page 14 Andrews: Ok. Orton: The fact that they wanted to put in a bathroom and a kitchen sink, my first thought was that ties with the pool. Nickle: I think it is reasonable. It is just a matter of the city's definition of a second dwelling. I think that probably needs to be looked at first. They may say you can do it but no range or stove or something. It would just be up to the Planning Commission to make that determination. Green: As a matter of the administration of this, would it be appropriate for us to go ahead and consider the Variance with the stipulation that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use or determine the Conditional Use requirement so they don't have to come all the way back around through both of them? Warrick: That would be compliance with condition number two as I recommended it. Planning Commission approve any applications for a second dwelling unit. I have heard from several members today that they feel that this is an appropriate location for an addition or a garage. If that is the situation then of course you all will need to vote and decide how you want to do that. The Planning Commission will have to see this if the applicant chooses to install the appliances for it to have a kitchen and bathroom together. Nickle: I forgot about number two there. They are going to have to go if they do want to install that. Green: Just through the building permit application right? Warrick: If they choose not to install the kitchen then it would be a building permit for an addition to the structure and the addition would go to the property line in compliance with the Variance that is being proposed today. Nickle: I think that might be reasonable and not cause them to reapply and send out notices again and all that. The way I look at it is I don't have any problem with the garage and the fact that they are going to get a little extra space upstairs above that garage I don't have a problem with because of that no window access, no openings on the east side. As a matter of fact, you say that probably the fire code is going to require that? Warrick: The fire code will drive any type of openings that they will be permitted to have on that eastern wall. My understanding is that typically it is no openings that close to an adjoining property line. Nickle: We could make that an additional condition though could we not? Board of Adjustment March 3, 2003 Page 15 Warrick: You could. Nickle: Regardless of the fire code, as long as it does not go against the fire code. Green: There is certain wire glass material that can add some fire rating and certain sizing I think. MOTION: Nickel: Based on that, I will make a motion that we approve the request with all the staff comments plus an additional requirement that there be no window openings on the east side of the structure, first or second floor as long as that complies with fire codes. Assuming the Fire Department says that that is allowable to not have any. Kunzelmann: Second. Green: There is a motion and a second to approve the Variance with the five items that staff has recommended and no window openings of any kind of any kind on the east side, first or second floor. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-6.00 was approved by a vote of 6-1-0 with Mr. Andrews voting no. Green: The request passes. Thank you. Board of Adjustment March 3, 2003 Page 16 VAR 03-7.00: Variance (Tatum, pp 486) was submitted by Daryl Rantis on behalf of Chris & Missy Tatum for property located at 1134 Skyline Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.28 acres. The requirement is for a 25' front setback and a 8' side setback. The request is for a 18' front setback for the existing single family home (a 7' variance) and a 16'6" front setback for a proposed carport (an 8'6" variance). The request is for a 4'6" side setback for the proposed carport (a 3'6" variance) and a 3'3" side setback for a proposed trash can enclosure (a 4'9" variance). Green: The third item on our agenda is a Variance request submitted by Daryl Rantis for the Tatum property on Skyline Drive. This is also a request for setback variances for a proposed carport. Dawn, do you have some background on that? Warrick: The subject property is located on Skyline Drive. It is on the northeast portion of Mount Sequoyah area. There is currently one single-family residence located on the property with a driveway on the east side of the house. There are several large, mature trees on the property and the site slopes to the north at the rear of the developed area. The existing structure was built prior to 1970, prior to adoption of our current zoning regulations. When the structure was built or at some point in time soon thereafter I believe, when the driveway was installed, footings for a future carport and garage were built into the driveway so it has been reinforced with footings. The applicant proposes to use those existing footings that are located in the driveway to serve the house and to build a carport and behind the carport they propose to build a trash can enclosure. Both the carport and the trash can enclosure will need Variances to be located as proposed by the applicant. The carport is detached from the main structure. A roof would be proposed to connect the two. In order to utilize the existing driveway footings the applicant has requested front and side setbacks for the proposed carport. A side setback is also requested to accommodate the location for the trash can enclosure. Because the existing house does not comply with the minimum setbacks from Skyline Drive, which is designated on the Master Street Plan as a historic collector, a 7' Variance is requested for the front setback of the existing structure. That will make it in compliance. The lot that the property is located on meets the minimum requirements for the R-1 district for lot area and for lot width. What we are looking at is a front setback Variance for the existing single-family home. A side setback Variance for the proposed trashcan enclosure and then front and side setback Variance requests for the proposed carport. With regard to special conditions or circumstances, the age of the existing structure predates current zoning regulations. The topography of the site and the existence of mature trees is unique to this site and makes further development of the property within required setbacks difficult. The location of the driveway already provides access to the house and the location of the footings that were installed with that driveway, is unique as well with regard to the request for the carport and trash can enclosure. Staff is recommending in favor of the request. With that, we have recommended four conditions. Those are 1) Variances shall apply to the existing residence, a proposed carport and a proposed trash can enclosure as described in Board of Adjustment March 3, 2003 Page 17 Sugg: Green: Warrick: Sugg: Orton: Sugg: Green: MOTION: Orton: this application only. Any future additions or alterations within required setbacks shall require a new variance application and public hearing. 2) The proposed additions shall be constructed with materials and architectural detailing that are consistent with the existing residence on the property. 3) Elevations and building material information shall be submitted with a building permit application for the project in order to allow staff to review the final materials, colors and details to ensure compliance with condition #2. 4) Carport shall be built over the existing foundation, on the existing driveway, as shown on the site plan submitted with this request. The applicant's representative, Mr. Sugg, is present and they have signed off that they agree to the conditions of approval. We did receive some new elevation information. This shows some of the elevation and material information for the carport. I am Mark Sugg. We call it a pavilion as much as a carport. The intent is that it is an open structure so you will be able to see through it. One of the reasons that it took a while to get the drawings in is that we were trying to make sure that we could afford the materials that we had drawn. The owners are committed to that. It is an all wood structure with the columns being stone, which will match the existing stone on the residence as well as we can due to the cost. It is local stone so we should be able to do that. We haven't pinned down what type of wood it will be but we are going to have wood and all the wood shingles will match the existing house. We want to try to make it look like it has been there since the house has been built. Have we heard from any of the adjacent property owners? Staff has not been contacted by anyone. The height of it is one thing that I don't know if any of you drove by there, but the street is at least 6' or 8' above this level so it is somewhat mitigated as far as the height of the structure from the street. From the street it looks like there is a drop off behind it. The backyard really does slope off. They have two small children that they thought they could get into the van quickly on rainy days and they decided that they can't do that so they wanted a little protection. It is a young couple that bought the house recently and are enjoying it other than getting rained on. Are there any questions or comments? I move that we grant the Variance with the recommendations that staff has made. Board of Adjustment March 3, 2003 Page 18 Andrews: I will second. Green: There has been a motion and a second to approve the Variance with the four conditions staff has proposed. Is there any further discussion? Shall the motion pass? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-7.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Green: Orton: Green: Orton: Green: This gets us to the sad part of it. We are very unhappy to announce that this is Mrs. Orton's last meeting at the Board of Adjustment. You have served two or three terms? I have lost track of time and maybe I don't want to remember I think that you all are doing a great job and I am not a bit worried about the future of the Board of Adjustment. We are certainly going to miss you a lot and we wish you all the luck in the world and just hope that you find another committee to get on so you don't lose touch with us down here and maybe you can come back. I am working with Public Access and making lots of videos. I marked this schedule in the Northwest Arkansas Times with all the ones that I have been working on. Public Access is a wonderful thing. There are some wonderful folk singers and original songs and panels so watch it some time and I know that we put our Chair's song on there at one time. There have been a lot of improvements since then. They have computers and you can edit your videos with a computer and do it anytime you want at home. On behalf of the Board of Adjustment and the City of Fayetteville, we really want to thank you Marion for all of your efforts over these years and all of your help and your interest and your service to this community so thank you very much. Is there any other business? We are adjourned.