Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-07 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, April 7, 2003 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN VAR 03-8.00: Variance (Thiel, pp 368) Page 2 VAR 03-9.00 (Anderson, pp 523) Page 7 MEMBERS PRESENT Michael Andrews Bob Nickle Bob Kohler Michael Green Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Sheree Alt Joanne Olszewski James Kunzelmann STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Renee Thomas David Whitaker Sara Edwards Kris Bunten Board of Adjustment April 7, 2003 Page 2 VAR 03-8.00: Variance (Thiel, pp 368) was submitted by Brenda Thiel for property located at 104 E. Sycamore Street. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 0.14 acres. The requirement is for a 6500 sq.ft. lot area, 60' street frontage and 15' side setback on the west side. The request is for a 6,250 sq.ft. lot area (a 250 sq.ft. variance), a 50' street frontage (a 10' variance), and a 10' side setback on the west (a 5' variance). The front setback requirement is for a 65' setback due to the classification of Sycamore St. as a collector on the Master Street Plan. The request is for a 56' setback (a 9' variance). Green: Since we have a quorum we will go ahead and call the meeting to order. Before we get started I would like to welcome our newest member to the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Bob Kohler. We're glad to have you Bob. Bob is taking the place of the recently retired Marion Orton who served on this board for many years and we hated to see her go but we are glad you agreed to come on board with us. The first item on our agenda is consideration of the minutes of our March 3`d meeting. Are there any corrections or additions to be made to those minutes? This is a certain point of order here. Since Mr. Kohler wasn't a member last time we really don't have a quorum on the minutes do we? Whitaker: No, you wouldn't be able to judge one way or the other whether they were accurate but it is certainly an administrative item that can be deferred until you do. Green: We will defer that pending the addition of another member. The next item on the agenda is we will open the Board of Adjustment meeting. That item is a Variance request by Brenda Thiel for property on Sycamore Street. The zoning is R -O and this request is for an increase in the minimum area of a lot and also some setback Variances. Dawn, can you give us the background? Warrick: Yes Sir. There are actually all totaled four variances included in this particular application. The subject property is located west of College Avenue, it is on the north side of Sycamore Street. There is currently a small single-family home on the property which is in poor condition. Surrounding uses are varied. There is a Planned Unit Development, which are town homes to the west, there is a city park as well as commercial properties to the south, residential uses on R -O, Residential Office zoned property located to the north and east of the subject site. Beyond that subject property to the north is Woodland Junior High School property. The proposal is to remove the existing single-family home and construct a duplex consisting of approximately 2,100 sq.ft. In order for the subject property to be developed as proposed the applicant has requested Variances in order to make the existing lot legal. The existing size of the lot is 6,250 sq.ft. In order to develop a duplex in the R -O district the minimum requirement for square footage is 6,500 sq.ft. so that is the first variance request and that is a variance of 250 sq.ft. of lot area. The lot width requirement for development of a duplex in the R -O district is 60', the lot as it exists, has 50' of frontage on Sycamore Street so you are looking at a 10' variance request on lot width. The site plan that is proposed is included in your packet on page 1.12 and in order for this property to be developed as shown the applicant proposes a 10' setback on both the east and west sides. On the east Board of Adjustment April 7, 2003 Page 3 side that meets the minimum requirement in the R -O district the side setback is 10' when it adjoins either an R -O or commercial property to the side. When it adjoins residential property, something that is less intensive than an R -O, then that side setback requirement increases to 15' so the request is for a 5' variance to the west to allow a 10' setback. Lastly, you are looking at a front setback variance request of 9'. The proposal is a 56' setback, which typically would more than meet the minimum requirement of 50' in the R -O district with parking in front of the structure. However, Sycamore Street is classified as a Collector on the City's Master Street Plan and there is an increased setback because of that classification. There exists only 20' of right of way for Sycamore Street from centerline in front of this piece of property so that setback, instead of a 50' is increased to 65' and the applicant is proposing 56', therefore, the 9' setback request. With regard to findings on this particular piece of property, there are a few that are probably more pertinent than others. The finding with regard to special conditions, the subject property was created prior to 1956 and certainly prior to our 1970 adoption of current zoning regulations. We went back through assessment records and determined that the site was created before 1956 and there were no actions taken from that time to present to decrease it in size in any way so this piece that we are looking at is the original piece. The size of the lot, being what it is, would make the development of a professional office very difficult, if not impossible. The size lots with regard to deprivation of rights, your second finding, is very restrictive without variances it is unlikely that it would be successfully developed. With regard to harmony and general purpose of the zoning regulations, the existing lot is non- conforming and while a single-family home could probably be built on the lot it would requiem approval from the Subdivision Committee. It is not necessarily desirable to have a single-family home in this particular location. The proposal for a duplex does provide some transition between commercial and residential uses along the north side of Sycamore Street. Granting the variance I believe would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of our current zoning regulations and I don't feel that it would be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to public welfare. The rest of your findings are also included and consistent I believe with staff's recommendation for approval with five recommended conditions. Those conditions are on page 1.1 and they include that the setback variances shall only apply to the proposed 2,100 sq.ft. duplex. Any future additions or exterior alterations which change the footprint or roof over hang shall require a new variance and public hearing before the Board of Adjustment. The site plan submitted with this application shall be revised prior to the issuance of a building permit. The reason that that is in there is because staff believes there needs to be a slight modification to the parking lay out in order to provide some green space along the west property line. It is not a significant change and it would not change the location of the structure as it is shown. The proposed duplex shall be according to the elevations with materials as submitted with this application. Variances approved with this action shall be void if required permits have not been obtained for the project within one calendar year from the date of approval. Staff has provided these conditions to the applicant and they have signed off in agreement. Ms. Thiel is here to answer any questions you may have. Board of Adjustment April 7, 2003 Page 4 Green: Does anyone have any questions of Dawn? Kohler: Looking at the floor plan you have a little pitch out there on the west side. On the site plan it doesn't really show that and I was just curious if that little pitch out was within your variance request. Thiel: The elevation shows the pitch out? Kohler: No, the floor plan. Thiel: I think the elevation does show it. Andrews: The elevation shows it as 23' wide so I am assuming that the pitch out is about 5' wide, which would make it 28' and then a foot for overhangs on either side, which would bring it to 30'. Thiel: I haven't redrawn these plans. These are some old plans I had done and I just kind of modified them. Kohler: It is hand marked out 23', it is corrected in hand on the floor plan. Green: Would the applicant like to address us with any additional information? Thiel: It is just a house that is in very, very poor condition. It would probably help if I had a photograph of the house. It really does need to be removed. In fact, this is right in behind where Instyprints used to be. It is really about the only way I can build something there. I have made as small of footprint as I can whether it was a residential, single-family or multi -family by doing a two story duplex like that. Green: That is really going to be an improvement there from what is there right now. Andrews: I have two concerns Brenda. One of them is that if the width including the overhangs is exactly 30' and you have got 30' to build on you have got zero room for error if that builder gets 3" off one way or another you are going to be back in here and have to do this all over again in the middle of it. I think somehow we should probably figure out how wide you are planning on building it. Thiel: I just realized these plans don't read right. They have been corrected. You need to go by the footprint that is on the site plan. I was trying to, because I can make adjustments with this floor plan, I can reduce it down a foot or two. I was trying to make it divisible, these plans show 23'by53' because I was trying to reduce it down. I was just trying to make it divisible by two. If that is a real issue I guess I could cut it down to 26' wide if that is what you are getting at. I would rather leave it at 28'. Board of Adjustment April 7, 2003 Page 5 Andrews: Kohler: Thiel: Andrews: Thiel: Nickle: Warrick: Kohler: Warrick: Andrews: Warrick: Green: Warrick: Green: Thiel: Nickle: I think you could leave it at 28' if you didn't have that little pitch out. That is driving your whole floor plan back to 23'. I see what you are saying. I had made some modifications but I guess this is the most current one the city has. Actually I had blanked out that pitch out you were talking about and somehow this got submitted. That will be out completely. I see what you are talking about. That is not on there. That will just be flush along there. If you got rid of it you could pick up some more square footage. Right. I wouldn't want that anyway, it really doesn't serve my purpose. Dawn, if she changed the floor plan somewhat or something like that it wouldn't effect any of these conditions would it because you talk about future additions, etc. Right. I am more concerned about the footprint and the maximum overhang area than the actual layout within. So if the footprint goes by her site plan rather than her floor plan then everything is fine? That is correct. If it matches the site plan on page 1.12 then it matches the request as it is identified in the conditions and everything. I am assuming that four parking spaces meets the requirement for parking? Two per side. Two per unit is the requirement for a duplex. Basically you are going to increase the green space there or something? On the west side I propose shifting the parking a little bit to the east. We like to see a 5' green space adjacent to a side property line between parking areas and it is important that we just shift it over. The hammer head that is shown on here for backing out and pulling out is really not necessary as long as we have got 24' for that amount of maneuverability. We can cut that down a little bit and shift the parking over to the east and still meet all of the ordinance requirements for the parking layout. Ok, you don't have any problem with that do you? No. If this would've been zoned R-1.5 would the setbacks be similar? Board of Adjustment April 7, 2003 Page 6 Warrick: They would be similar. I believe the side setbacks are 8' instead of 10' or 15' in this case because it is adjoining an R district. Nickle: The reason I asked that question is because this can handle everything rather than going for Rezoning to R-1.5 this is a solution that saves that extra step and will result in about the same ultimate variances and the same usage. Warrick: That is correct. Green: Are there any other questions? Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address us on this issue? MOTION: Nickle: I move that we approve the variance as requested with the five staff conditions. Andrews: Second. Green: We have a motion and a second to approve the variance as requested with the five stipulations from staff. Is there any further discussion? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03- 8.00 was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Green: The variance passes. Thank you. Board of Adjustment April 7, 2003 Page 7 VAR 03-9.00 (Anderson, pp 523) was submitted by Nianzer E. Anderson for property located at 403 S. Church Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. The requirements are an 8' setback on the south side, a 25' setback on the east side, and a 30' setback on the north side. The request is for a 7' setback (a 1' variance) on the south side, a 22' setback (a 3' variance) on the east side, and a 10' setback (a 20' variance) on the north side. Green: The next item on the agenda is a Variance request by Nianzer Anderson. The property is on Church Avenue, zoned R-2 and this is a request for some variances to the setbacks on the south side, the east side, and the north side. Can you give us some background Dawn? Warrick: Yes Sir. This property is located at the southwest corner of Archibald Yell and Church Street. The subdivision in which the property is located was recorded in 1890. This is an older part of town. When Highway 71 was widened and extended along the north side of this property a portion of the lot was taken for right of way to extend Archibald Yell. At this point in time Hwy. 71 in this location is classified as a principal arterial on the Master Street Plan. What that means is from centerline the requirement is 55' of right of way. There exists currently 50' of right of way. That increases the required setback along the north property line from 25' to 30' in this particular case. There is an existing single-family home on the subject property. It is non -conforming with regard to setbacks. The applicant wishes to make improvements to the existing structure. Those improvements include interior renovations as well as additions. The intent is to better use the existing space and provide more living area for the applicant and his family. In order to make the improvements desired by the applicant three setback variances are being requested. I discussed the one on the north, the 30' setback requirement for Master Street Plan requirements. The applicant proposes a 20' variance to allow for a 10' setback in this location. That accommodates the existing structure. This is also a corner lot. Therefore, the east side is also a front setback requiring a 25' setback and the applicant's proposal here is a 22' setback, which requires a 3' variance. The south is considered a side with an 8' setback requirement. The applicant is requesting a 1' variance in that location. With regard to special conditions and findings, this property was affected in the past by improvements to Hwy. 71. That portion of the road was widened, which of course required the dedication of right of way. The lot was originally platted in the late 1800's. It predated zoning by a long way. The lot is rather small. It is located on a comer. There is other mitigating factors of course the requirement for increased setbacks on two sides, the two street frontages. With regard to finding number two, the deprivation of rights. Literal interpretation of the provisions of zoning regulations would restrict the ability of the applicant to increase the size of the single-family home. Our non -conforming structures ordinance would allow the property to be increased but only to 25% of the square footage. That would limit the amount of improvements that the applicant would be able to make. It would not allow for further changes as he has proposed them. With regard to harmony and general purpose, the existing use of the property for single-family home is permitted. It is compatible with adjoining and surrounding properties. Granting the requested variances will allow the applicant to make Board of Adjustment April 7, 2003 Page 8 improvements to the structure which will be beneficial to the neighborhood as well as to the applicant. Approval of the request would be in harmony with general purpose and intent of current zoning regulations and I don't believe it would be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental. With these findings and the others that are included in your packet, staff is recommending in favor of the proposed setback variances with three conditions. Those are stated on page 2.1. Item one is that setback variances only apply to the improvements and additions as proposed in this application. Any future additions or exterior alterations which change the footprint or roof overhang shall require a new variance and public hearing before the Board of Adjustment. Variances approved by the action shall be void if required permits have not been obtained for the project within one calendar year of the date of approval. I believe Mr. Anderson is here and he can answer questions if you have them. Andrews: What is the existing structure, is there any additional space that he is asking for other than what is the actual, what's there now? Warrick: If you look at the existing structure layout on page 2.11 you can kind of see that the south side is the same setback as what is proposed, the east is the same so both of those variances are to accommodate the existing structure. He is proposing a modification that is going to pull the north side in some so instead of the existing 8' setback you are going to end up with a 10', which still needs a variance but it is bettering the situation with regard to setbacks. Really we are just accommodating the existing structure and reducing that setback some. The structure itself would be enlarged to some degree but it would not be encroaching any further than what we have currently got on the site. We did provide the staff report to the applicant and he has signed off in agreement with the conditions. Nickle: That was my only question. I just wanted to make sure that we were correct in that 10' and that it is 8' now so he is going to tear off 2' of that structure, is that correct? Warrick: Yes. Green: Would the applicant like to add anything to what Dawn has stated? Anderson: Not unless you have any questions. Green: I had one question. It looked like very little of the existing structure was going to remain, are you just enclosing or filling in all the little ends and outs and making it more of a rectangular shape? Anderson: We are making it more of a rectangular shape, we are going straight down going from east to west we will come out and come straight down. Going from south to north we would come over 10' and come back straight. There are some footings that need to be adjusted so that is what we plan to do. The reason we are doing this Board of Adjustment April 7, 2003 Page 9 Green: on the south side is because the roof is slanted so drastically that it creates a number of problems. Ok. I was just trying to clarify if this proposed site plan was more or less just to indicate the limits of where the setbacks were and not necessarily indicate the walls of the final structure. Anderson: Right because the limit includes the overhang. Theoretically the 7' includes, the overhang ends where the 7' end and the same with the 22' and 10'. Green: That is fine. Does anyone else have any questions? Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address us on this issue? Hearing none, does anyone have a motion? Andrews: I will move that we accept the variance as submitted with the three staff recommendations. Kohler: Second. Green: There has been a motion and a second to approve the variance as requested along with the three items that staff has recommended. Is there any further discussion? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-9.00 was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Green: The variance passes. Are there any other items on the regular Board of Adjustment meeting? Ok, we will adjourn the Board of Adjustment meeting.