HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-05 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, May 5, 2003 at 3:45 p.m.
in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED
VAR 03-10.00: Variance (Don Ginger, pp251)
Page 2
VAR 03-11.00: Variance (Don Ginger, pp251)
Page 18
VAR 03-12.00: Variance (Knight Times, pp252)
Page 24
VAR 03-13.00: Variance (Martin, pp445)
Page 27
VAR 03-15.00: Variance (Thompson, pp 404)
Page 29
MEMBERS PRESENT
Sheree Alt
Joanne Olszewski
James Kunzelmann
Bob Kohler
Michael Green
Bob Nickle
ACTION TAKEN
Denied
Tabled
Approved
Approved
Approved
MEMBERS ABSENT
Michael Andrews
STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT
Dawn Warrick
Renee Thomas
Jeremy Pate
David Whitaker
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 2
Green: I will call the meeting to order. Welcome to the May meeting of the Board of
Adjustments. Would you call the roll please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were 6 members present with Mr.
Andrews being absent.
Green: The first item of business is actually old business from our last meeting. It is
kind of a technicality but we didn't have I guess we would call it a qualified
quorum to approve the minutes of the previous meeting. At this time we will
consider those minutes of the meeting of March 3, 2003. Does anyone have any
comments, changes or additions to be made to those minutes? If not, I guess we
could just consider those approved then. The next item of business is
consideration of the minutes from our last meeting of April 7, 2003. Did
everyone get a chance to review those? Are there any comments, questions,
changes or additions? We will consider those minutes approved as issued.
VAR 03-10.00: Variance (Don Ginger, pp251) was submitted by Don Ginger for property
located at 23 & 35 Cydnee Street, (lots 8A and 8B in the North Heights Addition). The
property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.25 acres.
The requirement is for a 25' rear setback. The request is for a 20' setback (a 5' variance) for
construction of town homes on the subject property.
Green:
The first item of new business is VAR 03-10.00 submitted by Don Ginger for
property on Cydnee Street, lots 8A and 8B. This request is for a 5' variance for
the rear setback. Dawn, can you give us the report on that?
Warrick: Yes Sir. The subject property is located in the North Heights development. This
subdivision is at the west side of the north/south segment of Appleby Road. It
is a subdivision that was developed in 42 divided lots, lots 1 through 21a and b
for the purpose of town homes or patio homes with zero lot lines. There are a
few lots remaining. The subject property is currently vacant. The applicant
proposes to develop two town homes with a common wall on the subject
property. The request is for a 5' setback variance. The rear setback requirement
is 25'. This is an R-2 zoned property. The applicant states that it is necessary to
obtain a variance in order to build the minimum 1,500 sq.ft. town home on each
lot in order to conform to the characteristics and aesthetics of the existing
neighborhood. In reviewing this item staff looked at the findings that are
required with regard to the Board of Adjustment considering variances. One of
those findings is that special conditions or circumstances exists which are
unique or peculiar to the subject property. The subject property is flat, fairly
flat. There are no unique features that cause the site to be difficult to develop
with regard to topography or mature trees. There is an aerial photograph
included, two actually, on pages 1.8 and 1.9 in your packet. You will notice
that item number two on your agenda is also a setback variance request for
additional lots in this neighborhood. The subject property, if you look on page
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 3
1.8 there is a developed lot at the corner of Cydnee Street and Susan Carol just
above that lot is the subject property for item number one that we are
considering. Going back to the findings, one of the additional findings that is
required is that literal interpretation of the provisions of zoning regulations
would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in
the same district under the terms of zoning regulations. Staff finds that literal
interpretation of the zoning regulations would not preclude development of the
subject property. The finding with regard to resulting actions that the special
conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant.
Staff was unable to make that finding. The need for the variance in this
situation is based on the applicant's chosen floor plan and building design.
Another finding with regard to the minimum variance, that reasons set forth in
the application justify granting the variance and that the variance is the
minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land,
building, or structure. Staff finds that the variance requested is the minimum
needed for the applicant to build the structure that is proposed. That is based on
their chosen site plan. The property, however, is buildable without variances as
demonstrated in the development of nearby and adjacent lots with similar lot
sizes and constraints. Based on staff's findings and the inability to make some
of the required findings, staff does recommend denial of this requested setback
variance.
Green: Ok. Is the applicant present?
Ginger: Yes.
Green: Would you like to address the board Sir? Would you state your name for the
record?
Ginger: Don Ginger. It is just difficult with this small lot to get a plan on there. There
is another lot that we're asking a variance for, lot 12A, that one is just
impossible to build on and get the minimum square footage, that is lot is a little
more buildable than lot 12.
Green: Does anyone have any questions of the applicant?
Olszewski: I have a couple of questions. All of the rest of the houses are 1,500 sq.ft. right?
Ginger: Minimum.
Olszewski: How much less than that would this have to be? You eluded to unless you have
the setback you couldn't build a 1,500 sq.ft. townhouse, what could you build
there?
Ginger: On this lot, 8A and B I probably could.
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 4
Olszewski: On this one?
Ginger: I could. I don't think it is going to be anything real desirable.
Olszewski: What would not be desirable?
Ginger: Just the small rooms. It is probably going to push the master bedroom upstairs
or something like that.
Olszewski: When was the subdivision developed?
Sloan: 1992.
Olszewski: 1992, and who developed it?
Sloan: I did, Charlie Sloan.
Olszewski: Did you take that into consideration when you developed the lot size?
Sloan: The lot size that we laid out originally got changed at the last because we ended
up putting a street in that we didn't anticipate. We were asking for it to be a
cul-de-sac and I believe when the engineer that did it with Northwest
Engineering sort of slid everything around and tried his best to take the same
space and make it work. I believe the Homeowner's Association is in favor of
giving the variance for design purposes. Again, that is something that we try to
do if you have been over there and looked at it. We try to keep everything fairly
consistent. Each unit is not the same exact design but it does have some
features that we try to keep similar plus the outside looks a lot alike. We are
just trying to keep it looking nice. I understand Don's need because the master
bedroom is one of the largest requests to be downstairs. Most of our customers
over there are older folks and they want the master downstairs. That lot is going
to be tight. Don was kind enough to let my designer try to put something on it
and it was tight. I think Jim went ahead and designed it not thinking that we
had a 25' setback. I think there is lot number 8 that has a street backing up to it
that has a cul-de-sac on the other side and I believe lot number 12 is abutting R-
0. It is not like we are looking to somebody's backyard. Our town homes over
there I feel like are as nice as anybody is going to have a home around there.
They go for a couple hundred thousand dollars a side, the last ones I built. The
neighborhood is just trying to keep everything consistent. That was the whole
purpose of that thing over there. Like I said, when we designed it for him or did
a lay out for him originally. To be honest with you I think before Don even
bought the lot. Jim just didn't catch that it was 25'. It had been a while since
we designed something over there and he just laid out something several
different ways to get something that would be appealing to Don and what the
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 5
Homeowner's Association thought would be appealing with the architectural
control committee. That is the only thing we were concerned about. Once you
start squeezing it back in, like Don said, it would move the master bedroom
upstairs, which is not going to be appealing to anybody. We don't want it to be
rental property, we want it to be home owners that buy over there. That is sort
of the purpose for it. Everybody there is an individual owner and that is the
way we would like to keep it. That way we don't have it turn into rental
property. Before we designed the project originally we did a pretty extensive
interview with people wondering what do you want with something like this and
that is how we came up with this project. Obviously the number one thing is
they don't want an upstairs, maybe the guest room or something like that but
not the master. That is where we are getting squeezed as far as design is
concerned on the project.
Nickle: Charlie, you spoke of being squeezed from what you originally had drawn up, is
that because they required Susan Carol to extend into the subdivision?
Sloan: Yes. We posed arguments that we didn't really want it put through there. This
goes way back with different changes in administration and then initially we
fought it, we got pushed through and then before we actually built it we came
back because a lot of Planning had changed, a lot of people in Planning had
changed. They agreed that we were correct in probably not putting that street
through but then again it was already approved and they weren't going to back
down at that point so we just went ahead and went through with it. There were
quite a few large trees and stuff on that lot that were taken out because of Susan
Carol.
Nickle: Dawn, at my age memory gets old, this one right here, it seemed like we had a
variance request on that one.
Warrick: We did.
Nickle: I can't tell you what happened but I kind of vaguely remember that we had one.
Warrick: We granted a variance for I believe it was a foot or less of overhang. It may
have been a little bit more. That particular lot, lots 11A and B came before the
Board of Adjustment in July, 1999 and the request was for a rear setback
variance. That particular site had gone through the Planning office for approval
of a building permit and staff incorrectly put an incorrect setback requirement
on the building permit application. The encroachment was the overhang of the
structure in two locations as it stepped back at the rear of the lot. That is
correct, you are right, we did grant a variance on that lot.
Nickle: The one other thing I have is I know cul-de-sacs can present some problems to
situate buildings on and what would the applicant think about instead of
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 6
granting a variance at the rear to grant some small variance at the front and pull
the garages forward, would that alleviate the situation?
Phillips: My name is Jake Phillips, I am president of the P.O.A. and according to our
covenants we couldn't do that. Actually a variance for the owners because it
wouldn't be in compliance with the covenants, which call for a certain amount
of setback in the front. I wish that they had it. Lot 11A and B, which is
contiguous to this lot has a 20' setback and this is some configuration with the
lots when they were laid out and then they had approval on that. It has a 20'
setback, which is contiguous to 11B that he has applied for. It would be the
same configuration in the back for that 20' setback.
Green:
Warrick:
Sloan:
That is the next one right?
Right. The one that you were speaking of on lots 11A and B, that would be
contiguous to item number two in your agenda this afternoon.
Another thing too, when we originally set this up I guess we didn't get it in
writing, because Planning helped us set this thing up as a town home
community so when we wrote our covenants we allowed overhangs to go within
4' of property lines for a covered sidewalk, covered walkways to the back and
things like that we wrote up originally. I dealt with Allet on this originally.
Dawn looked in the file and she didn't verify anything in the file but we came
up and talked to them about making this an attached community. We require
fencing and things like that. You have to have yard fencing. Technically that is
where I think they were looking at getting by calling it attached housing in a
sense because we require fencing to be between each unit and it has to go from
wall to wall with the gates in between. Effectively when you open the gates you
are not attached for whatever time. I guess when we looked at this thing we
didn't' think we would have some of the problems we seem to have here with
lots because we thought that we sort of determined that in the very beginning
before we ever started building when we writing the covenants and stuff. That
is sort of where we were at, especially for side yard setbacks and things like
that.
Green: Are there any other questions for anybody?
Kohler: The city ordinances precede neighborhood covenants correct?
Whitaker: Yes.
Kohler: It seems to me, or I'm just thinking about the fact that this is a little bit
backwards.
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 7
Whitaker:
Kohler:
Sloan:
Kohler:
Sloan:
Nickle:
Kohler:
Nickle:
Whitaker:
Kohler:
Green:
Whitaker:
Kohler:
Warrick:
I have to tell you that any private covenants you are really not to consider
because if you look through the findings you are to make it doesn't speak of
anything like that. Those are between private parties.
Right, so it seems to me it would be more your first step would be to get an
adjustment from the homeowners because the city's zoning ordinances precede
those covenants.
I think the homeowners have met and they are agreeing to the side yard. They
don't have a problem with the 5' in the back. If we moved it forward we would
probably need to go back and ask them. That is something that they would
actually see, with it being in the back of the yard that doesn't effect them.
That is where I would start.
It backs up to a cul-de-sac, there is a tree between the cul-de-sac and us anyway.
The POA would have to do that.
No, they are just admitting that they should come to us and I am saying that
they should go to them first to get your suggestion.
Right, on my suggestion if that were the case.
I believe what he is saying is trying to seek permission from them to vary the
covenant first and then failing that.
Right, first you do that.
Still if the POA agrees to a front setback variance then they are still going to
have to reappear before the Board of Adjustments for the front setback variance,
right?
They are still going to seek a front setback variance.
Or for an adjustment of the 1,500 sq.ft. That is really what I am getting at.
Even though they say that there are no exceptions to that then why should we
make exceptions for setbacks if the antecedent body, which is the homeowners,
aren't willing to make a concession first.
One thing that might be important to consider is locating a vehicle in the
parking pad in front of the garage. If the garage is pushed too far forward that
vehicle would overhang onto the public sidewalk and that is not permitted by
city ordinance. There may be a little bit of lead way there but I am not sure that
there is a lot. I am not sure that there is a proper amount when you look at
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 8
Green:
parking the vehicle in front of the garage door and not overhanging the
sidewalk.
From an operational standpoint if they are going to have any kind of variance in
setback it would probably be best to all parties to have it in the rear instead of
the front then would you say just due to that requirement?
Warrick: Having it in the front would possibly impose a vehicle in the public right of way
and that is not desirable.
Jones: May I speak?
Green:
We will take public comment in just a minute as soon as everyone flushes out
their particular questions and then we will get some additional comments. As
far as aligning the front of these units with a 25' setback, since the cul-de-sac
does encroach into the lot as far as the buildings lining up it would still be
setback further from the centerline of the street even with a 5' variance on the
front setback. That is neither here nor there I guess. It is still this issue of the
vehicle that may encroach on the sidewalk.
Ginger: Also in the rear there is a drainage ditch, a huge drainage ditch.
Green: Ok, are there any other questions at this point? Ok, would anyone like to
speak?
Jones: My name is Pam Jones and I am with Dixie Development, I am the Project
Coordinator, we own the property to the side of it, to the west of it and we own
the property to the rear of it, which is going to be part of our development over
by the hospital. Obviously it is difficult to build on a cul-de-sac and just for
aesthetic purposes it would be, in my mind, a lot more pleasing for it to be in
the back and we don't have any objection, especially since there is that big ditch
in the back, as long as when we do our proposed building that it is not going to
present a problem. We have no objection. I just wanted to make sure that you
knew that we don't have a problem with the variance being granted and we own
the property to the side of it.
Green: Are there any other comments from the audience?
Kohler: I have got another question to the applicant. I am just going to ask this again.
Are you saying it is not possible to build a structure that conforms to the city
zoning ordinance as well as the homeowner's covenants, which I know aren't
really our concern, are you saying it's not possible or it is just not marketable?
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 9
Ginger:
Kohler:
Ginger:
Kohler:
Phillips:
Kohler:
Phillips:
Kohler:
Phillips:
Kohler:
Sloan:
Kohler:
Nickle:
Warrick:
Nickle:
Warrick:
Sloan:
Not marketable. It is possible. It is not going to be really marketable, I'm
afraid it might turn into rental property. I am saying when you get to lot 12A
and B it just is almost impossible.
Ok, let's stay on the one we are talking about. One more question, I drove
through there and there is a tremendous amount of uniformity. All the exterior
materials are the same, the heights are the same, is there a restriction from the
home owners on a second floor? I saw all the second floors are basically
converted to attics it looks like.
Not all of them have livable second floors but a lot of them do. There are two
story structures.
But there isn't a second floor play type. It is within the roof and they have
dormers to enhance the light in there.
That is one of the things we are trying to maintain is that configuration there.
Ok, so is it against any covenant to put a full second story with vertical walls?
No it would not be. He's got a second story.
Right but is that within the same roofline that the other ones have?
Basically his problem is putting that master bedroom upstairs.
There are other ways to get the square footage like a one car garage.
No, he can't do that.
Ok, so that is against the covenants too.
Dawn, if this were R-1 the rear setback is 20' so the 25' comes from the R-2
zoning?
That is correct.
I guess my thinking there is it is almost R-1.5 in terms of density I suppose. Is
it a question of density or was this property just zoned R-2 already?
This was zoned R-2 already. I don't think that we even had an R-1.5 district
when this development was installed.
You didn't have. Like we have RMF -6 now, this would fit into an RMF -6 now
that we did.
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 10
Nickle: What are the setbacks for an RMF -6?
Warrick: They are the same as the R-2 setbacks.
Nickle: Ok, 25'.
Sloan: There are different options now that weren't available then. They really didn't
have anything to put this under.
Warrick: With this being in an R-2 district the developer was able to propose a
subdivision of town homes with zero lot lines. The lot width and lot area
requirements are waived to provide for a zero setback to have conjoined town
homes but the front and rear setbacks and side setbacks that are not adjoining do
still apply.
Olszewski: I have a question. Did you say that you have to have two car garages?
Ginger: Yes Ma'am.
Olszewski: On each side?
Ginger: Yes Ma'am.
Olszewski: That's a covenant so if they were to give a variance to that for a one car garage
then you would have enough room for the master bedroom downstairs?
Ginger: Yes, I would say so.
Nickle: I think that probably gets back to marketability again in terms of most of the
residents would want a two car garage. I know I am not in the residential
business anymore but in the past I was and the desirability for older folks,
because I built some duplexes out in Summerhill some time ago, as a matter of
fact I came upon the same situation with a cul-de-sac and kind of a weird
shaped lot. Mine were five sided if you can believe it so I had some real
difficulties and I did wind up getting a little variance so I could get my garages
on there. Older folks want that bedroom on the ground floor. That part of it I
can guarantee.
Olszewski: You don't necessarily have to have a two car garage.
Nickle: No you don't, although mine do. Again, it is simply very customary that most
people have two cars.
Olszewski: There is some movement there possibly in a design.
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 11
Nickle: Oh, yeah.
Green: Are there any further comments, questions, motions or anything of that sort?
MOTION:
Olszewski: I motion that we go along with staff's recommendation for denial.
Kunzelmann: I second.
Green:
We have a motion and a second to deny the applicant's request in accordance
with staff's recommendation. Is there any further discussion? Call the roll
please.
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to deny VAR 03-10.00 failed by a
vote of 3-3 with Green, Alt, and Nickle voting no.
Green: The motion passes.
Thomas: It is tied at three to three.
Green: Ok, three to three tie.
Whitaker: The motion fails.
Green: The motion to deny has failed.
Whitaker: You may entertain another motion until you get the majority on something.
Warrick: You need a majority to go one way or the other.
Olszewski: Or can we table until the next meeting when we have another person?
Whitaker: You can certainly table. I guess at some point if you feel like there is no
resolution today that you cannot put a four vote majority on any motion then I
think tabling would be the only proper thing to do as certainly you just can't sit
here for weeks. Barring that, one hopes that something can gather four votes.
Olszewski: So we should have some discussion.
Green: Yes we probably should. I am wondering if we couldn't find some common
ground in between. In other words, perhaps we could split the difference and do
a maybe a 2' variance on the front and a 3' variance on the back.
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 12
Kohler: I have got a recommendation. If you are looking at the floor plan, the site plan,
the upper unit. If you pushed that side setback, if you pushed the building to the
8' side setback the only encroachment then would be the fire place. That fire
place could come into the building or I guess another variance could be
requested to have the fire place encroach into the 8' setback. You would pick
up quite a bit of square footage there.
Sloan: I'm sorry, you lost me. I see the fireplace, you are talking about pushing it out?
Kohler: Push the side of the building up to the 8' setback, you would pick up it looks
like 2' or 3' by 45' or something and you could get closer to your 1,500 sq.ft.
without possibly having to move that bedroom and then bringing the rear within
the zoning requirement. You could pick up your square footage there without
losing your bedroom by shifting some walls around. That could be a
compromise.
Nickle: It could help this unit, it wouldn't do anything for this unit right here. I kind of
liked Mike's suggestion about a 2' front and a 3' rear variance and then the
POA would either accept or reject their request on the front end.
Kohler: This could come a little closer to there too.
Nickle: You are not seeing any overhang so I'm sure they are allowing a little bit for
that overhang. By coming a couple of feet towards and then picking up three
back here it would I guess give him about what he wants. If the POA denied the
ability to go forward then that is the POA's issue. The reason I am saying that
is because if you are on a cul-de-sac it is difficult to tell what plane it is in, in
terms of if you are just driving down a row and they are all exactly the same
over here then that is one thing but on a cul-de-sac you don't have that anyway
and there is a variance, one of them is not the exact same frontage.
Kohler: I just think that with some design adjustments it is a very doable thing that
wouldn't require a variance.
Nickle: It may not. Certainly for this unit, I don't know if that would help this unit or
not. Again, the master bedroom being on the main floor is a bible thing.
Kohler: Maybe it comes out the end of the garage, it is possible to do it.
Nickle: I think he would admit that. I faced the same issue when I built mine because I
could shrink the garage but then if you have a Lincoln pull in there you
wouldn't be able to close the garage door. That is what I faced.
Kohler: I think there needs to be some give on the POA side too.
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 13
Olszewski:
Warrick:
Nickle:
Kohler:
Olszewski:
Nickle:
Olszewski:
Green:
Olszewski:
Sloan:
Ginger:
Sloan:
Olszewski:
Sloan:
Alt:
Sloan:
Nickle:
Sloan:
We have some other issues. I think this is the reason why it is difficult. If this
was a unique thing it is one thing but looking at this, look at that cul-de-sac.
There are four areas there that are still to be developed. They are bringing up
one of them today. We are going to be with the same issue probably on each of
those aren't we?
Actually there are only two left.
They are both before us today.
There are houses right here now.
This one down here is not going to be an issue later?
Yes, everything exists except what we are considering today. Those are the
only two that are left to be there.
So the issue is even though we have viewed these separately, if we do this one,
is that something that is going to affect us with the next one?
I don't believe so because it is a separate lot. It has a different shape.
Ok. So then it seems to be a difference between whether you can change the
design or not.
As a compromise if we can get a 3' or 3 'A' variance one way or the other we
may be able to squeeze this thing down enough.
3 'h' would work. We don't need 5', we need 3 '/z' though for everything to fit.
The overhang and everything on the front still stays within the ordinance.
You are saying 3 %' on the rear or the front?
On the rear, it will keep the front in conformity. He is showing just the very
minimum on the front for the overhang.
Why is that that you only need 3 'A'?
With the design I don't think he really needs the full 5'. I see what he has got
labeled here.
That is 3'7"?
That is right.
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 14
Kohler: Is the POA at all willing to give any on the square footage? Is that negotiable?
Phillips: I don't think we could make that compromise on the square footage, I really
don't. We tried working with Mr. Ginger in some ways on this but to
compromise the square footage I don't think so. I really appreciate what Mr.
Nickle said there, there are a bunch of folks like me that are old or older, and we
do like to have that large bedroom downstairs and that is what most of us are in
there, seniors, that is the continuity of it and we appreciate that and we will
work with everybody as best we can. The 1,500 feet I think is a sacred cow, I
don't think we can get that change approved, I really don't.
Kunzelmann: It sounds to me as though we are putting voluntary restrictive covenants over
the city ordinances and that is the problem that I am having with this and I can't
budge on that in this case. I think this is buildable and doable without a
variance.
Green: Did you actually decide if a 3 '/2' variance is what you could change to?
Sloan: Yes.
Green: That would actually cover the overhang also right?
Sloan: 3 ''/2' would be ideal but we could make 3' work. With sliding that front room
out we could get the difference.
Green:
I am really just trying to find a motion that will pass here, pass or fail or
something.
Olszewski: I am having the same problem that James is having.
Kunzelmann: I think that the covenants are the problem here, not the ordinance, not the
setback.
Olszewski: I totally understand why they want it as a want thing but we have to uphold city
law and have a reason for it and that is what is just so difficult. I can
understand that they wouldn't want to change their 1,500 sq.ft. but would they
ever consider a single -car garage?
Ginger: 1 don't know about that.
Green: That is getting into the marketability and trying to dictate to owners some
design criteria I think.
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 15
Nickle: These covenants were place in there and everybody knew about them. The
POA is trying to protect property values as well and that is the reason I can see
they wouldn't want to give on the square footage minimum. They are trying to
maintain certain standards there. The other issue I have is what they eluded to
their initial proposal didn't include connecting Susan Carol and when they gave
up that street connection right here that forced smaller lots. That was part of it,
they weren't expecting initially and later on apparently they said they didn't
have to but by that time the street was already in. I think there was an issue
there where at that point the city required them to do that that they might not
have had to do that and therefore, the lots would've been bigger and we
wouldn't be sitting here on this issue today. We would be here for something
else.
Olszewski: So you are saying that if they would've addressed that back then when they
made that change, if they would've made percussions.
Nickle: If they wouldn't have connected Susan Carol then these lots could've been
bigger lots.
Olszewski: That should've been addressed when they put in that street.
Nickle: At that point it was too late.
Warrick: The street requirement came before the subdivision was developed. It was a
part of the platting process.
Nickle: It came before the POA square footages and all that kind of thing absolutely it
did. I am just saying they originally had planned for a larger lot there.
Kohler: One fewer lot would've made them all larger.
Green:
The way I am seeing this is that being on the radius of the cul-de-sac makes this
a more unique lot situation than any of the other ones that are within this
subdivision. For that reason I feel that this may be a more unique situation that
would qualify under the ordinance and statutes that this would be something
unique to this piece of property that the other ones are enjoying. From the other
standpoint, I think the error, if any, was made during the plat process in platting
and going through the acceptance of the plat. Lots of this size knowing that
they were planned for 1,500 sq.ft. minimum units. To even accept lots that
were this small in the beginning, which is probably out of this particular
property owner's control since this was done during the platting process and not
as a result of the applicant's actions himself. It is based on those two issues is
the only reason that I am trying to find a compromise of being able to allow
them to build something that is marketable and something that is in the same
class as the other units that are within that subdivision. For that, it looks like if
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 16
Alt:
Green:
MOTION:
Alt:
Nickle:
Green:
Warrick:
Green:
they can make these units still marketable within what they are trying to achieve
on this smaller unique lot with only a 3' or 3 "A' setback instead of the original
5' I think that would probably be acceptable in my mind.
I am in total agreement. That is exactly the reason that I feel that we need to
look at maybe providing them with some sort of variance. I do see a unique
situation with this lot.
Is there any further discussion?
1 make a motion that we agree with providing them a variance of a 3 1/4' setback,
a 3 %z' variance instead of a 5' variance in setback to the rear.
I second.
Ok, there has been a motion and a second to allow the applicant a 3 '/' rear
setback variance. Are there any other staff recommended composed
suggestions for that particular motion?
1 would just expect that that should cover any overhangs or be to the furthest
point of the structure, that is the only thing we could permit.
Which probably goes without saying but it is nice to say anyway. Ok, there has
been a motion and a second to approve a 3 1/4' rear setback variance request. Is
there any other additional discussion? Shall the motion pass?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-10.00 failed by
a vote of 3-3 with Mr. Kunzelmann, Ms. Olszewski, and Mr. Kohler voting no.
The motion fails.
Again, we are in a tight situation.
Thomas:
Green:
MOTION:
Nickle:
Kunzelmann:
Green:
Mr. Ginger seemed to think that the variance was more important on the second
one as far as build -ability than the first one so in order to get things moving
along I will make a motion to deny this one.
Second.
There has been a motion and a second to deny the request. Is there any further
discussion? Shall the motion pass?
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 17
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to deny VAR 03-10.00 was
approved by a vote of 4-2 with Mr. Green and Ms. Alt voting no.
Green: The motion passes. The request is denied.
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 18
VAR 03-11.00: Variance (Don Ginger, pp251) was submitted by Don Ginger for property
located at 22 &28 Cydnee Street, (lots 12A and 12B in the North Heights Addition). The
property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.25 acres.
The requirement is for a 25' rear setback. The request is for a 20' setback (a 5' variance) for
construction of town homes on the subject property.
Green:
The next item is in the same area, it is VAR 03-11.00. It is the same applicant,
Don Ginger, for property on Cydnee Street. This concerns lots 12A and 12B.
Again, this request is for a 20' setback, which would be a 5' rear setback
variance. Are there any additional comments from staff?
Warrick: Staff's recommendation is the same for denial of the request. Many of our
findings were the same with regard to unique and special circumstances on the
subject property. This is a vacant lot, relatively flat. The specifics of this
request, I did look at the lot size. This is a cul-de-sac lot as was the previous
request. Other lots within this cul-de-sac are built and are built specifically lots
9A and B, which you can see on the map on page 2.10. They are very similar in
size and configuration that are built in accordance with the R-2 setback
requirements. With the findings stated in the report and information such as
that staff recommends denial of this request.
Green: Ok. Would the applicant like to address us on this one?
Ginger: I will let Charlie.
Sloan: Really I guess this would come back to design too. Again, as he said, this is
even more difficult than the other one was to put something on it. I don't know
if you have this picture. He has a floor plan, which is just a straight line across
the back and then a property line. I don't know what kind of roof you would
put on something like that.
Warrick: Is that different than the one that they've got?
Sloan: Yes.
Kohler: It looks like you've got an additional problem with your side setback. You
didn't request a side yard setback. I don't know if it is 12A or B but it is on the
south one on the site plan you have got your building right in the back with no
allowance for any overhangs at all.
Sloan: The centerline could be shifted a little bit on this. That is legally done to try to
try to slide it over to make that work.
Kohler: That makes it even tighter.
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 19
Sloan:
It is just a difficult lot. Once again, I thought from going to Planning
Commission and City Council if homeowners associations are in favor of things
that it would have some influence. Once again, I think the homeowner's
association over here is in favor of these changes. If we were backing up to
residential property or something it might be a little bit different but since it is
going to be office space on two sides of this and the other one is a ditch with a
cul-de-sac at a dead end street on either one of the two projects. This one backs
up completely to R -O. Our neighbors don't have a problem with it, our
homeowner's association doesn't have a problem with it. A 25' setback I could
see multi -family mixed with residential if that was the purpose of having a 25'
setback on this particular project. At the time, like we said, R-2 was the only
thing that was available to do what we wanted to do over there. Like I said, this
one is just un -buildable. The other one there was space to push things out, this
one there is very little space left to push anything out. Really, truly it is not just
pushing out any footage. Once again, if they make a variance on the footage it
is the design that becomes a problem just being able to put a roof up that is
going to be attractive, one that stays within the boundaries.
Green: Ok, is there any discussion?
Nickle: I can see why this is more critical. Part of the problem is having the two car
garages, which I understand we say well they can do without them but it
wouldn't be very consistent looking with all the other properties out there.
When you have effectively a five sided lot it becomes even more difficult, I
know from experience about that. I can see an even greater need for this one
than the last one just to get a reasonably attractive unit on the lot that looks
similar to the others out there. I would be in favor of granting this one even
more than the last one simply because of the effective shape of what you can
build in there.
Alt: Are these the last two lots in the subdivision, is that what I understood or not?
Ginger: There are three, there is one more.
Green: Is that one going to need a variance?
Sloan: I don't think that one has any problems. The cul-de-sac just barely clips one
corner of it I believe is all it is. It is next to this building, I think part of it is
clipping this thing but I think part of it is on the straight line of the street.
Kohler: If we granted your variance request what are you going to do about the side
yard?
Sloan: Try to go back and pull those rooms in. You can't cut it out of the garage so we
are going to have to try to go back and see if we can pull something out of each
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 20
one of them. Once again, we originally didn't think side yards were a problem
with the subdivision as far as being zero lot lines. We thought we had to put
something to stop from putting the roofs together. My whole purpose in saying
your overhang couldn't go within 4' was to keep somebody from buying two
lots and putting a triplex project over two or three lots. We didn't realize the
side yards would be a big issue that they would have to come through and get a
variance on the side yards. We can try to cut that back on this one and pull it in.
The backyard is a lot more critical than the side yards would be.
Sloan: So the zero lot line just applies affectively to the center so you can have a
common wall there.
Warrick: That is correct. Perimeter setbacks still apply.
Nickle: That is different than my concept of zero lot lines.
Warrick: If these were lined up that there were four town homes consistent with common
walls between each then around the perimeter of those four you would still have
8' side setbacks.
Nickle: I just think this is the kind of development that frankly some of the people on
the Planning Commission that I know and in the town that are encouraging
closer together but you have the option because of this situation you don't have
to buy the whole building and live in half of it and rent out the other half. You
can have a town home that is owner occupied. Just to me they were bound by
this 25' setback because it was zoned R-2 so they could get this in there. Again,
I think this is what a lot of people are encouraging the city look towards now is
smaller lots, and certainly these are smaller lots, and they are trying to meet the
covenants yes. I think that is the kind of thing that we could look at and justify
getting some relief especially when I look at what you can do there. That is a
weird shaped situation that they are trying to work on.
Green:
This particular lot also, if you look at the overall site plan, the actual depth of
the lots jog in there for these last few on the north side so they are actually
shorter than the other lots down the street from them starting off. I think this is
kind of one of those things that is marginal for building on to start with a plat
that way.
Nickle: The other thing I would say is obviously the people that this affects the most are
the people to the rear and they are not only not objecting, they are apparently in
favor of granting and I think that is an important point. If they were out there
waving flags and things like that I could certainly see not granting it but I think
that this is something that certainly I can support because of number one the
POA and number two the adjoining property owner has no objections and in
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 21
Green:
Kohler:
fact, favors it. This is a lot worse situation to try to build on than the one we
just looked at.
Is there anyone in the public that would like to address us on this issue? Are
there any other comments?
I feel like as a matter of principal to have neighborhood POAs have precedence
over city zoning ordinances is a dangerous thing. There seems to be very little
wiggle room on the part of the POA to allow any of their own requirements and
they are expecting the city to do it. I guess it is worth asking but I just don't
feel like for me if we start that precedence, again, different cases don't rely on
others with the Board of Adjustment. In this case, just by looking at the floor
plan, if you shifted your building to be parallel with the side setback you could
pick up square footage.
Ginger: How do you put a roof on that?
Kohler: I don't want to tell you how to design it.
Sloan: That is just what it comes down to is being able to put a roof on it. The
footages, once again.
Kohler: This is all discretionary, it is all design based, and it is all market driven. We
don't really make rulings based on the economics of the deal.
Sloan: This is not economics, just to physically be able to build the roof ove
Really, truly that is what it comes down to.
Kohler: There is nothing to keep you from being able to put an elevator in that would
put a master bedroom on the second floor that would make it amenable to older
folks. There is no code against that. It is expensive but there are ways to make
this lot work within city zoning ordinances. That is just my opinion.
Phillips: I would just like to ask one question. I believe that the lot that is contiguous to
this 11B, has been approved by the city for a 20' setback already because of the
configurations or whatever. I don't know what the issues were but if I'm not
mistaken it has already been approved for 20' so that would carry the same
thing around into this lot, would carry the same setback of the 20' to this line.
This is the last lot that is going to have that sort of a problem. I can't answer
your question because I can't speak for the POA without going to them and
getting a 100% approval is what the covenants require. Obviously, we will
work with the gentleman as best we can for all sides but I would like to just ask,
not to ask, but just in my own mind, if the city approved a 20' setback on the lot
just contiguous to this, why can't that 20' be carried over to another lot that is
carrying the same problem? That is just a question.
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 22
Green:
Kunzelmann:
Green:
Whitaker:
Olszewski:
Green:
Cantrell:
Green:
MOTION:
Kohler:
Alright, is there any further discussion?
I wasn't on the board when they granted that variance but I can say that since
I've been here we have heard several variances in neighborhoods in various
places where people have requested building larger homes than the lot would
allow. I see this fitting into that same category. I think the building is simply
too big for a lot that is too small. Further, I think that it is buildable if you go up.
Just as a point for my own information I guess Mr. Whitaker, aren't the POA
covenants part of the overall approval process through the Plat Reviews, Large
Scale Developments, things of that sort, is that a consideration at all?
No, not as a general rule. You may be thinking of situations where applicants
have submitted Bills of Assurance that contain some concessions to the city but
there is nothing in the process that requires the filing of covenants.
I would like to address what the gentleman just asked. Personally I totally
understand what you are saying which is why I'm agreeing with Mr. Kohler.
We let something else come over what the rules are unless there is some unique
thing then it does look like it is not fair, which is why I'm having such a
difficult time here. I can't see breaking the rules when staff couldn't find
anything. They do this professionally. They couldn't find any unique reason so
I am having a difficult time finding a unique reason so that we do do it fairly.
Ok.
My name is Carl Cantrell and I am speaking as chairman of the architectural
committee. I want to make one quote from the covenants that we are operating
under. It says no changes to these covenants in the manner herein set forth shall
be valid unless the same shall be placed on record in the office of recorder
Washington County, Arkansas. For us to change any of these covenants it has
to make this other route. In addition to that, these covenants have been
approved by the State of Arkansas. All covenants have to go to the State of
Arkansas for approval. It would really throw us in a bind to change that
covenant, it would be a real delay.
Ok, is there any other discussion? I will entertain a motion.
I motion that we deny the variance.
Kunzelmann: Second.
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 23
Green:
Roll Call:
Green:
Nickle:
Kohler:
Ginger:
Nickle:
Green:
MOTION:
Kohler:
Nickle:
Green:
There is a motion and a second to deny the variance as presented. Is there any
other discussion? Call the roll Renee.
Upon the completion of roll call the motion to deny VAR 03-11.00 was denied
by a vote of 3-3 with Ms. Alt, Mr. Green, and Mr. Nickle voting no.
We are in another tie situation here. What is the board's pleasure? We can
table it until we get the fourth member, we can keep trying until we get a
motion crafted that is acceptable to everyone. I would suggest off hand that we
may want to consider tabling it until we get the seventh member here. Perhaps
next time we will have full attendance and can possibly reconsider this at that
time.
I think that would probably be the fairest thing to do in this case. To me I see
more of a need on this one than on the last one and so I would not at this point
do what I did last time.
Is there less buildable square footage on these lots than on the last one?
Yes.
See this deal here is a lot bigger here than it was on the other one.
Is there another motion or a motion to table? What is the board's pleasure?
I motion that we address it in the next meeting.
Second.
There has been a motion and a second to table. There is no further discussion
on a motion to table. Will you call the roll please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table VAR 03-11.00 was
approved by a vote of 6-0.
Green:
Thank you very much.
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 24
VAR 03-12.00: Variance (Knight Times, pp252) was submitted by Tom Hayes for property
located at 3014 N. College Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and
contains approximately 0.19 acres. The requirement is for a 65' front setback. The request is
for a 42' setback (a 23' variance) for proposed facade enhancements. The requirement is for a
20' rear setback. The request is for a 0' setback (a 20' variance) for the existing structure.
Green:
The next item is another Variance request, VAR 03-12.00 submitted by Tom
Hayes for property on College Avenue. The request is for a zero setback. This
is a rear setback request variance of 20' for an existing structure. Dawn, can
you give us some background?
Warrick: Sure. There is also a second variance request along with this application and
that is for a 42' front setback, which requires a 23' variance. There is a
requirement in this particular case for a 65' front setback. That is an increase
from the standard 50' and the reason for that is because College Avenue, which
fronts this property is classified as a principal arterial on the City's Master
Street Plan, which would require an additional 15' of right of way, which is not
currently existing. The subject property is located at 3014 N. College. It is on
the east side of College Avenue just north of Rolling Hills Drive. Surrounding
property is all commercial. Retail, restaurant, gas station, banks in this
particular vicinity. The structure was damaged by fire in December, 2002 and
the applicant is proposing to make improvements to the structure which would
include facade treatments. That is the source of this particular variance request.
The request is to accommodate the existing structure primarily the rear setback,
this structure sits on the rear lot line and therefore, improvements to the building
cannot be made without that particular request. Also a part of the proposal
includes an 8' foyer to be added at the entrance and two 5' diameter turrets to be
added at the front corners north and south. There is site plan information as
well as elevations proposed by the applicant included in your packet. Some of
the findings that are pertinent to this particular case, the existing structure on the
property was built prior to the adoption of the City's Master Street Plan, which
was in 1995 and prior to a previous widening of College Avenue by the
Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. The granted variances will
not permit changing the use on the property, therefore, will not grant special
privileges. Granting the requested variances staff finds to be in harmony with
the general purpose and intent of current zoning regulations. The improvement
of the damaged, non -conforming structure is desirable. It will not be imperious
to the neighborhood or detrimental to public welfare. Facade changes to this
particular structure will be an improvement. The applicant is proposing to
continue the theme of his development and to make this more of a medieval
castle appearance to the structure. With regard to the improvements and
making modifications to the facade as well as the required rear setback in order
to make any structural changes to the building staff recommends in favor of the
request.
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 25
Green: We are actually looking at a request for a 23' front setback variance and also a
20' rear setback variance.
Warrick: That is correct.
Green: Is the applicant here Would you like to address us?
Hayes: Yes, I am Tom Hayes. I want to start off with saying I am sorry for coming
here like this. I have been working. I was with some dump trucks in Prairie
Grove, I just built a building out there and anyway, I'm sorry for coming in here
looking like this. The building was a Mr. Burger prior to me purchasing the
property. It did burn Christmas, 2002. You guys have a picture of this? The
turrets that I was proposing, 5' in diameter, if you could envision a circle, a 90
out of it, it would be sitting on my sidewalk. I had to strip off the awning, it
was all gutted out and burned. The fire was on top of the structure, not the
walls so everything above was pretty much fried. The reason I went ahead and
just stripped that off and filled this up is so I could have a temporary roof so this
is capped in. The turrets will be actually 2 ''A' from my corner on the sidewalk
itself. We made a plywood template and laid it out on the corner and stuck it up
to it to see where it would be and it is right on the sidewalk corner that was
there where the awning used to be. The 8' foyer, I came up with another idea
on that instead of entering into the front, if I had an 8' foyer out in width they
could come in from the side. I could put a door on either side of the north and
south side instead of coming in from the west. That way the front could just be
like a fake window with an arched window above it with steel bars, like
wrought iron that makes it look like a gate that goes up and down but not really
you know, then they would just come in on the side. I was going to use Petra
stone, it is kind of like chiseled rock to go over the whole thing just on the sides
and the front. I was just going to leave the back the way it is.
Green: Is there anything specifically about the setback variance request that might be
pertinent to our discussion? The setback variance request itself?
Hayes: I am not sure. I just I can't remember what the guy's name was that I talked to
about this.
Kohler: He has got a unique situation in that the building is old.
Hayes: Before it was burned, it was all the same floor plan and I just changed it.
Kohler: I make a motion that we approve the variance with staff's recommendations just
for time.
Kunzelmann: I second that.
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 26
Green: There is a motion and a second to approve the variance as requested. Is there
any public comment?
Jones: I am Pam Jones with Dixie Development and we own the property to the rear of
it. The structure has already been there like this and he is just doing a facade,
which I think is going to be a lot more pleasing than the former. If that is
correct then we don't have any problems with it.
Green: Is there any further discussion? Shall the motion pass?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-12.00 was
approved by a vote of 6-0-0.
Green: Thank you.
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 27
VAR 03-13.00: Variance (Martin, pp445) was submitted by Holly Martin for property
located at 808 N. Park Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and
contains approximately 0.42 acres. The requirement is for a 25' front setback. The request is
for 22' setback (a 3' variance) to accommodate an existing structure and proposed garage
addition.
Green: The next item on our agenda is VAR 03-13.00.
Warrick: This property is located at 808 Park Avenue. It is in the Wilson Park
neighborhood. The lot is on the east side of Park between Cleveland and
Prospect Streets. There is a single-family home that was built sometime
between the 1930's and 1940's that is existing on the lot. The style of the home
is bungalow in nature. The existing structure contains about 2,600 sq.ft. The
applicant proposes to add a three car garage with a connecting hallway and
enclosed hallway to the existing home. The addition would contain
approximately 912 sq.ft. A new circle driveway would also be a part of the
proposal. The request is for a 3' variance if the required 25' setback. That
request is in order to make the existing structure compliant with the required
setback and to allow the applicant to extend the front building line extending
from the existing house into the new development to the new garage area. The
applicant chooses to continue this line of the house for architectural detailing
purposes but also because site constraints, including topography and mature
trees make it difficult to push the garage back further to meet the setback
requirements. With regard to special conditions, the age of the existing
structure predates current zoning regulations. The location of the structure on
the lot is very close to meeting the front setback requirement however it doesn't
quite comply. The sitting of the building on the lot is such that it is angled and
so the amount of variance necessary for the existing structure is actually greater
than what is needed for the proposed addition. The proposal is to provide a
garage as an accessory for the single-family home, which is permitted by right
and staff is recommending in favor of this request with two conditions. They
are stated on the front of your report. That the proposed addition shall be built
according to the elevations and materials submitted with this application by the
applicant and that variances approved with this action be void if required
permits have not been obtained for the project within one calendar year from
approval. The applicant has signed an agreement with these conditions. There
is an extensive description of the project as well as elevations starting on page
4.8 of your packet. That is all I have.
Green: Would the applicant like to address us?
Martin: In the interest of time unless you have questions, no, I don't need to say
anything further. It is all in there.
Green: Your name for the record?
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 28
Martin: Holly Martin.
Green: Thank you. Are there any questions by the board?
Nickle: It looks like to me on this deal, I don't know how accurate it is but there are
probably several non -conforming just because when they were built in terms of
setback so this certainly wouldn't be out of order with the look of the rest of the
neighborhood over there.
Warrick: I believe most of the structures in this general area were built prior to 1970.
Olszewski: Dawn, did you say that this setback variance is mostly for the house as it stands
now?
Warrick: That is correct. The addition will need a slight variance for some of the
overhangs and the columns that are in the front but it is primarily for the
existing porch overhang for the existing structure, that is correct.
Whitaker: It carries over to the other because they want to do it in line.
Warrick: They are trying to keep the same line for the building front, that is correct.
Green: I notice there is quite a difference in topography of the elevation there too, I
guess you are going to have to do a lot of fill.
Kunzelmann: It looks like there is a retaining wall over on the right to kind of contain it all on
the elevations.
Green: Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address us on this matter? Is there
any discussion?
MOTION:
Nickle: I move that we approve the Variance request with staff comments.
Alt: I second.
Green: There is a motion and a second to approve the Variance request along with
staff's recommendations. Is there any further discussion? Shall the motion
pass?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-14.00 was
approved by a vote of 6-0-0.
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 29
VAR 03-15.00: Variance (Thompson, pp 404) was submitted by Jon Brittenum on behalf of
Brock Thompson of Thompson Fayetteville Properties, LLC for property located at 1140 W.
Hendrix Street. The property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential and contains
approximately 0.53 acres. The requirement is for a 25' front setback. The request is for a 20'
front setback (a 5' variance) for the existing structure to allow an addition which will
incorporate the current structure into a triplex.
Green:
The fifth item on our agenda is VAR 03-15.00 submitted by Jon Brittenum for
properties located on Hendrix Street. This is a request for a 20' front setback,
which is a 5' variance for the existing structure to allow an addition which will
incorporate that structure. Can you give us some background Dawn?
Warrick: Sure. The subject property is located at 1140 W. Hendrix. It is just a lot west
of Garland Avenue. This site and the adjoining property to the east at the corner
were the subject of a rezoning action which was approved by the City Council
in April, 2002. With that rezoning the applicant offered a Bill of Assurance,
which would offer that the resulting project would consist of three triplexes.
Two would be constructed on the adjacent lot and those have been built, and the
third would be built on the subject property incorporating the existing single-
family home. The applicant proposes to make an addition to the structure, the
existing structure, and to add on two additional units in compliance with that
Bill of Assurance and to create one triplex on the lot. With that the request is for
a 5' front setback variance. The existing structure, which was built prior to
current zoning regulations is approximately 20' from the front property line.
Therefore, it does not meet the requirements for a conforming structure in order
for it to be enlarged. I think that is pretty much the jest of it. Staff does
recommend in favor of the request with one condition. That the existing
structure on the site will be incorporated into a triplex per the Bill of Assurance
offered for the rezoning of the property. I just made a statement in there that
connection of this structure to new development on the site will include a
common wall and roof. This may be accomplished with a carport storage room,
room addition or any combination which reasonably incorporates the existing
structure into the resulting development. The applicant has signed indicating
his compliance with that condition.
Green:
Warrick:
I noticed that this plat that we have is quite out of date. There are two new
inline buildings that have been built there, triplexes, just to the east of there.
That is part of the overall development. Those were built by the applicant and
the proposal when this overall property was zoned for the triplexes was that a
third triplex would be built incorporating this subject property, the existing
single-family home on this property.
Green: Are they going to be built all together or is there going to be separation like this
drawing indicates here?
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 30
Warrick:
Green:
Thompson:
Warrick:
Nickle:
Warrick:
Kohler:
Thompson:
Green:
Richards:
Green:
Richards:
I actually have a new site plan. They will be separated by not by as much as
you see on that site plan. I have met with the applicant on site and he is in
agreement with the condition that staff has recommended to incorporate the
structure by using other means of making them more commonly integrated.
Ok, that is all I had. Is the applicant here? Would you like to address us on
this?
My name is Brock Thompson, Jon Brittenum is my contractor that submitted
this information. One of the key points that I want to make is the connection
process was a little difficult one. The basis of that was there are two
significantly large trees that was a common theme as we went through this
process last year on getting the rezoning and moving forward with this project.
In trying to keep those rather large trees we've kind of configured something
unique that Dawn spoke about that allows us to more than likely keep those
large trees. I appreciate you allowing us to bring this up.
This drawing that is coming around is a site plan that is updated that shows the
location of at least one of those large trees and the proposed to make an addition
to the existing single-family home some storage and a carport to connect the
overall duplex, or excuse me, triplex on the site.
Dawn, do I understand correctly this is merely what is there already? We are
not granting a variance that allows them to add further onto this?
The request is to grant a variance for the existing single-family home in order
that it can be incorporated into a triplex. It won't be a triplex plus the single-
family home. It will be three total units.
I just want to commend the applicant for the project you built. I know you took
a lot of grief at previous public hearings and you did exactly what you said you
were going to do and it is a really good looking project.
Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I brought the digital camera, I took
some pictures of the trees if anybody would want to look.
Is there anybody in the audience that would like to address us on this issue?
This doesn't add to the actual buildings of what was first proposed? Is he
covering more land?
Could you state your name?
I'm sorry, I'm Joyce Richards.
Board of Adjustment
May 5, 2003
Page 31
Warrick: I would be glad to show you the two. I don't think that he is covering more
land as far as the location of the additional two units on the site. They will be
located approximately where they were proposed before. They will actually
shift slightly towards the existing structure it looks like. I don't believe that it
covers more land on the site. There is still a large open area behind the new
units to the west.
Richards: So where is the parking?
Warrick: The parking is going to be connected to the parking that is adjacent to the east.
We are actually trying to minimize the amount of pavement on the site in
allowing a common drive between the two lots.
Green: Ok. Is there any other discussion? Is there a motion?
MOTION:
Kunzelmann: I move that we approve the variance as requested with staff recommendations.
Kohler: Second.
Green: We have a motion and a second to approve the variance as requested with staff
recommendations. Is there any further discussion? Shall the motion pass?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion carried by a vote of 6-0-0.
Green: The motion passed. Thank you. Is there any further business that should come
before us at this time?
Warrick: I have nothing further.
Green: Hearing none, I think we are adjourned. Thank you for coming.