Loading...
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.