Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-07 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, July 7, 2003 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN VAR 03-11.00: Variance (Don Ginger, pp251) Page 2 VAR 03-19.00: Variance (Sloan, pp 474) Page 6 VAR 03-20.00: Variance (Fennel, pp 484) Page 9 VAR 03-21.00: Variance (Revelle, pp 444) Page 12 MEMBERS PRESENT Michael Andrews Sherree Alt Michael Green Joanne Olszewski Bob Kohler Bob Nickle Approved Approved Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT James Kunzelmann STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Renee Thomas David Whitaker Board of Adjustment July 7, 2003 Page 2 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. This item was tabled at the May 5, 2003 meeting. Green: It is time to call the meeting to order, our regular July meeting of the Board of Adjustments. I want to welcome all of you here today. We have several items on the agenda for consideration of this Board. I see that we have a quorum present even with the summer vacations that are going on. The first item on our agenda is not really on any printed agenda but it is customary that the July meeting that this Board select a new chairman for the next year. Since I have served one year I am certainly willing to entertain nominations for a new chairman. It is whatever this board would like to entertain. At this time I would like to open up the nominations for chairman for the next coming year. Andrews: I move that Michael Green is our chairman for next year. Nickle: Second. Green: If that is the wish of this committee I will be glad to serve another one but I want to put you on notice that we do need a turn over on these committees you know. Are there any further nominations? I guess nominations are closed. All in favor of the current chair serving another year say aye, any opposed say no. The ayes have it. The first item on our regular agenda is consideration of the minutes of the June meeting of the Board of Adjustments. I believe all of our members were present at that meeting. Are there any additions or corrections to be made? Hearing none, we will consider these minutes approved. We will now get into our agenda for the Board of Adjustments. The first item on this agenda is old business which is an item that was previously considered by this Board and was tabled until further notice in order to discuss this item which is VAR 03-11.00. We will have to have a motion to put it back on the table. Kohler: So moved. Andrews: Second. Green: There is a motion and a second to remove VAR 03-11.00 from the table. Is there any further discussion? Call the roll. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to take VAR 03-11.00 off the table was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Board of Adjustment July 7, 2003 Page 3 Green: The motion passes. We will now open up the discussion for this particular variance. Before we get started I wanted to clarify one point in the literature it references VAR 03-10.00 and I wanted to make sure that this is the right one that we tabled and not the one that we had rejected earlier. Warrick: You are correct. This is for lots 12A and B so the reference to VAR 03-10.00 should reflect VAR 03-11.00. We have already taken dispositive action on VAR 03-10.00, that was at your May meeting. Green: So it is VAR 03-11.00 right? Warrick: That is correct, lots 12A and B are the lots that we are considering in the North Heights Addition. Green: Ok. Dawn, would you like to give us the background and the new things that have happened on this revised? Warrick: This item was tabled in order to allow for consideration of more of the Board and in order to allow the applicant more time to look at floor plans and determine if adjustments could be made to hopefully eliminate the need for a variance if not to reduce the need for a variance by working with this architect to modify the site plan. I have updated the staff report. The variance request has been reduced from a 5' request to a 2' variance request and staff is recommending in favor of this amended request. Since the May meeting of the Board of Adjustment the applicant has worked with an architect to revise his site design to attempt to develop these lots without the need for a variance. You will see in your packet on pages 1.6 and 1.7, 1.6 was the original site plan layout for these lots and 1.7 is the revised proposal. 1.7 reflects the new variance request with the area of encroachment, the largest area of encroachment, being a 23' setback as opposed to the required 25'. That is a significant reduction in the amount of setback necessary as compared to the original request which was needing a full 5' in order for the structure to fit. The applicant has attempted to meet zoning requirements as well as the minimum standards that are set forth in the covenants for the neighborhood which call for a 1,500 sq.ft. minimum on each side of this town home and the revised plans accomplish the P.O.A. goals. However, they do still necessitate the 2' variance. The revised proposal is still consistent in style, size and design with other structures within the North Heights development and like I said, with this amended proposal staff is recommending in favor of the request. Green: Ok, would the applicant like to address us at this time? Sloan: I am Charlie Sloan, I am here representing Don Ginger. We have worked with the drawings and designs on this property. The only particular change we did is we bumped the centerline of this over a couple of feet to try to move Board of Adjustment July 7, 2003 Page 4 Green: Olszewski: Warrick: Olszewski: Warrick: Kohler: Warrick: Green: May: some of the square footage from one side of the property to the other. We have tried several different variations to try to keep it straight but that is just the only way that we could make it work out that it would fit and it still caused us to have to have a lot line adjustment but I have worked with Dawn on that and how to handle that to make sure that we get it right and get it slotted in the right place. We did a similar thing years ago in Summer Hill when I was building some stuff over there. We have tried several different plans and this is as close as I can get. This is like 1,508 sq.ft. We had 1,501 and we had miscalculated so we're at 1,508 now with this. We still have to deal with the overhang in the back which with some of those room dimensions we'll be a little shorter overhang in the back. We appreciate your consideration in letting us go through with this design. Are there any questions or comments from anyone? I have a question. Dawn, when I was reading through this did you have a finding for a reason to give it? I know you are recommending it but did you have a reason listed? Right, I don't know if it is stated explicitly. Basically what you are looking at is a dog leg lot, one of the lots has a unique configuration to it. The applicant, as you mentioned, they are looking at jogging between the two town homes in order to provide enough square footage to make it work on both of them. I think that because of the stair step configuration that is required on one edge there is some unique characteristics for the lots that we can take into consideration when we are looking at something that is this close to meeting the requirements. Really trying to make accommodations for consistency and compatibility within the neighborhood I thought was also important in this case. For those reasons we were making the recommendation. And that 2' variance includes the overhang? That is correct. Anything over 30" in height has to meet either the setback or a variance as granted by this Board. It appears on the drawing that the 23' is to the wall. The applicant has stated that they will make some accommodations on room sizes and understands that this will be to the overhang. Are there any other questions or comments? Are there any other comments from members of the audience that wish to address the committee? I am Mary May, I live at #16, which is lot number 11 and that is next door to this property. These are very small lots, particularly this one and I would like to see the variance approved. Board of Adjustment July 7, 2003 Page 5 Green: Thank you. I would entertain a motion if someone would like to make a motion on this issue. MOTION: Alt: I will motion, Mr. Chairman, that we approve the variance with staff's recommendations. Andrews: Second. Green: There has been a motion and a second to approve the variance as revised including staff's recommendations. Is there any further comment? Shall the variance request pass? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-11.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Green: The variance passes. Board of Adjustment July 7, 2003 Page 6 VAR 03-19.00: Variance (Sloan, pp 474) was submitted by Christopher Brackett of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Charlie Sloan of Sloan Properties, Inc. for property located at Lot 76 in Legacy Pointe Phase I. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single- family, 4 units per acre. The requirement is for a 20' rear setback. The request is for a 15' rear setback (a 5' variance). Green: The next item on our agenda is new business. It is VAR 03-19.00 which is a request for a 5' variance in rear setback on behalf of Charlie Sloan of Sloan properties in Legacy Point Phase I. Dawn, can you give us the report? Warrick: Sure. The subject property has just basically become a lot within the Legacy Point subdivision, which is in the process of being finaled right now. It was approved last week at the Subdivision Committee level and this was an existing structure on the overall property that existed that was developed prior to the developer coming in and applying for a subdivision approval and then subsequently building the streets and developing the lots within this area. The maps are a little bit cryptic because the subdivision had not been finaled at the time that the maps were created. Therefore, what you see is just a small area that became lot 76 within Legacy Point. In order to make use of the existing structure the developer didn't wish to demolish it because it was a usable single-family home and wanted instead, to incorporate it into the Legacy Point development. The property before it was developed as a subdivision was zoned agricultural and is now in the RSF-4, which is our previous R-1 zoning district. The house used to face Double Springs Road and have a large yard in front of it and now is basically turning and facing to the north, it will be reconfigured to some degree, and the front of the house so to speak, as far as the area of the house that fronts a city street, will now be the north which will face Persimmon. Therefore, it changes the orientation of everything and the setback requirements. In this case with the structure remaining in its current location all of the setbacks can be accommodated under the new zoning district with the exception of the rear where there is a 20' required setback. The structure currently sits 15' from the rear property line, the south property line, which is now the new rear of the lot. Staff is in favor of this requested variance with one condition. That the approved variance only apply to the existing structure on the subject property. Additions, alterations or redevelopment of the structure and/or lot would be required to comply with current setbacks. This is a somewhat unique situation because we are looking at maintaining the existing structure within a new development and the house will not significantly change, I am sure that they will do some improvements to make it fit in a little bit better and to upgrade it some so that it can be sold as a lot within the subdivision that is already developed. I think other than that that is the basic jest of what we are looking at. As I said, staff is in favor of this request. Green: Ok, would the applicant like to address us? Board of Adjustment July 7, 2003 Page 7 Brackett: I am Chris Brackett with Jorgensen & Associates, I am here representing Mr. Sloan. In essence what this is is this house was existing and the property line when it was built was a side property line and due to the line in the streets it has now become a rear setback line. I would like for the house to remain and be useable after the subdivision is approved and final. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Kohler: On page 2.7 Persimmon Street is shown in a different location than what's on 2.6, is that just a scale thing? Warrick: It is somewhat a scale thing but it is also a Master Street Plan issue. The map on 2.7 is the city's geographic information system and our overlay with the Master Street Plan which indicated that Persimmon was to run all the way from the outer road for I-540 all the way west to Double Springs Road in that general location. When the Legacy Point subdivision came through they rerouted Persimmon so it still achieves the Master Street Plan. Kohler: Warrick: Green: Warrick: Sloan: It is further south adjacent to the property? Yes, and it is actually constructed in that location on the north side of this lot. Then this Persimmon Street then is not really shown on page 2.7 right? Not where it is currently built. What is shown is what the city's Master Street Plan called for. It is actually built as it is shown on 2.6 on the north side of the subject property. This is a Final Plat of the subdivision and I will pass it around just so that you can kind of see the layout. The lot that you are looking at is lot 76 that is basically at the bottom left corner of the plat that is coming around and that shows the location of Persimmon Street as it has been built. We are trying to leave the house like it is so the house will have a large side yard that will look like the front of it. Originally we were going to isolate the house but no house could exit out onto Double Springs Road so that forced us to bring into Persimmon so it takes up another lot. Originally we were going to leave those two lots together to make the house up. Green: Ok. Warrick: I do have signed conditions of approval on this request. Green: Are there any further questions of either staff or the applicant? MOTION: Nickle: I move that we approve the request along with staff comments. Board of Adjustment July 7, 2003 Page 8 Andrews: Second. Green: We have a motion and a second to approve the request for a variance along with staffs recommendations. Are there any further comments or is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment Warrick: Renee had to cover the office so I will call the roll. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-19.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Green: The variance passes. Board of Adjustment July 7, 2003 Page 9 VAR 03-20.00: Variance (Fennel, pp 484) was submitted by Don Hunicutt on behalf of Joe Fennel for property located at 310 W. Dickson Street. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and contains approximately 0.174 acres. The request is for setback variances to allow 2nd floor balconies adjacent to both Dickson and Campbell Streets. Green: The next item is VAR 03-20.00 submitted on behalf of Joe Fennel for property on 310 W. Dickson Street. This request is for setback variances to allow balconies. Can you give us some background Dawn? Warrick: Sure. This project is located at 310 W. Dickson, it is zoned C-3, Central Commercial, and the property currently has a structure on it that serves as an office and catering kitchen. The proposal is to redevelop the existing site into a two story restaurant to basically build above and around the existing structure. The development does call for balconies to overhang the sidewalks on both Campbell and Dickson Streets. An extension of the existing wall facade along Campbell Street would also be a part of the new development and that wall face is currently not meeting the 5' setback so the setback requests also incorporate a request to accommodate the existing location of the wall adjacent to Campbell. Basically lined out the front setback along Dickson Street is requested to be varied by 5' which would be a 5' variance, and that is for a balcony on the front over Dickson Street's sidewalk. The front setback that faces Campbell Street is also being requested to be varied 5' for a balcony and that is solely for a balcony and this front setback, the wall, the request is for a 3'6" setback, a 1'6" variance. This is of course on Dickson Street and the surrounding properties are mixed use commercial retail restaurant. The Walton Arts Center is across the street. The location, with regard to special conditions on the site, the location of the existing structure is driving part of this development because the desire is to incorporate that structure into the new development. The setback for the structure itself along Dickson Street is proposed to meet the required 5' setback. However, the balcony would encroach that. Staff is recommending in favor of the variances that are being requested. We do have three recommended conditions. The variance along Dickson Street shall only apply to balconies associated with the new development. 2) The variance along Campbell Street will only apply to an extension of the existing wall along the street front and to associated second story balconies. 3) Approval of associated variances does not constitute project approval or offer any assurances for building permits. Required documentation shall be provided for all necessary permits and approvals prior to any commencement of any construction activity on the site. That is more of a reminder than a requirement because permits will be contingent upon all of those things. Green: Ok, would the applicant like to address us? Board of Adjustment July 7, 2003 Page 10 Fennel: Green: Fennel: Nickle: Warrick: Fennel: Nickle: Warrick: Nickle: Whitaker: Nickle: Warrick: Fennel: Warrick: I have a piece of information for you and I apologize for that not being in your packets. That visual may help with the interpretation of what we're asking for here. Just one question, you are Joe Fennel for the record. The street lights, the sidewalk pedestrian lighting, pole lights that are going in there, none of that will interfere with your balcony? No, from everything that we have looked at and the posts are already out there right now, which is great. We can physically look at it and see. One of the reasons that we are only asking for the 5' variance is we didn't want the structure to impede with the traffic flow. If we go any further you are talking about setting poles out there and now you are looking at an eye sore and you've got people putting poles in the middle of the sidewalk. We think what we're doing verses what the Brew Pub did years ago, we think this approach is a lot friendlier to the neighborhood and that is what we're trying to do is be good neighbors and also get customers out of the street. Are the awnings included? It is kind of an optical illusion this thing. That is a good question. Are your awnings proposed to extend as far as the balconies or less? The architect's plans show them back in closer to the wall. They are not out as far as the balcony so I guess it would be less than what we're asking for. It would still be in the variance area. That is the way it appears. The way that I was basing the staff recommendation was on the site plan that is provided in your packet on 3.8 which indicates that they will not be extending any further. I just wondered should we include the word awnings over the balconies? You say this apply to the balconies and associated awnings just to cover that. Being clear is always better. So he doesn't have to come back again if somebody raises the question. We can add that in with items one and two. We would appreciate that in your consideration. I think it is beneficial to see this. This of course indicates compatibility with the Dickson Street profile. It also shows that the proposed balconies are not pole set in the sidewalk, which, as Mr. Fennel indicated, is less desirable and Board of Adjustment July 7, 2003 Page 11 Green: Kohler: Warrick: from a city standpoint this is absolutely a better proposal because you don't have those structures blocking areas of the sidewalk that causes problems for pedestrians. I appreciate having a visual to understand that. It is a very attractive addition. What is the actual depth of the balconies? I am showing the one on Dickson Street to be 6' and the ones on Campbell to be about 3'/'. Hunnicut: They are 3'6" on the rear balcony because it comes out to the setback. The building does not align with the street right of way and we are coming out 3' 10" with the front balcony to stay behind the property right of way. We actually have zero right here, which would be the full 5' because the building line is within that 5' setback, the existing building line. Green: For the record that is Don Hunnicut. Are there any questions or comments? Hunnicut: They're pretty well taking the whole 5' on Campbell and probably the whole 5' on Dickson too because the building is 6' back from the right of way but the balcony comes out to the right of way. We are lining the front of the building up with the existing corner there. Nickle: It looks like a nice project and it looks like you are paying dearly for your parking. Fennel: That is a part of the price of this project. MOTION: Nickle: I would move that we approve the variance as requested and with the addition of the awning and other staff conditions. Alt: I will second. Green: We have a motion and a second to approve the request for a variance with the addition to also include the awning as well as the balcony in the setback and along with staff's recommendations. Is there any further discussion? Is there anyone from the audience? Shall the request pass? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-20.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Green: The variance passes. Board of Adjustment July 7, 2003 Page 12 VAR 03-21.00: Variance (Revelle, pp 444) was submitted by Albert Skiles, Architect on behalf of Daryl Revelle for property located at 935 Oakland Avenue. The property is zoned RMF -40, Residential Multi -family, 40 units per acre. The requirement is for a 25' front setback. The request is for a 15' front setback (a 10' variance). Green: The next item on our agenda is VAR 03-21.00 submitted by Albert Skiles for property on Oakland Avenue. This is a request for a 10' variance in front setback. Dawn, can you give us more information? Warrick: Yes Sir. The subject property is located in the high density multi -family zoning district. The lot has adequate frontage due to its location on a corner and lot area for the development of a duplex. The lot is very narrow. It is a 50' lot that was created many, many years ago when that was the standard for residential lots within Fayetteville. Because it is on the corner it benefits from the frontage but it is definitely hindered by the fact that it is on a comer and because of the setback requirements. In fact, this particular lot has street right of way on the north and the east where it adjoins Hughes and Oakland Streets and it also has an alley access and alley located to the west. Because of the setbacks, it reduces the available depth of the lot to approximately 26' of buildable area, which is pretty narrow when you are looking at development. The applicant proposes to construct two residential dwelling units which will be connected by shared carport and storage facilities. The request is to reduce the front setback along Hughes Street from 25' to 15', which is a 10' variance. All of the surrounding properties are located within the RMF 40, high density multi -family residential zoning district. They are primarily developed as you can see on the map on page 4.10. Most of the adjoining lots do have some type of development on them. With regard to special conditions, the subject property was platted in a subdivision which predates current zoning regulations. The lots in this part of the city are generally about 50' wide and are much smaller than traditional lots within that zoning district. In most instances in this zoning district where people have developed higher density developments more than a single family or duplex they have combined lots. In this case that was not available to the applicant, they do just own this one lot individually and the surrounding lots are not available to be combined with this for additional development potential. Based on the site plans and elevations that the applicant has provided, I think that they have made every effort to try to fit this development into the character of the area as well as to provide an attractive residential development that basically addresses both street frontages so you are not looking at the end of a building or the back of the building when you are driving along the public streets that adjoin it. Adequate parking has been provided, which is always an issue when we are talking about multi -family residential developments and staff is in favor of this request. I would draw your attention to pages 4.6 through 4.9, those are drawings, site plans and elevations submitted by the applicant that reflect the proposed development. Staff's recommendation is with the following conditions: 1) The residential driveway width shall be a maximum of 24' Board of Adjustment July 7, 2003 Page 13 wide dimensioned at the right of way line. What that is going to mean is that the shared drive between the units will need to be reduced in size where it intersects Hughes Street. It can flair out and be wider after it intersects the street but the actual curb cut needs to be just 24' wide. 2) Development of the proposed duplex shall be consistent with the site plans with necessary modifications as mentioned above. Written descriptions and elevations that were provided by the applicant for this variance request. As I mentioned, there are plans included in your packet. With those conditions staff is in favor of this request. Andrews: Dawn, does that mean that the island is going to disappear? Warrick: I don't know that the whole island would have to disappear. I think that if it was cut in on each side you might shorten the island and be able to get that curb cut and then open it back out for the vehicle width that is necessary. I will be glad to work with the applicant to hopefully achieve that. I think the island is a nice effect because it does provide some distinction between the two sides of the development. We just need a narrower curb cut to make it comply. Kohler: Dawn, I couldn't find anything in the development code about off street parking needing to be fully within the property line and it appears that there are a couple of spaces of their parking that stick over. It may be just the dimension of the pad but is that a concern of staff? Warrick: They do need to lengthen those parking stalls. The parking pads should be fully within the property. Kohler: Ok. Warrick: I think that there is probably plenty of room. I am looking at the Oakland Street side. It looks like there is enough room to take care of that there. It might be a little bit more constraining on the Hughes side Thank you for mentioning that. That should be added as a condition that those need to be deeper to get the parking pads completely on the subject property. Kohler: I'm looking at the site plan on page 4.6, the one on the right maybe has to be a turn in or something if there is not enough depth there. Warrick: This applicant is actually providing more than adequate parking spaces. Typically what you see in a duplex is two spaces per dwelling per side so they are exceeding that. You could also provide for some stacking space in the driveways that are located between the structures. Kohler: If you do provide them they do need to be fully on your property. Board of Adjustment July 7, 2003 Page 14 Warrick: Right. It is not specifically noted in the code but it is addressed as off street parking or on site parking and you have to get onto the property line. It is implied. Green: Just for a little more clarification, that 24' of width for the driveway, that is measured at the existing street and not at the property line, is that correct? Warrick: It is measured at the right of way line, which is the property line for the project. At that point it needs to be 24' in width and then we expect it to flair out or have some type of curve radius in order to intersect with the street. Green: That is going to take quite a bit of that island off then. Warrick: Yes, I think it will. Green: Are there any other questions or comments? Would the applicant like to address us? Skiles: I am Albert Skiles, I am the architect for the project. I would just like to reinforce the criteria here that we are looking at for a difficult lot. As Dawn addressed, the main issue is that it is a very narrow lot that with the setback requirements we would have to build a building 17' wide. I am working with these clients that are trying to get a creative solution to this and also to address the issue of having this high density neighborhood with a bunch of high density apai intents around this lot and some kind of creative approach to make a really nice place where folks can walk to school and have a duplex. The main thing is to try to get the variance to give us at least 27' wide instead of 17'. As far as the cars being within the setbacks, we're just going to allow 5' cars forever. I'm just kidding. We can address that. That is not a big deal. We are also trying to make this, as you can see, this is going to be really different than most duplexes. It is not welded together. This is joined by this deck and also what is different about this is that the clients have requested their public spaces to be on the second floor instead of the first floor. That is why you see this deck covering this carport. There is a lot going on here that is not apparent necessarily unless we explain it. They wanted the bedrooms down below so that you don't sit in your living room and look out at the parking lot. They wanted to be up top with the notion that you have to come in a stairwell and walk up stairs to the kitchen and living room. Then up there you can look out and you can have privacy. That is the reason for this separated carport business. We have got six cars to address two different units. Basically we are just asking for this ability to build within that width. The other issue is just to point out that I think that it is going to be a nice addition to the neighborhood and not look like a real boring building. As far as the island goes, we are trying to do a lot of landscaping to put trees in this as part of the program. The island is going to be, like Dawn said, we flair it out immediately. We have to do 24' wide at Hughes, we would just flair that Board of Adjustment July 7, 2003 Page 15 out and make a narrower island. The island is just also another idea to make these buildings that legally and economically are actually duplexes because they are adjoined but they are not adjoined in a conventional manner Landscaping helps make them appear to be separate units. That is what we are trying to do to make it pass all the codes but still be something creative and interesting. We figure, if you propose for teachers or students at the University, everybody has got a guest that shows up so it makes sense to have more than just one or two cars so this idea of three different accesses relieves the pressure. Usually you just have four or five cars in one big shot right in front of a duplex whereas this separates them to make them more attractive. Green: Are there any further questions? Kohler: I think the design is intriguing. It is real attractive. Andrews: This is the most innovative duplex design I think I've ever seen. I commend you for your efforts. Skiles: I owe a lot of it to my clients, they brought the idea. He said wouldn't it be better to sit up top on a deck and then use the deck also as a shading for the carport so it is a combination of a lot of things. Andrews: And also in an area in town that can use a nice design like this. I commend you for where you are going to put it. That is a great place to do this. Kohler: Regarding my comments on the parking, I feel compelled to make comments on anything that is presented even though that is not a specific part of your request because that is all we have to go by and so if we approve the request as per the site plan that is provided we just need to make those observations on something that is against the code basically. Skiles: You bet. As Dawn said, I couldn't find where it said off street parking says where the back of your car is going to be verses the curb. I was just assuming if it is far enough in to be safe that would be ok. The property line is like 11' in from the curb normally. They don't call it out and say where does the back of your car have to be. I just took it to be common sense that we don't want the back end of the car to be right at the curb. If we try to do what we are doing we can get that car in at least 5' or 6' off the curb, which is a lot bigger than most of the places in that neighborhood. If you want to tell us that we have to put it in a complete 10' then we will have to do that. Kohler: Is that up to us to do that? Warrick: I think that it needs to be fully on the site the way that the parking lot ordinance is stated. It is on site parking and it is not half on and half off. Board of Adjustment July 7, 2003 Page 16 Kohler: Warrick: Skiles: Kohler: Green: Warrick: Green: Warrick: Skiles: Green: MOTION: Kohler: Olszewski: Green: Part of it is a safety issue. Here you are backing out into traffic whereas if you have that buffer of the approach the right of way approach, then it is a little safer. That might be what is behind that. Actually that right of way line is typically where the sidewalk is located and we can't have vehicles overhanging the sidewalk. We will work with the applicant. That is no problem. We can make it happen. I understand, you can't make one thing for one part of the city and another for another. If you are going to say it has to be off the property line it has to be off the property line. In this case it is a clear vision around the corner, it is not high traffic. On new construction we have the opportunity to make it right. The sidewalk I guess is going to be assumed at the property line? We will review that at the time of building permit but that is the standard location is that the sidewalk be located on the public side of that right of way line which is the property line on each street front. So that will probably take some of your greenspace away. For this new development a sidewalk will be required on both street frontages. I would rather submit a lot of greenspace and have the city take it away than have me add it. Are there any further questions? Are there any motions or comments? I move that we accept the request as per the conditions by staff and the additional condition that any off street parking be fully within the property boundaries. I will second it. We have a motion and a second to approve the variance with the additional stipulation that the off street parking pads be contained within the property line and also in accordance with staff's recommendations. Are there any other questions or any comments from the audience? Shall the motion pass? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-21.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Board of Adjustment July 7, 2003 Page 17 Green: The variance passes. That concludes all the items on the agenda for the Board of Adjustment, at this time we will adjourn the Board of Adjustment.