Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-05 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, January 5, 2004 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. VAR 04-01.00: Variance (Lucas Briggs, pp 485) Page 2 VAR 04-02.00: Variance (James Erwin, pp 363) Page 6 MEMBERS PRESENT James Kunzelmann Joanne Olszewski Michael Green Sheree Alt Bob Kohler Bob Nickle STAFF PRESENT Dawn Warrick Renee Thomas David Whitaker Suzanne Morgan ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Michael Andrews STAFF ABSENT Board of Adjustment January 5, 2004 Page 2 VAR 04-01.00: Variance (Lucas Briggs, pp 485) was submitted by Blew Land Surveying on behalf of Lucas Briggs for property located at 195 N. Summit. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. The request is to allow an existing structure to remain inside the rear setback. Green: Welcome to the January 5, 2004 meeting of the Board of Adjustment. The first item of business this afternoon is approval of the minutes from the December 8, 2003 meeting. Are there any corrections, modifications or adjustments that need to be made to those minutes? Seeing none, the minutes stand approved. The next item of business is VAR 04-01.00, a Variance for Lucas Briggs submitted by Blew Land Surveying for property located at 195 N. Summit. Dawn? Warrick: Yes Sir. The subject property is located at 200 N. Fletcher Avenue and 195 N. Summit Avenue. There are currently two single family homes with accessory structures on the property, each of which fronts onto the opposite street. The applicant has secured Planning Commission approval for a lot split in order to purchase the lot, contingent upon Board of Adjustment approval of the creation of a new lot with an existing structure located within the rear building setbacks. Each of the proposed lots has adequate frontage, bulk and area requirements in the RSF-4 zoning district. Surrounding properties contain primarily single family homes with similar accessory structures. An existing root cellar which currently meets setback requirements will, with the lot split, be located within the 20' rear Building Setback of Tract B. The applicant proposes to maintain the cellar structure in situ, with the granting of a setback variance. The request is for a variance to accommodate the existing cellar structure which was constructed in the late 1800's, prior to current zoning requirements. The applicant could demolish the structure to meet all requirements without requesting a variance, however wishes to retain the architectural character of the existing historic structure. With regard to special conditions, staff finds that this is a structure which pre -dates current zoning regulations the presence of two principle single family structures on the same lot of record are special conditions which are specific to the subject property and which effect the sale and division of the tract. Under deprivation of rights, staff finds that literal interpretation of zoning regulations would not permit the existing historic structure to remain with the split of the lot. Special conditions and circumstances do not result from the action of the applicant, the requested rear setback variance is the result of the applicant's desire to split the subject lot and not demolish and remove the existing structure. The lot could remain in compliance with current zoning ordinances with regard to rear setbacks with lot split approval, however the applicant would have remove said structure. Granting the requested variances will not confer special privileges. The use of this property for a single family dwelling , with accessory structures, is permitted by right in the RSF-4 zoning district. NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, some portions of this meeting were inaudible. Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary Board of Adjustment January 5, 2004 Page 3 The proposed side setback variance is the minimum variance necessary to accommodate the existing structure which pre -dates current zoning regulations. The existing home and accessory structure is in harmony with the surrounding properties and is consistent with the purpose and intent of current zoning regulations. The variances will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Staff has recommended conditions for this request including the following: Variances shall apply only to the existing structure indicated with the site plan submitted for this request. Future additions or alterations shall comply with setback requirements for the zoning district in which the property is located. (This does not preclude future variance requests if appropriate findings can be made by the Board of Adjustment) 2) All conditions of the Planning Commission approval of LSP 04-05.00 shall remain applicable. Green: Thank you Dawn, is the applicant present? Briggs: I am Lucas Briggs. Green: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment on this proposed Variance? Seeing none, are there any questions from the Board? Kohler: It looks like this is right on the rear property line, does that leave adequate room for opening and closing the door without intruding on the other property? Briggs: There is an 8' line between the door and the property line, Blew Land Surveying would be more applicable to look at that. If you look at the plat it is not on the actual shed line. There is an overhang that would touch the line but not the actual door itself, I think he accommodated for that. Kohler: I am talking about the rear property line. Warrick: Which is the west. It looks like there are a few feet. Pate: It is about 3' or 4' between what is shown here and the shed. Green: That is something that just came up. I thought if you have a building directly on the property line and your neighbor decided he wasn't going to let you have access to that how were you going to paint it or repair it or anything if it was zero? Warrick: That could be problematic. NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, some portions of this meeting were inaudible. Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary Board of Adjustment January 5, 2004 Page 4 Whitaker: From this body's point of view it is not necessary to consider. Certainly you can consider it as one of the factors. Private easements between adjoining property owners are just that, between adjoining property owners. Always an argument could be made that if something like that exists that the property owner with the structure could argue in a private action that they have an easement by necessity to access the building for repairs. That would be completely outside the scope and the duties of this body. Warrick: One unique situation in this particular case is that this property owner does own the entire tract currently and can accommodate situations like that. Drawing this line makes it possible for one of the two to be sold. However, the property is currently owned commonly. Green: Mr. Briggs, do you have anything else to add? Briggs: There are some pictures that are being passed around. There is a very similar structure on Spring Street. It is a chiropractic clinic that accommodates the same type of architectural style. Legend has it that it is an old root cellar for an apocrypha who lived in the Fletcher home. That one has been fully restored on Spring which is our intent with the one on Summitt to maintain the architectural integrity of it and also keep it up to date and keep it looking nice and accommodating to the area. Warrick: The first set is the subject property. Briggs: The darker brick one, the one you can tell has been updated is the one on Spring and then the one that is two story that is lighter stone at the bottom and then a white siding on it is the one on the subject property we are speaking of now. Green: Does anyone have any questions or comments? Is there anyone from the audience who wishes to speak for or against this variance request? Olszewski: I really like the idea of preserving the historic building and I appreciate you taking the time to do that. Kohler: Plus it applies a little bit to the discussion we've had previously about possibly looking again at accessory structure ordinances and setbacks required for those. MOTION: Nickle: I will make a motion that we approve VAR 04-01.00 subject to staffs conditions of approval listed. NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, some portions of this meeting were inaudible. Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary Board of Adjustment January 5, 2004 Page 5 Olszewski: Second. Green: We have a motion and a second to approve the Variance as requested, is there any other discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 04-01.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, some portions of this meeting were inaudible. Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary Board of Adjustment January 5, 2004 Page 6 VAR 04-02.00: Variance (James Erwin, pp 363) was submitted by Project Design Consultants on behalf of James Erwin for property located at Lot 6, Pine Valley. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre. The request is to allow a lesser street frontage on Lots 6A and 6B. Green: The next item on the agenda is VAR 04-02.00 submitted by Project Design Consultants on behalf of James Erwin for property located at Lot 6 Pine Valley. The request is to allow a lesser street frontage of lots 6A and 6B. Dawn? Warrick: Yes Sir. The subject property is located at Lot 6 of Pine Valley Phase V, accessed from Wildwood Road, west of Shiloh Drive. The subject tract was platted as a 1.90 acre lot with Pine Valley Subdivision, Phase V, in April of 2002. On December 30, 2003, the Planning Commission approved a replat of Lot 6, dividing the 1.90 acre tract into two tracts of 0.98 acres and 0.92 acres, 6A and 6B. The final replat approval is contingent upon Board of Adjustment approval of the requested variances for lot width minimums. The site is zoned RMF -24, and is surrounded by two-family development, Pine Valley Subdivision. The site contains a total lot area of 1.9 acres and meets all other bulk and area requirements for a lot in the RMF -24 zoning district. Currently, only a single family home or one duplex could be built on the large lot. The applicant is requesting a 43.0' variance for a 17.0' frontage for Lot 6A to construct a two family residential dwelling unit, rather than the 60 feet required by zoning regulations in the RMF -24 zoning district. The applicant is also requesting a 13.03' variance for a 46.97' frontage for Lot 6B to construct a two family residential dwelling. The purpose is to construct two (2) two- family dwelling units on separate lots, utilizing a shared access easement and driveway, also preserving a significant grouping of trees in the front of the lot. For the finding of Special Conditions, staff finds that the subject property is owned as an individual lot by Mr. Jim Erwin without adjacent property under common ownership, therefore the lot could not be brought into compliance with development across lot lines. On the finding of Deprivation of Rights, staff finds that Literal interpretation of zoning regulations would only allow one (1) single family or two-family dwelling to be constructed on the existing lot. The applicant is requesting a variance for minimum lot width for the development of two separate two-family dwelling units on individual lots. The existing lot is much larger than other properties in this area, and can not be developed with a more similar density without a variance approval. The lot size is not the result of actions of the applicant. The lot was platted with the existing 63.97 feet of frontage. The applicant has Planning Commission approval of a replat of Lot 6 splitting the lot further, however it is conditioned upon Board of Adjustment approval. Ensuring that no special privileges that wouldn't be afforded to other property owners are being afforded to this applicant, staff finds that granting the requested lot width variance will not confer special NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, some portions of this meeting were inaudible. Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary Board of Adjustment January 5, 2004 Page 7 privileges. The use of the property for two-family residential development as indicated by the applicant is permitted within the RMF -24 zoning district. All bulk and area regulations with the exception of lot width are to be accommodated with the proposed project. The requested lot width variance is the minimum variance necessary to accommodate two- family residential use. With regard to harmony with the general purpose of the zoning ordinance, staff finds that granting the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of zoning regulations and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The Pine Valley Neighborhood Association has expressed publicly the desire for two-family residential development in this location. Staff recommends approval of this requested 43 -foot and 13.03 -foot lot width variances subject to the following conditions: First, that the proposed development shall comply with all development regulations for a two-family dwelling unit in the RMF -24 zoning district. Second, no more than 1 two family dwelling unit per lot shall be constructed on this site. Third, a building permit shall be obtained for each structure prior to commencement of any work. Fourth, any work within the floodplain shall require a separate Floodplain Development permit. Also, all conditions from the Planning Commission approved FPL 04-03.00 shall remain applicable. Green: Thank you Dawn. Is the applicant present? Scott: I am Art Scott with Project Design Consultants. I just want to reiterate that it was an unusually platted lot from the beginning. Lot one has a lot of frontage actually, it curves around there like a little triangle and that is what kept it from being wide enough. Both of these lots will have access easements and utility easements and the driveway is planned to be 22' for the record. Green: Your name for the record? Scott: Art Scott. Green: It looks like you have quite a challenge there. Scott: We stayed out of the floodplain and there are several trees that we are working around and saving but it looks like it is going to work fine. Green: It is still going to be a fairly steep driveway. Scott: It is about 10%. Green: Are there any questions or comments from the board? NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, some portions of this meeting were inaudible. Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary Board of Adjustment January 5, 2004 Page 8 Kohler: It is 17.54' of frontage that they have? Warrick: Between the two pin markers. Kohler: Right, there is one of them but then here to here is the other one. Warrick: There is not a marker indicated that I can see that indicates where the right of way line hits the property line on that eastern side. Where the right of way line intersects the property line on the south end, the east side, there is not a marker, there are just those two intersecting lines. There are pin markers for the other corners. Kohler: According to this survey 17.54 is the frontage on 6A, is that correct? Warrick: Yes. That modifies the request slightly, we may have been working off a previously generated plat when we put the staff report together. Kohler: The 46.97 was a scaled? Since there is no pin there I don't know. Warrick: I think that it might be more appropriate to make the statement "as reflected on the approved Lot Split plat." Just so that when we are looking at these decimal numbers we are not slightly off in making sure that those match what we are actually approving. Kohler: You could word it "that number or as the property line hits the right of way line, the point of intersection of the right of way line and the property line." Green: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this Variance request? Are there any questions from the board? I will entertain a motion. MOTION: Kohler: I move that we approve the Variance request as stated subject to the conditions by staff as stated. Do we need to change a couple of numbers? Warrick: I think that because this plat that you are looking at is the document that was approved by the Planning Commission to reconfigure these lots and create 6A and 6B that it would be appropriate to word the recommended Variance to state as approved on FPL 04-03.00. That way it is referenced and we can tie these two actions together. Kohler: As an additional condition in the motion we should specifically include this document of the plat. NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, some portions of this meeting were inaudible. Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary Board of Adjustment January 5, 2004 Page 9 Nickle: Second. Green: We have a motion and a second to approve the Variance request as requested along with the five conditions from staff. Is there any further discussion? Shall the Variance pass? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 04-02.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Green: That concludes all of the scheduled items on our agenda for the Board of Adjustment, is there any old business or new business that should come before the Board of Adjustment at this time? Hearing none, we will adjourn the Board of Adjustment meeting. NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, some portions of this meeting were inaudible. Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary