Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-02 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, February 2, 2004 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. VAR 04-03.00: Fire Station #7 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT James Kunzelmann Michael Andrews Joanne Olszewski Michael Green Bob Kohler Bob Nickle STAFF PRESENT Dawn Warrick Renee Thomas David Whitaker ACTION TAKEN Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Sheree Alt STAFF ABSENT Board of Adjustment February 2, 2004 Page 2 VAR 04-03.00: Variance (Fire Station #7, pp 439) was submitted by Wittenberg, Delony, and Davidson, Inc. on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located at 635 N. Rupple Road. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural. The requirement is for a 20' setback on the north building setback line. The request is to allow a 7' setback (a 13' variance.) Green: According to my watch and at least one clock in here it is time for our meeting. I want to welcome all of you to our February meeting of the Board of Adjustment. The first item is the roll call. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were six members present with Ms. Alt being absent. Green: We do have a quorum. The next item on our agenda is consideration of the minutes from the January 5, 2004 meeting. Has everyone had a chance to review those? Are there any corrections or additions to be made? Hearing no objection, we will consider those minutes approved. The next item on the agenda is a Variance request for Fire Station #7. Since my firm is involved in the engineering on this project I feel that I must recuse myself of any of the discussion or voting and also to referee the actual discussion so at this time I would like to hand off the chair to Michael Andrews. Andrews: We have VAR 04-03.00 submitted by Wittenberg, Delony, and Davidson on the behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located at 635 N. Rupple Road. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural. The requirement is for a 20' setback on the north building setback line. The request is to allow a 7' setback, which is a 13' variance. Staff has recommended approval of the requested setback with a couple of conditions. That all conditions of the Planning Commission's approval remain applicable and that the setback variance be granted only for the portion of the structure which is affected by the existing 20' setback. Would staff like to comment on their recommendation? Warrick: Yes Sir. This property is a two acre tract of land that was purchased by the City of Fayetteville for the purpose of installing Fire Station #7. It is located on Rupple Road east of the Meadowlands subdivision, south of Wedington and west of the Boys and Girls Club. Property to the north is currently vacant and is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. The property to the south is zoned RT -12, Residential Two and Three Family. That is also the same zoning that is currently present for the Meadowlands subdivision to the west. The property to the east is also vacant currently but it is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural. This fire station project has been carefully designed. The two acre site was chosen and part of the desirable features on this site have caused the need for this variance to come before you. This is a very treed piece of property and it is one of the Board of Adjustment February 2, 2004 Page 3 only pieces of property in this particular area that has existing canopy of a high priority. The fire station #7 is proposed to contain 8,769 sq.ft. total area and it has been designed to fit the site. It is a two story structure. We have some plan information in your packet and I've also got color drawings of the same that I will pass around because it is easier to understand in color. Circulation on the site, adequate parking and access to get the fire apparatus in and out of the facility were considered when laying out this project. One of the resulting features or situations that came out of the design of the site was the need for a variance on the north side. This property being zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural, has pretty large setback requirements, 35' on the front and back and 20' on the north and south sides. Had this been in a different zoning district where this project could've been approved under a Conditional Use approval the setbacks could've been lessened. When we look at specific findings that are necessary in order to make a recommendation for a variance we were specifically considering special conditions or circumstances on this particular site. As I mentioned, there is significant high priority canopy cover on this particular site so a lot of consideration and priority was given to that and the design decisions that drove the citing of this structure on the property were very much geared towards addressing that and removing as few trees as possible leaving that desirable canopy. Other findings with regard to specifically harmony and general purpose and whether or not this is the minimum variance necessary, the Large Scale Development plans which have been approved by the Planning Commission contingent upon you consideration of this variance indicate a 10' setback on the north. However, we did accommodate and request a 13' variance to allow for a 7' setback and the reason for that difference is to allow for overhangs that were not significantly accommodated through the plan. We wanted to make sure that we didn't miss the boat and underestimate the necessary overhangs because they are required to meet the setbacks as they are over 30" in height. The site plan on page 1.9 is probably the most simple site plan to look at to understand the citing of the structure wit regard to canopy coverage and the requested variance on the north property line. Basically, with those findings staff is recommending in favor of this variance with two conditions. All conditions of the Large Scale Development as approved by the Planning Commission stands and that the setbacks only apply to that small corner of the structure that encroaches the 20' required setback on the north. Andrews: Would the applicant like to address this? Bosch: I'm Chris Bosch, the Fire Chief. First of all I want to say thank you for the opportunity to be here today and talk with you about the site. As we looked at the station and looked at the design of the building we worked diligently with the folks in Planning with our architect and with other city organizations to try to design a building that would be aesthetically Board of Adjustment February 2, 2004 Page 4 pleasing and also maintain the maximum amount of tree canopy. As we sat the building on the site in the design process moved it around what we found is that we would need a variance in order to meet these setback requirements. We wouldn't be able to meet them completely and maintain these two trees. The two trees that I'm speaking of are these two trees here. One is a Persimmon and one is a tupelo. These are some of the largest trees on the lot and these are also quite unusual for this area. We thought those would be ideal to maintain so we had to move the building around a little bit and unfortunately it got into the setback area. We would appreciate it if you would consider this favorably for us. This is the last hurdle for us before we can begin the bidding process and move forward with this project which is direly needed on the west side of the city. Andrews: Is there anybody else who wants to address us? Nickle: It's just this area back here and this doesn't show the overhang is that correct? Warrick: That is correct. Nickle: I just wanted to be sure I was understanding that. Kohler: By looking at the elevations, I just want to make sure you are applying for enough because that overhang looks like it is more than 3'. 1 don't have a scale with me but if you scale the width of the door, the overhead door it looks like it might be 5' or 6'. Warrick: I will defer to the architect on that. Nickle: They are asking for a 13' variance so from this line you've got 13'. Kohler: I thought it was 7'. Warrick: The setback from the property line is 7', a 13' variance. Kohler: The current setback is 10' which allows 3' for overhang. Warrick: The current setback requirement is 20'. They have labeled their plans with a 10' line. The requirement by ordinance is a 20' setback. What is shown on your plan is a 10' line and the setback requirement is 20'. Nickle: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that even with that overhang you are not going to come closer than 7' from the property line. Bosch: That is correct. Board of Adjustment February 2, 2004 Page 5 Andrews: Is there anything else, any comments or questions? MOTION: Nickle: I move to approve the Variance as requested with staff requirements. Kunzelmann: Second. Andrews: We have a motion and a second, is there any further discussion? The only thing I'd like to say is I live about Y4 mile from this location so hurry up and get it built! Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 04-03.00 was approved by a vote of 5-1-0 with Mr. Green abstaining. Green: That is the only new business slated for our meeting today. Is there any further new business? Announcements Green: Hearing no new business we stand adjourned.