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.