HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-01 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, March 1, 2004 at
3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
VAR 04-04.00: Variance (Jacoway, pp 523)
Page 2
VAR 04-6.00: Variance (Magness, pp 445)
Page 6
James Kunzelmann
Sheree Alt
Joanne Olszewski
Michael Green
Bob Kohler
Bob Nickle
STAFF PRESENT
Dawn Warrick
Renee Thomas
Jeremy Pate
Suzanne Morgan
David Whitaker
ACTION TAKEN
Approved
Approved
MEMBERS ABSENT
Michael Andrews
STAFF ABSENT
Board of Adjustment
March 1, 2004
Page 2
Green: We will call to order the March meeting of the Fayetteville Board of
Adjustment. I guess the first item of business is the roll call.
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were seven board members present
with Mr. Andrews being absent.
Green: The next item of business is approval of the minutes from the February 2,
2004 meeting. Are there any corrections, modifications or deletions that
need to be made to those minutes? Hearing none, we will consider those
approved.
VAR 04-04.00: Variance (Jacoway, pp 523) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of
Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Jill Jacoway for property located between Block
Avenue and East Street at Archibald Yell Blvd. The property is zoned R -O, Residential
Office and contains approximately 0.26 acres. The requirement is a 30' setback on
Archibald Yell Blvd. The request is for a 15' setback (a 15' variance.)
Morgan: This request was submitted by Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of Jill
Jacoway. Staff reviewed the subject property for a Lot Split and at that
time it was noticed that with the required setbacks and all of the right of
ways and side setbacks there would be a minimal building area on
proposed tract three. The applicant chose to pursue the Lot Split which
was approved on February 12, 2004 by the Subdivision Committee with
the condition that the Lot Split could not be filed prior to a variance for the
front setback along Archibald Yell. This applicant proposes to construct
single family dwellings on the .14 acre and .16 acre tracts which would be
created if this Lot Split were approved. The request is for a 15' front
setback along Archibald Yell within the Residential Office district, this is
a variance of 15. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed
variance. Staff finds that the configuration of the existing lot does present
circumstances unique to this property. The existing tract has access to
Block and extends east and north to a portion of East Avenue which has
been dedicated but not constructed. Staff does not feel that the literal
interpretation of the zoning regulations would not permit adequate
building area on the proposed lot with the required setbacks. In addition,
staff feels that granting the requested variance will not defer special
privileges on this applicant due to the proposed lot will meet the width and
area requirements for a single family use. Staff also finds that reducing
the setback along Archibald Yell will allow adequate area to construct a
home comparable in size with surrounding properties. Surrounding
properties consist of single family residents and commercial properties.
For these reasons, staff is recommending approval for the requested
variance with three conditions. Staff has received signed conditions.
Board of Adjustment
March 1, 2004
Page 3
Green: Thank you. The main question I have I guess is the only two lots that
we're discussing at this point are tract two and tract three right on Block
Avenue?
Morgan: That is correct.
Warrick: Three and four.
Green: Tract two is out of that then.
Warrick: Two has been approved and doesn't require a variance.
Green: I was confused of where the lot split was going to be. It looked like there
was a split between tracts two and three also.
Warrick: That was actually an adjustment. The split is occurring between proposed
tracts three and four. Right now it is a very strangely shaped lot that has
frontage on Archibald Yell, a very large frontage there, and then frontage
on Block Street. The proposal is to draw that line in between the two
strangely shaped parcels to create what's shown as three and four.
Kohler: Does this request have anything to do with the setback for tract four also
or is it just tract three?
Warrick: All along Archibald Yell.
Olszewski: Was there a sign put up?
Morgan: Yes.
Warrick: There were lots of signs up for a long time on this property for various
actions. We can check but there was notification placed on the site.
Green: Would the applicant like to add anything else?
Jorgensen: Sure. My name is Dave Jorgensen and I'm here on behalf of the owner,
Jill Jacoway on this property. If you like the word infill this should fit the
bill here. This is correct, it is for single family residents on tracts three
and four. The request is only on Archibald Yell. If you will notice on the
drawing there is a real heavy dark dashed line that represents the 15'
setback that we're requesting the variance on. The lighter dashed line is
the 30' setback. You can get a visual representation of what that setback
reduction is. Even with that 15' setback it still gives us quite a distance
from the back of curb or from the centerline of Archibald Yell for
instance, is 55' plus another 15' from the setback over to the centerline of
Archibald Yell so we will have quite a bit of distance right there. As it
Board of Adjustment
March 1, 2004
Page 4
was pointed out, this variance is for Archibald Yell only, we still have our
30' setback on Block Avenue and also on East.
Olszewski: Am I assuming correctly that to get to tract four they're coming through
East Street?
Jorgensen: Correct, yes, access is off East Street. To get to tract three it is off Block
Avenue.
Nickle: How does that access on East Street? East Street kind of dead -ends up
there.
Jorgensen: Right. They are going to provide an access through tract one down to tract
four.
Nickle: Ok, so it is going to be up here directly off East Street?
Jorgensen: Right.
Nickle: I guess that wouldn't make it a tandem lot situation, you've got frontage
on Archibald Yell but you can't access it off Archibald Yell.
Warrick: That's actually one of staff's recommended conditions, that they will
access directly off of Archibald Yell. It is not a tandem lot because it
meets the minimum lot requirements for the zoning district in that it has
frontage on a public street. It is just access, there is no means.
Nickle: Ok, your frontage doesn't allow access so you go around the back.
Kohler: Archibald Yell has been in the foresight of a lot of people in the last
couple of months. Any changes to that, there has been no talk about
certainly widening it. If anything, it would sort of be more about
landscaping and medians and so getting buildings closer to Archibald Yell
potentially with this setback wouldn't have a negative impact since it is
not going to be widened and since there is the thought of potentially less
volume along there.
Warrick: If there are modifications made to Archibald Yell we feel like having 55'
from centerline of the existing roadway to meet our current Master Street
Plan standards would allow us sufficient room to make modifications.
You're right, in the considerations for the downtown master plan, a lot of
discussions that have summoned around that, they have talked about
modifying Archibald Yell by putting in a median section or some other
type of traffic calming and reducing the confusion, speed trap design that
is currently in there. You are still looking at a situation that from the back
of the existing curb your structures would be a minimum of about 45' off
Board of Adjustment
March 1, 2004
Page 5
of the road itself and if there were modifications made you'd still have a
15' setback if it were widened out to the maximum of what our street
standards would allow currently, which is not expected.
Green: Are there any other questions of staff or the applicant?
MOTION:
Kohler: I move that we accept the Variance as proposed including the conditions
by staff.
Kunzelmann: Second.
Green: We have a motion and a second to approve the Variance as requested
along with the staff's three recommendations there. Is there any further
discussion? Shall the Variance pass?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 04-?? Was
approved by a vote of 6-0-0.
Board of Adjustment
March 1, 2004
Page 6
VAR 04-6.00: Variance (Magness, pp 445) was submitted by Kay B. Magness for
property in the North '/2 of Lot 3 Block 1, Drakes Replat, Edgewood Addition (Louise
St.). The requirement is for a 70' lot width. The request is for 64.5' lot width (a 5.5'
variance.)
Green: The next item of new business concerns a Variance request submitted by
Kay Magness. The property is Drake's replat of the Edgewood Addition
off of Louise Street. This request is for a variance in minimum lot width
required. Jeremy, would you like to give us some information on that
please?
Pate: Yes Sir. If you would look at page 2.10 it probably gives more of an idea
of the type of neighborhood that we're looking at. The subject property is
part of lot 3, Block 1 of the Edgewood Addition, which is just south of
Wilson Park fronting onto Louise Street. It is zoned RSF-4 currently. It is
surrounded by the same type of zoning and primarily single family homes
with of course, Wilson Park to the north. The minimum requirement for
frontage in RSF-4 zoning district to develop a single family home is 70'
for the width of the lot. As you can see, this lot is sandwiched between a
couple of others so there are no other avenues for frontage to meet that
requirement. It is 64.5' currently. It was platted, I believe the applicant in
their letter stated in 1907. Most likely it was replatted to front onto where
Wilson Park is, that's staff's assumption to have a frontage onto Wilson
Park so that a single family home could be built to front onto that. The
applicant is requesting a 5.5' variance to be able to build a single family
home on this lot with the existing 64.5'. In the findings, the subject
property is owned as an individual lot. It does have adjacent property
under ownership which does meet the requirements for the RSF-4 zoning
district. I believe lot number four which is also owned by the applicant,
and it fronts onto Lincoln and Louise Street. It does meet those
requirements so a single family home could, potentially, in the future be
built on that lot as well. It was again, created prior to the adoption of
current zoning regulations and contains less frontage than required by this
zoning district. Literal interpretation of the zoning regulations would not
allow single family homes or any type of development to be built on this
lot for a principal structure. Therefore, the applicant is requesting this
variance. Staff is recommending approval with three conditions. I do
have signed conditions of approval.
Green: Do you know if that lot number four directly to the west of it is the same
width?
Pate: Yes Sir it is, it is 64.5' width fronting onto Louise and I believe 130' along
Lincoln Avenue.
Green: We are not considering that lot?
Board of Adjustment
March 1, 2004
Page 7
Pate: Correct, just lot 3 at this time. That lot would actually meet the minimum
requirements because it has 130' of frontage on Lincoln.
Green: Thank you. Would the applicant like to add anything to that?
Magness: I'm speaking on behalf of my wife Kay who owns this property. We were
fortunate to have 3 and 4 which is on the corner of Lincoln and Louise. It
was my understanding that it was platted prior to the 70' frontages. We do
have both of them and will eventually build single family homes on both
of these lots. We found out when we came to get the building permit that
we didn't have the minimum frontage on one of the streets. Therefore, we
are asking for this variance and we would appreciate your approval. Our
plans are single family dwelling, preserve all the trees we can, keep the
existing walk way which is in front on Louise Street. There is a rock wall
that was constructed at the time of the construction there, we plan to keep
it and preserve as much of the nature of the neighborhood as we can too
on both tracts. The only one we are speaking of now is lot 3, which is the
inside lot. Thank you.
Green: Are there any questions of staff or Dr. Magness?
Nickle: It is typical of what we've seen in this area before and recognizing that
that's the way it was back then I don't see any problems with it myself.
Kohler: I think we did the same thing on Lot 6 right behind it not too long ago
didn't we?
Green: Yes.
MOTION:
Nickle: I move that we approve the request with the staff comments, staff
conditions.
Alt: Second.
Nickle: There has been a motion and a second to approve the Variance as
requested along with staff's recommendation of those three items. Is there
any further discussion? Shall the Variance pass?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 04-?? Was
approved by a vote of 6-0-0.
Announcements