Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-05-03 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, May 3, 2004 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. VAR 04-05.00: Variance (Kautz Plaza, Lot 1, pp 371) Page 2 VAR 04-1048: Variance (Boyd, pp 523) Page 6 Michael Andrews Joanne Olszewski Michael Green Bob Kohler Bob Nickle STAFF PRESENT Dawn Warrick Renee Thomas Jeremy Pate Kit Williams ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT James Kunzelmann Sheree Alt STAFF ABSENT Board of Adjustment May 3, 2004 Page 2 VAR 04-05.00: Variance (Kantz Plaza, Lot 1, pp 371) was submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of Kirk Elsass for property located at Lot 1 Block 2 of Kantz Plaza. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 0.52 acres. The requirement is for a 25' setback. The request is for a 15'setback, a 10' variance. Green: Welcome to the May meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment. Renee, can you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were five members present with Ms. Alt and Mr. Kunzelmann being absent. Green: The first item on our agenda is consideration of approval from the minutes of the April 5"' meeting. Did everyone get a chance to review those and are there any comments, changes or corrections that anyone would like to make? Nickle: One with the last page, in the motion it says "with the conditions lifted and that should be listed. Other than that I don't have any problems with them. Green: Those minutes, as corrected, are approved. Under new business item number one is a Variance request submitted by Milholland Company on behalf of Kirk Elsass. This is a request for a variance of setback. Jeremy, can you fill us in on that? Pate: Yes Sir. Probably the best place to see exactly where this site is on this aerial photograph that kind of references some recognizable structures at least. The property is located on Crossover Road two lots south of Kantz Drive. The larger building you see of course is a Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market so it is in the vicinity of that. You can barely see it but there is a star on the actual lot. To the north is a doctor's office building and to the west is the Kantz Place apartments with parking which is directly abutting this site in question. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and has approximately 0.52 acres. The requirement is for a setback of 25', a rear setback from that western side. The request that the applicant is making is a 15' setback, which is a 10' variance. Access to the property is proposed from Crossover Road as noted in the site plan with the development proposal. The applicant is proposing to construct a two story professional office building with a potential for residential dwelling units located on the second floor. The development requirements of the site does include the provision of a future cross access to the property to the south which you will notice on that same aerial photograph has not been developed as of this time and also required parking for this development. The developer wishes to utilize a portion of that rear setback along which a retaining wall is to be constructed as buildable area. Surrounding properties are zoned primarily R -O with the exception of C-1 to the south, Board of Adjustment May 3, 2004 Page 3 which is the only area that is not developed at this time. Development of this site, as you can see in site plans, will require several retaining walls around most of the site to actually grade it and then keep the existing grade at the property lines in order to provide buildable area and maintain the existing grades. Properties to the north and west, as I mentioned, are fully developed and would most likely be the most impacted by proposed offices as well as the reduced setback request. Again, directly to the west, in which the setback reduction is requested, is an existing parking lot so it won't have any detrimental impact. Detrimental impact to this use as a parking lot is not anticipated with the setback reduction request. Literal interpretation of zoning regulations would not permit the proposed building to be cited within this 25' rear setback. The building could likely be cited on the property within given setbacks. However, it would most likely compromise parking and greenspace and they would most likely be reduced, as well as the potential for reducing that cross access to the south which is quite important in this area along Crossover Road to allow for as many cross access points as possible so that going from one property to the next doesn't require getting back onto Crossover Road to do that. Granting this requested variance will not incur special privileges. The use of this property for professional office is permitted by right in the R -O zoning district. R -O also allows for two family dwelling units on this site as a permitted use. The proposed rear setback variance is the minimum variance necessary to accommodate this proposed structure. The applicant can probably go into further detail with that. Again, the property to the north and west are developed with the exception of the property to the south which is not. There is a retaining wall which will be up to 10' in height in portions along that western boundary as well. Staff is recommending approval of this variance request with four conditions. First, approval of the setback variance today shall not constitute development approval. The proposed site development shall be in compliance with current development regulations and within permitted uses identified in the UDC for the R -O, Residential Office district. Second, structures shall not be constructed within utility easements. Third, all applicable permits must be obtained prior to commencement of construction. That is just a standard condition. Fourth, there is a temporary dumpster location proposed to be on the driveway connection to the south that shall be relocated at the time of the development of the property to the south. Green: As a point of clarification, there was something in the literature here that said it was near the Wal-Mart property but not adjoining it. Does that mean that that strip of property along Crossover Road there south of this property is not part of the Wal-Mart Market? Pate: I believe the applicant may be able to answer that question. Board of Adjustment May 3, 2004 Page 4 Jefcoat: That is part of Kantz Center. Green: That is the property that the access is going to go to? Jefcoat: Yes for future development. I understand that that strip in the front or along Crossover Road adjacent to the Neighborhood Market Center does have potential to be developed at some point. Green: Do you have anything to add? Jefcoat: No, I think Jeremy did an adequate job in explaining everything to you. I think that it is pretty straight forward but I will be glad to answer any other questions that you may have. Green: You are Mr. Jefcoat for the record? Jefcoat: Yes. Green: Are there any questions? It is a fairly steep site, heavily wooded. Jefcoat Itis a very steep site and we've tried to maintain usable grades by adding a series of retaining walls. There will be a retaining wall up to the building and behind the building is another retaining wall. I think we've given cross sections of what it is going to look like. Kohler: Can you explain what problems you would've moved into had you just shifted the building on the site plan to where it is within the setback? Jefcoat: We would not have had adequate parking and the cross connection to the south would have been compromised. We probably could've kept that cross connection but we would've given up all the required parking. Kohler: Are those minimum radiuses that are on your driveway? Jefcoat: Yes. Green: Are there any further questions or comments? Nickle: Do you know if the developer already has a tenant that required this size building? Jefcoat No I do not. I do not know the tenants at this time. I've not been privileged with that information. I do think that he has a potential user for the office area but I just don't know who it is. An additional 10' would've made the grades quite steep too. When you get a parking lot at 10% grade, or right at 10% grade your car doors won't stay open. Board of Adjustment May 3, 2004 Page 5 Kohler: There is nothing keeping the building from being 10' smaller. That must've been the maximum size to make the business deal work. Jefcoat: Yes, that's true. It is the optimal size for that size lot to make it work and also the building is comprised somewhat in less space in the fact that it has interior vistas rather than outside. You come into the building before you enter the office building. The opening on the south side there where it looks like a stoop is actually an entrance way into the office. I think your elevations show that. Do you have an architectural rendering of the proposed building? Pate: I don't believe so. Kohler: I guess another way to ask the question is if this building were 10', if you changed the dimension of the building to 54.5' of the building to 44.5' would be in compliance with setbacks and would you still have the same challenges? Why couldn't we just say "Oh, if you make the building smaller then you are within the setback."? Jefcoat: A smaller building doesn't make it feasible to develop the lot. That's where that size comes up. Nickle: I see your point. I would think that could be construed like that. I guess the way I'm looking at it is they own the property to the west that would be most impacted by the reduced setback anyway and it is just a parking lot there and there is going to be a pretty significant retaining wall so that gives you more of a visual separation so from that standpoint I don't have a problem with it. Green: Is there further discussion? I will entertain a motion. MOTION: Nickle: I would move that we approve the Variance request with all of the staff requirements and conditions. Andrews: Second. Green: There has been a motion and a second to approve the Variance request including staff's recommendations. Is there any further discussion? Would anyone from the audience wish to speak? Shall the Variance request pass? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 04-05.00 was approved by a vote of 4-1 with Mr. Kohler voting no. Board of Adjustment May 3, 2004 Page 6 VAR 04-1048: Variance (Boyd, pp 523) was submitted by Molly Boyd for property located at 301 W. South Street. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 0.33 acres. The requirement is for 30' front setbacks. The request is for reduced setbacks along Locust Avenue and South Street. Green: The next item on the agenda is another setback variance request for property on W. South Street submitted by Molly Body. Jeremy, can you give us the background on this one? Pate: Yes Sir. This property is located at the corner of Locust Avenue and South Street at the southwest corner. It is an existing single family residence that was constructed in approximately 1906 prior to current zoning regulations. With the application of the Master Street Plan right of way and building setbacks as determined by the underlying zoning of this property, which is R -O, Residential Office, much of the home is currently considered a non -conforming structure in that a large portion of it does encroach into building setbacks off of both South Street and Locust Avenue. Front building setbacks in the R -O zoning district are 30' from the right of way line. The applicant did purchase the home in January of this year and has since made renovations to the home including foundation work by the previous owner. There are two primary entrances to the house facing Locust Avenue. I believe we've got photographs in your packets. Both of those entrances at the time that the applicant purchased the property were either inaccessible, entirely located off of the ground by several feet, or with a dangerous access point to that. The porches and steps leading to the two entrances, have been reconstructed this spring in the same configuration as they had existed in past years. Additionally, a portion of the former porch was enclosed to protect the basement and sub floor of the structure. That is on the south side of the building. This reconstruction, however, is within current setbacks and requires a Variance to replace when something is destroyed to this extent and then reconstructed within the building setbacks. The request is for a front setback variance to accommodate those structures and the existing non- conforming house. The property, again, is zoned R -O which requires a 30' setback. The applicant requests reductions along Locust to a 1' setback, which is basically where the eave of the existing home is. Additionally, an additional request is made to reduce the building setback along W. South Street to 7'. Again, that's where the existing eave of the home is measured to. That would be a 23' variance, the former one a 29' variance. The steps and decks are already reconstructed and as you can see in your photographs, are not to extend any further beyond the eaves of the house to the north and west is basically where they have been constructed presently. With regard to findings, this non -conforming structure was built in 1906 prior to current zoning regulations in an effort to recondition the home and provide for a safe means of ingress and egress the applicant has reconstructed the steps as they were originally Board of Adjustment May 3, 2004 Page 7 constructed. Literal interpretation of the zoning regulations would not permit this reconstruction to occur. Two primary entrances would subsequently have little or no ingress and egress, as most of the existing house is located within the setbacks. The applicant would be deprived of rights to enter and exit the existing home in a safe manner. I believe there is an additional entrance to this house to the west side. The applicant's actions did cause this Variance request obviously, as these are already constructed. However, it is a non -conforming structure, it was non- conforming at the time that the zoning was put in place on this site as the structure was built in 1906. Granting the requested variances will not confer any special privileges to the applicant. A single family home is permitted by right in this zoning district. Therefore, it is a conforming use. The proposed rear setback, as I mentioned, is the minimum variance necessary to accommodate this proposed structure. The reconstructed decks and stairs are in relatively the same configuration as they were previously. Based on those findings, staff is recommending approval of the Variance request with five conditions. Item one, the variance approval shall only apply to the existing structure as is currently located. In our ordinance requirements, basically if a structure is moved at all anytime it cannot be moved back into those setbacks so it would basically be non- conforming again. Two, should the structure be destroyed by any means to an extent of more than 50% of it's replacement cost at the time of destruction it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the current code. Item three is what I just mentioned, should the structure be moved for any reason, any distance whatsoever, it shall thereafter conform to the regulations of the district in which it is located after it is moved. Fourth, no structure or portion of structure shall be constructed with public right-of-way. Fifth, all applicable building permits shall be obtained. Green: Are there any plans to widen either Locust Street or South Street? Pate: Not that I'm aware of. With this variance request the Master Street Plan right of way is obtained for both of these streets. Therefore, any additional construction would be within the right of way which is already existing. There is more right of way than is necessary in both of these locations. Green: It would just leave P of setback from the right of way if all the right of way were needed, but it is probably very unlikely that we would never need all of that right of way. Pate: That is correct. Typically the right of way includes both the street section, for instance if it were a 28' wide street, plus greenspace and sidewalks. Olszewski: Under findings it says upon notice of a building permit, how did that come Board of Adjustment May 3, 2004 Page 8 about? Pate: The applicant might be able to address that a little bit but from what little I do know, the construction on the decks and the landing steps was constructed. The applicant was notified by some means that a building permit was needed to do that. When they visited the Planning offices we were contacted and basically in looking at these site plans you can tell that the house is very close to the street in this location and being zoned R -O, which is a higher setback, it is a 30' setback as opposed to a 25' setback. We noticed that this structure is non -conforming and a building permit has not been obtained as of this time. The construction was halted until this issue could be resolved. Olszewski: So you don't know who gave notice? Pate: I'm not sure. The applicants are here. Crossland: I'm Leroy Crossland. An inspector was looking for another house and he had stopped by. Then a couple of days later he came back by and asked for a building permit and we didn't have one so we stopped immediately what we were doing and came up to the city. Green: Do you have anything else that you would like to add to Jeremy's comments? Crossland: He did a good job. Boyd: It was our error, we didn't know we needed a permit since we were replacing the existing porch and steps. Kohler: How did you know that that was the originally designed configuration? Boyd: Through shadow lines. Crossland: There are some before pictures and you can see the shadow lines, the deck in the back, the deck in the front and then the roof line, the ridge. The only thing that we weren't certain about on there is the way that the front steps come off but we made a decision that since we have neo -angles when you look at it from the front view that that would go best within the structure. We did stay within the site, like he explained, we didn't take anymore than what we assumed was there. I think maybe the steps came down the side and out further but we tried to keep it within that square. Kohler: I think it is great that you are redoing that house. I've been looking at that for a long time thinking that it would be a good project to renovate. Board of Adjustment May 3, 2004 Page 9 Olszewski: I'm also happy that you're doing it and I think you are doing a great job. My big concern is Superior Restoration, why they didn't know that they would need a building permit. Crossland: I guess there used to be a grandfather clause and I thought since it was an existing structure. I since have found out that that is no longer working like that. MOTION: Kohler: I move that we approve the request with the five conditions as noted by staff. Olszewski: I second. Green: We have a motion and a second to approve the Variance request as stated along with staff's recommendations. Is there any further discussion? Is there anyone else from the audience? Shall the request pass? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 04-1048 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Green: The motion passes. Thank you. That's all of our regular business on the agenda. Is there any other new business that should come up at this time? Any announcements? If there is no other business, we stand adjourned.