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.