Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-07 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held Monday, June 7, 2004 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Items Discussed Action Taken BOA 04-1085 (FIRMIN, 445) Approved Page 2 BOA 04-1087 (HAMILTON, 445) Approved Page 4 BOA 04-1089 (CENTRAL UNITED METHODIST, 484) Approved Page 6 BOA 04-1106 (LUTZ, 716) Approved Page 9 BOA 04-1107 (MCKINNEY, 408) Approved Page 12 BOA 04-1108 (MCKINNEY, 408) Approved Page 12 Members Present Members Absent Michael Green Joanne Olszewski Robert Kohler Bob Nickell Sherree Alt Michael Andrews James Kunzelmann Staff Present Staff Absent Dawn Warrick Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan David Whitaker Renee Thomas Board of Adjustment June 7, 2004 Page 2 Green: Welcome to the Board of Adjustment meeting for the month of June. There are several items to consider today. Renee, would you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call there were five members present with Mr. Nickell and Ms. Olszewski being absent. BOA 04-1085 (FIRMIN, 445): Submitted by JOHN & NANCY FIRMIN for property located at 18 W PROSPECT ST. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0. 19 acres. The request is to allow a 22' front setback (a 3' variance) and to bring an existing 60 -foot wide lot of record into compliance (10' variance from 70' requirement). Green: We do have a quorum. The first item on our agenda is consideration of the minutes from the May Board of Adjustment meeting. Are there any corrections or additions that need to be made to those? Hearing none, we will consider those minutes approved. The first item of new business on our agenda is a request by John and Nancy Firmin on Prospect Street. This is a setback variance as well as a lot width adjustment. Jeremy? Pate: As noted on page 1. 15, this subject property is located in the Wilson Park neighborhood on West Prospect, Park and Highland Avenue. There is currently one 950 square foot single family home on the 60'x150' lot. This is zoned RSF-4 and contains approximately 0.19 acres. The existing structure is located approximately 35' to the north of the Prospect Street right of way line. This right of way line is unique on this particular lot. It does not follow the street alignment at all in this location. The front of the structure is approximately 30' behind the front of the dwelling to the west and about 10' in front of the dwelling to the east. The actual right of way encroaches approximately 35' more on this particular lot. Doing some research of this property, those properties to the west were granted a right of way vacation back in 1950 on the south side of the lot to the west of the subject property. That effectively shifted the property line south to where it is today. Page 1.9 shows where 40 West Prospect Street along with the lot to the west of that actually had the right of way vacated. You can see the centerline of Prospect Street doesn't follow the original configuration of the right of way there. The current applicant is proposing to add 207 sq.ft. to the front of the existing structure. The request is for a front setback variance of 3' to accommodate that proposed addition. Additionally, in processing this request the applicant noticed that the lot is a 60' lot width by 150' depth. That existing lot width does not meet the required 70' of frontage, as many of the lots don't in this area. Therefore, we've processed with the same application a lot width variance of 10' for a 60' lot width. As I mentioned, special conditions under our findings with regard to the peculiar configuration of the right of way that encroaches into a lot of your special conditions. The applicant would be deprived of developing property with a setback that is typical with Board of Adjustment June 7, 2004 Page 3 surrounding properties in this area with reference to those right of way vacations. The use of this property for a single family dwelling is permitted by right in the RSF-4 zoning district. Prospect Street is not proposed to follow the old right of way configuration as has been noted with the right of way vacation approved by the City Council. The existing home with the proposed addition is in harmony with the surrounding properties and is consistent with the purpose and intent of the current zoning regulations. Staff is recommending approval of this particular request with a 3' front setback variance and the requested variance for a 60' lot width with two conditions. The proposed addition shall be constructed according to the submitted site plan and architectural elevations which are found on page 1. 11, 1. 12, and 1.13 in your staff report. Portions of the structure shall not be constructed over public utility easements. Green: Thank you. Is the applicant here? Would you like to add anything to that? Firmin: John Firmin, no, I think he described it adequately. Green: That is an unusual jog in the right of way there. The neighbor to the west doesn't have that problem. Are there any questions or comments from the board? Andrews: Is there a reason the city wouldn't go ahead and vacate that right of way? Pate: It is really, at this point, up to the applicant. They had the option to request a vacation. It is a much more lengthy and detailed process to do that. Utility companies are involved and it takes a council action. I don't think there would be a problem with doing that. MOTION: Kohler: I think this is an easy one. We have looked at other lots in the last few months in this same area with the same lot width issues. We are dealing with old conditions. I move to approve the request as stated in the report according to the conditions by staff. Kunzelmann: Second. Green: We have a motion and a second to approve the variance as requested along with three conditions proposed by staff. Is there anyone else in the audience who would wish to address us on this particular item? Are there any other comments? Shall the variance request pass? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve BOA 04-1085 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Board of Adjustment June 7, 2004 Page 4 BOA 04-1087 (HAMILTON, 445): Submitted by H.E. HAMILTON for property located at 16 W DAVIDSON ST. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.15 acres. The request is to allow the construction of a deck and bring the existing structure into compliance. Green: The next item on the agenda is a request by AG Hamilton for property on Davidson Street. This is a request to reduce the front building setbacks to allow for the construction of a deck. Jeremy, can you give us the background on this? Pate: This property is located in the same general facility, just one street southeast of Wilson Park and is part of the Wilson Park neighborhood area. It is a corner lot. It is zoned RMF -24 and contains approximately 0.15 acres. Currently there is an 880 square foot single family home on the property. The property does comply with the minimum allowable lot area in the RMF -24 zoning district for a single family home. It also has adequate frontage both on Davidson and Forest Avenue. The existing structure was built in approximately 1925 which of course, predates our current zoning ordinances and our Master Street Plan requirements. Therefore, it exists as a non -conforming structure with regard to building setbacks. As with many homes in the Wilson Park neighborhood area, this home was originally built close to the street and is located in that Master Street Plan setback. The Master Street Plan in this location requires 50' of right of way for both Forest Avenue and Davidson. The two rights of way have different platted rights of way. Forest Avenue has 30' and Davidson Street has 40'. Forest Avenue is 20' below what our Master Street Plan requires where it eats up to the buildable area when you apply that right of way and the setbacks. The applicant is proposing to add an 8x14 foot deck to the rear of the home at the first floor level. The site does slope somewhat. The first floor elevation is approximately 8' above grade at the back of the lot where the deck is proposed. As you can see on the site photos, especially page 2.7, they have sketched in where that proposed deck would go above the entry level doors there. The deck would be in the building setback as would the existing home. The request is for a front setback variance of 21', essentially a 4' setback along Forest Avenue to accommodate those conditions. Additionally, a 6' variance, which is a 19' setback along Davidson Street to bring the structure into conformity with the formal approval of the Board of Adjustment. With regard to findings, the lot and structure do predate zoning ordinances and Master Street Plan requirements. Additionally, this particular lot slopes to the north. Staff is recommending approval of this particular variance request with one condition of approval, that all applicable building permits shall be obtained prior to construction of this addition. Board of Adjustment June 7, 2004 Page S Green: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Would you like to add anything to this? Hamilton: I agree with everything he said. Green: I guess I just have one question. It looks like there is a driveway and that used to be a garage but it is no longer going to be a garage right? Hamilton: That's correct. Kohler: What's the access to the new deck? Are you going to take down part of the railing of the landing there? Hamilton: This part is existing so you will walk out through the door and have that and then the stairs to go down. Green: Are there any other questions or comments? MOTION: Alt: I move that we approve the variance with staff's recommendation. Andrews: Second. Green: Is there any further discussion from anyone in the audience? Shall the variance request pass? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve BOA 04-1087 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Board of Adjustment June 7, 2004 Page 6 BOA 04-1089 (CENTRAL UNITED METHODIST, 484): Submitted by CENTRAL UNITED METHODIST CHURCH for property located at 6 W DICKSON STREET. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 5.56 acres. The request is to allow a new porch and awning within the building setback. Green: The third item under new business is a request from Central United Methodist Church on Dickson Street. This request is also for a setback variance in order to do some additions to a porch. Jeremy? Pate: Central United Methodist Church occupies quite a large portion of property on Dickson Street and Highland Avenue as well as Lafayette Street. This particular variance request is for the Wesley building, which is at the northwest corner of Highland Avenue and Dickson Street. The subject entry, which is a proposal for a renovation of some steps for a landing and additional canopy. It is an existing structure. However, the actual structure now is not to building code. The proposal would be to bring it up to building code with the new landing. Currently the exterior door from the building just opens right up onto the step without any separation. Extensive renovations have been going on. They have been permitted for the second and third floor of the Wesley building at this time. This is part of that that does require a variance. The variance would be to bring entrance of the building up to building code by replacing the door stairs and adding a landing and a canopy over the entry way. As noted in existing site plans and current photographs the doors do swing out onto the steps with the Highland Avenue sidewalk to the building, a situation which does not comply with the current building code. The right of way along Highland Avenue, which is 50', is sufficient to meet our Master Street Plan requirements. This entire structure was built many years ago and does predate our zoning codes. This property is in the Residential Office zoning district and requires a 30' setback. That building is almost entirely in the setback as well. Any renovation to the building requires a variance. The structure is an existing non -conforming structure due to its location within the building setback. The applicant has been present at this location for about 50 years. Surrounding properties contain a mixture of uses including other churches, single family homes, the post office. I did receive a call from the post office and explained the variance request and they had no problems with the request. It would not really effect them much being on the Highland side of the property. The request is for a front setback variance of 27', which will be a 3' setback along Highland Avenue. I did mention in your staff report that the existing stairs are located approximately 6' from the right of way. Granting a variance for this proposal would extend the structure approximately 3' in addition to the building setback area than what is currently non -conforming. Also, the proposal is to add a canopy over the entry to the building that does not exist at all right now. The canopy would extend approximately 7 '/2' from the base of the building for a total Board of Adjustment June 7, 2004 Page 7 of 8' from the right of way line. With regard to findings, under our zoning regulations, the current entry does not comply with the building code. The renovation would add a landing thereby bringing the entrance into compliance and creating a safer situation than currently exists with regard to building codes. This is the minimum variance necessary to accommodate this renovation and also to bring the subject entry into compliance with the building code. Granting a variance for a front setback reduction would be in keeping with the overall character and in harmony with the subject property and in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. Staff is recommending approval of the requested setback variance as depicted on the attached site plan and described herein, with four conditions of approval. 1) The setback variance shall apply only to the existing structure and the addition proposed with the site plan submitted with this request. That does not include any future variance requests when appropriate findings can be made by the Board of Adjustment. 2) The canopy addition shall not encroach any further than depicted on the site plan and in the architectural elevations. 3) All signage shall be permitted in accordance with ordinance requirements at the time of application. Any deviation from ordinance requirements shall require Board of Sign Appeal approval. I mention this because in the elevations you can see that there is some signage located on that canopy. I did not review it for sign permits or anything of that nature but that is just for the applicant to be aware of that. 4) All building permits shall be obtained prior to construction. Green: Is the applicant present? ??: I'm the architect. Green: Do you have anything further to add? Kohler: This is just a request to bring up to current code what is really already there that is not compliant with current code. Green: Are there any questions or comments from the audience about this item? MOTION: Andrews: I will move that we pass the variance request as submitted with staffs recommendations. Kunzelmann: Second. Green: There is a motion and a second to approve the variance as requested along with staff s four conditions of approval. Are there any other comments or questions? Shall the request pass? Board of Adjustment June 7, 2004 Page 8 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve BOA 04-1089 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Board of Adjustment June 7, 2004 Page 9 BOA 04-1106 (LUTZ, 716): Submitted by THOMAS C. LUTZ for property located at 1645 W SUNRISE MTN ROAD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL - AGRICULTURAL. The request is to approve a lot containing approximately 1.31 acres within the R -A district (a variance of 0.69 acres). The applicant would like to build a single-family residence on this lot. Green: The fourth item under new business is a request by Thomas Lutz for property located on Sunrise Mountain Road. This is a request for a variance in lot size. Suzanne? Morgan: The subject property for which the variance is requested is located at 1545 Sunrise Mountain Road, which is west of School Avenue. The property contains part of lot 8 of Sunrise Mountain addition which was platted in 1969. It contains a total of two parcels for a total of 1.31 acres. The property is zoned R -A, Residential Agricultural. The lot area minimum in that zoning district is two acres per dwelling unit. A single family dwelling built in the 1960's was recently removed in early 2004 in preparation for construction of a new residence. The applicant met with staff in March to discuss a proposed utility easement vacation to construct a single family home but it was found that this lot did not meet the minimum lot area for the zone. Therefore, the applicant has requested this variance of lot area in order to construct a single family residence on this property. The location of the residence will further be determined by the requirements of the R -A zoning district as well as City Council consideration of a proposed Vacation of a utility easement. Surrounding properties include single family homes of approximately the same size. The applicant proposes to construct this single family home on 1.31 acres and is therefore, requesting a lot area variance of .69 acres to accommodate this construction. Staff recommends approval of this request based on the following findings: The property has been used for residential use for over 40 years and the applicant did apply for a property line adjustment to enlarge this lot to meet the minimum. However, it did create a situation where the adjoining property became more non- conforming. Therefore, it was determined that a variance would be requested. A literal interpretation would deprive the applicant of rights enjoyed by other single family lots on similar size properties. Also, there is no change in use or density from the time the single family home was removed earlier this year. This request is the minimum variance necessary to construct the single family home. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the requested .69 acre lot area variance as shown on the attached site plan with two conditions. The lot shall be considered conforming for the purposes of development of a single family home and customary accessory structures providing the development meets all other requirements for the R -A zoning district. The structure shall not be constructed over easements. Board of Adjustment June 7, 2004 Page 10 Green: Is the applicant here? Would you like to add anything to this Sir? Lutz: No. Green: This two acres is generally required to be for septic fields and things like that? Whitaker: That is certainly an end consideration but the R -A is the old A and it is generally considered that you wanted to obtain the open space and maintain a rural feel. That is not unusual for an A zoning anywhere to have larger lots in agricultural nature. Andrews: Are there any comments from the neighbors? ??: My understanding is that this is going to be a single family dwelling, is that correct? Morgan: That is correct. The architectural plans that were submitted at one time lead staff to believe it had an adjoining guest house. However, that has been changed. It is a single family dwelling. ??: During wet weather I would detect an odor which I felt probably came from that sewage when the other house was existing. My concern is for my wet weather spring and the septic. Green: Is there a way through the permitting process of looking at the septic field and that sort of thing to make sure they are still perking properly? Warrick: This particular project will be installing a new septic system. It will have to go through the review process through the Health Department. I believe that those permits have been requested. The old septic system will no longer be utilized and the new system will be installed for the new single family home and is required to go through that permitting process. Kohler: Would it be installed in roughly the same area as the old one? Lutz: I really can't answer that. I'm not sure where the old one was. Nonetheless, there are several places on the property which would work. We will make sure that the highest state of the art system is installed. I can only guarantee you that the new septic field will be a quality field. Kohler: In looking at the quality of the house I have no reason to dispute that. Warrick: Staff will be glad to forward these comments to the sanitarian. Board of Adjustment June 7, 2004 Page I1 Green: That is sort of out of our jurisdiction when it gets to the sanitarian. They have certain requirements that have to be met for the sanitarian evaluations. You can be sure that there will be some administrative enforcement of those particular regulations. Are there any other comments? MOTION: Kohler: I move that we approve the request and that we follow the recommendations by staff in the approval. Kunzelmann: Second. Green: We have a motion and a second to approve the variance request as requested along with staff's recommendations. Are there any other comments or questions? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve BOA 04-1106 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Board of Adjustment June 7, 2004 Page 12 BOA 04-1107 (MCKINNEY, 408): Submitted by NATHAN MCKINNEY for property located at LOT 15 OF MISSION HILLS SUBDIVISION. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.25 acres. The request is to allow a variance in the front setback requirements for Lot 15 in the Mission Hills Subdivision. BOA 04-1108 (MCKINNEY, 408): Submitted by NATHAN MCKINNEY for property located at LOT 16 IN MISSION HILLS SUBDIVISION. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.34 acres. The request is to allow a variance in the front setback requirements for Lot 16 in the Mission Hills Subdivision. Green: The next item on the agenda is actually two requests. The way we probably need to look at these is look at it as one particular group and then vote on each lot separately after the discussion is finished. This was submitted by Nathan McKinney for both lots in Mission Hills subdivision, Lot 15 and Lot 16. This is a request for variance in the front setback requirements for those lots. Jeremy? Pate: I have included the staff report for the purpose of clarity. It is really the same request on both of these lots. Lot 15 is the northern lot north of Zion Lane. Lot 16 is the southern lot. Lot 23 which is just south of lot 16 and Lot 1 have constructed homes. This Mission Hills subdivision was platted in 1993. I mentioned earlier that the Master Street Plan was adopted by the City Council in 1996. Therefore, this subdivision preceded that Master Street Plan adoption. It is located off of Mission Blvd., Hwy. 45 north of North Street. This particular subdivision did remain un -built for several years for various reasons. There are currently several homes under construction. There were some built quite a while ago as well. Some of the homes are approaching 8 to 10 years old now. The platting of the subdivision occurred prior to the adoption of the Master Street Plan in 1996. Therefore, the right of way required along Mission is 55' from centerline was not dedicated at that time. Mission Blvd. currently has 30' of right of way from centerline adjacent to the subject properties. Exclusive of that right of way is a 35' building setback, utility easement and drainage easement in addition to the existing right of way. This 35' line is essentially the line in which two of the homes constructed along Mission have been constructed. With the application of the Master Street Plan requirements of 55' from centerline plus an additional 25' for zoning requirements lots15 and 16 would have considerable reduction of buildable area. The applicant in both of these cases proposes to reduce that setback requirement along Mission Blvd. to retain the existing setback line. Homes are proposed to be constructed on both lots 15 and 16 in the near future. The owners of record and the applicant here are concerned Board of Adjustment June 7, 2004 Page 13 about that line and therefore, that is the application for this request. The request is for a front setback variance of approximately 15' along Mission Blvd. for lots 15 and 16 to retain consistency with other homes already constructed in the subdivision to allow for a similar size and type of housing to be constructed on these lots in accordance with those in the Mission Hills subdivision. As I mentioned, per the conditions of approval for this application, the original setback line platted with the Mission Hills subdivision is the recommended setback line. Staff is recommending approval of this variance request with several findings. The variance request will afford a reasonable use of each of these lots for single family homes to retain the size and character of the surrounding subdivision. The request is to allow the original setback according to the original plat of the Mission Hills subdivision retaining a 35' setback. That is in harmony with the general purpose of this zoning district as well as the homes constructed in this area. As I mentioned, staff is recommending approval of both lots 15 and 16 as depicted in the staff reports with three conditions. 1) The front building setback off of Mission Blvd. shall be 35' from the existing right of way line which is located 30' from centerline. 2) All applicable building permits shall be obtained prior to beginning construction on the subject property. 3) Structures or portions of structures shall not be built over public utility easements. Green: Would the applicant like to add anything to that? McKinney: Does staff's recommendation essentially return these lots to the original setbacks as the plat reads? Pate: Yes. Kohler: Can we assume that the house at the corner of Emerson and Mission was either constructed prior to 1996 or they also got a variance? Warrick: Yes. Green: Is there anyone else that would like to address this issue? Andrews: Obviously, in 1996 the city decided to increase the right of way, why? Warrick: Mission Blvd. is a highway. In that area with the projected traffic rates it was determined that 110' of right of way would be adequate to install the driving lanes, the curb and gutter and the sidewalk for the future. In order to do that 55' from centerline is what is needed. These reductions in setbacks will not affect our ability to widen Mission Blvd. should the need arise in the future. There are areas where we may not be able to obtain the full width of right of way and there may have to be alternatives to the Board of Adjustment June 7, 2004 Page 14 design. In this location we will still have the ability to obtain the 55' of right of way, the locations of the homes will just be closer to the roadway. Green: There are also existing structures there that have the same setback as it is now so you have already got that constraint built in there. Warrick: That is correct. Green: If there are no other questions why don't we reduce it down to particular discussion and any motions that we want to make. Let's first consider lot 15. Do I hear a motion for lot 15? MOTION: Kohler: I move that we approve the request for a variance from the front setback of Lot 15 adhering to staff's recommendations. Alt: Second. Green: There is a motion and a second to approve the Variance request pertaining to lot 15 along with staff's recommendations. Is there any further discussion? Shall the variance pass? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve BOA 04-1107 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Board of Adjustment June 7, 2004 Page 15 Green: The last item is consideration of Lot 16 of the Mission Hills subdivision. Kunzelmann: I move that we approve the Variance request as stated with staffs recommendations. Andrews: Second. Green: We have a motion and a second to approve the Variance as requested for Lot 16 along with staffs recommendation. Is there any further discussion? Shall the request pass? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve BOA 04-1108 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. McKinney: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one statement. All of you are citizens and I do appreciate your time this afternoon. These comments are not directed to you in any manner nor are they directly turned to staff. This situation could've been avoided if there would've been any notice given to the property owner when these additional requirements were placed on the property. It was up to the citizens to determine on their own when a building permit is applied for that this is now the case. After preparations that were made and time and effort were put in it. In addition to that, we shouldn't have the burden as citizens of Fayetteville to make application, give instruction to all of the neighbors and quite frankly it seems the city should've done before. I appreciate your time and efforts. I feel like these comments need to be directed to someone in our bureaucracy to make these things more fair and to relieve the burden on any of the citizens. I do appreciate your time. Thank you. Green: Probably those comments could be addressed through the City Attorney's office as far as the process and procedure that is involved in the notification. I know those kinds of things are published in papers for all to read. Are there any other procedures that go along with developing new requirements like that? Warrick: This particular regulation came about approximately two years ago. It is an ordinance that allows us to apply setbacks from the Master Street Plan. We did not have that ordinance on the books when this subdivision was platted. It has affected properties throughout the city, it is not just this property. There are properties everywhere that are affected by the adoption of the setback regulations. It did go through the proper procedure to be approved. It is not something that people typically look in the paper and look for. I'm not sure exactly how we could've done it differently. I don't think that it would be appropriate for us to try to determine every single effected property because inevitably there may be one or two that we miss. We have tried to find ways to make information Board of Adjustment June 7, 2004 Page 16 available through the city's website, the government channel, and through our office. Green: Are there any other items under the Board of Adjustment agenda that should come before us at this time? If not, we will adjourn the meeting of the Board of Adjustment.