HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-07-06 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held Tuesday, July 6, 2004 at 3:45
p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
Items Discussed
BOA 04-1088 (SHELTON, 486)
Page 2
BOA 04-1121 (TERMINELLA BUILDING, 484)
Page 6
Members Present
Michael Green
Robert Kohler
Bob Nickle
Sherree Alt
Michael Andrews
Staff Present
Dawn Warrick
Suzanne Morgan
David Whitaker
Renee Thomas
Action Taken
Approved
Approved
Members Absent
Joanne Olszewski
James Kunzelmann
Staff Absent
Jeremy Pate
Board of Adjustment
July 6, 2004
Page 2
BOA 04-1088 (SHELTON, 486): Submitted by BRET PARK for property located at
850 E. SKYLINE DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4
units per acre, and contains approximately 0.40 acres. The request is for a reduced front
setback from 25' to 0' to accommodate an existing nonconforming structure and
construct an addition.
Green: Welcome to the July 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.
Olszewski and Mr. Kunzelmann being absent.
Green: We have a quorum. The first item on the agenda is consideration of the
minutes of the June 7r' meeting. Has everyone had a chance to read those?
Are there any corrections or additions that anyone would like to make?
On the third page I think there was a statement attributed to me that Mr.
Andrews asked.
Warrick: We can make that modification.
Green: Are there any other corrections or modifications? Hearing none, we will
consider the minutes approved as corrected. The first item under new
business is a setback variance request submitted by Brett Park for property
located on Skyline drive. This is a request to reduce the front setback
from 25' to 0'. Since Jeremy is not here, Dawn, can you give us the
background on this?
Warrick: The subject property is located at 850 Skyline Drive on Mt. Sequoyah.
There is currently a 1,050 sq.ft. home located on the property. The
property itself is a combination of three lots within the Mt. Sequoyah
Assembly Addition, Lots 28, 29, and 30. Many of those lots are very
small and oddly configured. It is very common in that area that a structure
be located on several lots combined. The structure does predate current
zoning regulations and in addition to the Master Street Plan requirements.
Therefore, it is a non -conforming structure. The home as well as the
connecting carport, are located within the Master Street Plan required
setbacks along the front property line. A portion of the carport also ties
within the existing right of way. Only the very rear portion of this existing
structure is actually located in a manner in which it is free of all setback
requirements. The applicant proposes to add approximately 500 sq.ft. to
the rear of the existing structure. Because this structure is non -conforming
even additions of this size to the rear, which is an area that is not non-
conforming, would be a variance to ensure that the overall structure be
affected. Therefore, they would need a variance to ensure that the overall
structure could be protected. The applicant is requesting a front setback
variance of 25' to accommodate the addition to the rear and to bring the
Board of Adjustment
July 6, 2004
Page 3
home structure into conformity through formal approval of a variance
through the Board of Adjustment. That is what we are looking at here, a
25' requested setback variance would bring this structure to a zero
setback. Under the findings, staff was able to recommend this by finding
first of course, that the lot and structure do predate current zoning
regulations and Master Street Plan requirements. In addition, the home is
non -conforming. Basically, it is very similar in character and in nature to
the rest of the neighborhood. The reason that many of these homes are
non -conforming is because of the slope of the land. There is flat area
adjacent to the street and then it falls down a hill pretty quickly as you get
back towards the rear of the site. Staff also found that the proposed
setback variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the existing
structure. The proposed addition would not necessitate any additional
variances other than the front where a setback variance is necessary to
accommodate existing built portions of the home. We find that granting
the variance in setback reduction would be in keeping with the overall
character and harmony with the neighborhood. The variance would not be
injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public
welfare. We did not receive public comment on this. Staff is
recommending in favor of a setback variance with three conditions of
approval. 1) No expansion of the existing structure without Board of
Adjustment approval shall occur within the Master Street Plan right of
way with the exception of the 500 sq.ft. addition that is being proposed
currently. 2) The establishment of any new structure or other
improvements with the right of way setback, with the exception of those
noted herein, is prohibited. d therefore, complies with the zero setback
should that be approved. 3)Should any portion of a structure currently
located in Master Street Plan right-of-way be destroyed or removed in any
manner, that structure or portion of structure shall not be reconstructed,
nor shall the structure be renovated in a way that increases its
nonconformity. Basically, what we are trying to do is impose conditions
that would keep future actions on this property within the zero setback
should that be granted. We have received signed conditions of approval
from the applicant on this project and with that, I'll be happy to answer
any questions.
Green: Would the applicant like to address us on this? Is there anything else you
would like to add?
Shelton: I would like to ask a question. I signed the first sheet agreeing to all of
the conditions. If there were any repairs done to that part of the house,
like that part of the carport that is in the right of way, with the second
recommendation it says that nothing should be done without going before
the Board of Adjustment, if that happens 10 years from now then would I
have to go to the board then and ask for that permission? It seems to me
that two and three are somewhat redundant. You are asking me to pledge
Board of Adjustment
July 6, 2004
Page 4
my future actions to this board rather than allowing that to be brought up
at a later date. Not that I'm anticipating having anything done but I was
somewhat confused about that because they seem to cover the same thing.
Warrick: The intent in item two was not to see any further expansions without
Board of Adjustment approval within that area that is designated as Master
Street Plan right of way. Right now there is 40' of right of way for
Skyline Drive. Then there is an additional area that is to be reserved for
future right of way should it be necessary for the street to be expanded.
That is the area that we are trying to protect. There is a portion of the
structure that is within that area. You mentioned the garage and the
carport, that is the area we are talking about. We don't prohibit repairs
and maintenance to those areas that are non -conforming. You are
certainly permitted to keep that structure sound and in good repair. In
fact, the code specifically addresses that and allows for that. If you were
to propose an expansion in that area the Board of Adjustment would have
to approve that in the future. That is why there is a caveat in that statement
"without Board of Adjustment approval." Section three is more addressing
the existing structure. It talks about the portion of the structure currently
located in the existing platted right of way. In section three we are trying
to protect the 40' that is actually city owned right of way right now. In
section two we are trying to protect that area that would be future right of
way and just provide that the Board of Adjustment would be to approve
anything within that future Master Street Plan right of way but that you
don't propose any new additions or rebuilds in the area that is currently
public property.
Shelton: I understand that.
Green: Your name for the record?
Shelton: Carol Shelton.
Green: As I understand it, there is a portion of the garage or the carport, that is
physically on city property. That is the portion that if that should be
destroyed you cannot rebuild it on city property. Still yet, in the setback
beyond that you would still need Board of Adjustment approval if you are
going to add to or do any expansions there right?
Warrick: That is right.
Shelton: I think I understand.
Nickle: The second part really applies to the 40' which it appears like just a
portion of the covered tile porch is included in that 40', is that correct
Dawn?
Board of Adjustment
July 6, 2004
Page 5
Warrick: If you extend a little further off your page there is the rock carport that
also encroaches. That is correct.
Nickle: Right. Of the house property only a portion of the covered tile porch
does?
Warrick: That is correct.
Kohler: My question is not directed at these two structures but the shed in the back
is completely outside of the setback line, is that something to be addressed
in this variance as part of the non -conforming.
Warrick: We didn't include it in the variance. I'm not sure if that is something that
the applicant would wish to see. It is a small enough structure that I
believe it could be relocated. I'm not sure. I haven't looked at that
structure specifically.
Shelton: It is just an 8' building that has no doors or windows or such. It is like a
picnic facility.
Warrick: It would be allowed to remain as an existing non -conforming use until
such time as something is desired to occur with it.
Green: Would anyone from the audience wish to speak for or against this item?
MOTION:
Nickle: I move that we approve the Variance request with staff comments
included.
Alt: I second.
Green: We have a motion and a second to approve the variance request with
staff's recommendations. Are there any other comments? Shall the
variance request pass?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 04-???? Was
approved by a vote of 5-0-0.
Thomas: The motion carries.
Board of Adjustment
July 6, 2004
Page 6
BOA 04-1121 (TERMINELLA BUILDING, 484): Submitted by MARK OWINGS for
property located at 123 N COLLEGE AVENUE (SW CORNER COLLEGE & SPRING).
The property is zoned C-3, CENTRAL COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.47
acres. The request is to allow a variance from the setback for a proposed structure. The
requirement is for a 60' setback from the centerline of College Avenue. The request is for
a 45'8" setback (a 14'4" variance.)
Green: The next item on the agenda is submitted by Mark Owings for property
located on College and Spring Street, the southwest corner of that
intersection. It would be a proposed office building. The request is for a
setback variance. Suzanne, can you give us the background on this?
Morgan: As stated, this property is located on the corner of Spring Street and
College Avenue. Spring Street is a local street and College Avenue is a
principal arterial requiring 55' of dedicated right of way from centerline.
The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial, and is surrounded by
properties containing businesses and government buildings. There is
currently an existing structure on this property. There is currently a
structure existing on this property. The applicant proposes to redevelop
this site and build a new two story office building with a footprint of
approximately 10,000 sq.ft. The request is for a front setback variance of
14' 4" feet to accommodate a portion of the structure and the front pre-
cast entry located at the northeast corner of the structure. There is
currently 30' of dedicated right of way from the centerline of College
Avenue to the west and there is an additional Master Street Plan setback
for a total of 55' from the centerline of College Avenue. The front setback
in the C-3 zoning district is 5' so a total of 60' from centerline. The
applicant proposes a building setback of 45' 8" from the centerline of
College Ave for a variance of 14'4". Staff finds that the proposed
redevelopment of this site is peculiar to the properties within the
Downtown area identified as Historic Commercial on the Future Land Use
Plan. The allowance of a variance to allow for this structure to be
constructed closer to the right-of-way is a special circumstance to this
area. Literal interpretation of zoning regulations would allow the structure
to be setback 5' from the Master Street Plan setback and would not permit
the proposed variance request. The applicant would be deprived of
developing the property with a setback that is typical of surrounding
properties in the same district, with reference to the right-of-way location.
The requested front setback is a result of the applicant's desire to construct
an office building which will create a streetscape and enhance the
character of downtown. Finally, the proposed setback variance is the
minimum variance necessary to accommodate the proposed
redevelopment. The allowance of construction to with a 14' 8" variance
of the required 60' setback from the centerline of College Avenue will
allow this site to be developed with a similar street presence as other
developments within the Historic Commercial area of Downtown
Board of Adjustment
July 6, 2004
Page 7
Fayetteville. The variances will not be injurious to the surrounding
businesses or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Staff is
recommending approval of the requested variance with three conditions of
approval. 1) Landscaping shall be provided along Spring St. and College
Ave. as approved by Planning Division to create an appropriate
streetscape. 2) The applicant shall coordinate construction of sidewalks
along public rights-of-way with the Sidewalk Coordinator, Chuck
Rutherford, and ensure that the sidewalk is constructed through any
proposed driveways or alleys and at the appropriate location. 3) All
necessary permits shall be issued prior to the development of this lot.
Green: Would the applicant like to add anything to that?
Owings: My name is Mark Owings, I'm with Crafton, Tull. My client and I have
worked rather hard to meet the requirements of the desired Downtown
Master Plan and the setbacks and the other issues that we are dealing with.
This will give us an ability to redefine that corner and kind of move the
same kind of look you see on the square and address that towards College
on that corner. If you see the other buildings on the square where you
have plantings at the corner entries and things, moving that out towards
College and kind of creating and extending that out.
Green: Does anyone else from the audience want to address us on this issue? Are
there comments or questions from the Board?
Andrews: I have a question about parking. I only see nine parking spaces here,
where is the rest of your parking?
Warrick: I will tackle that. In the C-3 and C-4 zoning district the ordinance
provides a bonus for footprints of structures that were removed for
redevelopment purposes. There is an allowance granted for the existing
footprint of the structure. They are not required to provide the full number
of parking spaces onsite. We have not completely finished our review
with regard to whether or not the nine spaces will meet the requirement.
We will ensure that there is appropriate parking for this project and not
interrupt the streetscape along College. We are still reviewing that but
they will get a credit.
Andrews: They will be pursing future variances for parking if necessary?
Green: Which would be a Planning Commission issue.
Warrick: Yes Sir.
Kohler: The setback off of Spring Street is 5'?
Board of Adjustment
July 6, 2004
Page 8
Warrick: Yes. I would note that the way we have noted the variance request and the
required setback in the chart in your report, those dimensions are taken
from centerline based on the Master Street Plan requirements. That was
the easiest way to note that because it was easier to determine those hard
numbers that we know there is a required 55' from centerline to meet the
Master Street Plan and then an additional 5' as a building setback. 5' from
the right of way line is the setback in the C-3 district. We are looking at a
district that allows for a very narrow setback to create a streetscape and
sidewalks. Right now we are not measuring from our existing right of
way, but from our Master Street Plan right of way. We believe that when
these variances are placed we will still have a structure that are at an
appropriate location with regard to the streetscape when the street is
widened out.
Green: After the Master Street Plan is approved then the actual necessity for this
variance request in setback would be non -existing with the new Master
Street Plan?
Warrick: The Downtown Master Plan, if the street sections for that were adopted
then we would have a consistent streetscape and setback with this
proposal. The Downtown Master Plan has developed a 60' right of way
with a boulevard section. We are trying to be sure that what we are
looking at is consistent with what we want to see downtown and will be
compatible should that plan not be adopted. I believe if the plan were
adopted this would be consistent with the streetscape as well as the
setbacks that are outlined.
Green: Thanks.
MOTION:
Kohler: I move that we approve the request subject to the three recommendations
by staff.
Andrews: Second.
Green: We have a motion and a second to approve the Variance request along
with staff's recommendations. Is there any further discussion? Shall the
request pass?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 04-1121 was
approved by a vote of 5-0-0.
Board of Adjustment
July 6, 2004
Page 9
Green: There is one other item on the agenda which is not on the agenda but we
need to take care of That is the election of a new chairman for this
committee. I have served two terms as chairman and so it is probably time
for someone else to lead the charge. At this time I would like to open it up
for nominations for a new chairman for the coming year. Diversity has
it's virtues in a citizen committee such as this.
Green: I would nominate Michael Andrews because he has the longevity and
seniority.
Nickle: Second.
Green: Are there any other nominations? I move to accept Michael Andrews by
acclamation. All in favor say ay. Any opposed say nay. Mr. Andrews is
our new chairman.
Announcements