Loading...
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