Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-07 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held Monday, September 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 04-1206 (SQUIRES, 445) Approved Page 2 BOA 04-1207 (CURTIS/LEAHY, 445) Approved Page 12 BOA 04-1208 (SPAINE, 484) Approved Page 8 BOA 04-1209 (LOLLEY, 522) Approved Page 14 Members Present Members Absent Michael Green Robert Kohler Joanne Olszewski James Kunzelmann Bob Nickle Sherree Alt Michael Andrews Staff Present Staff Absent Dawn Warrick Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan David Whitaker Renee Thomas Board of Adjustment September 7, 2004 Page 2 BOA 04-1206 (SQUIRES, 445): Submitted by JOHN & MARTHANNE SQUIRES for property located at 922 N PARK AVENUE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.29 acres. The request is for a front setback of 24' (a F variance). Andrews: Welcome to the Board of Adjustment. Today is September 7, 2004. The first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from the last meeting. We were just handed a change, I believe that is from page six and seven there was a break that shouldn't have been there and that was fixed for us. Other than that, are there any changes or corrections? Nickle: I had one. On page 14 it says the Ranberry house, that should be Bradbury House. That's it for me. Andrews: Is there anything else? Hearing none, we will enter those minutes into the record please. That brings us to our first item of new business, BOA 04- 1206 submitted by John and Martha Ann Squires for property located at 922 N. Park Avenue. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately 0.29 acres. The request is for a front setback of 24', which would be a 1' variance. Does staff have comment on this? Morgan: The subject property, is as you stated, located at 922 Park Avenue. This is located north of Prospect Street and Wilson Park. There is currently an existing single family home on this lot. The existing residential structure does conform to all current zoning regulations within the RSF-4 zoning district. This zoning district does require a 25' front setback and the applicant is requesting an addition to the front of the structure, a 6' x 19.5' porch. This porch would therefore, encroach into the required front setback by 1'. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance of 1' for this porch addition. In regard to the findings, staff finds that there are no special conditions or circumstances existing which are peculiar to the land or structure that are not applicable to surrounding properties or buildings in the same district. Additionally, literal interpretation of the zoning regulations would permit a 5' addition to the front of the structure in order to function as a sitting area as well as providing protection for the residents. The zoning regulations again, would not deprive the applicant rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the surrounding area, which also have small overhangs. The request for the variance in addition, is a result of the applicant's proposal for the addition of a porch and granting the requested variance would confer special privileges to the applicant that are otherwise denied to adjacent properties. Staff, therefore, recommends denial of the requested front setback variance based on these findings. Andrews: Is the applicant present? Would you state your name for the record? Board of Adjustment September 7, 2004 Page 3 Squires: I'm John Squires. First, just so that we are all clear, I would like to provide you with a better picture of what it is that we are proposing. When I received the email on Friday and printed out the attachments I couldn't make out anything about what it is that we are proposing. Also attached there are a couple of letters of support from the neighbors. First off, I want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss this with the Board of Adjustment. This is regarding our application for a 25' setback variance. We live in one of the older neighborhoods in Fayetteville, Park Street, the house is 58 years old, it was there before the current zoning code went into affect in 1970 or thereabouts. What we are looking to do is to update the look of our home by replacing the aluminum siding with cement fiber lap siding, upgrade the driveway and put the landscaping and porch in. This is important that it is architecturally compatible with the house by expanding or extending the front dormer forward 6', this includes the overhang. We had some earlier confusion as to what the setback actually was and we are essentially asking for a 1' variance. This is basically for the overhang on the porch. It is not taking up greenspace or removing greenspace. The dormer is 19.5' wide. To make a porch 4' wide and 19.5' long is disproportionate. 5' is just bare minimum for a sitting area and then you've got a 1' overhang to keep the rain off the people on the porch. The Planning staff has recommended against the 1' variance and while their findings are not unreasonable, another equally reasonable person I believe might find in favor of this proposed variance. I went through each of their findings that they just did. The first one they find for example, no special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land or structure that are not applicable to surrounding properties and buildings in the same district. I would suggest that another equally reasonable person might find that the lack of a front porch does in fact, represent a special condition or circumstances peculiar to the house at 922 Park since most of the other homes in the district do have porches of varying sizes. Consequently, adding a front porch is not generally applicable to other structures in the district since they already exist. Second, the Planners find that the zoning regulations do not deprive the applicants of the rights commonly enjoyed by other surrounding properties that have small porches or overhangs. That is not unreasonable but it is no more reasonable than a finding that the applicant is deprived of the commonly enjoyed right to an architecturally compatible front porch, a right commonly enjoyed by other surrounding properties that have varying sized porches that are architecturally compatible with their structures. It is a different interpretation but I would submit no less reasonable. Again, the Planners find that the requested variance will confer special privileges to the applicant that are denied by zoning and would require a variance request by other properties within the same district. It would be equally reasonable to find that the requested variance will confer no special privilege to the applicant that are not generally available to other Board of Adjustment September 7, 2004 Page 4 properties within the same district by the same variance process. I think rationally this board could find for or against the variance and justify either position. In deciding, I would ask the board to consider the following. Support from the neighbors in favor of granting the variance. These are the people most directly affected and have the most to gain or lose. I have submitted a number of letters and believe that we have at least one neighbor that was able to make it out on short notice and will speak to the issue. The other thing is, the other peculiar circumstance here I believe is that because of the 60' street right of way in a residential area, which is 10' wider than the normal residential right of way, we already provide and maintain more greenspace in front of our homes than residents in the district that have 50' right of ways. I would point out that the street to the north, Pike Street, and the street to the south, Cleburn, both have 50' right of ways and the houses are proportionately closer so that we are already 7 ''/z' back from the curb further than most similar houses in a typical residential area. If approved, the front cave of our porch will still be 42.6' from the curb. The intrusion doesn't decrease the greenspace, it is just the roof overhang that intrudes. The front porch is open and finally, the porch is part of an overall facelift that will add value to the house and the neighborhood without negatively impacting anyone. I would ask that this board finds that the proposed variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning regulations and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or public welfare. Thank you. Andrews: Does the board have any questions for Mr. Squires? Green: I have one question. I'm not sure if Mr. Squires or the staff can maybe answer. The house directly to the north seems to be setback further than the Squires' house, but the house to the south seems like it may sit closer to the street than the Squires' house. Do you all have any information or actual measurements on that? Warrick: I don't think we have anymore than what you are using as a basis for eyeballing that. I would agree with your assessment that those structures seem to vary in the amount of setback slightly from the subject property. I would imagine that as this property was developed prior to the establishment of the city's zoning regulations. Nickle: Dawn, do you know the reason why we do have a 60' right of way on Park? That is the only one in that general area that I see. Warrick: Cleburn Street does west of Park and east of Highland. I'm not sure. There were varying rights of ways. The standard is a 50' and most of the streets out there are 50' so I'm not sure why those two or three were done that way. Board of Adjustment September 7, 2004 Page 5 Andrews: Does this property fall into the Wilson Park Neighborhood Association? Squires: Yes it does. Andrews: Were they notified? Squires: I emailed Mark Kinion who is the coordinator of the group. Part of the difficulty, I'm not looking to hassle the staff but I didn't receive an email with this staff position denying this until it actually hit my email about 4:00 on Friday afternoon. I had gone for the weekend, I didn't receive this until I got back and had very little time to alert the neighborhood association. Before we even put this in we had gone and talked to our neighbors in front and back of us because we wouldn't be here if they didn't support this. The neighborhood is way too important to us. Andrews: Is there any comment from the audience? Dillon: My name is Barbara Dillon. I own the house just to the south of the Squires. I would like to say that John may not realize this, but Mark Kinion sent an email in support of the Squires project so the Wilson Park Neighborhood Association is aware and supportive of what they are proposing to do. I feel like I'll be the house most affected by it so I wanted to make sure that you all know that I support it too and represent the other neighbors who are very aware of the quality of work that the Squires have done over the years and the various improvements that they have made to their house and their lot and we feel very confident that this will be more of the same and will enhance our property values as well. We feel like the notion of a front porch is a great enhancement to the community feeling in the neighborhood so we are 100% supportive. Andrews: Are there any other comments? Becker: I find some peculiarities in association with this project, not only the 60' right of way verses the 50' right of way but we also should talk about the street width because it is 25' instead of 30'. As a result, from the normal 50' right of way this house gets another, all those houses actually, get 7 ''/2' of additional greenspace that would not occur with a normal 50' right of way and a 30' street. Talking about 1' seems to be a little bit strange in the sense of there are peculiarities and therefore, I think the Board ought to look at those peculiarities in professing whether this should be denied or upheld. Andrews: Are there any other comments? Squires: Yes, my name is Martha Anne Squires, I live at 922 N. Park. I am listed on the petition, we are requesting the 1' variance and I just want to read Board of Adjustment September 7, 2004 Page 6 from the Arkansas Democrat dated Friday, August 27`h, business and farm. It says Forbes lists Fayetteville as family friendly city. Fayetteville and Hot Springs garner mentions in the special report of 60 cheap places to live from Forbes. Fayetteville was also mentioned among porch swing communities, which are associated with being family friendly. Now, you can say you can put a porch swing on the back porch. We have a back deck. However, we have an alley that runs between our property and the neighbors to the east, I believe that is Alan Reid. As you know, the city has an easement along that alley, which unfortunately has not been maintained. It is very overgrown, it is very trashy. I had to mow the alley the other day. Who would want to sit on a porch in a porch swing and look out on the alley back there? It is horrible! The city has not maintained that alley. Barring an aesthetic porch and porch swing on the back porch we are looking to build a porch on the front to make it neighbor friendly, to have a porch swing, to make it a neighbor friendly community that Wilson Park wants, that Fayetteville wants. I submit that it is not neighborly friendly to deny this petition. Andrews: Thank you. Does anyone else from the audience want to make any comment? Hearing none, I will bring it back to the Board. I will say one thing in defense of the city, they have to go by certain guidelines in whether to recommend approval or denial and that is all that it is to us, is a recommendation. We can choose to follow it or not follow it. Whether they are at the last minute or whether you get a month's notice, I don't think it affects our decision. I'm sure it affects what you feel like you need to prepare but that is just a recommendation for us. I would recommend, there is a website you can go to for the city if property is not maintained and you can post that and somebody will take a look at your alleyway. Squires: While we are talking about the website, we may want to update the fact that Michael Green is no longer chairman of this committee. You will notice that the letters are addressed as him because he is listed as the chairman. Green: I was driving by there and looking at this. Generally, this is sort of a unique neighborhood in that the houses have variable setbacks it seems like. In fact, almost all of our meetings lately have had a setback variance request in that same area and even on that same street in several occasions. I'm not sure how the 60' right of way occurred but with the various porches that are on that street and just the way this one looks with that small overhang, of course the aesthetics is out of our jurisdiction and I don't want to get into that. I was seeing that there are maybe some special circumstances that could be considered in this neighborhood especially, and with the surroundings that are there, especially in light of the fact that all of the adjacent neighbors seem to support this improvement to the front Board of Adjustment September 7, 2004 Page 7 of their house. I don't see any problems with a 1' variance, I think if they were getting out there and getting closer to the street than their adjacent neighbor was for instance, I think I might have some real concerns with that but it looked like there were some other houses along that street, just looking at them, there were several of them that were probably closer to the edge of curb than this house was. I guess that is where I'm coming from right now. Andrews: Is there anything else? Olszewski: I thought Mr. Squires brought up a good argument for deprivation of rights. People do have porches around there, we could consider that a right. I know we are not supposed to get into the architecture of it but if it doesn't look good then that is a right too. If it is un -proportional it doesn't look good so I'm sort of agreeing with you on how you could look at it either way. Kunzelmann: I addition to what Joanne said, not just the aesthetics but the functionality of the porch. If you have 4' and your chair is 3' wide there is no circulation space, if you have 5' there is some circulation space. I think in order for the porch to function adequately for the cost of the porch it would need to be at least that size. Nickle: I move we approve the Variance request. Alt: I second. Andrews: There is a motion and a second. Is there any further comment? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve BOA 04-1206 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Board of Adjustment September 7, 2004 Page 8 BOA 04-1207 (CURTIS/LEAHY, 445): Submitted by GABE LEAHY for property located at 722 N VANDEVENTER. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE. The request is for a 5' side setback (a 3' variance). Andrews: That brings us to our second item of new business, BOA 04-1207 submitted by Gabe Leahy for property located at 722 N. Vandeventer. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre. The request is for a 5' side setback which is a 3' variance. Can staff give us some comment on that? Morgan: This subject property is actually located about a block away from the previous property which we discussed. There is currently a 1,900 sq.ft. single family home on this property. It was constructed in the 1950's. The existing structure exists as a non -conforming structure. There is currently a 3' encroachment on the northern setback, which is the side setback with the requirement of an 8' setback at that location. The applicant proposes an addition to this home of approximately 1,000 sq.ft. to the rear of the existing home as an extension of the existing property with a 5' setback as currently exists on the structure. The request is therefore, for a side setback variance of 3' resulting in a 5' setback along the north property line to bring the current structure into conformity with formal approval of a variance by the Board of Adjustment and to accommodate a proposed addition to the rear of the existing home. Staff finds, with regard to this proposal, that the existing structure was constructed such that the home currently does encroach within that side setback creating a special condition for the structure involved. Additionally, literal interpretation of the zoning regulations would not permit the proposed addition to the existing structure in this location nor would it allow the existing home to be built as it is situated today. Conditions of the existing encroachment of the setback do not result from the actions of the applicant, however, the applicant is proposing an addition within the required 8' setback. Staff finds that granting the requested variance will not confer special privileges. The use is allowed within this zoning district. Additionally, the proposed side setback variance is the minimum variance necessary to accommodate the existing structure as well as the proposed expansion. Granting a variance to this side setback would be in keeping of the overall character and harmony of the Wilson Park neighborhood. A 5' setback will additionally provide suitable separation between the existing structure and the adjacent lot. The adjacent structure is situated on the adjacent lot to the northern most portion of that lot there is quite a bit of separation existing between these two structures. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested side setback variance with two conditions. Condition one, all applicable building permits shall be obtained to begin construction of the proposed addition and condition two, no expansion or reconstruction of the existing structure without Board of Adjustment Board of Adjustment September 7, 2004 Page 9 approval shall occur within the required setbacks as established by zoning with the exception of the existing and proposed addition. Andrews: Is the applicant here? Would anybody from the audience like to address this issue? Hearing none, I will bring it back to the Board. Are there any questions? Olszewski: Has anyone heard from the neighbor next to them? Andrews: I had the same question, have we heard from any neighbors? Morgan: None that I'm aware of. Warrick: There has been a sign posted and neighbors were sent verification. Andrews: Do you send those to the owner? Warrick: We send those to the property owner as recorded at the County Assessor's office. It is not always the occupant. Green: It seems like the only one affected by it would be that one property owner. There is a fence there that is awfully close to their house. If that property owner doesn't object to it though. Andrews: There is a 20' rear setback for that property? Morgan: I was told by the applicant that the chain link fence is on the property line. Andrews: So we know that nothing can go up closer than 20' from where that is. Green: The next door neighbor to the north has a rear setback am I correct? Warrick: He has a front setback along Cleburn and Vandeventer so the south and east property tines for the adjoining property would have 8' setbacks. If the 8' for the northern neighbor is exercised and this variance granted for a 5' setback we have 13' between the structures. Olszewski: Do we have a survey on this? Warrick: No we don't. Olszewski: I didn't think you could do it without a survey. Warrick: It is not required. Board of Adjustment September 7, 2004 Page 10 Olszewski: Are you sure? I thought I asked about it for myself and was told I needed a survey. Warrick: It is not required. Green: Probably only by a financial institution. Olszewski: To get a variance by the Board of Adjustment you do not have to have a survey? Warrick: No. We would certainly always recommend it. If for some reason this was off and the applicant were to build and the next buyer obtain a survey they may have issues with their title if it is not accurate. That is not something that we can know at this point in time. We always recommend that people obtain surveys. Fence lines and trees and rocks don't always measure out exactly. Olszewski: Who did this drawing? Warrick: The applicant. Green: Is this sufficient for building permit application? Warrick: Yes. Nickle: How do we know that he is already encroaching? Warrick: We are going off the information that was provided to us. We ask that they sign off and certify that the information they give is accurate. Green: That was actually determined when they came to get a building permit, right? Warrick: I believe that was the step that they took to come down and request a building permit and it was at that point that they were made aware that they were an existing non -conformity. The size of their proposed addition was something that staff was not able to approve. It did require a variance to make the additions that they proposed. MOTION: Green: I would move that we approve the Variance request along with staff's recommendation. Nickle: Second. Board of Adjustment September 7, 2004 Page I1 Andrews: There is a motion and a second, is there any further discussion? Would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve BOA 04-1207 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Board of Adjustment September 7, 2004 Page 12 BOA 04-1208 (SPAINE, 484): Submitted by DWIGHT CALLAWAY for property located at 225 N EAST AVENUE. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE. The request is for a 7' front setback (a 23' variance) and a 13' side setback (a 2' variance) to the south of the subject property. Andrews: Item number three is BOA 04-1208 submitted by Dwight Calloway for property located at 225 N. East Avenue. The property is zoned R -O, the request is for a 7' front setback, which is a 23' variance, the side setback is not applicable. Warrick: The subject property is located at 225 N. East Avenue. The property is south of Dickson Street, one block west of College Avenue and across the street from St. Paul's Episcopal church. The structure on the property was once utilized for residential purposes and has since been converted for professional office use, as have several along that street and the block. Approximately 1,893 sq.ft. currently exists within the structure. There is a small basement storage area. A narrow driveway exists along the north property line which provides access to two narrow parking spaces on the site. The applicant does propose to renovate the existing structure for professional office use and expanded professional office use. The addition that they propose will not expand the footprint of the building however, it will simply expand the attic space and change the roofline as depicted in some of the graphics that are contained in your packet. The proposal is to add approximately 1050 sq.ft. of usable area, that is an increase of about 55% of the space for the structure. The applicant is requesting a front setback variance in order to make the existing structure compliant, which will allow the addition to also comply and would allow the structure to be rebuilt should there be any significant damage to the structure in the future. As was mentioned, the original request also included a side setback variance request. Staff has reviewed this application and determined that that is not necessary. In the R -O zoning district there are two different side setbacks. One is applicable when the property is adjacent to a residential district and one is applicable otherwise. For the purpose of this setback consideration it is staff s interpretation that this is not adjacent to a residential district. The R -O district, while it does allow residential use, it is primarily used for office purposes and that of course, is the function of the adjacent property, therefore the 10' setback is applicable and appropriate which mitigates the need for a variance which was originally sought. What we are looking at is a request for a variance of the 30' front setback, a 23' variance to allow a 7' setback. With regard to findings, the structure was built prior to the adoption of current zoning regulations. Access, as well as open space, is provided between buildings as well as between the structure and the street. The structure is similar in character, size, and location to others on the street. I think this is an appropriate finding in that the proposed addition will still be of similar size and character with the existing developments along the street. This is Board of Adjustment September 7, 2004 Page 13 a relatively eclectic downtown sort of neighborhood that has a variety of different land uses and building types. We do not believe that granting the variance would confer special privileges. The property is zoned appropriately for the professional office use that is proposed. Granting this variance is in harmony with the general purpose of current zoning regulations. The result of the variance is desirable in that the structure would be permitted by right to be closer to the street providing an appropriate pedestrian atmosphere in the downtown area. Therefore, staff is recommending in favor of this requested variance. Andrews: Thanks. Is the applicant in the audience? Calhoon: I'm Steve Calhoon, representing the owner. Andrews: Do you have any comments or anything that you would like to add? Calhoon: No, I think that pretty much covers it. I will answer any questions you may have. Andrews: Ok, would anybody else in the audience like to comment on this? Hearing none, I will bring it back to the board. Nickle: It looks straight forward to me. It doesn't expand beyond the footprint that is already there. I don't see any real issues. If he does this there is going to be quite a significant investment in the property so I understand the need to confirm with variances. Andrews: Is there anything else? I would entertain a motion. MOTION: Nickle: I move that we approve the request with staff s comments. Green: Second. Andrews: We have a motion and a second, is there any further comment? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve BOA 04-1208 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Board of Adjustment September 7, 2004 Page 14 BOA 04-1209 (LOLLEY, 522): Submitted by MIKEL LOLLEY for property located at 5 S HILL AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -40, MULTI FAMILY - 40 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.40 acres. The request is for a reduction in the rear setback to allow for the development of 6 town homes and required parking. Andrews: That brings us to our fourth item today, BOA 04-1209 submitted by Michael Lolley for property located at 5 S. Hill Avenue. The property is zoned RMF -40, Residential Multi -Family, 40 units per acre and contains approximately .40 acres. The request is for reduction in the rear setback to allow for the development of six townhouses and required parking. The applicant is requesting a 13' rear setback, which is a 7' variance, would staff like to give us some comment on this please? Morgan: This property is located south of Center Street and east of University Avenue. There is currently an eight unit apartment building on this site. It is a two story apartment complex and is situated along the front, or east portion of the property. The applicant proposes to construct an additional six unit building behind the existing structure to the west of the property. This is seen in the site plan handout. The applicant proposes to increase the development of this property and in order to do so is in the process of applying for a Property Line Adjustment to the south to provide additional property in order to accommodate additional parking for the proposed addition. Additionally, the applicant is requesting a variance in the rear setback in order to situate the building such that parking may be placed in between the two structures. The applicant is requesting a 7' variance resulting in a 13' rear setback. Surrounding properties consist of RMF -40 zoning and various types of land use are surrounding this property. To the north are single and multi -family residential dwelling units. To the south and east are multi -family residential units and to the west is developed as single family. With regard to findings, staff finds that the existing duplex was constructed in 1965 on a peculiar area of the lot which would preclude the logical location of future development as a special circumstance particular to this property. The applicant has also stated that there are existing drainage issues on this lot and these may be improved with further development of this property. Literal interpretation of the zoning regulations would preclude further development of this property in the configuration and location proposed by the applicant without the required variance as requested. Additionally, staff finds that granting the variance will not be injurious to the neighborhood nor the public welfare and recommends approval of this proposed rear setback variance with two conditions of approval. Item one, approval for the requested setback variance shall be void until the necessary property line adjustments required for the further development of this property not be approved and filed at the county. All applicable building permits shall be obtained to begin construction of the proposed addition. Board of Adjustment September 7, 2004 Page 15 Andrews: Is the applicant in the audience? Lolley: I'm Michael Lolley, I'm the one that is wanting to build a six plex and have been wrestling with the design for the footprint of the building for several months. One is just researching, it is a pretty funky neighborhood and trying to figure out what easements have been vacated, which ones were utilities, alleys, etc. and have finally got through that and have really I feel like hammered hard on the footprint of the building to not go for parking variances, just go for a setback variance. As Suzanne stated, contingent upon the lot line adjustment, which I finally got a hold of the surveyor today. He assured me that we could have the drawings for the lot line adjustment by the September 16`h deadline so we could get that information to you in a timely fashion to move forward on the project. I have contacted most immediate neighbors to the south and to the north and have walked them through the project and they seemed thrilled with the improvements and have been thrilled with the improvements that have taken place in the last year and a half on the existing structure. Really the motivation, more than anything, is that we have some severe water problems on the site. We knew that when we were going through the due diligence to purchase the property about a year and a half ago. We have made considerable improvements to the existing building in renovations and it is hard to get banks to lend money to clean up a swamp. There is just not a lot of revenue stream. We thought about a parking lot for football games and basketball games but that really wasn't going to be enough revenue to offset the costs to correct some pretty serious water problems. The apartments used to be named New Orleans apartments. They were appropriately named. There are a lot of surface water problems. We have got clearly a spring in the front yard and seeps in the rear parking area and basically, a parking area that has never been adequately developed. This was initiated I guess in a desire to improve a parking lot and clean up some water problems that we have on the existing building. I brought some pictures. If you wanted to take a look, here are some before and after pictures. If you have questions I will try to answer those. Andrews: I'm not sure I understood what you meant about some more drawings that haven't been submitted yet. Lolley: The house there is the house directly to the south of the property. I own that house also and we are proposing a lot line adjustment whereby it would offset the current property line about 20' to bring in additional parking so that we wouldn't need a variance for parking. Warrick: That lot line adjustment is an action that will be considered and reviewed administratively. Board of Adjustment September 7, 2004 Page 16 Green: I guess the applicant owns the lots that the eight plex is on plus the vacant lot in between, which is going to be proposed parking area. Lolley: It is not a vacant lot. There are two lots that the eight plex is currently located on and then the two lots that the six townhouses will be located in the rear of and then there is 116' of two lots that are just to the south where we would have some head in parking, I think nine or eleven spaces along there. Nickle: Are your drainage problems primarily in the front? Lolley: They are both. We have actually dried up the front considerably. There is a spring there in the front yard that we have uncovered but there is a serious drainage problem in the rear as well. Neighbor: I'm the neighbor directly behind this property to the west on Duncan Avenue. Is that going to move my property line? Lolley: No Sir. Neighbor: Are you going to move my fence? Lolley: No Sir. Neighbor: Where are the additional units going to be built? Lolley: That raised gravel parking area that runs within about 5' of the existing fence that is back there, it could be about another 10' east of where that unimproved gravel parking area is currently. Neighbor: So there would be parking back there? Lolley: Yes, this is the drawing that I think will illustrate clearly what we are proposing. This is Mrs. Gillam's house and the big white house so we are really just talking about locating them right here. Neighbor: That is the new parking? Lolley: Yes. Neighbor: This would be backyard right here? Lolley: Yes Sir. There is no adjustment to your property line. Andrews: Have your questions been answered? Board of Adjustment September 7, 2004 Page 17 Neighbor: Yes, and I have no objections. Andrews: Does anyone else want to address this? Hearing none, I'll bring it back to the committee. Olszewski: I'm a little confused about the special conditions. Could you fix the water problems without the building? Lolley: It would be cost prohibitive. Really, the revenue stream from the six plex will pay for the parking and the water improvements. That's really how it will work. Olszewski: That's really a financial thing. I'm a little confused about that first sentence. Somebody put that there for a reason. It says to include building in the future. Do you think they put it there because of the water problems or because they wanted it maybe not to be built around? Lolley: I do know that the existing eight plex that was built in 1965, one of the things that we discovered in the survey was that it had actually encroached by a couple of feet into a 12' utility easement that was to the south. I'm not quite sure what the process was or the rational for locating that building. It seems really arbitrary, even when you look at the way that it encroaches on the utility easement. It is on a considerable slope so there may have been some financial reasons for them locating it as close to the street as they did, just to prevent the amount of cut that they would've had to perform to move that building back on the site. That actually formed a lot of the decisions on the new building, was to try to minimize the amount of cut that we would have to do. We had originally looked at the amenity of covered parking that would've been underneath the six townhouses but we just couldn't afford the amount of material that we would've had to haul off site to offer that amenity so we backed that out. Nickle: I suspect that they built it that close for utility runs. When builders today build new subdivisions 90% of the time they will put it right at the setback just to save the utility runs. Lolley: I do know that the sewer run for the eight plex had an illegal tie in to the property that I had at 706 W. Treadwell. That was about a two year project. The city had to come back and come up Hill Street about 20 yards and drop in a manhole so that we each had our own legal tie in to the sewer. Like I said, it is a funky neighborhood so there has been all kinds of things that have evolved over time, especially with utilities and easements and alleys and things like that. Olszewski: I think the other question I have is many times when we look at these and they are multi -family there is an assumption that we should put wording in Board of Adjustment September 7, 2004 Page 18 this but there are single family. This gentleman I'm assuming is one of these two to the left and you mentioned that you talked to the people on the other side but I'm a little concerned about the single family residents. Lolley: I talked to two of them. I talked to Mrs. Kilmore and similar to a comment that was made on another Board of Adjustment applicant, all of the single family bungalows that are along Duncan are on long, deep lots. I don't know that we will have a real problem with encroaching upon them with the building. Obviously, we are concerned about the two properties adjacent to the development, just given how close they would be to it and how it would impact them more than the bungalows along Duncan just because the lots there were so deep. Andrews: I guess you could actually build up to 16 units on your property. Lolley: We backed off of that so that we would not go for a parking variance. I just know from managing property rentals in the area for a number of years that just from a property management standpoint, not only did we not want to ask for a variance for parking but just from a facilities management we wanted to provide the parking so that we could provide that amenity for the residents. Nickle: Did we receive any public comment from anyone else? Morgan: No, we did not receive any other comment. Andrews: We have got 33' from the back, actually the whole parking lot looks like it is about 52' wide. Is that right? Warrick: Are you talking about the parking between structures? Yes, that is correct. Andrews: Is that the minimum recommended? Warrick: I think that the only thing that could be reduced, the width that they have proposed is a 9' width in the parallel spaces immediately behind the existing structure. I believe that could be reduced to 8 %z'. The other dimensions are minimum unless they went to compact spaces facing the new structure and they wouldn't be able to make all of those compact spaces because we don't permit more than 35% of those spaces to be parallel compact. Andrews: I was just making sure that there wasn't any way to bring that building forward any. Lolley: We are open to that. That was the challenge sent to the civil engineer was to, we didn't even design the building until they gave us the footprint Board of Adjustment September 7, 2004 Page 19 based on absolute minimums that we would need. We really were trying to go to the absolute minimum setback variance that we would need. There may be a different interpretation or some way to get another 6" or a foot out of there and we would do that. Warrick: I think the best that we could look at by the numbers would be to reduce those parallel spaces to compact spaces. They would be fairly small, 7 '/2' width would allow for a compact parallel space, that would give a foot and a half additional. Andrews: You are talking about width, I'm talking about length here Warrick: I'm talking about the parallel spaces. It is a little bit of a bargain to go less than 8'. I don't know if I would recommend the full 7 Y2' but even if you would with an 8' compact space, which is a standard size width you could gain 1' back and reduce the variance request by a foot. Adams: I am Elizabeth Adams. Has this been surveyed? Lolley: Yes. Warrick: It looks like there is a relatively wide overhang on the rear as well. Michael, is there any particular reason for that? Lolley: It is just that with the building itself will be an extremely large amount of glass with that western exposure we want to provide a fairly wide overhang for just protection from the elements and in the back a protection from all the glazing that will be on the back of the upper floors. Nickle: I assume this plan meets our greenspace requirements? Warrick: We have been reviewing that and we will not issue a building permit if it does not. That is still in the review process, as is tree preservation, which is required for this site. This project will be required to meet all of the city's criteria. All that we are considering right now is the variance and we have put the applicant on notice that we do have to approve a property line adjustment to ensure that he can provide adequate parking. We have not been able to evaluate whether or not, we have given it a rough review but as you said, the survey is in process or will soon be, and we will have to have that to do a final review on the tot line adjustment. We have to ensure that the lot that is being reduced in size can still maintain the necessary dimensions to be a legal lot so those are still things that need to be determined. Board of Adjustment September 7, 2004 Page 20 Lolley: I spoke with Alan Reid this morning and he gave me assurances that he would have the drawings that you need for the lot line adjustment for the September 16`h deadline. Andrews: Are there any other questions? Is there a motion? MOTION: Green: I would move that we approve the request for the setback variance along with staffs recommendations. Olszewski: I second. Andrews: There is a motion and a second. Are there any further questions? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve BOA 04-1209 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Andrews: Are there any further things for the Board of Adjustment? We will call that meeting adjourned.