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.