Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-06 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on September 6, 2005 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN BOA 05-1694: (CAMPBELL, 564) Approved Page 3 BOA 05-1695: (FAUCETTE, 486) Approved Page 8 MEMBERS PRESENT Michael Andrews (Chairman) Michael Green Robert Kohler Robert Nickle Karen McSpadden Sherree Alt STAFF PRESENT Andrew Garner Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher David Whitaker MEMBERS ABSENT Eric Johnson STAFF ABSENT Board of Adjustment September 6, 2005 Page 3 BOA 05-1694: (CAMPBELL, 564): Submitted by DENELE CAMPBELL for property located at 1397 EAST HUNTSVILLE ROAD. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY - FOUR UNITS PER ACRE and contain approximately 0.6 acres. The request is to approve reduced setbacks on two street frontages, Huntsville Road and Curtis Avenue, to accommodate existing nonconforming structures and to accommodate a proposed addition to an existing structure. The western structure requires a 20' variance on the Huntsville Road frontage, and the existing eastern structure and its proposed addition require a 3' variance on the Huntsville Road frontage, and a 10' variance on the Curtis Avenue frontage. Chairman: Let's call the September 6th meeting of the Board of Adjustment to order. We don't have any old business. The first item of new business is BOA 05-1694 submitted by Denele Campbell for property located at 1397 East Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and RSF- 4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre, and contains approximately 0.6 acres. The request is to approve reduced setbacks on two street frontages, Huntsville and Curtis Avenue, to accommodate the existing nonconforming structure, that's a 20 -foot variance on Huntsville and a 10 - foot variance on Curtis, and to accommodate a proposed addition to the existing structure, a 3 -foot variance on Huntsville. Would staff like to give us -- Andrew? Garner: Yes, sir. This property contains two lots and the northern lot is actually zoned Residential Office and the southern lot is zoned Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre, and the proposed variances or the requested variances are on the northern lot, which is zoned Residential Office. As mentioned, it's on the corner of East Huntsville Road and Curtis Road. And the proposal is, you know, for variances. The applicant wants to create a music -studio business on the property and would propose to connect the two existing structures on the northern lot and then create a parking lot that would extend down into the southern lot. And just as background, since the southern lot is zoned Residential Single Family, they are applying for a conditional use permit for the parking lot. And the -- on Page 1.2 depicts the amount of variances the applicant is requesting in Table 1, and it might be helpful if you look at Page 1.9. You can see kind of a sketch showing that the existing structure, the western structure, would be requesting a 20 -foot variance per the existing nonconforming structure, and on the existing eastern structure they are requesting a 3 -foot variance from Huntsville Road, and then a 10 -foot variance on Curtis Avenue, and then they would actually -- they're proposing to connect those two buildings and would need a variance for the new structure as well. Staff finds that special conditions for this property do exist that are peculiar to the existing buildings. These structures were built in 1963, Board of Adjustment September 6, 2005 Page 4 ?: prior to zoning regulations and prior to the right-of-way for these roads being dedicated at this width. And we feel that literal interpretation of the zoning regulations would deprive the applicant of other rights to improve the property that other properties enjoy in this district. And the proposed addition to the structures would not increase the setback violation, it would be at the same level as you can see on the drawing as the existing nonconforming structure, so it wouldn't increase a nonconforming -- or increase a violation. And we find that the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant, but from a change in policy. And so with that, we are recommending approval of these variances with four conditions shown on Page 1.1. Condition 1, that any development shall comply with all zoning development regulations. 2, a building permit shall be obtained prior to construction. Condition 3, any and all existing structures, easements, and utilities would be shown on the site plan for the building permit. And Condition Number 4 just states that the three variances as shown on the drawing would be the only ones that are covered through this approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. I have one question, Andrew. When I first read this I thought one of the structures was on the R -O and the other one -- or RSF-4 and the other one was on the R -O. Both structures are on R -O, right? Garner: Yes, sir. ?: So the only thing that's going on the RSF-4 is the parking lot for -- to serve those R -O buildings? Garner: That's correct. ?: So we're not getting into any cross -mix, connected uses, or anything of that sort? Garner: No. ?: On Page 1.9 you've got some shaded area. Where is the, I guess, the construction? Is it that long, narrow shaded area that's going to connect the two? Is that what that is? Garner: Yes, sir. It's the area that -- I guess the area that has the hatching, just the vertical hatching, the really narrow strip, that would be where the proposed addition would actually be. Where those two trees are X'd out, that's the section that would be extended. Board of Adjustment September 6, 2005 Page 5 ?: Okay. ?: So you're actually adding on on the Curtis Avenue side to the building and making it a 20 -foot setback. So, wherels the existing nonconforming area is located is what I'm trying to figure. Garner: Yeah, it's kind of unclear on there. It's actually an existing 20 -foot setback. You can see -- where it says "3 -foot variance," there's a square down there and that's not actually an existing structure. The addition starts, basically, where those two trees in the middle are X'd out. The new addition would -- that's basically where the new addition would be, just in that -- and I can point it -- do you want me to -- I can point it out to you. It's hard to see. ?: Would you, because I'm kind of confused as well. ?: That's a corner lot, so you've got a 30 -foot -- Morgan: The existing building is right here. ?: All this? Okay. ?: -- and it's on a 20 -foot. Right now there's an existing structure and it's out of compliance. Morgan: And they're going to extend this one -- ?: Well, this is the existing -- Gotcha. Okay. And this is the part that's in violation existing -- and this is the part that's in violation? Morgan: Existing. This would -- is the proposed violation and this is the existing. ?: I understand. ?: The violation is darkened. Garner: Correct. ?: I think I see what they're doing here. Morgan: Uh-huh. Board of Adjustment September 6, 2005 Page 6 ?: I guess another question is, at some point, this will be four -land, I'm sure. There's still plenty of room in there. ?: Master Street by the way of -- Garner: Right. ?: -- that it's shown. So it's 10 feet off the right-of-way? Garner: Uh-huh. Correct. Chairman: Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant present? Campbell: That's me. Chairman: Yes, ma'am. Could you state your name? Campbell: Denele Campbell. Chairman: Yes, ma'am. Is there anything that you would like to add that would -- Campbell: Just that I need to get this place cleaned up and make it do what I want it to do. I've been looking for a place for a year to move the rehearsal studios that are in the old Quonset hut where I want to develop down here. And this is my fourth, hopeful, location. My costs are getting higher than I thought they would be, but I'm still hanging on by a fingernail, and I think I can make it work. The old buildings that are there are in pretty good shape except for the roofs. I'm going to have to replace the roofs on them. But the concrete block walls and the slab is good, so I'm hoping that I can make some good use of them. And as the planning staff said, I'm not adding anything toward the setbacks. That one space between the two buildings where I'm -- I'm basically just going to extend and join those two buildings, using the same footprint that the east building has width -wise. Chairman: Any questions for Ms. Campbell? Anybody in the audience like to address this? Audience: I'd like to speak to it briefly. Chairman: Sure. Audience: I think I've already answered my questions by meeting with Ms. Campbell, but I own the little duplex adjacent -- on the property adjacent Board of Adjustment September 6, 2005 Page 7 there on Curtis, and she has assured me that she is going to solve my problem, which is that it's pretty difficult to get my tenants to understand the need to keep things tidy when they live next to a junkyard. And she's going to fix that, so I'd like to speak in favor of the project. (Laughter) Chairman: All right. Bring it back before the Board. Motion: BOA: I move we accept BOA 05-1694 with the recommendation outlined by the staff. BOA: Second. Chairman: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 05-1694 carries with a vote of 6-0-0. Chairman: Good luck on your project. Campbell: Thank you. Board of Adjustment September 6, 2005 Page 8 BOA 05-1695: (FAUCETTE, 486): Submitted by ALAN REID for property located at 87 TEXAS WAY. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE. The requirement is for an 8' side setback. The request is for a 5.1 side setback (a 2.9' variance) and a 0' setback (a 25' variance). Chairman: The next item before us is BOA 05-1695 submitted by Alan Reid for property located at 87 Texas Way. The property is zoned RSF-4, single family, 4 units per acre, and the request is for a a 2 foot, 9 inch variance (should read 5 -point -one foot side setback, a 2 - point -nine inch variance), and a 0 front setback, a 25 -foot variance. Would staff like to give us -- Hall: I have a question. I'm Marvin Hall. I live at 89 Texas Way. Chairman: Give us just a moment, and I'll get to you in just a second. Hall: I'm sorry. Okay. Chairman: We'll let staff tell us a little bit about it first. Fulcher: If you would like to look at Page 2.10, there's a current survey that we received from the applicant, I think, best shows exactly where the house is located. It shows the right-of-way and it shows the front porch, as well as the steps and rock sidewalk in front. The house, as you said, is located at 87 Texas Way, which is just below Skyline Drive on Mount Sequoyah. The home was built in the 1930s, as best as we can tell from county records and from the applicant. It is Lot 87 of the Western Methodist Assembly. As probably everyone knows on Mount Sequoyah, all the lots in the area have severe elevation changes from front to back, and thus, meaning the homes, especially in the 1930s, were built as close to the front as possible, which would be the flatter, more level portions of the lot. As you can see on the survey, it does show the front porch is located at the right-of-way line. And the two structures you see crossing that right-of- way line, the applicant stated, were a rock walkway and sidewalk and some steps, I believe, all just -- not even structures, just padding there. Really, based on the area and the topography, as well as the day of which the home was built, staff finds that there are many hardships that are not an action of the applicant, but rather of the conditions that exist up there and the conditions that existed in the '30s prior to our current zoning regulations. So, staff is recommending approval of the requested variances with two conditions. If you have any further questions, I will be happy to answer those. Board of Adjustment September 6, Page 9 Chairman: ?. ?. Harris: ?. Harris: ?. Hall: ?: Hall: ?. Hall: ?: Hall: ?: 2005 It sounds pretty straightforward with -- we've had several of these over the years on Mount Sequoyah that we've had to bring under conformance. Is the applicant proposing to add on to this structure too, or just replace the deck? Not to my knowledge. They're just trying to bring the existing nonconforming structure into compliance. It may be for sale, I believe, and maybe they're just trying to clean it up for a new buyer. I'm actually the applicant. Okay. Yes, ma'am. Go ahead. I'm Hillary Harris. George Faucette lodged this on my behalf, but no, I don't intend to build on it. I'm doing it right now, actually, to maintain that footprint and sort of restore it to a 1930s cottage and live there. Yes, sir. Would you state your name and -- I'm Marvin Hall and I live at 89 Texas Way, and I've been there approximately 40 years. And I like to see things go peaceful like. I can't really see much reason for a setback. If it's necessary, why, go for it, but what is the setback for? If you were to build a new structure today, you would have your setbacks off your front, rear, and side property lines. I see. In the 1930s, before these current regulations existed, and probably in this neighborhood where the topography, how it slopes off the back properties, a lot of these houses were built towards the front. So right now it doesn't meet those current requirements of our ordinances, so she's asking for a variance of those setbacks. Why certainly, yeah. Just to get that house into conformance right now. I can't see any point of having to tear down a good, solid structure that's been there forever and a day just because of some -- Rules have changed -- Board of Adjustment September 6, 2005 Page 10 Hall: Right. ?: -- in the last 75 years. Exactly. ?: Mr. Hall, if you chose to sell your house now, probably some prospective buyer would want you to kind of do the same thing, go through the same process, because probably your house doesn't meet the current setback requirements. And this would alleviate them from having to, as you say, tear down a good, solid structure just because it doesn't meet our current requirements. Hall: Well, that 87 is next door to me, but it's right up close to Texas Way, but I'm a good, probably, 60, 70 feet off of Texas Way on the side street that goes down in there. ?: Right. Hall: There's an alleyway that goes down to Fletcher Hall's property down there. ?: This won't encroach on your property anymore. Hall: No. ?: Any further questions for anybody? ?: Just one other question I had. It looks like from the survey that a piece of the existing structure actually goes past the lot line. ?: These lot lines look different on every map. This one looks really squirrelly. ?: Anyway, I was just wanting to clarify and make sure that it wasn't across the property line, but merely across that setback. Hall: That property up there has been surveyed by county surveyors and a half a dozen private surveyors and there's not ever any a one of them that drives a stake in the same corner. (Laughter) ?: I'm not surprised. Board of Adjustment September 6, 2005 Page 11 Morgan: There are some discrepancies, and especially, you know, with our maps we have different layers that lay on top of each other, so it's usually approximate. But this is -- you know, this is what this surveyor has said -- shown where the property is located. So we were going off of the survey for this variance. And if it ever were found, if a resurvey -- you know, if this property were resurveyed and it was found that the structure was in the right-of-way, then in order to get that structure in compliance we would have to consider a vacation of some sort, so it would have to go to the City Council. Motion: ?: I move we approve BOA 05-1695 with staff's -- along with staff's two recommendations. I second. Chairman: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 05-1695 carries with a vote of 6-0-0. ?: Good luck on your project. Harris: Thank you. ?: Does anybody have anything further that they would like to discuss? ?: You may want to update our — (BOA Order of Agenda Members List) Morgan: Oh, yes, I noticed that. I apologize for that. ?: Members need it updated. ?: Do you think we'll have minutes for the next -- ?: For the next decade? (Laughter) Morgan: I'm sorry. I think there are a few. I hate for you guys to be up all night reading those. ?: I've already forgotten what we did back then, so -- Board of Adjustment September 6, 2005 Page 12 Morgan: 9. We'll go back and make sure we've got something that's not on the next agenda. Okay. Meeting adjourned. Board of Adjustment September 6, 2005 Page 13