Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-11-07 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on November 7, 2005 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN BOA 05-1786: (STURCHIO/KING, 366) Approved Page 3 BOA 05-1787: (COURTS AT WHITHAM, 444) Approved Page 5 BOA 05-1788: (CHAMBERS, 485) Tabled Page 10 BOA 05-1789: (BASSETT LAW FIRM, 484) Approved Page 25 BOA 05-1791: (COUCH, 489) Approved Page 28 BOA 05-1792: (BROOKS/PORTER, 485) Approved Page 30 BOA 05-1793: (CAHOON, 367) Approved Page 34 Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 2 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Jeremy Pate Andrew Garner Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 3 BOA 05-1786: (STURCHIO/KING, 366): Submitted by SHARMAN STURCHIO for property located at 716 W. SYCAMORE ST. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL. The requirement is for a front setback of 50'. The request is for a reduced front setback of 30' ( a 20' variance). Andrews: I will call the November 7th Board of Adjustment meeting to order. Our first item of business is new business, which is BOA 05-1786, submitted by Sharman Sturchio for property located at 716 West Sycamore Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately .87 acres. The request is for a reduced building setback to bring an existing nonconforming structure into compliance. Jesse? Fulcher: Yes. As you said, the property is located at 716 West Sycamore. It actually has two street frontages, one on Sycamore and one on Chestnut Avenue, which has not been built, but has dedicated right-of-way along the east property line, so the property does have two street frontages. In '89 when the structure was built, the property was actually zoned I-1, so there's only a 25 -foot setback off of the right-of-way. They did take that into account in '89 off of Chestnut. However, in '99 there was a request to rezone the property, which staff did recommend approval for and City Council did grant that rezoning to C-2. What no one took into account that was that the C-2 zoning change would change the setback to 50 feet. So the rezoning ultimately created the nonconforming structure there. The applicants are here requesting a variance. A fire occurred in the back portion of the structure and pretty much, from what they stated, destroyed most of that. To rebuild that to at least how it existed prior to the fire would require a variance under Nonconforming Section 164. So staff is recommending approval of the requested variance for the front setback with four conditions of approval. Ultimately, just said future alterations or additions shall meet all required setbacks. If this is granted, any future alterations or additions beyond that would require improvements to the nonconforming parking lot. And all required permits shall be granted prior to construction or repair of the existing structure. If you've got any questions, I'll be happy to clarify anything else. Andrews: Any questions for staff? Is the applicant present? Could you state your name for the record and do you have anything to add? King: Rich King. Nothing to add. Basically the building was burned down. We would like to remove the debris, and put it back. Andrews: Okay. Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 4 Sturchio: I'm Sharman Sturchio.(inaudible). Andrews: Is there any public comment on this issue? Hearing none, bring it before the Board. Any questions or comments? Pretty straightforward. Just wanting to rebuild what was already there. Motion: ?: I move we approve BOA 05-1786 with the four staff recommendations. ?: Second. Andrews: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 05-1786 carries with a vote of 4-0-0. Andrews: Good luck. King: Thank you. Sturchio: Thank you. Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 5 BOA 05-1787: (COURTS AT WHITHAM, 444): Submitted by N. ARTHUR SCOTT for property located at CORNER OF WHITHAM AND DOUGLAS. The property is zoned RMF -40, MULTI -FAMILY- 40 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.42 acres. The requirement is for 25' front setbacks. The request is for a 17' setback on Whitham (an 8' variance) and an 11' setback on Douglas (a 14' variance). Andrews: The second item is BOA 05-1787 submitted by Arthur Scott for property located at the corner of Whitham and Douglas. The property is zoned RMF- 40, multifamily, and contains approximately 1.42 acres. The requirement is for a 25 -foot front setback and the request is for a 12 1/2 - foot setback on Whitham and a 17 -foot setback on Douglas. Fulcher: Yes. Currently, right off of Maple Street -- it's at the corner of Whitham and Douglas -- there's an existing nonconforming home that's been, I guess, over the years converted into some of the -- a multifamily dwelling unit. It is a multifamily. The property owners wish to redevelop this property along the lines of what exists to the south of this, which is the original Courts at Whitham buildings, I think two or three buildings with a courtyard in between. The applicant has requested this variance on both front setbacks, I think partly because of the increase in the Master Street Plan right-of-way that has required the additional 5 feet, and also, and staff is in agreement with, just keeping the character and the consistency of the building faces along Whitham and Douglas, as opposed to requiring the 25 -foot setbacks on two fronts that would push the building all the way into the back corner. It really would be out of character with that neighborhood. As everyone knows, most neighborhoods in older portions of Fayetteville, the houses or buildings were built close to the street right- of-way. We felt that is was appropriate to grant this variance in this case to continue that consistent location of the fronts of the buildings along the right-of-way. With that, staff would be recommending approval of this item with three conditions of approval: most importantly, that when this is constructed that all roof lines, balconies, walls, everything attached to the building, would be located out of any easements or the setbacks if this variance is granted or not. And if I can clarify anything, please ask. ?: Jesse, on -- I'm not sure what page this is -- 16 -- this drawing here, exactly which one of these are we talking about? Fulcher: It would be, if you see the two identical structures facing Whitham Avenue, --. ?: Right, right. Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 6 Fulcher: -- directly to the north or to the right on the corner there of Douglas is the -- actually, it would be the proposed structure. It's kind of a two-part building if you look at some of the following elevations on it. ?: Okay. All right. Fulcher: There's a courtyard, also, in the middle of this one. ?: That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure. It wasn't really designated. Andrews: Is the applicant present? Yes. Sharp: My name is Robert Sharp. I would like to make the presentation for the project. Andrews: Sure, Rob. Come on up. Sharp: I brought some additional pictures to help you understand the site, and I'll (inaudible) so you can share some of these. The challenge we face with this property is we've got a -- the owner of this property also owns this Courts at Whitham project and really has put a lot of effort into landscaping that existing building and the spaces between the buildings, which is shown on these first two pages. And so what we're wanting to do when he asked to add more units to the project is to do all the additions on that corner of Whitham and Douglas and to tuck the parking in under the building so that instead of looking at a parking lot or the apartment building behind it we'll be looking at an apartment building sitting on a screened parking lot, so being granted the setback variance allows us to do that. We've been careful to try to keep the scale of the building appropriate to the neighborhood. It's a little bit bigger than the things around it right now, but with the way the university is constructing buildings now and the students they're trying to add, we think this is going to be very -- sort of a real good mix with what we would imagine the university is proposing. I'm showing the drawings, what the building will look like. Then also, we're showing some other buildings that are similar in scale, but the height of this Carnall Hall is about what we're talking about, except, of course, it's not nearly so massive. It's just sort of a piece of -- if you can sort of imagine one piece of Carnall Hall. We've done the same thing with roof lines and balconies to try to make the building friendlier and put (inaudible). I'm also showing pictures of a building that we (inaudible) It's on Johnson Avenue in Fayetteville. It's, again, sort of the same scale that we're talking about with the material changes and the balconies and roof overhangs. We feel that the setback variance is necessary because we would like to save the existing buildings that are Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 7 there and we would like to screen the parking and we also think it's a better match for the neighborhood to, you know, come up to the street -- approach the street more than the current setbacks allow. And also we are giving 5 -foot right-of-way on each -- both Whitham and Douglas, so that's also creating the need for a setback variance -- (inaudible) dedication of right-of-way. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Andrews: Have you reviewed the staff comments and were you all in agreement with those? Sharp: The three conditions are that -- Fulcher: Future alterations or additions to the existing structure shall meet required building setback regulations unless otherwise approved by the Board of Adjustments. No structures, including rooflines, balconies, walls, etcetera, shall be located within the building setback except as noted within this report. No structures or portions of structures including roof lines, balconies, walls, etcetera, shall be located within utility easements. The plans or easements shall be revised to comply with this requirement. I believe there was a portion of a wall from a Dumpster pad that was located within an easement. And the addition of a structure on this property does require improvements to the nonconforming parking lot. These improvements were included, and I failed to mention, for the approval of the large-scale development that went to Subdivision Committee on this last Thursday for this project, and those were included within that and have been reviewed. Sharp: And the improvements of the nonconforming lot, are you talking about paving the alley, paving the spaces -- Fulcher: All the conditions of approval from the large scale -- Exactly. Sharp: We're in agreement with those conditions. Jorge is our civil engineer and he also will take questions you may have about the project. ?: Since the submittal of the variance we've had to revise the setbacks a little bit just to conform with the fire code requirements and the 20 -foot drive - out behind the building. So the setback requirements which we are requesting now are an 8 -foot reduction off of Douglas and a 13 -foot reduction off of Whitham. Andrews: 13 -foot instead of 12 1/2? ?: Yes. Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 8 ?: That's the only change that I see from what we've got in front of us. ?: I just wanted to make sure that those revisions were -- ?: And what is it on Douglas? ?: 8 foot off of Douglas. ?: So you're reducing your request on Douglas? ?: Yes. ?: From 17 -- ?: The front setback will be 17 and the front setback on Whitham will be 12. ?: Instead of 12 1/2, 17.. Okay. ?: For clarification, was that a 13 -foot setback off of Whitham or a 13 -foot variance? ?: Variance. ?: Okay. 13 -foot variance. ?: So it would be a 12 -foot -- ?: Setback. I would also like to note that the existing building off of Whitham for the Courts is actually beyond that 12 -foot requested setback line. It's actually 12 foot and a half. So we would be right in line with those existing buildings on that (inaudible). I'm not sure. I'm going to ask that final sentence to be read the way you understand it where it says, "The request is for" -- "A 12 -foot setback on Whitham, a 13 -foot variance, and a 17 -foot setback on Douglas, an 8 -foot variance." Okay. So you've actually reduced your request by a half a foot? No, increased by a half a foot. Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 9 ?: Increased by 6 inches. ?: All right. 13, and this is 12. ?: And again, that was for fire safety issues, so -- Andrews: Thank you, guys. Anybody from the audience like to address this issue? Seeing none, I'll bring it back before the Board. Any questions? Comments? Motion: ?: I think this addition actually makes the site a little bit more attractive, so I don't think I have any problem in getting an additional setback on this south side. It's within line with the rest of the buildings, so I don't think (inaudible) the neighborhood. So unless you all have any objections, I'll move that we approve BOA 05-1787. ?: I'll second. Andrews: We have a motion and a second. ?: That would be with the staff recommendations? ?: Yes. ?: Yes. ?: With all staff recommendations as amended. Andrews: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 05-1787 carries with a vote of 4-0-0. Andrews: Good luck on your project. ?: Thank you. Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 10 BOA 05-1788: (CHAMBERS, 485): CHAMBERS for property located at 347 N. SINGLE FAMILY- 4 UNITS/ACRE and requirement is for a 20' rear setback. The variance). Submitted by JULIE & MATTHEW WILLOW. The property is zoned RSF-4, contains approximately 0.20 acres. The request is for an 18' 3" setback ( a 1' 9" Andrews: Our next item is BOA 05-1788, submitted by Julie and Matthew Chambers for property located at 347 North Willow. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, and contains approximately .2 acres. The request is for a 20 -foot rear setback and an 8 -foot side setback. Or that's the requirements. Excuse me. The requirement is for a 20 -foot rear setback and an 8 -foot side setback. The request is for a 1 -foot, 9 -inch rear setback and a 2 -foot, 3 -inch side setback. Fulcher: I will try to make this as simple as possible. Looking at the staff report you can see that I had a lot of information I put in there. I guess, the best place to start is looking at Page 8 of 14, which is a survey that was provided by the applicants. It shows on the back property line and side property line a boxed -in area where the existing garage is and somewhat of a hatched area for the proposed location of the new structure with their requested variances. We also, when we reviewed this, we noticed that based on the survey the front of the building actually encroached 2 feet into the front setback and that the lot width was only 66 feet, so we went ahead and included that as two other items to review this afternoon. When we reviewed this we did look at other areas in the neighborhood and I did include it on Page 9 and it's kind of lost some of its clarity to the copies. If you look on -- this is just a printout showing the building locations within that area, and you can see a lot of existing -- the larger, obviously, being the homes, and if you look in the back yard you see lots and lots of smaller accessory structures of different sorts located along side and rear property lines. So as staff reviewed this, we did feel that it was in character and consistent with this older portion of town to have these accessory structures located near the side and rear property lines. However, even though there was an existing structure here, we felt that it was more appropriate following the new zoning district that was adopted recently by City Council, the RSF-8 Historic Zoning District that allows for 5 -foot rear and 5 -foot side setbacks, that that would be more appropriate and, I guess, harmonious is one of the words you use, but for the adjacent property owners as opposed to a 1 -foot, 9 -inch rear setback and a 2 -foot, 3 -inch side setback. We've recommended approval for a 5 - foot side and a 5 -foot rear for this proposed structure in the rear. Additionally, within the applicants' request there was statements made about a second floor for an additional dwelling unit, a secondary or granny Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 11 unit to be added here. I have spoken with the applicants about that and made a condition and some comments in here that that would require a conditional use permit to approved by Planning Commission for that secondary dwelling unit. That is, I believe, Condition Number 3. So ultimately, staff has recommended approval for a 66 -foot lot width to grant that 4 -foot variance, a 2 -foot variance on the front to bring the existing home into conformance, and then we've recommended a 5 -foot rear setback, a 15 -foot variance, and a 5 -foot side setback, a 3 -foot variance for the proposed structure. And we've recommended that with three conditions of approval: that any alterations or additions to the existing structure or proposed structure would meet required setbacks; again, all required permits would be granted prior to construction, and as I stated, the proposed detached single-family unit would need Planning Commission approval prior to construction. And if there's any other questions I can answer, please ask. ?: What is the difference pretty much -- is it just number of units per acre, RSF-4 and RSF-8? Are there any other -- Fulcher: For that proposed secondary unit, just within Chapter -- I believe it's 163, it calls out a detached second dwelling unit or a granny unit as it's also called in there. And within the RSF- 4 zoning district you can apply for a conditional use for that, but it's not a use by right, so -- ?: But it is in RSF- 8? Fulcher: In RSF- 8 it would also be a conditional -use request. It allows that zoning district -- it's pretty much the same as RSF- 4, with the exception of the changes to the units and the density requirements, obviously, eight units per acre as opposed to four, which is more consistent with the smaller lots in the historic neighborhoods. Andrews: Is the applicant present? Chambers: Yes. Andrews: Would you state your name, and do you have anything to add? Chambers: My name is Julie Chambers. I appreciate you guys' time and effort in looking into this for us. The only thing that I would ask is -- I appreciate the 5 -foot setbacks on the back and the side, but if we could continue with the 2 -foot setback on the side we won't have to move our driveway. That would be a great help for us. Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 12 Andrews: Thank you. Rogers: I'd like to say something. Andrews: Sure. Rogers: My name is Cory Rogers. I own Authentic Homes, Incorporated. I'm a local builder. I hope to be building the project for Ms. Chambers. And what we have is do we have an existing garage, a small garage on this property, and it is right at the 2 -foot setback on the property, and directly to the right of the property we have the garage of the courthouse, which is a zero -lot -line structure right near the garage. So what we're looking to do is try and keep these homeowners in the Historic District -- they love the houses, but they grow -- so where we're looking to build a house, we're looking at doing it just around the corner, a block away, and we'll be doing the same things. They love the area and they go ahead and live here, but they grow, they want garages, they want some other things. So what we're trying to do here is we're going to really match the structure of the home. It's going to be in the, you know, the crown, soffit, and fascia -- a really beautiful structure, nice garage doors, a real quality space. And our goal is -- well, it has a little narrow -- I know you guys probably have that -- but a driveway on the right, and over by a porch on the left. So what we're trying to do is just not get back in behind the house so that they don't have issues. They won't have to back out of the garage to use it. So if we kick them over 5 feet, although it is just a couple more feet, it will cause a little bit of an issue in just kicking it, you know, backing up with two cars, say, in the driveway. I think we would be more than obliged to meet the 5 -foot rear setback. That won't be a problem (inaudible) if possible, we would love to get the 2 -foot setback. Now, remember this structure is at that point right now. We're not looking to move it further to the property line or, you know, make it anything more. We (inaudible), make a bigger roof, but it's all going to be done real nice. I just wanted you guys to know that. Thank you. Andrews: Thank you. Do you have something, Jesse? Fulcher: No. Andrews: Anybody from the audience like to address this issue? Yes, ma'am. Wilson: I do. I'm the person they're going to affect. I'm Carrie Wilson. I've lived in the home for 22 years and I really am adamantly opposed to this. For one thing, I have a problem -- well, you know, this house is in the Historic District next to the Headquarters House and it's an archeological Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 13 site. It's -- you know, I've found many balls, I've found dolls' arms, I've found things out. I also do National Historic Preservation Act compliance and it's very difficult for me to handle this, because if it was a federal undertaking where federal monies were being used, this wouldn't be happening. I guarantee I would know exactly what to quote, Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Subsection (k), and all that kind of stuff. And as it is, the city does not have an ordinance. This is the Historic District and they're right across the street from St. Joseph's. They're right next door to a duplex. Do we really need another apartment? But the other thing I oppose is the fact that it is so close. I have a house that's over a hundred years old and it is what you call -- it would affect the aesthetic view, the (inaudible) of the aesthetic view, and it would be right up to my back yard and I would have this big structure looming over me. It's a make -or -break deal for me. I don't think I could live with the idea that I've got somebody over me. You know, I wouldn't have a back yard. And it's very upsetting because this is an old house and it does have a certain amount of integrity and I can see even the city eyeing it at some point and using it as part of their (inaudible) tour. I've found -- Mr. Mullins used to own the house and he found Civil War treasures. There were coins in the basement when they were putting the furnace in. So it's more than just an historic property. I mean, this really is an historic structure and it needs to be preserved. And by having a structure encroach on it as it is -- Ms Chambers, I appreciate her desire and her husband's desire to fix their property up; however, Ms. Chambers is an architect and as part of being an architect, it's kind of buyer beware. She moved into an Historic District knowing that it was an Historic District and knowing there were certain design and ordinance laws, and you have to take those into consideration. For me, I've lived there 20 - something years and those things have happened since I moved in. But for her, in how they teach classes at the university, knowing that part of the lessons are you have to be aware each city ordinance and zoning request vary from city to city and, therefore, it's your responsibility to learn those things. So if you're going to go into an area, you're going into it with open arms, and so I really think that being an architect, certainly, you would go into it with open arms. And I just am really concerned about the encroachment of any future projects, especially when there are apartments all over the area. But I'm really fighting for my -- the survival of the house, because I'm just a caretaker. It's been there, you know, long before I was even around and it will be here long after I'm gone. I mean, it's not just brick veneer, it's solid brick walls, and it's a very interesting house and it's something that's really been overlooked. But I'm just the caretaker of it, you know, so I'm trying to fight for my house more than anything. But I really wish you would consider that. I know Mr. Hunnicutt, he's a contractor, and Cyrus Young, and there are many others Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 14 that came when they considered the fact that the historic area had to have a different type of variance request. And they made that so it could be not the normal setbacks for newer homes. They tried to take that into consideration, and so it wasn't done at a random thought. So I'm asking you to hold forward to the lines and the existing ordinances. Because Ms. Chambers, I admire her for her desire to want to renovate. She had the opportunity, just as if you would go into a place and you want to know what the police are, what the school districts are like, or whatever, being an architect, she should have taken that into consideration too. Andrews: Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Nickles: My name is Amanda Nickles and I live cattycorner -- I live directly across the street from the old Catholic church. My home is 130 years old. It's always been in our family. And I fought desperately to keep the apartments from going in across the street -- or the condos, whatever you want to call them, and so we have 26 condos, and do we need another apartment in the Historic District? I just don't see that we do, and I hope -- you know, I just hate to see the Historic District become an apartment district. For a long time it went downhill and then suddenly things have been going great and I just don't know if -- we have 26 apartments across the street from me and I don't know if we need another apartment. ?: Cathy Thompson said she wanted to be here, but the time was awful, and she said that she had a variance request on the back -- I guess it's on Maple Street -- anyway, she said it's just really ruined her home because of that. I'm concerned about the depreciation of property values. Because I don't think that the average person would want to move in and have this huge structure behind their house. So I am concerned. Anyway, that's my viewpoint. Andrews: Okay. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Reese: I'm Karen Reese and I'm the president of the Washington -Willow Neighborhood Association, and Julie Chambers called me when she started this project to see how the neighborhood association -- you know, what our position is on variances. And I've been called by other residents in the Washington -Willow neighborhood about variances, and our policy, basically, we don't have a formal policy, but we ask the neighbors to get their adjoining neighbors' permission or approval before they do anything, and that's the most important thing is that, you know, is that we don't have -- you know, we don't build a structure that's going to adversely affect an adjoining neighbor, so I just want to say that, you know, my advice to Julie Chambers was to make sure that her adjoining neighbors or Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 15 the surrounding neighbors work with her on this project, and that would be the neighborhood association's request, that if you were going to grant this variance that all the neighbors agree to it. ?: And Mrs. Mathias was here. She had to leave. She was not feeling well -- Mathias: I'm here. I don't have my voice. ?: Her property adjoins that. ?: I really don't have any comment. I just came in support of my neighbors. Andrews: Okay. ?: But also, the other neighbors -- Mrs. Lindsey -- anyway, she's not here. Both of my neighbors on either side of me are gone so I wasn't able to discuss it with them. Andrews: Did we receive any letters for or against this from anybody else? Fulcher: No. Just the public comment from Mrs. Wilson. Chambers: May I speak to Carrie's comments? Andrews: Yes. Sure. Chambers: I have spoken with Carrie about the proposed structure and at that time she didn't raise any objections. That was before we even brought the variance -- we applied for the variance. And I just want it to be clear that the garage that we have, I think, was probably built in about 1940. It's not an historic structure. It's severely dilapidated. We can't shut the garage door. There's wood rot. It's probably going to fall down in the next few years unless something is done about it. What we want to do is to have a two -car garage. My father-in-law stays with us three days a week. We have a new baby. We would like to move him out of the house. So not to cause any problems to Carrie's property -- we've really improved the value of our house since we've been there a year and a half now. We've probably doubled the value of our property and we want to continue to do that and to be comfortable in our home. Andrews: Ms. Wilson, is the main objection the height? Wilson: No. I had a really fancy fence put up on my -- on the property, you know, and the fence rotted out because of the existing structure, watershed, Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 16 Andrews: Chambers: Wilson: coming in and rotting anything else, so I couldn't put anything up. The structure is historic, because anything 50 years and older is considered to be an historic structure. If it was the National Historic Preservation Act you would have to be mitigating adverse effects, because you're causing adverse effects to that property, just for your information. Ms. Chambers did mention it to me, I was freaking out, but I didn't feel like telling her about it at that time because I had just met her. So I didn't know that they were going ahead with -- forward with this. I've got too many other things -- irons in the fire, but I have been adamantly opposed to this from the first time I heard about that because I just do not think that -- you know, the block is one of the oldest blocks in Fayetteville and everybody is just piling all these little structures on top of it, and it's time to just sit back and say, "Well, let's take a real look at this," you know, "is this really what you want to do?" I know I was talking with one of the neighbors and he said that, you know, someone built a fence up and now he can't even get in the back of his property to rake his leaves. You know, I mean, it's really just kind of hodgepodge, everything together, and there is a reason -- there is an ordinance -- there is a reason that they have established these things. You know, if you're going to tear down the existing structure, then it's time to really look and say, "Okay. We should go ahead and follow this." I don't know. Thank you. Anybody else? I just want to say one more thing. You know, what we're looking to do is not slap up just any building. What we're looking to do is really match the area. We're going to go back and build clabbers, we're going to match the house's soffit in the eaves, put crown all over. We're using a really nice wood, garage door, everything first class. So in terms of just look, what I'm going for is I'm going for the look of the house. I'm going for the look to match her house and look like it was built in the same time period. Obviously, the scale and stuff is going to be a little bit different, but in my eyes what I'm shooting for is to mimic her home. Just to let you guys know, we're not putting up just any structure. We're not here to put something up cheap to make money on. What we're working on is improving their quality of life with a really good structure. But it's like I said, if you took the house that I live in and you had -- you know, it used to be an historic structure. It was an urban park site. There was a summer kitchen out in back of it. The next-door neighbors had a carriage house that was part of the property, and everything. I'm just saying that it really is something that needs to be considered that's above and beyond just your average structure. Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 17 Andrews: Where exactly is your house located? Wilson: My house is on Lafayette Street. It's a two-story brick structure. Andrews: In relation to hers, where is it? Wilson: Okay. My backyard backs up to her house. Andrews: Is this your house or is this your house? Here's Willow right here and here's Lafayette. Wilson: Okay. This is Lafayette and this is my house. Andrews: This one? Wilson: Yes. This is where she 's talking about wanting to build the structure. ?: So this is your backyard; is that correct? Wilson: Yeah, this is my backyard and there's a little building here, and then the neighbors at one time encroached down here, so I've got this little side that comes through. ?: So this building is the one that's right here, this little brick shop building? Wilson: Uh-huh. It's right there on the corner. Yeah, I guess. I don't -- ?: Thank you. JWilson: I don't know how to read these very well. ?: This is the back of her -- this is my house -- ?: Her house right here? It's not on the corner, it's just west of the corner of Willow? ?: Yes. ?: Jesse. Fulcher: Yes. ?: Under that new ordinance that -- that 5 -foot -- Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 18 Fulcher: Yes. ?: Is there any -- does that matter how many stories you go? Fulcher: It's still not a -- no, there's no height limitation. Same as RSF-4. For the RSF- 8 there's not a height limitation in those. ?: I know sometimes -- Fulcher: A lot of the multi -families -- ?: A little bit further back, yeah. Okay. ?: But you are recommending a 5 -foot setback? Fulcher: Yes, consistent with that RSF-8 zoning district. It's based on historic neighborhoods. ?: Side and roof? Fulcher: Uh-huh. ?: And have you talked with the applicant about that? Fulcher: With the applicant, yes. We spoke -- Chambers: Friday. Fulcher: -- Friday afternoon. ?: Ms. Wilson, were you were informed about that, that the staff recommended a 5 -foot instead of -- Fulcher: When we spoke -- when we spoke I told you we were -- I had kind of explained what the request was. Wilson; I was waiting for them to come and they didn't come and everything, and I (inaudible) mentioned -- Like I said, to me this is a deal -breaker because I would have to move because I don't want to live that way. I bought a house so I could have a house. I didn't buy a house so that I could have somebody overlooking me, you know, even a 5 -foot rear (inaudible). She has a two-story home, sure, so that's -- You know, I had a tree that was part of the property. A limb fell off and they cut the whole tree down. It was a healthy tree, but it was, you know, part of -- a privacy. And I can just -- I Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 19 know how different it is not having the tree there and I can only imagine what it would be like to have this big structure. You know, it's like I said, they had the opportunity. They lived there for a year and a half. They bought this with their eyes open. If they had wanted to build existing structures, if it was too small and they needed a two -car garage, then that should have been part of their ideas when they were looking at their house as to what they really wanted, not "I can go in there and change this and I can get a building variance." Chambers: I need to point out one more thing. The tree that she's talking about did have a major limb fall and break off of it, and it was unhealthy by the arborist standards and that's why it was cut down. But also, on the northbound side we have no windows in the upper story, just for that reason, that, you know, she being an architect and that kind of thing, we didn't put any windows in the northbound side, which is the side that faces her backyard, on the upper story. And there will be none on the lower story either because it's a garage. Wilson: Yeah, you would be welcome to come by my house and look and everything. I'm just saying that it would just be awful. I've got this big garage -- brick garage on one side and I'll have this huge structure in the back and it's just -- you know, why have a house if you're going to have it surrounded by no view? Jones: I also -- I'm (inaudible) Jones. I'm Carrie's son, I grew up in the home. I'd just like to make the point of saying, if you set this precedence of okay, you open the Historic District, but we'll grant you a variance so that you can build a structure to meet the goal you had in mind when you purchased this house, even though it's, you know, you saw what you got. And nobody else has built a structure in their backyard other than what's in our backyard is a little tool shed. It's not encroaching on anybody else's space. What they have in their backyard now could be a suitable garage for them. It's not large, it does really encroach on our space some in the fact that the eaves cause the fence to rot. And like the St. Joseph's apartment situation, that's a more understandable situation because it was an existing structure. But if you say it's okay to build new construction in your backyard, what does that say to the rest of the neighborhood? Before you know it, you end up with a Harbor Meadows, which the Historic District was not intended to be Harbor Meadows when it was created, when they built the houses back then. Thank you. Andrews: Anybody else like to address this issue? Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 20 ?. I wish that you all would go by Carrie's house and look at it in approximation to the other property next door I think you would have a different -- a better point of view. Andrews: Anybody else? Hearing none, I'll bring it back before the Board. ?. ?. I have a little problem approving what would be the setbacks if it were RSF-8 before it is RSF-8. If this were just an issue for a garage replacement, then I don't think I'd have any problem with that. But I have a problem approving, you know, the 5 -foot variance if it's not already rezoned RSF-8 in terms of -- you know, we're assuming that they would have that as a use -by -right setback as if it were RSF-8, and I think it would be -- we'd be kind of assuming, if you will, the Planning Commission's authority by granting them something as if it were RSF-8. Not to mention the City Council's. Not to mention the City Council's. So I'm somewhat reluctant to approve the -- even the recommended -- this may shock you people -- even the recommendation of the 5 -foot side setback without them having gone through the formal rezoning to RSF-8. I think if we see that they get the RSF-8, I wouldn't -- let's see, would we even need to pass a variance? They would have that variance both ways for 5 -foot; is that correct? Fulcher: Yes. ?: So -- and they're going to have to go to the Planning Commission anyway to request the second unit -- Fulcher: Uh-huh. ?: -- detached unit. Fulcher: Yes. ?: I would have no problem today solving that front setback and the lot width. We probably ought to get that out of the way, and then if that be the case and they get that approval from the Planning Commission, then they're home free anyway and will have solved the lot width and the front setback problem, so they won't have to come back and see us. That's my feeling. ?: I concur with that. Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 21 ?: I believe the applicant requested a 2 -foot variance. That's smaller than what we're recommending as well. ?: Yeah. ?: But you guys recommended, you know, would recommend approval of a 5 -foot. ?: Correct. ?: So that's confusing right now the issue, I believe, to me. ?: I think we're kind of being presumptive to grant a variance based on if they had it zoned RSF-8 under the new code that the Council passed -- fairly recently, was it not? I'm just a little uncomfortable with that. ?: So that's your options, right, Jesse, is to go before the City Council and request a rezoning of RSF-8 or to keep the current zoning and -- Fulcher: Yes. I mean, that would have been their options. We did speak with the applicants about that option, I mean, rezone or go for the variance at the time, and some of the differences in the processes, and they wanted to go ahead with the variance. ?: But they're going to have to go to the Planning Commission regardless to accomplish what they want to accomplish, -- Fulcher: Yeah, even if -- -- and I'd rather let that be the Planning Commission's call. Fulcher: Yeah, even a variance approval would not necessarily -- would obviously not allow for the secondary dwelling unit without Planning Commission approval. ?: And there's no reason to believe that both of those could not be heard on the same night. Fulcher: The rezoning and the conditional use? ?: Yeah. Fulcher: Yeah, they could be heard on the same night. Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 22 ?: They can do that? Fulcher: Uh-huh. ?: But if they didn't want to go for the conditional use they would still have to come back before us to get a 5 -foot setback, which is what they -- ?: They will get it rezoned, right? ?: If they don't get it rezoned -- ?: Right. ?: -- but do get conditional use approval, yes, that would be true. Right. ?: Okay. ?: I would be happy waiting for them to get the conditional use before coming back before us. ?: That's my question. Would we table this then to see what the Planning Commission did? ?: We can. It will just continue to reappear on your agenda until you actually take some action on it to either approve or deny. ?: Would that save them having to -- would that save staff and -- ?: It will be fine just to table the item. I can't imagine them requiring a separate fee to get on the agenda. I think that's really the only issue that it would come down to. Morgan: You could table it indefinitely. Obviously, there would be -- you know, after a year or so we would need to find whether or not it's going to come back or not, but you could table it. A lot of applicants pursue a different way of getting what they want to get accomplished, and if that falls through, they could request this be -- ?: Suzanne, did they -- when it came off the table, would the neighbors again receive notification that it was going to be considered? Morgan: Yes. Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 23 ?: In my mind that sounds like the best thing -- ?: And then we can -- regardless, we can, at some point, take it off the table and clean up that front setback and -- Rogers: If they bring it before Planning Commission, depending, obviously, if it's approved or denied at the same day, do I need to -- it may change their request here? ?: Right. Rogers: It may not be revealing a second -story structure. ?: Okay. ?: So what we're here today to decide is whether or not to give these people a variance they're requesting. ?: Right. Motion: ?: I would move we table this until such time as they get a determination from the Planning Commission on their intentions or they come back to staff and ask to be put back on the agenda. ?: I agree with tabling. Can we table just that one part of the issue and clean up the other two at this time or do we have to table the entire -- ?: I believe the other two issues were the lot width and the front setback. If they did get a rezoning, I believe those would become conforming, because -- ?: We could table all of them -- ?: Uh-huh. ?: -- and review them again all together. ?: Okay. A motion to table. ?: A second. Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 24 ?: And a second. Morgan: I'm sorry, who made the motion? ?: I guess we call the roll for that. Whitaker: A motion to table indefinitely allows no discussion. Andrews: Okay. Roll Call: The motion to table BOA 05-1788 carries with a vote of 3-1-0, with Alt voting no. Andrews: In light of a denial, we've tabled the issue to give you time to go before the Planning Commission and seek a rezoning if that's what you wish, and then after that you can come back and we can take a look at a variance at that time and then clean up the nonconforming issues that currently exist right now. Chambers: Well, my understanding is if we have the rezoning passed to RSF-8 there won't be any compliance issues. ?: Right, except for the front. ?: And you couldn't get the 2- foot -- the 5 -foot -- ?: You would have to come back to get the 5 -foot. Chambers: Okay. ?: But she'll still have to come back to clean up the lot width and the setback. ?: I think those would be clear with the RSF-8 -- ?: Okay. If they get that. Chambers: Thank you. ?: You bet. ?: No problem. Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 25 BOA 05-1789: (BASSETT LAW FIRM, 484): Submitted by DON SPANN for property located at 221 N. COLLEGE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.77 acres. The requirement is for a 20' rear setback. The request is for a 10' rear setback (a 10' variance). Andrews: The next item on the agenda is BOA 05-1789, submitted by Don Spann for property located at 221 North College. The property is zoned C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately .77 acres. The requirement is for a 20 -foot rear setback and the request is for a 10 -foot setback, a 10 -foot variance. Fulcher: This is for the Bassett Law Firm, which is just south of the intersection of College and Dickson Street. Some of you are probably familiar with the two white buildings. The older one, the one closer to the right-of-way, was built in 1925 and was later converted into the Bassett Law Firm. Then in 1993 a second office building, which is to the rear of the lot or to the west, was constructed. And actually these are two Tots adjacent and the buildings are connected by a breezeway. The request from the applicants is to add an additional building to the rear of the second structure that was constructed, the one on the western half, the newer of the two. It will be a three-story structure to match the one that is existing that will be 6,300 square feet. The applicants are requesting this variance, ultimately, a 10 -foot setback variance from the rear -- from the alleyway, which is a required 20 feet, and they're requesting 10. We've looked at -- I looked at with the applicants some other locations. They went with this based on -- you can see in their submittal that there is parking along the front and down the southern property line, as well as landscaping areas, so it was a matter of removing landscaping or required parking to add the additional building, which would then require more parking or putting the building in the back, requesting a variance of only 10 feet off of an alleyway. Which, again -- I guess after the last item I don't know if I want to say this -- but the Downtown Master Plan code, if it were adopted as is, again, we would be looking at an entire different set of requirements. It would only be a -- I believe it was a 12 -foot setback off the centerline of the alley, which they would exceed by a great deal. So they've requested a 10 -foot setback variance to locate this on the westernmost edge of the secondary building. Staff has recommended approval of this request with four conditions of approval, and I would like to go over one of those, the additional structure. Condition Number 2, that the additional structure on the property will require improvements to the nonconforming parking lot. These improvements will be reviewed at the time of building permit and will include adding landscaping to the interior of the property, as well as along the street frontage, again, depending on the site constraints, based on Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 26 Chapter 172.08 for nonconforming parking lots. Also Condition Number 4, based on the size of the building, they're pretty close to their required parking, but they are going to need a little bit more. They will be going to Planning Commission for a shared parking agreement with St. Paul's Episcopal Church, which is just to the north. And I think currently they may share some parking with them, but this will be an additional request to bring their parking up to the requirements of the ordinances. If you've got any more questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Andrews: Any questions for Jesse? Is the applicant here? Spann: Yes. Andrews: Yes, sir. Spann: Don Spann, representing the Bassett Law Firm. They're requesting this variance to place this addition in the most logical location. It will adjoin the existing building. It's not going to be a detached structure. It's going to be an addition onto the south building. They're fully aware that they're going to have to meet additional landscaping requirements, but they have an established presence and image on College Avenue. They really don't want to have to come out into that or disrupt that at all, especially the historic structure on the north. They would like to go behind. And as Jesse has stated, if the Master Plan comes into effect, there would not be a setback back there anyway. So we would like for you to consider this variance. Any questions? ?: Is this new building going to -- it's noted it's going to be a three-story. Will it rise above the building to -- Spann: No. It will match the existing building as three -stories and it will match the height of that building. The vernacular of the architecture is going to be the same. It will be the same brick. The same windows. It's going to look like it was the same building. ?: Jesse, I assume that you all somehow keep track of these shared parking agreements so that they can't indefinitely continue to add shared parking. Fulcher: Yes. They'll provide -- with that shared parking agreement they're required to provide a site plan of that parking showing existing shared parking agreements, which we would then compare, obviously, with our files for all shared parking agreements. Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 27 Andrews: Anybody in the audience wish to address this issue? Hearing none, I'll bring it back before the Board. The alley that's there, I didn't get a chance to drive back behind there, but there's still plenty of room in that alley space? Fulcher: Yes. And this building would still be 10 feet off of that, the edge of the alley, so ?: How wide is the alley that's there; do you know? Spann: It's at least, I'd say, 20 feet wide. The existing, it does kind of meander along back there and vary in width. ?: I just want to make sure there's enough room to get ladder trucks and -- Spann: There's plenty to get fire and rescue vehicles through there. ?: Okay. ?: Ready for a motion? ?: Sure. Motion: ?: I move we approve BOA 05-1789 with all of the four staff's comments. ?: Second. Andrews: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Will you call the roll, please? Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 05-1789 carries with a vote of 4-0-0. Andrews: Thank you. Spann: Thanks. Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 28 BOA 05-1791: (COUCH, 489): Submitted by BUCKLEY BLEW for property located at 120 STONEBRIDGE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY- 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 2.64 acres. The lot width requirement is 70' in the RSF-4 zoning district. The applicant requests to split the property and create a lot with a 60' lot width (a 10' variance). Andrews: I was just making sure I didn't miss one. This is BOA 05-1791, submitted by Buckley Blew for property located at 120 Stonebridge. The property is zoned RSF-4 Single Family and contains approximately 2.64 acres. The lot width requirement is 70 foot. The applicant requests to split the property and create a lot with a 60 -foot lot width, which is a 10 -foot variance. Will staff give us -- Morgan: Certainly. The applicant submitted a lot split request several weeks ago and we found that the applicant could either do one of two things: request a lot split with a conditional use to create a tandem lot or request a variance to create a lot with less than 70 feet of frontage. This property is located in an area that was -- the surrounding properties are not -- were not developed as a subdivision; therefore, all of the properties are of varying lot widths in areas. This lot has approximately -- it's approximately 2.6 acres and has a total 150 -foot lot width. There is an existing home on the property, however. Therefore, to -- in order to create a new lot and meet setback requirements from the existing home, the new lot would have a total of 60 feet of lot width. As you can see on Page 6 of 10, the proposed tract would contain 2.3 acres and have a lot width of 60 feet. Staff finds that there are special conditions on this property and that there is an existing home there. We find that the desire to split the property and create a lot of 2.3 acres would not adversely affect the surrounding areas. The density is --- to increase the density on that property by one unit would not adversely affect the surrounding properties. We find that it would -- this is the minimum variance required in order to accommodate this proposed lot due to the existing location of the home and that it would otherwise not be injurious to the neighborhood or other public welfare. Therefore, in summary, we are recommending approval of the 10 -foot lot width variance with four conditions. Andrews: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Thomas: My name is Dan Thomas. I'm a Blew & Associates surveyor. I represent Mrs. Couch, and I have no comments. Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 29 Andrews: Okay. Pretty straightforward. I don't think I have any problem with this. Is there any public comment? Anybody like to address this issue? Hearing none, bring it back before the Board. Bob? Nichols: This is the old version of the tandem lot, which we've seen many of in Fayetteville. I think it's, as Michael said, quite straightforward. I don't have any objection to it. Motion: ?: I agree, and so I'll make a motion to approve BOA 05-1791 with staff recommendations. ?: Second. Andrews: A motion and a second. Any further discussion? Will you call the roll, please? Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 05-1791 carries with a vote of 4-0-0. Andrews: Thank you. Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 30 BOA 05-1792: (BROOKS/PORTER, 485): Submitted by BILL BROOKS for property located at 417 MAPLE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY- 4 UNITS/ACRE. The requirement is for an 8' side setback. The request is for a 2' side setback (a 6' variance). Andrews: The next item is BOA 05-1792, submitted by Bill Brooks for property located at 417 Maple. The property is zoned RSF-4 and the applicant request several variances from the RSF-4 zoning requirements. The request is for a 1 -foot east side setback, which is a 7 -foot variance; a 0 - foot west side setback, which is an 8 -foot variance; a 20 -foot front setback, a 5 -foot variance; a 50 -foot lot width, a 20 -foot variance; and a 7,600 -square -foot lot width -- that's not lot width -- Morgan: Excuse me. Lot area. Andrews: -- lot area -- thank you -- a 400 square -foot variance. Morgan: I will give you come information regarding this. This property is located on Maple Avenue and the site currently contains approximately a 1,085 - square -foot single-family home which was built in the late 1920s according to the applicant, prior to adoption of current zoning ordinances and Master Street Plan. The applicant originally requested a variance of the existing encroachment into the side setback to the east. The applicant requests to -- requested an addition of 416 square feet onto the rear of the structure. That addition as shown on the site plan will meet building setback requirements of the RSF-4 zoning district. In review of this application, staff measured the building setback from the Master Street Plan right-of-way, which is 25 feet from centerline. Maple Street is an historic collector, and in doing so, found that the front portion of the structure also encroached. There's a front porch which encroaches approximately 5 feet into the front building setback. Additionally, this is a very small lot in terms of lot width. It is only 50 feet where the zoning requirement requires 70, and because of that, it is slightly less than the 8,000 square feet required. Staff would have recommended that this property be rezoned to RSF-8 Zoning District; however, although the rezoning to RSF-8 would bring the lot width and lot area into compliance, it would not bring the existing structure into compliance because it is encroaching in the side setback. And then upon further review, you can see on the western -- near the western property line an existing carport. This survey did not specify the exact location, but upon talking with the applicant, it is our understanding that that is adjacent to the side property line and, therefore, I included the request to -- for a 0 -foot side setback for the existing carport. Staff finds that this property was platted -- the lot Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 31 itself was platted prior to the adoption of zoning ordinances. It is similar to the size of the surrounding properties, as you can see on your overall map on Page 10 of your staff report. Each of those surrounding homes are on lots approximately the same size as this subject property. With regard to the existing home, it too was platted prior to the Master Street Plan, the adoption of the Master Street Plan, and we find that the encroachments of this home into the setbacks would not adversely -- allowing a variance would not adversely affect the surrounding properties nor the City. Therefore, we are recommending approval of the multitude of variances and with three conditions of approval: That the setback variances shall comply -- or apply only to the existing structure with the site plan submitted for this request; that future additions and alterations shall comply with setback requirements unless otherwise approved by the Board of Adjustment; that the existing building footprint shall not exceed any further into the building setbacks, and that all required building permits must be granted prior to any further construction on this building. Andrews: Was there a survey submitted with this? Morgan: There was a site plan. It was not stamped and certified by a surveyor. Andrews: Okay. Morgan: I do not know if the applicant did this or not. Andrews: Is the applicant present? Yes, sir. Porter: My name is Charlie Porter. It's my house. There's supposed to be a copy of the survey submitted with that. Basically, we're just applying for variances for the existing structure. All the addition of the back of the house doesn't break any of the existing codes. It's actually just a small addition to the back of the house. It's the same width -- it's just going to make the house a little bit longer out to the back. ?: Do you have a survey? ?: (inaudible) ?: Yeah, if we could just look at that and pass it around. ?: I don't know whether this shows an overhang where the carport is, but from the survey here, it doesn't appear to actually touch the line. Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 32 Andrews: Any questions for the applicant? Do you have anything else to add? Anybody from the audience wish to address this issue? Hearing none, I'll bring it back before the Board. ?: It looks like a pretty standard request to me. Just basically bringing the existing structure into compliance and then granting a variance in square footage requirements to create this addition to the back. I don't think I see a problem extending the structure back into the backyard. ?: We've done this many times. ?: So are we ready for -- ?: Does this rear setback include the screened -in porch? Morgan: Are you referring to -- ?: Page 8 of 12. I'm looking at that new screened porch. Morgan: I believe that the new screened porch -- if you look on Page 6, and perhaps the applicant can further elaborate, Page 6 has a new addition, but the roof line goes much further towards the back of the property than the new addition line. I believe that the porch is under that. ?: The square footage area includes the screened -in porch, yes. ?: And the overhang? ?: Yeah, and the overhang. Morgan: And on Page 6 you can see that the overhang as proposed would be approximately 38 feet from the building setback line and there's an additional 20 feet to the property line. Andrews: There's no request for a rear setback variance? Morgan Right. Andrews: Okay. I was just making sure that you included the screened porch area into the request. Okay. Good. That's the only question I had. Anybody want to make a motion? Motion: Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 33 ?: Yeah, I move we approve BOA 05-1792 with the recommendations that staff has presented. ?: Second. Andrews: A motion and a second. Any further discussion? Will you call the roll, please? Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 05-1792 carries with a vote of 4-0-0. Andrews: Good luck on your project. Porter: Thanks a lot. Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 34 BOA 05-1793: (CAHOON, 367): Submitted by BUCKLEY BLEW for property located at 203 Miller. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY- 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.26 acres. The requirement is for a 25' front setback. The request is for a 5' setback (a 20' variance). Andrews: The next item is BOA 05-1793 submitted by Buckley Blew for property located at 203 Miller. The property is zoned RSF-4 and contains approximately .26 acres. The requirement is a 25 -foot front setback and the request is for a 5 -foot setback, a 20 -foot variance. Who's got this one? Morgan: I will be presenting this. This property is located on a lot that was platted in the late 1960s, and as far as my research can show, this house too was built -- constructed in the late 1960s. It is developed for one single-family dwelling. The building as it currently exists is approximately 600 square feet and the applicant request a variance in order to have -- construct a two-story addition onto the rear of the property -- or the structure, a 1,060 - square -foot addition, more than doubling the size of the home. The existing lot meets requirements of the RSF-4 zoning district. The existing home, however, is encroaching within the setback for the Master Street Plan right-of-way, approximately 20 feet. The current right-of-way for Miller is 40 feet, 20 feet from centerline, and this street has been identified on the Master Street Plan to be a collector, as it connects Gregg to College and to Green Acres. As such, the setbacks are off of 35 feet from centerline instead of the existing 20, and the home as shown on Page 9 is almost completely within that building setback. And as it is at this time, the structure could only be expanded approximately 25 -- no more than 25 percent of the square footage of the home as it existed the date it became nonconforming. As a collector street, again, it functions as -- it has an important role. Although the home was constructed prior to the designation of Miller as a collector, this street does provide an important east/west connection, and should the city purchase any right-of-way and widen Miller Street, the curb would be approximately 22 feet from the existing home. The proposed addition is significant and would increase the property values of that area -- or of that home. Staff finds that, although the structure was constructed prior to the adoption of the Master Street Plan, it is in the public's interest, however, to prevent the expansion of a structure that is almost completely within the required setback even though the addition would not be in that setback. Literal interpretation of zoning regulations would deprive the applicant of expanding the existing home as desired. However, if the dwelling unit is owner -occupied the ordinance would allow for 25 percent expansion of the structure, and that the house was constructed approximately 20 feet from the existing right- of-way and that the Master Street Plan designates Miller as a collector did not result from the actions of the applicant. However, it is the applicant's Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 35 desire to increase, significantly increase the area of the structure. With that, staff did recommend -- does recommend denial of the variance request, noting, however, if the home is owner -occupied the applicant is allowed to increase the area of this home 25 percent, and suggests that if this portion were to either be utilized they could either move the structure, expand it 25 percent, or just build a new structure within the setbacks. Andrews: Thank you. Is the applicant present? Rogers: My name is Cory Rogers and this is Tom (inaudible) and we actually gave you guys his only copies of the survey. I was wondering if there was a possibility I could (inaudible). (Inaudible) No? Andrews: I don't think so Rogers: Just because it was brought up in conversation as part of the design. Before we got here, you know, on the street, Miller Street, which (inaudible) comes in off Gregg (inaudible), with apartments on the corner. We have that little 600 -square -foot that's been a rental for the last multitude of use -- thank you -- and directly on the corner was (inaudible) had a 400 -square -foot little house. And I was actually involved in tearing that house down. We were looking to build a single-family dwelling on the corner. But what the owner's purposes are is, you know, he obviously -- he was looking to enhance the value of the property. Okay. When he purchased the property he got a rundown house that had no insulation in it. The back roof -- a lot of additions. We're looking at adding on square footage and taking off the whole front of the roof and rebuilding the whole house. So what we're looking at doing was putting a front single -story section and a rear second- story section, a single-family home. We had no ideas about the 40 -foot future setbacks. So obviously, since we've got a lot of -- kind of looking at maybe some other possibilities than even looking for the 6 -foot variance, you know, that we might be asking for. But the problem is with looking at the topo and everything -- let's see, where is -- is that we've got houses, a house right next to it. We apartments which are maybe 5 feet from the back of our structure. So what we're wondering is, what -- what's going to happen? The house next door just got purchased at 205. They're looking to do the same thing. It's a 550 -square -foot house that has a big back porch on it. I talked to them. You know, they're wanting to add on to it, so they're looking at doing the same thing. The houses across the street, we've got the one on the corner which is actually closer than ours. So we're just looking at it and we're trying to figure out what -- we have to make this thing happen. We've purchased the property. How can we make this happen? What we're looking to do is improve the neighborhood, ultimately. Turn a 600- Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 36 square -foot pretty -useless single- person rental into a single-family home, upgrading the property. And we want to work with the setbacks and the additional future Miller Street. So what we're saying is, how do we do that? Is there -- obviously, we're willing to change the idea of keeping the whole front of the structure. Is there a possibility we can shave 5 feet off the front of the structure to meet the 25 -foot setback that's existing? You know, we're looking to find a way to make this happen without losing the total investment. You know, that's what we're looking at. We bought a 600 -square -foot house, looking to add onto it and turn it into a nice single- family home, and now we've ran into a major roadblock. It's a tough one. This is a tough one, because you've got houses all along this street that are dealing with this same issue, if they chose to do anything to their homes. The house on the corner was a little white, 400 -square -foot box that hadn't been lived in for five years and we took that down. So we're just -- I mean, ultimately, we're looking to improve the area, but also make money on it, improve the area. What's going to happen to this house for the next 20 years if -- you know, in the future plans? Does it sit there as it is, you know, a rent house, or can we improve it and make it a nice home? That's kind of the question. Thomas: I'm Dan Thomas with Blew & Associates, a surveyor, and the existing 1960 subdivision plat does show the 20 -foot right-of-way. I was unaware of that to apply for a variance that any right-of-way be dedicated during that; is that true? We don't have to dedicate right-of-way? Morgan: Right-of-way is not required at the time of building permit; however, your setbacks are measured from the Master Street Plan right-of-way. Thomas: Even though no right-of-way is being dedicated, you can still apply the setbacks to the Master Street Plan right-of-way and not the existing -- Morgan: That's correct. Thomas: Okay. That was my only comment. Andrews: Let me ask, does anyone from the audience want to address this? Yes, sir. Williams: My name is Carl Williams. I live across the street from the house in question. I would like to say I'm very grateful to the people who took down the house on the corner. It had in fact been occupied off and on by some very undesirable people and I was very happy to see it go. I have a couple of concerns about the construction across the street. One of them -- well, I'll just ask, was there ever a footing inspection? Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 37 Rogers: Yes. Williams: There was? Rogers: Yeah, there was an applied -for building permit and during the process of that building permit application this came up, so the variance had to be applied for during that process, but yes, there was a footing inspection, and the inspector was out there twice, actually. Williams: Well, the only time I saw him there was when (inaudible). Rogers: No, that was at a later date. Williams: That's my principal concern (inaudible) and also curiosity. I wanted to see what was in the ditch and saw the two courses of rebar. Rogers: No. It was up to three and there was a 12 -inch footing, 24 -- Williams: That was my principal concern with that, although -- and I appreciate the fact that you won't do something ( inaudible) -- sometimes -- ?: (inaudible) Williams: I think I'm probably the only owner -occupied home on that street, and so I do appreciate that. Intuitively I question the wisdom of expanding an existing noncompliant structure, particularly that structure, because I know that house is in dreadful condition. Of course, I haven't looked at -- the frame -- it might be the sequel that you suggested (inaudible) Rogers: What we -- the foundation is still in really good shape. There's not a single crack in the block work. The floor is obviously uneven, but the entire roof is coming off that front structure. Williams: Yeah. Rogers: Okay. And the floors are going to be leveled. You know, it's 600 square feet. You know, it costs money to build 600 square feet from scratch. So what we were trying to do is utilize the structure, build off of it, and we're actually -- you know, we're just trying to utilize it and not let it set. We purchased -- Williams: Well, like I say, my major concern is structural. Andrews: Thank you. Any comments from the Board? Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 38 Rogers: It's a rough -- ?. I think our ordinances are on the books in this area for doing kind of what you're talking about doing -- you're just expanding it. A structure in a right-of-way road, you know, area that might eventually be bought by the state or the city or whoever is going to eventually expand this, so I would be concerned that everything in this site (inaudible) might need to be purchased, especially expanding it by 2,000 feet. That would be substantial. Morgan: It would be outside of the Master Street Plan right-of-way. So if the city did need to purchase any property, if you look on Page 9 of your report, that would be from the existing property line down to what was an SPROW. ?: So the building would still be okay then? Morgan: So the building would be 5 feet away from that, so the city wouldn't be purchasing that property, but it would be 20 feet -- the house would then be 20 feet in the 25 -foot building setback. It would, by adding onto this existing home, though, outside of the -- outside of the setbacks it will be 22 feet from the curb or 23 feet from the curb, where constructed in accordance with the existing setbacks. It would be 43 feet from a potential curb of the street, so -- and it would increase the property value. ?: In our point of view, because we didn't know about this and had no consideration on it, we would still be willing to try and meet -- because we're taking out the whole top story of the front house. In order to make this happen if we had to take the front wall back 3 feet to meet the 25 feet future planning -- you know, it's a cost to us, but we would be willing to do it to be able to continue with the project. We already, you know, have quite a bit invested in it. Is that a proper understanding? Morgan: I think I understand what you're talking about. ?: I mean, you want to -- you're saying you would bring it within the former -- ?: Well, we could take -- Morgan: What the 25 -foot building setback would have been if it were 20 feet from -- Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 39 ?: Right. Morgan: Yeah. ?: Which -- Morgan: Which really isn't -- ?: I don't think -- In my mind that's not an issue, because the existing -- we kind of have to -- we have to go by the existing rights-of-way and setbacks, and that's the one that's existing. It is still -- Rogers: You know, the thing is that we have -- I mean, there are many houses that are going to be -- the house next door is still going to be in the same spot this house is. The apartments on the corner are still going to be in the same spot that this house is. Those houses aren't going to move if no one touches them. They're still going to be sitting 22 feet off the road or 25 feet or 26 feet. So that has to, in my opinion, kind of come into consideration, that we're not asking to be the only person that's going to be right there on the road. You know, we're -- I mean, I really don't see the city -- I hope we don't see the city buying and taking down those houses. I mean, they didn't over on 6th Street when they widened it, they just got a little closer. I mean, I really -- I don't see the city purchasing those houses and then destroying them. It's still a neighborhood. It's still a nice area close to the school and people want to live there. ?: Where's the parking going to be for this? Rogers: It will actually go down the side. There is no -- there will not be a garage on it, just a drive. ?: But you will have it on the west side? ?: That would be the -- I believe, the east side. ?: The current driveway is on the east side. ?: The east side. The north is the back of -- north is the front of the house. ?: I agree in principle with Eric's comments. The concern I have is, we're talking an event that might take place in the future. And in the meantime, we're effectively denying -- you know, if the city were going through today or we knew they were going next year or two years from now, that they were actually going to purchase that right-of-way and widen that Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 40 street as they show on the Master Street Plan, I question whether they will get to that any time soon based on -- that's in the tax issue that they're talking about for road improvements. I don't think this is anywhere on their agenda. It's assuming that tax issue passes -- so from an owner standpoint we're effectively denying some usage of the property there that it may never -- that right-of-way may never be purchased and, you know, if it's purchased 50 years from now, the house is just going to be that much closer to the road. I just -- I have a little problem with the fact that we designated that as a collector arterial or whatever. Morgan: Collector. ?. ?: ?. ?: Yeah. And realistically, I don't see the city going there and doing that improvement and purchasing all that right-of-way along Miller and Poplar and Yates. I mean, you're talking about a bunch. And do we even want to encourage widening the roads near that school and do we want to make that a vein? I know there's a traffic problem on Gregg and 71, but do we want them going past the high school there in that nice, quiet neighborhood? I can't answer that question. But as I say, my concern is that it's a denial based on an event that realistically, in my estimation, I don't see occurring any time soon based on public traffic needs in our community. I may be wrong about that, there may be a secret plan that pops up and says we're going to buy all that right-of-way along Poplar, Yates, and Miller and do a significant widening. I don't know. That's just one of my concerns on this. Bob, I agree with you and my main concern, I think, was addressed when I found out that the structure would not actually have to be within the right- of-way. If they can just take off of the yard, I mean, I don't see that as an overburden to the city. I just -- I think that, you know, the law or the ordinance is on the books to keep people from building houses that are going increase in value and then have to be tom down, so that's my concern, my main concern, I guess. The upside of this, also, is the fact that it will undoubtedly improve the neighborhood. The one on the corner that got torn down, I've seen that thing there for years and that's just not who you would want for your next- door neighbor. So I can certainly sympathize with both his concerns for the structure itself, and I think that's perfectly appropriate, and I'm glad to leave that in the hands of the city inspection crew to determine its current liability. But, you know, in weighing that right-of-way issue with the Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 41 improvement of the neighborhood, I'm in a way surprised that that whole neighborhood has not been in here saying, "Oh, please, let them do that. It will help our neighborhood." So from that perspective I would be more in favor of granting the request, even though it would -- and it might make a difference too in terms of future liability if they did take off that front approximately 5 feet, because that will give that front entry, assuming you keep the entry at the front, a further 5 feet from what the future street might look like. ?: Mr. Chair. Andrews: Yes. David. Whitaker: Just to avoid any confusion at all, I'm going to read a section from the Uniform -- Unified Development Code. "An ordinance of the city passed by the City Council, Section 166.18, Master Street Plan setbacks. The city shall require the applicant/developer to establish a right-of-way setback line based on the right-of-way requirements for streets and highways designated by the Master Street Plan. Such setback lines shall be considered the property line for such purpose as satisfying the requirements of the UDC. All building setbacks, required landscaping, parking lots, display areas, storage areas, and other improvements and uses, shall be located outside such established setback area. A required width of setbacks, landscape areas, buffers, and all other setback requirements shall be dimensioned from the established right-of-way setback line. The establishment of any new structures or other improvements within the right-of-way setback is prohibited." ?: But he's not adding anything new inside that existing -- Whitaker: I understand. I was, for the record, wanting to make clear that it was not simply a policy guideline or a staff call to base everything on our Master Street Plan. The City Council made that the law and so that's why these are set back the way they are. That policy decision has been made by a higher authority. I just wanted the record to reflect that this is not the staff making, you know, the decision that "Oh, we base it on the Master Street Plan," it's the City Council said you would base it on the Master Street Plan. ?: They said it had to be the property line and we're not saying that the Master Street Plan is the property line. That's what that said, right? Whitaker: That's what this says. Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 42 ?: So we're not saying the Master Street Plan right-of-way is the new property line. The property line is staying the same. Whitaker: Right. ?: It's being used as a property line for the measurement of setbacks, though. That's what this says. Whitaker: In my mind the -- it's not -- we don't know if they do this improvement this house is going to be there for 50 years. Well, 25 years ago who would have thought we would have a lot of the issues we have today as far as traffic? So in that crystal ball the staff and everybody gets to look at, that might be a four -lane road in the future. But it's still going to be 22 1/2 feet from the curb. If that was downtown, would we say that was okay? Yeah. This isn't downtown area, but I still don't have a problem with the house being -- and we're talking existing structure. If it was brand new, I'd say they have plenty of room to move that back. It would bring your existing structure basically into compliance, and they're adding substantially to the back of the structure. So that being the case, that there's no new addition inside the setbacks, I don't have a problem. ?: Let me ask a pointed question. Can we grant this legally? Whitaker: Well, certainly I think you can grant it, but I just wanted -- ?: Okay. Whitaker: Earlier there was some discussion about why -- you know, I didn't want the impression that staff had unilaterally decided to start measuring setbacks from -- ?: No, no -- Whitaker: -- the Master Street Plan. I mean, it's the law. It's in there. That's why they make these determinations. They base it on what the ordinance says. ?: Absolutely. Morgan: And it would be approximately 22 feet from the curb. It would be -- the sidewalk, just to give you an idea what that would like, street -- a section of it, the sidewalk would be -- the edge of the sidewalk would be the Master Street Plan right-of-way. So if you envision a street -- a full-scale street, it would be curb -- or street 18 feet from centerline with the curb Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 43 and you would have a space for greenspace and then a sidewalk, and then 5 feet you have the house -- the existing house. ?: And the other existing structure is on that road also. ?: Anybody like to make a motion? ?: So is the variance that the applicant requested -- ?: To meet current setbacks (inaudible). ?: If we wanted to let that -- to let this happen, what variance would he need? Morgan: If would require a 20 -foot variance from the 25 -foot requirement, so he would have a 5 -foot setback. ?: Based on -- Morgan: Based on the Master Street Plan of 35 feet from -- if you were basing everything on the Master Street Plan, which requires 35 feet right-of-way from centerline, the house would encroach in the 25 -foot building setback a total of 20 feet. ?; Along with the apartment on the corner and the house next to it and the houses across the street. ?: Now, lets use the current foundation. ?: Yeah, the current existing foundation. We're not changing any -- we're changing the shape of the front. We're going to put a little gable, you know, in the back of it, but we're not changing the footings and lot curve. No additional addition onto the front of the house. ?: Are you sure you don't want to tear it down and start over? ?: It's actually -- it's a very decent house. If the foundation wasn't good, we would have been on it, but the foundation doesn't have a crack in it. So it's kind of hard to -- why waste what's good in there? We tore down that store and didn't blink. It was a done deal. And I thought I was going to be able to build a nice house on the corner, but the (inaudible) doing that, to actually put it up for sale. (Inaudible) the lot next door is for sale for $50,000.00. Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 44 ?: So the house on this plan looks like it's crooked or set on the lot crooked,. Is the 5 foot going to accommodate the entire -- ?: Would you hand me the folder, the first one? ?: Do you want the survey? ?: Sure. ?: I think on the survey that the corner that encroaches furthest is (inaudible). ?: I don't know if it matters, but the addition would tuck up real nice and tightly on a greenbelt that's established behind all three or four of these houses. And it's thick. It's not just a couple of trees. It's a real established dense little area. There's a nice cedar tree that when you ride the back of this house, none of that would be disturbed, and it would -- I mean, it would be nice to leave that like that. None of the other neighbors have any real need to do anything with that area, you know, but once we start cutting houses back into it, it's just going to thin everything out in there. ?: I think we have all the information we need to make a decision. Would somebody like to make a motion up or down? Motion: ?: I'll motion we approve BOA 05-1793 as presented by staff. ?: Second. ?: A motion and a second. Any further discussion? Morgan: Sorry. ?: That's what I was going to ask. ?: What? Morgan: Is there any conditions needed? ?: The usual building permit, blah, blah, blah stuff. Morgan: Certainly. Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 45 ?: Any other future alternations or additions to the required setbacks? ?: Just the house, speaking now. You may want to in the future -- about what the Planning Commission does, and just call those the standard, you know, always have those there for these kind of things, and that way you can say, "with standard conditions of approval," and it seems to work really well in the housekeeping functions of the Planning Commission and it might be -- now that you have -- as I noticed, we have a ball of this stuff, about three or four that seem to always need to be at least said. You might want to look at that for future. Morgan: We will do that. ?: So your motion will include those -- ?. motion to approve those conditions with the usual standard requirements (inaudible). ?: Okay. And I second that. ?: Okay. As in 1792, one, two and three. That's basically what we're talking about there (inaudible). Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 05-1793 carries with a vote of 4-0-0. ?: Thank you guys. ?: Good luck on your project. Any further business? No minutes this time. Morgan: I apologize. I have no control over that, and I know it was requested to have some at the last meeting. ?: (inaudible) control over that, because this has been getting on a regular basis, in the last few months or so, that we haven't had consistent minutes. Morgan: I will talk to -- (inaudible) our director about that. And we do have some (inaudible) ?: (inaudible) receive the e-mails. ?: I had it printed out and I left it and I meant to -- I knew there was going to be some changes. Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 46 ?: Did you all have a chance to review those? Obviously, the answer is no. ?: So shall I present this to you over the (inaudible) with this for the ordinance review committee regarding the issue we had last meeting on BOA 05-1759? ?: Yes. Exactly. He along is having difficulty with the idea of banning accessory buildings in setbacks. ?: Yes, yes. ?: One has to do with accessory structures and the other has to do with -- ?: Basically, if it's an old lot it's okay anyway, or something like that. I don't know. ?: Yeah -- ?: The other one is penalties for things that encroach -- new construction that encroaches into setbacks, and to have some sort of penalty system set up so we don't -- ?: See these (inaudible). ?: I wish you would have sent a copy to us. That would have been interesting. ?: I don't know why he didn't. ?: Anyway, let me give this to you and see if we can even do this legally. ?: Well, you can certainly always recommend. ?: Yes. We recommend the -- ?: I can tell you these are all decisions that the City Council could make to change. ?: Yes. And we would like to see some. ?: I would recommend a hundred -percent increase in David Whitaker's salary. Board of Adjustment November 7, 2005 47 ?. ?. (Laughter) ?. ?. (inaudible) We could recommend that, couldn't we? That's just the attorneys, not the (inaudible). Okay. So you all take a look at that and report back to us next meeting if you think there's anything that should be changed, and hopefully we'll have, maybe, a full house and -- ?: From our comments from e-mails it seems that most of the Board of Adjustment are willing to sign that if necessary. Avoid (inaudible) ask questions later (inaudible). Okay. Meeting adjourned.