Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-12-05 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45 p.m. on Monday, December 5, 2005 in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville Arkansas. Item Considered Action Taken BOA 05-1843 (BOZARTH, 527) Denial Page BOA 05-1844 (DICKENSON, 522) Approved Page BOA 05-1845 (THEP THAI RESTAURANT, 601) Approved Page BOA 05-1846 (STEPHENS/FOUR SEASONS SUNROOMS, 322) Approved Page Members Present Members Absent Robert Kohler Michael Green Eric Johnson Sherri Alt Robert Nickle Michael Andrews Karen McSpadden Staff Present Staff Absent Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher David Whitaker Board of Adjustment December 5, 2005 Page 2 BOA 05-1843 (BOZARTH, 527): Submitted by LEON M. & ELAINE A. BOZARTH for property located at 2761 TRAVIS LANE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.29 acres. The request is for a 2' front setback (a 23' variance) and a 2' side setback (a 6' variance). Nickle: We will proceed with hearing staff's comments, we will ask staff some questions, and then we will ask the applicant for comment and may have some questions for them. After that, we will open it up for public comment and at the end of public comment we will close that and bring it back to the board for a decision and a vote if necessary. The first item submitted is BOA 05-1843, Jesse would like to fill us in on that. Fulcher: This property is located at 2761 Travis Lane, just north of Huntsville Road, west of Stonebridge road. A little background on how this came about. It's a carport, pictures included in the report, but it's being used to cover a boat. It was erected without a building permit. Neighbor had called to complain to building safety, regarding this. Contact was made with the property owners at that time, which case they did come in and apply for a building permit. When staff began to review the building permit, the carport did not meet required front and side setbacks, so they requested variance for those setbacks to allow the carport to remain. Staff did review this, we did not find any special conditions or circumstances peculiar to this property or to the structure involved. This is a platted subdivision that was done in 1990 with current zoning regulations. There is space on the lot where a carport or another structure can be located with out encroaching on the required building set backs. The granting of this variance would grant a special privilege on the applicant and the surrounding properties in the same zoning district. Therefore, staff would recommend denial of the requested setback variances from the front and side and would recommend the structure to be moved and located where it would meet the required building set backs. Nickle: Thank you Jesse, is the owner or applicant here? Bozarth: Yes, sir. Nickle: If you can identify yourself please. Bozarth: My name is Leon Bozarth, my boat storage is on the second driveway that there. It's been there, ever since the house has been constructed. That is all it's going to be used for, boat storage. It sits there with a cover on it. That's my personal residence; I'm not trying to do anything that would deflate the property value of anything. As a mater of fact, I own two properties less than a block from that area. The one right down the street, Board of Adjustment December 5, 2005 Page 3 the other one directly behind the adjoining property of my home. So, I'm certainly not trying to obstruct anything. I'm not aware of anything on my property where I can put that building and be able to get my boat to it, without going thru the front. I have uh; I know it's pretty close to the property line on the east side, which belongs to Mr. Linn Robins, who is with me today. I'd like to have it. I actually went to Missouri to check out one that would be color matched with my trim and stuff of the house. As you can see, it matches. It's not a round one, it's actually gabled. It has little overhangs. I've tried to do every thing that would be nice and appropriate with the house. Robins: I'm Linn Robins and I own the adjoining property and I have no objections, it's a nice looking building. No problem with me, I think its fine. Nickle: Any other comments or questions? Yes ma'am would you identify yourself. Issac: My name is Elsa Isaac and I'm the women who called that one afternoon and my basic statement is that if code is observed more of the breach than in the observance of code is ignored it sets precedents for any other property owner to ignore code either in large or small elements — large or small things. And I think out of respect to the law the permit should have been asked for initially, and the adjustments could have been made before the fact, rather than ex post facto, after the fact. The code is not ordimental, its suppose to be useful. And it has underlinying purposes, safety, aesthetics, access. Mr. Bozarth does make a good point, I don't see anyway place he can bring his boat back to his backyard, given the position of his house. This being the second drive, it does seem like the only other place to put his boat, yet it is too close to the street. What is the set back in the front? 20 feet....and 8 on the sides, is that correct? Nickle: 25 foot setbacks in the front. Issac: Oh, 25 foot setbacks in the front, I see. Alright, basically those are my objections. I think it should be modified to coincide with code. And so, I've said everything I need to say. Nickle: Okay, thank you. Anyone else like to speak to this? Bozarth: I'd like to add one more thing. Before I went to the trouble of purchasing this building, I actually called and thought I was talking with someone in planning when I checked on this at the beginning. But, I explained what I was going to do and the gentleman I talked to said that this is all I needed, talked with some couple of other people with in the building, and was told Board of Adjustment December 5, 2005 Page 4 I wouldn't need a permit either. So I proceeded, obviously I proceeded wrong. I did try to receive the right direction. McSpadden: Do you have any reference on that? Bozarth: I can only speak for myself. McSpadden: Do you remember who you spoke with? Bozarth: It must have been 3 or 4 months ago. Nickle: Okay, if there is no further comment, we will bring it back to the board for discussion. Kohler: I guess we have had situations like this before, and from our stand point, or should I say from my stand point. The only way to distinguish someone following the law and someone not following the law would be to deny the request of the one not following the law. The only way we can figure out how to deal with situations like this. Someone who follows the law can't be rewarded over and above just because they followed the law. This code applies to this piece of property and from what I can tell, you're not supposed to be able to park your boat in front of your house. According to this code. It precludes the structure of this size, in front of your house. Bozarth: Kohler: Bozarth: Kohler: McSpadden: Kohler: McSpadden: Kohler: You're saying, I can not, excuse me, I'm not suppose to speak now. According to these allowable setbacks, and according to your access. Unless you put it in your existing concrete driveway, but then you got a front setback issue. I have two driveways. The other driveway, you're not violating a side setback issue, you're only violating the front setback issue. From what I can tell, this code does not allow this type of structure in front of your house. Pure and simple. Regardless of setbacks. No, because of the setbacks. Not because of the type of the structure. Right, because of the setbacks. The people who don't put these in front of their house, even though they want to put one in front of their house, they don't because of the setbacks. It's unfortunate, you didn't check that out Board of Adjustment December 5, 2005 Page 5 Isaac: Nickle: Isaac: Nickle: Isaac: McSpadden: Isaac: Nickle: MOTION: Kohler: Nickle: before hand. We have no way of knowing if this was intentional or not. And often time, we get these kind cases. Sometimes its intentional, sometimes its not. We do not know that. I don't know how to deal with it, other than to deny it. Am I allowed to speak or am I out of order here? We really closed the public comment, unless one of the board members has a specific question for you. I think I have a solution. If there is a solution, feel free. I have quite a bit of land on either side of my fence; I'm inviting the Bozarths, to park their boat there. As how he's going to keep it covered, that will be up to him. But those are largely unused segments of my property and rent free, in perpetuity. Considering I'm 70, perpetuity is not that long. But I'm going to invite them, if they wish too. Where is your property? I'm at the end of the cul-de-sac. Anymore comments from the board, motion? I move that we deny the request. Motion, second? McSpadden: Second. Nickle: A motion and a second, any further discussion? Roll Call: McSpadden, Johnson, Nickle, Kohler, upon the completion of roll call the motion to deny the Variance was approved by a vote of 3-1-0, with Johnson voting no. Garner: The motion carries. Board of Adjustment December 5, 2005 Page 6 BOA 05-1844 (DICKENSON, 522): Submitted by CHIP & WYNN DICKENSON for property located at 103 SOUTH DUNCAN AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -40, MULTI FAMILY and contains approximately 0.42 acres. The requirement is for a 90' lot width and 15' side setbacks. The request is for an 85' lot width (a 5' variance) and a 4' side setback (an 11' variance). Nickle: The second item before us is BOA 05-1844 submitted by Chip & Wynn Dickenson property located at 103 S. Duncan. Garner: This property is located at 103 South Duncan, South of Center Street and East of Fayetteville High School. The property is zoned RMF -40 and contains approximately .4 acres. The applicant proposes to return the exiting home to a multi family use containing 6 units, 2 -two bedroom units, 4 one bedroom units. The stairs are located on the north side of the home, are in despair and needs to be repaired or replaced. They are located with a tight setback. As depicted on table 1, on page 2.2 of report. Requesting a 5 foot lot width variance with the total lot width of 85 feet. And a 4 foot side set back variance total side set back of 11 feet. However, I know there is a height regulation in RMF -40 zoning district that requires tight setbacks to increase each foot of structure excess of 20 feet. This structure is approximately 26 feet and therefore would require a 15 ft building set back. The overall variance for side setbacks would be 4 feet. Staff finds that there are special conditions that are exempts this structure exiting home was built and the lot was plated prior to current zoning regulations. Approval of the structure, as it exists, no more encroaches the property to the north of current condition. Staff also finds lateral interpretations of zoning regulations will not allow the owner to repair the existing staircase. And we find that allowing a 5 foot variance to the lot width to allow Multi Family development would be compatible with surrounding multi family properties and we also feel, that the granting of the side setbacks will allow the property to remodel the existing Coleman historic area. Also found the finding that its compatible with the surrounding area and we are recommending approval of these variances with conditions as shown on page 2 of lin you report. Condition 1 being building permit shall be obtained prior to any agreed development of the property or re -construction of the structure. Condition 2 shows the variance shall apply the footprint of the existing structure and staircase as shown. Condition 3 need proposed of construction from develop comply with development regulations of RMF -40 zoning district. With that, we can answer any questions you might have. Kohler: There not wanting to expand there property or wanting to rebuild their stairs? Gardner: That's correct. Board of Adjustment December 5, 2005 Page 7 Nickle: Dickenson: Nickle: MOTION: Is the applicant present? Yes sir, myself (Chip) and my wife (Wynn). We have a contract from the couple that was there in 1998. They actually want to downsize and move to the house north of this property. When they bought the house it was five units and since we submitted this, its 6 but we want to take it down to five. It has two basement apartments already existing but has not been used in awhile. The main floor is 1800 sq ft want to divide that into two main bedroom units. The upstairs will be 2- one bedroom units 1300 sq ft. First issue is ordinance with 90 foot of frontage, and the lot is only zoned at 85 ft. We need the 5 foot variance to use it as multi family as it has in the past. The stairs that we mentioned, I climbed up there the other day to measure. Susan Morgan came out and the stairs are pretty rickety on the north side. We will probably have a second stairway to the upstairs, like to keep that as an alternate stairway, or at least a fire escape. But they do need to be rebuilt or repaired, not sure when they were built. Your right, we are not altering the footprint at all, although we do want to remodel the place considerably in the way of the inside. Dexterial is in pretty good shape with the exception of the stairs and the variance with the 5 ft lot width. There are several examples in the neighborhood of older houses turned into apartments. There's one just across the street and two or three down the street that have four to five units in them. Total structure is 4200 sq ft and it's compatible for the neighborhood. Any more questions or comments from the public on this issue? Then none will bring it back to the board. McSpadden: I would like to make a motion to approve BOA 05-1844 with the staff recommendations as shown on page 2.1. Second. Is there any further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the Variance was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Johnson: Nickle: Roll Call: Board of Adjustment December 5, 2005 Page 8 BOA 05-1845 (THEP THAI RESTAURANT, 601): Submitted by AFHJ ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS for property located at 1525 SOUTH SCHOOL. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.34 acres. The requirement is for a 50' setback. The request is for a 28' front setback (a 22' variance) to bring the existing nonconforming structure into compliance. The applicant also requests an additional variance for a 12' front setback (a 38' variance) to allow for the addition of two pergolas for outdoor dining. Nickle: The next item on the agenda is BOA 05-1845 ThepThai Restaurant, hope that is the correct way of saying it. Located at 1525 South School. Jesse, do you have this one? Fulcher: Yes. This property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, as you said 1525 South School, which is just south of 156 street and across from Mountain Inn Pawn and IGA. There is an existing building there built in 1969, and at that time permitted with the building permits at that time. Obviously with differently Master Street Plan requirements and different setbacks of 40 ft, there is a required 50 ft setback of the right-of-way at this time. The applicants are proposing some additions to the exiting building as shown on 3.12. That would be a new entry way, some storage area rear, greenhouse, and a hallway. Fifth and separate item would be the outdoor eating area, pergolas on the front of the building, putting them between the building and School Avenue. The applicants have requested a 28' front setback, 22' variance this would bring the existing nonconforming structure into compliance. We separated out the next item; they are also requesting additional variance for a 12' front setback, a 38' variance to allow for the addition of the two pergolas show on 3.12 for outdoor dinning area. Staff has found special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to this structure, since it was built in 1969 with a different right-of-way requirement and is required with today's ordinances. It's appropriate to allow for expansion of this building outside the required setbacks. Granting of the 22' variance will allow for the improvements to be made to the existing building. However, staff does not find that there are special conditions existing to allow for the erection of additional structures further into the required setbacks. There is ample space available for the seating without the requirement of additional variance. Additional, the applicant can provide dinning with in the premises out back if the structure provided is within 30 inches in height. The request here is for outdoor dinning with the pergolas over the top. It separate 30 inches in height. With the roof structures it does required a variance. McSpadden: Oh, so with just a regular patio gable around it Board of Adjustment December 5, 2005 Page 9 Fulcher: Nickle: Postrol: McSpadden: Postrol: McSpadden: Postrol: McSpadden: Postrol: Exactly, with that, staff requests the approval of the 22' setback to allow bringing the exiting building to compliance. There are three conditions of approval with that. We added a fourth condition if that the board chooses to grant the additional request to allow the pergolas to be erected further into the setbacks additional conditional of approval to cover that. Comments from the applicant? Yes, my name is Joe Postrol, I wanted to let you see what the Thep Thai Restaurant has in mind to further improve the image of this business. The pergolas they were talking about is the main issue in question here off of School Avenue. The purpose for this and the intricate way to give this restaurant a Thai appearance. It's a flat roof building and doesn't have a character employed here when you go to a Thai restaurant. We can see the evaluations. The entry way with the star, is it part of the structure. I'm having kind of trouble envisioning what this star...could not here what else she was saying, due to Mr. Postrol opening up the diagrams for the evaluations he wanted to show. All you can here is paper crinkling. This is the entry way, the two pergolas are on the eastside of the building and in addition, there is a greenhouse. He raises fresh herbs to cook and uses the greenhouse to get him thru the winter. Plus a storage area, he's an avid gardener. At least during the summer months, he has a growing garden hear on the eastside of the structure. That front part of the building is already there. Yes, this is an addition to the entry way. But this entry is already there. Ok, thank you. This is unusual architecture, but would like to build wood structures to represent his native land which would be richly landscaped. The entry element is shown here coming in from the north side. It's supposed to get weather protection from the entry and stop insects coming into the restaurant and give it more of a Thai like appearance. These structures, if there is a concern about the size, we can make them smaller. They fit in nicely with the current plans and if made smaller, they can be portable, which would help. Johnson: Is those pergolas attached to the building? They look like their free standing. Board of Adjustment December 5, 2005 Page 10 Postrol: There free standing. Johnson: Okay, I'm wondering if, if they were attached would you not just be requesting a variance of one front setback variance. It would become part of the building. Right now there's a request for two variances. Postrol: The one is for the existing building and that's the one staff recommends the approval of The other one is to add the two pergolas. Johnson: But I'm wondering if the pergolas were attached to the building than it would be a variance for the new front of the building. Postrol: Verses two additions. Fulcher: If they didn't protrude further or extend existing roof line or building that's going to change the, it's still going to be consider as a separate request. It's extending the front of the building further into the setback. If they make it flush to the building. Johnson: I'm wondering if that would make it easier for us to approve, not that it's not already, I'm just wondering how that would change the flow. McSpadden: Have your clients look at any other locations that would be suitable for the pergolas? Postrol. They have not. McSpadden: I was just asking due to the front side of this building, sort of looking from here, this area. Postrol: We don't show it, but he already has bamboo out there. McSpadden: I'm familiar with the building, I was just wondering if there was any suitable compromise. Nickle: If there is no other questions to the podium, I'll bring it back to the board. Johnson: I had a question for Jesse, in relations to the movable pergolas covering whatever you want to classify it as. What would be the requirements there if it were seasonal or would it help at all, would it still be considered. Fulcher: Well, a structure is defined as a fix location on the ground Almost want to compare them to the carport. Where that is somewhat movable, but still considered a structure. I think it would be the same here. Board of Adjustment December 5, 2005 Page 11 McSpadden: Is this the same as some of the party tents that are put out, and left out forever? The plain white ones? Fulcher: I've seen the tents put up, but never been asked about them before. Believe building and safety requires some items on there, Certificate of Temporary Occupancy and make sure there fire proof. I believe we look at cloth as a temporary material in nature and a tent would not be looked at as a structure with a permanent location or fixed location. Johnson: I approve to what he is trying to do here, to improve the image of his property. I think it would really help his business. I might allow the changes he sees on the side of the building. Kohler: If you drive along the road there, heading south. There's lots of buildings encroaches a lot further than this. Either behind the times or current structures all along School down there. Johnson: This is still full back from the right -a -way Kohler: Is that sidewalk covered? Postrol: There's an over hang right in front of the building. MOTION: Johnson: I would like to move to approve the request, that we approve 22' front setback to the existing building. Approve the requested 12' front setback for the two pergolas, along with staff recommendations for the first approval and second approval. Kohler: Second. Fulcher: Can I get a clarification on this. With the applicants here, looking at item number four. Reference to the pergolas, with that condition shown on the site plan. If this item is passed, the pergolas are shown within the 15' fire lane escape area. With one of the other items we looked at, this covered in condition number two, is with improvements with nonconforming parking lot. There is a graduated system of improvements, part of which would be within that 15' landscaping area. We just wanted to make sure it's still possible to have that 15' left clear for those approvals to be made, whether with this improvement or one down the road. Nickle: Would that reduce the size of the pergolas? Board of Adjustment December 5, 2005 Page 12 Postrol: It could, but we would be happy to comply with that. Nickle: Is there any further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the Variance was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Board of Adjustment December 5, 2005 Page 13 BOA 05-1846 (STEPHENS/FOUR SEASONS SUNROOMS, 322): Submitted by BILL BOSS for property located at 4270 WEST MOUNT COMFORT ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-1, SINGLE FAMILY- 1 UNIT/ACRE and contains approximately 1 acre. The requirement is for a 35' rear setback. The request is for a 21' rear setback (a14' variance). Nickle: The next item on the agenda is BOA 05-1846 Submitted by Bill Boss for property located at 4270 West Mount Comfort Road. Jesse, you have this one. Fulcher: This is for property located at 4270 West Mount Comfort Road. The property is zoned RSF-1, SINGLE FAMILY- 1 UNIT/ACRE and contains approximately 1 acre. The requirement is for a 35' rear setback. The request is for a 21' rear setback (a14' variance). The applicant is proposing to build a sunroom addition at the rear of the home. There is a little bit of history with this property. If you look at the property description, prior to the island annexations, the property owner did request annexation rezoning to RSF-4. That was passed by the City Council and was rezoned within the thirty-one days it takes effect as an ordinance. At that time, with the legal descriptions, there was a conflict to what the city showed and what the county showed. So, it was repealed and went back to the county after it was rezoned RSF-4. It was one of the islands, so when the islands were annexed in, it was ether zoned RSF-1 or R -A both which have 35' rear setbacks. That's how the property exists now. What the owner is proposing is to build a 13'x18' sunroom. Based on the measurements we made, it's a little different then the site plans shown. But based on out measurements, it will still show 21' from the rear setback which would meet the requirements of the RSF-4 zoning district, which is adjacent nearly every other side of this property. The other part of the island is a church, which was annexed in with this property. Other than that, its all RSF-4. It was appropriate to allow a 21' rear setback based on and continues too lot of the new subdivisions that are zoned RSF-4. Staff approves this item with three conditions of approvals. With this structure will not encroach into the 20' rear setback and the additions would meet all the requirements RSF-1 zoning district. Nickle: Is the applicant present? Boss: Yes. Nickle: Any comments? Boss: No, Jesse coved them all. Nickle: And your name is? Board of Adjustment December 5, 2005 Page 14 Boss: Nickle: MOTION: Kohler: McSpadden: Nickle: Sony, Bill Boss. I don't see anyone else out there, but will ask if there is any public comment, incase our faithful camera man would like to say something? In that case, I'll bring it back to the board. I would like to make a motion to approve BOA 05-1846 with all staff recommendations as shown. Second. Is there any further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the Variance was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Meeting adjourned: 4:23 p.m.