Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-03 MinutesBoard of Adjustment April 3, 2006 Page 1 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on April 3, 2006 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN BOA 06-2024 (ALT/HERGET, 295) Page 3 BOA 06-2022 (COODY, 523) Page 5 BOA 06-2024 (KELLY, 484) Page 9 Approved Approved Approved 1 Board of Adjustment April 3, 2006 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Eric Johnson Sherrie Alt Bob Nickle Robert Kohler James Zant William Cheeser Karen McSpadden STAFF PRESENT Suzanne Morgan Andrew Garner CITY ATTORNEY David Whitaker STAFF ABSENT Jesse Fulcher Board of Adjustment April 3, 2006 Page 3 New Business: BOA 06-2024 (ALT/HERGET, 295): Submitted by SHEREE ALT for property located at 3477 E. TOWNSHIP. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains 0.28 acres. The request is for a 23' front setback (a 2' variance.) Garner: The subject property was built in 2000 and is located at 3477 E. Township Rd., (Lot 75 in the Covington Park Subdivision) and zoned Residential Single Family Four Units per Acre (RSF-4). The two-story brick house was permitted with a 25' front setback and 25' utility easement off of E. Township Rd. right-of-way. A survey completed prior to selling the house revealed that the footing for the structure was constructed outside of the building setback/utility easement, however the overhang is approximately 2' over the building setback/utility easement line. The applicant requests a variance of 2 feet to allow for the overhang into the building setback. Staff finds that the building permit showed a 25 foot building setback and we do not support building into building setbacks including overhangs, however, the footing was constructed correctly and inspected correctly. The building didn't take into account the overhang on the plans and that is how this variance has come about. At this point staff doesn't find taking off that overhang would really be beneficial to anyone and we didn't find that allowing that overhang would be detrimental to the neighborhood, so we are recommending in favor in granting that variance. Two conditions of approval, they are our standard recommendations of approval that we are recommending with this variance, and I will be happy to answer any questions you might have. Zant: I have one, only for my identification, do we issue certificates of occupantancies for new residential then, as a formal and we then do a final inspection. That is how this was discovered. Garner: I believe it was discovered when a survey was conducted prior to selling the property, I don't think it was at the certificate of occupancy stage. Zant: It's not that cr. tical, I just wanted to know, that's good. Nickle: Other questions from staff? Chesser: Has a C of 0 has been issued, previously? Alt: It says it's been built in 2000. 3 Board of Adjustment April 3, 2006 Page 4 Chesser: So, this might have been something that would have been typically caught? Nickle: Typically, unless there is a survey, which it's not typically done before and C of 0? Is that correct? Garner: Correct. Nickle: It came up after the fact. When the survey was done for the sale of the property. Does the applicant have anything to add to this report? Alt: I'm Sheree Alt, representing Eric Herget the owner of the property and I would address exactly what happened in this issue. This is the third owner of the property, when the house was built; no survey was done on the property. Second owner had no survey and when it went back on the market to list the property, which I did, a survey was done. Then we noticed the encroachment of the overhang. Nickle: Questions to the applicant? Anyone else from the public would like to speak? Seen none, will bring it back to the board for discussion and motion. MOTION: Kohler: I would move we approve the request along with the 2 recommendations from staff. McSpadden: Seconded the motion. Nickle: Any further discussion? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the Variance was approved by a vote of 6-0. McSpadden, Kohler, Nickle, Johnson, Zant, and Chesser voting yes, Motion carries. Board of Adjustment April 3, 2006 Page 5 BOA 06-2022 (COODY, 523): Submitted by DEBORAH COODY for property located at 227 SOUTH CHURCH STREET. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 0.23 acres. The request is for a variance from the required 30' front setback for a 23' setback (a 7' variance), and from the 10' side setback for a 3' setback (a 7' variance). Garner: The subject property is located at 227 South Church Street and is zoned Residential -Office (R -O). The site contains an existing home that was built in 1949 and several large trees. As with many structures along this street and in older platted subdivisions in the City, this neighborhood has a mix of older homes associated with downtown Fayetteville mostly built prior to zoning regulations. The lot actually meets our current bulk area requirements for lot area and lot width. However, the existing home violates the requirements of a 30 foot front building set back (the front of the house is approximately 1' into the setback); and for a 10' side setback to the north (the house is approximately 5' in the side setback). Many of the homes in this area of street, is downtown, since they have been built before zoning regulations, you end up with problems like this. Current ordinance makes them non -conforming. The applicant proposes to build a 10'x12' front porch facing the street, which would require a 7' front setback variance. Additionally, they would like to add 16 -inch roof overhang onto the north side of the house to protect the house from weather. Staff recommends in favor of this request and our primary finding for that, this house is located in our downtown master plan area and the downtown master plan code hasn't been adopted yet. However, the master plan policy document has been approved. This variance request would be consistent as far as the front building setbacks would be consistent with the downtown master plan as far as having more structures along the street. Establishing a streetscape and if the downtown code were adopted there would be a 5-25 foot build -to line. At this point, along this property and adding this porch would make this house more in compliance with that, so we would be in favor of that. Then along the northern side of the property, adding a roof overhang to protect this older house. It seems appropriate and seems justified and it wouldn't be a special privilege to this property, in our opinion. We are recommending approval of it. With 4 conditions of approval, standard conditions of approval, stating that the variances apply only to the improvements requested. That any other future alterations would be required to meet building setbacks or have to come back before the Board of Adjustment. Nickle: Any questions from the board or staff? Under the new Downtown Plan, what are the side setbacks? Board of Adjustment April 3, 2006 Page 6 Garner: Nickle: McSpadden: Garner: Kohler: Garner: Kohler: McSpadden: Johnson: McSpadden: Garner: Whitaker: I don't know right off the top of my head, but do remember that they focused down on the street front, not sure about the side. If this were a single family, it would be 8 -foot. If it was RSF-1, which this was built as a single family home original. When do you anticipate the Downtown Master Plan ordinances going into effect? That is what the applicant has asked me as well. I really don't have a good guess. It was forwarded to the ordinance review committee, so when it gets passed at ordinance review committee then it would go in front of City Council. The Planning Commission has already forwarded the map for the Downtown Master Plan. I don't want to speculate. The earliest it could be, would be May 13`h? If it just goes straight thru. Longer than that. So whenever they sell this house, if that goes into effect in between, are they going to have to come back for another variance for not being conforming with that one at the time. Any changes in the Downtown Master Plan would be in excess of what we are approving now. Even then, our discussion today would carry forward. Because it doesn't come to the build -to line? That is correct, as far as the timing on that, I would agree with. Attorney? He pretty much got it right. The existent of any variance you grant would state the same. Regardless how the regulations change. McSpadden: Ok. Chesser: I wouldn't observe the property as R -O too, there are very large oaks right in there, which is mentioned in the report, that would prevent the structure from having to go to the build -to line. I don't think we want to encourage... Board of Adjustment April 3, 2006 Page 7 McSpadden: No, No, I just wanted to know if there are any recommendations we could stick in now that would save us having to look at it again in three months or whatever. Nickle: Applicant is not present. Whitaker: Well, that does cause a problem, doesn't it? Nickle: We typically table those items. Did we receive any words from the applicant about not being here? Kohler: Applicants office is next door. Garner: I did talk to him a month ago, but I haven't talked to him since. Would you like me go see? Nickle: If someone wants to table this item temporally, and go ahead and finish the next item, then come back to this. McSpadden: I saw Debra on Saturday, she said she wasn't going to be here, but I didn't know that she would have to be here. Nickle: David, can we do that, without getting ourselves into trouble? Whitaker: You would have to hold off on it because you can't, on your rules of procedure, number 8 states that an applicant or authorized representative must be present for a vote to be taken on a variance request. Nickle: We can table this, maybe come back to it today, if we want? Attorney: Certainly, as long as the applicant or authorized representative is located. Nickle: OK. MOTION: Chesser: Move to table this item and seek the applicant. See if we can get this resolved at this meeting. Zant: Seconded. Nickle: Motion has been seconded, any other discussion; guess we don't discuss tabling anyway. Suzanne, roll call please. Board of Adjustment April 3, 2006 Page 8 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table this item until the applicant is found was approved by a vote of 6-0. McSpadden, Kohler, Nickle, Johnson, Zant, and Chesser voting yes, Motion carries. Board of Adjustment April 3, 2006 Page 9 BOA 06-2024 (KELLY, 484): Submitted by ROBERT KELLY for property located at 620 W LAYFAYETTE. The property is zoned RMF -40, MULTI FAMILY - 40 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.29 acres. The request is for a variance from side setback requirements of 1' additional side setback for every 1' over 20' in height to allow the addition of dormers to a structure under construction. Morgan: This property is located just east of Old Main Lawn on Layfayette. The applicant is currently constructing a multi -family three story structure at this location. There was a previously existing home on one of the two pieces of property on which this building was constructed. That structure was non -conforming to regulations in the height of the structure and did not meet regulations. This is located in a RMF -40 zoning district which allows multi -family. It has the building setback regulations of 25 foot front, 20 foot rear, and 8 feet on the sides. However, for every foot over 20 feet in height, you have to set another foot off of the setback. In May of last year, the applicant requested a 3 foot variance to construct a structure that is located on, look at page 13 of your packet, which is the request at that time. This request was denied. There were several neighbors in opposition to that request, due to potential encroachment on single-family homes or other neighboring developments. The structure was permitted as shown on page 15, as well as 16 of your staff report. In construction, the applicant actually constructed so that the home was lowered into the grade. You can tell on page 17 that there is a retaining wall on the east side of the property that was not significant when permitted. As a result, it's changed the elevation somewhat and lowered the retaining wall on the other side of the property. The applicant is currently framing the roof and would like to put dormers over the three windows on either side or adjacent to the side building set back. This would increase the height. The total height would be at those points 29 feet. Approximately 10 foot setback. Which would require a 7 foot variance in height. Those neighbors who were most outspoken with the last request have submitted letters stating their support for this requested variance. Stated that dormers over the windows would be pleasing, also indicating that lowering the building into the grade was appreciated. We are recommending in favor with this request. Finding that the modifications to the structure will be compatible with the design and other structures in the area and finding as we did in the previous request, that there was a previous difference in height with the other structure and feel this would be more compatible. Nickle: Questions for Suzanne? Thank you Suzanne, I think this is an item perhaps should have been tabled last year and had the party's time to visit as obviously they have since then. Presentation for the applicant? Board of Adjustment April 3, 2006 Page 10 Mr. Kelly: My name is Robert Kelly and I appreciate you all reviewing this again. I did thought that this needed to look better in the neighborhood. That is all we are asking you to do, to let us make the elevations look better without adding anything else and other neighbors agree. Lowering it down, we agreed with staff on this, lowering it down we felt like we were under the envelope of what was permittable. And that those dormers would fit under that (inaudible). We are glad to be here and would be glad to answer any questions. We just felt like that sometime in our lifetime, that this master plan would be approved and there would be no ordinances on the books that would show that we needed to bop off the size of the building. Nickle: Questions to the applicant? Anyone from the public would like to speak on this item. Kohler: Bob, did the 6 foot retaining wall on the east side of the wall, did that affect the heights, and I was not real clear on that part of it. Kelly: It affected the heights as it related to the next piece of property. The building actually went, you know, the impact of the neighbor was much less to the west. (inaudible) Kohler: The method of measuring for this request wasn't affected by that. Kelly: Right, now I can completely dig a hole and put the building completely out of sight and we would still be measuring down the side of the building. I think this is one of the items that the new code is addressing; there are a few things that the Downtown Master Plan is going to approve. Nickle: All right, no more comments from the public. We will bring it back to the board for consideration. Zant: I have a question for our architect Mr. Kohler; do we have more than one on our commission? This is one of those complex type ordinances with the ratio of to satisfy height and floor area etc... Are you comfortable with the approach with the dormers and so forth? It says here, that the motivating factor was to alter the appearance of the structure rather than increase the amount of floor area. Are you comfortable with this? Kohler: When you consider the last time they came in front of the board, this entire room was filled with people that had an opinion about this project and a lot of it had to do with how it fit into the neighborhood. My opinion, these dormers further that cause and they help the building. They break up the roof line a bit. There were a lot of concerns about that. I think that they addressed a lot of the concerns just redesigning the Board of Adjustment April 3, 2006 Page 11 Zant: Alt: Chesser: Nickle: MOTION: Alt: Cheeser: Nickle: building. It goes a little bit farther in this request to further conform the building to the neighborhood. In that sense, yes, from a visual standpoint, I think it an improvement if we don't have any dormers at all. That satisfied me. I agree, these dormers make it pleasing to the eye. They don't affect the fascia particularly, because the roof is higher if you are standing on the ground. I went and looked at it before this meeting and this building is not particularly out of line with the surrounding buildings. It seems to fit in well. Do we have a Motion? I motion that we approve BOA 06-2024 with staff recommendations. Seconded. We have a motion to second any further discussion? None, Suzanne please cal the roll. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve BOA 06-2024 with staff recommendations was approved by a vote of 7-0. McSpadden, Kohler, Nickle, Johnson, Zant, Alt, and Chesser voting yes, Motion carries. MOTION: Nickle: Now I would obtain a motion to bring BOA 06-2022 off the table. McSpadden: So moved. Zant: Nickle: Second Suzanne, please do roll call Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to bring BOA 06-2022 off the table was approved by a vote of 7-0. Alt, McSpadden, Kohler, Nickle, Johnson, Zant, and Chesser voting yes, Motion carries. Board of Adjustment April 3, 2006 Page 12 Nickle: Believe we had gotten to our earlier consideration. The chance to give the applicant a chance to comment. Coody: Debra and I had bought a little old 1947 house just 1/2 block from here. It's a little old 720 square foot rectangular box, no overhangs; water runs right off the roof, right down the siding. Siding is rotted, we gutted it. It doesn't have a porch. Just had three steps up to the 3x3 concrete stoops to the front door. We want to add overhangs, number one to make it look better and number two to get the rain water away from the new siding we are going to put up and just put a front porch on. Obviously, the house is built before setback were put in place, so the setbacks would violate even by adding 16 inches overhangs and a new porch. Were just asking for that variance. Nickle: Would you identify yourself. Coody: Dan Coody Nickle: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Seeing no one else out in the audience, I'm going to assume that there is no additional public comment at this time and bring it back to the board for consideration. MOTION: Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I vote to approve BOA 06-2022 with staff recommendations as shown. Alt: I second. Nickle: There is a motion to second, any further discussion. Roll call please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve BOA 06-2022 with staff recommendations was approved by a vote of 7-0. Alt, McSpadden, Kohler, Nickle, Johnson, Zant, and Chesser voting yes, Motion carries. Nickle: Meeting is adjourned.