Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-07 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on August 7, 2006 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Meeting actually began at 4:00 p.m., due to lack of a quorum. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN BOA 06-2185: (BRYSON, 640) Approved Page 3 BOA 06-2186: (SCURLOCK INDUSTRIES, 287) Approved Page 6 Board of Adjustment August 7, 2006 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT James Zant Robert Kohler Bob Nickle Eric Johnson William Chesser STAFFPRESENT Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher David Whitaker MEMBERS ABSENT Sherrie Alt Karen McSpadden STAFF ABSENT Andrew Garner Board of Adjustment August 7, 2006 Page 3 BOA 06-2185 (BRYSON, 640): Submitted by Alene Bryson for property located at 2237 S. SCHOOL AVENUE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.29 acres. The requirement is for a 50' front setback. The request is for a 6' setback (a 44' variance) to bring an existing nonconforming structure into compliance. Nickle : Welcome everyone to the August 7th meeting of the Board of Adjustment. Our first item for consideration is BOA 06-2185 submitted by Alene Bryson for property located at 2237 South School. And, Jesse, I believe you have that one for us. Fulcher: You bet. This is property down on South School at 2237. It's just south of Cato Springs Road on the west side of the street and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. It's actually an 1,800 square -foot home constructed in approximately the mid -1940s, obviously, at that time, prior to our current zoning regulations and our Master Street Plan right-of-way. It was constructed as a single-family home, but as that area has changed, it's more of a commercial area. All those adjoining properties are zoned C-2 also. The applicants are requesting a front setback variance from the 50 -foot front setback requirement for a 6 -foot setback. The home is bringing that 44 -foot variance, and there's actually a survey included in your packet. I think that at the time of construction the home was quite a bit a ways from the road, but as the road has been widened, Master Street Plan been adopted, zoning regulations adopted, it's just no longer quite as far as it used to be. Based on that preexisting nature of the encroachments to the building setbacks and those special circumstances, staff is supportive of this. Also given the restrictions that nonconforming structures have, the applicant did submit a letter kind of talking about how there's really no plans to expand the structure, this footprint or anything, but to go in and do some remodel work, which obviously is restricted to 10 percent of the current valuation of the property, and that will not allow you to do very much to the property. So, again, there's a circumstance there that will prohibit them from doing very substantial work to the property. So staff is recommending approval of this variance with three conditions. Nickle: Okay. Any questions from the board for staff? Is the applicant present? Bryson: Yes. Nickle: Do you have anything to add to the staff's report? Bryson: No, sir. Board of Adjustment August 7, 2006 Page 4 Nickle: All right. Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak on this request? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the board for consideration. Morgan: Excuse me. Just for the record, can I have the applicant's name? Bryson: I'm sorry. Nickle: Oh, I'm sorry. Morgan: Can I just get your name, please? Bryson: Alene, A-IrE-N-E, Bryson, B -R -Y -S -O -N. Morgan: Thank you. Zant: Well, it would appear that -- I was there yesterday morning and it would appear there are six other properties immediately adjacent to this with the same problem. Fulcher: Uh-huh. I think that kind of shows up on some of the maps in there and that they're all kind of on that same building line, same time period. Johnson: The entire structure is outside of the actual Master Plan right-of-way? Fulcher: Yes. It's 6 feet from the 55 feet from centerline right-of-way requirement. Zant: As a matter of policy when ... the state and or City, I assume, widened the highway, and when they do this sort of thing, as a matter of policy do they try to approach people and ... and take care of... I mean, they didn't in this instance, but ... and, of course, I don't know what the staffing level was or the City policy at the time, but that's a good time to undertake to do this sort of thing, though, kind of in a batch, isn't it? Fulcher: Uh-huh. Depending on the different policy changes. For example, when the Master Street Plan was adopted, obviously that changed every street in the City and its requirements, and thus, affected potentially every structure in the City. Some, obviously, it didn't affect, but others it did. There are entire blocks of neighborhoods that were affected by a Master Street Plan amendment. So the ... really the amount of change that can occur from a policy change such as that is probably too great of an item to undertake. Sometimes the structures are removed and there's no purpose to actually grant that variance at that time, so it's ... I think they just have taken them on a case-by-case basis as they come through. Board of Adjustment August 7, 2006 Page S Zant: Ballpark, when was the Master Street Plan adopted? Fulcher: In `96. Zant: '96? Fulcher: In 1996. Zant: 10 years ago? It was 10 years ago. Thank you. Nickle: Our first zoning, I guess, was around 1970, something like that. Fulcher: The ... what's similar to what we have today, is yes, in the 1970, '72, yeah. Nickle: All right. Entertain a motion of some kind? Motion: Kohler: Yeah. I move that we approve. This is one of those existing nonconforming situations which, you know, there's not a whole lot of controversy about, I guess you'd say, so I would move that we approve BOA 06-2185 as requested with the three staff recommendations. Chesser: Second. Nickle: A motion to second. Further discussion? I guess we should call the roll. Morgan: I'll do the roll. May I ask who seconded that? Sorry. Chesser: (Raises his hand.) Morgan: Thank you. Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 06-2185 carries with a vote 5-0-0. Nickle: Thank you. You have your (inaudible) as requested. Bryson: Thank you very much. Board of Adjustment August 7, 2006 Page 6 BOA 06-2186: (SCURLOCK INDUSTRIES, 287): Submitted by Roger Trotter for property located at 3821 MCCOLLUM AVENUE. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 0.52 acres. The request is for a 48' front building setback (a 2' variance) to bring an existing structure into compliance. The applicant also requests a 48' front building setback ( a 2' variance) and a 7' side building setback (a 3' variance) to the north for an addition. Nickle: Next we go on to BOA 06-2186, Scurlock Industries, submitted by Roger Trotter for property located at 3821 McCollum Avenue. Suzanne? Morgan: Yes. This property is just about a half acre. It is surrounded to the north, west, and south by property also owned by Scurlock Industries. This is industrial area of the City of Fayetteville and there is manufacturing area on the larger tract that surrounds this ... this smaller tract. The structures on this half acre just consist of an older home that is now utilized for both ... for sales and professional office -type use for this plant. The applicant submitted several months ago a building permit requesting an addition onto the structure, and through trying to refine the site plan, we did notice that it was ... didn't ... that the existing structure did not appear to be conforming with the current regulations and, therefore, if ... if it was not, we could not allow an addition onto it until it came into conformity. In reviewing the site plan provided by the applicant, it appears that, based off of a 25 -foot ... or, excuse me, a local street standard of 25 feet from centerline, that the existing structure encroaches approximately 1 to 1 1/2 foot ... feet into the required 50 -foot front building setback. And the applicant, as you can see on Page 9 of the staff report, has proposed an addition on the north side of the building that would follow the existing roof line, which would, therefore, encroach into their front building setback and extend about 3 feet into the northern 10 -foot side setback. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance for the existing ... preexisting structure, as well as setbacks for the additions. Staff has reviewed this and finds that recommending ... finds in favor of recommending approval for a setback variance for the existing structure. We recognize that the applicant did not create this situation. However, for the addition, we would advise the applicant look at a different way of reconfiguring ... of configuring or a different size of this addition so that it would not encroach into the setback. The applicant has obviously stated that ... in the application ... that they are requesting this because they adjoin this property. And the setback, we have not received any negative public comment with regard to it, due to the situation, but we are not recommending in favor of the proposed encroachments. Board of Adjustment August 7, 2006 Page 7 Zant: I'm correct to understand, am I not, that the office building is on a lot in question here, and the factory, which is just a little bit north and to the west of there is a separate lot altogether? Morgan: That's correct. Zant: Is there any reason that the applicant, for example, might not have been encouraged ... or maybe he has reasons for not wishing to. He wouldn't need a variance if this were all one lot, would he, except for ... except for his closeness to the road? Nickle: The encroachment. Zant: The encroachment to the road? Morgan: That's correct. Or Zant: Is there a reason why he might not just merge those lots? Morgan: I Zant: I'm just asking, because I'm in favor of helping him with this regardless. Nickle: They can do a deal called a "lot line adjustment," which would result in the same thing. They just ... since they ... they're not creating more lots, they're just moving a line between two properties, and both lots would still be legal lots, I assume, because of the size of the lots. Is that correct? Morgan: That's correct. That is an option, to have the property line extended. Nickle: So they could do that as well. Probably from their standpoint it would be easier for us to go forward because lot ... well, no, you can do that administratively, can you not, a lot line adjustment or something like that? Morgan: You can do that administratively. Nickle: Okay. Any questions? Morgan: I don't know where the parking is on the (inaudible) ... Chesser: There's still the matter of the 1 foot in the front, though, right? Nickle: Yes. That's ... Board of Adjustment August 7, 2006 Page 8 Chesser: And that would be more of an aesthetic ... you would want to make those roof lines ... Trotter: Basically, we would like ... I'm Roger Trotter, representing Scurlock, and you know, we're ... I really don't know if I ought to bring this up, but I'm not so sure we're encroaching at this point, because we ... there's no right- of-way ...there's the 20 -foot right-of-way out in front of this particular building. I don't know. I mean, I know the Master Street Plan would require 25 foot, but we're not dedicating the right-of-way at this time. So we really have about 53 feet, so I ... we were told that we needed to come to this, and we're here, and we realize we needed a variance on the north as well, so since we were ... had a ... we're here, we're asking for both, if that makes any sense. Also, one of the reasons for the ... that it requires 50 foot is because of the ... I believe it's because the property across the street is zoned agricultural. If not, it could be a 25 -foot setback, I believe. And we just feel like that if the property across the street were to develop, then they would certainly rezone it to, out in that area, more than likely, be a higher use than agricultural. I mean, it would be a commercial use, probably, which would maybe just put us into compliance, you know, by that in itself. Nickle: You see what he's referring to is in this table on Page 7, down at the bottom there where it says, "Front ...the "Front, when adjoining C, I," or "Side, when adjoining A or R district" is 50 feet." Is that the interpretation here? Morgan: That is correct. Nickle: Okay. Morgan: I think that's what the applicant was referring to, that he ... Trotter: Yeah, I was just saying that ... Morgan: ...that he would predict that that property would develop as a commercial, industrial or institution. Trotter: Yeah. I just felt like, in its location, if everything else is commercial or above ... Johnson: But the building was set back 49 feet rather than 50 anyways, correct, so it's just a 1 -foot difference? Morgan: I think it's Board of Adjustment August 7, 2006 Page 9 Trotter: I think when you look at the overhang and all. Morgan: Yes. It's about 2 feet. Zant: Well, I was there yesterday morning, alone, and that's a lonely lane leading there and I doubt that if this property is undertaken to be remodeled that about the only people who are going to be realizing that are the general contractor who does the work and Scurlock's employees, and that's it. I see no harm in going ahead and allowing them to ... to complete this project as requested. Kohler: Was there a ... was there a specific reason why that addition had to be on the north side? Does it layout with the house better or something? Trotter: Well, it does layout with the hallway and the existing front office of the building, and basically, this is a couple of new offices. And it also sits ... we didn't feel like ... another reason we didn't feel like it was such a big encroachment, because there's a 20 -foot utility easement ... existing utility easement north of the north property line, which means, in effect, if you ... you really have a 17 -foot setback. If ... you know, nobody can build in that 20 -foot utility easement north of the north property line. So we're getting within 7 feet of the property line, but you really couldn't build within 17 ... you know, actually 27 feet, but, you know ... So that was another reason, but yes, to answer your question, the floor plan works better. Kohler: Interior design dictates ... Trotter: Yes. Yes, sir. Kohler: ... that plan? Trotter: I mean, we could shorten the thing a little bit if we needed ... if we had to, but they really need the space down there. They're growing and they're selling pipe and they're getting bigger. They're paying lots of taxes. Nickle: I think on that side setback issue, which really doesn't make any difference, because they could, if they chose to, do a lot line adjustment, that plus the 20 -foot utility easement, I think, mitigates the question about the safety issues, which is the primary reason we have those side setbacks. Kohler: That's kind of... that's going to be the permanent buffer right there? Board of Adjustment August 7, 2006 Page 10 Nickle: Yeah, that utility easement. Any other questions for the applicant? I guess I could ask for public comment, but since ... unless our cameraman would like to add a question here, ... Cameraman: I'm good. Nickle: ... we'll bring it back to the board for consideration. Motion: Zant: Well, under the circumstances, I would like to move that ... that we approve BOA 06-2186, including the three staff recommendations, but with a modification to Number 1 in that the variance granted shall apply only to the existing structure and the proposed addition as shown on the attached site plan. Kohler: Second Nickle: Okay. Everybody understands what he did was just include this variance to the proposed addition to the structure as shown on Page 9 of 12? Zant: I think staff is of a mind that ... that we have received a de rigueur recommendation for denial, which is appropriate for new construction. However, in practicality, I think we have to approach it this way and I think you anticipated that with ... with some of your report here. And so I think ... I think it's the right thing. I think what staff is saying is basically, "Okay, if we have to do this, then we'll go along with it, but ... but this is going to be it as far as a variance on this building." I think that's what you mean, isn't it? Kohler: Unless he applies again. Nickle: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? If not, Suzanne, would you call the roll, please. Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 06-2186 carries with a vote of 5-0-0. Trotter: Thank you. Nickle: I think we're adjourned unless ... Go right ahead. Morgan: I didn't hear a vote on the minutes. Did you receive those? Anybody? Nickle: I never got any. Board of Adjustment August 7, 2006 Page I1 ?: I didn't get any minutes. ?: No. ?: Huh-uh. No. Morgan: Okay. I thought I saw it on the top of the sheet, but ... All right. We'll postpone that until later. Nickle: Very good. (Whereupon the meeting was adjourned at 4:18 p.m. on August 7, 2006.)