Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-10-02 MinutesBoard of Adjustments October 2, 2006 Page I MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on October 02, 2006 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN BOA 06-2273: (POURVASH, 523) Approved Page 4 BOA 06-2274: (PETTIT, 407) Page 7 Approved BOA 06-2275: (MULLIS, 561) Tabled Page 20 Bob Nickle Eric Johnson Robert Kohler William Chesser STAFFPRESENT Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher David Whitaker Andrew Gamer Sherrie Alt Karen McSpadden James Zant STAFF ABSENT Board of Adjustments October 2, 2006 Page 2 Board of Adjustments October 2, 2006 Page 3 Nickle: We've got two set of minutes with this package: the June 5h and the August 7`h Any corrections, deletions, additions to those? Have you had a chance to review those? Motion: Chesser: I move that we... can we approve both sets in one motion? Nickle: I believe so. Chesser: Is that how it works? Nickle: Yes. Chesser: I move we approve both sets of minutes in question. June Bch and August 7th Nickle: We have a motion. Johnson: I'll second. Nickle: And a second. Is there any discussion? All those in favor.... or you want to call the roll for that I guess. Roll Call: The minutes are approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Sherri Alt, Karen McSpadden, and James Zant are absent. Board of Adjustments October 2, 2006 Page 4 BOA 06-2273 (POURVASH, 523): Submitted by FIROOZEH POURVASH for property located at 3 W 4TH STREET. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.35 acres. The request is to allow for a 50' lot width (a 10' variance). Fulcher: This is for the property located just on the south side of Archibald Yell at 3 West 4th Street. Notice lots 3 and 4 at block 11, the Jennings addition. If you refer to the plan map on pages 9 and 12, there is the best visualization of the property. This property was platted in the early 1930's and 40's as part of some of the original subdivisions in the City of Fayetteville. At some point between when it was plotted and 2006.... unfortunately I can not find when it went from 2 lots to 1 lot of record. All the research I did, I could not determine when that happened. But what we are looking at today is one legal lot of record made up of lots 3 and 4. Lot 3 is 50 ft by 143. And lot 4 actually has frontage on 2 streets. It is 57 on the north side and then 143 ft along the east side of the street... or the east side of the lot. The applicants are requesting a lot width variance of 10 feet with the RMF -24 rezoning district for a 50 It lot width. If approved, they would then apply for a lot split to pretty much make these lots the way they were, lot 3 and lot 4, and make those separate lots of record. Again looking at page 9 and 12 you can see that a lot of the lots are 50 ft wide, and are developed as a single home on each of those lots. There are some others similar to this where there is one home on 2 50 -ft wide lots. So there really is an array of these two different types of developments in this area. So it is fairly common and very compatible to have a 50 ft wide lot be created with an approved variance. Also this is consistent with kind of the in -fill that we are looking for versus the kind of the urban sprawl type of developments. This is an opportunity to redevelop a previously platted lot in the downtown area, specifically in South Fayetteville which is part of our revitalization efforts in this area. And this variance request meets many of those policies that the City Council have adopted in the downtown and south Fayetteville area. Because of that and also because of the compatibility and the fact that this was once a 50 ft wide lot, staff is recommending approval of this variance request with 3 conditions of approval: Very straight forward, obviously. Building permits and then setback requirements in the zoning district that would be reviewed at the time of the building permit. Nickle: Thank you Jesse, is the applicant present? Yes, would you identify Board of Adjustments October 2, 2006 Page 5 yourself please? Pourvash: I'm Firoozeh Pourvash. I am the new owner of that property. Nickle: Did you have anything that you wanted to add or..... Pourvash: No sir. Nickle: Ok. Anyone else from the public would like to speak on this particular request? Seeing none I will bring it back to the board. It seems fairly straight forward I believe. Johnson: Yeah. I mean, this is the neighborhood where pretty much, I would say the majority of the houses are built on 50 ft wide lots. There is actually a lot of character to have it revert to the way it used to be. It certainly is comparable since it used to be individual lots. (inaudible) Kohler: Is the intent to put a structure on lot number 3 then? Pourvash: Yes sir. It is possible. Nickle: Are we ready to make a motion? Chesser: Is that alright with you, Bob? Kohler: Yes, that is, the lots to the..... would that be north? To have one structure on two lots. Pourvash: That is to the south. Kohler: That the south? Johnson: Yes. This, having driven through this neighborhood at certain times, the entire neighborhood looks a whole lot larger than this plat shows. And I would venture to say that all of the lots east of this are on 50 ft wide lots. There are some in there that are actually fairly nice houses on 2 lots. It wouldn't be out of character, I don't think. Kohler: Either way it is not out of character. Board of Adjustments October 2, 2006 Page 6 Johnson: Right. Nickle: I'd like to entertain a motion to.... Motion: Chesser: I move that we approve BOA 06-2273 with staff recommendations. Johnson: I'll second it. Nickle: A motion and a second. Further discussion? Would you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve a 50' lot width (a 10' variance) for BOA 06-2273 carries with a vote of 4-0-0. Board of Adjustments October 2, 2006 Page 7 BOA 06-2274 (PETTIT, 407): Submitted by JOSH PETTIT for property located at 1104N. COLLEGE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.48 acres. The request is for a 0' setback on North Street for the existing structure and proposed additions. Morgan: Yes. This application was submitted by Josh Pettit. This is for property located at 1104 N. College Ave. The property is on the corner of College Ave and North Street. Both of these streets are principal arterials and require a 55 -ft right of way from the centerline. The property was developed in the 1960's as a pharmaceutical store prior to current zoning regulations, as well as prior to the Master Street Plan that we currently have which identifies these two adjacent streets as principal arterials. As such, the structure that is existing is encroaching not only not with building setbacks, but also with the Master Street Plan right-of-way for North St. What is required with regard to setbacks is 0 ft setback to the north, which the applicant has met, a 50 ft setback to the east, 50ft setback to the west, and 25 ft setback to the south. The reason for the 25 ft setback to the south is that there is no parking between the structure and the road. Therefore, they can get that reduction if they adequately landscape that area.... that yard. The applicant would like to retain the building in its current location as well as add on to it. The addition would be to the north where it would not encroach into required setbacks, but also at the southeast corner which would further encroach into the setback and right of way, though it would not extend past the southern -most portion of the existing building. Ultimately the applicant would request a 0 ft setback from North St. This would take Board of Adjustment application or approval and allowing the encroachment to the setback and it would also require City Council approval in order to vary the.... or waive the requirement for the Master Street Plan right of way.... and allow them not on to maintain, but further develop that building into that area. Staff has reviewed this in regards to the findings. We find that this proposal is unique in nature because the applicant.... This building was already existing and developed prior to the regulations that we currently have in place. We do not find that expansion of this building to the west, excuse me, to the east and north would create any dangerous situations in regard to sight visibility, at least at this time. But we can further look into that. We believe that there are special hardships on this property. Ultimately City Council will need to decide whether or not expansion of the right of way is appropriate. But we feel that if they do find that the existing building as it now is, is appropriate, we Board of Adjustments October 2, 2006 Page 8 would feel comfortable allowing the expansion further in there because they are not sending the building south of where it currently is. And we are recommending approval of the variance with a number of conditions. Six total. Those include requirements for the redevelopment of this building. They will need to get building permits. All necessary reviews will need to be done. This variance, if approved, in no way approves the building, a building permit, or states that the applicant..... the application meets all of our landscaping requirements, parking requirements, etc. Nickle: Questions for Staff? From the Board? Johnson: My only question to you would be, so the part that would go before City Council would be that the existing portion of this building lays in the right of way for North St. Morgan: That is correct. And that they want to expand that encroachment as well. Johnson: They are going to expand the encroachment to the...? Morgan: Yes. Johnson: South? Morgan: If you look on..... not south. But they are doing a 100 ft addition. 100 sq ft addition. Johnson: I see that. Here maybe. But it didn't look like it was within the right. Within the right of way, but the existing portion was all... Morgan: They are.... that addition... basically they would be extending the southern wall of that building out 5 ft, and then up 26 '/z ft. Nickle: Is that the darkened portion on page 11? Morgan: Yes. It's that little bump out right there. Nickle: This right here? So they are going to go south about 5 ft? Morgan: Yes. If you want to pass that over you can see.... I've shaded in blue.... the Board of Adjustments October 2, 2006 Page 9 100 sq ft addition. Nickle: Oh. Alright. Like this right here, I guess. Morgan: No, it's that.... it's to the side. Nickle: This part here? Morgan: Yes. To add kitchen facilities. Nickle: Ok, that's on the..... The east side there. Morgan: Yes. Nickle: That's why I.... Morgan: I'm sorry if I said the southeast corner of the... Nickle: Ok. Chesser: Ok. So that they would not encroach any further to the south. Morgan: Right. But they would encroach into the Master Street Plan right of way. Chesser: More. Morgan: More. Yeah, just in line with these. Nickle: But the south wall would not be extended any further south. Is that correct? Morgan: That is correct. Chesser: So it is basically just to provide for enough space for the kitchen back here. Morgan: Yes. Johnson: But if we pass the variances in front of us, and then they don't get the City Council approval for this addition here, they can still build this. Board of Adjustments October 2, 2006 Page 10 Morgan: No. They would, if they ever wanted to redevelop it, they could build to this Master Street Plan setback. Johnson: Ok. Morgan: Because it is encroaching in the right of way, the City Council would need to improve the.... I guess, enhancement? Of that building. Chesser: Right. Any part of the building would have to. Morgan: Because if they ever went in there and tried to take it out, they would be removing a portion of an improved building. Johnson: Right. And that's why the ordinance is on the books. And that is why we are going to make sure that.... I mean, I don't know what exactly the plan is ... or the time line is for expanding North St. But it could at some point be needed. Nickle: And the expansion on the north side of the building does not encroach? Morgan: That is correct. Nickle: Ok. Johnson: It is just to add variety to the building. Kohler: I guess I had a question. I guess this is sort of an administrative question. Is it really necessary that we vote? I mean, these recommendations.... these six recommendations.... some of them are..... are procedurally going to happen anyway. I mean, it's a part of your process to, for instance "make sure that all necessary reviews by Planning, Engineering, Building Safety, Solid Waste, Sidewalk, Fire, etc. and permits shall be issued prior to the development of this lot." That is something that we should really need to vote on? Or is that.... is that something that is just something that is.... is by the process the applicant goes through, but implication is going to happen anyway? Morgan: It will happen anyway. As it's in here as a condition just to notify everybody of the requirements. When there are issues like this where Board of Adjustments October 2, 2006 Page II something may be missed... I mean, even on our Planning Commission agendas we put standard requirements of the ordinance on there just to notify everyone. These are very similar to the conditions of approval that were on the item for the building on College near Rebecca and College. They are under construction right now... where the existing building encroached into the Master Street Plan right of way. And they were... they wanted to redevelop that building as a whole. It is certainly at your discretion to remove any of these if you would like. Kohler: I'm just wondering if you, you know, include some things like this then you would include lots of other things, too. Like Building Safety Department and all the things that they need to do. And, I'm just wondering if we should pare it down to only what is germane to this exact variance and not, sort of.... try to shot gun it.... and..... include everything. It could just get cumbersome if we start doing that a lot. Morgan: Ok. I can review these and see if.... give my recommendation... Kohler: Like number one, number three, number four.... number six, maybe. Maybe those are.... I can see why you'd need number five. I could see why you'd need number 2. I don't want to leave something out that's gonna.... Fulcher: If I could, if you don't mind? Kohler: Yeah, go ahead. Fulcher: Suzanne will say that in with our Planning Commission reports is a good thing to refer to. Because we have standard conditions of approval to refer to, drainage and grading permits. Things that you have to do anyway. But to have them down on the report.... One, because they are important items. Of course there are things in here that are still required that aren't listed. But just for the applicant to see these... the board and the public to understand that these are requirements. Just as a visual reference, going back to the report for the applicants just to say, "Oh yeah. Here are a bunch of things we still need to do." Even though they still need to get sign permits. There are always other little things. But we try to put the big items that are always required, as conditions of approval.... Just so they are out there on the front end for the applicants to see. Board of Adjustments October 2, 2006 Page 12 Kohler: If that has value, then.... then we should leave them. But if there is no other mechanism to provide that reminder that those things need to be done.... then, then we will leave them. Nickle: I think part of it is just for the public to know that as much as anything else. Because sometimes you have neighbors that are saying "Are they going to do this? Or they going to..?". But if we have it outlined there.... Plus it's something to check back to in terms of... we emphasize in number six that we're talking about the existing structure's footprint. Things like that, it will make..... ten years from now if they have to look at it. If something happens there and they have to rebuild, for instance. There is a pretty clear record of what was there, what was approved at this time. So I think historically it's good to have that additional documentation. Just for purposes like that. As Jessie was saying on the previous item, he couldn't exactly find where those two lots where made into one lot. But somewhere back there they were. And so this kind of documentation just helps for research for people when we are all dead and gone and I'm out of here. Ok. Other questions for Staff? Johnson: I'm not sure if I have the answer that I was looking for. Morgan: Ok. Johnson: Ok. So if we approve.... if we approve what the... what is in front of us today, they still have to go before the City Council. And if, if the City Council, you know, denies ... if the City Council says "Hey. We're going to expand North St. tomorrow and we don't want you to expand your building." Will they then be able to do any expansion at all? Or... Will they....? Morgan: No. They will not. Johnson: Ok. Thank you. Whitaker: Because they would still have.... they'd have an unresolved non- conformity. Johnson: I see. Right. That's right. Ok. That makes sense. Board of Adjustments October 2, 2006 Page 13 (Several people talking at once) Morgan: And if the Council did not approve it, and they decided to redevelop this lot. And they wanted to build in the setback with a new building. I think that it would come back before you. Johnson: Ok. Nickle: Who's the applicant for this? Can you identify yourselves? Pettit: Josh Pettit. Nickle: Ok. Did you have anything to add to the Staff report? Pettit: I'm going to let my daughter speak out on my behalf. Daughter: (Unclear name), his daughter. There were two corrections that we needed to make, just in our own, in the letter to the Chair. It has 100 ft, sq. ft., addition, but 5 by 26 '/z is actually 132.5. It's no further than the 5 ft southern part of the addition. It is just longer along the back. So that is just... Nickle: A little bit more to the east. Daughter: Yes. Nickle: Is that clear? So...? Will that change Staff's recommendation? Morgan: No, it is fine. It's not encroaching any further to the south. Daughter: And one other, just a correction. On our survey with that, we were not listed as the, I think it's on the lot number. We were not listed as the owners. The lot number is correct, and the address is correct. But the owners are not. So we just wanted to make those corrections. Nickle: Any questions for the applicants? Chesser: So Cars and Guitars is not a great selling point? Board of Adjustments October 2, 2006 Page 14 Daughter: No. No, actually. Chesser: Ok. Pettit: I do have a question. What our intentions are is to put on a new roof. And, the roof line as it is right now comes out, probably about 4 to 6 inches. There will probably be a few more.... probably about another 6 inches of overhang. I don't know if that will encroach or not. If that is considered more encroachment upon the north side or not. Whitaker: I'm not sure it will. But the south side? Pettit: Because if it isn't we'll just have to bring it flat the building. But we would like that overhang... the roof a little more.... as a structural purpose for the whole thing. So... so in that sense there will be another.... I would say a foot... that we would like to have on the south side. Because of the roof. Just the overhang and the roof line. Chesser: Is the current overhang taken into account in this? Morgan: There is no overhang. Pettit: There is no overhang. Chesser: In the site, there is no overhang at all there now. Pettit: There is a flat roof right now. We want to put out a gabled roof.. Chesser: I'm sorry. Pettit: We want to put on a gabled roof. Kohler: Overhangs do count as far as being part of the structure. Pettit: Well then, I guess I would ask at this point if we can, to add a foot to it. Otherwise we will have to bring it out flat with the end of the building. Kohler: That would change the verbiage. Board of Adjustments October 2, 2006 Page 15 Morgan: That would... Chesser: How does that change Staff's recommendations? Morgan: That is, I believe that is in the... for City Council. If they want that to encroach another foot into their Master Street Plan right of way. Chesser: So they could get that... Kohler: So right now, if it is a 0 front setback....? It would be what? Negative 1? Fulcher: Negative 1. Garner: Now it's going to be negative 2? Fulcher: I think you all are varying the setback to 0 ft. And then the City Council is going to have to cover the rest of the building, which will include that new overhang, which is in the right of way. Morgan: So the City Council would set where that City Master Plan right of way is going to be. And you would be aligned whether they can build up to that. Nickle: Zero. The zero.... depends on where that zero is depends on what they say about the right of way essentially. Chesser: Yeah. Nickle: So... we pass the buck. Whitaker: Yeah. That is why I never actually get to negative numbers in the scheme. Nickle: Ok. Very good. Whitaker: That seem is going to be where ever they put the line. Morgan: So the City Council could determine that. Johnson: Does that answer your question there? Board of Adjustments October 2, 2006 Page 16 Pettit: I mean, it's a matter of if they don't.... we'll just keep it flat. But we would like to put a foot overhang Johnson: But we're not... Pettit: But you're not... Johnson: Deciding that today. That is going to be decided when they go before the City Council. Pettit: Which we have to do anyway. Nickle: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on this particular request? Seeing none I'll bring it back to the Board for consideration. Johnson: I certainly don't have a problem with the use of the building and the expansion to accommodate that use. My only concern is - and it is something that will be addressed at City Council- is that we don't want tc you know... building or renovating a building and adding substantial cost that might have to then be retaken by the City, should North St be expanded. So, that is probably better left to be determined by the City Council. As far as what the time line or what they'll actual size of expansion of North St would be. So with that off, I am in favor of the variances. This would be a situation that would go in front of the City Council and get the approval for anything regarding North St. Nickle: Which is covered in the condition number 2. Johnson: Right. Nickle: Is that a motion? Johnson: Well, I was going to let anyone else who wanted to talk. Kohler: I've got a question. On this number 6, it says.... the recommendation says, "The granted variances shall apply only to the footprint of the existing structure and proposed addition within the required setback adjacent to North Street and as shown on the attached site plan." Ok. So the attached Board of Adjustments October 2, 2006 Page 17 site plan does not show the 126 sq ft addition. Johnson: No, it does. But it is just hard to see. Kohler: But, I mean, the additions of that. And it doesn't show the overhang. Pettit: There is no overhang right now. Johnson: It doesn't show an overhang, but it does show the dimensions of that little... Kohler: Yeah, but they're saying that... Morgan: I think that their letter wasn't correct. Johnson: Yeah.... it says 26.6... Kohler: Oh. Ok. So this site plan reflects the accurate.... Morgan: Right. Johnson: The letter is inaccurate. Kohler: Ok. Ok.... Morgan: It is accurate without.... but it doesn't include the eave. Is that correct? Kohler: Ok. So we feel good about the exact.... the exact dimensions of the improvements? Garner: Mr. Chair? Nickle: Yes? Garner: Then again, I think that condition number 6 should be changed to add "as shown on the attached site plan with the addition of a 1 ft overhang on the south side." Is that Ok? Johnson: If we were to want to allow it. Board of Adjustments October 2, 2006 Page 18 Garner: Yes, if the City Council... Nickle: Would we, do we have to specifically address that since they are going to be the ones to decide where that right of way is? Or...? Johnson: Actually, if we just made it zero. Garner: If you just approve a zero setback... Johnson: Yes, then... Whitaker: It would be included in there. Johnson: And whatever that is associated... Nickle: And assuming the City says that's OK. That the zero works for them. Whitaker: Ok. Johnson: Is what you are also saying though is that you might need the 1 ft on all sides of the building? Pettit: No, well, all sides. Well, the only part that would be implied encroachment would be on the south side. Johnson: Ok. I've got no problem with that. Nickle: I think that we... I think that we are clear on that. That that dimension was... instead of 25 ft it was 26''/2. Kohler: Yeah. Nickle: Ok. Alright. And I guess we are ready for a motion. Motion: Johnson: Alright. Then I will move that we approve BOA 06-2274 with the Staff recommendations as shown. Or do you want to amend some of those? Board of Adjustments October 2, 2006 Page 19 Kohler: I guess not. Nickle: Ok. Johnson: With the Staff recommendations as shown. Nickle: We have a motion to approve with the 6 Staff recommendations. Chesser: Second. Nickle: Motion and a second. Further discussion? Call roll. Roll Call: The motion to approve a 0' setback with recommendations for BOA 06-2274 carries with a vote of 4-0-0. Board of Adjustments October 2, 2006 Page 20 BOA 06-2275 (MULLIS, 561): Submitted by ANNA MULLIS for property located at 836 SOUTH HILL AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.72 acres. The request is for reduced lot width of 39' for a multi -family lot (a 51' variance). Nickle: Since we appear to have no applicant for our third item, I think that tabling that would be appropriate. So I would entertain a motion to table. Whitaker: It's required by your rules of procedure that an applicant must be present. Nickle: OK. Motion: Chesser: I'll move to table... Nickle: So, we don't need to move? Or do we? Whitaker: You would still need to do the table. Chesser: OK. I move to table BOA 00-2275. Johnson: I'll second that. Nickle: I think you can call the roll. Is it..... Ok. Go ahead. Fulcher: Should we do that date specific? Johnson: Yes. Nickle: Do you want a date specific? Garner: It might be useful, for the next meeting. Nickle: That way it'll come back to us, and.... Whitaker: It'll automatically come off the table at the next one... Chesser: So the next regularly scheduled meeting at the Board of Adjustment. Which I believe would be.... Board of Adjustments October 2, 2006 Page 21 Fulcher: November. Chesser: November the something. I am not sure what day. Nickle: OK. Fulcher: Let's just say the next regularly scheduled meeting. Nickle: We have a motion and... Johnson: I'll second that. Nickle: And that motion is seconded. Please call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to table BOA 06-2275 to the November meeting carries with a vote of 4-0-0. Nickle: I don't believe that I have any announcements.