Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-11-06 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on November 6, 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 06-2275: (MULLIS, 561) Approved Page 3 BOA 06-2316: (JAMES PAUL, 216) Removed Page 8 BOA 06-2325: (FAUCETTE, 216) Approved Page 9 BOA 06-2326: (GOTTSCHALK, 522) Approved Page 12 BOA 06-2327: (BRASHEARS, 522) Approved Page 22 BOA 06-2328: (PLEDGER, 407) Approved Page 25 BOA 06-2329: (BLAZER, 562) Approved Page 28 BOA 06-2330: (YOUNG, 523) Approved Page 30 BOA 06-2331: (CATROPPA, 404) Approved Page 45 BOA 06-2332: (PETTIT 2ND, 407) Approved Page 63 Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 2 of 64 MEMBERS ABSENT James Zant Robert Kohler Bob Nickle Eric Johnson William Chesser Sherrie Alt Karen McSpadden STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Suzanne Morgan Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher David Whitaker Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 3 of 64 Nickle: Welcome to the November 6, 2006, Board of Adjustment meeting. And.... and this under.... first time approval of our minutes from.... lets see.... a couple of them: July 5`h and September 5`h. Has everybody had a chance to review those? Changes? Corrections? Additions? Johnson: They looked OK to me. McSpadden: I didn't see anything. Nickle: I've got to approve those through somebody who was here. Johnson: I'll approve them if you want. 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: Alright. Seeing none I guess those will go into the record. Our first item is Old Business BOA 06-2275, for property located at 836 South Hill Ave. Andrew is not here. Who is going to take that? Fulcher: I'll do my best, sir. I'm going to fill in for Andrew on two of his items, and Suzanne is going to take the other two. Nickle: Alright. Fulcher: As you said, this is a property located at 836 S. Hill Ave. It is zoned at 24 units per acre. It contains approximately 1.7 acres. The applicants are requesting for... or have a request for a reduced lot width of 39 ft. That is a 51 ft variance. This is kind of.. some what of a triangle shaped property. As it narrows down towards the street edge there is an existing single family home on the property that was built in the early 1900's, as was this lot plotted in the early 1900's. There is an approved Large Scale Development that was approved by the Planning Commission in November of 2005 for 31 multi -family units and 46 parking spaces on the larger portion of the site. It is to be split out if this variance is approved. If not, it would all remain on one lot. Now, that's how it was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission review. It was just to keep this house on the property as one of the units in addition to the units proposed. The applicant is now requesting to have that development go.... go through., but to retain this lot.... a lot for the single family home to be utilized in the future and have the development..... The proposed development is contained on a separate lot. Staff is recommending approval of this lot width variance, finding that Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 4 of 64 sufficient access will be granted to the larger portion of the lot by way of 40 ft access point on the front. Or, 40 feet of frontage on the front with a 24 foot drive. Also full access on an existing public ally on the north side of the property. It runs the entire length. It will also be improved by this development providing another point of ingress and egress to the property. The existing single-family home would be retained on a lot that is larger than what is required by ordinance. That is really due to the position of the home. Too many of the setbacks that are required, the lot ended up on an approximately 86 ft lot, where 60 are required. With that..... Staff has put in one condition of approval. It's a standard condition. Nickle: Questions from the Board for Staff on this? Is the applicant present? And would you identify yourself? Mullis: Anna Mullis. Nickle: Do you have anything to add to the Staff report? Mullis: My only question is.... we had requested a lot line adjustment, and there was some confusion.... quite a bit of confusion about how that process worked. Between the lot line adjustment, the variance, and the extension of the project. I need to make sure that the lot line adjustment has been approved. Fulcher: The lot line adjustment can't be approved.... yes, it will be approved administratively, but it is dependent on the approval of this variance. Mullis: Is that guaranteed? Fulcher: Yes. If the Board of Adjustment approves say.... Mullis: Because it won't do me any good to get a variance if I don't get a lot line adjustment. Fulcher: Yes. And the lot line adjustment.... If you were creating two lots that met all the requirements of the zoning district, it is guaranteed. You are creating two conforming lots. Mullis: And that is administrative and I close on Thursday. Fulcher: If this is approved, the Planning Division will be able to stamp the plats for recordation for your property line adjustment. Once that is recorded. That has to be done first. We will get an original copy back and that is the approval: our stamp and it being recorded. Mullis: And how long does that take? Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page S of 64 Fulcher: As fast as we can get it, owners to sign it, surveyor to stamp it. We'll stamp it and someone take it up to the Court House. Mullis: If I could just make a comment? Myself and four other people sat in a room to get the rules... to make sure we had all our paperwork in. We really rushed it. And we were told that this was administrative. And so, I missed the last BOA meeting, not knowing that I needed to attend. Apparently that's.... what I was told is that this is a no-brainer stamp. And.... and Frank.... or people in that heard the same thing. So, it's just a little confusing. And the more I call back to get the rules, the more confused it seems. Fulcher: Uh-huh. Mullis: So I was told one meeting, administrative, lot line adjustment, variance, and extend the project. So I didn't come to October's meeting, not knowing that I needed to be here. And I talked to Bob about this, trying to get it moved up. Because people want to buy the property already. And it's going to improve that area greatly, and I'm excited about it. I am really excited about it. South Hill and all S. 6`h Street is going great. But I'd just like to know that we can close on Thursday. Fulcher: I can't tell you if you can close on Thursday. And I don't know where the confusion came from originally. It sounds like it was a.... sentences were kind of put together incorrectly in saying that the property line adjustment is administrative. This has to go to Board of Adjustment. Of course an extension of a Large Scale Development has to go to Subdivision Committee or Planning Commission for approval. So they are all separate items, and somewhat all dependant on each other. If this is approved today, as fast as we can get the property line adjustment stamped and recorded and signed, it's done. Mullis: And, how does that process work? Who does that? Fulcher: It... It's... Mullis: Who stamps it? Fulcher: The City has.... we have to stamp it. Mullis: Do you take it from here? Fulcher: No. The applicant or the surveyor or someone will provide our office with however many copies of the property line adjustment that y'all want. We'll keep one. So however many more that you need in excess to that.... Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 6 of 64 Mullis: Yes. My question is what do I need to do? Fulcher: Make sure that the surveyor or yourself brings us enough copies of the property line adjustment. Mullis: I think I already got that. Fulcher: Ok. We may already have it... Mullis: You do already have it. Fulcher: And that's... Mullis: Yeah... Fulcher: I'm kind of speaking on behalf of Andrew, so I'm not sure if we.... He may have everything and just be waiting for approval of this. In which case, we'll just stamp it and tell you to come pick them up and get them recorded. And then you are done. Mullis: And then call you tomorrow. Fulcher: Call me tomorrow. Mullis: Ok. Fulcher: It's Jesse, by the way. Nickle: Alright. Mullis: Thank you. Nickle: Anyone else in the audience like to speak on this application? Seeing none I will bring it back to the Board, for our consideration. Kohler: So this is the variance for tract 2, not tract 1. Tract 1 we're adjusting the property line to make it conform. It's tract 2 that has the smaller than required frontage. Right? Fulcher: Yes. Motion: Kohler: Well, I move that we approve the request for the 51 It lot variance. Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 7 of 64 Zant: I'll second. Nickle: We have a motion and a second for approval of BOA 06-2275. Is there any other discussion? You may call the roll, Suzanne. Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 06-2275 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. BOA 06-2316 (JAMES PAUL, 216): Submitted by ALAN REID for property located at 2753 E. PAR CT. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.52 acres. The request is for a 5' side setback (a 3' variance). Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 8 of 64 Nickle: Alright. Next is 02...... BOA 02...... I'm sorry. 06-2316 for a property located at 2753 Zant: That's been taken off, right? Nickle: As far as that.... Zant: That one has been withdrawn. Nickle: Has that one been....? Zant: That one has been removed. Morgan: That has basically been removed. We found that a variance had been approved by the Board of Adjustment in 1993 for the exact request. So, it was not needed at this time. It was already granted. BOA 06-2325 (FAUCETTE, 216): Submitted by JOHN FAUCETTE, COLDWELL BANKER CORPORATE OFFICE for property located at 3443 PAR COURT. The property is zoned RSF- 4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.36 acres. The request is for a 6' side setback (a 2' variance). Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 9 of 64 Nickle: Very good. Alright. BOA 06-2326 for property located at 322 S Duncan St. Johnson: No, no, no. We got to go back. 2325. Nickle: Back one? Johnson: Yeah. Nickle: Oh. I'm mixed up. I'm just personally off. (laughing) BOA 06-2325. For a property located at 3443 Par Court. And you are going to take that Suzanne? Morgan: I'll take it. The subject property was developed in 1990. It is located on Par Court. The building permit was done in accordance with our building setbacks. But, when the applicants just now, recently.... In the process of selling this property, a survey was completed and they found that the overhang and the chimney on the southern portion of the home encroaches the side building setback approximately 2 ft. Therefore, the applicant requests a variance from the side setback requirement of 8 ft to allow a 6 ft setback. Staff finds that special conditions to exist for this property. That although Staff does not support building new structures in the building setback in violation of a signed building permit, the violation is minimal and the violation has been in place since the original construction of this property. We have never received any complaints from the surrounding neighborhood neighbors with regard to the location of the home. We do not find that granting the variance will result in any change in the appearance or situation of the existing house. Therefore, we are recommending approval of this 2 ft variance on the side of the southern setback, with 2 conditions of approval which are listed on page 1 of your Staff report. Nickle: Any questions for Staff from the Board? Is the applicant present? Faucette: Yes. Nickle: Would you identify yourself? Faucette: John Faucette, Coldwell Banker Corporate Real Estate. I am the applicant on this property. I am the one that has it for sale. Nickle: Do you have anything to add to the Staff report? Faucette: No. I think that that is it pretty much. I discovered that it... when I went back and looked at some City records, that it was built in 1990. And that it.... that is what caused the survey that they got recently. There hasn't been a survey on that to my knowledge since I had it surveyed for this sale transaction. And, that's when I discovered that the chimney, as well as the overhang had encroached on the south Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 10 of 64 side of your setback. So I investigated it back, and I went through the City records to see when the permit was filed. And it had shown a drawing that the builder had.... it showed it.... it looked like the house itself was almost on the side of the setback, but there was no chimney drawn in. And that showed up, I guess, during construction. So I discovered that. So, I'm just trying to get that waiver. Nickle: Anyone else from the audience like to speak on this application? Seeing none we will bring it back to the Board. Kohler: There are jurisdictions that.... at least two that I am familiar with, that I have dealt with in the past where they specifically exempt chimneys from setbacks. And that's to keep people from pulling everything... you know... inboard. You know to have things stick out in the middle of the living room. So I think in this case, you know, this is one of those cases where, you know, if we had had any success with the ordinance committee so far with our.... with some of our ordinance change requests.... This would probably want.to be one of them, or next on the list anyway. To ask to review. Because I think it, sort of... those chimneys get in the way of a lot of design work for setbacks. So anyway, I would be supportive of allowing a chimney to be in a setback just in general. And this case, I think just a portion of it is in there. So.... I have no problem with this request. Nickle: Other comments or discussion? I will entertain a motion. Motion: Chesser: I move that we approve BOA 06-2325 with Staff recommendations. Alt: Second. Nickle: The motion is seconded. Any further discussion? Suzanne will you call the roll please? Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 06-2325 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Nickle: Thank you very much. Faucette: Do I need to... do you all stamp approval or something? Or is that going to be a document? Morgan: We will send you a letter that it was approved. Faucette: Oh. Ok. Thank you. Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 11 of 64 BOA 06-2326 (GOTTSCHALK, 522): Submitted by DENNIS BOWMAN for property located at 322 S. DUNCAN STREET. The property is zoned RMF -40, MULTI FAMILY - 40 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.22 acres. The request is for a 50' lot width (a 40' variance) and variances from the side setback requirements to allow for a 0' setback on the north property line (an 8' variance) and a 7' setback on the south property line (a 1' variance). Nickle: Alright, the next is BOA 06-2326 for property located at 322 S Duncan. And Jesse, you have this one? Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 12 of 64 Fulcher: Yes sir. This is one of our many items today around 6`h street, Hill, Duncan. There are quite a few. All of them have something to do with lot widths or current setback encroachments. This one specifically, there is an existing single family home on this property of 322 S Duncan. The property is zoned RMF -40 and contains approximately 0.22 acres. In the RMF zoning district, you have a few different lot width requirements depending on the type of use existing or requested. For single family or duplex you are required to have 60 ft of lot width at the right of way. For a multifamily or three or more units you are required to have 90 ft of frontage at the right or way. The applicants for this request are requesting a variance from that 90 ft requirement. A 50 ft variance.... or excuse me! A 40 ft variance. Currently the lot is 50 ft wide. They are requesting a 40 ft variance which would allow them to construct 3 or more units on the property. The existing single family home on the property is encroaching into the north setback and the south setback. They are requesting an 8 ft variance on the north for a 0 ft setback. And a 1 ft variance on the south resulting in 7 ft setback. That existing home and this lot, which is in the Putttman's addition, each of these were constructed and plotted probably about the 1920's based on county records. Almost all the existing lots surrounding this property are 50 ft wide. Where those start to change is as you move north towards Center St and south towards 6`h St. It appears that a lot of these lots have started to be combined into 90 ft lots, 100 ft. And many have been redeveloped or expanded for multifamily use. Staff was able to find.... quite easily able to make the findings for the existing lot and the existing encroachment into the setbacks for this property. Obviously, given the.... the date of construction at the time when these were platted. You can draw a circle around this area. Nearly all the sites in this area where platted with 50 ft lots. Some even a little bit smaller. Some a bit larger. Our difficulties of finding in favor of a 40 ft variance to allow for three or more units. The existing land use around this property was primarily single family. There is a duplex adjacent to this. And again, as you move further up the blocks you do get into some multifamily developments. But again those lots are all on 80, 90, 100 ft lots, and not a 50 ft lot. We found that the.... the.... the actions, or the resulting actions by the applicant is that they wanting to redevelop this property for 3 or more units. Specifically a 4 unit building in the back, and while retaining the single family house in the front. We are looking at probably 5 units on this property. Again, requiring 90 ft of frontage. We just didn't feel that the access could be made to this property. There is a... an unimproved alley at the rear of this property which potentially, with improvements made to it could be accessible by emergency vehicles and sanitary vehicles to the rear of this property where the majority of the lots would be accessed from. That is where the ingress and egress would be from. Also, again going back to the surrounding land use. I think if the existing properties around this had been developed for multifamily regardless of their lot size, and this was one of the only single family homes left.... I think you look at the use of the property relates back to what's around it. And that it would be more appropriate to have it developed in kind with what is around it. But at this point, the existing land use is predominately single family, or two family. Staff is Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 13 of 64 supportive of the l Oft lot width requirement.... or the 10 ft lot width variance, which would allow single family and two family use of the property. They could construct another single family home on the lot, convert the existing single family home into the duplex and have use of the property. We were unable to make the findings for the 40 ft variance. But we have recommended approval of the 10 ft lot width variance and of the two side setback variances with 4 conditions of approval. Nickle: Questions from the Board for Staff on this? Is the applicant present? Bowman: Yes. My name is Dennis Bowman, I'm the applicant. Nickle: Would you like to speak to it? Bowman: Yeah. If I could. When we made the application we were under the impression that the.... this was going to require a 60 ft, 65 ft easement. Not a 90 ft easement. So based on that information we applied for a multi -unit project here. Essentially, um, I'm hearing the tenor of this variance.... which is quite a stretch from your current lot width. I guess what I would ask the Board here is, what would you allow? There was some discussion about putting another unit on it. On making it two units rather than the one that exists. Fulcher: Yes. Can anyone elaborate on what the recommendation is? With a 10 ft variance, which was our recommendation. Only, right now, the lot exists as is.... as a single family. It couldn't construct another unit on there. There was no units on the lot. At 50 ft you would have to get a variance even to construct one unit. Our recommendation is to make this a conforming lot for single family, and two family use. It would be the 10 ft variance. From what I understand of the existing home, there is single family. It is not currently a duplex. So, as a single family unit with a 10 ft variance, you could make that into a two family unit. That would be your two units allowed with a 60 ft lot width. Or you could leave it as a single family, and build another single family home, and that would be your two units. And that would be allowed under a 60 ft lot width. Bowman: It would be two separate structures, or a two story on what is there. Kohler: Yes. But that second structure cannot be a duplex. Fulcher: No, that would be the three... that would make that three units. Three or more which requires the 90 ft of lot width. Bowman: 1 understand. And the alley.... the alley access would not be an issue at that point? Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 14 of 64 Fulcher: No. No, I don't believe so. For one unit as opposed to four units, I think the requirements were to make you improve the ally for one unit would not be there that requirement. Ronalds: I'm just wanted to.... I'm working with Dennis on this. And as we discussed the other day, the thing that defines a unit.... specifically... is that it has a food preparation... a kitchen in it. That is what defines a unit. Fulcher: Yeah, there is specific definition for a dwelling unit. Ronalds: So in other words, if we were to build another unit in the back, if it has one kitchen we could have it be a two bedroom unit, or a four bedroom unit if it had one kitchen. Fulcher: Yeah, and to that you get into the definition of a family. You could have one kitchen and ten bedrooms. But then you are in violation of a definition of a family. In single family zoning you are allowed no more that three unrelated. You know, obviously you can have a big family... lots of brothers and sisters and grandparents living with you. But you can't have all of your friends living with you. Non -related individuals in multifamily, which would just be, you could have four... up to four unrelated individuals. So you could have a four bedroom with four unrelated individuals and be complaint with the zoning requirement. Ronalds: Is there any restriction... Let's say for example it was a four bedroom, four bath, one kitchen. Is that considered one unit? Fulcher: Yes. That would be one unit. As long as those are all one housekeeping unit. That they are not separated out. Nickle: And could you identify yourself for the record? Ronalds: I'm sorry. My name is Al Ronalds, Sunrise Custom Homes. I'm working with Dennis on this project. Johnson: You are in a ... know parking required per bedroom, though. When you start getting into multifamily with many bedrooms, I believe. You would have to provide parking. Ronalds: We can easily provide four separate, four parking spaces in the back off of that alley. On the back of that lot. Johnson: Ok. Fulcher: I guess single family and duplex it's two per dwelling unit. So they.... I would assume that they meet their requirement for the existing home off of Duncan. Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 15 of 64 They would have to provide two more for the next unit that was built. Nickle: And would the City require any improvement to that alley, for using that for access? Kohler: Yeah I think... Fulcher: I don't believe that we could make that type of finding, to improve an alley for just one unit. Nickle: Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak to this application? Seeing none we will bring it back to the Board. Kohler: I guess I've got a question. On your floor plan here of your proposed building that you want to put on there: You've got four bedrooms shown on the second floor and it is identical for the first floor. So you've got eight bedrooms. Ronalds: Well, now that will all change with this new approach here. Kohler: So, are you abandoning this. Ronalds: We will be abandoning the upstairs and one of the kitchens downstairs. Kohler: Ok. Ronalds: It will become a single unit. Four bedrooms, one kitchen, single floor. A little bit different floor plan. Chesser: You thought you were asking for a 15 ft variance, not a 40. Ronalds: Yeah. Chesser: Right. Ronalds: We didn't know that it was 90. We thought it was a 60. Or we wouldn't have submitted the application. Chesser: Ok. McSpadden: I have a question, Jesse. It seems like we are always talking about lot width. But, if you look at the lot area and the area per dwelling unit, for their original proposal... the lot's plenty big enough because it is so deep. Why is it that the lot width is such a determinate when the lot area seems like the area would be more important? Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 16 of 64 Fulcher: I don't know if I can answer that, specifically, since these are zoning requirements. These aren't recently adopted, but have been around for quite a while. I am not sure exactly how they came up with the rational. I know that the majority of cities have similar zoning requirements that look at the lot width, lot area, units, dwelling units per acre and things like that. McSpadden: I guess my point is just that they have 90, 9,000, almost 9,700 sq ft and they are only required to have 8,000 for three or more. So... It seems like there is plenty of room. Fulcher: Yeah. And they do. They meet all the requirements other than the lot width for three or more units. Chesser: I would guess that typically, requiring a minimum lot width is to keep you from putting one street in and then loading up a whole lot of really deep lots that really can't be served by the individual street. McSpadden: Yeah, but in this case... Chesser: A subdivision not designed... McSpadden: They're not using that street. You know what I mean? It's not going to change the street scape or anything. Chesser: Yeah. I am not addressing this specific, this particular, and the specific issues... just lot width in general. McSpadden: Yeah, I just want to talk about this specific one. Bowman: We're actually.... we've come up with a parking plan that could be even expanded. But one thing is that... just given that the zoning was higher density, it just seemed like a plausible approach. (Unclear about the Boards preference) McSpadden: I mean, that's another question that I had. When you read the purpose of the RMF -40 district it says that it's to encourage additional development. So, if that whole zoning district is to encourage density and they've got a lot area that's big enough.... and they can cover the square footage per unit as required... I guess I just don't quite understand why the lot width is the deal breaker. Whitaker: Well, I can't give you a specific.... I can't tell you why it is on this one. But the bottom line is, is because the City Council said that is why. You know? The lot. McSpadden: Well then it... Whitaker: Lot width is as important as area to the City Council when they adopted this Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 17 of 64 section of the code. So they would have to change that in order to... in order for this Board to disregard that. McSpadden: Well we just did it two votes ago. For the 39 ft wide. I mean, we just gave a 51 ft variance. Whitaker: Well we certainly can.... Kohler: We can do it again if we want. Whitaker: But, the fact is that the ordinance remains the same. And... McSpadden: Yeah. I know. Whitaker: Whatever their philosophy for doing it, they would have to bring it up again if it was thought to be inconsistent with the area requirements. Chesser: Well, that is really the purpose of this Board, too. Right? To decide if something didn't quite fit. I mean, when you make a set of rules there are always going to be exceptions. Whitaker: Exactly. Chesser: And that is.... Whitaker: And that's what our job is, right? To figure out, maybe, if we need to make an exception here. Zant: It is to weigh those exceptions. Chesser: Yeah. McSpadden: Well it just seems like they've got the area, they've got the access, they've got parking... Chesser: Yeah. In the event that we were to.... this is questions for Jesse, I'm sorry. In the event that we were to, to go with what Karen is suggesting I think.... I mean, in the event that we said "No, let's go ahead and give the variance.". In that case, they would be a multifamily. At that point would they be required to.... I am assuming that this is a gravel alley? Fulcher: Yes. It's... Chesser: Would they be required to maybe address that alley in some way? Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 18 of 64 Fulcher: Yes. We would most likely look at a requirement to provide a full paved width of that alley for emergency access and adequate ingress and egress for an 8 bedroom unit. Four, four units with eight bedrooms utilized in that alley. That is something that we would look at with the building permit, as with parking ratios don't appear..... We would have to make sure that the parking ratios are being met and the units were appropriate. It looks like the number of units that they have proposed is exactly under what would be allowed based on the lot size and the zoning... Chesser: But there is a whole can of worms, basically. Fulcher: But there is a whole, a whole set of things we would look at with a building permit. Chesser: And the applicant is aware that they would have to approve that alley for the full length. Bowman: What would be considered the full length? Are we talking 20 ft? Fulcher: Typically that's.... yeah.... that's what the Fire Department would look for. A 20 It access into a property. Bowman: And we are talking paved? Fulcher: Um-hm. Probably, probably... Kohler: That goes beyond... Bowman: I think the whole length of the alley would just.... Chesser: I understand that. I was just asking. Bowman: Just from up from the street to the.... Fulcher: From the intersection of the street into this property, to service this property. Which would be... not to the north edge of your property. Obviously that wouldn't do any good. But more likey to the south edge of this property. Ronalds: We are aware of that. Fulcher: Ok. Motion: Kohler: It feels like to me, that since it is RMF -40 which is obviously high density, Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 19 of 64 putting one more structure on this lot is within the.... within all reason to me. So... I think I will move that we approve this request for a 10 ft lot variance, as well as the approval of the request... the, ah, approval of the requested side setback to bring the building back into compliance. Johnson: So, what you are moving is that we approve.... Nickle: Staff's recommendation. Kohler: Staff's recommendation, but not what Staff has here..... Zant: I'll second this motion. Nickle: Ok. Just..... just.... Johnson: We should get clear on what it is first. Nickle: Just for clarification. I believe... Kohler: A 10 ft lot width variance. Nickle: Quit. What I believe he recommended is approval of BOA 06-2326, as Staff has recommended it. Johnson: Ok. Nickle: Is that your intent, Bob? Kohler: Yes. Nickle: So that was the motion. Kohler: Even though they denied it. But... Nickle: Yeah. That... Chesser: Wait a minute. We are approving 10'. Nickle: Now what he has done is, is make a motion... Whitaker: We take Staff recommendation Nickle: To adopt this. Approve it as Staff recommends. Chesser: Right. So that they would be able to build a second unit, but not multifamily. Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 20 of 64 Zant: Including the four conditions as listed. Nickle: That is your understanding of your.... Zant: That is my understanding. Nickle: Ok. Kohler: Mine as well. Nickle: OK. Is everybody clear on the motion? Chesser: Yeah. Nickle: Ok. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Johnson: I'll just say, for the record, that I.... You know, I'm very comfortable with making a variance of the 10 ft to allow you to put in the second unit. The part I would have problems with probably, and we are not voting on that, so it's kind of moot, but a 40 ft lot variance is obviously a very dramatic variance. And we would have to look at that really, really hard before.... Or I would have to look at it very hard before I would be comfortable approving it. So... I will go ahead and support the 10 ft variance, but I would be hard pressed to support a 40 ft lot width variance. Nickle: Other? Further discussion? Suzanne, will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 06-2326 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Nickle: You have the application as Staff has recommended. Bowman: Thank you all very much. I appreciate it. Nickle: Not a problem. Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 21 of 64 BOA 06-2327 (BRASHEARS, 522): Submitted by MICHAEL ROBERSON for property located at 160 S HILL AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -40, MULTI FAMILY - 40 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.22 acres. The request is for a 50' lot width (a 10' variance) and a variance from side setback requirements for any structure over 20' in this zoning district (a 5' variance.) Nickle: Alright. Next is BOA 06-2327 for property located at 160 S Hill. And Jesse, this is yours I believe. Fulcher: Yes, sir. This is one block over from the previous request. Somewhat of the same situation. I really did rewrite this report. But it may not look that way. It is the same size lot, .22 acres. It is zoned RMF -40. It is a 50 It lot.... currently a 50 ft wide lot. The applicants are requesting a 10 lot width variance to bring the lot into conformity, which would also, again as before, allow them to have one or Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 22 of 64 two units on the property, but not multifamily. And also there is a request for a 5 ft variance on the north side of the existing single family home on the property. And I have included a paragraph in this report referencing the applicant's request for a.... I think the main part of their request was so they could build a second story on the existing garage. Based on the height of the garage at 24 ft, I believe 24ft gin, they assumed that would include a variance on the height regulations. But when we actually sat down and looked at it. Staff did. We realized that the, at the point where the structure is the highest, you have to include that also in the distance from the site property line. Ultimately, they do not need the setback variance for that height based on the plans that we have reviewed. So, ultimately, all we are looking at is a lot width variance of 10 ft, and a 3 ft variance on the north side of the existing house. Staff was about to find in support of those two requests. Again, based on that this lot was platted, as was the one down the street, in the 1920's. The home was also constructed in that era. The approval of the variance would not increase... you know, any.... I guess, the amount that the home currently encroaches into the setback. Everything will remain as is. The structure that will be added onto at the rear of the lot currently meets setbacks and would be built in addition to the second story. It would... it will still meet setback requirements. What they will need to actually make that into a second unit is the 10 ft lot width variance. Staff has recommended approval with three, four conditions of approval. Nickle: Questions from the Board? For Staff on this? Kohler: I guess the only exception to that, or the only detail to that would be that their overhangs on the second floor can't come within 8 feet. And right now the wall is marked at 9 ft. So that would be something that they would need to be careful of. If it is more than a 12 in overhang on the addition, then they would be violating the setback. Fulcher: Exactly. The applicant may be able to help us with that. And I am not sure if.... we're always having to ask that question of whether the site plan is drawn to the overhang, or just drawn to the wall. And that they need to realize that that building, at the time of the building permit, we'll be measuring to the overhang. Or the farthest reaching point. Nickle: Other question for Staff? Is the applicant present? Robertson: I'm the representative. Mike Robertson. Nickle: Ok. Do you have anything to add and do you understand what they've said in their recommendation? Robertson: Right. About the 12 in overhang? That's.... I understand that. And I believe that the architect... I'm going to inform him as well. Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 23 of 64 Nickle: Ok. Robertson: For the site plan. Nickle: But, basically what Staff has recommended is approval of the 10 ft lot width variance.... Robertson: I've read the... Nickle: Ok. And the 3 ft for the existing structure. Questions for the applicant? Chesser: Is the.... So the second unit is going to be above the garage? Is that the plan? So it's going to be... Now that can be.... conditional use, mother-in-law quarters, right. By ordinance? Johnson: That is correct. It doesn't have to be in... Chesser: Right. That can just be a single family home, right. I mean, typically. In RMF - 40. Fulcher: Yes. Chesser: Then if this was single family they would be.... wouldn't be a use by right. They would do a granny unit. Conditional use by Planning Commission. Johnson: But it's still in our... Chesser: Oh. I know. I just.... Whitaker: Use by right. Johnson: Of course they would still need the lot width variance to construct anything over the garage. Chesser: Well, I'm always just in favor of this kind of use. So.... Nickle: Anyone else in the audience like to speak to this application? Seeing none we'll bring it.... Oh! Muller: Which, which law is this that we are at? Nickle: We are on 160 S. Hill. Muller: Ok. Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 24 of 64 Nickle: Alright. Seeing no other public comment we will bring it back to the Board. Motion: Chesser: I will move that we approve BOA 06-2327 with Staff recommendations. Alt: Second. Nickle: Motion and a second. Further discussion? Suzanne, will you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 06-2327 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Nickle: Thank you. Robertson: Thank you. And, I'm trying to apply for the permits tomorrow. Is that the right thing? Do I need to go through y'all, as far as getting some kind of documentation that the variance has been granted. Or is that going to come in the mail later? Fulcher: We'll send you something in the mail. They are just kind of like building permits. Just have them apply for the building permits. That will come to our office. We are the ones that are going to check this stuff out. We'll have all you're information. Just contact us in the morning. Robertson: Thank you very much. You have been more than helpful. BOA 06-2328 (PLEDGER, 407): Submitted by DAVID TANNER for property located at 1348 EDGEHILL DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.36 acres. The request is for side building setbacks of 4' and 3' for a new carport and storage area to replace the existing carport and storage shed. Nickle: Alright. Next is BOA 06-2328 for property located at 1348 Edgehill Drive. And Suzanne, you have that? Morgan: Yes. This lot was created by an approval of a lot split in October of 1975. And a building permit was approved for the building of the home just a month afterwards. In reviewing the building permit plans there was no carport indicated on the plans. But obviously it was constructed after, not at the same time as, the dwelling. If you look on page 9 of your Staff report you can see how Edgehill Drive turns, goes north, and then turns to the west. The portion and the.... if you look on the west property line of this lot, you can see how it jogs in. Well, south of the jog is a front property line as it is adjacent to the right of way. However, where the property jogs 10 ft and then goes north, that is adjacent to private property and would require a side setback. So if you can see the existing garage, Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 25 of 64 it is encroaching not in the front setback, but actually two side setbacks to the west and the north. The encroachment is approximately 4 ft and 3 ft. Excuse me, 4 ft and 5 ft. The applicant proposes to remove the existing open air garage, or carport and storage shed and build a new carport and storage shed. The carport will be open-air, just as this existing one is. Staff finds that due to the slope of the property, any relocation of the carport to meet setbacks will require alteration of land and potential removal of tree canopy which currently provides good buffer of this structure to the north and to the west. We find that the pre-existing condition of the encroachment is not a result of the applicant and that the proposed carport is to be located in the same exact position as the existing and will not have any further encroachments into the property or into the setback. We have not heard anything from neighbors with disagreements and complaints or concerns regarding this application. We are recommending approval of the required variances of the carport and storage units in the exact location as they are now, with two conditions: First, that the sizes of the accessory structure should comply with the requirements of chapter 164.02 of the Unified Development Code. And, that the existing tree canopy which currently provides a buffer of this structure shall remain unless otherwise approved by the Urban Forrester. Nickle: Thank you Suzanne. Questions from the Board for Suzanne on this? Chesser: I've got a couple of questions. One is, I see this not within the HOD. Morgan: That is correct. This is just outside of it. Chesser: So, we are talking steep slopes, but not quite.... I don't know what the cut off is. The only question I have is about your recommendation number two. You see, or you are showing that.... or, from your review you think that there is going to be grading necessary, I guess? In order to put the structure as they have it planned. Morgan: As they have it planned? I was protecting that potential relocation to meet current... required setbacks would require the relocation... Chesser: Oh. I apologize Morgan: My recommendation was; the trees that exist now currently provide a good buffer. So if they are simply just replacing what's there now.... Chesser: I'm sorry. Morgan: Hopefully they wouldn't have to take any down. Chesser: My misunderstanding. Ok. The only question I would have is still on number two. I don't anticipate.... I'm guessing they are not going to try to take out any trees anyway. I wonder if you would clarify that. I know that Sarah Patterson, Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 26 of 64 the Urban Forrester can make a recommendation that grading might cause.... I mean, even if you don't remove a tree, a change in grade could cause the death of a tree, I guess. I guess I would like to see that clarified in some way as to what she would be able to say about that. I probably.... this is a moot point because I doubt there will be any grading going on... Morgan: Well, and perhaps the applicant is here and could address how much would occur on the site. Nickle: Is the applicant present? Tanner: I'm David Tanner, and we don't have any intention of removing the trees. We have absolutely no desire. I mean, that is why we are building on the same carport. It just doesn't seem reasonable to move anywhere else on site. Chesser: Ok. Nickle: Did you have any other comments for the Board? Tanner: No. Except that we do intend to comply with the first provision as well. It is a very easy thing for us to get to less than 50% of the building size. And we expect to show that... to have it reflect in the permit. Johnson: Are you increasing the size of the carport at all? Or... is it going to be pretty much as shown on those drawings? Kohler: On 605 to 752? Tanner: I'm actually a little unclear to what constitutes the size of all the overhangs of these structures. But it is the same footprint.... Chesser: The same footprint. Tanner: So we are not increasing it. Johnson: Ok. Alright. Tanner: It is all negligible. Chesser: Alright. Nickle: Ok. Would anyone else in the audience like to speak to this application? Seeing none we will bring it back to the board. Motion: Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 27 of 64 Chesser: I move that we approve BOA, unless someone has called it, BOA 06-2328 with Staff's recommendations. Johnson: Second. Nickle: We have a motion and a second. Further discussion by the Board? Suzanne, would you call Roll please? Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 06-2328 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. BOA 06-2329 (BLAZER, 562): Submitted by JUDITH BLAZER for property located at 705 AND 715 S. CHURCH STREET. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.34 acres. The request is for reduced lot width at 715 S. Church of 50' (a 10' variance) and a reduced front setback of 8' (a 17' variance) to bring an existing non -conforming structure into compliance and to split the property into two parcels. Nickle: Ok. Next is BOA 06-2329, for a property located at 705 and 715 S. Church St. And Suzanne, you are going to take Andrew's place on this one? Morgan: Yes I will. The site is currently developed for a single family home. When it was platted in the 1950's ... when it was platted, the lot sizes were narrow, 50 ft sized lots. Since then, the two parcels have been combined. However, the applicant would now like to split the property and sell one of the lots, or sell the home separately. The applicant is requesting a 10 ft lot width variance for a total lot width of 50 ft at 715 S. Church in order to create a new lot. The applicant also requests an 18 ft front setback variance for a total setback off of 7` St to bring the existing home into compliance. Staff finds that there are special conditions and circumstances for this request. The existing home was built and the lot was platted prior to the adoption of current zoning regulations, a 50 ft lot width in this location will be consistent with the existing properties in the neighborhood. Literal interpretations would not allow the owner to split the parcel into two lots, Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 28 of 64 and would not recognize the existing home as a conforming structure. It is a result of the applicant's desire to split this lot that we are looking at these variance requests today. But we do not feel that granting the variances will give special privileges to the landowner that are not allowable for others within the same zoning district. Therefore, we are recommending approval of the requested 10 ft lot width variance for the new lot, and the 18 ft front setback variance as shown on the attached site plan for the existing structure with three conditions for approval. Nickle: Thank you Suzanne. Questions from the Board? For Suzanne on this? I'd point out that because of the zoning it doesn't meet that front setback for this zoned single family. It would come pretty close to the front setback there, right? Morgan: Yes. Nickle: Alright. Is the applicant present? Blazer: Judith Blazer. Nickle: Yes. Do you have anything to add to the report? Blazer: I don't. Nickle: Thank you. Anyone else in the audience like to speak to this application. Seeing none we will bring it back to the board. Johnson: This really looks pretty.... pretty standard application. You've got, you know, a whole row of lots that are exactly the same size and exactly, pretty much, the same house built in a row. It is just obvious that the one in the corner was originally a larger lot. And I have to be honest with you, I don't think it is unreasonable to split this lot into two and allow them to be sold individually. There are not a whole lot of people in this day and age that want two houses, honestly. Nickle: Is that a motion? Motion: Johnson: If there is no more comment I'll move that we approve BOA 06-2329. Chesser: Second. Johnson: As shown with Staff's recommendations. Chesser: And I'll second. Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 29 of 64 Nickle: A motion and a second for approval of BOA 06-2329 including Staff s recommendations. Kohler: Now, was there a chance for public comment? Nickle: I did.... I did.... Kohler: Ok. Johnson: You missed it. Nickle: Ok. Nobody? Raise your hand. So, no. Thank you. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Suzanne would you call Roll please? Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 06-2329 carries with a vote of 6-1-0. With McSpadden voting no. BOA 06-2330 (YOUNG, 523): Submitted by ALAN REID for property located at 208 S. GREGG AVENUE. The property is zoned R -O, RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 0.29 acres. The request is for reduced lot widths on the north parcel of 48' (a 12' variance), on the south parcel of 46' (a 14' variance), a variance from the side setback to allow a 4' setback on the south property line (a 6' variance) and a variance from the front setback to allow a 0' setback on the west property line (a 30' variance) for the existing single-family structure. Nickle: Alright. Next is BOA 06-2330 for property located at 208 S. Gregg Avenue. And I guess, Jesse, you have that report? Fulcher: Yes, sir. This is for a .29 acre property located on S. Gregg Ave. This is just about a block and a half off 6`h St, north of Prairie. It is zoned R -O, residential office. There is an existing single family home located on the southern most portion of this property which is an existing non -conforming structure which is part of the applicant's request.... to bring that existing structure into compliance. And the second portion of the request is to allow the lot to be split, which is the result... the resulting action of two variance requests for those lots, and that being the lot frontage. Again this is a 60 ft lot width requirement in the RO, residential office, zoning district. That is to allow for a single family or two family land use. For office use there is not a requirement. And for three or more, again, it is 90 ft. They are requesting the, hopefully, the 60 ft lot width which is a 14 ft variance and a 12 variance for the two parcels. The setback variances are a 6 ft variance Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 30 of 64 on the south property line for the existing structure, and a 0 ft setback, 30 ft variance along the right of way. The right of way has somewhat changed on this property from the Master Street Plan designation to some downtown designations that we have. I believe this is an ST38 which requires 38 ft of right of way. Again this is an older portion of the town. I have put some information in the reports. This is kind of sandwiched between some of the properties that we have talked about on Duncan and Hill St and also the original town plat surrounding properties that vary in size greatly. As small as 45, 50, 60, 90, depending on the land use. But again, there is a fairly predominant range of 50 It lot widths in this area. Again Staff is supportive of the existing structure. Of granting those variances. After finding that the structure was built in the, again, around the 1920's. The difference here is that this was a lot platted greater, which does currently meet lot width's requirements as a single lot. It's the applicants request to make these into two lots that do not meet those lot width requirements. Staff can spend some more time making the findings on those. This was originally slated to be in the Downtown Master Plan area as recommended by Dover Kohl. I believe it made it to City Council with this neighborhood in there. Ultimately, for whatever reasons, this area along Gregg was removed. It was slated to be neighborhood conservation, which was 40 ft lots, which are actually the largest lots in the Downtown Master Plan area. To be more consistent with what is platted in the hopes of in -fill, revitalization, and redevelopment in the downtown area. Regardless of whether or not this ended up in the actual Downtown Master Plan designation or not it is still within the downtown area and is compatible to have smaller lot sizes in line with.... in line with what was approved in the Downtown Master Plan. Ultimately these are approximately a 12 ft... thats with us rounding off.. a 12 ft and a 14 ft variance, and are quite compatible as surrounding land uses and will be more compatible in the future. Staff finds it is more compatible than a 90 - 100 ft lot width with the downtown area. And this would allow for another single family or two family dwelling being located in the downtown area. Staff is recommending approval of the three variances.... variance requests with four conditions. I believe all of those look fairly straight forward. Nickle: Questions from the Board or .... I guess if he wasn't doing the lot split he could have use by right and build a second structure on there. Fulcher: Yes. In the RO zoning district it would be his right. Johnson: My only question is the... if the variance approves this side yard setback on the existing structure? It has kind of an add-on on this place on the south side of the property, I believe. Is it... are they improving any of that? Or are they just going to... just trying to bring it into compliance with your lot? Is that what you are going for? Or are they trying to improve the land they have? Fulcher: There was no reference to the exiting structure in the applicants letter other than it was non -conforming. But no plans stated in that. Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 31 of 64 Johnson: If they... if they were looking to expand their structure to the south and were.... In other words, you know, make this larger... longer along the building. Would they be able to do that with our... Chesser: That's covered by the ... I think it is covered by recommendation number three. Johnson: Perfect. That is all I was looking for. Nickle: Alright. Is the applicant present? Yes. Would you identify yourself? Reid: Alan Reid for Alan Reid and Associates representing the applicant. Nickle: Any further comments to the Staff report. Reid: No. Just the one... they are not trying to improve the house that's there. They just want to be able to sell it separate of the other lot. Nickle: Ok. Thank you. Anyone else from the audience want to speak to this application? Pancake: Well there are three of us. I would kind of like to hear Alex first because he owns the property to the south. Nickle: Alright. Pancake: Alex, will you go first? Nickle: Whoever, whoever wants to go first. Pancake: Thank you. Nickle: Would you identify yourself please. Muller: My name is Alex Muller, and I own the property to the south. That little structure there, I just tacked onto the end. Johnson: Right. That is why I was asking. Yeah, it looks kind of add-on is. You know, like it's temporary... that they, they just kind of threw up there. And I didn't want to approve any, like, permanent... you know.... expansion. Muller: Well, what is the setback for this house? Is it 0? Or is it... Nickle: Hold on... on the side? The side setback south line would be 4 ft. And it is for the existing footprint only. Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 32 of 64 Johnson: Yeah. And when was that added on? I would like to be curious Pancake: Are you talking about that little green house thingy you've got leaning up against this house? Johnson: Yeah. Pancake: Four or Five years ago? That sounds correct. Nickle: Did you have any other comment on it? Muller: No. Nickle: Did anyone..... did y'all want to speak too? Powell: Well I was just curious... Nickle: Could you identify yourself, please? Powell: My name is Patricia Powell, and I own the lot north of him, and I was notified about it.... you know? Nickle: Right. Powell: I'd... I'd spoken to the candidate about selling the property, and him not doing it. And I was just curious about those procedures. But... um... his.... what would be the plan for the vacant lot?.... in terms of what.... how many dwelling establishments can you build on that narrow of a lot? That is my concern. Nickle: Well, we are only granting... you know... the application just grants it for about a..... a 12 ft variance for that? Is that correct, Jesse? What could he possibly.... what could be built on that, assuming that the variance is granted? Fulcher: With a 60 ft lot width, if the variance were granted that is ultimately what he would be able to build on, would be a 60 ft lot width. A single family home is allowed by right. Meaning single family home, not a duplex or triplex. And a duplex, meaning a two family home. Both of those are allowed on a 60 ft lot. Nickle: I think in answer to your question.... Johnson: No. It would be under the 60 ft lot width rules, because we are granting a 12 ft variance. So, the rules that would be applicable would be those that are... um... for a 60 ft lot in RO zoning. Which he is saying is a single family home or a duplex.... or an office structure of some sort. Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 33 of 64 Kohler: He still has to adhere to the site setbacks. So you are... you're restricted on the build able area to the 48.51 ft of width, minus the two side setbacks. Which are 10 ft each. So you are at.... Chesser: 25 ft? Kohler: 28.5 ft total width of a structure on the new lot. Johnson: So it would be a small.... It's going to be a small structure, whatever it would be. Or at least a narrow structure. Powell: (Unclear question from Paula Powell) Nickle: 20 ft I believe. Chesser: It's an RO? Powell: Um-Hm. Johnson: It should... 45? Chesser: Is it a limited RO? Fulcher: It is... Yeah, any height next to it is 20 ft... and that is adjacent to an RSF or RMF district. It shall be set back an additional foot for any height in excess of 20 ft. Johnson: The whole neighborhood is RO though, is it not? Fulcher: It's everything.... Johnson: It's everything? But the continuous properties.... Fulcher: Property to the south is RO.... (General talking) Chesser: Actually, it's on page... it looks like page... Now, the other... hold on... I'm sorry. Kohler: The other part of that is that the front setback with the 30 ft back, which is a lot farther than what that existing house is now, which is 0. Johnson: It would be... we're approving a 0, non -setback because they're encroaching on the.... Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 34 of 64 Chesser: Yeah, but only for the one lot. Not for the other, right? Nickle: That is correct. For the existing structure. Kohler: So... so that a new footprint, if approved, would be considerably less... Johnson: Yeah. Kohler: Than what appears on that... the structure on that lot now. Because it goes with the new front and side setback. Johnson: It'd be an additional 20 It, probably... Kohler: Back from the street... Johnson: Back from where their structure begins. Powell: Unless they get a variance, right? Johnson: Well... Powell: You would have to have one there. Nickle: You would have to have a variance to build any closer to the street than what is designated by the front setback regulations under the current zoning. Kohler: If they were going to build anything on that lot it would have to be 30 ft back. And right now the house is.... Johnson: Maybe... Kohler: Right on it, right? Nickle: Very close. The porch appears to be. To answer your question: It could be a duplex, or a single family home as a use by right in this particular zoning. Pancake: I guess I'm next. Colleen Pancake. I live at 302 S Gregg, so... three to the north that... um.... Just let me a brief history of that neighborhood. It's an older neighborhood. It is like, the original Fayetteville neighborhood. The lots are very small. He's got a double wide, 90 ft or so. We asked to be removed from the Downtown Master Plan re -zoning project because..... Well, just a few years before that we did a pilot study to re -zone the entire area. And they suggested to us, the City did, that we re -zone the entire area RO. However, a number of our neighborhood association realized that if it is all RO, contiguously, then there is Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 35 of 64 no height limit. And that someone can go right next to your house, when you've got a garden.... plunk! A building that takes all of your sun. So, we decided not to go that route and to pepper it with some RS, RI, R2. We also all... we knew that we would have to be active to make sure that we aren't re -zoned because, again, with the re -zoning of the Downtown Master Plan, we didn't have any provisions to keep the trees in our neighborhood. And being such an only neighborhood, all the old houses are very close to the street. It would pretty much drive the property value up to the point where people will buy in to sell out. And they are going to develop the heck out of it. Not, again, not leaving any provisions for the saving of trees. It would destroy the character of the neighborhood. So, we banded together and made sure that we weren't in that plan to try and slow down the amount of development through there. We know there will be development, but what and how.... And Alex. Alex owns the property on the corner. He is going to develop it sooner or later. But I am hoping he will communicate to us and not do anything that would wreck the character of the neighborhood. Who has sidewalks? But everybody walks their dog up and down there. Anyway. I'm just giving you this history so you understand that what we are trying to do is maintain a neighborhood feel. By splitting this lot it makes it difficult to keep that. There have been a lot of people who have asked me "hey do you know of any houses for sale down there". Well, by splitting this lot, you are not going to find many people who are going to want to buy a 1920's house that the lot is that small and it can't be redeveloped. Someone is going to come in... if.. if.. to keep it as wide as it is right now they would have a better shot at making a good house. And they probably would sell it. And I don't understand why the applicant wants to split it except that perhaps he needs money now and wants to keep his plot for later... Or perhaps he wants to make enough money off of both lots. What we are trying to keep down.... at least slow down is the rate of development of structures that are not keeping with the feel of the neighborhood. We are leasing little family structures. Homes. Keeping the trees, keeping the yards if possible. Or at least developing so we keep some character of the neighborhood as it is now. And that means trees. And not just re -zoning it and caring only about the footprint of the building, and stuffing as many people in there as you can without setting back some space for green... which is that neighborhood. We've got a little creek in the backyard. Patricia's house have got these giant Sycamores that protect her from University traffic coming down as it comes to a T there. I'd like to form my stand. I don't think that it is a good idea to split this lot. I'm hoping that someone would buy the whole thing. And I would like to see the neighborhood allow another family to come in and develop there place there. But.... yeah.... again, I am with Patricia. I don't know what is.... what could be done if you split the lot? Our concerns are that you may not care about the trees that are there and grant variances and stuff as many, and as tall of buildings that you can in there. That was our concern, again with the RO that they had suggested. That we would blanket the whole area. And the reason that they picked us out as a pilot project is because in the 1970's they had zoned it Light Industrial, which it wasn't by use. It wasn't. Not long after that they put Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 36 of 64 some apartments down the street. Again, narrow street! We don't want to put too many developments in here. I'm just saying slow down with the narrowing and the.... Nickle: I appreciate your comments. Pancake: Thank you. Muller: I have a question. Nickle: Yes sir. Muller: Do you think residential office and use there is no height restrictions? Nickle: No. There are height restrictions. Muller: I mean, I thought it was a four story.... But that's only downtown? So outside of that downtown it can be... Fulcher: Subject to the current zoning regulations, yeah. Depending on the zoning district. Muller: And what are... Pancake: Is four story your... Fulcher: No. Muller: Let's display it. And the most you can really do is a duplex, correct? Nickle: Correct. Johnson: Right. Chesser: Right. That is correct. Fulcher: And I actually want to.... Muller: And it has to be set back of the street. So that is going to be a tiny... a tiny little structure. Nickle: That is right. Muller: Which would conform to more of what you are looking for anyway. Pancake: Ok. So where are the odds of granting a variance so that it's closer.. Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 37 of 64 Chesser: On a new structure, probably low. Pancake: Ok. Good. Chesser: If I could... Reid: I mean, what it would be built up on as a residential office would be more intrusive than.... Kohler: That is exactly right. Reid: Ok. Fine. Fulcher: If I could make a clarification real fast? Looking at the lot width of 60 ft, a two family dwelling is required. If you look at the lot area minimum it requires 6500 sq ft per lot. We are not reviewing a lot width variance at this time. Neither of the lots that are proposed meet 6500 sq ft, therefore, a duplex would not be allowed on either lot by right without a variance. The other thing that I would like to say is that on a lot of 90 It of frontage and 8000 sq It, which currently the lot is. It's a 95 ft lot and it is approximately 12500 sq ft lot. Three or more family units are allowed. Meaning, a multifamily development is allowed by right. Or an office building. Both of which are subject to the height regulations of the RO zoning district which is... there isn't a height limit. It is based off your side setbacks as you increase in height. So there isn't a cap of two stories or four stories as there is in the Downtown Master Plan area now. Pancake: Ok. Chesser: So what you are saying is that by splitting this, it will actually keep the neighborhood character more than.... Pancake: Ok. Then I take it back. Split it! (General laughter) Pancake: I just needed to hear that. Because what's going on is just quick development without much thought. And we in this neighborhood love the character of it. We love that we can walk on the street without a sidewalk, down a shady area with a creek down there. And we can go to the park that we worked really hard to get. We just are really concerned. Muller: As if they make the curve at University, which they do at about 80... and then they are going to leave there when the guy who is coming off of University drove straight through the lot and into the creek, and then down the creek, and his car Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 38 of 64 got stuck. That was interesting. Nickle: Alright. Any further comment from the public on this application? Seeing none we will bring it back to the Board. Motion: Chesser: Unless there are other comments I move that we approve BOA 06-2330 with Staff's recommendations. Alt: Second. Nickle: There is a motion and a second. Johnson: Here I've got a comment. And I guess if that's the motion, then I am going to probably vote against it. But, I'm not comfortable with giving him that variance for that lean-to structure that someone just threw up one day. A (unclear) of mine looked at it one day and... Chesser: Oh brother, yes. Johnson: It's not like a greenhouse that.... I mean, it's not promoting the ideals that I would like to see. I hate just, "let's throw up some stuff against the building and see if we can get a variance for it, and then rebuild it later if we have to". So... It.... can we leave it Chesser: I had forgotten that part. Johnson: Can we leave it non -varied, or does it have to be varied in order to split lots? Fulcher: The lot split is not affecting that part of the structure. It is not increasing the non- conformity of that part of the building. You could choose to not grant the southern setback for the reason that it... potentially a building permit was never pulled for that and it was done recently. And that would be required to be removed. It would not affect any other portion of the variance of the lot what -so - ever. Johnson: Ok. So could.... or I could vote against that one portion? Nickle: Well, no. To vote on the motion as whole.... is... Johnson: So we would have to change the motion. Nickle: Yeah. The motion would either have to be changed, or that motion fail and then another motion made. What I think you are asking about is to say that if we grant Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 39 of 64 the lots. The variance on the frontages to allow an effective lot split then you would want him to remove that structure? Johnson: No, I don't want him to remove it. I just don't want him to be able to continue to increase his structure within that setback. Nickle: Well, all it is, is just for that footprint of.. the way the motion is originally. It is just for what's there right now. Johnson: Ok. So he's not going to be able to go back and improve that? Nickle: He would have to get a building permit if he did anything to it. Johnson: OK. McSpadden: But he can improve it within that existing footprint of the piece that he built without potentially asking for a building permit. Nickle: Agreeing with the variance he could improve that it... if you don't want him to improve it. If you do in fact want him to remove it, then that would have to be a separate issue and it would then be up to the applicant to decide whether he would want to do it. And I don't know. David, do you have any comments for us on that? Whitaker: I think that I need clarification before I would comment further. The greenhouse, lean-to structure is it... is it encroaching? Chesser: Yes. Kohler: It is in the proximity of ... So it is being treated as an existing, non -conforming? Johnson: Right. Chesser: It's being right now. And I would be.... I would definitely consider withdrawing that motion so we can discuss this further, because I actually did forget about that. And if it was built very recently, completely without a.... in the setback without a permit I would have a problem with that. Kohler: It was built without any building setback, or I would say building code... Zant: Do we know? McSpadden: Well, they said four or five years ago was when it... Kohler: Yeah, the public comment. Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 40 of 64 McSpadden: Public comment on when it was constructed. Fulcher: The original.... based on the age of the house, I don't think I found a building permit for any of the... many of the items today because of their age fell beyond.. a building permit to know what was approved as opposed to what is there now. By somewhat... visually you can see the difference of materials, the aging of the materials. But that is nothing concrete. That is probably the most concrete thing I've heard is just the comment from the public. But then again, I don't... Johnson: I just want to avoid a second precedent where people throw stuff up and then come back and say "Oh wait, this is....".. Chesser: No actually, in fact, I would like to withdraw my motion and discuss this. If that would be permissible? Whitaker: If I may... if I may... Jesse, what would be the normal procedure to do the follow up on discovering something like this? Would that then be referred to the Building Safety Division? For them to then go out there? Because if it as you say.... as you describe it, they would need to go out there. Obviously a building permit would be required. And if it meets the definition of a structure and it would... it would have to require... to meet all the city codes. And my understanding is their current fees are doubled on structures that are built without ordinance and get any complaints? So I think that.... I don't know that the two are.... well.... one is dependent on the other. What I mean by that is... I don't know that this effects your decision on whether or not to grant the variance? Because on discovery of a structure that may have been required to be permitted that wasn't. There are other avenues to correct that. Chesser: Ok. But we would still be granting... we would still be granting a variance for that... for that footprint in perpetuity, so even if he was required to remove it he could build in that footprint again. Whitaker: Yes he could. Chesser: Or... or... fix.... Whitaker: Or build it to code. Chesser: Right. Build to code the structure that was there. But, I mean, I also have a problem with... I really have a problem with "I built a structure and then I go ask for a variance"... without checking I'm not sure that I want to make somebody down at this point, but I don't want to set this.... I don't want to set a precedence either that it is Ok to just throw something out and then maybe you'll get a variance... Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 41 of 64 Johnson: I think that if we could strike that one line, that one variance.... you said that they are not dependent on each other. So if we just strike that one 4ft or 6 ft variance from the south and approve the variances for the long splits... I mean.... I would be... I would be happy with it. I mean, I'm not trying to even tear it down either. I just don't want to set a precedence where you can just build stuff and.... Chesser: Yeah, I agree with you. What happens if we don't put a variance on that structure, that portion of the structure? I guess that is what you were trying to address. Fulcher: Yes. I mean, if he has built without a permit from the Building Safety Divisions, and research obviously finds that no permit was pulled.... They would send him a violation letter requesting a building permit at which time he would apply for it, but not be able to construct it as it is located on the ground because it encroaches into the building setback. In which case he would be left with the two decisions which is to remove it or to come back to the Board of Adjustment and ask "Can I have a variance for what I constructed". Nickle: If you don't grant him the variance now, he essentially is either going to have to come back and request that same variance again, or, tear it down because it wouldn't be permanent without the variance. Chesser: Right. Right, and that is sort of what I suspected would be the case. Now, the question is: Do we want to see this again? Or...? Nickle: I don't know that.... Would this be wise? The passage encourages somebody five years... I don't know whether people go through the process of doing something five years ago and saying "Ah -Ha! I can get away with this." because he probably didn't know he was going to come and make this request. Chesser: He probably didn't even know that he was in violation. Nickle: Yeah. Chesser: And so I'm more willing to be OK with it that way. So some action will occur, even if we granted this variance you're saying? Whitaker: I think... Fulcher: Action on this ... on that portion. Whitaker: Well, I'm thinking that it will now. (Laughing) Chesser: Well, that might be enough for me. Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 42 of 64 Nickle: You see what. In essence, you're motion passes with the now very public knowledge that this was build without a building permit, the applicant will undoubtedly receive notice from the city that you need to get a building permit for that. But he can't get it to even..... if we don't grant it, it will have to be torn down. Chesser: Right. And I am hesitant to require that it be torn down, but I would like to see some penalties. So.. Nickle: Well... Chesser: So maybe that is a good compromise. Nickle: In what Jesse described, there will be a penalty in terms of what he is going to have to pay for his building permit if he chooses.... Kohler: That.... that's fine.... then I think we can vote as... Motion: Chesser: Well, in that case I would reinstate my motion. I would move that we approve BOA 06-2331 with staff's recommendations. Nickle: 2330 Chesser: Yeah. I went forward. 2330. BOA 06-2330. Nickle: With the Staff recommendations. Chesser: With Staff recommendations. Nickle: That was your motion, and I know that somebody said a second, but I don't remember who it was. Alt: I seconded it. Nickle: Sherry seconded it? Alt: Yes. Nickle: So, we have a motion and a second. Further discussion. Do you have a question on this motion? Fulcher: Yes, I do. The original motion was as is. Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 43 of 64 Nickle: As what you recommended. Fulcher: But I... and I am continuing that. Not to remove one of the.... Chesser: No. No. As is, and I am sure that he will suffer enough. Nickle: Suzanne, would you call roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 06-2330 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Chesser: I apologize for that. Nickle: Well, that is a little clearer than mud out there. (General talking and laughing) Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 44 of 64 BOA 06-2331 (CATROPPA, 404): Submitted by TONY CATROPPA for property located at 1305 N GARLAND AVENUE. The property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. The request is for a 0' front setback off of Garland Avenue and off of Mount Comfort Road to bring an existing nonconforming structure into compliance and to allow a new drive-thru, when 50' setbacks are required.. Nickle: Next is BOA 06-2331 for property located at 1305 N. Garland. And Andrew has escaped us again, so Suzanne, do you have this report. Fulcher: I'll take it. Nickle: Jesse'll take it. Fulcher: Yes, sir. I see everyone, everyone has the colored site plan with all the dimensions and parking places located on it. This is property located at 1305 Garland. It is zoned C 1 for commercial and part zoned for residential office. The applicant is requesting a 0 ft front setback off of Garland Ave and Mt Comfort Rd. And that is for the existing structures. In addition to that the applicant is requesting to construct a 4 by 4 area on the north side of the building, and that would serve as a drive through area, or a drive up area for drive through service in this restaurant or eating place. The structure is currently approximately 2000 sq ft and has been in existence prior to currant zoning regulations, and really a... great deal of change, of amounts of right of way in this area. Garland Ave is a principle arterial and Mt Comfort is a collector St. 110 ft and 70 ft of right of way respectively. There are currently, approximately 44 parking spaces on the lot. This, being the older property, it's not like they are perfectly striped in there and we can just do a quick field count or a site plan of that. But, I think that between the applicant and Staff.. and that was approximately the count that Staff came up with. Staff, looking at the existing structures, because of the changes in the Master Street Plan right of way... and the State right of way as at this location... and the age of these structures, Staff is very supportive of the variance request for the existing structures to bring those into conformity. So that obviously, improvements can be made to those structures. What Staff is not supportive of, or recommending approval of is.... and that's really two basic reasons. And that is the expansion of..... while it is only 4 by 4 ft, 16 sq ft on the north side of the Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 45 of 64 building..... It's not a great deal of expansion, and I believe that it is on the outside of the right of way. The issues that we see with that have to do really with the parking on the site and through the site. Currently you can see on this aerial, on the north side of this building there are quite a few cars parked there. You can see where the drive through would end up running through. Would the construction of a drive through area here... it is not necessarily the structure... It would probably remove one space. But the function of the drive through would ultimately remove all of the spaces that are currently available on the north side of the building. That in itself is somewhat bad. It is that in tandem with the platted improvements to Garland. Those are a part of the Bond Program. The State is currently designing that improvement of a five lane street section here at Garland running through this which wilt most likely, if not definitely remove most if not all of the parking on the east side of the current building.... which is a great portion of the building. So, that coupled with the removal of the approximately ten parking spaces on the north side of the building removes approximately... probably half of the parking on the entire site. It's close. It barely meets code as is. With the removal of the ten spaces... once you take that with the probable removal of the thirteen spaces on the east side of the building, it takes the parking requirements way below code. Looking at the lane use here.... mostly restaurantibar use.... high peak hour demands, parking requirements.... That few parking spaces we see as a problem. I think you also take that into consideration with the access. It's bad. It's bad when the cars have to reverse onto Garland for parking you put in a drive through where cars have to.... the stacking ends up onto Garland and also increase the number of turning movements onto Mt Comfort and from Garland Ave would probably increase the dangerous traffic situation there. I think Staff would feel that there is a dangerous traffic situation there. As many people who have utilized this property.... as a really.... a cut through for getting across Garland. Staff, and I think we have put this in the report and explained this well, the function of a pick up facility in lieu of a drive up facility we are very supportive of.. of putting some type of canopy, door, or window. Were you actually still utilizing the parking spaces. They aren't effectively removed by cars driving though the area. You park. You walk up. I know it is not exactly what the applicant is hoping to get because of the convenience aspect. You know the drive up.... but I think it still allows for some of the function that the applicant is looking for on this property. And we are very supportive of that. It would not require un -commissioned approval... or City Council review for an addition to a structure that is located on the Master Street Plan right of way. That does require City Council approval. If the 16 sq ft addition was granted, as we've seen on some other properties, it would have to go to City Council since it is within the right of way. Where just a canopy and a little modification to the north side of the building it would simply need a building permit approval since the canopy as a structure would not be increasing the square footage of this building. Of course, the over all variance would need to be approved for the overall footprint of the building. What we are recommending against is that 16 sq ft addition. Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 46 of 64 Nickle: Did I understand you to say, Jesse, that Garland is slated to be a five lane...? Fulcher: Five lane. Nickle: Five lane. Johnson: And they are not going to utilize the entire 55ft Master Street Plan right of way? Fulcher: I have not seen the design. And what is there currently is... if this is up to scale.... Yeah. They would most likely.... the 55 ft right of way from center line would be into the building. They will probably shift it. You know, design it around as much as possible, as anyone would, around current structures. You would assume that the sidewalks and drainage and curbs and things of that nature on the edge of the actual street section would be within the current parking area along Garland. Johnson: Yeah. Fulcher: Anywhere between there all the way up to the base of the building. You know, obviously that is something for the State and the property owners to look at. But that could potentially go that far. Nickle: Other questions for.... Zant: I have a question for Jesse. As I was reviewing the aerial map here and looking at the parking requirements, could you help me with. Where does the minus 30% allowance in parking requirement come from. I didn't see anything. I may have missed it. But... Nickle: Sir, it's in the Parking Code. Fulcher: Yeah. And in Chapter 172 Parking and Loading, for any development; single family, multifamily, commercial. You are allowed by code or by ordinance a 30% reduction or overage in your parking requirement. Whitaker: Which would be granted administratively. Now it's here we can change that because particularly with restaurants we were having to.... having to go back. We were dealing with it every time, on every request. They decided to go ahead and give the Administrative personnel that 30% leeway to reduce a lot of these things coming to Council. Nickle: Ok. That is an Administrative item that the Planning Office can do. Zant: I just didn't... I didn't see anything that... I didn't know. And secondly, and this may sound a little peculiar, but I was curious as to.... As these ordinances in terms of parking requirements evolve for each zoning district.... um... are the Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 47 of 64 requirements basically to protect neighboring homes, for example? I am certain that that is the case. But, is it also with the thought in mind of protecting neighboring businesses as well? Or everyone in general? Because I just wonder.... there is an extenuating circumstance here. The person proposing this happens to own all three of these businesses that are adjacent to each other. So it kind of colors a little differently for me. Fulcher: As far as the parking requirements and the purpose of those, the ratio's per use... Zant: Yeah. They are designed certainly to protect. We don't want patrons of the business finding the parking lot inadequate and parking on neighborhood streets. You know, obviously we want to keep the patrons of those businesses on the parking provided. But I was just curious as to whether or not the ordinance, in any fashion, allows multiple.... you know, same ownership of multiple businesses adjacent to each other, if there is any coloration that helps with this equation of that? Johnson: You mean like a reduction because your businesses are all.... kind of sharing one parking lot? I... I think they all have to meet an overall parking requirement. I think they can... y'all can look to off-site parking, or whatever, Fulcher: Shared parking agreement. Johnson: Ok. And use that in your calculations. But I think that what he is doing here is including all parking on the premises. Fulcher: Yeah, the totals in this Staff report are the totals for the entire property for all the businesses. Chesser: All the businesses? Zant Right. Chesser: As if they were one. Johnson: Because obviously the express of our main may not have adequate parking, but overall he might be able to achieve what he is looking for.' Nickle: Other questions from the Board? Kohler: Is that little 4 by 4 somewhere on the north side of that espresso bar? Chesser: Sort of where that blue truck is parked. Fulcher: Yeah, it shows up actually in the Staff report... Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 48 of 64 Chesser: There is a white pickup and blue pickup, I think right there..... Kohler: That whole 4 by 4 structure is adding. That's what we're... I mean, we're not.... we're not granting you variance for any kind of parking. We are not talking about parking. We are talking about a 4 by 4 structure that does have some residual effect. You know if it's there or not. So really we need to look at where that structure.... Oh there it is. Ok. We need to look at that whole structure and.... Alt: It looks... It looks as if it is almost in the middle of that building. Zant: It is. It is. Chesser: But the problem being that it would eliminate essentially all the parking through there. Alt: Um-hm. Yeah. Johnson: Well, my concern... and this is just to touch on this. It goes back to the drive through nature. The stacking up for a drive through, you know. If you look at a drive through on the north side of the building it would be coming off of Garland. And boy! Chesser: There is already a problem with the liquor store over there. Nickle: Ok. Lets.... Any more specific questions for Staff? And then we will have the applicant. Ok. Would you identify yourself? Catroppa: Tony Catroppa. Nickle: Ok. Do you want to speak to us on this? Catroppa: Yes, I do. The business is called Catroppa's Espresso Bar. Nickle: So it's a coffee house. Catroppa: The other businesses operating there.... I kind of have the flu, so bare with me here... Is my Tony C's Bar and Grill which is a food and drink establishment. The other one is Lucky Luke's BBQ. Lucky Luke's BBQ opens at 11:OOam. Tony C's Bar and Gill opens at 11:OOam. My research... This is my first coffee house.... But my research, you know.... Coffee houses 60% of your business is done off drive up windows. 70% of your business is done before 10:00am. My businesses don't open until 11:00. The drive up window will be shut down at 11:00. I want that parking. We will put pile -ons up to prevent people from coming through there. That's why I need the 4 ft. If I didn't need the 4 ft I could Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 49 of 64 just take the parking. I would just put the window up, and I would take all the parking. I want the 4 ft so I will have the parking. But that Starbucks builds a coffee house everyday. They are even stronger than Wal-Mart. So I am going into the coffee business. And it's a very successful business in this area. Again, we have the smoking ordinances. People who go to University town: 18, 19, 20. Where can they go? Espresso Bar. We are going to have the computers. They will come in. They paninis will have coffee. They can have the Italian pastries and they can have the. And the main part of your business is in the morning. You all relate to when you are driving and you're going to work and you want a shot of espresso. If you want a latte or you want a cappuccino. You really don't want to get out of your car. What do you want to do? You want to go up to the window. After 11:00 prime time is done. It shuts down. We will still be open. We will still be. But it will be a drive up parking. But in the morning people don't want to stop. They want to get their coffee. And my statistics and my research on it..... ah.... Starbucks. That's what is done. (Tape change) My two businesses: It's right in the middle on the north side. I tried to mark that in yellow and circle it there. And when they are coming in off of Garland. Coming off or Garland or off the other, they will come up to the drive up window. And it's.... coffee is quick, but that liquor store is jammed up. I mean, who buys liquor at ten in the morning? You know? My hours of operation are not referable. And maybe a few alcoholics standing up there walking, over there. But my operation will not interfere with the traffic of the liquor store or any other place there. Chesser: Why.... Catroppa: It's just in the mornings so they can get coffee and go home. Chesser: I think they are addressing the liquor store one, too, anyways. Catroppa: Pardon me? Chesser: We did a variance not too long ago that addressed... that addressed.... they are going to move their window. So that ought to address there stacking problem too, anyway. Catroppa: Well, you made a comment that there was a lot of traffic... Chesser: Yeah, I'm real familiar.... I live right by here. So, I'm real familiar with the area. I drink in your establishment occasionally. Catroppa: Thank you. I thought you looked familiar. Chesser: Not too familiar now I hope. (Laughing) Catroppa: But we hope... We want to do the coffee house thing. We applied for a liquor Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page SO of 64 license there and we went through some turmoil. But I think the coffee thing may even be better. Because, we have a commuter... (unclear) And we still have... I still address.... we're a college town, and we are limited for places for students to go. And the majority of our college students are under 21. With our new law, no smoking... You've been in my establishment. You know you didn't smoke, and this establishment will be no smoking. It will be no liquor. And it will be, you know, a place for them to meet. It will have sports televisions, we'll have... It's called Tony C..... Catroppa's Espresso Bar. So it will be like a bar but with coffee. And they can drive up to the window because the majority of your business is your drive up business. And I know y'all can relate. I see a cup of coffee. Did you go to a drive up window, or did you go in and get it? McSpadden: I went to the drive through. Catroppa: There you go. That's what I'm saying. That is 60% of your business. Chesser: Well, you're realizing though... even though we probably all agree about that aspect. It's just a problem of... It's a problem for me. Well, I'm torn. I'm curious from Jesse if the.... if it's effect...? If, um, what the applicant has said affects this at all? If those were blocked off, I mean.... Would that change? Has Johnson: Chesser: Nickle: Chesser: Nickle: Chesser: Nickle: that been discussed with Staff? Time of day use means the parking? In other words? Yeah, if it were blocked off and the parking were made available. And I don't know how you would do that. I guess removable bars? Could be an enforcement issue in terms of how. You know the Planning Department... Yeah, I mean, and that is a problem too. Who's going to run down there everyday and see... Oh, right. If there are no other specific questions for the applicant, let me see if anyone in the audience would like to speak to.... Any other questions specifically for the applicant at this moment? Anything anyone else in the audience would like to speak to this application? Oh. I'm sorry. Seeing none we will bring it back to the Board. Let me ask one thing, Jesse. And I understand the nature of the business that he is describing. Number one: The zoning is what it is. We know that. For example, we grant a variance. It doesn't say anywhere in there that this has to be an espresso bar. That if we grant the applicants request for the drive-in window. That doesn't mean that this will be an espresso bar forever. Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 51 of 64 Chesser: Well.... Nickle: Because we can't limit the use of the property within the zoning. If the.... It occurred to me, talking about the pile -on that he brought up. I share your concerns on the safety issue. I think that's the most important.... the most important thing that the Board can consider. But I am wondering.... You made the suggestion of a window with just a little canvas canopy there for walk up customers, because he controls the parking situation for the entire tract of land.... What would be the situation if from, lets say, 6:00 to 10:00 or 11:00 in the morning.... what ever he was talking about there.... he just put the window in this the canopy and went out with pile -ons and set those out each morning? You know, he can undesignated parking and, I assume, and for that limited amount of time. I see some parking done in the Dickson St area like that. You know, they will put out some pile -ons at certain times of day and then take them in. They can only do that on property they own of course. You see where I am going with this? In terms of... would the balance of the parking be adequate where he could go out and in essence create a drive through during those certain hours and then take the pile -ons away at 10:00 or 11:00 or whatever time he described? Is that a function that he could legitimately do? Fulcher: I think the problem overall that we run into is what you kind of stated. Enforcement of that.... You know, he could block them off, not block them off, allow drive through, and not allow drive through. We can't be out there watching the property. If it just boils down to an enforcement issue of if.. whether it's a coffee bar or not, whether its open or not, whether it's open from 6:00 to 10:00 or not. We can't limit him in either one of those capacities. Nickle: What I guess I'm saying is.... McSpadden: You mean right now, right? Johnson: We need incentive. McSpadden: You mean right now he could stick a window in there and make his own drive through.... Nickle: I'm just kind of... I am just speculating. McSpadden: Right. Nickle: And that is especially if you put that little window farther to the west, which would minimize stacking problems, perhaps he could do that without this request that he is making for this little 4 ft deal here. Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 52 of 64 Fulcher: He could put in.... He could pull a building permit, and he could put I a drive through window. And at the same time he should be pulling extra certificates of zoning compliance, and that is when the Planning Division checks parking ratios and uses. At that time we would understand that the function of the drive through would remove the parking on that side of the building. Which, based on our calculations, would take the amount of parking under what is required by zoning. Nickle: Under this? Would take it under the 30% mark? Fulcher: Yes. Zant: Considering that if he.... if we were to find a way to help him out here and grant this request fully including the drive up window....? If he were to mismanage it and not do it property, and not control this drive through and not control related parking..... controlled by hours for example. The only person he is going to hurt initially is himself and his other businesses. So if there were a way to find.... If there were someway to find a way to help him with this, I would think it would be a positive thing. Johnson: I have a question for Jesse. And this may address all of our issues. If we granted the variance to add the drive up window area, the 4 by 4 ft area, does he then have to get a building permit and Building Safety looks at it? So in order to determine the parking safety issues? Fulcher: Building Safety, no, will not be reviewing... Johnson: Ok. So we are basically the ones reviewing the safety issue right now? Chesser: I've got a question. Is this... is it more of a safety issue, or a parking issue, or is it both? Do you have an opinion on that, Jesse? Are you as concerned as some of us have expressed concern about the stacking issue? Or is it mostly a parking question for you? Since I'm putting you on the spot. Fulcher: No. I don't mind. I have actually been going around on a.... on a.... a drive through, potential drive through development and whether adequate stacking distance has been provided as they proposed it. I'm somewhat familiar, and I understand now that there is a large difference depending on the type of use: whether it be a coffee house, a dry cleaner, a fast food restaurant all have different hour demands for peak hour parking or drive through services and stacking depths that are average for particular times of day. So depending on the type of use and hours of operations my personal opinion of a safety issue being presented changes. And I think that.... Chesser: But we are not zoning this for an espresso bar, we are zoning it for Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 53 of 64 Fulcher: Exactly. We can't tell him what he can operate there as long as it is within that zoning district. Chesser: So there is a potential stacking issue depending on the type of business that was run there? Fulcher: I think the stacking depths would change dramatically for different uses and different hours of operation. Zant: Drive in facilities aren't regulated by any kind of conditional or special use permit here in Fayetteville? Whitaker: Drive up windows aren't. Now when you see drive-in in the code that has a very specific meaning. That is like a Sonic is a drive-in. Zant: Of course. Nickle: But your drive up window is not regulated as such. Fulcher: We have drive up restaurant and we have eating places. They are separated in the zoning code. Yeah, I don't believe that it's C1. Nickle: For instance, if a dry cleaner, which I believe is probably right by use in C1, can have a drive up/drive by window as long as it is within the setbacks, etc. Code doesn't speak to the type of business in that relationship except if it is allowed in that zone. Chesser: So, minus the parking requirement there would be nothing stopping.... as you were speculating earlier..... there would be nothing really stopping the addition of a drive up window. Nickle: You know, as I say, I think the main thing for Board to consider is the issue of safety based on what Staff's estimates are. As Jesse has pointed out, you know, depending on the specific type of business that is allowed within that zoning, the stacking of the drive in window can change dramatically along with the time of the... Kohler: Yeah. I think at the bare minimum, if we are going to make any headway on this.... at the bare minimum we would have. I would like to see a dimension be a part of the ... of the approval if there is one. To have that 4 by 4 push as far west as the plan will allow, which is probably 14 ft from the... from the.... would be the east. And that would allow stacking, or driving up on the driver side, that would allow as many cars as possible.... you know, from Garland to stack. Johnson: Maybe three. It looks like to me. Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 54 of 64 Kohler: You know, he's got his floor plan. He's got his prep area all the way to the east. But if that thing started at 14 It that would allow the most possible space for stacking. Chesser: If that were the case.... this might sound strange... but... Kohler: That would be a minimum. Chesser: I would rather see it be 4 by 10. Just think of the whole space. So the rest of this parking is there... and the through traffic takes place in this empty space in between. That is what I was trying to figure out. Because the parking issue is eliminated if the window is pushed out far enough away so the rest of the parking spaces can continue to be utilized. McSpadden: But then you get in your car and there are people stacked up at the drive through behind you and you can't get out. Chesser: It's true. Does that make them not parking spaces at that point? Chesser: If there is potential for someone behind you? Nickle: That is the situation that I think Jesse was speaking to before. If this does ... is... legitimately becomes a.... regardless of whether it's temporary or not, if it becomes a drive though situation there you effectively eliminate those parking spaces on the north side of the building from east to west. I don't know how many spaces that is. I'd say... Fulcher: I think it is about 10... Kohler: So then we get into a situation where the Board of Adjustment creates a situation that violates, or that allows for parking that's.... Nickle: That doesn't meet code. Kohler: That is inadequate. And we don't want to be in that position, right? Nickle: And I think that's where I'd have to ask David to speak to us on something like this. Whitaker: I do want to point out one thing, also. And it's that this entire package would... is going to require the City Council to amend the Master Street Plan. And I can bet you the concept of traffic and storage will come up. Chesser: Yeah. Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page SS of 64 Whitaker: Particularly at this intersection that is already a difficult intersection. Which anybody here... anybody who drives by there at all understands how challenging it can be. Chesser: My friends in college and I used to call the area south of this the concrete circle of death. Because there is no control. It is just driving like a highway. Whitaker: And I am certain that State engineers will be looking at resolving some of those issues as part of the... Nickle: I'm, though personally reluctant to approve too much that gets in the way of those much higher powers that be in the way of.. You know, I don't have a problem with putting a window in and putting a little canopy out, which is not precluded, regardless of what we do today. Is that true, Jesse? Fulcher: I'll see if I'll answer your question. What we are recommending is to have a walk up, instead of a drive up.... to have a walk up only facility, not a drive through lane. McSpadden: Yes, but if.. Nickle: If he can do that without our expressed permission. He could still do it if he wants to, could he not? Fulcher: He could pull a building permit without doing anything. And for a non- conforming structure be able to remove a portion for a window, I believe, under the 10% allotment for improvement of a nonconforming structure. It's when he came in and asked us for a zoning compliance where the issue would arise as far as how it would function, what happens to the parking, what's the use parking requirements and all of that. Nickle: Ok. Johnson: That would probably what I would be most happy with happening. You know, allowing him to have his structure anyway he likes. But not allowing us to... not having us allow him to allow him to add onto the structure and create a problem that is worse. Nickle: Let's, if you would, Jesse, read over the specific Staff recommendations so we can kind of focus on what we want to look at. Fulcher: Ok. Specifically the conditions.... I need to go through all of them, but: "future alteration are additions to the existing structure shall meet the building set -back regulations for the Master Street Plan right of way unless otherwise approved by Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 56 of 64 the Board of Adjustments." "The 4 by 4 drive through proposed shall not be permitted as is would eliminate necessary parking spaces. However, Staff is recommending a canopy overhang and a pedestrian pick-up window on the north side of the building to be permitted as long as the parking spaces along the north side of the structure are not removed." and then "Prior to issuing of a building permit, a Master Street Plan right of way variance to reduce the Garland Ave right of way for this property is required to be approved by the City Council to allow for the existing building footprint to remain in the right of way with the proposed expansion." Four is "Any alterations or additions to the existing structure shall meet required regulations for improvements for nonconforming parking lots.". Five, "All required permits shall be granted prior to any construction or additions to the existing structures." Nickle: I think if you will look at number three. That's kind of the operative one that we need to be considering. And because, as Jesse has also stated, if we granted the applicants request for the 4 by 4 extension it would still also have to be approved by the City Council.... because it's.... the nature of the highway, etc. that they are going to be looking at altering this... Fulcher: They will be increasing the... Chesser: So we would be passing the buck? (Laughing) Nickle: No. Johnson: I don't know if that is right. I like Staff's comment, staff's recommendations. Really, that is what I would be most comfortable with. If he does get City Council approval on it, I assume he can, could come back for the 4 ft structure addition. I... even with coming back though I am not sure I would be very comfortable with the safety issue and the parking. In the way it would.... I know it would change parking. I like the use of the building. And I would love to get some coffee there on my way to work. But, I just, you know, when I go up Garland - especially in the mornings and the afternoons... pretty much all the times, the stacking which causes a safety issue, I think. Nickle: One more question, Jesse. Based on number three there, they are going to have to consider this because of the right of way situation. City Council is to allow for an existing building footprint to remain in the right of way. And that has primarily to do with the front part of the building. Is that correct? Fulcher: I think if we took out the question of the expansion from the equation altogether and the applicant, maybe, just wanted to improve the value greater than 10%, which is where you're cut off is as nonconforming structures. He would still need Board of Adjustment approval to approve the nonconforming structure. And because it is in the right of way he still needs City Council approval just the same. Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 57 of 64 If he gets your approval and it never goes to City Council, well in essence it is not approved. Just by default the City Council also has to approve anything for a structure in a right of way. So... Nickle: Ok. Fulcher: So, yes, he'll need both. Regardless of if he does an expansion or not, if he wants to clear up the structure itself as a nonconforming structure he needs to go to both lobbies. And it will also go through Planning Commission. They will give a recommendation to the City Council. Chesser: Because no matter what, we cannot approve a variance which encroaches into the Master Street Plan right of way, basically. Right? Fulcher: Yes. Your recommendation.... Whitaker: That is the end result. Chesser: Yes. Yes. Whitaker: The fact is, you can grant this. You can grant the variance, but.... there is still that Master Street Plan problem. Chesser: Right. Whitaker: They have to clear up. Which only City Council can clear up. Kohler: Don't we need to include language in here that.... like.... on all the other recommendations where it says "Staff recommends approval of a Oft front setback rather than modifications." I mean, don't we have to.... have to say exactly what it is? It's a 0... Nickle: It's actually negative. Kohler: Well... Johnson: Yeah but it would be 0. Nickle: But it's.... but it's effectively it is just the approval of the existing building footprint. And the Council will have to approve that also because it encroaches into the 55ft... Kohler: So this language is specific enough? Nickle: David? Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 58 of 64 Whitaker: I would think so. Chesser: Well thinking of five lanes, the other problem is that the great majority of those parking spaces get eliminated don't they? Johnson: Well, you know, we aren't really looking at that at this moment. Chesser: No. I understand that. Johnson: City Council would look at that. I'm looking at what the Staff has presented and I.... When I read through it, I think what they have presented shows pretty much what I would be in agreement with. You know, they're allowing the use of the structure. They're, you know, basically throwing out these requirements that, you know, any of it's parking that does get eliminated by the City Council will be reviewed at that point. So... Chesser: Yeah. I got to say that I am a little uncomfortable also with eliminating.... with... same reasons. Sorry, Jim. Motion: Zant: Well, I was just going to say that we've hammered this back and forth pretty hard, but I think we are all moving the same direction. And in that situation I would like to make a motion to approve BOA 06-2331 including the five recommendations of Staff as presented. Johnson: I'd second that. Nickle: I have a motion and a second for approval of BOA 06-2331with five Staff recommendations. Further discussion? McSpadden: I guess I just need a little bit of clarification to understand. We are giving him 50ft variances on east and west side. Does that do him any good at this point? Nickle: It allows the building to... Johnson: He is going to have to have it to use it. Chesser: There is a piece of property there already on which buildings already existed. Nickle: Because he is going to have to get a building permit. If he didn't have to get a building permit. If he was just operating whatever it was before, then I think it would probably be a moot point. But, he is going to want a building permit and.... Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 59 of 64 Fulcher: He is.... he is... his hands are quote/unquote tied. If you have a nonconforming structure.... He couldn't even go in and do a large remodel on the interior without a variance. So he is vary limited with what he can do. I think everyone understands what he can do on the outside, but even on the inside he is restricted. Nickle: He could paint it a different color. Chesser: So we are trying to at least eliminate some of that so that he can.... (unclear).... but still, he is going to the City Council. McSpadden: Because the Master Street Plan is the big deal, right. Whitaker: Yeah. But he has got to do all of that eventually. Chesser: Well, yeah. Right. But... Nickle: But with what has been motioned to approve..... at least assuming that he gets the City Council's permission on that street right of way, then the rest of the project can go forward. Chesser: Right. Minus the 4 by 4 structure. Nickle: That is not a possibility. McSpadden: Which is what he came her for in the first place. Nickle: No. Chesser: Well, of course.... Johnson: Staff really exempted it out of their recommendations. What Staff recommended is what we are motioning to approve. Nickle: Ok. Other discussion? Are you though? I'm sorry. McSpadden: No, I'm good. Nickle: Suzanne, would you call roll please. Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 06-2331 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Nickle: Good luck with the City Council. That is all we can say. Good luck with the City Council. Catroppa: (Unclear by applicant) Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 60 of 64 Nickle: No, sir. Chesser: You can't do that. Johnson: We approved exactly what was recommended to us from Staff which I am sure you probably have a copy of. Kohler: It brings your building into compliance and.... McSpadden: With the pedestrian canopy and all that stuff. Catroppa: It just won't work if you have a drive up window like that you are going to hit the building. You got to have four or five spaces for cars. That doesn't work. That puts me with no parking at all. I mean, I own the businesses. I wouldn't.... you've been in my place. There is no way I would take my parking after 11:00. Chesser: No. I understand that. It's just that.... Catroppa: I wouldn't do it. I mean, I own all the businesses. But what this does is eliminate... if I did it then I wouldn't have any parking. Because you can't put parking if you don't have barriers on a building. That would.... you see, that's why you've got to come out four feet so you have the barriers for your parking. If I didn't want any parking there I wouldn't have a problem. I wouldn't have had to come. So... That is what I want so I can keep that parking there. If I had a barrier in front.... As you see, if you look at the picture you see that the barrier is there. You've; got to have barriers or people hit your building. You can't just let them pull up to your building. That is why 4 ft out all the barriers stay and that is why I want the parking there. After 11:00, the business is open and the parking is there. All I want is from 6am to l lam mornings so you can go by and get a cup of coffee. I just can't believe I'm getting turned down. For alcohol or beer... Zant: Please try to understand, you know, that you've got some other hurdles to clear that are beyond our control. Catroppa: Yes. Zant We've done the best that we could at this level under the circumstances. Please try to understand that. Perhaps there is some way.... I would be calling City Councilmen if I were you to see if you can't get some favorable input in front of them and perhaps that could help you with this. Nickle: I suspect they could grant that 4 by 4 very easily. Chesser: It is sort of beyond our power to grant that. And even if we did it would have to Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 61 of 64 be reviewed again by City Council. Who would probably, I'm going to guess, say no matter what. Morgan: Staff will be happy to talk with you tomorrow about your options. Catroppa: Thank you. Hopefully someday you will be able to come and have an espresso at my drive up window. Zant: I'm looking forward to it! BOA 06-2332 (PETTIT 2ND, 407): Submitted by JOSH PETTIT for property located at 1104 N. COLLEGE AVENUE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.48 acres. The request is for an approximately 175 sq. ft. addition, a larger addition than what was previously approved. Nickle: OK. We are ready for BOA 06-2332 for a property located at 1104 N. College. Who... Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 62 of 64 Morgan: Alright. I will try to be brief. This was on our agenda last month. The existing building there that used to be USA Drug is encroaching in the right-of-way and the building setback for North St. What was approved last month was a Oft building setback along North St to allow the existing structure to remain with a revised or new roof which would allow an eave.... a 1 ft eave encroachment and also a small addition to the corner of the building. The applicant has looked at their plans and has proposed to increase that small addition. Instead of 5 It to the outer wall it would be 5 Yz ft so that they can use the existing retaining wall as their main wall of the structure. With the lft eave, it would be a 6'h ft expansion of the structure. So, Staff is recommending approval of this revised plan finding that if they were to... basically we find that using the retaining wall is agreeable as their main wall. Nickle: Are we speaking just of the eastern addition? Morgan: Yes. Just that southeast corner. Nickle: That is the only change from what we approved the last time. Morgan: Right. Nickle: And it is approximately a foot and a half addition so they can utilized that eastern retaining wall. So it is just the eastern, not the northern addition. There is no change on that. Morgan: Right. And we are recommending approval with the same conditions of approval as last month. Zant: So, might I ask.... I wasn't here last month, but in so many words, isn't this just because of an error of, what?.... a couple of feet that was detected here. This is no more than a technical correction of what was already approved. Morgan: Well, what was approved was the 5 ft. The applicant changed their minds since then, so it is [a new request]. Kohler: I also understand it is possible to construct something so close to an existing structure. Zant: Yes. I hear you. I understand. And secondly, as part of that we reviewed the parking lay out and the situation last month. So that is all addressed. Right? Morgan: Yes. Zant So pull the lever. Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 63 of 64 Nickle: With this addition eave on the side. Nickle: Is the applicant present? And would you identify yourself? Pettit: Josh Pettit Nickle: And do you have anything to add to what Staff said? Pettit: No, I don't. Nickle: Is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak to this particular application? Seeing none we will bring it back to the Board. Motion: Zant: Well. I'll certainly make a motion to approve BOA 06- 2332 including the six conditions that have been approved by Staff. McSpadden: Second. Nickle: We have a motion and a second for approval of BOA 06-2332. Is there further discussion? Would you call the roll? Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 06-2332 carries with a vote of 7-0-0. Nickle: As an FYI for your information I would ask that they include our... they were adopted early last year, or something... Whitaker: It should be on the front page. Nickle: Yeah, March 6 of this year. This is just a reminder of what we as a Board approved back then in terms of our rules of procedures and regulations. So you can take this home and memorize it. There will be a test next time. Zant: I am looking forward to it. (Laughing) Nickle: Any other business for us? Can we stay longer and delay something else.... Unknown: I missed the earlier part of this. I was at work. But I was here actually for the.... I doubt if you can go back and answer any questions. I don't know if that is possible and I can help you out. But one of the variances is adjacent to my property. It's the BOA 06-2326. Nickle: I think Jesse ... he can tell you all about what happened. Board ofAdjustments November 6, 2006 Page 64 of 64 Fulcher: Are we adjourned? Nickle: We are adjourned.