Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-12-04 MinutesBoard of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 1 of 29 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on December 4, 2006 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Meeting began at 4:00 p.m., due to lack of a quorum. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN BOA 06-2374: (JUDKINS, 404) Approved Page 3 BOA 06-2375: (PAGE, 400) Approved Page 7 BOA 06-2376: (POORE, 294) Approved Page 11 BOA 06-2377: (GRISSO, 484) Approved Page 13 BOA 06-2378: (O'NEAL, 520) Approved Page 22 Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 2 of 29 MEMBERS PRESENT James Zant Bob Nickle William Chesser Sherrie Alt STAFFPRESENT Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher Andrew Garner David Whitaker MEMBERS ABSENT Robert Kohler Eric Johnson Karen McSpadden STAFF ABSENT Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 3 of 29 BOA 06-2374 (JUDKINS, 404): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located at 1217 STEPHENS. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0. 14 acres. The request is for an 8' setback along Wedington (a 17' variance), and for a 6,098 square foot lot (a 1,902 square foot variance). Nickle: Let's go ahead and start the December 4rh meeting of the Board of Adjustment. The first item is BOA 06-2374. Andrew, you have that one? Garner: Yes, sir. This property is located at the northwest corner of Wedington and Stephens Ave. The address is 1217 Stephens. The lot is approximately 6,000 sq ft. It is within the RSF-4 zoning district. In 1995 half of this lot was purchased by the Arkansas Highway Department. Before that it was part of Wedington Dr and an existing house was removed leaving the 6,000 sq ft lot. It is a vacant lot at this point with just a driveway. As depicted on the exhibits provided in your packets, the lot is not buildable because it is an odd shaped parcel. And with the required setbacks from the very wide right-of-way for Wedington it is not possible to build a house on it. So they are requesting variances for the front setback off of Wedington for an 8ft setback which is a 17ft variance. They are also requesting a variance of the lot area to allow for a residential, single family house to be built on the approximately 6,000sq ft lot when the zoning district requires 8,000 sq ft for the lot. The City Plan 2025 identifies this area as an in -fill group area for residential use. The Staff does recommend in favor of this variance finding that the wide right-of-way for Wedington and the odd shape of the parcel, and also there is a steep downslope off of Wedington are special conditions for this property justifying a variance. We also find that granting the variance would be compatible with the neighborhood. It wouldn't injure the neighborhood. This parcel is a lot smaller than other lots in the area, and building a house on this parcel would be smaller than the other houses in the area as well. But this is what is considered an in -fill area in the City Plan 2025, and allowing single family house on this, we find, would not be adverse to the neighborhood. So we are recommending approval with two standard conditions. Just let me know if you have any questions. Nickle: Questions for Staff on this? Thomas: I'm Derek Thomas with Bates and Associates representing the client. Nickle: Is there anything you would like to add to that? Thomas: No. Andrew did a great job. I'll just answer any questions that you might have. Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 4 of 29 Zant: You may or may not know, but if you do I am sure this is the owner of the property planning to live here himself, or is he thinking of building this as a rental property. Thomas: I can't speak for the owner. I don't know off hand. Zant: Ok. It's not critical for our decision, but I have thoughts on that. Chesser; Even not, you know, this is very near where I live. This is very, very near where I live and there are a lot of rental. I think it would be... Nickle: Would anyone from the audience like to speak about this particular application? Yes, sir. Could you identify yourself? Osborne: Yes. My name is Tim Osborne. I live directly across the street. I own the house across the street at 1216 N. Stephens. As far as I am aware there is no rental directly adjacent to this lot. I own my own house. The people below me own their own house. And the lot just to the north, directly above this property, they also own their own house. My father owned this lot when Wedington was widened by the state, and there was a house on this lot. He purchased the lot back from the State and his plans were to reposition the house back on that lot. He came before the Board here to get a variance. I believe it was a 311 variance at the time in order to be able to that, and his request was denied. So, he subsequently sold the house and sold the lot. So whoever owns the lot now was not the owner at the time the State took half of the lot. So they purchased it with the full knowledge of the limitations and the size and so forth of the lot. I think also, the lot does not meet the minimum width required under RSF-4 in addition to the lot size. So I suppose you would have to grant a variance on that as well. I'm not sure. That is your area of expertise, not mine. All that said, I don't have a problem with a single family residence tastefully built on that lot. It would have to be kind of an unusual house, I think, because the lot is triangular. It really dramatically closes down as you go west. It's got fairly good frontage on Stephens, but that... It's a pie shaped piece. I mean, it's not my business, but I would think there would be a lot of lots that would be a lot more attractive for someone who wanted to build their own house. But I really don't have a problem, I suppose, with a single family residential house on that lot. Zant: The question that I wanted to ask the both of you, as you were making your verbal statement just now. I just got to thinking that, you know, this is does seem to make sense to go ahead and approve this in and of itself. But then I got to thinking, who would want to build a house there necessarily. It is right next to a busy road. There is a big wall of dirt next to the house. It is a very small lot. ...isn't going become one of the other homes. I guess what it boils down to is this. Do we have a healthy market? With our University and other factors, we have Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 5 of 29 real good ... I can't see why Chesser: I live on Oak Dr which is across right there. One block over. University students live down the bottom of the one of the houses in a similar spot. I am sure you visited the spot. As steep as it is I would suspect that the traffic such as over the top of the house. My concern would be the driveway. I am assuming that Staff has explored that. There is enough room they could get out and not be too close to the corner. Garner: Right. That would be one of the things we would have to... check it before it is constructed and permitted. ?: Just another block down there is a new little development that has gone in which is a little bit more of an unusual development. Our (subdivision) is very restrictive. I would say the City... I would like to see this kind of residential project happen, but it is a rental. Zant: My only concern is that sometimes in land use we make regulations and variances, changes in zoning, sometimes we inadvertently enter into a mine field and create a monster. Chesser: I am already reassured. The market is healthy. And I think that (unclear) positive. I think it is close enough to the University you'll absolutely... there is a bus stop right by this. You will absolutely have College. But beyond that I would say that verbiage... But see if they are developing for rental or whatever. I don't know if it is our job to make sure that they build a house they can use. Zant: Technically not, but it crossed my mind. Would I like to live here? No. So here's my... I just had to bring it up. Nickle: I don't think it is unusual nowadays for parents to buy houses because they have two or three kids that are probably going to come to the University over a period of years. That's not unusual at all. Zant: This is the first University town I've decided I could... I'm still educating myself.. Thank you. Chesser: In this case the unusualishness of that type of case because it might make it a little bit more affordable. Nickle: Do you have another...? Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 6 of 29 Osborne: Yes, Staff mentioned something about they approved the subject with two standard conditions. What are those conditions? Garner: Mr. Chair, would you like me to address that? Nickle: Yeah, if you would, Andrew. Garner: Just standard conditions of approval. They have to get a building permit before they build. And other than the variances that they are being granted here they have to follow City codes and regulations. Nickle: They just have to comply with all of the ordinances. Osborne: And that would include the buildable area doesn't exceed 40% of the lot size? Garner: That is correct. Nickle: Sure. Alright. Would anyone else like to speak to this? Alright, seeing none I will bring it back to the Board. Motion: Chesser: Unless there is discussion I would move that we approve BOA 06-2374 with Staff s recommendations. Zant: I'll second that. Nickle: Motion and second. Any further discussion? Call the roll please. Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 06-2374 carries with a vote of 4-0-0. Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 7 of 29 BOA 06-2375 (PAGE, 400): Submitted by WANDA JETER (PAGE) for property located at 1385 N. RUPPLE ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-1, SINGLE FAMILY - 1 UNIT/ACRE and contains approximately 0.89 acres. The request is for a 10' setback on the west and south (a 25' west and 10' south variance.) Nickle: Alright, now we are on BOA 06-2375 for property located at 1385 N. Rupple Road. Jesse would you like to address that? Fulcher: Yes, sir. This is just under an acre property zoned RSF-1, Residential Single Family, located north of Wedington Rd at 1385 N. Rupple Rd. The home on this property was actually constructed in the 1860's based on information from the applicant and the Court House records. This house was actually, up until 2004, located in the Planning area. It was part of the island annexations that were brought into the city. There were 10 to 13 islands brought into the City in 2004. Of those islands they were either zoned R -A or RSF-1. In this case this property and one property north of property were zoned RSF-1. There are some pictures included in your packet. The applicants are proposing to remove the existing 1100 sq ft storage building on the north side of the property and then construct a 900sq ft storage building in the southwest corner of this property. They are requesting a l Oft setback, a l Oft rear setback and a 1 Oft side setback. In the RSF- 1 zoning district (inaudible) 35ft rear setback and a 1Oft, or a 20ft rear setback. Let me set that straight here, a 2011 requirement in the RSF-1, and then a 3511 setback off Rupple Rd right-of-way. In looking at this, if we look at the surrounding zoning districts to this house, is C-1 to the west is RSF-4. It is a residential subdivision that is under development. To the north is the one other RSF-1 lot that was annexed in with this property. And then, obviously, to the east is the Rupple Rd right-of-way. Given the surrounding zoning districts staff thought it was more appropriate not to recommend a variance that was different than the surrounding residential... the C-1 zoning district to the south has a 10 side setback which is similar, well exactly what he is requesting on the side. However, on the west property line they have a 20ft setback. He is requesting a I Oft setback. And we thought the variance might be more appropriate to remain that same level of compatibility with the setback of the surrounding zoning. So we have not recommended approval of the applicant's request, however, recommend that setbacks mirror what is set forth which is what it is next to. That would allow a 20ft setback in the rear for a 15ft variance, and an 811 setback on the south property line for a 12 ft variance. Also, when we reviewed this, some of the site plans of the applicants submitted, we realized that the existing home is located within the front setback. It is only 15ft from the right-of-way, and also the lot width is short of requirement for the RSF-1 zoning district. We have also requested a 27ft variance. There is only 12311 of lot width where 150 is required. So we have included those also to be considered by the Board of Adjustment. Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 8 of 29 And if you look at your table on page 2 we have outlined the four variances as staff has recommended and also included in the applicant's request. Now that I have stated that we are not recommending approval of the request. We have come up with our own recommendation and ask you to consider this. Nickle: Ok. So you are recommending a 20ft rear setback, which if this were zoned RSF- 4 that would be the appropriate setback. In RSF-4 a side setback is.... Chesser: 8ft. Zant: 8ft. So, Jesse, in a nut shell you have boiled this down to make it pretty much compatible with the RSF-4 zoning. Fulcher: Yes. Also compatible with C-1. C -1's setback is also 20ft, so... even though they are quite different C-1 and RSF-4, their setbacks are pretty much the same. Chesser: So you are giving it a little less in the rear and a little more that that on the side, and bringing the rest... the house into code at the same time. Fulcher: Yes. And the lot. Chesser: Right, and the lot. Page: That will work. What we are trying to do is keep from destroying any of our trees and stuff that we have. This will, this will work very well. Nickle: The applicant agrees with staff's recommendation. Page: Yes, sir. Nickle: Ok. Thank you. Would anyone from the audience like to speak to this? Seeing none we will bring it back to the board for consideration. Chesser: So I understand that you are going to have to destroy this beautiful building. (Laughing) Mr. Page: Yeah. It's been there about 50 years. That is about long enough. Besides it is sitting right on the property line. Mrs. Page: So it needs to be moved anyway. We will destroy that pretty thing. Motion: Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 9 of 29 Chesser: Well, this seems easy. I would recommend approval of BOA 06-2375 with staff's recommendations. Alt: I'll second it. Nickle We have a motion and a second. Ok. For clarification purposes it is a 20ft rear setback and an 8ft side setback and a 20ft front setback. Is that correct? Fulcher; It would, I guess, in effect allow the existing structure, which is 1511 off the right- of-way... It would allow it to have a 15ft setback and a 2011 variance. Nickle: Ok. It says otherwise on the page here, I think. Alt: Page 2 is staff's recommendations Nickle: Well this reads right there what's on the page, I think. Alt: Right. Nickle: That's what I would do. That is what I wanted to verify. (Unclear) Alt: You were right. Nickle: Ok. So we are going to have the 15ft front setback which is a 20ft variance. Chesser: So that just got transposed to... Nickle: Right. And the lot width variance is for 123ft, so we are ok on those. Chesser: Actually, since you brought this up, I would actually bring up one clarification also. Typically when you bring something into conformity it only applies to the existing structure. But I don't see a recommendation to that. Maybe I am missing that. Fulcher; Recommendation for the... Chesser: To not allow more.... for example... as I understand it if we grant these variances and they wanted to add onto the house laterally along it's front they would be allowed to at this point because they will have a global... Fulcher: You are saying that the setback would... Chesser: The setback is for the preexisting structure, not something in the future. Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 10 of 29 Page: Correct. Now that may be acceptable... I was just curious about it.. Nickle: I think that was Jesse's intention. Chesser: Was that your intention? Nickle: That front setback variance would be for the existing structure. Fulcher: That is correct. It is strictly for the existing structure. With future alterations it would have to meet setback requirements. Chesser: Is that covered in the... is that covered in this? Nickle: In this paragraph down here where it says "to bring the existing non -conforming structure into compliance". Chesser: Ok. So we're not accidentally creating a global setback... Fulcher We are simply the structure... Nickle: Conforming... Chesser: Ok. I just wanted to clarify that. I apologize. So in that case I will modify my motion to say ... with the correction, Mr. Chair, same motion with that minor correction to the first paragraph. Alt: I second that. Nickle: Anyone else? Call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 06-2375 carries with a vote of 4-0-0. Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 11 of 29 BOA 06-2376 (POORE, 294): Submitted by ALAN REID for property located north of Township Street and the Vandergriff School campus. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL. The request is for a reduced lot width of 130' (a 70' variance). Nickle: Ok, next we are going to BOA 06-2376 for property located north of Township and Vandergriff School. Suzanne. Morgan: The subject parcel is approximately .4 acres. It was created when Township St was constructed through a portion of a property owned by a school district. It pretty much rendered this .4 acres not usable to them so they sold it in 2003 to course. The .4 acres has approximately 130ft of lot width on a through public street. Because there is a lot to the lot to the north of this that doesn't have any frontage based on chapter 164.12 we consider this .4 acres and the property to the north combine tracts for purposes of building permits. So it needs to meet the zoning requirements for the R -A zoning district which is a width of approximately 7 acres. The applicant built a currently existing home on the north portion of the property. The applicant is currently in the process of submitting a conditional use application to adjust the property line between the .4 acre tract and the larger tract to create another buildable lot. And in order to actually build on the lot they will need this variance for lot width. Staff has reviewed the request and we do find that it meets those findings which we are required to make to recommend approval. This situation was not created by the applicants in that it was created by the extension of the road through the existing property. The applicant would like to... would like a variance in order to build another single family home. We don't find that that is in anyway incompatible with the area. This is actually lower density than the surrounding subdivisions. So we don't find that an additional house would be detrimental in anyway. We are recommending approval with two conditions. And they are that "due to the existing non -conforming lot area of the subject property and based on chapter 164.12 b the parcel shall be considered a part of the adjoining property to the north under common ownership until such time as the property line adjustment is approved and the lot is enlarged to meet the lot area requirements of the zoning district;" and condition two, "A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of any development of the property." Nickle: Thank you Suzanne. Any questions? You are in the process of going through the lot line adjustment which could result in another lot with this variance. Morgan: Correct. They will have to create a lot that is in compliance. Nickle: The applicant's representative? Would you identify yourself? Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 12 of 29 Reid: I'm Alan Reid and I am representing Mr. Friedrich for this variance and as Suzanne stated, yes, we just want to get this variance so we have the road frontage to number one to allow us to make the adjustment and number two create the second back. To get a house built on it. She is just a little bit short on the frontage, I believe. Nickle: Questions for the applicant? Anyone else in the audience want to speak to this? Seeing none we will bring it back to the Board. Motion: Zant: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we approve BOA 06-2376 which grants the variance (inaudible about the joining of the lots) according to the two conditions recommended by Staff. Chesser: Second. Nickle: Motion and Second. Further discussion? Call the roll. Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 06-2376 carries with a vote of 4-0-0. BOA 06-2377 (GRISSO, 484): Submitted by JUDY AND BILL GRISSO for property Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 13 of 29 located at 213 N. LOCUST. The property is zoned Downtown General and contains approximately 0. 18 acres. The request is for reduced setbacks from the requirements of Ch. 163.13 (C). Nickle: Alright, next is BOA 06-2377 for property located at 213 N. Locust. Suzanne you have that for us. Morgan: Yes. The property, as you have said, is located on Locust Ave south of Dickson St. The property is zoned Downtown General, and has been developed for one duplex which is closer to the street and one single family cottage which is located near the alley. On November 27`h of this year the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit and lot split to allow the subdivision of the property. The resulting tract on which the single family dwelling is located will be a tandem lot, and based on section 163.13 C of the Unified Development Code a tandem lot is required to have 20 -foot setbacks on all property lines and 25 feet adjacent to right-of-way. This lot doesn't have any frontage on a right-of-way, so the 2011 setbacks are required. As you can see on the site plan that is attached to the staff report the existing cottage is very near many of the property lines and doesn't comply with any of the required 20ft setbacks. The request is a 1 ft setback along the north property line, a 16ft setback to the south, a 5ft setback from the east property line, and an 18ft setback from the west property line. Which is also the ally way. The adjacent property is zoned Downtown General and I believe the property to the west is zoned Main Street Center. I apologize for the table on page 2 which is incorrect. In looking at the variance request staff finds that it will not adversely affect the public interest and finds that this situation is unique to the downtown area. This is an existing home, therefore the smaller setback we don't find will in anyway harm anyone or any adjacent property owner. Obviously the lot width is not an issue since it has been addressed with its conditional use for a tandem lot. Staff is recommending approval based on the findings of the staff report with two conditions. One that "Redevelopment of the subject property shall be permitted in accordance with the setbacks approved per this variance as listed in Table 1, thus allowing some modification in the building footprint should the applicant request to redevelop the property." So, as you notice on the site plan, the building is somewhat of an odd shape. So they could redevelop in a rectangular building footprint based on these setback requirements. And the second condition that "A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of any redevelopment of the properties or reconstruction of the existing structure." Nickle: Suzanne, does... if you look at tract A, the house on Locust, does that meet the setbacks for this? Morgan: Yes. Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 14 of 29 Nickle: Or do we need to do something about that at this time? Morgan: No. That building is compliant. The north, or the side setbacks are 0. That is the requirement. The rear setback is 511, so it meets that. The front setback is a bit unusual. It is a build -to line. It's a 0 to 2511. The building is actually just at the 2511 setback. They are in compliance. Nickle: Ok. So we could clean that up at this time. If it was necessary work could be done there. Morgan: Yes. But I don't believe that there is. Nickle: Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant present? Key: Hello. My name is James Key. I'm with Key Architects up here on the house of Judy and Bill Grisso. In discussion of this variance, I think y'all are probably aware we've gone before Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission seeking lot splitage and conditional use was required due to the nature of this lot being on a public street. The Grissos have been working with us on this project for a year, almost, trying to facilitate the dividing of this property. It was decided some time ago that it would be best to wait until the Downtown Master Plan was finalized rather than seeking numerous variances on trying to divide what was originally a C-3 zoned piece of property prior to this Downtown Master Plan zoning. This has been facilitated by the desire of the tenant who currently occupies the small cottage on (unclear). He has expressed an interest in buying this particular property. And the property owners, the Grissos, have offered the desire, really, not to be a landlord. I think. That's why we are here before you today. We were a little bit surprised when we came though. The discussion required the conditional use. We were hopeful that the public alleyway would suffice for the trash. The Downtown Master Plan and the downtown general zoning. You understand that it is hardly a public thoroughfare street... (inaudible) It has been a little surprising to be zoned requiring an 1811 minimum lot width required to side yard setbacks. So, that is why we are here before you today. We do take quite exception to the proposed variances and the statements stipulated in the table. Our request has initially been to consider the Downtown General setbacks which can be 0 side yard, the north and south. The potential buyer would like to look at doing some potential modifications and improvements to this cottage in the future. Contrary to the statement under condition 1 that this will allow some modifications and the footprint should they attempt to redevelop the property. The 16ft setback has been requested on the south. That would allow us to add a foot, maybe a foot and a half on the closer portion of the small trapezoid shaped portion of the cottage. I know it doesn't show very well, but you can see that this before -hand set... it is an odd shaped structure. It was built this way so that the windows and french doors that are on that living space don't face Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 15 of 29 down to the primary dwelling space, the house. It would allow us to add maybe a foot, a foot and a half on that narrow side, to square that off. When you are looking at the property, we would like to be able to expand the living space a little bit. We would also like to be able to add a kitchen. This currently is about a 520 sq ft cottage. It has a bedroom, a small bath, and a small galley kitchenette. It is very tight. We would like to contain that space as some living area and add on perhaps 4, 5, or 6 feet to the width of the living space along the south and the kitchen that actually sticks out a little bit more south at the southwest corner of property. This 1611 setback on the south puts a little bit of limitation on that. It would only allow us to add on, perhaps, 1 to 3 feet on that side. It would not facilitate much improvement to living space or to the kitchen. It would be our request, it would be something to be considered to look at something greater than a 4ft variance on that south setback. We could live with something greater than zero, but we would like to be able to add an addition on that side. It wouldn't be taking up the whole lot. It would be basically a small L-shaped addition to facilitate a kitchen and a small living space. Nickle: Under this new downtown ordinance the side setback is 20ft? Is that because it's a tandem lot? Why is that? Morgan: It's because it's... Nickle: It's because it's a tandem lot. Not because.... I was having a hard time figuring out why the house on Tract A was.... Morgan: Was compliant. Right. Nickle: Was in compliance. Key: The side setbacks in the Downtown General are zero. All setbacks on all four sides should be 20ft. That is certainly not going to be desirable with the ordinance review. You could look at that in conjunction with the new Downtown Master Plan zoning. I realize of course you weren't on the committee, but it is kind of senseless to promote higher density mixed use development on an 18ft lot width... which basically requires minimum of 40ft exceptions. It's going to be.... a lot of things like this are going to be coming before you in the near future because of that particular... Nickle: That's not good news. Zant With all do respect, I realize that you are trying to do your job. If you don't have, at this point and time, a site plan with the building all structured up and measured and so forth. Please forgive me, but I have to throw this out. I have to look at sometimes, requests that I might like to do. It is kind of a fishing expedition. I Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 16 of 29 am prepared to go ahead and support what the staff has already investigated. I don't feel good about giving a couple extra here and an extra couple there. Yeah, I could envision anything. I could envision anything. But I'd like it to be more specific, personally. That has been my history in terms of looking at these things. I didn't anticipate that you might be unhappy, as the applicant, with what staff has already recommended. Nickle: I think part of that is that fact that, as we pointed out, these requirements wouldn't be as burdensome were this not.... were they not having to go the tandem lot route. That's what gives it these higher requirements as to setbacks. When basically..... I wouldn't have any problem if we made that just a, say, 8ft side setback. Or south setback, if you will, as it would be if this were.... It was originally kind of a, you know..... This is a single family neighborhood. I can't see overburdening the applicant because by ordinance the only way they can do this is to call it a tandem lot. I think from that point of view, since you don't... You know, they are not allowing the alleyway to be considered a public frontage. That's what is requiring the issue of calling it a tandem lot and making those applications, if you see what I'm talking about there. Zant: I'm trying. I don't think I've ever dealt with a tandem lot. Nickle: A tandem lot is basically.... It's a lot that can be built on that doesn't have the typical required street frontage. I live on a tandem lot, so I'm.... I got that back in the 70's. That is basically what you are dealing with here because a..... By ordinance that alleyway cannot be considered a street, a public street frontage. The only other way this lot can be a separate legal lot is to call it a tandem lot under our requirements. A tandem lot setback requirements are markedly different from what this would be as a single family residence. That is what they are trying to accomplish here. I can see that. I personally don't have any problem with saying that an 8ft setback on the south side. I don't think that harms any of the adjacent property owners, because you can see the house on Tract A. It's not going to be any closer on that south line than the house on Tract A. Chesser: And were the cottage not there the house on Tract A could potentially be extended back into that same... If this were not the situation we were looking at. If it was one lot. If the cottage wasn't there the house on Tract A could probably be extended back to occupy the same space as the tandem lot house will occupy. Nickle: One of those deals where.... This thing was built long before we had zoning and setback ordinances and things like that in the city. That is why I thing that because he is forced to seek a tandem lot, I just don't think that tandem lot setbacks are appropriate it this instance. I think you look at it and say `ok, that's really kind of a single family lot regardless of the fact that it is a tandem lot', and thus a single family setback would be more appropriate in this case. I think. Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 17 of 29 Zant: Don't we have a fair amount of this in the downtown? Nickle: Not too much, but there is some. Chesser: I can give you an example of the more modern developments. We are going back to something called traditional neighborhood designs that are made for higher density. We'll have situations where, for example, houses don't have street frontage at all. They will face onto a courtyard, a common area, and are alley loaded only. So I mean, I'd say that especially in this kind of higher density area that making this house into a livable house where he can actually have kitchen rather than leaving it stuck because of this.... I actually wanted to ask staff what... Why is it that a tandem lot has 20ft side setbacks? Do we know that? Just archaic? Alt: Let me just.... Chesser: Something left over? Morgan: Well, I kind of tried to anticipate that question. The best explanation I think I can give is usually you see these as little lots surrounded by other compliant lots. So in order to make these, not necessarily compatible but not harmful, you want that building to be far away from the rear lot lines or side lot lines of other properties that are established. Try to get those buildings away from somebody's backyard or side yard. Chesser: In this case we don't' really have that situation. The other thing... Morgan: It is unique, yes. Chesser: That I would speak to Mr. Zant is: In the case where they did not have... Well, you said fishing expedition. Zant I have seen a lot of fishing in my.... Chesser: I don't... I understand that. But in this case I would say that we are probably talking about... We are talking about a pretty small property, and probably a pretty significant architect. To come with... I am not saying that you are too expensive or anything. My wife is an architect and I know what they charge.... pretty significant fees to even do a concept plan if this were to be denied. I would say that, while I understand what you are saying, that would kind of be putting the cart before the horse. Which is what I will answer your fishing expedition with. So I actually agree with the chair. I think I would support.... I would almost support moving the setbacks to what the other lot is. But if you are more Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 18 of 29 comfortable with 8ft I would support that. I am assuming that an 8ft south setback would give you enough to build your kitchen or whatever living space that the applicant would.... Key: It would. In regards to the architectural plans you are absolutely right. We spoke to Mr. Harris who is the gentleman who rents this property and has expressed an interest in purchasing it. We talked with him several months ago, and we decided that it was a little premature since it was still, at that point, the Master Plan zoning had not been adopted. There were still three hearings to go through. I thought it would be more prudent to wait and see if this was even practical. If it was, then, we'd look more specifically at what he wants to do. I know he is wanting to go more than what the 8ft setback would allow from what he's told me. I can talk to Mrs. Grisso and feel like we could support him and accept that 8ft setback if that is what the Board of Adjustments would recommend. We would like... You know, 4 or 5 would be much more preferable. We currently have an 8ft leg of property that comes out to the alley there and serves as the utility access for Tract A. We are already going to be at least 8ft from the adjacent developable lot that is to our south. In essence.... Chesser: Oh, I see... Key: It's like we have already given an 8ft setback because there is never going to be any development of the property that currently serves as a walkway and access for the parking area along the alley. If we were to say.... If it were to be considered a 4ft setback allowed, at that point we would still end up with, if fact, a 12ft setback. Again, I know we are talking about a lot at this point. To answer your question we would accept an 8ft setback if that is what the Board feels they could recommend and accept. I do apologize for not having had this conversation with staff. This is all happening very quickly. Staff has been great in preparing the report and addressing this. It was only after going to the technical plat hearing and lot split that we learned we would have to go through the tandem lot and conditional use. Staff was good enough to work with us and facilitate hearing these all consecutively. That is why we are here before you today. I know that report has just been prepared in the last 24 to 48 hours. We just got a chance to see it this morning. We did not have a chance to sit down and discuss this particular south setback. Chesser: What was the setback again on the normal lot? Where this all...? The other lot in the tandem. Nickle: Tract A. Chesser: Tract A. Thank you. Is it zero? Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 19 of 29 Morgan: It's zero. The zoning regulations are in your packet on pages 6 and 7. 7 has the setback regulations at the top. It would be the site internal. Just ignore the side facing street. That is not applicable in this. Key: Do I understand that we read the request that the lot be considered for the original Downtown General setback? Chesser: I don't think that is unreasonable. Especially considering the 8ft easement which is going to ensure more separation. So could essentially townhouses be on these lots? I mean, would that be possible if there is a Oft....? I mean, not townhouses but buildings built to the property line? Other than.... I mean, taking fire code regulations into account, I guess. Would you not... you would have to have a 3ft separation? Not even that. Key: Yeah. Chesser: ....So I kind of feel like they are penalized solely based on the fact that they happen to be on alley instead of a real street. I would rather see it.... Mr. Nickle, would you support even a 4ft setback? Nickle: Yeah. I wouldn't have a problem with that. I don't.... In my packet I don't have a.... You are saying 6 and 7? Morgan: Pages 6 and 7. Chesser: Here. It is this on the side... Morgan: I think you might be on the next item. Nickle: Ok. Fulcher Right behind the drawings. Morgan: It's just after the staff report. Nickle: Ok. Sorry. I looked at that the wrong way. Right. Ok. Internal side: none. I personally don't have a problem with that 4ft setback on the south side. As I say, this whole situation has been created because they are trying to do a tandem lot. Chesser: Right. I don't think they should be penalized. Nickle: I would agree with that. Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 20 of 29 Chesser: I think it is an appropriate use for this type of density for the downtown area. I'd support 411. Nickle: As far as I... Zant: For the tandem lot situation and all of what we are dealing with here, I think there is some sort of over-riding consideration that we should be looking at. Because of the circumstances here that would support granting a little more than what staff has recommended. Chesser: Yeah. I mean, I feel like if... Under any other circumstances I think that this lot.... A building.... If the cottage wasn't here and they just extended the existing house they could build to all of these setbacks that we are discussing right now. So there is an existing situation where the neighbors could have a building sitting in those locations perfectly legally. But in this case, simply because the.... probably, I guess it would be that no one thought to rewrite the tandem lot.... I mean, this is a really strange situation. It just seems like this would be a significant penalty merely for not having street frontage, which I think is over- rated anyway. I mean, I think that this would be fine. I would rather see it livable than not. Nickle: I haven't asked for public comment yet. Would anyone from the audience like to speak to this application? Seeing none I will bring it back to the Board. I will entertain a motion of any kind. Zant: What you need is a non -comparative word. But if it could be compared as one is `exquisitely unique'. Motion: Chesser: Ok. I'll see if I can craft a motion here. I would move that we approve BOA 06- 2377 with staffs recommendations with the following modification: That the south setback be given, rather than a 411 variance, a.... what would that be? Nickle: 16. Chesser: A 16ft variance. Thank you. So that there would be a new 4ft setback on the south portion of the lot. Does that cover everything? Nickle: I think it does. Is that pretty much it? Zant I believe so. Nickle: You are doing staff s recommendations with the exception of the south setback Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 21 of 29 which will make a 16ft setback variance given the full setback. Chesser: Correct. A 16ft variance resulting in 4ft new setback. Nickle: And along with staff s other... Chesser: Along with staff's other recommendations. So therefore with lft setback to the north, 5ft.... The other ones in the table as shown. Nickle: Right. Chesser: The only difference being the south. Nickle: And these. Chesser: And 1 and 2. Those recommendations as stated. Key: Just for the record the applicant is agreeable to the conditions and obviously a building permit would be obtained prior to any redevelopment of either of these properties. Nickle: Ok. That was a motion. And...? Was there a second? Alt: I'll second that. Nickle: Motion and a second. Further discussion? Call the roll please. Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 06-2377 carries with a vote of 4-0-0. Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 22 of 29 BOA 06-2378 (O'NEAL, 520): Submitted by JOSH O'NEAL for property located at 1940 MAINE STREET. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0. 16 acres. The request is for a 50' lot width (a 10' variance) and for lot area of 6,935 s.f. (a 65 s.f. variance.) Nickle: Alright, next is BOA 06-2378 for a property located at 1940 Maine Street. Jesse, do you have this one? Fulcher: Yes, sir. This is a property located at 1940 W. Maine Street. This is just northeast of Ramey Junior High School. It is just north of 6th St. The back portion of the property is located within the hillside/hilltop overlay district. This is similar to many types of neighborhoods that we see that we have variance requests for. This is within the West End addition. This neighborhood is made up of 5011 wide lots. These were all platted prior to our current zoning regulations, which is why they are all 5011 wide lots and not 60 or 70 which is what would be required today. The homes were also constructed prior to our current zoning regulations, however, the applicant is proposing to remove that. As you can see from the pictures, this is somewhat of a dilapidated structure. And they are planning to build a single or two family structure depending on the outcome of the variance request. Since the lot is only 5011 wide the applicants have requested a l Oft variance. That would allow for a single or two family home. However, 7,OOOsq ft is required for a two-family home. The lot, currently with only 50ft lot width only has 6,935 sq ft. The applicants are requesting a 65sq ft area variance to allow for a two family dwelling on this property. Given the makeup of the neighborhood this is all zoned RMF -24. It is actually a hodge- podge of different types of developments. Up to the west and the south are predominately multifamily developments. Along this street there are some two family dwellings. One is right next door, another on this street. And also, there are single family homes kind of mixed in throughout this area. So it is compatible for either a single family or a two family. Given the size of the lot it will not permit any more development than a two family unit. Given the surrounding land use and the minimal variance required which is ultimately based on how the lot was platted prior to our currant zoning regulations, Staff is recommending approval of both variance requests with four conditions of approval. If you have any questions, please ask. Nickle: Any questions for Staff on this one? Is the applicant present? O'Neal: Yes. My name is Josh O'Neal. I am the representative for 1940 Maine Street property. If you guys have any questions, let me know. Nickle: Questions for the applicant? Anyone else from the public like to speak to this? Yes, sir. Would you identify yourself? Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 23 of 29 Albertson: My name is Robert Albertson. I am an adjoining property owner on two sides. Nickle: Ok. Any comments that you would...? Albertson: I got a page full. Is this the time? Nickle: This is the time. Albertson: Ok. Do I address them? Nickle: Don't talk to these folks. Albertson: I'm sorry. I just came from my job. I have the house to the north of this fella's property. I own 15 lots, both to the east and the north of this property. My driveway goes right past on the east side. I have had that property for about 30 years. I built a garage shelter and a house up there 30 years ago and 25 years ago and I am renovating it right now as we speak. I have lived there for a long time, that is what I am trying to say. I have seen a lot of changes come through that area. There was a beautiful green valley down below me and now I've got I-540. I had the first... Wal-Mart has come right down my driveway. I've seen the changes and I've hoped for better. I have seen the kind of houses that are in that area and I chose not to live with them. I have a 400, 50011 driveway to my house that gets me past Maine Street and past what I have always referred to, at least since Jack Daniels - the previous owner died - as a toilet down by my mailbox. The property is worth more if the house isn't there. I was offered the opportunity to buy the property and the house for $75,000 which is a whole lot more than the $45,000 that Jack sold it to him for. So I turned that down. And they didn't include what it would cost to move the trash off the property. So I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't want it. I don't want that part of the town to reverse itself and start going back to small sizes. There are a lot of small little houses out there waiting for the occupants to die. They are too old to afford new housing. They are stuck in housing that is aging as they are. And it is going to take a while. And in the while that I have been there I have seen improvements. Jim Lindsey bought out a horse pasture to the west and built what he builds best. Another fellow that I know built Campus Properties, a lower standard in my opinion, apartment complexes over there where the Steve Commens trash Duplexes I know from personal experience used to be. Right next to Lewis Plaza, that first great society housing project. It's getting better. I am just saying that this is no time to tum around and turn your back on the decisions and the wisdom of other people who made this decision and allow these small lot sizes to be maintained or continued. Especially, and I guess my main point is, it's not necessary. This variance is totally not necessary. I own the land next to the property. I would be happy to sell some to him. No one has asked me to. So I Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 24 of 29 would like you to consider that. You don't need to do this. I just need to be made an offer that I can live with. And maybe I will get a contingency and get a lot split and just give him the l Oft that he needs. It doesn't matter to me, but I think it should matter to y'all. This is a route that has not been taken. I have not had the phone call. I have had no inquiry that I know of. So, my land has been for sale for 12 months. I am talking to people who are interested in buying 11 lots from me, and they are interested in his property as well for putting up those things that bid developers put up. To house people in them for their dollar per square footage. But they are going to do it by the book. He is requesting not to. This other option.... this option is for him to get out. I hope he has a contingency with his contract. It is not necessary and it is not wanted by me as a property owner. Thank you for your time. Nickle: Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? Seeing none we will bring it back to the Board for consideration. Alt: Have you had any other comments from any other property owners regarding this? Fulcher: No phone calls or letters. Alt: Ok. Chesser: Well, it sounds like there is only one property owner. Alt: About how many did you.... Fulcher: If he owns the... there is one house next door and, you may not be able to answer this.... I've seen on the parcel ownership maps, he does own all the property to the north and I believe some right next door to where his driveway goes through. Ok. Fulcher: There may be... you may have to help me out with this.... Who owns the property to the west? O'Neal The property just to the west side there is a different property owner. And then, just across the street the property owner owns this property as well. Nickle: Well I can appreciate Mr. Albertson's concern. I just... We typically granted variances on side setbacks on these 50ft lots as a general rule. The lots were created before we had the ordinances that specify that... Chesser: Mr. Chair, I would say that I have a kind of unusual question here and I don't know where this is going to put us. I have had experience.... I did not realize Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 25 of 29 what lot this was. I have had previous experience previously with this lot. Not now. In a different business. I also know Mr. Albertson from that same time period. It may be necessary for me to recuse myself at this point. However, I realize that that would leave us without a quorum. Zant: That is exactly what it would do. Chesser: So I am not quite sure...? If the City Attorney.... the representative of the City.... Nickle: I guess he could abstain.... Chesser: ....could give me some advice. Whitaker: You don't have a financial interest in the.... Chesser I don't have a financial interest, that is certainly true. Whitaker: And it becomes for you a question you have to answer for yourself. Chesser: Sure. Alt: I'll tell you what that question is. Do you believe that your past experience with this property would unduly influence your decision one way or the other apart from the facts stated by staff? Chesser: I can't imagine that it would, and I will say.... I don't know if this qualifies me a whole lot, but I have an undergraduate degree with a thesis in ethics. I think I can hold myself to objectivity here. But I would like to... I want to make everyone aware of the situation. Alt: Disclosure is always good. But if you feel that you can still make an unbiased decision and base it only on what was presented to you by staff and by the applicant and the public here tonight then there is nothing in the law that says you must recuse. Chesser: I do believe that I can remain objective. I just wanted to clear that up. Nickle: Thank you, sir. I personally had looked at the project as something that would improve the neighborhood and felt like most neighbors would prefer having a new structure there rather than what is there right now. Chesser: I am a little curious about Mr. Albertson's claim that the 1Oft could be allowed. Now, could you elaborate on that? What you meant by that? Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 26 of 29 Albertson: Well, I think I've seen in my limited experiences of looking at lots in that area, on the southeast corner of Maine there is a lot that belongs to some friends of mine. It has been made... they put two of these 50ft lots together to make 100 by 150. And then they divided within that and made two lots again, but they made two broader lots. Apparently you can divide lots. So if this young man or anyone with him wants to buy part of the lot that I own next to them to bring them into conformance and allow them to build the size of the building that they want to build... Chesser: Yeah, but... I guess what I meant was.... You specifically said give earlier. Albertson; I cannot.... I meant in the sense that I would sell... Chesser: Oh. I see. I apologize. Ok. I have to say also that in general I tend to be in support of this type of development. Normally this would be.... I think I have to say that I would be with the Chair's opinion on this. Given that area I would guess that this would've been supported. Zant: I think this would be a positive development. He need's a l Oft variance and a I% allowance of the lot size requirement, which is so minuscule as to not worry about it. Are we back at the Board? Nickle: Yes, we are. Motion: Zant: I will move that we approve BOA 06-2378 with the l Oft lot variance and the 65sq ft area variance with the four conditions of approval as submitted by Staff. Alt: I'll second that. Nickle: A motion and a second. Further discussion? Jesse, would you call the roll please. Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 06-2378 carries with a vote of 3-0-1. Chesser abstained from voting. Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 27 of 29 Nickle: Any other announcements other than.... Garner: There is.... for 2007, this room, we are having a scheduling conflict. The Parks Board is planning on meeting in here at 5:30, the same time that we are. So they are coming in here in 20 minutes. We were trying to think about potentially another time or another room to meet in. So we could potentially.... be thinking about that. We will get in touch with you guys in the next couple of weeks to see what works for you guys. We could potentially move to room 219 where the Planning Commission and the Council Chambers. Or if we could meet a couple of minutes early, the Parks Board could maybe meet a little bit later. We could work it out. I just wanted to get discussion started with the Board and... Alt: Is there something.... also something if I may. It comes obviously.... for some months now... we've had some difficulty getting a Quorum. We sat here several months watching the clock hoping someone else would show up.... Chesser: Sorry. Alt: These things... It's not just you. No, no, no. I'm not singling anyone out, it is just that we all lead busy lives. I was just curious, you know. Over time sometimes the date which is good for everybody changes. You might want to consider bouncing around with each other what, if perhaps the first Monday at 3:45 is not the best time for all of you anymore. Just throwing that out there. Chesser: Typically that time is fine for me. Today, unusually, I got caught. Other times would be... Zant: Active careers often collide with Mondays as it is the kick off day of the week. Chesser: Well, that is true. That is true. Zant: So I am open to whatever would be workable. I was used to Tuesdays in Illinois, Thursdays in Arizona. Take your pick. I don't care. It doesn't matter much to me. Nickle: Do you have any preference? Alt: Not really. I mean, you know, the way our schedule fluctuates in real estate it doesn't really matter. We are all busy, but.... Zant: How about our harried staff? What do they feel about it? Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 28 of 29 Alt: Yeah. I mean, that's true. Fulcher: I think part of it is.... the choice is if we start earlier in the day. Typically it is better if we try to start later in the day for everyone. You can try to get everything done and not interrupt the middle of your afternoon. So I think that later in the day is probably best for everyone. The problem we are having, though, is that we are running to... We are over -running our time and Parks and Rec Advisory Board are having to figure out what to do with themselves. That is why we are discussing it. Maybe there is a better day or a different Monday of every month... Zant: You've got Council on what? Tuesdays? And you have Planning and Zoning on what? Fulcher: Planning Commission is every other Monday. Zant: Every other Monday, yeah. Chesser: Which occasionally has crossed with us. Zant: Well... Alt: Well, what if we were to start.... I mean, normally we don't go over that much. If we were to start at 3 or 3:15.... Nickle: Well, if it is just a matter of switching rooms... I don't think anybody has a problem with that. Chesser: Switching rooms. Yeah. Nickle: Yeah. Let's do that. Fulcher: I'll check the calendar and see if 219.... I think 219 is available at this time. Chesser: Parks Board will probably... Nickle: Switching rooms is not a problem for us. Chesser: Parks Board probably typically needs more room for public and things like that than we consistently do. I think that would be a great way to start. Maybe we could then consider scheduling changes if that is not enough. Fulcher: We'll look into it. Board of Adjustments December 4, 2006 Page 29 of 29 Garner: We'll change out the rooms. Nickle: Just email us and let us know. I think we're.... I don't know that there is a specific bad day. Second Tuesdays don't work for me. Fulcher: No second Tuesdays. Nickle: I have another meeting second Tuesdays. One that actually pays me... unlike... Other than that I am open. Thank you. I guess we are adjourned. Merry Christmas to everyone Meeting Adjourned