HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-03-05 MinutesBoard ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page I of 45
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, March 5, 2007 at
3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN
BOA 06-2411: (OWENS, 447) Denied
Page 3
BOA 07-2492: (ROOT SCHOOL GYM, 408) Approved
Page 18
BOA 07-2509: (TIM HURD, 329) Approved
Page 23
BOA 07-2510: (CANDLEWOOD HOTEL, 559) Approved
Page 31
BOA 07-2511: (CELL TOWER @ FIRE STATION #5,255) Approved
Page 34
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 2 of 45
MEMBERS PRESENT
Sherrie Alt
Robert Kohler
Bob Nickle
James Zant
Eric Johnson
STAFF PRESENT
Andrew Garner
Jesse Fulcher
CITY ATTORNEY
David Whitaker
MEMBERS ABSENT
William Chesser
Karen McSpadden
STAFF ABSENT
Nickle: Welcome to the March 5, 2007 Board of Adjustment meeting. The first item on
our agenda is approval of the minutes of our meeting on November 6. Did y'all
have a chance to review those? Any corrections, additions, deletions?
Motion:
Zant: I read them. I'll move that we approve them as entered.
Alt: I second that.
Nickle: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Will you call the roll?
Roll Call: The minutes are approved by a vote of 5-0-0.
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 3 of 45
BOA 06-2411 (OWENS, 447): Submitted by SCOTT & CARLA OWENS for property located
at 718 N. CREST DRIVE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE
and contains approximately 0.47 acres. The request is for a 7' rear setback (an 8' variance) in
order to construct a new 600 square foot detached studio/workshop.
Nickle: Alright, our first item is BOA 06-2411 for property located at 718 N. Crest Dr.
Andrew, I believe you have that for us?
Garner: Yes, sir. This is an item of Old Business. It was on our Board of Adjustment
meeting in January. The applicant wasn't present at that meeting and then it was
tabled in our February meeting mainly to allow some of the Board members
adequate time to review the site. I guess we had just gotten a pretty good snow
and people didn't want to drive up there before the meeting. Obviously. I think
that was the main reason that it was tabled at that meeting. This property is
located at 718 N Crest Dr. It is located within the RSF-4 zoning district. It is on
Mt Sequoyah and within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay district. There is an
existing 2,488 square foot house which was constructed in 1996 compliant with
all building setbacks and zoning requirements. As shown in Table I of your staff
report the request is for a 711 rear building setback for a new 600 square foot
detached workshop and studio. A total of approximately 240 sq ft of the new
structure would encroach, 8ft within the rear building setback. As you will note
there on Table I in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay district the ordinance requirement
for rear setback is reduced to 15ft as opposed to the normal 2011 that we have
other places in the city. Our main finding is in finding number one, that special
conditions do not exist for this property related to the rear setback. In this
particular case there are some topography issues in this area and on this particular
site, however the lot is of sufficient width and area to allow the construction of a
single-family dwelling which has occurred. That the owner wants to construct a
detached 600 sq ft workshop is not a special condition of the property. Should
other new development be proposed in the same district or on the same street they
would be required to conform to a 15ft rear setback as does the subject property.
We find that it would be a special privilege for this property to be granted a
variance, as they are already obtaining the use by right for a house. Also they
have a garage on the property as well for their vehicles. We are recommending
denial of this variance and would be happy to answer any questions that you
might have.
Nickle: Thank you, Andrew. Any questions from the Board for staff?
Zant: I guess I've got a quick one. Would you define this 600ft structure as an
accessory structure?
Garner: I think it would probably be an accessory structure because it is less than 50% the
size of the house. Yes. I think part of it that we did struggle with as far as
recommending it is that it is a large structure. It is not just a small garage or shed
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 4 of 45
or something like that. It is a large studio or workshop. I think that weighed into
our leaning towards denial of it as it wasn't just something small to park a vehicle
in. They already have a garage and a fairly large house.
Kohler: So that is the distinction that I am trying to make is that we have discussed this
accessory structure setback issue many times. We have got a proposal in, or at
least a request, into the Ordinance Committee to accept a much lesser of setbacks
for accessory structures. Because often times they end up in the middle of the
backyard as this one is tending to do. So you would define this as an accessory
structure even though it is larger than most accessory structures that we have
looked at?
Garner: Well, I believe that that ordinance that you are referring to, I think it specifies...
don't remember. I don't know if you are familiar with this either, but I don't
believe that this would qualify under that ordinance that you are talking about.
Based on our current code that is on our books right now, yes it is an accessory
structure. But the ordinance you are talking about modifying the rear setback, I
think it limited it to very small accessory structures.
Kohler: Well, I wrote the letter to it and I don't remember qualifying the size of an
accessory structure.
Garner: Ok.
Kohler: I just called it an accessory structure, so that is why I am trying to..... It seems to
me that this would be. Is there going to be a bathroom and plumbing?
Owens: No. Can I show you what I have got?
Kohler: Sure, sure, sure.
Nickle: If you would introduce yourself?
Owens: I am Scott Owens. This is my wife Carla. How can I put this up?
Nickel: You can set this right here.
Owens: I hope y'all can see that there. What this is... Can you see this?
Nickle: Yeah.
Owens: Is that a clip up there on that? Up top? Would that be better? Can you see it,
Bob?
Kohler: Yeah, I can see it from here.
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 5 of 45
Owens: What this is, this picture over here on the bottom right is the area that we are
talking about. It is over in the back, on this side here.
Kohler: Yeah.
Owens: What this is, this right here is the property line. There is about a 6ft drop from the
top down to the bottom. And I understand about the 15ft variance. I understand
policies and all of that. But on this particular area, really the best thing to do for
the lay of that land right there is to do what the old timers did and just cut that
whole thing out and do a retaining wall. You can see that there is all kind of
erosion going on there. And right here you will see that there is no way that any
type of utility vehicles, fire trucks, stuff like that. This is my next door neighbor
and this right here is a 5ft drop off. All this is, is a hillside. You said something
about the middle of the backyard. That is a very good point. That is what I am
kind of bringing up. If I had room... Special circumstances is that this is a little
under a half an acre and the only area in this whole place that is flat for me to part
a vehicle is right here. This picture on this side right here. If you see that 27ft
sign at the edge of the concrete that is where I am going to bring the shop out to.
That is with a 711 variance. If I use the 15ft and do not get a variance you can see
that 35ft mark. I don't even have a place to back up out of garage. You can see
how steep and curvy this is. This is not fun coming down here backwards. I want
to be able to have enough room to back down my garage and drive down the
driveway head on. I understand. All this is cut inside a hill right there. That is
all the use for it. On this right here, where my backyard is at. These two pictures
here are my backyard. If you come off that 15ft in my backyard you are literally
about 6ft from the back of my house to the shop. It takes the whole backyard up.
I don't know what your definition of accessory... This is the first time I have
heard of this. But this is not going to be a shed. I have an architect design that is
going to design this. He is going to build it just like the house. Elliot Neal is my
architect. It is going to be the exact same as the house. This place right here, I
mean, I am going to be retiring in ten years. I do woodwork and my wife is an
artist. I want a shop and not a shed. You can see the highlight right there. That
is the dimensions of where that is going to be. It comes right out to the edge of
the concrete and if I had to come out another 8ft I don't have enough to back out
of my driveway or out of my garage.
Zant: Mr. Owens, would you share one thing with us?
Owens: Yes.
Zant: And that is, how does this come to be? And I guess I am going to ask you to
share the design of your project there. How did it come to be 30 by 20? It could
have been possibly smaller. Did you trim it down as far as you could?
Owens: Yes.
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 6 of 45
Zant: Try and share with us the methodology of how we got to 30 by 20. It is not the 30
that is hurting, it is that 2011 depth front to back.
Owens Actually, I wish I could have it wider than that. If I want to work on a boat or a
car or something like that it is barely enough room. 20ft is pretty narrow. I am
going to have plenty of width. I just bought this house in October and that was
one of the deciding factors. I didn't know about this 1511 variance. I didn't know
anything about that when I bought the house. So actually when I found out about
the 1511 variance....
Zant: Setback.
Owens: Setback. The surveyor whenever I had the place surveyed, he was the one that
told me about checking in, that there was a variance. I wasn't even aware of that.
I thought about an easement. If there was something where utility vehicles had
to get back there or something. You can see the way this is. Nobody is going to
get back there because this is my next door neighbor right here. I did it by what
area I had right there.
Zant Well, I am not sure that I understand how we got the size of the structure.
Owens: The lay of this land right here.
Zant: The 30 I understand, but the depth. If there wasn't a way around having to go and
encroach into the setback area. That is what I am asking.
Owens: From building materials, from a cost stand point on how you design and build
building you don't want an odd number. You want to do it on your raw materials.
So you would be 18, 20, 22 or something like that. I would like to a 22 or
actually like a 24ft, but I cut it back because of the lay of the land right there. The
size.
Zant: You can't quite see from here...
Owens: It's that bottom right hand.
Zant What is in the drawing? I can't quite see from here with these old eyes exactly.
What's in there that made it be the size that it is? Any maybe Bob can help me
with that because you are used to looking at these things more than I.
Owens: Right here, Jim. This right here is the line. Which is this going forward right
across here.
Zant I was there.
Owens: Ok. And right here 20ft is about a 7ft variance to there. So if I had 22ft or 24ft I
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 7 of 45
am coming out into my parking area, my turn around area. So I can come right to
the edge of this concrete and have ample room to back out of my garage and go
down this steep, curvy thing forward. See right here? You can see this. This is
the edge of my garage.
Zant: I know that.
Owens: Ok.
Zant: I just don't know how we arrived at the depth that we have here.
Owens: By the lay of the land and what I had to work with.
Zant Ok. Well, in so many words, is it that you are trying to get as much as makes
sense to you?
Owens: Yes.
Zant: Ok.
Owens: Yes.
Zant: I don't know if that will make sense to all of us, but... That is all I had.
Kohler: If you turned it 90 degrees and stayed within the setback line? Would you
consider doing that?
Owens: Do what, Bob?
Kohler: Turning it 90 degrees which would enable you to keep the same square footage
probably and stay within the setback line?
Owens: I don't know if I follow what you are saying.
Kohler: If you took the same footprint 20 by 30 and cocked it 90 degrees and almost
attached it to the back of the house. Almost. You would stay within your 15ft.
You might eat up a little bit of driveway and you might eat up a little bit of back
yard.
Owens: The problem was the driveway. That is this section right here. If we were to
come off the side of the house then we would eliminate that. There is just enough
room for two cars right here. If we were to eliminate this spot....
Kohler: So you park back on this?
Owens: Yeah, we have a very... This is where... Right here.
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 8 of 45
Kohler: Yeah, I drove up there today. I didn't go up your driveway. I probably should
have.
Owens: It makes a read difference once you get up on top. This is the only level spot.
From there on it just goes down this thing. See? It is right up here. We have got
this one area down below.
Kohler: So then it drops way down.
Owens: So then it drops way down, yeah. And this isn't that wide here once you are
going down. So we utilize this to be able to turn and back up and go around.
Owens: If guests are over or anything it is one parked right behind the other, so anytime
someone has got to move again I got to say "This car has to back out to let this
car out." Whereas, if I keep my flat spot up here there is room for cars to park,
there is room to turn around, and everything.
Kohler: Ok. Well, I am going to go back to my accessory structure deal. So really what
we are saying by the letter of the law is that an accessory structure in this case
could be as much as 1200 square feet? And there is no definition about air
conditioned space, non air conditioned space? It is strictly footprint?
Garner: Right.
Kohler: Whatever structure it wants to be. It could be an open shed. It could be a garage.
It can be an apartment? If it is zoned that way?
Garner: No, accessory is a use that is accessory to the residential structure. So you
wouldn't determine an apartment to be....
Kohler: So it could be air conditioned space?
Whitaker: But that is like a residential unit if you try to make it...
Kohler: Right, but that is what I said. But if it was zoned that way it could be?
Garner: It would be a different thing.
Kohler: Ok. But it could be air conditioned and still be considered accessory. It could
have a bathroom and plumbing in it, and air conditioned, and still be considered a
1200 sq ft accessory structure?
Garner: That is correct.
Kohler: So it has to do with the use.
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 9 of 45
Garner: The code just defines it as a use or a structure on the same lot with and of a nature
customarily incidental and subordinate to the principle use and structure.
Kohler: Ok. So that would qualify in this case as an accessory structure definitely? And
it is only 600 sq ft compared to what? It could be double that size. And if it were
within all the setbacks would this footprint, it would definitely take up part of the
driveway, part of the backyard which is what we have been talking about as
something that is less desirable certainly. So that is why we are talking about
relaxing the setback requirements for an accessory structure. We have in other
cases. Not that those are precedent, but this would fall under the changes that we
discussed making. Or proposed to an ordinance committee. Ok.
Nickle: Is there anyone else?
Johnson: I have a question for the owner. On one of those pictures you have shown and
even marked out with flags where the accessory structure was going to be located.
It looks like it was being built into a bank. So are you going to excavate back
beyond that and then have a retaining wall?
Owens: We are going to have a retaining wall on that back wall back there. Kind of like
my neighbor did.
Johnson: Can you give me an approximate elevation change between the height? Say the
apex on your roof on whatever accessory structure you build and then the height
of the retaining wall. I am just curious how something it would be.
Owens: It's not that far down when you go to the 7ft mark. There is not that much that
would have to... I don't know the footage. But our neighbor builds up to
probably about 611. She has a rock building back in there. You know, where ours
is wouldn't be that much. It would probably be about 3ft.
Johnson: Yeah, that's what I was thinking, something like.
Owens: The problem is at the first (unclear) there is about a 6ft drop from the back
property line out to the 711. It's about a 6ft drop and it falls big time in the first 2
or 3 feet. That is what I was thinking about. A 311 retaining wall. Something like
that.
Johnson: What kind of height are you talking about on your accessory structure?
Owens: It is an 811 ceiling.
Johnson: 8ft ceilings. Ok.
Nickle: Other questions from the Board for the applicant? Is there anyone else that would
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 10 of 45
like to speak to this application? Seeing none we will bring it back to the board
for consideration. Andrew, did we receive any comments or contact from any of
the neighbors?
Garner: No, sir.
Nickle: Ok.
Zant: There is an aspect that I wanted to kick out. Often I come to a meeting and I
pretty much know what I want to do with something. This one I am a little bit
conflicted over. Would I be correct, staff, would I be correct to assume as we
look at the various zoning districts that we are dealing with in the community that
the larger lot ones typically seem to have, not only here but everywhere, larger
setback areas? We are in an RSF-4 here and we have a 15ft rear setback here.
You have taken the theory of zoning, certainly in your training, but are we not
looking at this theory impacting setback areas? And the entire theory behind it is
buffering. Is that not true?
Garner: Yes. I think the general reason for a rear setback is to potentially provide a space
in between an objectionable use on one backyard into the next.
Zant: Well, the idea is here. And of course we are talking about a reduced setback here
and granting a variance to these people. But they seem to have, and as you look
at this lot and I went up on it Friday and looked about, and of course on the rear
property line as it typical here in Fayetteville we find an older construction. On
this particular one we have a tree line there. We have a steep terrace and a tree
line, and we have a tree line to the north as I recall as well. I think there is a fair
amount of natural buffering there that may help to serve the purpose. But I am
only kicking that out for discussion. It is something that I am looking at and
thinking about, but I am still somewhat torn between trying to uphold an
ordinance that is a worthy thing to uphold and yet looking at this particular
individual circumstances. What they pay us the big dollars to do here.
(Laughing) So, Bob, do you have any thoughts on that?
Kohler: Well, I just want to ask the applicant, have you considered turning this thing 90
degrees? I mean, I've got it drawn right here if you want to look at this. But I
assume you looked at all the options and this was your last resort?
Owens: Yes. Mainly because of the parking level location of coming out of our drive and
being able to back up.
Owens: Well, Bob, the big thing is...
Kohler: I've got it laid out to where that is not a problem.
Owens: Well, I put it on a CAD design and just from appearance... If there is any chance
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 11 of 45
of losing property value and making this thing look not professional, I can't take a
chance on doing that. I want it to look professional. I want it to look equal to the
home. On that CAD design, on what you are talking about on the corner, it would
be on the northeast corner.
Kohler: No, it is inline with the house.
Owens: Yeah. You are thinking right here.
Kohler: Here.
Owens: This is what I am talking about right here. This is the shop right here.
Kohler: Just look at this real quick. Have you considered doing that?
Owens: Wait a minute, let me get this.
Kohler: What this is, this is the fence I am assuming? Right, so you are behind your
footprint and you still have your footprint.
Owens: Yeah, that is taking off.. (General talking with the applicant's disagreeing with
the idea.) This part right here? There is the edge of the garage....
Kohler: You are inline with the north side of your house.
Owens: Yeah, it is taking off this whole section right here.
Kohler: So you are losing a little bit of backyard but you are within your setback. You
still have your footprint. I am just curious if you have considered that?
Owens:
Well, mainly it was just being able this. To be able to have some space to park
our vehicles and to turn. Which we don't have any of all throughout this thing.
Kohler: Well, it still doesn't effect your turning or your ability to back out. See what I
mean? It is right next to your garage.
Owens: Ok. Here is the garage.
Kohler: It changes getting over into the backyard.
Owens: Let me see here. This is the front. Oh, you are into the backyard.
Kohler: You could literally walk from the garage, couldn't you?
Owens: Yeah, you can walk right out the back. Ok, walk from the side. It would be
attached just like about 3ft from the garage and walking out that way. Well, it
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 12 of 45
would take that whole area from the side.
Owens: It just looks tome that cutting that hillside is just the perfect place for it. It can't
be used for nothing. It is just a 6ft drop-off there.
Kohler: Yeah, the problem is though that it is going against the development code. That
is the problem.
Nickle: What is the pleasure of the Board? Any more questions or discussions?
Zant: Well, we need to kick this back and forth. All of us are going to have some
thoughts. There seems to me, although I think that one of my questions was... I
wish there had been an architectural drawing in our packet that I might have
looked at and been able to kick around a little bit better. It is kind of a sketch at
this point. But I am struggling with this because I see some partial hardship. But
I didn't see any concise drawing of why it had to be. And I don't think that I have
fully gotten my question answered. Why it has to be exactly what it is in terms of
size? It is not overwhelming in size as Mr. Kohler pointed out well. But none
the less, if there were a way around this to where an encroachment were minimize
or eliminated it would sure be a lot easier to handle, wouldn't it?
Kohler: Yes, it would.
Owens: Can I ask what would be the correct size? For what we are wanting to do, I know
that going back 15ft would...
Zant: 12ft is the distance.
Owens: Well, if we are not going to do the roof overhang...
Zant: That is what your architect should have hammered out for you prior to this,
probably.
Owens: Well mainly we wanted it big enough to be able to work in it and have some area
up there. You know, since it has been built nobody has used that spot. It is just
dirt. And all the neighbors around us, it is not interfering with any neighbor. In
fact, they have got buildings all around us there even though I know that is not
really your determination. But there is nobody going to be affected by this.
Zant: What is the amount of the fee that we charge the client for this type of an
application? Andrew do you have a handle on that?
Garner: It's $25.
Zant: This is a bargain city! If there were... If the Board couldn't see their way to
approve this, perhaps it would allow the client at nominal cost to reapply with a
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 13 of 45
design that might be more palatable. Something that more concrete that a
professional has helped him to work out.
Nickle: I think they can reapply with a different proposal at any time. Is that correct,
Andrew?
Garner: Yes.
Kohler: We are really asked to look at setbacks. It is not so much building design though.
Zant: Well, I don't care about the design. I am just looking at what someone could
work out for him that would accommodate his needs that wouldn't need an
encroachment into the setback? That is where I am coming from.
Johnson: I think what James is saying is that they might be able to reduce the size of the
building to fit within the setbacks.
Zant: Or at least the great part. If we were looking at a couple of feet, maybe we
would feel better about it.
Johnson: I keep going back to what Bob started off on. I agree with our letter that we
forwarded on to the Zoning Committee that accessory structures need some sort
of leeway because you don't want to set them right in the middle of your
backyard. White this is a pretty large accessory structure in what I would have
termed and accessory structure it still, if it has that use, would fall within what I
signed up on on that Committee. I don't have as much of a problem with their
encroachment into that setback. It just doesn't sound like it would impede much
visually from any of the neighbors. It doesn't look like you are going to affect
anything other than their lot. So if we are going to term it an accessory structure I
don't think I would have a problem with it. My only question would be is what
size do we want to turn of the accessory structure designation at? If we had a
1200 sq ft accessory structure.
Zant: Well, this is nowhere near this. Sherrie, what do you think about this?
Alt: Well, I feel like we have to honor the staffs' recommendation. I don't see any...
am sorry but I don't. I don't see any leeway here. Unfortunately the ordinance
has not been passed that changes the way we look at this today. To put all that
into facts I feel that possibly at a later date if that ordinance does change then
possibly you guys can come back. Or maybe you don't even have to come back
at that point, and build what you need to build. Those are my thoughts.
Zant: Yeah, unfortunately, legally. And you correct me if I am wrong. But legally we
can't do business in futures here.
Whitaker: Exactly.
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 14 of 45
Zant: That's right.
Whitaker: And to clear something up just so you don't feel like it is hanging out there. And
I don't know that it has ever been clearly stated to you. But that recommendation
about accessory structures and change setbacks went to the Ordinance Review
Committee and they chose to take no action. So unless a proposal comes out of
Planning staff nothing will be going before the Council to change this. But if you
still feel strongly about it you will have to light a fire somewhere.
Kohler: Right, I was told that I need to get a Council member to sort of sponsor it or to
sort of attach themselves to it and it would be a lot more visible that way. So I am
going to attempt to do that.
Zant: That is our legislative arm. There you go. Well, Mr. Nickle, you are a wonderful
Chairman but I haven't heard a word.
Nickle: Well, I am waiting for a motion.
Zant: You haven't shared your thoughts with us or this that part of the beauty of being
Chair? You don't have to say anything.
Nickle: Right. (Laughing) I am like you. I have some conflicted feelings on it. It is
rather larger than most accessory structures. You know, when we first brought
that proposal to the Ordinance Review Committee, I don't know that we specified
size. But most of the things that we had been considering at that time had been
these little 10 by 12 buildings that you buy at Lowe's or something like that to
store some lawn equipment, etc. I would personally on that ordinance level, I
think we would want to consider on size if it goes through there. As long as you
are under 50% of the main structure and that would be by right at that point. 1200
square feet? In this particular case it might not make any difference. This is a
large lot and the structure that is behind this house is way behind this house. It is
not close at all. The other thing that you can get into there is that this is going to
be perhaps a wood shop. And again the reason for buffers is if you have a
woodworking shop in there, there is going to be equipment that can make noise
and can disturb the neighbors. That is another reason for having that buffer. This
is a shop as opposed to being a little storage building. The little storage buildings
were what I think engendered that conversation early on, if I remember correctly
on the situation of saying that these accessory structures are OK to go back into
that area back there. This is quite a bit different from what we originally talked
about when we tried to forward something forward for the consideration of the
Ordinance Review Committee. To me that's not an out for this thing. He does
have the alternative, and I think I knew what you drew there without looking at it
because I'd done sort of the same thing. Basically he would lose that additional
parking up there if he flipped that building 90 degrees. He would still be able to
back out of the garage and go back down. The one thing that would change is
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 15 of 45
additional parking people could pull up in there but they would end up having to
back down the drive. Now that is the case with most residents in town, frankly.
The standard house out there now doesn't have a place to turn around and go
forward out the driveway in many cases. I am like you. I had mixed feelings
about it. But I would hate to think that we want to look at this under the guise of
that auxiliary building because this is not what we were really talking when we
first did that.
Kohler: That's true.
Nickle: Those are my thoughts.
Zant: So in so many words you are not particularly in favor of this? And he is looking
for a motion.
Nickle: I am looking for a motion.
Zant: Well, I didn't know what I heard and I am counting.
Nickle: You know, I can see some good points. Frankly I went up there and looked at it
and that house behind is way behind. None of the neighbors have raised any
issues with it. It is a larger structure and therefore.... I think it if were a 1300 sq
ft place back there I would have more sympathy opposed to a 600 ft. That is a
large structure and I know if I were a next door neighbor I would look at it and
say "I'm not sure". None of the neighbors have said anything and I don't know
how much they know about what is proposed. But I just have, frankly, mixed
feelings.
Owens: Bob and Nancy can store some stuff in there.
Kohler: They have asked if they can store some stuff in there? (Laughing)
Nickle: That is good. So...
Motion:
Johnson: Well, I will make a motion and we'll see how it goes. I will move that we
approve BOA 06-2411 with.... I guess staff didn't recommend....
Garner: See on page 5 there we did add in case you did decide to recommend in favor of it
even though we recommend denial. We added some conditions there on page 5.
Johnson: Yeah. With the conditions that staff has attached. Let's see if we can get a vote
that way.
Nickle: Ok. Y'all see those four conditions of approval that staff has recommended if we
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 16 of 45
choose to grant this application?
Johnson: So it is a motion to approve.
Nickle: We have a motion. Do we have a second on that?
Johnson: There is a screen.
Nickle: No second on it?
Kohler: I'll second it.
Nickle: Oh! There is a second. A last minute second. Alright. We have a motion and a
second. Further discussion?
Zant: Oh, I had a question but I have lost it. And that is to approve it exactly as he has
submitted it?
Nickle: As requested with the four conditions was part of Eric's motion. At the back
including the evergreen. I will ask the owner. Had you all read those four items
there?
Owens: Yes, sir.
Nickle: Ok. So with those four conditions. Any further discussion? Andrew, will you
call the roll?
Roll call: The motion to approve BOA 06-2411 was denied with a vote of 2-3-0. With
Alt, Zant and Nickle voting No.
Nickle: Thanks, folks. Alright next. I have one request for everyone. Our cameraman
has asked me before and I forgot to mention it at the beginning of the meeting.
Y'all please turn your cell phones off so it doesn't interfere with his recording.
That is not just to the silent mode, but if you could turn it to off. Apparently there
is some kind of electronic interference with his recording. So I would appreciate
that.
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 17 of 45
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 18 of 45
BOA 07-2492 (ROOT SCHOOL GYMNASIUM, 408): Submitted by CRAFTON, TULL,
SPARKS & ASSOC. for property located at 1529 MISSION BLVD. The property is zoned
RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.90 acres. The
requirement is for a 25' front setback off of Eastwood Drive. The request is for a 17' front
setback (an 8' variance) to construct a new gymnasium.
Nickle: Next is BOA 07-2492 for property located at 1529 Mission Blvd. Andrew, you
have that also.
Garner: Yes, sir. This property is the Root School gymnasium. It is just under an acre. It
is at the southwest corner of Mission Blvd and N Eastwood Drive. This portion
of the Root School elementary site is actually zoned RSF-4 whereas where the
actual building is zoned P -I institutional. This portion of the site is where there is
an existing playground and basketball courts. The applicant proposes to construct
a new gymnasium. They are requesting a 17ft building setback for a new 8500 sq
ft gymnasium off of N Eastwood Drive. Finding number one, the reasons given
by the applicant for the variance are that the lot is bisected by two loin high
pressure gas lines as shown on the site plan. The gas company requires a 25ft
setback from that size of a line to any new structures for safety reasons which
effectively limits the location of the gym to the portion of the site that is shown.
Staff does agree with the applicant that these gas lines are a special condition that
warrant granting a variance and we find that the subject variance request would
not adversely affect the neighborhood or the compatibility with surrounding
properties. We are recommending approval. We do have some conditions there
that are relatively standard. I will be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
Zant Just a fast question here. I am trying to object to some of the staff reports here,
but it appeared to me that out on the front on Mission side, I guess that is where
we are talking about the 811? That area that is encroaching take us way back
towards the rear of the building. Did you have a figure on how many square feet
we were looking at here? It helps me know proportions.
Garner: I didn't. I could calculate the area of that triangle approximately if you want.
Zant: I just guessed it at 280 sq ft which is pretty minimal. I don't have a trig calculator
anymore. I was just curious as to the proportion of the encroachment. I think
overall it is going to be betterment for the neighborhood.
Nickle: Other questions from the Board for staff on this? Is the applicant present? Yes,
do you have anything that you want to add to this?
Burgess: I'm Wes Burgess with Crafton, Tull, Sparks and Associates representing the
school district. I just would like to add that we did look everywhere on the site
for locations for this gym and this is pretty much the only spot that it fit
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 19 of 45
physically. We are attempting to update the gym that is woefully inadequate to
serve the school and the community. Gas lines force us to ask for the variance.
(Unclear sentence)
Nickle: Thank you. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this application? Yes, sir.
Griffin: If the variance is granted...?
Nickle: Would you identify yourself please?
Griffin: I am Hank Griffin. I live at 1414 Eastwood right next to the basketball courts. If
the variance is granted does that mean you will not need to take up that 11 inch
Pin Oak that you have platted for removal? Right now the corner of the building
is that southeast corner of the building is at (unclear) that tree. If you get your
variance it will be 15ft.
Burgess: That is correct.
Griffin: And that tree would really soften that building from my perspective from my back
yard.
Burgess: If the variance is granted that tree does stay, yes.
Griffin: With the variance granted you are not proposing to put a sidewalk down
Eastwoods?
Burgess: We are not proposing that. I am not sure what the City has recommended. I have
not seen their conditions.
Zant: As the next door neighbor would it not be a benefit to you to have the gymnasium
enclosing all of that basketball court?
Griffin: Oh yes. I like the whole plan.
Zant: So your only concern was the tree? So you are positive on this whole plan?
Griffin: Yep. I feel real good about it.
Zant: Good.
Griffin: And if they get their variance and move that building 8ft over that is 8ft of
building I don't have to see from my backyard. It doesn't offend me that it is in
the front yard. And if it allows us to leave that tree that is a real benefit because it
is right on the corner and would soften that building from my perspective in my
backyard. So yeah, I like it a lot.
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 20 of 45
Nickle: Mr. Turrentine. Did you have...?
Turrentine: Yes I am at The Fayetteville Schools. Currently we have 2800 sq ft the city built
in the `70's with a pavilion on site. It was an open air pavilion. State standards
are such that that's half of what is needed for physical education for children. We
would remove that building off-site. Another thing we would do to enhance and
improve, there is a loft chain link fence along Mission. I propose removing that
chain link fence and putting a 611 decorative iron black fence like we are currently
doing at Washington and on Eastwood remove the l Oft fence and put a nice
decorative fence there.
Griffin: I am not following.
Turrentine: On Mission we have a 1Oft chain link fence. We would like to remove that and
put a decorative fence there.
Griffin: What foot?
Turrentine: 611 so kids couldn't easily jump over it.
Griffin: Ok.
Turrentine: On Eastwood?
Griffin: What did you say?
Turrentine: Both Eastwood... remove that tall chain link from Eastwood and remove it on
Mission.
Griffin: Yeah.
Turrentine: Which I think will enhance the looks of..
Nickle: Removing all chain link is part of the plan.
Turrentine: Right. Also we have incorporated in this gym a classroom to teach health. That
is another requirement by State facilities. We would appreciate you entertaining
this.
Nickle: Anyone else in the audience like to consider...? Yes, ma'am. Would you identify
yourself please?
Jones: We very much want to save that tree if we can. I'm Fay Jones, I'm the Principal.
That tree was planted; I believe we figured out, 18 years ago in honor of a
teacher who was there for many years. So the tree does mean something to us.
We would very much like to keep that.
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 21 of 45
Nickle: Thank you. Yes, sir.
Koch: My name is James Koch. I am an engineer with Arkansas Western Gas
Company. The proposed rerouting of the twin 1 Oin pipeline would likely require
an easement that would encompass this tree and come around the perimeter of the
building to provide for the 25ft safety setback. So I think it is in everybody's
interest here to allow that building to remain. Its current plan and configuration
(unclear) safety setback that we request on the existing location of those pipelines
and also for the obvious financial injury that would probably be incurred by the
Fayetteville School System if those pipelines need to be relocated.
Zant: Oh, I don't think any of us want to move your gas pipelines.
Koch: Thank you.
Nickle: Other members of the audience on this one? Seeing no more I will bring it back
to the Board.
Motion:
Zant: Well, I think this is a terrific solution to our problem and unless anyone has any
further discussion... Well, we could discuss it after, but I will move that we
accept BOA 07-2492 and approve it including the four conditions of approval in
accordance with the finding of the fact.
Alt: I will second that.
Nickle: What conditions of approval?
Zant: There are four of them in our staff report.
Nickle: They typically address things like you have to get a building permit. These are
fairly standard items that staff recommends that we attach to their approval of this
variance.
Whitaker: Correct me if I am wrong, but number three is going to be required either way.
Nickle: Yes.
Whitaker: I mean it is simply to build a gymnasium they have to get a conditional use.
Garner: That is correct.
Whitaker: That is sort of duplicative and sort of goes without saying but it is in there just to
make sure that everyone is on notice that a conditional use is required for
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 22 of 45
gymnasium in a residential area.
Nickle: Alright. Is there any further discussion from the Board?
Johnson: This request....
Nickle: Did we get our second?
Johnson: Yeah.
Nickle: Oh, ok.
Johnson: This request looks pretty reasonable. It is not a very large encroachment. The
encroachment is really only of the building. It is really only a vacation on site to
place it in and I would like to see the school improve their gymnasium and help
teaching capacity. I have no problem with this.
Kohler: Plus, basketball courts always work better if they are rectilinear.
Johnson: Extremely!
Zant: I would think that the entire neighborhood would appreciate it, especially in the
spring, summer, and fall that these are going to go indoors.
Nickle: Further discussion? Andrew, would you call the roll please?
Roll call: The motion to approve BOA 07-2492 was carried with a vote of 5-0-0.
BOA 07-2509 (TIM HURD, 329): Submitted by MILLER, BOSKUS, LACK for property
located at SW CORNER TOWNSHIP AND NORTH COLLEGE. The property is zoned C-2,
THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.92 acres. The request is to
bring an existing non -conforming structure into compliance before site modifications are made.
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 23 of 45
Nickle: Next is BOA 07-2509 for property located at the southwest corner of Township
and North College. Jesse, you have that for us?
Fulcher: Yes, sir. Before I begin if I could have everyone look at page 3 of 16. I realized
when I was reviewing this for today's meeting that I flip-flopped two words
which make a difference. Under Table I variance request the front setback for the
exiting structure, that is fine. The front setback canopy the applicants request is
28ft and then the front setback where the arch is, is 42ft. So that should be
switched. Canopy should read arches and arches should read canopy. If you look
on page 10 of 16 which has the best site plan you can see that the arches are much
closer to the right-of-way than the canopy is. Those words were just switched in
there. The property that we are looking at specifically is 2395 N College Ave.
This is the (unclear) there at the southwest corner. This was actually constructed,
and you can see in the staff report, in the mid to late `60's, possibly the early `70's
or 1972. As I researched this property I think I became more confused as to
exactly what happened. The records then were not verbatim so it was a little
confusing. What I can tell you though is that the City of Fayetteville did approve
this building to be located exactly as it is placed today. What has changed since it
was constructed is that the actual location of the right-of-way for Township
shifted to the south. There was actually discussion in the minutes from the `60's
and `70's where the State Highway surveyors and City surveyors were unable to
determine the exact location of the existing right-of-way. I believe that ended up
shifting further to the south after this building was constructed. Another item that
changed since then was the adoption of the Master Street Plan of the `90's which
expanded the right of way by 45 feet. From the center line on the south side of the
road which again increased the amount of encroachment that this building has
into the building setback. I think it is fairly straight forward as to why staff is
recommending approval to bring this existing structure into compliance as it was
changes in ordinance and right-of-way location and that the building was
constructed as it was supposed to have been and approved by City. On to the next
two items that are requested which as I stated page 10 has a good view of it. On
the west side of the building is a proposed cover drop-off and on the east side of
the building are the proposed square arches, the architectural features actually on
that side of the building. There is also a proposed addition on the southeast
corner of the building which is well out of the building setback and which we are
not currently looking at. For the proposed cover drop-off that would extend the
amount of the building area or building square footage. The amount of the
structure within that building setback, we felt that there was adequate room on the
property to either shrink that, to pull that out of the building setback by just only a
few feet, or just further to the south. We felt that it would still serve as a covered
drop-off and would not have to increase the amount of building in the front
building setback. However, on the arches on the east side of the building, as you
can see, the southern two of those are located outside of the building setback. It is
the third one which is partly located and then the fourth one on the very north side
of that east facade that are located within the building setback. Staff justified
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 24 of 45
recommending approval of these feature. We felt they actually brought the
building further into compliance with other aspects of the unified development
code, most notably the Commercial Design Standards. With remodeling this
structure currently I don't believe that the structure meets the intent of the
Commercial Design Standards and we felt that these additional architectural
design elements that protrude only a slight amount from the building facade
would bring the building further into compliance with those standards. We felt
that overall granting that variance would be in keeping with the intent of the
Unified Development Code so we have recommended approval of those
architectural features on the east side. Just to go over that one more time, within
our recommendations staff is recommending approval of the existing structure's
location to bring that into compliance with current setbacks which is a 21 ft
request and a 29ft variance. We are recommending approval of the architectural
arches which is a requested 28ft at 22ft variance. We are recommending denial of
the canopy finding that it could be reduced in size or restricted to the south and
still function accordingly for the applicants needs. That is a requested 42ft and an
8ft variance. If you have any questions...
Nickle: I have one question. Just a clarification. The variance for the arches is that... I
mean, that is a corner lot so you have two front setbacks is that the College St
setback or the Township setback or both?
Fulcher: Everything is on the Township side. It is quite a distance away from the College
right-of-way.
Nickle: Ok.
Kohler: That one arch is within that area of the building that encroaches on the current
50ft setback. I have a hard time seeing your distinction between that arch and that
little bit, what is it? Oh, it's 8ft of the drop off because in principle they are the
exact same thing. You have an existing structure that is the egregious of the
violators of these three components and you are recommending approval for the
arch but you are not recommending approval for the 8ft worth of proposed drop
off. In principle it is the exact same thing. I don't understand your distinction.
Fulcher: Our distinction simply had to do with overall the Unified Development Code and
what the arches would do to bring this building into compliance with other
requirements outside of what we look at for a variance. We felt that the arches
are architectural elements that provide articulation to a principle facade that faces
onto College Ave and would bring this building more into compliance with
Commercial Design Standards. We did not...
Kohler: That is more of a Planning Commission. That is more of a Commercial Design
Standards issue rather than a Board of Adjustment issue though, right?
Fulcher: Yes. Our recommendation is simply that the intent of variances are looking at
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 25 of 45
zoning chapters and part of the zoning chapters are Commercial Design Standards
and that allowing these architectural elements on a principle facade that faces the
intersection of two major arterials would meet the intent of those zoning
regulations. Whereas the covered drop off, which I have to admit we have not
seen what that would look like, is actually on the rear of the building and would
not serve the same purpose as articulation on the front side of the building. That
was simply our decision.
Kohler: Well, it is on the front side of the building if you consider Township.
Fulcher: Yes. It is on the side of the building that you may be able to see if you are
traveling eastward on Township. But traditionally when we look at Commercial
Design Standards we more focus on what faces the actual street. That would be
the north and east elevations. I agree to a degree depending on building locations
to the west of this building whether articulation would be needed on the west
facade. I am not sure whether the canopy may provide additional articulation. I
just know, being able to look at the articulations that they provided we felt that
the architectural elements did bring the building further into compliance with
Commercial Design Standards. That was our distinction there.
Nickle: Other questions for staff? Is the applicant present?
Hatfield: Hi, My name is Phillip Hatfield. I am with Miller, Boskus, Lack and I guess I
will address the unit that is in discussion and it was represented. The main reason
for the size of the structure is to be able to double stack the cars in the building as
you pull into it. The idea is to pull in from the north from Township into the
covered drop off. It would have a feature similar to the Fayetteville Auto Park
where they have a covered service drive and when there is a car parked to talk to
the service advisor there would also be a lane beside it where somebody could
pass by but still be under the cover if they needed to double park to actually go
and talk to somebody. I believe the City's current parallel parking distance is 22
/z ft so the 46ft that is shown is a little generous. But it would allow for the cars
not to be too close together. It also allows for column at each of the four corners
for the structure and for things not to be in the way. As far as the width, that is
for the double stacking of those cars as well. As far as the look of the west side of
the building, right now it looks more like a warehouse if you have noticed it as
you drive by. We would hope that this would dress up that side a little more
because the service area would actually be accessed through a new doorway
which would be on the west side of the building off of this covered service.
Currently there is a door facing Township for people that bring their car in for
service. If you notice it is just a single door next to a garage door. This would be
a nicer entry way, at least for the people when they are coming to drop off their
cars. As far as other staff recommendations we did want to address the first item.
It is just a technicality as far as some wording. I have spoken with Jesse about
this as well. It is implied that if the building were to burn down or a tornado or
something or some natural cause had occurred that it could be rebuilt in the same
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 26 of 45
footprint. But if later interpretation, if you think later interpretation might see it a
different way to actually follow the new setbacks as seen at the time, we would
like to add a sentence that would - and the wording is up to your interpretation as
well- but something to the effect that if the building is damaged by natural
disaster, fire, or other activities outside the owners' control the building may be
built back in a manner consistent with this approval. This technicality is just if
something were to happen in the future. I am available for any other questions.
The owner is here as well if you have any questions for him.
Zant: To reiterate, I had thought when I first looked at this that the purpose of the
canopy might be convenience or to get the clients out of the sun or out of the rain.
But this is a service entryway, is it not?
Hatfield: A drop off.
Zant: A service drop off. And you will have your service writers there and so forth.
And it is an all whether event of course. Ok. Well, I feel a little better about it. It
is pretty obvious that across the country the automotive business is doing
everything that they can. The arches, I think the design is great. The arches
added to everything that you are doing make for a nice modern attractive looking
building to bring customers in. So with that in mind, the only other aspect that I
didn't see or wasn't clear on, normally wouldn't you design or have some sort of
specking lanes that would be obvious to us as we look at this in the architectural
rendering? Specifically, whenever you open your service department what time is
that? 7:30?
Hatfield: 7:30.
Zant: 7:30. Typically any auto dealer is likely to get a flood of people who are trying to
get to work and you could have a number of cars. So you are planning to stack
them somehow on this site and I would love to know how that might be and how
workable that is going to be so that I have a comfort with it.
Nickle: I think, Jim part of the thing they mentioned here was that there are still some
unknowns. I guess they are still unknown at this point. Exactly the design of the
expansion of Township or the potential expansion someday that we have been
hearing about for 20 years of Township. Right now you can pretty much drive in
a large area. There is no curb very much on Township right now. I am assuming
that that is all going to be changed once they get Township figured out. Is that
correct staff? To the best of your knowledge?
Fulcher: I would assume that with the widening of Township there obviously will be
changes to how each of the lots along Township north and south side currently
look and function. But it is undetermined how that will actually....
Nickle: I think what I am basically saying is that they are not sure right now because the
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 27 of 45
Highway Department hasn't told them exactly what the design is going to be here.
You may have another answer than that, but I do know that that has been an on
going situation.
Zant: Is that a State Highway?
Nickle: Yeah.
Zant: Is it?
Whitaker: Yes.
Zant: Township.
Nickle: Just from that section.
Whitaker: It is an odd little jog of Gregg. That stub there is a generic indicator of Highway
180.
Nickle: Yeah, I think that is probably one that Fayetteville will eventually take over.
After it gets improved by the State perhaps.
Whitaker: No comment.
Nickle: It is part of those things. That is what one methodology is to get the money to do
it. Any other questions?
Kohler: Yeah. I just got a quick question. Would it be all the same to you if you shifted
that thing back, that same footprint back 811 or not?
Hatfield: There was another item that I should have addressed. If you look the building
survey, the wall that says 60ft on it, that wall has six service bay doors. If that
cover drop off is actually shifted to the south somebody who is backing out starts
to block the bay.
Zant: What page are we looking at?
(General talking about page and survey)
Kohler: So even though you said that that is a generous 46ft, if you assumed that you
needed all of that you could not shift it back 8ft because you would hit that first
bay. Backing out would hit it?
Hatfield: That's right.
Whitaker: And reducing it to 38 and bringing that into compliance?
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 28 of 45
Johnson: Or 34.
Nickle: Well that doesn't allow you to double stack the cars. As much as anything, if you
did just extend it to the south 8ft you would be... Also means that part of it is way
out. It's not next to the building anymore so you lose your convenience of the
drop off.
Kohler: No, you are right. It would be 30.
Nickle: Yeah. I have one other question for staff. What they would like in their form of
approval, assuming we approve this portion. Is that wording to the effect that I
guess they could rebuild the footprint as approved today? Is that basically what
you are asking for?
Fulcher: That is correct.
Nickle: Was that an appropriate....?
Fulcher: I spoke to the applicant also, as he said, this afternoon. The intent of having the
variance granted for the existing structure is for such a purpose. The only reason
we actually added condition number one is so that future redevelopers who may
want to redevelop this lot won't construe this variance as saying " Oh, we can
build up to that point when we tear this building down.".
Nickle: Yeah, I am not sure that this body can even grant something that says that
building can be there forever. In terms of you have the right to rebuild that
footprint. I don't know.
Whitaker: Actually, it is restating what would already be occurring were the variance
granted. I think that is what Jesse is saying. By granting the variance it is no
longer nonconforming and the current owner could rebuild in the current footprint
as per the variance.
Nickle: Ok.
Whitaker: Or if it were to remain that use and footprint in the future. Nothing you can do,
and you are right in this part is that five years out somebody sells it and they want
to put in a grocery store or whatever. They can't then take the benefit of the
variance and move the grocery store up into that footprint. They would then
have... That would be a different subsequent development. They are talking about
putting into words what is already being accomplished by granting a variance of a
nonconforming building. Because right now if you are nonconforming and you
don't have variance and the building is destroyed you are out of luck. Any
rebuilding would have to be done within the setbacks.
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 29 of 45
Nickle: Does that clarify that issue for y'all. So we don't need to add any language like
that.
Johnson: There we go again. We don't do business in futures.
Whitaker: I don't know that the language would hurt anything, but it is not needed.
Alt: Are you ok with that?
Kohler: If it is not needed.
Nickle: Alright do we have a motion? Did I ask for anyone else from the audience to
comment on this? I can't remember. So there is no one else. Go ahead. We are
ready for a motion.
Motion:
Johnson: I will move that we approve BOA 07-2509 as recommended by staff. So without
the 8ft grant on the covered drop off.
Nickle: Without it?
Johnson: That is what staff recommended, correct?
Zant: Yes that is. But I think they need it.
Whitaker: Then don't vote for this motion then.
Johnson: Ok. So my motion will fail. We will redo it.
Nickle: Are you withdrawing your motion then?
Johnson: I withdraw my motion. I am going to remotion. I move that we approve BOA
07-2509 as shown by the applicant.
Nickle: As requested by the applicant.
Johnson: As requested by the applicant.
Nickle: Including the other conditions of staff, the four conditions.
Zant: I will second that.
Kohler: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Nickle: Yeah. I think we have a motion...
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 30 of 45
Kohler: He hasn't addressed the denial by staff.
Nickle: He is saying as requested by the applicant.
Kohler: Oh, as requested by the applicant.
Johnson: And as shown by staff.
Kohler: Ok. Alright.
Nickle: So I want to be sure that everybody understands the motion. It is for approval of
the application as made by the applicant for the three variances. The front
setback for the structure to bring it into compliance. The front setback for the
arches as and addition. And the front setback for the canopy, 811 as requested.
Including the four conditions that staff recommends. So that is our motion and
our second I believe.
Zant: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Nickle: Alright. Any further discussion. Andrew would you call the roll?
Roll call: The motion to approve BOA 07-2509 was carried with a vote of 5-0-0.
Nickle: Thank you very much.
BOA 07-2510 (CANDLEWOOD HOTEL, 559): Submitted by MEL MILHOLLAND for
property located at S OF OLD FARMINGTON RDS. W OF SANG AVE AND N OF HWY 62
(6TH ST.). The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains
approximately 4.33 acres. The requirement is for a 20' rear setback. The request is for a 4' rear
setback (a 16' variance) to construct a new hotel.
Nickle: Alright. Next is BOA 07-2510 for property located south of Old Farmington Rd,
west of Sang Ave, north of Highway 62 or Sixth St for a hotel. And Andrew, I
believe you have that for us.
Garner: Yes, Sir. Just to expand on the description that you gave us this is also located
just north of the Blockbuster Video and right next to Hardee's and the tractor
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 31 of 45
supply is also just to the other side of it. It's the vacant lot. They are requesting a
rear setback variance to construct an 80 unit motel. There is a rear setback in a C-
2 zoning district required for 2011. They are requesting to push this building all
the way back to 4ft off of that property line which would be a 16ft variance as
shown in Table II there. This was one of those, if you read the findings, some of
the findings that staff found in favor of. Some of them staff found not in favor of.
The overall general recommendation is that we recommend approval of this. The
applicant's justification for this variance is that this is an odd shaped L lot. In
most any development on this lot would require a variance. We do agree with
that. We would also recommend that instead of a variance, if it were possible,
that they would adjust the rear property line and make this building conform to
setbacks because it is the same property owner for both parcels. We talked about
this. I mentioned this to the applicant's representative and they discussed that
they had talked about that option with the owner who for various financial and
business reasons said that that is not really a possibility. With that option
eliminated staff looked at what is the intent of the zoning regulations. Would this
variance hurt any of the properties or hurt any of the surrounding neighborhood?
Is there any other place on this property where you could potentially develop it
without having to put the building footprint where it is at. Our findings in the
staff report show that we don't feel like there is really another place on this
property to develop it fully without putting the building footprint where it is
shown. We also don't find that pushing this building near that rear setback line is
going to be adverse impact on any of the surrounding properties. We ended up
recommending approval of this and we have some standard conditions of
approval noted on page one.
Nickle: Questions for staff from the Board on this?
Kohler: Just out of curiosity, did that create a non -conforming building, the Blockbuster
building, did that create a.... Because look how close that new property line is to
the building. Did that?
Garner: On the side? No, there is Oft setback on the side. They could go all the way to
the site property line.
Kohler: Ok.
Garner: One of the reasons we also, in the commercial zoning district, it does require a
20ft building setback off to the rear. I believe that the general intent of that is that
a lot of times when you have some different types of uses adjacent to commercial
uses like residential uses, in this case it is all a shopping center basically. We
didn't feel like it would hurt any of the other properties.
Nickel: Just out of curiosity, is the applicant present?
Jeffcoat: Yes. Tom Jeffcoat of the Mel Melholland representing the property owner.
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 32 of 45
Nickle: Let me ask you one question. Is he selling this property?
Jeffcoat: No this is a franchise on a double lease type of situation. Blockbuster has its own
lease, Hardee's has it's own lease. For a franchise development with a hotel it
has to be in the hotel's name so that is what created the lot split.
Nickle: That is what I was wondering about. That is where he was running into problems
on that lot line adjustment then?
Jeffcoat: Yes.
Nickle: Ok. Other comments you would like to add to the staff report?
Jeffcoat: Maybe just to add a little bit to help you with this. Staff may have already
covered this. At the original development of this property of Tractor Supply and
the other buildings, there was no 15ft landscape requirement along Old
Farmington Rd. Now that you have that 15ft landscaping space and the cross
access easement adjustments were a lot of the reasons that forced this building to
be located where it is on the property, or any structure on that property will be.
Visually the variance appearance -wise has really little effect on the adjoining
properties because it is a flat piece of property and there are no landscaping, no
visual structures or anything there to identify the space. Those are some of the
reasons that we have had to ask for the variance. We ask for your
recommendation and we appreciate it.
Nickle: Anyone else in the audience like to speak to this application? Seeing none we
will bring it back to the Board.
Kohler: Is there a landscaping buffer required south of this footprint?
Garner: No. Commercial adjacent to commercial is not required.
Kohler: No. Ok.
Johnson: My drawings don't have any (unclear). I am just curious which side of the
building you are providing parking on.
Jeffcoat: Parking is to the north of the motel on Old Farmington Rd. It would be to the
west of Blockbuster.
Johnson: Ok.
Jeffcoat: And so there, if you have been to the site, that is pretty much the grassed area that
is bound by concrete. And yes there is landscaping along the north property line.
There is landscaping within the parking lot. We are creating an on-site, large,
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 33 of 45
green island along Sixth St. We are adding a good bit of green space and
landscaping.
Johnson: So your main access is going to be off of Sixth St?
Jeffcoat: Actually there are about four access points. We would hope that we would be
directing people off of Old Farmington Rd but out of necessity the front of the
building does face Sixth St, yes.
Johnson: Ok.
Motion:
Zant: Well, I feel comfortable with this. I would like to move that we approve BOA
07-2510 Candlewood Hotel including the two conditions of approval that staff has
listed.
Nickle: A motion.
Alt: I second that.
Nickle: A second. Further discussion? Andrew, would you call the roll?
Roll Call: The motion to approve BOA 07-2510 was carried with a vote of 5-0-0.
Nickle: Thank you very much.
BOA 07-2511 (CELL TOWER @ FIRE STATION 5,255): Submitted by TROY WILLIAMS
& JASON STEEL CALLAHAN TOWER JOINT VENTURE for property located at SW
CORNER OLD WIRE ROAD AND CROSSOVER ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4,
SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 1.64 acres. The requirement
is for a 25' setback. The request is for a 7' setback (an 18' variance.)
Nickle: Alright. We are on BOA 07-2511 for property located at the Southwest corner of
Old Wire Rd and Crossover Rd. I guess on the City of Fayetteville property
where the Fire Station is being constructed.
Fulcher: That is right. Fire Station Number 5 is currently under construction on the north
part of this site. Looking at a couple of drawings, 12 of 14, is actually shows the
intersection. It shows the Fire Station and its drive areas. It shows the proposed
lease site for the cell tower. Also it shows the proposed trail head parking to the
south of that. Also the hatched in area is the right-of-way that was dedicated as
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 34 of 45
part of the Fire Station Large Scale Development project. When this project came
through, that is the Fire Station, a conditional use was required. This property is
zoned RSF-4 and did not allow the Fire Station to be constructed by right. So
with the Large Scale Development proposal a conditional use permit was also
reviewed and approved concurrently with the Large Scale Development as part of
that. As you can see looking at the dashed line that indicates the dedication of
right of way, you can see where it jogs around the Fire Station building that is
adjacent to Crossover Rd. As part of the Large Scale Development conditions of
approval a lesser dedication of the right-of-way had to go forward to the City
Council. That was justified and approved by the City Council having spoken with
the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. The majority of the
improvement to Crossover Rd are going to occur on the east side of the road.
That is due to the fact that there is a high pressure gas main that runs right in front
of the Fire Station which is on the west side of Crossover Rd. That and then there
is actually a sewer lift station that many of you have seen which is on the north
side of Old Wire and on the west side of Crossover Rd.
Nickle: Many of us have smelled it, too. (Laughter)
Fulcher: Yes. I wasn't going to mention that but both senses have picked that one up.
That is why the State has proposed to do the majority of the improvements on the
east side of the road. Because the relocation of these facilities would pretty much
be cost prohibitive. That is why the City Council granted a lesser dedication of
right-of-way for the Fire Station in that it was not expected that it would be
needed to expand this chunk of road. However, at the time that the Fire Station
when through this processes the cell tower proposal was not yet on the table. So
the City Council never even looked at a cell tower proposal on the south side of
the site. So no lesser dedication of right-of-way was considered. When the
applicants did submit their condition use which they had to also go through on the
south side of the property, that went to Planning Commission and was approved
by the Planning Commission with a few conditions of approval. Two of those
were actually recommended by different City divisions. One was the screen wall.
Typically a wood board fence is all that we require around a cellular compound,
that with vegetative screening. In working with the Fire Station the cell tower
applicants agreed to build a natural brick compound or fence around this as
opposed to a wood board screening fence. Part of that goes to the amount of
variances being requested. Had it been just a wood board fence, as many of you
know everyone can build their privacy fences within the setbacks, however a
structure such as this screen wall made out of brick we do look at as a structure
and it is required to meet setbacks. So that has increased the variance request that
much more from the actual equipment that is interior to this compound. One of
the other conditions of approval from the conditional use for the cell tower was
that the applicants construct a parking area, a trail head parking area, south of this
compound. Part of that is to obviously service the companies that will actually
have to go in there and service the utility equipment and the cellular equipment.
That agreement came with looking at the Parks Department in potential for a trail
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 35 of 45
location there. This would also provide parking for the general public who
wanted to access that trail for biking or walking purposes. Taking those two
items into consideration, pretty much the south boundary of this compound would
set and the eastern boundary has been increased due to the fact that they have to
put in a screen wall. The northern boundary, obviously, has been set by the Fire
Station. As you can see that came through the process first. That is where their
parking is going and their dumpster's located. That is as far north as this
compound can go. And then for the western boundary of this compound, as you
can see it pretty much matches the boundary of the Fire Station. That is due to
this whole property is located in the flood plane. As you notice they build that
site up and they are currently building a retaining wall along that western property
line. That retaining wall is going to carry down so that obviously all the electrical
equipment for the cell tower will be outside of the flood elevation at that point.
So that retaining wall is going to be carried down which ultimately set the western
boundary for this compound. So really this compound has been set, although it
has been approved by the Planning Commission to be on this property in the
location as shown, the actual area that it can be set in has been set by three other
factors that were really out of the control of the applicants. They were actually
set forth by the City through different requirements constructing on this site.
Those being the majority of the hardships that staff found on this property. We
also looked beyond the hardships at looking at what is required of this applicant
in the compound size. We though could the compound size be reduced in size?
Could it be? Obviously it can't be shifted so reducing in size. The outcome of
reducing the compound in size has more to do with the conditional use request but
it is applicable here. When you reduce the compound size you limit the amount
of equipment that can be placed at the base of the tower. When you limit that you
are effectively limiting how many people can co -locate on that tower which has a
much farther reaching effect in that if you can only locate two or three carriers as
opposed to five, most likely we are going to see another cellular tower in this
area. One, we don't want to see that. I don't think the public wants to see that.
The City doesn't want to see that. Which is part of the reason we recommended
the 15011 tower to allow for up to approximately five co -locators on this. Also the
Fire Station was going to be required for emergency services to construct a
smaller lattice tower of approximately 150ft for their communications equipment.
That is why the City along with this applicant have joined together to meet both
needs. Cellular coverage in this area which is needed by these carriers and also
for the City Fire Department and Emergency Service to be able to co -locate on
this tower. So with all those unique circumstances and some of the site restraints
that are put on this project staff is recommending approval of the front setback
variance with two conditions of approval.
Zant: I have a question for you.
Fulcher: Yes, sir.
Zant: That is, as I read the proposal in the first sentence a 150ft tall mono -pine. Am I
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 36 of 45
correct to understand that this is like a Douglas Fir type of thing? Is that what we
mean by mono -pine?
Fulcher: Yes, sir.
Zant: You don't have to call me sir. But mono -pine. It is wood.
Fulcher: It is to look like a pine tree.
Zant: Ok. Considering, and I only throw this out because we have got to have
communications for the Fire Department. I assume that we may have kicked
around... Have we ever discussed in Planning and Zoning or any where else
stealth technology for these types of devices?
Fulcher: Yes.
Zant: We have got neighborhoods all around here up in those hills and I just wondered
if anyone had ever brought to the floor any discussions about this to where it is as
minimally offensive as possible.
Nickle: They have a whole ordinance set aside just for that.
Fulcher: That is one of the reasons. Actually the mono -pine is considered stealth
technology. It is to look like something other than a cell tower. Camouflaging
color choices, different types of tower construction such as a pine tree, and then
co -location are all different types of stealth technology.
Nickle: They will have to meet all of the little things for that tower ordinance that the City
passed some time ago.
Zant Thank you. I appreciate that.
Kohler: What are the nature of the buildings that we're being asked to approve?
Reynolds: Hi there. Dave Reynolds of the Callahan Tower Joint Venture. Basically the
small squares that you see down there at the bottom will be, for lack of a better
term, radio communication shacks. There will be a rock exterior building that sits
in there.
Kohler: So these three rectangles with the little thing on the end, those are rock? Those
are stone?
Reynolds: Those are stone exterior buildings, yes sir.
Kohler: Ok. And how tall are they?
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 37 of 45
Reynolds: They are about 9 % ft.
Kohler: Flat roof?
Reynolds: Flat roof. A flat concrete slab on them.
Kohler: And there is also a brick fence in front of them?
Reynolds: Yes, sir. The l Oft tall brick fence that matches the exterior of the Fire Station.
Kohler: And which of these squares is the actual tower itself? It is the octagonal one?
Reynolds: Yeah.
Nickle: Did the applicant have any more that you would like to add to the staff report?
Reynolds: No. I think Jesse covered it really well. The only thing that I did want to state
was that it has already received its conditional approval. There was no objection
by anyone in the neighborhoods to any of this as is. If this variance is granted it
would just let us mimic the outside of the Fire Station, put us further back on the
road. That is how it was designed originally and it has gone through the process
with the intent that it be this way the whole time. Just at the last moment we
found out that that extra right-of-way had been given away and a bump out made
for the Fire Station. But nobody thought about us.
Kohler: So is the 711 front setback to the brick fence?
Reynolds: Yes.
Kohler: Alright.
Nickle: Others in the audience would like to speak to this?
Unknown: Yes, I would. I was in Tahiti when this came up before so I was not able to...
May I see a plat or a drawing of the....
Nickle: Certainly. And could you identify yourself?
Unknown: Yes. I am (name). I am a neighbor to the Fire Station and I suppose this also.
This is some of the old park.
Reynolds: Yes, sir.
Unknown: And where is your....?
Reynolds: Our facility will be right here inside of this area.
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 38 of 45
Unknown: Ok. And here is the easement for the walking trail?
Reynolds: Yes, sir.
Unknown: Ok. And here is my fence right there. And a 15011 tower, when a tornado comes
along and the pine tree falls it will not reach my house, so I have no objections.
(General laughing)
Reynolds: We had them make extra especially sure that it would not hit your house.
Zant I love to hear that we have satisfied citizens in our midst.
Unknown: Well, this just presents a barrier for me because when they expand the highway it
is not going to come on my side now. This is why it won't and that is going to
keep the traffic far away from me and that is nice. I am happy with it.
Nickle: Alright. No one else in the audience so we will bring it back to the Board for
consideration.
Motion:
Alt: Well, with that being said. The neighbor is happy. Mr. Chair I would like to
move that we approve BOA 07-2511 with staff s recommendations.
Zant: I'll second.
Nickle: We have a motion and a second. Further discussion? Would you call the roll
please?
Roll call: The motion to approve BOA 07-2511 was carried with a vote of 5-0-0.
Zant Far be it from me to turn down a communications device for my city.
Nickle: Yeah, I think the city raises its attention level when it has a big cell tower build
out 45. That got everybody's attention and a lot of other things, so that is when
we started getting the input from the....
Johnson: The late `90's.
Nickel: for cell towers. It is kind of like the self storage unit that went in on Crossover.
That bright blue thing. That is when for C-2 storage units were a use by right.
Zant There were a couple of them.
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 39 of 45
Nickle: That got everybody's attention and brought about that ordinance. Alright. We
have now our last item on the agenda. The election of a new Chair for the coming
year. I don't know for how long.
Whitaker: For one year.
Nickle: For one year.
Whitaker: Chair is a one year term.
Nickle: At this moment, I believe if I read our regs right, I am not eligible because I don't
have at this point one year left to serve.
Alt: Nor am 1.
Nickle: So I will ask you to cast your ballots for other than myself and Sherrie.
Zant: Well, amongst the remaining is there not a campaign to launch now? (General
laughter)
Nickle: We don't allow people to campaign that say they don't want it.
Zant: I am not campaigning. I have been here long enough.
Nickle: We will give these to staff and they will tell us next time who our Chair will be.
Garner: You can just pass them down right now if you want and I will add them up.
Whitaker: It will probably be a three way tie.
Nickle: Here you go.
Garner: I'll just add them up real quick.
Kohler: I would like to.... Not to add anything to the agenda. We do need to discuss
again, we have some new members since this letter was written about the
accessory structures. We also have a clarification that we may want to make
about the scope and size of what we are considering even though in the ordinance
it already has been defined. I don't know if we want to do this over email or if we
want to discuss it real quickly? If it can be discussed quickly. But we did submit
a letter and I can forward it to everybody again. Maybe that is what we need to
do. To ask the ordinance committee to address a new interpretation of where an
accessory structure may be placed on a residential site.
Nickle: Why don't you forward that to everybody so we can all give it some thought.
And then at the next meeting everybody can kind of.. We can put that on the
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 40 of 45
agenda.
Kohler: And I can get everybody's email.
Whitaker: One of the reasons it just kind of got to ordinance review and never went
anywhere was that they wanted something a little more fleshed out than just an
idea. The kinds of things that have since occurred to y'all like maybe we are not
talking every accessory building.
Nickle: We could put in a size limitation. Accessory buildings not to exceed....
Kohler: 500 sq ft?
Nickle: 500 sq ft or whatever.
Whitaker: And I beg you to take these folks input into how that would fit into the overall
regulation. I guess we are just talking about residential. Right? Or are we?
Kohler: Accessory structures. Do they apply to commercial as well?
Nickle: They do.
Kohler: Ok. So you have a multi -family. You have an eight-plex, or you know you have
an apartment unit with eight units in it. So they need a shed out in back. That
would be.... Well, that would still be in the R, in the Residential.
Alt: Commercial you could have storage buildings or....
Nickle: We would like to ask you all to give us some input. That will save time when we
actually sit down and discuss everything in formulating a new proposal. I think it
would be more favorable looked on, or at least be considered if we can be more
specific. Not to exceed a 10 by 10 or a 12 by 12 building, or a 14 by 10, or
whatever sq footage that we want to consider.
Whitaker: Ordinance review prefers to see proposed language. Proposed ordinances rather
than ideas.
Nickle: Staff can help us with that. If you all would maybe be able to research and see
what other cities had done.
Garner: There may be height issues as well.
Nickle: Yeah, because those are things that if we do that it does make a difference as to
size and height. Because you are going to be right up next to somebody else's
yard, potentially, if we are talking about residential.
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 41 of 45
Whitaker: In recent memory we had one that would tower over the adjoining neighbor's
home. And here it was going to be an accessory structure and it was going to be
three stories tall?
Kohler: And Sherrie brought up use too. Is use under our purview? No, it's not. So even
for an accessory structure we can't...
Whitaker: But now whatever would come out as far as a recommendation for implementing
this kind of an ordinance, it may not have anything to do with your purview when
it comes before you. But you can certainly recommend. Obviously you can't rule
on use. But it may be a consideration that Planning wants to look at if it comes
down to it. Are all accessory structures equal? A lot of those things are going to
be already handled by the fact that if I were to want to build a quote/unquote
accessory structure on my lot and have like a (unclear) back there, that is a home
based occupation. I would have to get a conditional use anyways. So use is
probably covered.
Kohler: But we could also put something in there that would limit the use sort of by
default. That would be, you know, no plumbing. Or it can't be conditioned
space. That would be under our purview, right? That we could limit the type of
building.
Whitaker: Well, I mean, let's not talk purview because what we are talking about here is
proposing an ordinance change. Now that may not effect... It won't grant this
body any more power or authority or expand what you can consider.
Nickle: We were trying to get rid of some stuff.
Kohler: Right.
Nickle: To solve some problems. So what you are saying is implied. It would be a City
Ordinance that really in effect takes purview away. Because if it complies with
whatever this new ordinance might be then it is automatic. We'll never see it.
And I think that was what the concept was. I think you were feeling pretty
strongly about that. They ought to be able to have a little shed out back to put
their mowers in.
Kohler: And without it gobbling up all of their backyard. You know.
Nickle: So I think if we can ask, and I know this is not reinventing the wheel. I am sure
that other cities have dealt with it. If you all could provide us with what you have
found in other areas that work or seems to work and let us look at that. Or give us
any other information that you have or recommendations that you have. And if
you could, Bob, email everybody that letter that will give us a point of reference
to start with.
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 42 of 45
Kohler: And then we can edit that letter. Feel free to. If you want to add something to the
letter make sure it is in red or some other color so we can see what the changes
are.
Nickle: I think basically it is David's recommendation to, instead of just a letter
recommending something, were we able to come to the conclusion with staff that
this is an ordinance that we would like to see in place. Here it is.
Kohler: And we will let them write it. We will let them write the language.
Whitaker: Yeah. We will work on language.
Kohler: Right.
Nickle: I had one other thing. Jim had asked about maybe some education. I know that
maybe a year or two ago there was something up here that I went to. I can't
remember. It is done by the municipal league or somebody. I still have the book.
I look at it occasionally.
Kohler: Yeah I went to one in Little Rock. Dawn and I.
Nickle: Is there anything coming up in our area any time soon that you are aware of?
Garner: I think we have been checking into that. I don't know if we have any specific
dates right now. If you guys are interested in that we could, you know...
Nickle: I'm sure it would be, you know not everybody would go probably. But some of
us would go assuming that the time didn't conflict and everything like that. I will
be glad, Jim, to loan you that booklet that I got from that last one that I went to.
Whitaker: And of course, we can always do less formal in-house stuff if there are particular
areas that vex you. I know that this is not always crystal clear what some of these
distinctions are.
Zant: I would like to see a little dwelling on Arkansas State Law as opposed to here.
We need to focus on what the rules are here and make sure that we are not
crossing into a mine field.
Whitaker: The current training does address Arkansas.
Nickle: Yeah, it was. And it was quite helpful. But it was long. It was all day.
Whitaker: It was worth it.
(Lots of people talking)
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 43 of 45
Zant: The one we went to before just hammered us with adhering to making sure that
we did not trip into areas that would get the municipality sued. Municipalities
probably get sued more, and I don't know what they approve.
Nickle: Now, let's not run David out of a job here.
Whitaker: There is no fear there. (Laughing)
Nickle: Anything else?
Kohler: I have one more question. We are talking about this ordinance review thing. Is it
worth pursing the idea of the same type of ordinance review on the issue of
single-family homes allowing.... And again, when I lived in Dallas they allowed
this in their ordinance... Allowing a chimney to encroach into a side setback.
Because right now the ordinance reads that the chimney is part of the structure
and the entire chimney has to be inside the setback. When I lived in Dallas and
dealt with these issues a lot. As long as I have been on the board in three years or
something we have only had one of these. But in principle it seems to me that
someone who is trying to build a home on a tight site should not be held to the
depth of the chimney, for the main exterior wall of the house to be held back the
amount of the chimney. Is that something worth writing a letter for? Writing an
ordinance for? And do we have to have unanimous approval from our Board to
do that? I guess we don't. I guess we can do whatever we want.
Zant: It is probably worth investigating. Are Duncan and Associates, you guys have
heard of them right? Are they are in Dallas?
Whitaker: Probably paid them a lot of money.
Kohler: I have no idea.
Zant: In Arizona they paid them a lot of money too. But Duncan and Associates work
with municipalities across the country in terms of helping them to define and
write their ordinances. Sometimes they have to bend them to local standards but
ultimately there are some things that are evolving nationally in terms of how
things are designed and how people feel about them and so forth. They are an
excellent source for that kind of information.
Kohler: Trying to minimize the cost of doing this....
Nickle: Oh, I don't want to talk to them.
Kohler: I just wondered if there was a feeling of, since we are doing it on one it would be
easy enough to change our ordinance to allow that. It the Board feels like that is
something that is worth doing.
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 44 of 45
Nickle: Is there any outside limitation to how much it could encroach?
Kohler: Sure there could be.
Nickle: I was just curious. Did you know what it was in Dallas?
Kohler: No, there wasn't actually. Not in Dallas. Most chimneys are sort of within
certainly 36in and most of them are less than that.
Nickle: Well, my thought if we wanted to consider something like that is that there still
should be some limitation because we are still talking about the whole issue for
side setbacks is typically a safety issue. Flue fires, etc. I wouldn't necessarily
want...
Kohler: Well there is still a separation requirement, 16ft separation between structures and
that was still applied. That would be applied of course to the main wall and not to
the chimney.
Nickle: Well I understand that. I was just talking about if we were unlimited in allowing
the encroachment there are flue fires. And if I am the next door neighbor I don't
know exactly how close I want your.... you know I wouldn't want it to go that 811
because that puts it 8ft closer to my house which might be right at 811 over here.
That is just a thought.
Kohler: Understood.
Nickel: As you say we haven't seen that many of those so I don't know whether it is....
Maybe a case by case basis since we have seen one in every two or three years. I
think that is.... I am not sure it would be worth the effort.
Kohler: I think what happens is that people push it on the inside so they have the punch -
out in their living room.
Johnson: I agree with you. I would prefer them to not have that constraint. But we have
only seen one. But maybe that is right. Maybe we have only seen one because of
that.
Kohler: Well, what people are doing is putting them inside their living room.
Johnson: Or the back of the house or something like that.
Nickle: I certainly don't mind considering something like that. I would think that I would
want to see some kind of maximum encroachment.
Garner: We could probably just talk to the Building Safety Division as well on the fire
code issues and that could be a non -issue.
Board ofAdjustments
March 5, 2007
Page 45 of 45
Nickle: Exactly.
Garner: If we got the minimum building separations required.
Nickle: Since the Planning staff doesn't have anything to do usually, you might at you
leisure check with the fire people and see if..
Kohler: I think it would make for, if people did have that ability to let the chimney
encroach it would make for better subdivisions I think.
Nickle: I don't disagree. I would just like to see some input from the fire people as well
as some kind of maximum encroachment if we are going to give that kind of
leeway. Or recommend that the City do something like that.
Garner: Well, we had Bob Kohler elected Chair for this next year.
Nickle: Congratulations.
Zant: Congratulations. I brought you something. I will read it to you. This came right
out of Parade Magazine yesterday and I knew that this would probably be the
case. Lincoln was famous for being quoted at a public meeting "Better to remain
silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." Well, this was a
questionnaire as to what people would say and how would you phrase this? One
guy from California said `Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to
speak and wind up being Chairman of the Committee." So there you have it.
Nickle: I think we are adjourned.