HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-02 - Agendas 020404 BOA 1/30/04 ge 1
11 020404 BOA W.2
'CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
AGENDA NOTICE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Monday,Februaw 2,2004,3:,tS p.m.
City Administration Building,Room 326
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville,Ariumsas
PUBLIC MEETING-OPEN TO ALL I
property is mrall R-A,R-
The folloveing items vdil be considered;
Approwl of minutes from the meeting of Janums,5,2004.
Ney,Bu.inas,
VAR 0"3.00; Variance(Fire Station#7,pp 439)�submitted by Wittenberg,Delory,and
Davidson,Inc.on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located M 636 N.Rupple Road. The
esidentlaf Agr cultural.�e requirement is for a 20'setback on the north building
setback fine. The request is to allovy a 7'setback(a 1Tvarance.)
At interested parties may appear and be heard at the public headings. A copy of the proposed
amendments and other pedinnent data is open and available for Inspection in the Office of City Planning
(575-8267),126 West Mountain Street,Fayetteville,Arkansas. M interected parles,are invited to revesv
the petitions.
Interpreters or TDD for real impaired are available for all public meelfings. 72 hour notice is required,
For further information or to request an interpreter,please call 575-8330.
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville,AR 72701
Telephone:479-575-8267
AGENDA FOR A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment will be held Monday, February 2, 2004, at
3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain,
Fayetteville, AR, 72701.
Roll Call
The following items will be considered:
Approval of minutes from the meeting of January 5,2004.
New Business:
1. VAR 04-03.00: Variance (Fire Station #7, pp 439)was submitted by Wittenberg,
Delony, and Davidson, Inc. on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located at
635 N. Rupple Road. The property is zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural. The
requirement is for a 20' setback on the north building setback line. The request is to
allow a 7' setback (a 13' variance.)
All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. A copy of the
proposed amendments and other pertinent data is open and available for inspection in the
Office of City Planning (575-8267), 125 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
All interested parties are invited to review the petitions.
Interpreters or TDD for hearing impaired are available for all public meetings. 72 hour
notice is required. For further information or to request an interpreter,please call 575-
8330,
ORDER OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
A. Introduction of agenda item—Chairman
B. Presentation of Staff Report
C. Presentation of request—Applicant
D. Public Comment
E. Response by Applicant/Questions &Answer with Board
F. Action of the Board of Adjustment (Discussion& Vote)
NOTE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE
If you wish to address the Board of Adjustment on an agenda item raise your hand when
the Chairman asks for public comment. He will do this after he has given Board
members the opportunity to speak and before a final vote is taken. Public comment will
only be permitted during this part of the hearing for each item.
Once the Chairman recognizes you, go to the podium at the front of the room and give
your name and address. Address your comments to the Chairman, who is the presiding
officer. He will direct them to the appropriate appointed official, staff member or others
for response. Please keep your comments brief, to the point, and relevant to the agenda
item being considered so that everyone has a chance to speak.
Please, as a matter of courtesy, refrain from applauding or booing any speakers or actions
of the Board of Adjustment.
2003 Board of Adjustment Members
Sherrie Alt
Michael Andrews
Michael Green (Chairman)
Robert Kohler
James Kunzelmann
Bob Nickle
Joanne Olzewski
FAYETTEVILLE BOA Meeting of February 02, 2004
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville,AR 72701
Telephone:(479)575-8267
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville Board of Adjustment
FROM: Jeremy C. Pate,Associate Planner
THRU: Dawn T. Warrick, AlCP, Zoning&Development Administrator
DATE: Janueary 30, 2004
VAR 04-03.00: Variance(Fire Station#7, pp 439) was submitted by Wittenberg, Delony, and
Davidson, Inc. on behalf of the City of Fayetteville for property located at 63 5 N. Rupple Road.
The property is zoned R-A, Residential Agricultural. The requirement is for a 20' setback on the
north building setback line. The request is to allow a 7' setback(a 13' variance.)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested side setback variance as shown on the Large
Scale Development plan and described herein with the following condition(s):
1. All conditions of the Planning Commission approval of LSD 04-01.00 shall remain
applicable.
2. The setback variance granted shall apply only to that portion of the structure
affected by the existing 20-foot setback.
BACKGROUND:
Property description:
The 2.00-acre subject property is located at 835 N. Rupple Road, west of the Meadowlands
Subdivision, south of Wedington Road, north and west of the Boys& Girls Club. The site has a
considerable percentage of tree canopy, which has driven much of the applicant's site design and
thus the request for consideration of a variance for side setbacks. The applicant has secured
Planning Commission approval for a Large Scale Development in order to develop the new Fire
Station#7, contingent upon Board of Adjustment approval of the requested variance. Proposed
K.-Weportsi20041110A ReporM02-02-041VAR 04-03.00(Fire Station#7).doc February 02,2004
Board of Adjustment
VAR 04-03.00(Fire Station)
Page 1.1
site development plans conform to all other z oning regulations with regard to bulk, area and
setback requirements.
Proposal: The City of Fayetteville is proposing to construct a new fire station on Rupple Road,
north and west of the Fayetteville Boys & Girls Club. The site has considerable existing tree
canopy, and the design of the structure as a two-story unit, as well as site planning
considerations, have been pursued to preserve as much of this canopy as possible. The station is
proposed to contain approximately 8,769 SF of total area. Primary fire apparatus access is from
Rupple Road; coordination with the property owner to the south allows for a second means of
ingress/egress to allow for fire fighter parking, which is located at the rear of the site.,Locating
the access off-site also allows for the preservation of significant tree canopy. Limits of
construction for this access, within an access easement granted by the property owner, are shown
on the plat.
Request: The request is for a variance to accommodate the proposed Fire Station building on the
north side of the property. The property is zoned R-A, which requires a 20-foot side setback. The
applicant requests a reduction in the requirement from 20 feet to 7 feet, a 13-foot variance. The
applicant could redesign the site to meet all requirements without requesting a variance, however
significant tree canopy would be lost due to realignments of driveways and the building footprint.
Ordinance Reguirement—PApplicant's Request
Side setback(north) 20' 7' (a 13
Surrounding Land Use/Zoning:
Direction Land Use Zoning
North Single Family home C-1,Neighborhood Commercial
South Vacant RT-12, Res. Two/Three Family
East Vacant R-A,Residential Agricultural
West Meadowlands Sub ivision RT-12, Res. Two/Three Family
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Residential
FINDINGS:
156.02 ZONING REGULATIONS.
Certain variances of the zoning regulations may be applied for as follows:
A. General Regulations/Application. A variance shall not be granted unless and
until an application demonstrates:
1. Special Conditions. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are
peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable
KlReporM2004160.4 ReportA02-02-MVAR 04-03.00(Tire Station i�7).dac February 02,2004
Board of Adjustment
VAR 04-03.00(Fire Station)
Page 1.2
to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district.
Finding: The existing tree canopy is a special condition which is specific to the subject
property and which effects the site design and layout of the proposed
building.Tracts of land surrounding this parcel are devoid of canopy cover,
thus the preservation of the existing canopy is of high priority. Much
consideration of his priority has driven site design decisions, as well as the
architectural footprint. Generally, public protection facilities are permitted
by right or by conditional use in all other zoning districts.
2. Deprivation of Rights. That literal interpretation of the provisions of the zoning
regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other
properties in the same district under the terms of the zoning regulations.
Finding: Literal interpretation of zoning regulations would not permit the proposed
building to be sited outside of the tree canopy preservation area. The
building could be sited elsewhere on the property,with loss of tree canopy.
3. Resulting Actions. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result
from the actions of the applicant.
Finding: The requested side setback variance is the result of the applicant's desire to
construct the proposed Fire Station outside of the designated tree protection
area. Approved development plans are contingent upon Board of Adjustment
action.
4. No Special Privileges. That granting the variance requested will not confer on
the applicant any special privilege that is denied by Zoning, Chapters 160-165, to
other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district.
Finding: Granting the requested variances will not confer special privileges. The use
of this property for a Public Protection Facility is permitted by right in the
R-A zoning district.
5. Nonconforming Uses. No nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures,
or buildings in the same district, and no permitted or nonconforming use of lands,
structures,or buildings in other districts shall be considered grounds for the
issuance of a variance.
Finding: No nonconformities were considered as a basis of the findings stated in this
staff report.
§ 156.02 C. Consideration by the Board of Adjustment.
1. Bulk and Area.
K.IReportsL?004WOA Reports 102-02-041VAR 04-03.00(Fire Station#7).doc February 02,2004
Board of Adjustment
VAR 04-03.00(Fire Station)
Page 1.3
Applications for variances of bulk and area requirements shall be considered by
and may be approved by the Board of Adjustment.
2. Public Hearing. A public hearing shall be held.
Finding: A public hearing is scheduled for Monday,February 02,2004.
3. Findings. The Board of Adjustment shall make the following findings:
a. Minimum Variance. That the reasons set forth in the application justify the
granting of the variance, and that the variance is the minimum variance that will
make possible the reasonable use of the land,building, or structure.
(I.) Harmony with General Purpose. The Board of Adjustment shall further make a
finding that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of Zoning, Chapters 160-165, and will not be injurious to the
neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
Finding: The proposed side setback variance is the minimum variance necessary to
accommodate the proposed structure without losing existing tree canopy to
the south. Large Scale Development plans indicate a 10-foot setback
however building setbacks are measured to the eave of the roof, therefore a
7-foot setback is required to :kccommodate the roofline. The addition of a
Fire Station in this area will be greatly beneficial to the public welfare. The
property to the north has been rezoned to C-1,Neighborhood Commercial,a
future land use that will not be injured by the granting of the requested
variance.
(2.) Reasons set forth in the application justify granting the variance, and that the
variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of
the land, building, or structure.
Finding: Reasons set forth,in the application justify granting the requested variances
(please see attached).
b. Conditions and Safeguards. In granting any variance,the Board of Adjustment
may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the
zoning regulations.
Finding: Staff has recommended conditions for this request which are stated on page
one of this report.
C. No Variance Allowed. Under no circumstances shall the Board of Adjustment
grant a variance to allow a use not permissible under Zoning in the district
K.-tRepor&12004180A ReportsIO2-02-041VAR04-03-00(Fire Station#7).doc February 02,2004
Board of Adjustment
VAR 04-03.00(Fire Station)
Page 1.4
involved, or any use expressly or by implication prohibited by the terms of the
zoning regulations in said district.
Finding: The use of this property for a Public Protection Facility is permitted by right
in the R-A zoning district.
161.03 District R-A,Residential-Agricultural (C) Density.
(A) Purposes. The regulations of the agricultural FFUmts--per acre One-half
district are designed to protect agricultural land
until an orderly transition to urban development (D) Bulk and area regulations-
has been accomplished;prevent wasteful scattering
of development in rural areas;obtain economy of Lot width minimum 200 ft.
public fonds in the providing of public Lot Area Minimum:
improvements and services of orderly growth; Residential: 2 acres
conserve the tax base; provide opportunity for Nonresidential, 2 acres
Lot area per dwelling unit 2 acres
affordable housing,increase scenic attractiveness;
and conserve open space.
(B) Uses. (E) Sethack requirements-
(1) Permitted uses. is"
Unit 1 Clity-wide uses b�rilt (F) Height requirements- There shall be no
us EM
— WN-MMM mn-Wifflf maximum height limits in the AA District,
Unit 6_ Agriculture
Unit 7 Animal husbandry provided, however, that any building which
Units_ Single-familyd Ilings exceeds the height of 15 feet shall be setback from
Unft9_ Two-family dwellings any boundary line of any residential district a
Unit 37 Manufactured homes distance of 1.0 foot for each foot of height in
excess of 15 feet. Such setbacks shall be measured
(2) Conditional uses. from the required setback lines.
ermit
Unit 2 City-wi e uses by conditional use a (G) Building area. None.
Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities
Unit 20 Commercial recreation,large sites, (Code 1965,App.A.,Art.5(l);Ord.No.1747,6-29-70;Code 199 1,
Unit 24 Home occupations §160.030;Ord.No.4100,§2(Ex.A),6-16-98;Ord.No.4178,8-31-
Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities 99)
K.lReporisL7004WA ReporisIO2-02-041VAR 04-03.00(Fire Station#7).doc February 02,2004
Board of Adjustment
VAR 04-03.00(Fire Station)
Page 1.5
WITIENBERG,DELONY&DAVIDSON ARCHITECFS
2434 E.Joy�Blvd., Suite 10
FA�TTEWUZ AR 72703
4791442-6661
4791257-0231 FAX
January 12, 2004
Chairman
Board of Adjustment
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
Re: City of Fayetteville, Fire Sub-Station #7
635 N. Rupple Road
Request to change the north building set back line
The City of Fayetteville, here after referred to as the Owner, respectfully requests consideration for the
adjustment of the north building set back line at the above referenced proposed project and forwards
the following information and details pertaining to the request.
1) Request. The Owner is requesting that the north building set back of 20 feet, as required by the
building's current zoning of R—A, be decreased to 7 feet (a change of 13 feet). The project
proposed for the property is a new Fire Department Sub-Station of 9,000 square feet with 14
parking spaces and driveways as indicated on the attached plan.
2) Special Conditions and Circumstances. The property is heavily wooded and includes several high
quality, specimen trees whose placement on the site is unique and unavoidable. TheCityhas
effectively studied the property to maintain the tree canopy and preserve significant tree
specimens. This study has shown that saving significant tree types on the site cannot occur
without several adjustments to the normal layout and development of the property. Special
Conditions and Circumstances exist in the existing layout of the specimen trees on the lot and
development of this lot with the required setbacks would not be possible without sacrificing more
significant trees than needs to be accomplished.
3) Interpretation of Provisions of this ordinance. Due to the unique layout and nature of the
significant trees on the site a literal interpretation of the setback provisions of the zoning ordinance
would deprive this Owner from their very real ability to saving several significant specimen trees
on the site.
4) Conditions did not result from the actions of the applicant. The Owner has at this time already
modified the building to be a two-story structure where it would normally be desirable to be a
single story facility and has also taken the extended responsibility to work with the adjoining South
property Owner to share certain access roadways in their efforts to further eliminate the removal of
existing trees from the site. The City has made all available meaningful changes possible to the
building and site drive layouts for this project and suggest that this adjustment in the setback is also
an integral requirement of their site strategy needed to save the significant trees on the site.
February 02,2004
Board of Adjustment
VAR 04-03.00(Fire Station)
Page 1.6
Page Two
Setback Variance Request
City of Fayetteville, Fire Station #7
1-12-2004
5) Granting of the variance will not confer privilege. The Owner feels that the granting of this
variance will only allow them to develop this property within the tree preservation requirements of
the City of Fayetteville's Unified Development Ordinance and will not confer onto the property
any special or additional privileges-other than the means to meet the requirements of the tree
preservation portions of the Ordinance.
Sincerely,
WITTENBERG, DELONY & DAVIDSON, INC.
(I . 4avmr�,J�
ard Alderman, AIA
Principal, Northwest Arkansas Office
February 02,2004
Board of Adjustment
VAR 04-03.00(Fire Station)
Page 1.7
<
1�7
0
w
Z
Z
z
CC
CL
LAJ
IEE
'k -, ;
LL.
LU
—J
LU
U F-
LU
-Oebruary 02,2004
oar o Adjustment
'g;
— — — — — — — — — — — -- VAt - 3.00(Fire Station)
------------------------------------ Page 1.8
GVON 3]ddnN
10
-4-
LU
LL_
LU
_J
fill
LU
LU
rr
<February 02,2004
Uleard of Adjustment
VAJ 04-03.00(Fire Station)
Page 1.9
Via
EFF-
ftW-41&
kRW- OR
Elpr,
rvzf i j g,
ft
SIM
"MIRV
PON
Mr—
VA,
'@waft
111MA MIN
Of 1 1-0 OR
FIRM
Rp-
IN
RAIN
MIR
rT 17T
O's
!",nl
..... ......
LSD 04-0.1.00
Page I
FAYETTEVILLE SC Meeting of January 15, 2004
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain SL
Fayetteville,AR 72701
Telephone:501-575-8264
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Subdivision Conunittee Members
FROM: Jeremy Pate, Associate Planner
Matt Casey, Staff Engineer
THRU: Dawn T. Warrick, AICP, Zoning&Development Administrator
DATE: January 13,2004
LSD 04-01.00: Large Scale Development(Fayetteville Fire Station#7,pp 439) was submitted
by Wayne Jones,project manager, of Wittenberg, Delony, and Davidson, Inc. on behalf of the
City of Fayetteville for property located at 835 N. Rupple Road. The property is zoned R-A,
Residential Agricultural, and contains approximately 2.00 acres. The request is to allow for the
development of Fire Station#7 on the subject property. Planner: Jeremy Pate
Findings:
Proposal: The City of Fayetteville is proposing to construct a new fire station on Rupple Road,
north and.west of the Fayetteville Boys&Girls Club. The site has considerable existing tree
canopy, and the design of the structure as a two-story unit, as well as site planning
considerations,have been pursued to preserve as much of this canopy as possible. The station is
proposed to contain approximately 8,769 SF of total area. Primary fire apparatus access is from
Rupple Road; coordination with the property owner to the south allows for a second means of
ingress/pgress to allow for fire fighter parking, which is located at the rear of the site. Limits of
construction for this access, within an access easement granted by the property owner, are shown
on the plat.
Surrounding Land Use/Zoning:
—Direction Land Use Zoning
North Single Family home C-1,Neighborhood Commercial
South Vacant RT-12, Res. Two/Three Family
East Vacant R-A, Residential Agricultural
West Meadowlands Subdivision RT-12, Res. Two/Three Family
Right-of-way being dedicate& The minimum 45 feet from centerline right-of-way along Rupple
Road, a Minor Arterial,was dedicated with the-filing of the Lot Split to create the subject 2-acre
ttact.
Street Improvements: Rupple Road was recently constructed and requires no improvements at
this time. Six-foot sidewalks are to be constructed along the property's frontage, at the right-of-
way line. '
K.IR,�portsl2OO4�SCReportsIOI-15-04USD 04-01.00(Fayeamlle Fire Slaion,7).dac February 02,2004
Board of Adjustment
VAR 04-03.00(Fire Station)
Page 1.13
LSD 04-01.00
Page 2
Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Rupple Road, Minor Arterial
Tree Preservation: Existing Canopy: 45%
Preserved Canopy: 34%
Required Canopy: 25% No mitigation is required.
Recommendation: Staff recommends LSD 04-01.00 be approved at the Subdivision
Committee level with the following conditions:
Conditions of Approval:
I Planning Commission determination and approval of Commercial Design Standards.
2. The south drive shall be located within a permanent access easement,to be filed of
record at Washington County prior to building permit.
3. A temporary construction easement shall be filed with the Planning Division to
facilitate construction of the south drive on the property adjacent to the south,prior to
building permit.
4. Any proposed communications tower for the fire station shall be permitted according
to §163.14. Should the fire station be exempted from these requirements by the
Zoning&Development Administrator pursuant to §163.14 (E)(4), a Conditional Use
shall not be required.
5. A variance for the construction of a new building within the 20-foot side setback to
the north of the property shall be approved by the Board of Adjustment prior to
building permit.
Standard Conditions of approval:
6. All mechanical/utility equipment shall be screened using materials that are compatible
with and incorporated into the structure.
7. Trash enclosures shall be screened with access not visible from the street.
8. Sidewalk construction in accordance with current standards to include a minimum six
foot sidewalk along Rupple Road for the length of the project property boundary. The
sidewalk shall be constructed through the driveways to City Standards.
9. Plat Review and Subdivision comments(to include written staff comments provided
to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives -
AR Western Gas, SVvBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications)
10. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations(where
applicable) for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets(public and
K.-tReportsl2004lSCReporatOl-15-04LrSD 04-01.00(Fayetteville Fire Station#').dac February 02,2004
Board of Adjustment
VAR 04-03.00(Fire Station)
Page 1.14
LSD 04-01.00
Page 3
private), sidewalks,parking lot�s) and tree preservation. The information submitted
for the plat review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public
improvements are subject to additional review and approval. Allimprovements shall
comply with City's current requirements.
11. Large scale development shall be valid for one calendar year.
12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required:
a. Grading and drainage permits
b. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree
preservation area.
C. Project Disk with all final revisions
d. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with
the City (letter of credit,bond,escrow) as required by§158.01
"Guarantees in Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all
incomplete improvements. Further, all improvements necessary to serve
the site and protect public safety must be completed, notjust guaranteed,
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
13. Additional conditions:
Subdivision Committee Action: 9 Approval 0 Forwarded to P.C.
Meeting Date: January 15,2004 3-0
Comments: ISU!4IJ Ja PARA 4 A&
K61(A* 94Yj1AC@
The "Conditions of Approval" listed in the report above are accepted in total without exception
by the entity requesting approval of this development item.
Signature Date
K.-IReportsl2OO4LS�CReportsiOl-15-04VSD 04-01-00(Fayetteville I Fire Station 1p).doc February 02,2004
Board of Adjustment
VAR 04-03.00(Fire Station)
Page 1.15
VAR04-03.00 FAYETTEVILLE FIRE STATION #7
Close Up View
R-O�A%P.
C-1
G-2
R-0
�T— 1
Mal C-1
R#
RT-121--1
74
WA7,
RSF,4
RT-12
RSF41
RMF-24
',�SF-4
RSF-4
Overview
Legend
ROODWAY
VoiXtO4-03eG'p....Oileriii'Digmt ftncipalM�W
leeee�Mi"r,iWenal 100Y�R
M�tei-Slmetfi4in - - MOY�R
Free,i,l,iy/Ev�y *000 KsWfii,C.11� LIMITOFSTUDY
- -8...Uri.po,:ifil.
City umiti
OiAiide City
February 02,2004
Board of Adjustment
0 75 150 300 450 6010
Feet VAR 04-03.00(Fire Station)
Page 1.16
VAR04-03-00 FAYETTEVILLE FIRE STATION #7
One.Mile View
RA RSF4 -1
TIM
71" LF
P-1
R F4 f
if
XL14
U
37
RMV
INU-11P
L7.
Huts
R-A
RSF41 RMF-24
RS
F-2j,
R-0 000
CP
R
N-1
RA
R-A lu�N DF
M
IT—J—
RA RW-24 -—---—- Po
RT-12
F RW 24
SIN 4
Rsf4
R-A
RA
C-2
............ '-,FMF-24
Overview Legend
Subject Property Boundary. Vaser Street Plan
-03.00 4%oFres�y/Expre�y
VAR04 Planning Area
�0000o Nndpi Aasnal
....OvedayDistrict
streets Mi..M.1
amrg i CRY Urnits Cii.mr
L L 14�Pl.nnesl Outside City HisladcCoUedor February 02,2004
Board of Adjustment
0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 VAR 04-03.00(Fire Station)
Mile I Pa!e 1.17
February 02,2004
Board of Adjustment
VAR 04-03.00(Fire Station)
Page 1.18
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, January 5, 2004 at
3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN
VAR 04-01.00: Variance (Lucas Briggs,pp 485) Approved
Page 2
VAR 04-02.00: Variance (James Erwin,pp 363) Approved
Page 6
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
James Kunzelmann Michael Andrews
Joanne Olszewski
Michael Green
Sheree Alt
Bob Kohler
Bob Nickle
STAFFPRESENT STAFF ABSENT
Dawn Warrick
Renee Thomas
David Whitaker
Suzanne Morgan
Board of Adjustment
January 5, 2004
Page 2
VAR 04-01.00: Variance (Lucas Briggs, pp 485) was submitted by Blew Land
Surveying on behalf of Lucas Briggs for property located at 195 N. Summit. The
property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. The request is to
allow an existing structure to remain inside the rear setback.
Green: Welcome to the January 5, 2004 meeting of the Board of Adjustment. The
first item of business this afternoon is approval of the minutes from the
December 8, 2003 meeting. Are there any corrections, modifications or
adjustments that need to be made to those minutes? Seeing none, the
minutes stand approved. The next item of business is VAR 04-01.00, a
Variance for Lucas Briggs submitted by Blew Land Surveying for
property located at 195 N. Summit. Dawn?
Warrick: Yes Sir. The subject property is located at 200 N. Fletcher Avenue and
195 N. Summit Avenue. There are currently two single family homes with
accessory structures on the property, each of which fronts onto the
opposite street. The applicant has secured Planning Commission approval
for a lot split in order to purchase the lot, contingent upon Board of
Adjustment approval of the creation of a new lot with an existing structure
located within the rear building setbacks. Each of the proposed lots has
adequate frontage, bulk and area requirements in the RSF-4 zoning
district. Surrounding properties contain primarily single family homes
with similar accessory structures. An existing root cellar which currently
meets setback requirements will, with the lot split, be located within the
20' rear Building Setback of Tract B. The applicant proposes to maintain
the cellar structure in situ, with the granting of a setback variance. The
request is for a variance to accommodate the existing cellar structure
which was constructed in the late 1800's, prior to current zoning
requirements. The applicant could demolish the structure to meet all
requirements without requesting a variance, however �Adshes to retain the
architectural character of the existing historic structure. With regard to
special conditions, staff finds that this is a structure which pre-dates
current zoning regulations the presence of two principle single family
structures on the same lot of record are special conditions which are
specific to the subject property and which effect the sale and division of
the tract. Under deprivation of rights, staff finds that literal interpretation
of zoning regulations would not permit the existing historic structure to
remain with the split of the lot. Special conditions and circumstances do
not result from the action of the applicant, the requested rear setback
variance is the result of the applicant's desire to split the subject lot and
not demolish and remove the existing structure. The lot could remain in
compliance with current zoning ordinances with regard to rear setbacks
with lot split approval, however the applicant would have remove said
structure. Granting the requested variances will not confer special
privileges. The use of this property for a single family dwelling , with
accessory structures, is permitted by right in the RSF-4 zoning district.
NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, some portions of this meeting were inaudible.
Renee Thomas Senior Planning Secretary
Board of Adjustment
January 5, 2004
Page 3
The proposed side setback variance is the minimum variance necessary to
accommodate the existing structure which pre-dates current zoning
regulations. The existing home and accessory structure is in harmony with
the surrounding properties and is consistent with the purpose and intent of
current zoning regulations. The variances will not be injurious to the
neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Staff has
recommended conditions for this request including the following:
Variances shall apply only to the existing structure indicated with the site
plan submitted for this request. Future additions or alterations shall
comply with setback requirements for the zoning district in which the
property is located. (This does not preclude future variance requests if
appropriate findings can be made by the Board of Adjustment) 2) All
conditions of the Planning Commission approval of LSP 04-05.00 shall
remain applicable.
Green: Thank you Dawn, is the applicant present?
Briggs: I am Lucas Briggs.
Green: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment
on this proposed Variance? Seeing none, are there any questions from the
Board?
Kohler: It looks like this is right on the rear property line, does that leave adequate
room for opening and closing the door without intruding on the other
property?
Briggs: There is an 8' line between the door and the property line, Blew Land
Surveying would be more applicable to look at that. If you look at the plat
it is not on the actual shed line. There is an overhang that would touch the
line but not the actual door itself, 1 think he accommodated for that.
Kohler: I am talking about the rear property line.
Warrick: Which is the west. It looks like there are a few feet.
Pate: It is about 3' or 4' between what is shown here and the shed.
Green: That is something that just came up. I thought if you have a building
directly on the property line and your neighbor decided he wasn't going to
let you have access to that how were you going to paint it or repair it or
anything if it was zero?
Warrick: That could be problematic.
NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, some portions of this meeting were inaudible.
Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary
Board of Adjustment
January 5, 2004
Page 4
Whitaker: From this body's point of view it is not necessary to consider. Certainly
you can consider it as one of the factors. Private easements between
adjoining property owners are just that, between adjoining property
owners. Always an argument could be made that if something like that
exists that the property owner with the structure could argue in a private
action that they have an easement by necessity to access the building for
repairs. That would be completely outside the scope and the duties of this
body.
Warrick: One unique situation in this particular case is that this property owner does
own the entire tract currently and can accommodate situations like that.
Drawing this line makes it possible for one of the two to be sold.
However, the property is curTently owned commonly.
Green: Mr. Briggs, do you have anything else to add?
Briggs: There are some pictures that are being passed around. There is a very
similar structure on Spring Street. It is a chiropractic clinic that
accommodates the same type of architectural style. Legend has it that it is
an old root cellar for an apocrypha who lived in the Fletcher home. That
one has been fully restored on Spring which is our intent with the one on
Summitt to maintain the architectural integrity of it and also keep it up to
date and keep it looking nice and accommodating to the area.
Warrick: The first set is the subject property.
Briggs: The darker brick one, the one you can tell has been updated is the one on
Spring and then the one that is two story that is lighter stone at the bottom
and then a white siding on it is the one on the subject property we are
speaking of now.
Green: Does anyone have any questions or comments? Is there anyone from the
audience who wishes to speak for or against this variance request?
Olszewski: I really like the idea of preserving the historic building and I appreciate
you taking the time to do that.
Kohler: Plus it applies a little bit to the discussion we've had.previously about
possibly looking again at accessory structure ordinances and setbacks
required for those.
MOTION:
Nickle: I will make a motion that we approve VAR 04-01.00 subject to staffs
conditions of approval listed.
NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, some portions of this meeting were inaudible.
Renee Thomas--Senior Planning Secretary
Board of Adjustment
January 5, 2004
Page 5
Olszewski: Second.
Green: We have a motion and a second to approve the Variance as requested, is
there any other discussion? Will you call the roll please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 04-0 1.00 was
approved by a vote of 6-0-0.
NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, some portions of this meeting were inaudible.
Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary
Board of Adjustment
January 5, 2004
Page 6
VAR 04-02.00: Variance (James Erwin,pp 363)was submitted by Project Design
Consultants on behalf of James Erwin for property located at Lot 6, Pine Valley. The
property is zoned RMF24, Residential Multi-family, 24 units per acre. The request is to
allow a lesser street frontage on Lots 6A and 6B.
Green: The next item on the agenda is VAR 04-02.00 submitted by Project
Design Consultants on behalf of James Erwin for property located at Lot 6
Pine Valley. The request is to allow a lesser street frontage of lots 6A and
6B. Dawn?
WarTick: Yes Sir. The subject property is located at Lot 6 of Pine Valley Phase V,
accessed from Wildwood Road, west of Shiloh Drive. The subject tract
was platted as a 1.90 acre lot with Pine Valley Subdivision, Phase V, in
April of 2002. On December 30, 2003, the Planning Commission
approved a replat of Lot 6, dividing the 1.90 acre tract into two tracts of
0.98 acres and 0.92 acres, 6A and 6B. The final replat approval is
contingent upon Board of Adjustment approval of the requested variances
for lot width minimums. The site is zoned RMF-24, and is surrounded by
two-family development, Pine Valley Subdivision. The site contains a
total lot area of 1.9 acres and meets all other bulk and area requirements
for a lot in the RMF-24 zoning district. Currently, only a single family
home or one duplex could be built on the large lot. The applicant is
requesting a 43.0' variance for a 17.0' frontage for Lot 6A to construct a
two family residential dwelling unit, rather than the 60 feet required by
zoning regulations in the RMF-24 zoning district. The applicant is also
requesting a 13.03' variance for a 46.97' frontage for Lot 6B to construct a
two family residential dwelling. The purpose is to construct two (2) two-
family dwelling units on separate lots, utilizing a shared access easement
and driveway, also preserving a significant grouping of trees in the front
of the lot. For the finding of Special Conditions, staff finds that the
subject property is owned as an individual lot by Mr. Jim Erwin without
adjacent property under common ownership, therefore the lot could not be
brought into compliance with development across lot lines. On the finding
of Deprivation of Rights, staff finds that Literal interpretation of zoning
regulations would only allow one (1) single family or two-family dwelling
to be constructed on the existing lot. The applicant is requesting a variance
for minimum lot width for the development of two separate two-family
dwelling units on individual lots. The existing lot is much larger than other
properties in this area, and can not be developed with a more similar
density without a variance approval. The lot size is not the result of
actions of the applicant. The lot was platted with the existing 63.97 feet of
frontage. The applicant has Planning Commission approval of a replat of
Lot 6 splitting the lot further, however it is conditioned upon Board of
Adjustment approval. Ensuring that no special privileges that wouldn't be
afforded to other property owners are being afforded to this applicant, staff
finds that granting the requested lot width variance will not confer special
NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, some portions of this meeting were inaudible.
Renee Thomas--Senior Planning Secretary
Board of Adjustment
January 5, 2004
Page 7
privileges. The use of the property for two-family residential development
as indicated by the applicant is permitted within the RMF-24 zoning
district. All bulk and area regulations with the exception of lot width are
to be accommodated with the proposed project. The requested lot width
variance is the minimum variance necessary to accommodate two- family
residential use. With regard to harmony with the general purpose of the
zoning ordinance, staff finds that granting the variance will be in harmony
with the general purpose and intent of zoning regulations and will not be
injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public
welfare. The Pine Valley Neighborhood Association has expressed
publicly the desire for two-family residential development in this location.
Staff recommends approval of this requested 43-foot and 13.03-foot lot
width variances subject to the following conditions: First, that the
proposed development shall comply with all development regulations for a
two-family dwelling unit in the RMF-24 zoning district. Second, no more
than 1 two family dwelling unit per lot shall be constructed on this site.
Third, a building permit shall be obtained for each structure prior to
commencement of any work. Fourth, any work within the floodplain shall
require a separate Floodplain Development permit. Also, all conditions
from the Planning Commission approved FPL 04-03.00 shall remain
applicable.
Green'. Thank you Dawn. Is the applicant present?
Scott: I am Art Scott with Project Design Consultants. I just want to reiterate
that it was an unusually platted lot from the beginning. Lot one has a lot
of frontage actually, it curves around there like a little triangle and that is
what kept it from being wide enough. Both of these lots will have access
easements and utility easements and the driveway is planned to be 22' for
the record.
Green: Your name for the record?
Scott: Art Scott.
Green: It looks like you have quite a challenge there.
Scott: We stayed out of the floodplain and there are several trees that we are
working around and saving but it looks like it is going to work fine.
Green: It is still going to be a fairly steep driveway.
Scott: It is about 10%.
Green: Are there any questions or comments from the board?
NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, some portions of this meeting were inaudible.
Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary
Board of Adjustment
January 5, 2004
Page 8
Kohler: It is 17.54' of frontage that they have?
Warrick: Between the two pin markers.
Kohler: Right, there is one of them but then here to here is the other one.
Warrick: There is not a marker indicated that 1 can see that indicates where the right
of way line hits the property line on that eastern side. Where the right of
way line intersects the property line on the south end, the east side, there is
not a marker, there are just those two intersecting lines. There are pin
markers for the other comers.
Kohler: According to this survey 17.54 is the frontage on 6A, is that correct?
Warrick: Yes. That modifies the request slightly, we may have been working off a
previously generated plat when we put the staff report together.
Kohler: The 46.97 was a scaled? Since there is no pin there I don't know.
Warrick: I think that it might be more appropriate to make the statement "as
reflected on the approved Lot Split plat." Just so that when we are looking
at these decimal numbers we are not slightly off in making sure that those
match what we are actually approving.
Kohler: You could word it "that number or as the property line hits the right of
way line, the point of intersection of the right of way line and the property
line."
Green: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this
Variance request? Are there any questions from the board? I will
entertain a motion.
MOTION:
Kohler: I move that we approve the Variance request as stated subject to the
conditions by staff as stated. Do we need to change a couple of numbers?
Warrick: I think that because this plat that you are looking at is the document that
was approved by the Planning Commission to reconfigure these lots and
create 6A and 6B that it would be appropriate to word the recommended
Variance to state as approved on FPL 04-03.00. That way it is referenced
and we can tie these two actions together.
Kohler: As an additional condition in the motion we should specifically include
this document of the plat.
NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, some portions of this meeting were inaudible.
Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary
Board of Adjustment
January 5, 2004
Page 9
Nickle: Second.
Green: We have a motion and a second to approve the Variance request as
requested along with the five conditions from staff. Is there any further
discussion? Shall the Variance pass?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 04-02.00 was
approved by a vote of 6-0-0.
Green: That concludes all of the scheduled items on our agenda for the Board of
Adjustment, is there any old business or new business that should come
before the Board of Adjustment at this time? Hearing none, we will
adjourn the Board of Adjustment meeting.
NOTE: Due to technical difficulties, some portions of this meeting were inaudihle.
Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary