Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-06-06 - Agendas • Tae;ile ARKANSAS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS 113 W.Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 Telephone: (479)575-8267 AGENDA FOR A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MONDAY, JUNE 6, 2011 at 3:45 p.m. Room 111, City Administration Building The following items will be considered: 1. Approval of the minutes from the May 2, 2011 meeting. New Business: 2. BOA 11-3851 (420 East Lafayette/Mihalevich, 485): Submitted by KATIE MIHALEVICH for property located at 420 EAST LAFAYETTE STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.16 acres. The request is for a variance from the rear and side setback requirements to allow for the construction of a new carport. Planner: Jesse Fulcher 3. BOA 11-3852 (793 East Lighton Trail/Thompson, 525): Submitted by COMMUNITY BY DESIGN for property located at 793 EAST LIGHTON TRAIL. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 1.26 acres. The request is for a variance from the lot area requirements to divide the subject property into two tracts and for a front building setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance. Planner: Andrew Garner All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. A copy of the proposed amendments and other pertinent data are open and available for inspection in the office of City Planning(479-575-8267), 125 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. All interested parties are invited to review the petitions. Interpreters or TDD (Telecommunication Device for the Deaf) are available for all public hearings; 72 hour notice is required. For further information or to request an interpreter,please call 479-575-8330. • Taye evl e ARKANSAS 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. 2011 Board of Adjustment Members Sheree Alt (Chairman) Robert Kohler Jeff Hagers Steven Bandy Evan Niehues Kristen Knight Page 1 of 8 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on May 2, 2011 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS DISCUSSED ACTION TAKEN MINUTES: April 4, 2011 Approved Page 2 BOA 11-3798 (3311 N. College Avenue, 213) Approved Page 3 BOA 11-3795 (6855 W. Wedington,434) No action Page 4 BOA 11-3821 (420 E. Lafayette, 485) Denied Page 5 BOA 11-3822 (237 S. Ray Avenue, 526) Approved Page 7 BOA 11-3823 (362 N. Fletcher, 485) Approved Page 7 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Sheree Alt Steven Bandy Robert Kohler Kristen Knight Evan Niehues Jeff Hagers STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Jesse Fulcher Andrew Garner Data Sanders Jason Kelley Jeremy Pate June 6,2011 Board of Adjustment 5-2-11 BOA Minutes Agenda Item 1 Page 1 of 8 Page 2 of 8 Board of Adjustment Chair Bob Kohler called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM. Approval of the minutes from the April 4, 2011 Board of Adjustment meeting. Motion• Board Member Knight made a motion to approve the April 4, 2011 Meeting Minutes. Board Member Hagers seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 4-0-0. June 6,2011 Board of Adjustment 5-2-11 BOA Minutes Agenda Item 1 Page 2 of 8 Page 3 of 8 Old Business: BOA 11-3798 (3311 North College Avenue/Lewis Brothers Automotive, 213): Submitted by JORGENSEN AND ASSOCIATES for property located at 3311 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.27 acres. The request is for a front building setback variance to allow construction of a canopy on the south side of the building. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Bob Kelly, representative, discussed the parking ratio requirement and reduction as a result of the canopy. David Swain, representative, discussed the background of the project and discussed the findings in the staff report. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, discussed staffs position and explained that the canopy does not decrease the viability of the site to accommodate the existing uses and that staff finds the canopy can be provided in another location, which would allow for the business to retain franchising rights. Board Member Kohler discussed need versus want. Board Member Knight and the applicants discussed the parking issue. Board Member Hagers and the applicants discussed the parking lot circulation and the alternative locations for the canopy as identified by staff. Kit Williams, City Attorney, stated that the reason for the front setback requirement in zoning is to protect property owners. He stated that the applicant owns the property across the street. No public comment was presented. Motion: Board Member Neihues made a motion to approve the request as recommended by staff. Board Member Hagers seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 4-0-0. June 6,2011 Board of Adjustment 5-2-11 BOA Minutes Agenda Item 1 Page 3 of 8 Page 4 of 8 BOA 11-3795 (6855 West Wedington Drive/Lois Guist, 434): Submitted by LOIS GUIST for property located at 6855 WEST WEDINGTON DRIVE. The property is zoned R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 2.23 acres. The request is for a lot width and lot area variance to bring a recently installed mobile home into compliance. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave an update on the status of this application, discussing that the applicant is still working with staff to modify their request so the request may be able to be heard by the board. Public Comment: Billy Prater, adjacent property owner, commented that he objects to the mobile home that has been installed on this site. No more public comment was presented. Jason Kelley, Assistant City Attorney, discussed that the Board's bylaws state that if the applicant is not present that the board cannot table the request a second time. No action was taken by the Board on this item. June 6,2011 Board of Adjustment 5-2-11 BOA Minutes Agenda Item 1 Page 4 of 8 Page 5 of 8 BOA 11-3821 (420 East LafayettefMihalevich, 485): Submitted by KATIE MIHALEVICH for property located at 420 EAST LAFAYETTE STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.16 acres. The request is for a variance of the rear and side setbacks to allow for the construction of a new carport and shed. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Katie Mihalevich, applicant, described the request and the reasoning for the design. Board Member Kohler asked why staff was supportive of the side setback variance. Fulcher explained that staff found certain hardships which supported a side setback variance. Mihalevich stated that the carport was open on three sides. Board Member Knight asked if the building was too close to the neighbors garage. Mihalevich stated that she had spoken with the Building Official and that the location was permissible with certain construction standards. Board Member Hagers asked why the height was being requested. Mihalevich stated that the height was necessary for the structure to fit in architecturally with the neighborhood. Kohler asked the applicant wanted to proceed with the request as submitted, or modify the requested variances. Mihalevich stated that the shed could be reduced in size, but if her only option is to proceed as requested, or as staff recommended, she would stick with her original request. Jason Kelley (Assistant City Attorney) and the board discussed what they could vote on. No public comment was presented. Motion #1: Board Member Knight made a motion to approve the request as recommended by staff. Knight withdrew the motion. Motion #2: Board Member Hagers made a motion to approve the request as requested by the June 6,2011 Board of Adjustment 5-2-11 BOA Minutes Agenda Item 1 Page 5 of 8 Page 6 of 8 applicant. Board Member Niehues seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion failed with a vote of 1-3-0 with Board Member Niehues voting no. June 6,2011 Board of Adjustment 5-2-11 BOA Minutes Agenda Item 1 Page 6 of 8 Page 7 of 8 BOA 11-3822 (237 South Ray Avenue/Pixley, 526): Submitted by BATES AND ASSOCIATES for property located at 237 SOUTH RAY AVENUE. The property is zoned R-PZD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING DISTRICT and contains approximately 0.15 acres. The request is for a variance from the front and side setback requirements. Dara Sanders, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Board Member Kohler stated that staff did everything possible to resolve the violation. Stacy Pixley, property owner, wasn't aware of many of the issues and discussed the history of her property. Board Member Kohler asked if the applicant is okay with the conditions of approval. Derrick Thomas, representative, stated that the applicant wanted to keep the deck that encroached into the entire setback and over the property line to the north. No public comment was presented. Motion: Board Member Niehues made a motion to approve request. Board Member Knight seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 4-0-0. June 6,2011 Board of Adjustment 5-2-11 BOA Minutes Agenda Item 1 Page 7 of 8 Board of Adjustment Meeting May 2, 2011 Page 8 of 8 BOA 11-3823 (362 North Fletcher/Ervin, 485): Submitted by JACK ERVIN for property located at 362 NORTH FLETCHER. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.50 acres. The request is for a variance from the front (north) setback requirement to allow of the construction of a new garage. Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner, gave the staff report. Jack Ervin stated that the current garage only had room for one car, and the setbacks were challenging since he was a corner lot with two front setbacks. Justin Minkel, neighbor, stated that he supported the variance request. Ervin stated that he would not build the garage if the location shown by staff as a viable alternative to the variance. Board Member Kohler stated that the retaining wall limits the area available to located the garage. Board Member Knight asked staff about the right-of-way requirements and future sidewalk construction for Crescent Drive. Fulcher stated that the right-of-way was 21.5' from centerline and that a sidewalk would be built between the existing fence and street. Motion: Board Member Niehues made a motion to approve the request. Board Member Hagers seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 4-0-0. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:45 PM. June 6,2011 Board of Adjustment 5-2-11 BOA Minutes Agenda Item 1 Page 8 of 8 "'IrIle Faye I BOA Meeting of June 6, 2011 ARKANSAS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone: (479)575-8267 TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner THRU: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director DATE: May 25, 2011 BOA 11-3851 (420 East Lafayette/Mihalevich, 485): Submitted by KATIE MIHALEVICH for property located at 420 EAST LAFAYETTE STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 0.16 acres. The request is for a variance of the rear and side setbacks to allow for the construction of a new carport. Planner: Jesse Fulcher BACKGROUND: Property: The subject property is located at 420 E. Lafayette Street and contains approximately 0.17 acres. There is an existing 1,500 square foot house located on the property that was constructed in 1914 and a small detached single-car carport. A survey of the property is attached. The Board of Adjustment denied a variance request for a carport/shed building on the subject property on May 2, 2011. The applicant has submitted a new plan, with a modified building and a decreased setback variance request. The surrounding land uses and zoning are shown in Table 1. Table 1: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Direction from Land Use Zoning Site North Residential RSF-4,Residential Single-Family 4 units per acre South Residential RSF-4, Residential Single-Family 4 units per acre East Residential RSF-4,Residential Single-Family 4 units per acre West Residential RSF-4, Residential Single-Family 4 units per acre Request: The applicant proposes to remove the existing single-car carport and construct a new two-car carport in the northeast corner of the lot. The applicant requests approval of a 7 foot rear setback variance (an 8 foot setback) and a 5 foot side setback variance (a 0 foot setback) for a 22 foot by 22 foot carport. The proposed carport is approximately 15 feet tall at the peak of the gable, thus requiring the setbacks imposed by Chapter 161. If the carport was reduced to 10 feet in height, the setbacks would be as required by 164.02. June 6,2011 G:IETODevelopment Services Review120171Development Rei iewVO-3851 BOA 420 Lafayetiel BOAl6-03-111Commen[s& QQ��rdsof Adjustment 1CS�'1e1-3851 Mihalevich Agenda Item 2 Page 1 of 10 164.02 Accessory Structures and Uses: Height and Setback Restrictions. Accessory structures ten (10) feet or less in height shall maintain a minimum side setback of three (3) feet and a minimum rear setback of five (5) feet from the property lines. Accessory structures greater than ten (10) feet in height shall meet the setback requirements of the zoning district in which it is located. All accessory structures shall conform to the front setbacks of the zoning district in which is it located. Public Comment: Staff has not received public comment for this variance request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the gable roof is a design element desired by the applicant, but that it not essential to the function of the carport. The applicant could reduce the roof height to 10 feet, which would reduce the required setback from 15 feet on the north to 5 feet, thus removing the need for a variance. Staff finds that the only justified variance is from the east property line due to the current development of the site, including restrictive access, and an existing significant tree desirable for preservation. As indicated on the site plan the small setback reduction provides the area necessary to access and fully utilize the proposed carport. Based on these findings, staff recommends denial of the rear (north) setback variance, but approval of the side (east) setback variance, subject to the following conditions of approval. 1. The applicant shall reduce the building height to 10 feet or less. 2. The existing carport/shed shall be removed from the property prior to final inspection of the new carport. 3. A maintenance easement/agreement shall be filed of record for the area between the proposed carport and the neighbor's garage prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. All required permits shall be obtained prior to any construction or repair of the existing structure or to improve the subject property. 5. All new construction shall be constructed in accordance with the bulk and area requirements of the underlying zoning district. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: O Approved < O Denied` O Tabled Date: June 6, 2011 Motion: Second: Vote: G:IETCIDevelopment Serviees Review120111Development Review"I-3851 BOA 420 Lafgveile(A4ilialevicli)i06BOA106-06 June 6,2011 201 PComments and Redlines Board of Adjustment BOA11-3851 Mihalevich Agenda Item 2 Page 2 of 10 FINDINGS: City of Fayetteville Unified Development Code Section 156.02 ZONING REGULATIONS. CITY PLAN 2025 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION: City Neighborhood Area 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. 1. Special Conditions. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Finding: The subject property is located in the Washington/Willow Historic District on a 50 foot wide lot. A variance for the existing home was granted by the Board of Adjustment in 2009. There is a shared driveway that provides access to the backyard and an existing one-car carport. However, this access is reduced to approximately 15 feet between the neighbor's garage and an existing 30-inch caliper tree. These factors greatly reduce the ability to construct a functional and accessible carport. 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: The literal interpretation of the zoning regulations will not deprive the applicant of the rights to construct a carport on the property, but the side setback requirement will make portions of the carport inaccessible if fully applied. However, the 15 foot rear setback can be reduced to 5 feet by right if the carport is reduced in height to 10 feet or less. This would remove the need to request a rear setback variance. 3. Resulting Actions. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Finding: The layout of the subject property, including the location of the home, shared driveway, trees and neighbor's garage occurred in the distant past and are not an action of the applicant. These factors have June 6,2011 G'IETCIDevelopmenl Services Review120111Development ReviewM3851 BOA 420 Lafayette(Mihalevlch)106 BOA106-06Board of Adjustment 201 DComments and Redlines BOA11-3851 Mihalevich Agenda Item 2 Page 3 of 10 reduced the accessibility of the backyard, limited the space available for a functional carport, and create a hardship that justifies a side setback variance. However, the need for a rear setback variance is a result of the applicants design preference, and not a special circumstance of the property. 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 a side setback variance will not confer special privileges, as the age and size of the property limit accessibility and available area for a functional carport. However, approving a rear setback variance that is being created by a design preference would confer special privileges. The applicant can construct a low-slop roof, or flat roof that will keep the structure under 10 feet and reduce the rear setback requirement. 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: Existing nonconformities were not considered as a basis of the findings stated in this staff report. Section 156.02 C. Consideration by the Board of Adjustment. 1. Bulk and Area. 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, June 6, 2011. 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. Finding: The side setback variance is the minimum variance necessary to allow for an accessible and functional carport. However, the rear setback G:IETCIDevelopment Services Review1201I Developnrew Reviewl 11-3851 BOA 420 Lafayette(Miholevich)106 BOAW-06-June 6,2011 20111Commenls and Redlines Board of Adjustment BOA11-3851 Mihalevich Agenda Item 2 Page 4 of 10 requirement can be reduced by lowering the roof height to 10 feet or less, which would eliminate the need for a rear setback variance. b. 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: Reducing the setbacks to allow for the construction of a new, functional carport will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The height and design presented fits the architectural character of the neighborhood and is more appropriate and complimentary to the detached garage on the adjoining property line, and with other properties in the neighborhood. C. 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 of approval. d. 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 involved, or any use expressly or by implication prohibited by the terms of the zoning regulations in said district. Finding: An accessory structure is permitted on this property subject to size limitations. G:IETCIDevetopment Services Review120110evelopment ReviewUI-3851 BOA 420 Lafayette(Mihalevich)106 BOA106-06-June8,2011 201 PComments and Redlines Board of Adjustment BOA11-3851 Mihalevich ., Agenda Item 2 Page 5 of 10 9 3/4" BMROOFS�� 0 en-air Wing truss gable IN 71s Existing fence beyond 1 ELEVATION:PROPOSED CARPORT PROPERTY LINE-S8911111'IF GABLED ROOF XISTIND RAIN DARDFN TRFF / " PROPERTY LINE_ 15'KEAKSFt6ACKi Neighbor b 4yyL{fie SUgS FRODOSFD YARD 9ULya ( � ' PROPOSED � w CARPORT pi s a t+ Existing Carport Proposed roof 22'x 22tia� �', 6 Shed to be removed overhang, tipFP z FUTURE DATION 1: o 2'1 I/2" 30"Maple Tree' \; ;m r OLUMN FUTURE w DECK ,.. ' __ -PIN o Lup - EXISTING R \C� S\Qt t C� EM DRIVEWAY Existing Roof was given a setback variant¢In 2009 in order to 3 get a building permit to remodel the house fl because the existing structure was n,I non-conforming to zoning regulations SIL of k�ti 0 0 osV i i z,6e I J gee iE w' I mI I Form i I PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: - Part of lots numbered four(4)and five(5)'y " in block numbered three(3)in the Masonlc Addition to the City of Fayette- ville, ayette ville, Arkansas,as designated upon the J:ez plat of said addition recorded in Volume V �'� 15'FRONTSETBACK n at page 64 of the Deed of Records and In Plat Book 4 at page 179 of Washington County, Arkansas POPE TY LINE —___- b6 SIDEWAL —O.H.ELECTPJC .. EXISTING 3 CURB CUT 0 OKAFRIC SCALE ' EAST LAFAYETTE ST.' 0 5 10 20 35 CL LAFAYETTE ST. ne 6,20 4 Board of Adjustment BOA11-3851 Mihalevich Agenda Item 2 Page 6 of 10 Parcel Deed 4/11/11 11:59 AM Scanned Image for Book-Page 2007-22614 ;m� amfl as gso s ss m E 1 0 o- DI n ~ j'o 5 ap5S5T w I m m I j 109.94 C m oN�eoHM i (9 ale t � s Oe 95x® t O•;�F y a= ®K ,ae w •-y �m ynm"e S HP]165.1 £j A 3®MD nf;; OLIVE STREET agl8 :a >s 3a „sg B, gy4'p F gCaa ;g jt q.e t�:j t.i`m 48H9�a�a is pe a 9- ss F gg `1� afla "O w,o Return to Parcel Information http://www.co.washington.ar.us/PropertySearch/RParcelDeed.asp?...me&SID=110411115441395&ST=N&TR=2&V=8&SP=2007-22614&IN=01124805 Page 1 of 1 June 6,2011 Board of Adjustment BOA11-3851 Mihalevich Agenda Item 2 Page 7 of 10 BOA11-3851 MIHALEVICH Close Up View r J I !r i� MAPLE 5T 7.1 SUBJECT PROPERTY 3 0 3 Ili -4MF.76 i Q I� F I� RM" P1 RPm RSPB SUTTON ST Legend BOA11-3851 a w .......••• Muti-Use Trail (Existing) o ••.•••..• Future Trails """`'.Footprints 2010 - Hillside-Hilltop Overlay District [_ _! Design Overlay Di trict Design Overlay Di trict ------ Planning Area 0 75 150 300 450 600 Fayetteville Feet June 6,2011 BOA11-3851 Mihalevich Agenda Item 2 Page 8 of 10 BOA11-3851 WHALEViCH One Mile View esw t z.w NST gKd v JRWfN. RIIFd '� ..�' MEldORa �m R[ aid CAR 1 1.1 HOLLY 9T h 1 7. %JURY t RBF1 2g TE'720 &OpP 1Cw FI' 1 9T ST BBFd _ .RO ACAM9 �a -'1 "-0 ME C. ' RBFd ptlFd' � 1tN`dG d f6id CRN 9T gy RBFi $�3eFc RN ST WFS �yq�'f�/,I• PR RBPd "BFd " RNrd C PROSPECTSTT PRC3PEC7 _ T SEC AS SUBJECT PROPERTY g - - LCU19E 3T FAF4 BSFsgBTw"�' n 11' NST eFa "eF+a Ra 313 RBFe W4 ' d.MAKE d dl Fa I" ffl I R „yid 41.1 d5'"'ll' RidWZDcreed —�- MIC �, SpG. SUTTON 3T OT_ tj t WC ft Y4 �"�1 T '9 fpm ,•?. . m+fP 0.O riM I � P[ 7 '2 RFFd -Aljr, � RBFS S•1!I• R1 �F ImFd • T 3P1 .`TR, w>sti ' fa1�5 Gi + 11T Overview Legend BOA 11-3851 -�t'� • Subject Property ®BOA113851 Desi jn Overlay District wrs' l �f 1• ❑ L Boundary ___, Plan iing Area Fay tteville {7J� 0 0.25 0.5 1 . , Miles June 6 2011 Board of Adjustment BOA11-3851 Mihalevich Agenda Item 2 Page 9 of 10 June 6,2011 Board of Adjustment BOA11-3851 Mihalevich Agenda Item 2 Page 10 of 10 Fayetvie r01 T1 BOA Meeting of June 6, 2011 ARKANSAS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone:(479)575-8267 TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Andrew Garner, Senior Planner THRU: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director DATE: May 27, 2011 BOA 11-3852 (793 East Lighton TraiVfhompson, 525): Submitted by COMMUNITY BY DESIGN for property located at 793 EAST LIGHTON TRAIL. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE and contains approximately 1.26 acres. The request is for a variance from the lot area requirements to divide the subject property into two tracts and for a front building setback variance to bring the existing home into compliance. Planner: Andrew Garner BACKGROUND: Property: The subject property is a triangular parcel of 1.26 acres located east of the intersection of Lighton Trail and Rodgers Drive. The property is zoned RSF-4 and contains a single family house of 1,149 square feet that was constructed in 1946 according to Washington County parcel records. The house is located in the northeast corner of the property. The property is fairly steep and contains some stone outcroppings, terraced gardens, and a stone outbuilding and well. A survey of the property is attached. The surrounding land uses and zoning are shown in Table 1. Table 1: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning Direction from Site Land Use Zoning North; East Residential RSF-4, Residential Single-Family 4 units per acre South Water storage RSF-4, Residential Single-Family 4 units per acre tanks West Water storage RSF-4, Residential Single-Family 4 units per acre; tanks; RMF-24, Residential Multi-Family 24 units per acre undeveloped Request: The applicant proposes to subdivide the 1.26 acre tract into two tracts as follows: Tract A 5,534 square feet Tract B 49,195 square feet The applicant requests a lot area variance, as Tract A does not meet the minimum lot size. The applicant, is also requesting a front building setback variance to bring the existing house into conformance. The variance requests are listed in Table 2. G:IETCIDevelopnenl Services Review120110evelopment Reviewlll-3852 BOA 793 E Lighlon Trail (Thompson)IBOA106- ne 6,2011 20RIComments and Redlines oard of Adjustment BOA11-3852 Thompson Agenda Item 3 Page 1 of 26 Table 2 Variance Request Variance Issue Ordinance Requirement I Applicant's Request Lot area Tract A) 8,000 square feet 1 5,534 square feet(2,466 square foot variance Front setback 15 feet 1 4 feet(11 foot variance) Public Comment: Staff has received a letter (attached) from an adjacent property owner expressing concerns with the proposed variance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends in favor of the front building setback variance to bring the existing house into compliance with the following condition: 1. The front building setback variance only applies to the footprint of the existing structure and does not apply to future additions or new construction. Staff finds that there are no special conditions or hardships that warrant the requested lot area variance, and that sufficient area is available on the 1.26-acre property to create two parcels that conform to the minimum lot size in the RSF-4 zoning district. Based on the findings included herein, staff recommends denial of the lot area variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: d Approved 0 Denied ❑ Tabled Date:June 6, 2011 Motion: Second: vote: FINDINGS: City of Fayetteville Unified Development Code Section 156.02 ZONING REGULATIONS. CITY PLAN 2025 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Area 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 to other lands, structures or buildings in the same June 6,2011 G:I ETCIDevelopmew Services Review120110evelopment ReviewV I-3852 BOA 793 E.Lighlon Trail (Thompson)IBOA106-96ard of Adjustment 20111Comments and Redlines BOA11-3852 Thompson Agenda Item 3 Page 2 of 26 district. Finding: Lot Area Variance The subject property is within the Hillside Hilltop Overlay District on the southern slope of Mount Sequoyah. The elevation drops from 1,620 feet in the northeast corner of the site to 1,572 feet in the southern portion of the site adjacent to Rodgers Drive, an overall slope of approximately 20%. The property contains some areas of stone outcroppings, mature landscape beds, a stone walking path, and a stone retaining wall that holds up the driveway for the house. The courtyard immediately around the house is enclosed with a wood picket fence. The site is located in a unique natural setting. However, the topography and natural features do not prohibit subdividing the property into two reasonable and usable parcels that meet the minimum requirements of the RSF-4 zoning district. Neither the natural features nor the walls and fences dictate a definite or logical property line that would necessitate creating the proposed Tract A with 5,534 square feet. Proposed Tract A could easily be expanded to provide the minimum 8,000 square feet to meet the zoning code. It is the property owner's preference to retain a larger portion of the yard, including some mature landscape beds, on Tract B, which necessitates the variance. It is staff's opinion that the proposed lot line for Tract A would not be beneficial for the long term use and maintenance of the retaining wall on Tract A that hold up the driveway for the house. City ordinance requires retaining walls to be set back from property lines in order for the property owner to maintain and/or rebuild the wall on their own property. When the retaining wall on Tract A needs maintenance, or if the wall should fall down, the wall would likely cause damage to Tract B, and could not be rebuilt without trespass onto Tract B. If Tract A were expanded to 8,000 square feet to meet the minimum required by the zoning code, Tract A could be expanded in a configuration to provide adequate setback around this wall and the steep rock outcropping around the house. Front Buildine Setback Variance The fact that the home was constructed in 1946, prior to current zoning codes, is a unique circumstance that warrants granting the variance to bring the front building setback into compliance. 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 June 6,2011 C:IETCIDevelopment Services Review120110evetopmew RevicwHI-3852 BOA 793 E.Lighlon Trail (Thompson)IBOAI06-Kard of Adjustment 201AComments and Redlines BOA11-3852 Thompson Agenda Item 3 Page 3 of 26 zoning regulations. Finding: Lot Area Variance The lot area requirement does not prevent the applicant from constructing an additional single family home on the property, or subdividing the property into multiple lots. Based on the survey, a site visit, and discussion with the applicant, there appears to be more than adequate area to subdivide the property into two tracts as desired by the applicant with a smaller lot surrounding the home, and a larger undeveloped lot for future development. The property line around the existing home would have to be a little larger than currently proposed. However, multiple reasonable tracts of property could be created and meet the zoning code. Front Building Setback Variance This is an existing nonconforming structure because the house is located within the front setback. Staff finds that the literal interpretation of the front setback regulation would deprive the applicant of the right to have a conforming structure, a right that is commonly enjoyed by others within the same zoning district. 3. Resulting Actions. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Finding: Lot Area Variance The site was developed prior to the applicant taking ownership eight years ago. However the request to subdivide the property is an action of the applicant. The request to create the lot lines proposed are a result of the desire of the applicant to have certain areas of the property on one lot or the other, and not a result of special conditions. A slight expansion of the proposed lot line around Lot A will allow a lot split in compliance with the lot area requirement. Front Building Setback Variance The building setback variance for the existing structure is not the result of actions of the applicant, as the structure was constructed in 1946, prior to adoption of the zoning code. 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 June 6,2011 G.IETCIDevelopmenl Services Review120111Development Reviewl11-3852 BOA 793 E.Lighron Trail (Thmnpson)00AI06-96ard of Adjustment 20111Comments and Redlines BOA11-3852 Thompson Agenda Item 3 Page 4 of 26 district. Finding: Lot Area Variance The property owner currently has a 1.26-acre lot zoned RSF-4. This is a larger parcel than the average surrounding properties in this neighborhood and in the RSF-4 zoning district throughout the City. The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide the property into two lots of 0.13- and 1.13-acre. Granting a variance for the 0.13-acre (5,534 square feet) lot would be a special privilege given that the property has already been developed and utilized for a single family home for a number of decades without the variance. The property may continue to be utilized in its current configuration, or it could be subdivided into multiple parcels in conformance with the zoning code without a variance. The proposed lot split configuration could be modified to meet the lot area minimum without a hardship to the property owner. The proposed lot area variance would confer special privileges. It is a common condition for large single family lots to be subdivided, but it would be a unique situation for this property to have a lot with only 5,534 square feet within the RSF-4 zoning district when other new lots created under the RSF-4 zoning district are required to have 5,000 square feet. Front Building Setback Variance Granting the requested setback variance to bring the existing structure into compliance will not confer special privileges as the structure was built well before the current zoning requirements. 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: Existing nonconformities were not considered as a basis of the Findings stated in this staff report. Section 156.02 C. Consideration by the Board of Adjustment. 1. Bulk and Area. 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,June 6, 2011. June 6,2011 G:IETCIDevelopment Services Reviewl20111Development Reniew111-3852 BOA 793 G Lighton Trail (Thompson)IBOAI06-Katd of Adjustment 2011IComments and Redlines BOA11-3852 Thompson Agenda Item 3 Page 5 of 26 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. Finding: The reasons set forth in the application do not justify the granting of a lot area variance. The requested front building setback variance is the minimum needed to bring the existing nonconforming structure into compliance. b. 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: Lot Area Variance The proposed Tract A would be 5,534 square feet. This would be smaller than most surrounding lots and the average lot size of single family homes in the Mount Sequoyah neighborhood. Due to the topography of the area there are a number of odd-shaped parcels, including some single family homes on lots of a comparable size as that proposed. The lot line for Tract A is proposed directly on a retaining wall that holds up the driveway for the house. As discussed in Finding No. 1, this lot line location could potentially be detrimental to the public welfare of both future property owners of Tracts A and B. As proposed, there would not be enough room for the property owner of Tract A to maintain or access the downhill side of the retaining wall that holds up their driveway. Front Building Setback Variance The structure has been located on the property for approximately 65 years. Granting the variance to bring the existing structure into compliance 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. C. Conditions and Safeguards. In granting any variance, the Board of Adjustment may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the zoning regulations. June 6,2011 G:IETCIDevelopment Services Review120111Development Re[iewl11-3852 BOA 793 E.Lighton 7D-ad (Thompson)IBOA106-96ard of Adjustment 20111Comments and Redlines BOA11-3852 Thompson Agenda Item 3 Page 6 of 26 Finding: Staff has recommended denial of the lot area variance. Staff recommends one condition of approval for the front building setback variance as noted earlier in this report. Should the Board of Adjustment make findings to approve the lot area variance staff would recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. With the exception of lot area, the lot split is subject to review in conformance with all other Unified Development Code requirements, including the requirement for setbacks of a retaining wall from a property line. 2. The proposed lot split would result in an accessory structure on a separate lot (Tract B) from the principal structure. In accordance with Unified Development code Section 164.02, the accessory structure shall be removed from Tract B prior to lot split approval, or the applicant would be required to obtain conditional use permit approval from Planning Commission for the accessory structure. d. 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 involved, or any use expressly or by implication prohibited by the terns of the zoning regulations in said district. Finding: The Board of Adjustment may grant variances of the lot area and building setback as proposed. June 6,2011 G:IETCIDevelopnenl Services Review12011 IDevelopmen(Reviewi 11-3852 BOA 793E.L(ghton Trail (7hompson)IBOM6-96ard of Adjustment 20111Comments and Redlines BOA11-3852 Thompson Agenda Item 3 Page 7 of 26 161.07 District RSF-4, Residential Single-Family—Four Units Per Acre (A) Purpose. The RSF-4 Residential District is designed to permit and encourage the development of low density detached dwellings in suitable environments, as well as to protect existing development of these types. (B) Uses. (1) Permitted uses. Unit 1 1 City-wide uses by right Unit 8 1 Single-family dwellings Unit 41 1 Accessory dwellings (2) Conditional uses. Unit 2 Ci -wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 5 Government facilities Unit Two-family dwellings Unit 12 Limited business Unit 24 Home occupations Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities (C) Density. Single-family Two-family dwellings dwellings Units per acre 4 or less 7 or less D Bulk and area regulations. Single-family Two-family dwellings dwellings Lot minimum width 70 ft. 80 ft. Lot area minimum 8,000 sq.ft. 12,000 sq.ft. Land area per 8,000 sq.ft. 6,000 sq.ft. dwelling unit Hillside Overlay 60 ft. 70 ft. District Lot minimum width Hillside Overlay 8,000 sq.ft. 12,000 sq.ft. District Lot area minimum Land area per 8,000 sq.ft. 6,000 sq.ft. dwelling unit (E) Setback requirements. Front Side Rear 15 ft. 5 ft. 15 ft. (F) Building height regulations. Building Height Maximum 1 45 ft. Height regulations. Structures in this District are limited to a building height of 45 feet. Existing structures that exceed 45 feet in height shall be grandfathered in, and not considered nonconforming uses,(ord.#4858). (G) Building area. On any lot the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 40% of the total area of such lot. (Code 1991, §160.031;Ord. No.4100,§2 (Ex. A),6-16-98; Ord. No.4178,8-31-99; Ord.4858,4-I8-06;Ord.5028,6-19-07; Oid. 5128,4-15-08;Ord.5224,3-3-09;01,153 12,4-20-10) June 6,2011 G:IETCIDevelopment Services Review120111Development Reviewl11-3852 BOA 793 E.Lighton Trail (Thompson)IBOA106-Bard of Adjustment 20111Comments and Redlines BOA11-3852 Thompson Agenda Item 3 Page 8 of 26 858 Rodgers Drive Fayetteville, AR 72701 May 31, 2011 RE: Kathy Thompson variance request, Lighton Trail City of Fayetteville Board of Adjustment 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 Members of the Board: My wife Carolyn and I have resided at this address since purchasing in 1974; our property adjoins Ms. Thompson's to the east with a 27 foot city alleyway between our properties. I learned of the variance request at the end of the week, first seeing the sign on Lighton and then receiving the adjacent property owners notification in the mail on 5-26. Since we will be out of town on the hearing date,we wish to file this for the board. My understanding of the request is that it would allow Ms. Thompson to divide into 2 lots, enabling her to construct a new dwelling with the probable sale of the existing house and modified lot. Our concerns regarding this proposal are: 1. Adding more usage upon an old and barely adequate infrastructure(sewer line and street); as Rodgers Drive has no city sewer line (until the start of the Southern Heights subdivision at the end of the old Rodgers Drive)we pump our sewer up to Lighton Trail sewer, as do many others on our street. 2. The R4 zoning allows 4 residential dwellings per acre,which would not be met by the proposed division of the Thompson property as well as no way to meet setback requirements if the existing dwelling on the new small lot were ever damaged by fire or weather to require a building permit. 3. The issuance of such variances often encourage more variances and open the possibilities for substantial changes in the nature of an established neighborhood. This is always a concern for a property owner regarding property values. In conclusion, my wife and I are opposed to his requested variance and feel that it should be turned down. Yours truly, R. C. Gilbrech, Jr. CJune 6,2011 Board of Adjustment BOA11-3852 Thompson Agenda Item 3 Page 9 of 26 community.try_de sigh Mom • • ::��::���\\R T.W.Pi NNING.uRQAN-WINEEMNO May 9,201 l Via Hand Delivery Chairman. Board of Adjustment City of Fayetteville 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville,Arkansas 72701 RE: Project Summary Kathy Thompson Lot Split This letter describes the intent of the proposed lot split for the property located at 793 East Lighten Trail and the reasoning behind the requested variance. The existing cottage and associated property was purchased by my client, Kathy Thompson, in 2003, and has since used this as her home. Please see attached Lot Split Site Plan when reference is made to proposed Tract A and proposed Tract B. Also please see annotated photos of the properly on pages 3 to 8 of this letter, Baekground Information/Existing Use The small, one bedroom / one bath cottage contains approximately 1,000 square feet and was originally constructed in 1946. Kathy currently uses the property in the immediate vicinity of the cottage, proposed Tract A containing 5,534 square feet, as her primary residence. In addition to the cottage, this smaller piece of land contains a small gravel driveway that provides three off-street parking spaces, two low maintenance gardens to the north and cast of the cottage containing mature trees and native ground cover plantings, a large deck is attached to the back of the cottage providing outdoor dining experiences with views to the south, and a 25' square paved courtyard is located behind the cottage that provides a more intimate enclosed outdoor space. This space meets the everyday indoor and outdoor living needs For Kathy. The south and west boundary of this smaller piece of land (proposed Tract A) is created naturally by both geology and topography. Large rock outcroppings roughly define these boundaries while steep slopes exceeding 30% extend in a southwesterly direction immediately adjacent to the rock outcroppings. Over time rock walls and fencing have been constructed along this natural boundary that provides separation from the original cottage site and the remainder of the property. Please see photos on pages 3 to 8 of this letter, The remainder of the property, proposed Tract B containing 49,195 square feet, has been used primarily for agricultural purposes by the owner, the owner's family, friends, and neighbors. Kathy has offered this land for agricultural use by her friends and family similar to a community garden concept. Proposed Use The proposal is to legally separate the original cottage site (proposed Tract A) from the larger tract of land (proposed Tract B) that has been primarily used for agricultural purposes. Kathy plans to construct a new home on Tract B and potentially sell the existing cottage and associated Tract A. A variance is required because the lot area of the original cottage site(proposed Tract A),does not meet the minimum required by the RSF4 zoning district. We feel that this proposal meets the four criteria required for the lot area variance: I. Special Conditions Exist. The existing rock outcroppings, steep slopes, stone retaining walls, and fencing that form a significant natural separation from the original cottage site (Tract A) and the remainder of the property 31 1�We t�%T ng Street Fayettvh�Ar&A� t;,;�d1 B047 Q842tllj(p@O" Agenda Item 3 Page 10 of 26