Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-04-07 MinutesMINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTMEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, April 7, 1986 at 3:45 P.M. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Larry Tompkins, Robert Waldren, Jerry Allred, Gerald Boyd and Dr. Ben Sacks MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Becker Chairman Mills called the meeting to order and the minutes of the February 17, 1986 meeting were considered. [.Iml lam: I Allred made the following correction: Page 1, second paragraph: name of the firm is E.R.C. Properties. Upon a motion from Tompkins and a second from Waldren, the minutes were accepted as corrected. N: ley Sri UP 1 1 • The second item on the to vary the front yard property is zoned R-0, abstain from voting. • 1 agenda was a request submitted by Jim Lindsey setback from the required 25' to 20'. The Residential Office. Waldren advised he would Lindsey stated the overhang on the structure in question is in the setback, although the building itself is not. He said the City Board has vacated the easement into which the overhang encroaches after receiving approval of the utility companies. He said the encroachment is 3.3' for a length of approximately 60'. Lindsey advised this error was discovered during the process of obtaining title insurance and said he thought there will probably be others in the same area that may have similar problems. He requested a waiver for the error made. Boyd noted that this problem has occured before and asked Lindsey for policy suggestions. Lindsey stated he felt there was nothing wrong with requiring a builder to stake the property and string -line the setbacks. He said he will follow this policy in the future as well as surveying building pads for commercial projects in advance. He explained that it is difficult to tell where the setbacks are, especially in the case of a cul-de-sac where the curb is not laid out exactly accurate. Lindsey said he felt it was not the Building Inspector's provision to check surveys. Board of Adjustment • April 7, 1986 Page 2 Lindsey said he has told the City Board that developers should be in a profile to cooperate with utility companies and the City's requests. He said he did not intend this kind of error to happen again but noted that it could. He said if he served on the Board, he would be lenient with a developer the first time they made such a mistake and perhaps the second time if there were good reason but that it should be stopped at some point. Tompkins asked if the same standards should apply to corner lots and Lindsey replied a corner lot gives a double problem. Construction of a Mansard roof style was explained. Tompkins asked if 3.3' or 5' were being requested as the variance and Lindsey replied he would like whatever was necessary to make the structure legal. MOTION Allred moved approval of a 4.3' variance applied only to the existing structure. Boyd seconded and the motion passed 5-0-1, Waldren abstaining, Mills expressed appreciation to Lindsey for his comments regarding • policy for addressing setback violations. APPEAL 86-4 SETBACK VARIANCE ROTH LESH - 356 N. WASHINGTON The third item of consideration was a request to vary a side building setback from the required 8' to 6' submitted by Dr. Ruth Lesh for R-1 property located at 356 N. Washington. Mr. Layman A. Smith of Smith's Two -Way Radio represented Dr. Lesh. Smith stated that he sold Dr. Lesh a satellite dish in February or 1986, He said the dish was set in a location that would not require destroying the large trees on the property which resulted in it being too close to the property line. Smith said he learned that he had violated regulations and was willing to do whatever is necessary to correct the situation. In response to Boyd's question, Smith said the Building Inspector first noticed the violation. Carlisle said there have been no complaints in the Planning Office regarding this issue. Mills asked if there are any regulations regarding satellite dishes and Carlisle stated they only need to meet setbacks. Waldren said, after driving by the property, he was in agreement with Smith that the dish is not unsightly and could only be placed in the • location that was selected. Allred added that, if the dish were within the setbacks, it would not alter whether it were sightly or unsightly. 103 Board of Adjustment • April 7, 1986 Page 3 In reply to Sacks' question, Carlisle noted the City Inspector found the dish to be closer to the fence than what is allowed by code. There being no comment from the audience, Mills returned discussion to the Board. Sacks made a motion that the variance be approved. Discussion followed. Boyd said, although he would vote in favor of the motion, he did not want his vote to be construed as a president. He said he was not approving of the variance just because there appeared to be no other location for the placement of the satellite dish. Allred agreed with Boyd and thought each case should be addressed on an individual basis. Waldren seconded Sacks' motion followed by further discussion. Tompkins asked that the variance apply only to the existing satellite dish. The amendment was accepted by Sacks and Waldren and the motion to approve passed 5-1-0, Mills voting "nay'. APPEAL 86-5 SETBACK VARIANCE FAYEITEVILLE CITY HOSPITAL - 221 S. SCHOOL • The fourth item on the agenda was a request submitted by Fayetteville City Hospital to vary the front yard setback from the required 30' to 0% The proprty is zoned P-19 Institutional and was represented by Steve Dyer, Assistant Administrator of City Hospital. Dyer said he was requesting this variance for the purpose of erecting a canopy over a clinic entrance that is to be constructed. He passed around a picture of the proposed plan and noted that the canopy variance applies only to a structure that will be in the air and not on the ground. Dyer stated the variance will eleviate two hardships that would exist for patients. He cited the hardships as inclement weather and access to and from the clinic. Dyer said patients needing to visit the clinic are not well and tend to be in a hurry. He said the purpose of the canopy is to provide a quick and convenient entrance to the clinic. Dyer explained that, over the course of the years, property has been taken from the hospital for street right-of-way in the area where the canopy is desired. He said the canopy will not be next to the street but to the existing property line which is 15' from the structure. Tompkins asked for clarification of the property line and Dyer explained same and pointed out 10' of r/w dedicated to the City in 1983, Tompkins asked what would prohibit clinic entry from the parking lot (indicated on the north side of the proposed canopy). Dyer noted the area immediately • north of the proposed canopy is the radiation building, not parking. Joy Board of Adjustment • April 7, 1986 Page 4 Waldren asked why the canopy is proposed to be 15' wide on one end and 9' on the other and Dyer replied it will follow the existing sidewalk. Tompkins asked about growth of the hospital and related expansion. He said if expansion is necessary, the hospital can make use of its' property to the immediate north. Chairman Mills asked for comments from the audience. There being none, she returned discussion to the Board. NOTION Waldren moved to grant the variance as requested. Boyd seconded and the motion passed 5-1-0. Tompkins voting "nay", Tompkins expressed concern regarding the safety of this proposal. He noted the difficulty of exiting which would necessitate a turn onto a very busy street or circling the block completely. Waldren replied he felt the canopy was needed to protect prospective patients waiting for a vehicle to pick them up. Dyer said the hospital is working with the City Street Department to enhance the entrance which he felt may eliminate some of Tompkins' concerns. Waldren suggested • the ingress be designated "one-way". APPEAL 86-6 H: vmima GEORGE FAUcETrEci: The fifth item on the agenda was a request submitted by George Faucette, Jr, to vary the front yard setback from the required 25to 22'. The property is located at 2830 Stagecoach Drive and is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mills and Boyd advised they would abstain. Tompkins asked if the entire block of homes around that property in question were in violation of the code. Faucette replied he didn't know for sure. Allred said he felt there would be many cases of encroachment due to the surveys required for title insurance as reported by Faucette. Waldren said it was tough to penalize the present or prospective owner of such a home and added he did not know of a solution other than to "grandfather" them in. Boyd suggested it may be helpful to keep track of which builders build which homes. Tompkins said he felt this was a good example of establishing a minimum standard which becomes the standard. Waldren reiterated his feeling • that penalizing the homeowner was unfair unless the owner was the original builder. 1�� Board of Adjustment • April 7, 1986 Page 5 g(O4 for Allred moved approval of the variance as requested. The issue of restricting an approval to existing structures was discussed. Tompkins pointed out that a variance granted to City Hospital (previous to today's request) has been applied to the entire property line and not the structure alone. Mills noted that, in this case, the variance will apply to the structure alone. Boyd noted it didn't hurt to be precise. Tompkins seconded and the motion to approve the variance passed 4-0-2, Mills and Boyd abstaining, Tompkins requested a copy of the most recently updated zoning ordiance. Mills inquired into a recent request that a letter be sent to the City Manager and several appropriate committees reflecting the concern of this Board regarding the problems this Board has been facing with setback violations. • Carlisle advised that a committee of the Planning Commission has been considering a new Subdivision Ordiance and the Board has requested the Commission examine setback issues. She said it has been determined that the builder is ultimately responsible for proper setbacks. Allred said he felt the City should have a way to police this problem possibly with the aid of a survey. Carlisle said, unless the ordinance is changed, the City cannot force a builder to string -line their setbacks. She pointed out the expense of surveys and Allred advised that surveys will be mandatory for the sale of a house in the near future. Tompkins agreed that enforcement was the main point. He suggested the City utilize a transit to find the corner of the property. He said he felt City standards could be raised so that this wouldn't be a problem. Waldren said he thought only a tape measure was necessary. Carlisle said these problems are being considered at this time by the new management. Mills said she thought the problem was that sometimes the people who are doing the inspecting don't know how to perform some of this type work. She said there was consenus among Board members to require the building itself to be surveyed during the building process. It was pointed out that these violations are costing both time and money. • There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:50 P.M. IOC