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