Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-08-17 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND SIGN APPEALS A meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Board of Sign Appeals was held Monday, August 17, 1998, at 3:45 p.m., Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Perkins, Gerald Boyd, Marion Orton, Robert Nickle, Thad Hanna, Paul Wilhelms, and Michael Andrews. STAFF PRESENT: Tim Conklin and Debra Humphrey APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 3, 1998 Minutes were approved with a change on page 4 as noted. BA 98-21.00: VARIANCE (VAN DUONG NGO) 2907 WESTON This item was submitted by Van Duong Ngo for property located at 2907 Weston. The property is zoned R-2, Medium -Density Residential and contains approximately 0.31 acres. The request is to reduce the side setback by 6.5 feet to allow for a 1.5 foot setback along the east property line. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow the encroachments into the front and side setback as shown on the survey dated 5/12/94. FINDINGS: 1. Findings of Subsection 160.174(8) have been met. 2. The reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance, and the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. 3. Granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. STAFF: Conklin: He stated he had received additional information regarding the application. He has spoken with the surveyor, Alan Reid. Mr. Reid stated the survey reflects the building wall but not the overhang. Therefore, the overhang may be on the property line. He has also spoken with the Inspections Division. When a house is located closer than 3 feet to the property line the structure cannot have any openings such as windows or doors. Unfortunately, this house has two windows on this side. If this variance was granted, the windows would have to be enclosed and the applicant would have to obtain the fire rating in order to meet City regulations. He has been working with Paul Bynum, the representative, regarding this information. He referred to a letter dated July 21, 1998, from Mr. Lindsey who owns the adjacent lot stating he does not wish to sell this lot • • Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals Committee August 17, 1998 Page -2- Prior to receiving this information, staff's recommendation was for approval. However, if this variance was granted, the house would not meet the building codes of the City of Fayetteville. The air-conditioning unit will need to be relocated in order to remove it from the adjoining property line. Staff has asked Mr. Bynum to work with the applicant to possibly purchase the adjoining lot and do a property line adjustment. Then the applicant could sell the the remaining lot. Wilhelms: He inquired if title insurance would not cover this situation in terms of financial hardship. Conklin: He spoke with Jackie at Heritage Title. She indicated this lot was purchased as a vacant lot. Mr. Ngo hired a builder to build the house. When the applicant obtained financing for the house they did not obtain owner's coverage. There was a survey done in 1994 after the house was built. The survey did reflect the house was too close to the property line and apparently nobody caught the problem until the applicant attempted to sell the house. Nickle: He inquired who was the builder of the home. Conklin: Mr. Brad Eckert from Rogers, Arkansas. Bynum: He noted Mr. Ngo's property appears to run 10 feet more past his property line than what it actually does. The lawn has been mowed and staked accordingly. It was not until the buyer obtained a survey that the problem was found. Apparently, the City and everyone involved thought the property ran to the previous stakes. Perkins: He inquired if this property would require a second opinion on the survey. Bynum: Yes, he felt another survey should be done. However, Mr. Reid confirmed this survey was accurate. When the subdivision was platted the actual legal description does not match where the stakes were located. Apparently, the problem was attributed by the placement of the stakes. Rakes: He stated the regulation for not having any openings on the exterior wall within 3 feet of the property line was for the prevention of the spreading of fire from one property to the other. Hanna: He inquired who approached Mr. Lindsey regarding this property. He felt one way to fix this problem is to give Mr. Lindsey a variance request on his vacant lot if he would sell 6 feet to Mr. Ngo. Bynum: Mr. Lindsey felt that his lot was too small and would be hard for someone to build upon it. Anything taken from the lot would be a hindrance to the sale of the lot. Ngo: He stated nobody knew of the problems with this property until they had decided to sell it. Hanna: He noted some of the concerns with granting the variance is that the windows would have to be enclosed, air-conditioning unit would have to be moved, and the overhang may already be over the property line. Therefore, if Mr. Lindsey would be willing to sell a piece of the adjacent • Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals Committee August 17, 1998 Page -3- lot, then the Board of Adjustments would be willing to give Mr. Lindsey a variance. Perkins: He inquired if Mr. Lindsey's lot would be considered a corner lot even thought it had a barrier fence between it and Hwy 265. Conklin: He noted that a person would not want their home any closer to Hwy 265 because Hwy 265 would be widened in the future. Nickle: Conklin: Hanna: The Lindsey lot is approximately 79 feet and would be wide enough to do a property line adjustment. He stated if the Board of Adjustment gave Mr. Lindsey a 5' variance on the east side of this property, this would change the setback to 20 feet. He stated the board could grant a variance on the vacant lot to allow Mr. Lindsey the same amount of building area that he currently has. He noted that at this point Mr. Lindsey has the power to help this applicant. He noted even if Mr. Lindsey was not granted a variance, that even after enclosing the windows and moving the air -conditioner unit, the property may still overhang on Mr. Lindsey's property. • Conklin: Mr. Reid indicated the survey consists only of the footprint of the home which would not include the overhang. • Nickle: Hanna: He referred to some photographs that were taken of the home in question. He noted one of the homes which was granted a variance at the last meeting was built by Ken Wilkins who also builds homes for Mr. Lindsey. This same home was in the same subdivision as the applicant's home. He suggested that Mr. Bynum talk with Mr. Lindsey and let him know the Board of Adjustment has granted variances in the past several months on several homes sold by Lindsey. He suggested that Mr. Bynum let Mr. Lindsey know they would be willing to work with Mr. Lindsey. He stated the Board of Adjustment would be willing to send a letter to Mr. Lindsey on the applicant's behalf to facilitate some compromise. Nickle: He inquired if a 5 foot variance allow the applicant the ability not to have to enclose his windows. Rakes: He stated the applicant would be required to have a 3 foot 1 inch setback in order to leave the wall as it exists. . Conklin: He recommended that another survey be required in order to show the home along with its setbacks. Perkins: He noted the board of adjustment recommendation would be 1. Request a verification survey, 2. The board would write a letter to Mr. Lindsey to this effect in order to obtain the minimum footage in order for the applicant to meet all of the fire and building code requirements, 3. • • • Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals Committee August 17, 1998 Page -4- Grant a similar variance on the east side of Lindsey's lot so the building area would be the same. Andrews: He stated they would like to know what are the exact overhang dimensions. Perkins: He requested that the next plat show the existing overhang on the building. Conklin: He suggested the plat also reflect the location of the air-conditioning unit. Perkins: He noted the variance for 3.0 feet would be granted to the applicant contingent upon Mr. Lindsey selling 3.0 feet from the adjacent lot and the Board of Adjustment granting the same amount of variance on the east side of the lot. Bynum: He stated the applicant would have the survey redone and it should also include the existing overhang and the air-conditioning unit locations. Nickle: When the survey was completed he suggested the applicant meet with Mr Lindsey along with this letter and let him know what the Board of Adjustment would be willing to do to facilitate a resolution to this variance request. Mr. Hanna moved to table this appeal per the conditions noted in the minutes. Mr. Boyd seconded said motion. Upon roll call the motion was approved on a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. 6 Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals Committee August 17, 1998 Page -5- BA 98-22.00: VARIANCE (MARTIN AND LISA TURNER) 2295 EAST ZION ROAD This item was submitted by Martin and Lisa Turner for property located at 2295 East Zion Road. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 1.88 acres. The request is to allow a lot in this zoning district which contains less than the 2 acre minimum lot size. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to allow a 1.16 acre lot in an A-1 zoning district. FINDINGS: 1. The City is in the process of acquiring right-of-way which reduces the lot area. 2. The applicant plans on using the lot as an A-1 lot and would like to add on to the structure. 3. The City is acquiring the right-of-way. 4. The applicant plans to utilize the lot under A-1 zoning. 5. No non -conforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same district, and no permitted or non -conforming use of lands, structures, or buildings in other districts were considered grounds for the issuance of this variance. 6. Notice has been given as required in §160.172. • 7. 8. A public hearing is scheduled for August 17, 1998. Findings of subsection (B) have been met. 9. The reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance, and the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, builidng, or structure. 10. Granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this chapter, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. • STAFF COMMENTS: Conklin: Applicant is planning to open a veterinarian clinic at this location which is zoned A-1. The City is in the process of obtaining the right-of-way on Old Missouri Road, and Zion Road to redo the intersection. There is a discrepancy in the deeds of approximately 23.17 feet along the south property line. Wilhelms: He inquired if a veterinary hospital required agricultural zoning or should it be zoned commercial. Conklin: Orton: Conklin: He responded a veterinary clinic is allowed in the zoning ordinance as a use by right in A-1 zoning . The possibility of this property being zoned commercial in this location would not be likely. Staff asks for the zoning to remain the same and the board grant a variance for the size of the lot. The City is in the process of acquiring the right-of-way at Zion Road. She noted that a veterinary clinic could be in other zones other than A-1. He confirmed this was correct. In order to have this lot rezoned, it would require a recommendation from the Planning Commission and City Council action to change the zoning. • • Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals Committee August 17, 1998 Page -6- The applicant and staff prefer to leave the lot zoned A-1 and deal with the issue of the lot size. Wilhelms: He inquired if this lot would be considered to be grandfathered since it was zoned A-1. Conklin: He stated the City is in the process of obtaining the right-of-way. The request by the applicant is an attempt to allow the lot to be smaller than 2 acres. In any zoning district where the lot does not meet the zoning requirements only a single family home would be allowed Ms.Tumer stated when Alan Reid surveyed the property the 1.88 acres did not include the 23.17 feet. It was assumed the Missouri Oaks Subdivision owned this portion of the property. She further stated she had not been approached by the City regarding the purchase of a portion of their property for the right-of-way. Conklin: He understood that the applicant has not been compensated at this time for the right-of-way. According to the latest figures from the land agents at the City of Fayetteville. This lot would end up with 1.16 acres after the right-of-way was purchased by the City. Hanna: He noted the listing originally stated the property contained 2.25 acres and at closing it read 1.88 acres. He inquired if the applicants had any concern about this information. Mr. Turner responded the old deed was pretty confusing. The applicants requested another survey in order to verify the acreage. Mr. Nickle moved to grant the variance request. Mr. Andrews seconded said motion. Mr. Wilhelms inquired if the applicant could build anything else on this lot if the variance was granted. Mr. Conklin stated the applicant could only add onto the veterinary clinic without coming back before the City. Upon roll call the motion was approved on a vote of 7-0-0. There was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.