HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-07 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, September 7, 1999 at 3:45
p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED
Approval of August 2, 1999 Minutes
BA99-17: Coleman, pp411
BA99-18: Wade, pp445
BA99-19: Arkansas National Bank, pp371
MEMBERS PRESENT
Michael Andrews
Gerald Boyd
Thad Hanna
Michael Green
Bob Nickle
Marion Orton
Kevin Perkins
STAFF PRESENT
Tim Conklin
Janet Johns
Brent Vinson
•
ACTION TAKEN
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
STAFF ABSENT
None
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 7 1999
Page 2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The August minutes were approved as distributed
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 7 1999
Page 3
BA99-17: VARIANCE
COLEMAN, PP411
This item was submitted by Kathryn Coleman for property located at 2922 Whippoorwill Lane.
The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately .29 acres. The
requirement is for a 20 foot rear building setback. The request is for a 15 foot setback or a 5 foot
variance.
Staff recommended approval of the requested building setback variance.
Kathryn Coleman was present on behalf of the request.
Committee Discussion
Vinson. If you'll refer to page 2.9 which is the closeup of the property. It is strange shape.
The applicant is requesting a 5 foot variance from a 25 foot rear building setback. Two corners
of the residence are sitting in a utility easement to be vacated that is in the process of going to the
City Council. Planning Commission has already recommended approval on the vacation for the
2 corners of the house. There are utilities in that easement. There is a 20 foot rear yard setback
required and the builders accidentally built inside the easement according to the applicant and
they are requesting a 5 foot variance. The 5 foot variance would cover both corners of the house
even though one of them is not quite 5 foot.
Perkins: I didn't measure that but does this meet the front setback? It's a strange lot.
Vinson: Barely. There's a lot of lawn.
Boyd: Do we know the name of the builder?
Coleman: Yes. I talked to the builder and we did not have any idea how this happened. I'm
trying to sell this house. We accidentally found out about this. I talked to Henry and Thelma
Walker, the people who built the house, and they didn't have a clue about it. The name of the
company was Twin W. Homes. The Walker's live in Pettigrew, Arkansas. This is the only
house they built.
Nickle: When was this house built?
Coleman: 1992.
Nickle: Does the 5 foot variance request go all the way down to the point there or is it just
for the areas that are encroaching?
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 7, 1999
Page 4
Vinson: the entire rear side of the property.
Boyd: Do we need to give that broad of setback variance? Could we just grant the
variance for the part that is in the setback?
Conklin: That's a good point. You could make the motion to state that the variance is only
that portion of the structure that is within that 20 foot setback.
Boyd: No additional structures could be built in the future.
Conklin: It's already protected somewhat because the way the vacation was approved, was
just for that portion of the house that is within the easement. We already have the utility
easement there so they couldn't build that but if you wanted to match your variance for the same
2 corners, that would be adequate on the setback.
Public Comment
None
Further Discussion
Green: This is unusually shaped. It's a shallow, pie shaped lot. With it sitting on an
angle like that it's sort of a blend between a side setback and a rear setback. I guess you
normally take the worst case.
Conklin: You're right.
MOTION
Boyd:
setback.
I move that we grant a variance for the two corners that are encroaching in the
Nickle: Second.
Roll Call
Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous of 7-0-0 All members voted in favor of the
motion.
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 7, 1999
Page 5
BA99-18: VARIANCE
WADE, PP445
This item was submitted by Lynn Wade for property located at 14 West Davidson. The property
is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately .12 acres. The
requirements is a 6,100 square foot lot are and a 60 foot lot width. The requests are for a 5,564.3
square foot lot area which is variance of 435.7 square feet and a 57.93 foot lot width or a
variance of 2.07 feet.
Staff recommended approval of the requested variances.
Lynn Wade was present on behalf of the request.
Committee Discussion
Vinson: If you'll refer to 3.3, the property that the application is referring to is lot 5. Lot 6
which is just east of this property presently does not meet setbacks. The property line is sitting
with in a foot of the house that is built on that lot. They would like to move the property line 8
feet to the west which would be inside of lot 5. This would make lot 5 smaller than the 6,000
square feet required to make a lot in this district. It would also make the frontage smaller than
what is necessary for this district. 6,000 square feet is required and 60 feet across the front is
required.
Perkins: They're moving the east boundary?
Vinson: The east boundary of lot 5 --
Perkins: Is 7 feet closer to lot 6.
Vinson: The other way around.
Conklin: The line is being adjusted to the west This is actually making the house on lot 6
conforming but at the same time, it's making the house on lot 5 have only 57.93 feet of width
and 60 feet is required under R-2 and 5,564.3 square feet and that is a variance of 435.7 square
feet when we are required to having 6,000 square feet under R-2. This is an older area of town
and unfortunately the houses weren't built to meet the current setbacks.
Green: Is there an advantage on giving a variance on this lot size and frontage width
versus a variance on side setback for lot 6?
41 Conklin: I believe they want to be able to use their concrete walk that's been there for a
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 7 1999
Page 6
long time. This adjustment would allow them to keep that as a part of their lot.
Vinson: He's in the process of selling one or both of the properties and that is the reason
he's wanting to set all this up now.
Perkins: He wants to leave the concrete walk with the property on lot 6. Are you Mr.
Wade?
Wade: Yes.
Perkins: Do you have any input?
Wade: There are 2 houses shown on the survey and they were built around 1930. They
were built by my grandfather. I had never seen a survey until we began to look at selling lot 6
and we were notified of setback requirements.
Green: There's also an issue of an easement through there, too. The current easement
doesn't contain the water line and they're going to trade that out.
Wade: When we got the survey, it shown a 10 foot water and sewer easement on 5 feet
either side of the lot line between lot 5 and 6 In fact, the sewer line is underneath the house but
we are going to give an easement across lot 5 and lot 2 to cover the line.
Public Comment
None
MOTION
Green: I'll move the variance request be accepted
Hanna: I'll second.
Roll Call
Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. All members voted for the
motion.
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 7, 1999
Page 7
BA99-19: VARIANCE
ARKANSAS NATIONAL BANK, PP371
This item was submitted by Ken Shireman of Ken Shireman & Associates on behalf of Arkansas
National Bank for property located at 2710 E Mission Blvd. The property is zoned C-1,
Neighborhood Commercial and contains approximately .99 acres. The requirement is a 15 foot
landscaped setback from all property lines. The request is for no landscape setback on the north
and west property line.
Ken Shireman was present on behalf of the request.
Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must obtain a document signed by the adjoining property owner allowing a
retaining wall to be located within the 5 foot retaining wall setback on the north and west
sides of the subject property.
2. The applicant must obtain a grading permit from the City Engineering Division for the
• retaining wall on the north side of the subject property.
•
3. The parking lot must be enlarged within one year of approval or the landscape setback
variance shall be voided.
Committee Discussion
Vinson: If you'll refer to page 4.6, you can see the existing line is dotted and then where
they would like to enlarge the bank and parking lot. The parking lot would extend to the north
and west property line. They are not increasing the amount of parking but they need that much
to enlarge the building and maintain the number of spaces and provide maneuvering room around
the building. The paving is up to the property line on the north and the west sides. The retaining
wall that I show in there was something that I added. I don't see how they can do it without a
retaining wall because of the steepness of the site on the north side. On the west side, the
parking would be below the grade that is presently existing. We did put conditions on the
variance that the applicant obtain a document signed by the adjoining property owner to the north
and west for the retaining walls that would be required along the north and west and that would
be Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market owns that. They also have to obtain a building
permit from the City Engineering Division for the north retaining wall because it would be over
4 feet tall. The parking lot must also be enlarged within a year or the variance would be voided.
Mr. Shireman is here.
Shireman: The issue of the retaining wall on the west property line -- I don't think it exists
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 7 1999
Page 8
because when we do the work in there, we will reduce that grading down to the level of the
building. There is sidewalk along Citizens Drive and we're going to take that grade down to the
sidewalk level. That amount of dirt is going to be gone In the process, at some point when the
Highway Department widens to where the new right of way line is, those shrubs will be gone.
Our intent is to move that pump at some point and take that grade down. The west retaining will,
I don't think is going to happen. As far as the north retaining wall, we have been in contact with
Kathy Ball with the Ball Family Limited Partnership and Jim Lindsey who developed the
Center out there. I talked with Kathy and her response was they were okay
with what we want to do here. The only place we'll have a problem will be on the extreme
northeast corner where the drainage structure is. We may or may not need a retaining wall there.
Most of this was precipitated by the new curb cut. We will be exiting onto Citizens Drive In
order to keep the ATM on the end and exit onto Citizens and still have parking on the end, we
have run out of room. The space in question is developed. The Ball Family Partnership
currently owns the green space and there aren't many options for them to do anything with it.
It's not buildable. We want to have a nice facility and do a lot of landscaping. That's all we're
asking for.
Nickle: Are you comfortable with the necessity of a retaining wall?
Vinson: As long as the adjacent property owner know what he's doing --
Boyd: Do we normally get into the grading and such as that? Don't they have to provide
a grading plan?
Conklin: My understanding is this does need a grading plan.
Boyd: I don't think this is our problem.
Perkins: They want to waive the landscaping requirements today, right?
Vinson: The landscape setback.
Andrews: What is the requirement and where is it going to be? Are we giving up the plants
and shrubs that normally would have been required or are we getting them somewhere else?
Shireman: The green space now is along Citizens Drive. Does the city own that? It's a
dedicated street.
Vinson: That's dedicated right of way.
Shireman: What we're asking to do is landscape in that green space. We want to do the
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 7, 1999
Page 9
landscaping, we just want to go in the City's right of way.
Andrews: We want to make sure we get that.
Conklin: As a condition, you can require that they comply with the landscaping
requirement subject to approval by the City of Fayetteville's Landscape Administrator.
Boyd: They could build right up to that.
Conklin: Every time we talk about landscaping, the utility companies including the City of
Fayetteville's Water and Sewer Division, they don't like trees over their water and sewer line. If
they are in agreement we can accommodate landscaping out front.
Andrews: What if they're not?
Conklin: If they're not, we won't get any landscaping.
Andrews: Then I have a problem. I don't want to give up a bunch of green space.
Shireman: We don't have any landscaping now. It's not like you're giving up something.
You've never had it. Parking lot screening doesn't require trees. It has to be at Least 3 feet tall
and I can't imagine that we can't get something in.
Andrews: It's not screening. It's for every square foot of building, you have to have a tree
or a shrub --
Shireman: There's a fair amount of green space around the building. I don't think you're
going to want trees around that driveway out there. That may be problem.
Nickle: Banks usually landscape the heck out of their lots so I think we can bank on
getting landscaping.
MOTION
Boyd: I'll make a motion to approve the landscape variance subject to the Engineering
Division's approval of the retaining wall, the City's approval to landscape the right of way, and
the Landscape Administrator's approval
Green: I'll second.
Roll Call
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
September 7 1999
Page 10
Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. All members voted in favor of
the motion.
Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
4f-Oc
-
e,m-n Cot e„ahl
E 1%1
-►8 WAat.
[WPM
fry Almada
M. ANDREWS
I
I
I
G. BOYD
N
\'
\I
T. HANNA
\I
\
1
B. NICKLE
\I
\I
\(
M.ORTON
`'
\'
`I
K. PERKINS
\I
\I
\'
m_Gem,,
y
y