Loading...
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