Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-09-02 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on September 2, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN BOA 08-3080: (WILSON/BALL AVENUE, 317) Approved Page 2 Robert Kohler Sherrie Alt James Zant Bob Nickle STAFF PRESENT Andrew Gamer David Whitaker MEMBERS ABSENT William Chesser Mark Waller Steven Bandy STAFF ABSENT Jesse Fulcher Dara Sanders Board of Adjustment Chair Bob Kohler called the meeting to order. Approval of the August 4, 2008 Board of Adjustment meeting minutes. Discussion: Board Member Zant entered a correction that Bob Kohler was the chair of the August meeting. Board Member Nickle corrected the minutes to reflect that he recused from the BOA 08-3058 (Physician's Surgery Center) and the vote should have been 3-2-1. Assistant City Attorney David Whitaker added the clarification that Board Member Nickel recused from both the discussion and vote on BOA 08-3058 (Physician's Surgery Center); he also corrected the spelling of his last name on page five of the minutes. Motion: Board Member Zant made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 7, 2008 BOA Meeting. Board Member Nickle seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 4-0-0. 1 New Business: BOA 08-3080 (WILSON / BALL AVENUE, 317): Submitted by SAWYER'S OUTDOOR SOLUTIONS for property located at 2021 N BALL AVENUE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.33 acres. The request is for a front setback of 20' (a 5' variance) to allow for a new addition. Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report, recommending denial of the 5' front setback variance request to construct a new sumoom on the front of the home within the building setback and in a utility easement, based on the findings included in the staff report that there is no hardship or deprivation of rights. Board Member Zant asked staff about the reference in the report about the possibility of constructing the addition in another place on the property in compliance with setbacks. Garner responded that there is adequate room on the south and west sides of the existing structure for an addition of the same size proposed. Board Member Nickle asked about the rear setback dimensions since this lot was a corner lot. Garner responded that since the lot was a corner lot with two front setbacks, the remaining two lot lines (north and west) are considered side setbacks of eight feet. Board Member Kohler clarified that the Board of Adjustment does not deal with the proposal to construct within an easement, that issue is handled by City Council. No public comment was received. Pat Owen, vice president of Sawyer's Outdoor Solutions and the applicant representative, stated that the overhang could be reduced, reducing the variance from five feet to four feet. He discussed that the addition was for a small room and would not be an eyesore. He discussed that the adjacent tree will not need to be taken out to construct the addition. This will be a beautiful room and addition. Board Member Kohler asked about constructing the addition on the south side. Owens discussed that the addition was proposed on the east side as a majority of the new room would be under existing roof. It is the easiest and most cost effective place for the addition. Ute Wilson, applicant and property owner, discussed the dimensions that she had measured the distance of the front building setback of several properties in the vicinity to the curb. 2 Board Member Kohler discussed that setbacks are measured from the right-of-way not the curb. Board Member Zant discussed that other nonconformities in the vicinity cannot be considered in the decision to grant a variance. Wilson discussed that if the sunroom were placed on the south she would have to take out a tree. She also presented a letter signed from a doctor indicating that she has several medical conditions that would benefit from increased sunlight. She also discussed that the back porch is already enclosed. She discussed that the utilities are on the south side of the house, and not in the east side on Ball Avenue. Members of the board and the applicant discussed the process for vacating an easement. Owens stated again that the proposed location for the sunroom allows for twice the space for half the cost compared to constructing the addition in a different location. Board Member Zant asked for clarification from staff on the process and requirements to vacate an easement. Garner discussed that a vacation application would need to be completed and turned in to the Planning Division office. As part of the application all utility companies must provide written consent to vacate the portion of the easement proposed for the new addition. The vacation application is heard before the Planning Commission who makes a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council is the final official body that has authority to vacate an easement. Owens discussed that there is already a concrete slab in the easement. Board Member Alt asked if it was possible to just enclose the existing porch. Owens stated that it would be possible but would result in a room that was not very functional at five feet wide. Board Member Nickle asked about the concrete slab. Owens corrected his previous statement that there is not a concrete slab, but just pavers. Board Member Kohler discussed that this is a difficult item to decide on as he doesn't really feel there is a hardship, that the proposed exception is not warranted by the Board criteria. Wilson discussed that she started this project when her husband was first diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease so he could go out of the front door and into the sunroom without leaving the house. He has since passed away. 3 Board Member Zant discussed that the Board cannot deal in cost, convenience, or the applicant's logic on a location, many of the factors discussed by the applicant today. However, the tree on the south side of the house that would have to be taken out if the addition were placed on the south side is a potential issue. He asked if the tree could be considered as a hardship. Whitaker discussed that, yes, the tree on the south side of the house could be considered. Board Member Nickle added that if the variance is approved it doesn't guarantee that City Council will agree to vacate the easement. He agrees with other comments that the tree may be a hardship. Board Member Zant discussed that as stated agreement with the findings of the staff report this variance will not hurt anything and will probably not be noticeable. Motion: Board Member Nickle discussed that based on the information presented and discussed he moves to approve the variance. Board Member Kohler asked if staff had any recommended conditions to add. Garner discussed that since the motion is based on the finding that the tree is a hardship then it would be appropriate for an abbreviated tree preservation plan to be required at the time of building permit to verify that no trees will be removed with the construction of the addition. Board Member Nickle agreed to add the staff recommended condition to his motion. Board member Zant seconded the motion. Upon role call the motion was approved with a vote of 4-0-0. All business being concluded, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 PM. 11