The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002-02-04 - Agendas FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 Telephone:501-575-8264 AGENDA FOR A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment will be held Monday, February 4, 2002, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, AR, 72701. The following items will be considered: Approval of minutes from the meeting of December 3,2002. New Business: 1. VAR 02-1.00: Variance (Lazenby, pp 609) was submitted by William Lazenby for property located at 1659 Tally Ho Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.18 acres. The requirement is a 251 front set back. The request is for a 20' front setback(a Yvariance). 2. VAR 02-2.00: Variance (Crocker, pp 448)was submitted by Daniel Dean on behalf of Karen Crocker for property located at 951 Pembroke Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.80 acres. The requirement is a 25' frontsetback. The request is for 21' front setback for a garage overhang (a 4' variance). 3. VAR 02-3.00: Variance(Melton, pp 450) was submitted by Ellis Melton for property located at 574 Rock Cliff Road. The property is zoned R-1,Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.34 acres. The requirement is for an 8' side setback. The request is for a 0' setback(an 8' variance) and to encroach on a 15' "Pedestrian Pathway" easement by 3'for a free standing garage on the property. 4. VAR 02-4.00: Variance (Hanna, pp 484)was submitted by Thad Hanna for property located at 328 W. Maple. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential and contains approximately 0.22 acres. The request is for a 5' side setback(a 3' variance)on the west due to the height of the proposed structure. All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. A copy of the proposed amendments and other pertinent data is open and available for inspection in the Office of City Planning(575-8264),City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street,Fayetteville,Arkansas. All interested parties are invited to review the petitions. lnterpreters or TDD for hearing impaired are available for all public meetings. 72 hour notice is required. For further information or to request an interpreter,please call Hugh Earnest at 575-8330. FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETFEVILLE,ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 Telephone:(479)575-8264 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Board of Adjustment FROM: Dawn T. Warrick, Senior Planner THRU: Tim Conklin, A.I.C.P., City Planner DATE: January 30, 2002 VAR 02-1.00: Variance(Lazenby,pp 609) was submitted by William Lazenby for property located at 1659 Tally Ho Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.18 acres. The requirement is a 25'front set back. The request is for a 20' front setback(a 5'variance). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested 51 setback variance for the existing structure as shown on the attached site plan with the following condition: 1. This variance shall only apply to the existing structure. Any future additions or alterations shall comply with required setbacks for this property. Ordinance Requirement Applicant's Request Front Setback(R-1 district) 251 20' (a 5' variance) BACKGROUND: The subject property is located within the Hunt Club subdivision,just south of Hwy 16E. This is an R-1 development consisting of single family homes. This lot fronts a horseshoe shaped turn on Tally Ho Drive and appears as a half cul-de-sac with the right of way following the curvature of the street. The house was permitted May 25,2001, a final inspection was conducted by the Inspection Division December 21,2001 and a final certificate of occupancy was issued on January 17, 2002. B.IUSERSICOMMOMDA WV71REPORTSIBOA12002-REPORTSUZENBYVAR02-IDOC Board of A djusun ent February 4, 2002 VAR 02-1 Lazenby Page 1.1 This variance request is the result of a siting error on the part of the contractor during the construction of this single family home. When the original site plan was submitted for permitting,the proposed footprint of the home fit onto the lot with no encroachments. Once constructed, a survey was conducted which reveals that in fact,the structure encroaches the required 25' front setback in one location. The northeast corner of the garage is located 20' from the front property line, causing a 5' encroachment. According to the applicant,the dimensions shown on the survey of this property indicate the distances from overhangs to property tines. This is important because the location of the front of the garage which encroaches the required setback is right at a 20' general utility easement that runs along the front property line. This structure (even with the setback violation) does not encroach the utility easement. Comments: The"CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL"listed in this report are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this conditional use. Name: Date: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North: Single family residence, R-I South: Single family residence, R-I East: Single family residence, R-I West: Vacant, Outside City GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Residential FINDINGS: § 156.02 ZONING REGULATIONS. Certain variances of the zoning regulations may be applied for as follows: A. General Regulations/Application. A variance shall not be granted unless and until an application demonstrates: 1. Special Conditions. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable H-*I USERSICOMMO"A W11REPORMBOA L7002-REPORTSUZENBY VAR02-IDOC Board ofAdjustment February 4, 2002 VAR 02-1 Lazenby Page 1.2 to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Finding: The configuration of the street in this location is unique. These"eyebrow" or "horseshoe" shaped streets can cause confusing angles and curves which are challenging when laying out structures on the adjacent lots. 2. Deprivation of Rights. That literal interpretation of the provisions of the zoning regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the zoning regulations. Finding: Unable to make finding. 3. Resulting Actions. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Finding: Unable to make finding. An error in siting the structure on the lot is the cause of this variance request. 4. No Special Privileges. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by Zoning, Chapters 160-165, to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Finding: Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege. The single family home which occupies this lot is a use which is permitted by right within this zoning district. 5. Nonconforming Uses. No nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same district, and no permitted or nonconforming use of lands, structures, or buildings in other districts shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. Finding: No nonconforming uses or structures were used as a basis for staff findings or recommendations. § 156.02 C. Consideration by the Board of Adjustment. 1. Bulk and Area. Applications for variances of bulk and area requirements shall be considered by and may be approved by the Board of Adjustment. 2. Public Hearing. A public hearing shall be held. Finding: A public hearing is scheduled for February 4,2002. H:IUSE"COMMO"A WTLPEPORTSIBOA L7002-AEPORML4ZENBY VAR02-IDOC Board ofAdjustment Fehruary 4, 2002 VAR 02-1 Lazenhy Page 1.3 3. Findings. The Board of Adjustment shall make the following findings: a. Minimum Variance. That the reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance, and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. Finding: Reasons set forth in the application justify granting the variance. The variance is the minimum variance necessary to make the existing structure compliant with current zoning requirements. (1.) Harmony with General Purpose. The Board of Adjustment shall further make a finding that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of Zoning, Chapters 160-165, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Finding: Granting the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the City's zoning ordinances and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. (2.) Reasons set forth in the application justify granting the variance, and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. Finding: Reasons set forth in the application justify granting the variance. The variance is the minimum variance necessary to make the existing structure compliant with current zoning requirements. b. Conditions and Safeguards. In granting any variance, the Board of Adjustment may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the zoning regulations. Finding: Staff recommends that this variance only apply to the existing structure and that all future alterations or additions comply with zoning regulations for the property. C. No Variance Allowed. Under no circumstances shall the Board of Adjustment grant a variance to allow a use not permissible under Zoning in the district involved, or any use expressly or by implication prohibited by the terms of the zoning regulations in said district. Finding: N/A H.WERSICOMMONDA WMREPOR7SIBOA12002-REPORnVAZENBYVAR02-IDOC Board of Adjustment February 4, 2002 VAR 02-1 Lazenby Page 1.4 §161.04 DISTRICT R-1: LOW DENSITY D. Bulk and Area Regal tions. RESIDENTIAL. Single-Family Two-Family A. Purpose. The Low Density Residential Lot 70 ft. 80 ft. District is designed to permit and encourage the Minimum development of low density detached dwellings in Width suitable environments,as well as to protect existing development of these types. Lot Area 8,000 sq.ft. 12,000 sq.ft. Minimum B. Uses. Land Area 8,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq.ft. 1. Permitted Uses. Per Dwelling EUnit I de Uses by Right Unit City-W Unit 26 Single-Family Dwelling E. Ya Requirements(feet). FRONT SIDE YARD REAR YARD the 2. UsesPermissible on Appeal to YARD PlanniE g Commission. Unit 2 City-Wide Uses by Conditional Use 25 8 20 Permit F. Building Area.On any lot the area Unit 3 Public Protection and Utility Facilities occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 40%of the total area of such lot. Unit 4 Cultural and Recreational Facilities Unit 8 Single-Family and Two-Family (Code 1991,§160.03 1) Dwellings C. Density. SINGLE-FAMILY TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS DWELLINGS 4 or Less Families er 7 or Less Families Per Acre Acre HIUSERSICOMMONIDA WVTiREPORTSOOAL7002-REPORTSV-4ZENBYVAR02-I.DOC Board ofAdjustment February 4, 2002 VAR 02-1 Lazenby Page 1.5 Real LAZENBYEstate 1031 N.College Fayetteville, AR 72701 501-521-6701 Description of Request for Variance I am asking for a variance of the 25' front building setback to be changed to 20'. A mistake was made when I drew the plot plan for the house. I did not draw the radius curve properly, thereby causing the north east comer of the garage to encroach approximately 5' into the front 25' setback. A correct survey is provided, also the plot plan I drew. There is no encroachment into the utility easement. The e)dsting structure is approximately 2150 square feet with about 35 square feet of the garage in the setback. Board ofAdjustment February 4, 2002 VAR 02-1 Lazenby Page 1.6 LA7-Ll� bL,/' LD� -T F- LA Ll 11) V� Ito a-t 0 2- rh 4 L-1-7 E�-V I H PV- A-D 0. 14 61i LO -S -7 112' 2 D .2 1), ard ofAdjustment February 4, 2002 VAR 02-1 Lazenby Page 1.7 LAKESIDE LAND SURVEYING LOT SURVEY FOR: KENNETH A. MYERS F. JESSICA ANN JOHNSTDN-MYERS 32628 MARJO PL. PHONE: 756-1320 ROGERS, ARKANSAS 72756 W.D. 011183 FD. 11/78 Scale; 1'=30' 0 10 20 30 tv ;79.1 9131' 9693, BAR SCALE LOT 8 TALLY HO DRIVE BRICK & 50' R.O.W. FRAME HDUSE 0'R CDNC. CONC. DRIVE LEGEND: EC:1 0 FOUND IRON PIN — — — — — — — — — — — \�,25' 7.5' D.E 0 SET IRON PIN S 88*43'33' E 118,97' FENCE LINE SURVEY DESCRIPTION1 LOT EIGHT (8) HUNTCLU3 SUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, PER THE FINAL PLAT OF SAID SUBDIVISION ON FILE IN PLAT BOOK 15 AT PACE 115 IN THE OFFICE OF CIRCUIT CLERK AND Ex-OFFICID RECORDER OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS, THIS SURVEY WAS COMPLETED UNDER MY SUPERVISION ON NOVEMBER 30, 2001, AND IS FOR THE SOLE USE OF THE PARTIES STATED HEREON, TEOO� 4% s 0 1 7 NA E ofAdjmt)�.e4 Febr&ary,4� 2002, — VAR 024 Lazehby: Pag�1.8 0 0 VAR02-01.00 LAZENBY Close Up View A-I R4 Subject Property A ----------- oE z A. IN A A . ......... 01 T A Overview Legend Subject Property Boundary Master Street Plan -f—, VAR02-01.00 Planning Area Freeway/Expressway overlay District Principal Arterial Street I City Limits MinorArterial Existing L-- ON Collector Outside City �4�Planned *%. Historic Collector Board ofAdjustment 0 37.5 75 150 225 300 February 4, 2002 Feet VAR 02-1 Lazenby VAR02-01.00 LAZENBY One Mile View R� N 04 A- R,I Piz-H--R A,f i ft T— no U, N g Wff N"'I &,q,�,, A-1 ......------- Subject Pro A,f a �QH R-1 OUP- rOrF MAM10�-�,- �6 All W7 11ZON"A 0"'RU" p- fpgo o OvervIew ------ Legend Subject Property Boundary Master Street Plan VAR02-01.000 '-N—, Planning Area Freeway/Expressway "'I Owd.y District 4w4,.+Principal Arterial Streets c00000 *'%o Minor Arterial Existing —1 City Limits N,Collector p Outside City Board ofAdjustment lanned Historic Collector February 4, 2002 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0-75 1 VAR 02-1 Lazenby Miles Page LI 0 FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 Telephone:(479)575-8264 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Board of Adjustment FROM: Dawn T. Warrick, Senior Planner THRU: Tim Conklin,A.I.C.P., City Planner DATE: January 30,2002 VAR 02-2.00: Variance (Crocker, pp 448)was submitted by Daniel Dean on behalf of Karen Crocker for property located at 951 Pembroke Road. The property is zoned R-1,Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.80 acres. The requirement is a 25'front setback. The request is for 21' front setback for a garage overhang(a 4'variance). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested 4' setback variance for the overhang of a proposed garage addition as shown on the attached site plan with the following condition: 1. This variance shall apply only to the proposed garage addition overhang and any future alterations or additions to this structure shall comply with zoning requirements for the property. Ordinance Requirement Applicant's Request Front setback(R-1 district) 251 2 1' (a 4' variane BACKGROUND: Built in 1964,this house was designed by esteemed local architect E. Fay Jones. The architecture of the structure is very distinctive and indicative of Mr. Jones' residential design work This site is located at the intersection of Pembroke Rd. and Applebury Place. The site is unusually shaped and has a sloping topography. The existing structure is long and narrow and runs the full width of the lot. At this time,the applicant wishes to make an addition to the original structure in order to provide a two car garage. The addition primarily complies with requirements of the R-I H.-IUSERSICOMMONIDA MUIREPORTSIBOA 127002—REPOR71CROCKERVAR02-DOC Board ofAdjustment February 4, 2002 VAR02-2 Crocker Page 2.1 zoning district, however, in order to maintain the architectural elements of the original structure, namely the deep overhangs which are characteristic of this design, a variance is being requested. The applicant's architect, a former partner of Mr.Jones, states "Because of the historical significance of this building, it is most important that any addition be compatible with the original design." "The garage addition as proposed is integrated into the design of the original building." "In order for this garage to function, the depth as shown on the drawing is required." The subdivision in which this property is located does have restrictive covenants and an architectural review committee. The applicant has been before that committee and has received a verbal approval for the design as proposed in the attached drawings. The subdivision covenants address overhangs on structures by stating"For the purposes of this covenant, eaves,steps, and open porches shall not be considered as a part of the building." Comments: The"CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL"listed in this report are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this conditional use. Name: Date: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North: Single family residence, R-I South: Single family residence, R-I East: Single family residence, R-1 West: Single family residence, R-1 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Residential FINDINGS: § 156.02 ZONING REGULATIONS. Certain variances of the zoning regulations may be applied for as follows: A. General Regulations/Application. A variance shall not be granted unless and until an application demonstrates: 1. Special Conditions. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are H'IUSEJZSiCOMMOND,4fflVTLREPORTSWOAV2002-REPOR7WCROCKER-VAR02-2)OC Board ofAdjustment February 4, 2002 VAR02-2 Crocker Page 2.2 peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Finding: Topography,the configuration of the existing structure and the desire to maintain a consistent architectural design for this property are special conditions unique to this property and not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. 2. Deprivation of Rights. That literal interpretation of the provisions of the zoning regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the zoning regulations. Finding: Literal interpretation of the provisions of the zoning code would not permit the construction of a functional two car garage which can be reasonably incorporated architecturally into the original structure in this location. 3. Resulting Actions. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Finding: The topography,siting of the original structure or architectural features of the original structure were not the result of actions of the applicant. They are all factors in the unique qualities of the site and the desire is to maintain and enhance these features with the proposed addition. 4. No Special Privileges. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by Zoning, Chapters 160-165, to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Finding: Granting the requested variance will not confer on the applicant any special privilege denied by zoning regulations to other lands,structures, or buildings in the same district. The use of this property for a single family home is permitted by right within the R-1 zoning district and that is not proposed to change with this variance. 5. Nonconforming Uses. No nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same district, and no permitted or nonconforming use of lands, structures, or buildings in other districts shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. Finding: No nonconforming uses or structures were used as a basis for staff findings or recommendations. § 156.02 C. Consideration by the Board of Adjustment. H.IUSERSICOMMOMD,4WVTIREPOR7SIBOA12002-REPOR7SICROCKER-VAR02-Z)OC Board ofAdjustment February 4, 2002 VAR02-2 Crocker Page 2.3 1. Bulk and Area. Applications for variances of bulk and area requirements shall be considered by and may be approved by the Board of Adjustment. - 2. Public Hearing. A public hearing shall be held. Finding: A public hearing is scheduled for February 4,2002. 3. Findings. The Board of Adjustment shall make the following findings: a. Minimum Variance. That the reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance, and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. Finding: The reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance. The 4' variance is the minimum variance that will allow the incorporation of a garage structure into the original architectural style of the existing home. (L) Harmony with General Purpose. 'fhe Board of Adjustment shall further make a finding that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of Zoning, Chapters 160-165, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Finding: Granting the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the R-1 zoning regulations and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. (2.) Reasons set forth in the application justify granting the variance, and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. Finding: The reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance. The 41 variance is the minimum variance that will allow the incorporation of a garage structure into the original architectural style of the existing home. b. Conditions and Safeguards. In granting any variance,the Board of Adjustment may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the zoning regulations. Finding: Staff recommends that the variance only apply to the proposed 4' overhang for the garage addition. C. No Variance Allowed. Under no circumstances shall the Board of Adjustment grant a variance to allow a use not permissible under Zoning in the district H.-WERSICOMMOMDA HNTIREPORTSIBOA 12002-REPORTSCROCKER VAR02-DOC Board ofAdjustment February 4, 2002 VAR02-2 Crocker Page 2.4 involved, or any use expressly or by implication prohibited by the terms of the zoning regulations in said district. Finding: N/A §161.04 DISTRICT R-1: LOW DENSITY D. Bulk and Area Regal tions. RESIDENTIAL. Single-Family Two-Family A. Purpose. The Low Density Residential Lot 70 ft. 80 ft. District is designed to permit and encourage the Minimum development of low density detached dwellings in Width suitable environments,as well as to protect existing development of these types. Lot Area 8,000 sq.ft. 12,000 sq.ft. Minimum B. Uses. Land Area 8,000 sq.ft. 6,000 sq.ft. 1. Permitted Uses. Per Dwelling E Unit I de Uses by Right Unit I City-Wi Unit 26 1 Single-Family Dwelling E. Ya Requirements(feet). FRONT SIDE YARD REAR YARD 2. UsesPermissible on Appeal to YARD the Plannin Z Commission. Unit 2 City-Wide Uses by Conditional Use 25 8 20 Permit F. Building Area.On any lot the area Unit 3 Public Protection and Utility Facilities occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 40%of the total area of such lot. Unit 4 Cultural and Recreational Facilities Unit 8 Single-Family and Two-Family (Code 199 1,§160.03 1) Dwellings C. Density. SINGLE-FAMILY TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS I DWELLINGS 4 or Less Families Per 7 or Less Families Per Acre I Acre H.-IUSERSICOMMONU),4wvTLREPORTS00AI2002-REPORTSICROCKER-VAR02-I)OC Board of A djustment February 4, 2002 VAR02-2 Crocker Page 2.5 V) Maurice J.Jennings AIA U David W. McKee AIA LU January 9, 2002 619 West Dickson Street Fayetteville,Arkansas 72701 — Telephone 501 443 4742 Chair Fax 501 443 0637 7 Board of Adjustments jenningsmckee@arkansa5.net U City of Fayetteville, Arkansas �wjenningsMckeeArch.coro Dear Chair, LU I am writing this letter to request a variance for a small roof encroachment into the twenty-five foot building setback for a proposed garage addition. The requested variance is for the residence on Lot Nine (9) and Lot Ten (10) in Block U Three (3) of a Re-Platof South Hampton Addition in the City of Fayetteville. The property is on the corner of Pembroke Road and Applebury Place. This Residence was designed by E. Fay Jones FAIA, and is a wonderful example of r) his residential work. Because of the historical significance of this building it is most important that any > addition be compatible with the original design. In fact, our hope is that no one < would recognize the addition as new. The sloping site and location of the existing residence eliminate many potential solutions. The garage addition as r) proposed is integrated into the design of the original building. r) In order for this garage to function, the depth as shown on the drawing is Z required. No part of the building footprint encroaches into the setback. < The existing building was built in 1964. The new owners were not involved in the placement of the building on the site. V) U The zoning for this area is R1 single family residence, and the variance request is for an addition to an existing building, therefore granting this request would Z give no special privileges to the owners. The protective covenants for the South Hampton Subdivision state: "For the purposes of this covenant, eaves, steps and Z open porches shall not be considered as a part of a building". Z Thank you for your consideration on this request. LU LU i cerel U Maurice Jennings AfA_ Board ofAdjustment < Fehruaty 4, 2002 VAR02-2 Crocker Page 2.6 UH02-02.00 CROCKER Close Up View ........... 0 Ron Subject Property A ............. -- --------- ---------- ------ ---------........; ;i; ----------- ............ 46 Overview Legend Subject Property Boundary Master Street Plan -�F 4' reeway/Expressway var02-02.00 Planning Area a Overlay District 4'4*0 Principal Arterial Streets 0�0 Z.0 2.0 Existing City Limits 4"N.*MinorArtedal A— %� Collector Planned Outside City **%. Historic Collector Board ofAdjustment 0 75 150 Wo 450 GDO February 4, 2002 TTTTlFeet VAR02-2 Crocker Raga 2 ;: I 0 VAR02-02.00 CROCKER One Mile View ARI T P-1 4 ............. A-I 1—.. ........------- ;1": DVA�ST rj� i'7 '4 7 01 z J, .. ....... ...... :iU; J- 7- mf ...... Rtihipnt J, F,J t5' R4 AF� F F., WIT Fj: R, N "A. *W,-I r 7 r_W 3 0.1 1 W1 R,I 7 I__ ---------- ..........I Ail W. -J P-1 S P�I 0 ,DO rn., Overview Legend Subject Property Boundary Master Street Plan VAR02-02.00 '%� Planning Area `VR�_ Freeway/Expressway F_ Overlay District 4"%,0,Principal Arterial Streets ..... Existing L —1 City Limits 4lr4*,w Minor Arterial F 4* Collector =. Outside City Board ofAdjustment 1�1�Planned Historic Collector February 4, 2002 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 VAR02-2 Crocker Page 2.8 FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville,AR 72701 Telephone:(479)575-8264 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Board of Adjustment FROM: Dawn T. Warrick, Senior Planner THRU: Tim Conklin, A.I.C.P., City Planner DATE: January 30, 2002 VAR 02-3.00: Variance (Melton,pp 450)was submitted by Ellis Melton for property located at 574 Rock Cliff Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.34 acres. The requirement is for an 8' side setback. The request is for a 0' setback(an 8' variance) and to encroach on a 15"'Pedestrian Pathway"easement by Yfor a free standing garage on the property. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested 8' setback and 3' encroachment in to the designated "Pedestrian Pathway." Staff recommends approval of an 8' setback variance to allow the construction of a garage on the western side of the existing single family residence. Ordinance Requirement Applicant's Request Side Setback(R-1 district) 81 0' (an 8' setback) BACKGROUND: In 1977, the third phase of Hyland Park subdivision was processed and approved by the Planning Commission. During the development of the entire Hyland Park project,the Planning Commission determined that the developers proposal for pedestrian pathways and trails would be an adequate alternative to building sidewalks along the public streets. There are several locations within the subdivision which are called out and dedicated as access easement providing for pedestrian pathways connecting the system of trails and walkways throughout the different phases of development. The applicant for this request owns property on each side of one of the dedicated MUSERSACOMMOArDA gNTIREPORTSIBOAi2OO2-REPOR7SWELTON-VAR02--VOC Board ofAdjustment February 4, 2002 VAR02-3 Melton Page 3.1 pedestrian pathways. Originally an application was submitted to the Planning Division for a property line adjustment with the goal of combining all of the applicant's property. With the pedestrian pathway having been dedicated on the final plat for the subdivision, it was created for the use and enjoyment of all property owners within the development. In order to do away with the easement, all property owners with an interest in the use of the pathway would have to agree to eliminate the easement. The easement would need to be relocated to another reasonable location in order to continue to provide the access which was required as a condition of the subdivision. With this application, the request is to build a garage addition which would encroach this pedestrian pathway easement by 3 feet. Staff is unable to recommend in favor of an encroachment into an area which was set aside and designated for a public purpose at the time of subdivision development. Because of other unique circumstances on the property, however, staff is recommending that a variance of 81 be granted to accommodate this request. The applicant owns property on the west side of this pathway which is undeveloped and cannot be developed with anything other than an accessory structure to the main single family dwelling. This property on the west side was added to the applicant's property when that adjacent lot was divided by previous owners of the adjoining lots with the purpose of preventing the development of another residence and maintaining greenspace. Comments: The"CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL"listed in this report are accepted in total without exception by the entity requesting approval of this conditional use. Name: Date: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North: Single Family Residence, R-1 South: Vacant, R-I East: Single Family Residence, R-1 West: Single Family Residence, R-1 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Residential FINDINGS: § 156.02 ZONING REGULATIONS. H.IUSERSICOMMO"A WTUVEPORTSIBOA 12002-REPORTSWELTON-VAR02-390C Board of Adjustment February 4, 2002 VAR02-3 Melton Page 3.2 Certain variances of the zoning regulations may be applied for as follows: A. General Regulations/Application. A variance shall not be granted unless and until an application demonstrates: 1. Special Conditions. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. Finding: The property owner owns two pieces of property which are divided by a pedestrian pathway which was dedicated to the POA as a part of the development of the subdivision. The site is steep and the location of the existing home does not allow for the addition of a garage within setback requirements. 2. Deprivation of Rights. That literal interpretation of the provisions of the zoning regulations would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the zoning regulations. Finding: Literal interpretation of the provisions of the zoning regulations would not permit the construction of a garage on this property which is a commonly enjoyed amenity for most single family residenecs. 3. Resulting Actions. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Finding: The special conditions and circumstances are not the result of actions of the applicant. 4. No Special Privileges. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by Zoning, Chapters 160-165, to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Finding: Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by Zoning, Chapters 160-165, to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 5. Nonconforming Uses. No nonconforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same district, and no permitted or nonconforming use of lands, structures, or buildings in other districts shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. Finding: No nonconforming uses or structures were used as a basis for staff findings H.'I USER§ICOMMONOA JfNIlREPORTSIBO,412002-REPORTSUdELTON-VAR02-DOC Board ofAdjustment February 4, 2002 VAR02-3 Melton Page 3.3 or recommendations. § 156.02 C. Consideration by the Board of Adjustment. 1. Bulk and Area. Applications for variances of bulk and area requirements shall be considered by and may be approved by the Board of Adjustment. 2. Public Hearing. A public hearing shall be held. Finding: A public hearing is scheduled for February 4,2002. 3. Findings. The Board of Adjustment shall make the following findings: a. Minimum Variance. That the reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance, and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land,building, or structure. Finding: The reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of a variance in order to provide a garage for the existing single family home. Staff cannot recommend however, and the Board is not empowered to approve an encroachment into an access easement which was dedicated at the time that this subdivision was created. (L) Harmony with General Purpose. The Board of Adjustment shall further make a finding that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of Zoning, Chapters 160-165, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Finding: Granting the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of current zoning regulations. The property owned by the applicant on the western side of the designated pedestrian pathway provides more than the minimum yard necessary to buffer the adjoining property from this proposed garage structure. (2.) Reasons set forth in the application justify granting the variance, and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. Finding: The reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of a variance in order to provide a garage for the existing single family home. Staff cannot recommend however, and the Board is not empowered to approve an encroachment into an access easement which was dedicated at the time that this subdivision was created. H.,IUSERSICOMMOMA4 WMREPOR7SWOA 12002-REPORTSWELTON-VAR02-390C Board of Adjustment February 4, 2002 VAR02-3 Melton Page 3.4 b. Conditions and Safeguards. In granting any variance, the Board of Adjustment may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformity with the zoning regulations. Finding: Staff has recommended that a variance from the property line (edge of pedestrian pathway) be granted to accommodate a garage addition. Staff cannot support an encroachment into that easement however. C. No Variance Allowed. Under no circumstances shall the Board of Adjustment grant a variance to allow a use not permissible under Zoning in the district involved, or any use expressly or by implication prohibited by the terms of the zoning regulations in said district. Finding: While the proposed encroachment is not permitted,the Board may grant a variance which would allow a structure which is built up to the edge of the existing easement. H iUSERSICOMMOAWAWV71REPORTS�BOAL?002-REPOR7SLVELTON-VAR02-DOC Board ofAdjustment February 4, 2002 VAR02-3 Melton Page 3.5 §161.04 DISTRICT R-1: LOW DENSITY D. Bulk and Area Regul tions. RESIDENTIAL. Single-Family Two-Family A. Purpose. The Low Density Residential Lot 70 ft. 80 ft. District is designed to permit and encourage the Minimum development of low density detached dwellings in Width suitable environments,as well as to protect existing development of these types. Lot Area 8,000 sq.ft. 12,000 sq.ft. Minimum B. Uses. Land Area 8,000 sq.ft. 6,000 sq.ft. 1. Permitted Uses. Per Dwelling [Unit I City-Wide Uses by Right Unit Unit 26 Single-Family Dwelling E. Ya Requirements(feet). FRONT SIDE YARD REAR YARD 2. UsesPermissible on Appeal to YARD the Planniin g Commission. I I Unit 2 City-Wide Uses by Conditional Use 25 8 20 Permit F. Building Area.On any lot the area Unit 3 Public Protection and Utility Facilities occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 40%of the unal area of such lot. Unit 4 Cultural and Recreational Facilities Unit 8 Single-Family and Two-Family (Code 199 1,§160.03 1) Dwellings C. Density. SINGLE-FAMILY TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS DWELLINGS 4 or Less Families Per 7 or Less Families Per Acre Acre H IUSERSICOMMOMDAffN71REPORTS00AI2002—REPORTSWELTON—VAR02-DOC ofAdiustment Fehruary 4, 2002 VAR02-3 Melton Page 3.6 --LDWELL F E:-E-2 1 9 1 0 0 P' lrc-`E 1 501 444 46 F.02 Planning Commission June 28, 1993 page 16 LOT SPLIT #1 ;Z7.11VER OF SUBDIV ;-I-- R=ULATIONS SEITPLXY & S '66 574 Rocx CLIFF RD. CAL COTT M�"- - The next item was a reque - for Lot Split 41 nubmitted by Cal Shiple� and Scott Bai'ley fox: Property located at 568 and S74 Rock Cliff Road. The Property is zoned R-1, Low Density Rosidential. Mr. Sunn expiained this was a reqvest for a first split of Lot 29 of Pyland Park a 3, He advised the intent of the split was to give the owners subdivisiont Ph&s �eaaon this on each side of the subject lot additional property. He noted the 11� -- property line adjustment was that there Iwas a strip was a lot split rather har, of ccr ,,mon area between lots 28 and 29. Q�ed the west half 0, lot 29 would go to lot 30 and be handled ad a property me n I I advised the Gast Of lot 29 would be a �tand alone line adjustment. He further a mrL Shipley's Ict belonging tc Mr. ShiplQy. He stated there war no intent 01 part to develop the lot, rather it Was to prevent the development Lot 29 by anyone aloe. Mr. Bunn recommended the split be approved with the explicit understanding of the owner that the lot being created could not be built on under the pre:!sent zoning regulations. i 1-1-. Cato asked how they could be assured that, at some future date, I pomeone did lot 29. not try to build on the east half Of Little Fuggeated moving the common area to between the two PrOjprties. Ms. rZilere was discusriOn regarding the best way to divida the prOPGrtY !�Q that the east half of lot 29 could not be built on. of �he applicants, exp-lained he and Scott !Bail,y had Mr. Cal Shiplay, one purchased the jot in order to keep it in it's natura: wooded Qt&ta-1 He stated there was an actual pathway &s the common arep but it was rarely, used� He had never been a prope-rly constituted Prop4rty owners further _d ,,ised there Association. Mr. Bunn recommended approving Mr. Allred's suggestion that one dead1ba drawn up with a state-nant* in the deed referencing the easement. A neighboring property owner expressed concern regarding the abilitYiof the east I half of lot 29 to be conat.-ucted on. i HOTION Mr. Cato moved to approve the lot split with the condition that otalff work out a feasible method to join the properties together so no one could !construct a hOuse on the east half of lot 29. me. Britton seconded the motion. T Tbe motion carried unanimously. The meating adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Board ofAdjustmen t February 4, 2002 VAR02-3 Melton Page 3.7 09/14/2001 00:58 5015824699 MELTON PAGE 02 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: OR�Tl N That, Hyland Park, Inc., a rOrporation Organized under the laws of the State of Arkansas, by its President, duly authorized by proper resolution of its board of directors, for the consideration of ton dollars and no/i00S-----($I0.00)and other good and valuable consideration in hand paid by Ellis E. Melton,Jr. and Linda Kay Mellon, husband and wife, GrantOG(S), the rsCOiPI Of which is hereby acknowledged, do hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the said, granteo(s), and unto grantes(s) heirs and assigns, forever,the following lands situated in Washington County,Arkansas,to-wit; A part of Hyland Park Block 6, Phase 3,to the City of Fayetteville,Arkansas,as shown on plot of record in plat book 7, Of Page 45, Plat records Of Washington County, Arkansas, sold 171101 of land being shown an sold plat of record as a "Pedestrian Pathway" located between Lots 28 & 29, Hyland Park, Block 0, Phase 3. being more Particularly described as follows: Beginning at the NE comer of sold Lot 29; thence S 75097'13"E, 15 feet to the NW corner Of Said Lot 28;thence S 14902'47"W,233.93 feet to the SW corner of said Lot 28;thence N 78014'42" W, 15-00 feet to the BE comer of said Lot 29;thence N 14002'47"E,234.52 fast to the point of beginnin R. "octal: The purpose of this quitclaim deed Is to convey&portion of the"Common area" shown on plat of record to lh*current owner of Lot 28&the part of Lot 29 that is contiguous with sold common area. This common area has never been used for the purpose which It was originally Intended and due to the landscape end condition of the areas also Identified as"Common area"which It adjoIns Its use as a pedestrian pathway Is not possible. To have and to hold the Same unto the said grantee and unto its heirs, successors and assigns, forever, With all appurtenances thereunto belonging. in testimony whereof, the name of the grantor is hereunto affixed by its PrasidenL this day of December,2001. HY718arkl'frlc� CD cn ,�"4f4UrIdsay/Fr9j0rdsnt !a E ACKNOWLEDGMENT Stale of Arkansas )SS. County of Washington Before me,the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the aforesaid said State and County, on this day personally appeared.James E.Lindsey,who acknowledged that he was the President of Hyland Park, Inc., arid that he, as such officer, being authorized so to do hall executed the foregoing Instrument for the purposes and considerations set forth tharein by signing the name of the corporation by himself as such officer. Given sLim It d d if- I I al this Q5 day of December.2001. y I an an o iOa 80 My Commission Expirfaft Prepared By: Heritage Title&Closing Company of NWA,Inc. I cortity under penalty of false swearing that 3595 North College Avenue at least the legally correct amount of Fayetteville,AR 72703 documentary stamps �ave been placed on 501-442-6400 IN 0 ume I 'S I V14 �_� Xranto,a�or Granfee.s Age ,�X R,11,1 ZZ Address to send ne 2001158457 Board of A djustment February 4, 2002 VAR02-3 Melton Page 3.8 ET P.0.DRAWER F 72M ISM]521-7700 M E M 0 TO PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR F rom STREET SUPERINTENDENT Re NATURE TRAILS IN HYLAND PARK SUBDIVISION Date OCTOBER 18, 1983 On Friday, September 30, 1983, a final inspection of the "nature trails" in Phases III, IV and V of Hyland Park Subdivision was performed by myself accompanied by Mr. Jim Lindsey, the developer. The results of this final inspection are as follows: a. The contractor (Col. Keith Taylor and his crew) , Taylor Construction Company, was present during the inspection tour to answer questions or assist in any way possible. b. All nature trails as required in Phases III, IV and V were constructed to a higher standard than originally specified. The trails were bordered with railroad ties alternating with moss-covered native stones. The area between the borders was filled with pea gravel. Drainage ditches were crossed with durable railroad tie bridges. Some areas susceptible to erosion were stabilized with a concrete slurry mixture. c. Two property owners on the north end of Hyland Park Road did not want the "nature trails" across their lots and built fences across the nature trail easement. However, this does not detract from the "nature trail" since their two lots are at the perimeter of the subdivision. d. Another property owner on Franklin Street did not want the railroad ties and pea gravel across his lot since he already had built a retaining wall and his lawn was established. I feel this is a reasonable compromise. 2. Recommendations: a. Since Section 18-47(E) (1) of the City Code states that "The maintenance of sidewalks, including the cost of such maintenance, shall be the responsibility of the owner of the abutting property" and the fact that the "nature trails" in Hyland Park are synonymous with sidewalks oard ofAdil[Shnent February 4, 2002 VAR02-3 Melton Page 3.9 MEMO to Planning Administrator October 18, 1983 Page Two and the fact that Mr. Lindsey, the developer, made a $10,000.00 contribution to the Hyland Park Property Owners Association for landscaping and median beautification in lieu of sidewalks in Phase I, that the Property Owner Association be appointed custodian of these "nature trails" to assure that individual property owners do not permit them to deteriorate below their present standard. b. That all liens against Phases I through V, Hyland Park Subdivision, be released. CP/sk c'-ryl, 1800 Carey Blvd, HUTCH I NSON, KANSAS 67501 316)662-3341 "Salt & Service for Every Need" Board ofAdjustment Fehruary 4,2002 VAR02-3 Melton Page 110