HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6468-A Staff AnalysisJuly 27, 1998
Item No.: 3
File No.: Z -6468-A
Owner: Arkansas Cedar Homes, Inc.
Address: 2500 Creekside Drive
Description: Lot 38, Sandpiper Creek
Zoned• R-2
Variance Re"est_ed_: variances are requested from the
building line provisions of Section
31-12 and the accessory building
area regulations of Section 36-156
to permit a satellite dish with
reduced setbacks and located across
a platted building line.
Justification: A licant's statement: I
respectfully request a variance for
the location of a satellite dish on
my property. The present location
is the only site within the
property where an adequate signal
can be received without the removal
of at least one large oak tree.
The dish is 30 inches in diameter
with the top of the dish
approximately 4 feet above the
ground. Because of the small
nature of the dish, it can easily
be hidden from the neighboring
properties and streets with either
a short fence or by planting some
screening bushes.
If my application for a variance is
approved, it is my intent to screen
the dish in such a manner that it
will not be visible from either the
street or adjacent properties.
As previously stated, to receive a
satellite signal at another
location on the property, it would
be necessary to remove one or more
large trees. I am extremely
reluctant to remove the trees. I
believe they add to the esthetics
of the area and neighborhood and in
general enhance the beauty of my
July 27, 1998
Item No.: 3 (Cont.
property and the neighboring
properties.
Present Use of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 2500 Creekside Drive is occupied
by a single family residence. The occupant of that
residence has placed a small satellite dish in the side yard
of the property, adjacent to Bowman Road. The satellite
dish has a setback of 6-7 feet from Bowman Road and a front
yard setback of 54-55 feet. The Code defines satellite
dishes as accessory structures and requires a street side
yard setback of 15 feet and a front yard setback of 60 feet.
There are many tall, mature trees on the lot -and the
applicant states that the satellite dish is located at the
only spot on the property where it can receive an adequate
signal. The satellite dish has a diameter of 30 inches and
the entire structure is only 4 feet tall. The structure
does not create a sight -distance hazard and is fairly
unobtrusive. The applicant has offered to further screen
the dish with either a short fence or shrubbery. Shrubbery
would provide adequate screening and would blend better with
the landscape.
The applicant had previously filed this same application and
was scheduled for the April 27, 1998 Board meeting. The
applicant failed to provide the required notice to area
property owners and did not appear at the meeting. The same
thing occurred at the May 18, 1998 Board meeting. In light
of the applicant's failure to pursue to application, the
Board voted to withdraw the application. In June, the
applicant contacted staff about pursuing the application.
The item is under enforcement by the City's Code Enforcement
staff. Staff consulted the City Attorney and was advised
that since the application was withdrawn, not denied, the
applicant could refile. A new application was subsequently
filed for the July 27, 1998 meeting.
Staff still believes the requested variances to be
reasonable for this unobtrusive satellite dish. Staff
believes it is prudent for the Board to act on this item at
2
July 27, 1998
Item No.: 3 (Cont.
the July 27, 1998 meeting, either to approve or deny the
request.
Should the Board approve the building line variance, the
applicant will have to do a one -lot replat, reflecting the
change in the building line. The applicant should review
the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's Office to
determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of
Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and
building line variances subject to compliance with the
following conditions:
1. A one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building
line as approved by the Board.
2. Shrubbery is to be planted around the base of the
satellite dish to provide screening of the dish from the
right-of-way. The shrubbery is to be planted within 10
days of the Board action.
3
July 27, 1998
Item No.:
File No.•
Z -6468-A
Owner:
Arkansas Cedar Homes, Inc.
Address-
2500 Creekside Drive
Descriptio
Lot 38, Sandpiper Creek
Zoned•
R-2
Variance Re ested:
Variances are requested from the
building line provisions of Section
31-12 and the accessory building
area regulations of Section 36-156
to permit a satellite dish with
reduced setbacks and located across
a platted building line ._
Justification:
A licant's statement: I
respectfully request a variance for
the location of a satellite dish on
my property. The present location
is the only site within the
property where an -adequate signal
can be received without the removal
of at least one large oak tree.
The dish is 30 inches in diameter
with the top of the dish
approximately 4 feet above the
ground. Because of the small
nature of the dish, it can easily
be hidden from the neighboring
properties and streets with either
a short fence or by planting some
screening bushes.
If my application for a variance is
approved, it is my intent to screen
the dish in such a manner that it
will not be visible from either the
street or adjacent properties.
As previously stated, to receive a
satellite signal at another
location on the property, it would
be necessary to remove one or more
large trees. I am extremely
reluctant to remove the trees. I
believe they add to the esthetics
of the area and neighborhood and in
general enhance the beauty of my
July 27, 1998
Item No.: 3
property and the neighboring
properties.
Present Use of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of Prop_ert : Single Family
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues
B. Staff Analysis:
The R-2 zoned property at 2500 Creekside Drive is occupied
by a single family residence. The occupant of that
residence has placed a small satellite dish in the side yard
of the property, adjacent to Bowman Road. The satellite
dish has a setback of 6-7 feet from Bowman Road and a front
yard setback of 54-55 feet. The Code defines satellite
dishes as accessory structures and requires a street side
yard setback of 15 feet and a front yard setback of 60 feet.
There are many tall, mature trees on the lot- and the
applicant states that the satellite dish is located at the
only spot on the property where it can receive an adequate
signal. The satellite dish has a diameter of 30 inches and
the entire structure is only 4 feet tall. The structure
does not create a sight -distance hazard and is fairly
unobtrusive. The applicant has offered to further screen
the dish with either a short fence or shrubbery. Shrubbery
would provide adequate screening and would blend better with
the landscape.
The applicant had previously filed this same application and
was scheduled for the April 27, 1998 Board meeting. The
applicant failed to provide the required notice to area
property owners and did not appear at the meeting. The same
thing occurred at the May 18, 1998 Board meeting. In light
of the applicant's failure to pursue to application, the
Board voted to withdraw the application. In June, the
applicant contacted staff about pursuing the application.
The item is under enforcement by the City's Code Enforcement
staff. Staff consulted the City Attorney and was advised
that since the application was withdrawn, not denied, the
applicant could refile. A new application was subsequently
filed for the July 27, 1998 meeting.
Staff still believes the requested variances to be
reasonable for this unobtrusive satellite dish. Staff
believes it is prudent for the Board to act on this item at
2
July 27, 1998
Item No.: 3 Cont.
the July 27, 1998 meeting, either to approve or deny the
request.
Should the Board approve the building line variance, the
applicant will have to do a one -lot replat, reflecting the
change in the building line. The applicant should review
the filing procedure with the Circuit Clerk's Office to
determine if the replat requires a revised Bill of
Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and
building line variances subject to compliance with the
following conditions:
1. A one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building
line as approved by the Board.
2. Shrubbery is to be planted around the base of the
satellite dish to provide screening of the dish from the
right-of-way. The shrubbery is to be planted within 10
days of the Board action.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JULY 27, 1998)
The Chairman introduced the issue and asked that staff present
its recommendation. Richard Wood of the staff briefly ran
through the proposal identifying the history of the application
and the reason for its being before the Board. Wood pointed out
that although there are no significant issues remaining
pertaining to the specific site location of the dish. There is
the issue of notice to the adjacent property owners which in this
instance appears to be somewhat less than what would be expected
numberwise. There were only five persons who signed the notice
form.
The principal issue that staff would point out relative to the
notices is that they were mailed late and they were turned into
staff somewhat late. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board
consider first whether or not it will modify or waive the bylaws
to allow the application to be heard at this meeting. Wood
concluded his comments by saying that staff does not feel this is
a serious circumstance that can't be resolved. Staff feels that
some kind of screening still remains the best resolution of the
circumstance. Staff would recommend that the bylaws be amended
and that the application be approved subject to some type of
screening.
Cindy Dawson, of the City Attorney's Office, suggested that the
Board proceed immediately to deal with the bylaw issue. The
Chairman placed the matter before the Board for discussion
purposes. He first recognized Mr. Robert Beason, the property
3
July 27, 1998
Item No.: 3 Cont.
owner. The Chairman and others questioned Mr. Beason as to
whether he understood the notice procedure and what type of
notice he provided. Mr. Beason briefly described the form that
he had been provided and how he had approached his neighbors and
requested their signatures.
Richard Wood, of the staff, pointed out that the typical notice
instructions and format were given to the applicant upon filing
the application. With the specific instructions on notice time
minimum and the return time. Mr. Beason pointed out that he was
not aware or did not realize there was a deadline on either of
these items.
After a brief discussion between several members of the Board and
the Chairman, a motion was placed on the floor to accept the
notices as they were submitted and to waive the bylaws as
pertained to the requirements. A vote on this motion produced
5 ayes, 0 nays and 0 absent. The bylaws therefore being set
aside relative to the issues at hand. The Chairman then moved
the application to the public hearing.
Several questions were offered from members of the Board as to
what type of screening could be located around this dish to
shield it from view. The question was posed as to how tall the
satellite dish was. Mr. Beason indicated the dish was
approximately 4 feet in height. Upon the question about
screening, several types of foliage could be utilized. A
photinia could be a good screening shrub and the applicant
indicated it is type of shrub he would plant so as to provide a
screening. The subject of how tall the plant should be upon the
date of planting. It was recommended by Mr. Scott of the
Enforcement Staff that the shrub be a minimum of 30 inches in
height.
At this point Cindy Dawson, of the City Attorney's Office, asked
Mr. Beason if he had any question about the staff's
recommendation including the requirement for replatting of the
lot. The applicant stated that he did not; however, he had some
questions about what replatting meant. A brief discussion of
this subject produced a determination by the City Attorney and
the agreement by staff that a plat should not be required in this
instance because this is not truly a building, although it is a
structure in the definition of the ordinance. This is not a
building that would be intended to be set behind a building line;
therefore, we would not require him to produce a one lot plat.
The owner stated that he did not have problems with the balance
of the staff recommendation.
Prior to a vote on this issue a board member asked a question on
how would anyone know in the future of whether such a variance
was extended to this property or to any piece of property.
Richard Wood of the staff offered a brief outline of how the
public record is modified each time a Zoning or a Board of
4
July 27, 1998
Item No.: 3_ (Cont.
Adjustment action occurs and how it is posted upon the official
zoning map for easy observation that an action has occurred.
The Chairman then placed the item on the floor for a vote. The
vote produced 4 ayes, 1 nay and 0 absent.
5