Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-06-02 MinutesMINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45 P.M., Monday, June 2, 1980, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman Chester House, Mrs. Don Mills, Robert Waldren, Larry Smith, Dr. David Crittenden, Larry Thompkins. None (one position vacant). J. Michael Davis, Jim Lindsey, Gary Carnahan, Stewart. Bobbie Jones, Cynthia Chairman Chester House called the meeting to order at 3:55 P.M. The first item of business was the Appeal No. APPEAL NO. 80-12 80-12, John Michael Davis, 449 East Rebecca Street, JOHN MICHAEL DAVIS application to vary setbacks. Michael Davis was 449 EAST REBECCA STREET present to represent. Michael Davis stated that he was appealing to the Board for a variance in property setback requirements. He presented a larger and more accurate drawing to supercede the one in the agenda. He said he would like to add on to his residence. He said that his house was presently non -conforming in setbacks. Mr. Davis said his reason for wanting to do this was a proposed sewer easement runs across his property which reduces the area of the lot which can be used to 20%. The reason for this sewer easement is, there is an existing, non -conforming sewer line that crosses his lot behind his house, which services three houses He would like to build a detached garage South of the existing sewer line. After that old sewer line is removed, he would like to then tie the proposed garage into the house, maintaining the same setback from Olive Street as the existing house now has. He requested that the Board grant him a variance for both phases of construction. Dr. Crittenden asked if the requested variance was from the street. Mr. Davis replied that was correct, that he was requesting 3 ft. 3 in. over the setback line (21 ft. 9 in. from the street). Mr. Davis said that if he was allowed to build his addition, it would line up with the existing structure. At this time Mr. Davis presented some polaroid photographs to the Board. Bob Waldren asked if the sewer easement had been granted. Mr. Davis replied that the proposed sewer line was a Community Development Plan and that it was his understanding that the plan had died, but that some time in the future his neighbors and himself would have to have more adequate sewer. He stated the sewer actually backs up into his neighbors' lines. Chester House asked how long Mr. Davis had owned this property. Davis replied 5 years. House asked if Mr. Davis planned to build over the existing sewer or cover it. Davis said he wanted to build a garage area, not attached to the house, and, when the existing sewer line is removed, he would attach the garage to his house. House asked how deep the construction would be from Olive Street. Davis said it would be 36 ft. by 28 ft. Bobbie Jones said that Mr. Davis's lot was only 60 ft. wide East to West, and out of that Davis had required setbacks totaling 33 ft. Board of Adjustment Meeting June 2, 1980 Page 2 . Dr. Crittenden asked if part of the existing structure was non -conforming. Davis said that was correct, that it was non -conforming by 3 ft. 3 in. Mills asked if Mr. Davis was planning to disturb the area where the sewer is presently sitting. Davis said that was correct. Davis said the existing sewer.. was not a City Sewer Line, that it was a non -conforming private line serving three houses Bobbie Jones said that the sewer line was serving the purpose of a "main", but that it did not show up on any City Sewer Maps. Bobbie Jones said Mr. Davis had removed a non -conforming structure from his property. Davis replied that he had, the building had been an old garage. Larry Thompkins asked Mr. Davis if he had gotten a building permit for the remodeling that he had already done. Mr. Davis said he had. He had closed in an old porch. Thompkins asked if that part of the house was also non -conforming, Mr. Davis replied that was correct, that it was about 5 ft. over the setback line. Mills asked if the work already performed by Mr. Davis met with City Planning Office approval. Davis said he had tentative approval. Thompkins asked if the side yard to the West was conforming. Davis said there was 10 ft. from the house to the property line on the West, and that the "stoop" itself would be about 1-1/2 ft. into the setback area. There being no further discussion, the Chairman closed the public hearing on Appeal No. 80-12. The next item of business was the Appeal No. 80-13, APPEAL NO. 80-13 Lindsey $ Associates, 1929-2031 East Oaks Drive, on LINDSEY $ ASSOCIATES a request for ruling on the interpretation of 1929-2031 EAST OAKS DRIVE Art. 5, Sec. III, Paragraphs A, E F, F, or, an application to vary setbacks of buildings in excess of 20 ft. high. Jim Lindsey and Gary Carnahan were present to represent. Gary Carnahan stated there were four lots in Kantz Place Addition where they were building condominium -type Townhouses. He said there were four Townhouse units in each building that were being platted separately to be sold as separate units for individual ownership with a fire wall between each unit. The lot line is the fire wall, which meets all City Ordinances. Carnahan stated there were four of these buildings for a total of 16 units. Mr. Carnahan stated that the four buildings were 28 ft. apart, the side yard for each building being 14 ft. He said the City Zoning Ordinance for this type of construction in an R-2 Zone, requires that a building 20 ft. in height requires a side yard setback of 12 ft. He stated if a building is over 20 ft. in height, the side yard requirement changes and in their case the buildings are 22 ft. so that the side yard requirement jumps from 12 ft. to 21 ft. for a total of 42 ft. between each building. Mr. Carnahan felt that this requirement was inconsistent in their case, where they are controlling the placement of buildings in a 400 ft. byi175 ft. area. He said in each structure, they were selling each unit for individual ownership with virtually no separation between them but a common party wall. Carnahan said the buildings were not in a straight line, the two center buildings align together and the other two were staggered 30 ft. forward (to the East) so that there was only 4 ft. where the outside walls of the center buildings match up with the front two. Carnahan said that on the front of the lot there was a 64 ft. setback and on the rear the setback was 47 ft. Larry Thompkins asked why all four buildings were not staggered. Mr. Carnahan said he felt the 28 ft. was enough setback. /53 Board of Adjustment Meeting June 2, 1980 • Page 3 Jim Lindsey addressed the Board. He stated he felt they were "breaking new ground". He said there were two ways of developing, the PUD concept being one. He said in that situation this setback rule does not even apply, that one could line 25 units up as long as the fire wall requirement was met. He said in his situation, he would have to have the same insurance program as a PUD condominium plan. In other words, he said an overall insurance policy must be provided for each building in case an internal unit burned out and would have to be replaced, even though the fire wall kept it from spreading to other units. The PUD ordinance had been designed for low density residential zones, and the Townhouse provisions were for medium density residential zones. Mr. Lindsey said he would like the Board to clarify the Townhouse portion of the ordinance and that he would like his confusion cleared up as to whether this townhouse concept should come under apartment setback provisions. He said the fire wall consists of a double layer of fire guard sheet rock 5/8 in. thick with two more walls for a total of 6 layers of sheet rock. Mr. Lindsey said if he wanted to, he could circumvent the height requirement by a landscaping technique where he could berm up the land around the townhouse so that the gable height would be only 20 ft. above the ground level. Lindsey felt that on this basis they were justified in asking for a variance on the setback requirements. He also wanted a clarification on why there was this inconsistency in the PUD and the Townhouse Development when they both have the same motivation. Lindsey said the only difference he had found between the PUD Development and the Townhouse Development was the ammenities involved with the PUD (swimming pool, tennis courts). He said the units are sold the same way. The Chairman asked when the setback violation had been discovered. Gary Carnahan said it was discovered when they had tried to acquire a building permit for the adjacent building. Dr. Crittenden asked how tall the buildings were. Gary Carnahan stated the buildings are two-story which is 17 ft. high and that the peak of the roof was 22 ft. high. Mrs. Mills asked how long it would take, or if it would hold Lindsey up too much, to refer this back before the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors and get the ordinance clarified. Bobbie Jones said that the ordinance would have to be amended. Mr. Lindsey said he could continue construction and implement the berm landscaping, but that it would be more expensive. Bobbie Jones said in order to get the ordinance rewritten, it would have to go before the Planning Commission for public hearing, and then on to the Board of Directors. She said it would go before the Planning Commission first to see if they would be willing to call a public hearing, if they are, there would be a three week interim before the public hearing. Lindsey asked what had motivated Bobbie to have him come before the Board. Bobbie said she felt the requirements should definitely be met on the north and south ends where the development abuts other property not within the development. She said she saw nothing in the ordinance that said the setbacks should not apply to townhouses. Bobbie said Townhouses were defined in the ordinance and that setbacks were not treated any differently,land area and lot widths are treated differently from apartments in an R-2 zone. Mr. Lindsey said he could berm the land areas adjacent to property he does not own and reduce the request to the interior of the lot Mr. Lindsey said the ordinance needed to be clarified, because townhouse developments were going to be more and more common in the future. He said many people could not /54 Board of Adjustment June 2, 1980 • Page 4 • afford the amenities that go along with the PUD -type development. Bob Waldren asked if the berm landscaping that Mr. Lindsey had mentioned was acceptable. Bobbie Jones said that she had issued a building permit with the condition that the developer would either raise the outside ground elevation or redesign the roof so that the roof is no more than 20 ft. above the ground. The Chairman stated a "hip" type roof would eliminate the problem entirely. Mr. Lindsey stated that was correct, but that the way the buildings were designed, the hip roof would not be aesthetically pleasing. Bob Waldren said he saw four basic alternatives 1) get a setback variance; 2) change the roof to a hip type roof; 3) implement berm type landscaping; 4) or turn the building, or redesign the concept. Mr. Lindsey said that was correct. Larry Smith said he did not understand the big jump in setbacks between buildings 20 and 21 ft. high either. He said he did understand the setback from adjoining property owners. There were four units in each building to be sold to individual owners, with no setback at all except a fire wall. There seemed to be a void in the ordinance. Mr. Lindsey agreed and said he felt a study should be made on townhouse developments for the future. Bobbie Jones said the Board could rule on an interpretation. She said the Board could rule that the setback ordinance does not apply to this type of development, a note would be added in the Planning Office records, and that would be the way it would be from now on, unless the wording of the ordinance was changed to definitely state otherwise. Larry Thompkins said the purpose of the R-2, Medium Density Residential➢ was to permit and encourage developing a variety of building types which will house between 4 and 24 dwelling units per acre, was one interpretation of the ordinance. Mr. Thompkins asked Bobbie Jones what her interpretation of "building line" was Bobbie said she felt building line and setback line were the same. Dr. Crittenden asked what sort of development was across the street. Mr. Lindsey stated the property across the street was owned by E. J. Ball, and that it was zoned R-0, that Mr. Ball planned on putting in offices, apartments or townhouses. Mr. Lindsey said he planned on continuing this type of development to the north. Mrs. Mills asked Mr. Lindsey if he planned to continue using the same type of structure all the way to the north. Mr. Lindsey said he may change some of the designs. Larry Thompkins said essentially, Mr. Lindsey was asking for a 6 ft. variance from the setback requirements. Mr. Lindsey stated that was correct. There being no further questions, the public hearing on the Appeal No. 80-13 was closed. The Chairman asked the Board's feelings on APPEAL NO. 80-12 Appeal No. 80-12. Larry Smith said this was an existing structure that Mr. Davis was trying to improve, and he did not see anything wrong with granting the variance. Larry Thompkins said while this was a nice effort, he felt that by granting the variance, the Board would be increasing the longevity of a non -conforming structure. Mrs. Mills said that in this area the lots are small, the sewer lines are strange, and that, while it would be adding to the non -conforming building, the problems with 169 • • • Board of Adjustment Meeting June 2, 1980 Page 5 sewer and easements create a problem in doing anything in this area. Larry Smith said that due to the shortage of money for new housing, he thought that many people would be buying older homes and trying to straighten them up. He said he preferred to see someone take a house such as this and improve it. Bob Waldren said if variances were not allowed in cases like this, that people would start letting these houses go and the neighborhood would get run down. Mr. Thompkins said the lot was not non -conforming in area. Bob Waldren said that if Mr. Davis grants the sewer easement, his lot would be non -conforming in width. The Chairman said he saw a problem with this in that there would be two separate buildings and Mr. Davis was hoping the obsolete sewer line would be abandoned and removed. Mr. Thompkins felt Mr. Davis could build his structure in line with the setbacks. Dr. Crittenden said if he did he would create a jag in his liouse The Chairman said he was sure that if the variance was granted, Mr. Davis would be back to get a permit to connect the two buildings. Mrs. Jones said that was correct and this was included in Mr. Davis' request. Larry Smith made a motion to grant the variance and Mills seconded. The motion passed with Mills, Waldren, Smith and Crittenden voting -"Aye", Thompkins voting "Nay", and House abstaining. (4-1-1) The Board now considered Appeal No. 80-13. APPEAL NO. 80-13 The Chairman stated he thought the Townhouse Rules and Regulations needed some adjustment. He felt the Planning Commission or the Board of Directors should look into this. The Chairman felt Townhouses should be built, as they would probably be the only type of housing a young couple could afford. Mr. House said he would be in favor of granting this particular variance. Bob Waldren was bothered by the fact that the ordinance could be beaten by filling in some dirt. He did not feel the ordinance was strong enough in that regard, and felt the Planning Commission and Board of Directors should review the Townhouse Ordinance. Mr. Waldren was not bothered about setbacks being non -conforming within the development, but was bothered about setbacks being non -conforming abutting the adjacent property. Mills added her request for a study on the Townhouse Ordinance. Thompkins also added his request for a Townhouse Ordinance. He said he was bothered because he felt the requirement was there for a reason. He felt the 1:1 ratio was there to get light in between structures as they are raised up. Waldren moved to grant the variance as requested. Crittenden seconded. The motion passed with Waldren, Crittenden and House voting "Aye",Mills and Thompkins voting "Nay" and Smith abstaining. The Chairman asked Bobbie Jones to draft a memorandum to the Planning Commission requesting a study of the Townhouse Ordinance to see what, if any, revisions should be made. On a motion by Thompkins, and a second by MINUTES Mills, the minutes of the May 19, 1980 meeting were approved as mailed by a vote of 5-0-1 with Smith abstaining. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:20 P.M. IL?