Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-02-17 MinutesMINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, February 17, 1986 at 3:45 P.M. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 pest Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas, MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Larry Tompkins, Dennis Becker, Jerry Allred and Gerald Boyd MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Waldren The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mills and the minutes of the February 3, 1986 meeting were considered. Upon a motion from Tompkins and a second from Allred, the minutes were unanimously approved as distributed. APPEAL 86-1 - FRANCES HAFER 1853 BRIARCLIFF - FRONT YARD VARIANCE The second item on the agenda was a public hearing for Appeal 86-1 submitted by Frances Hafer for property located at 1853 Briarcliff. • The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and a front yard setback variance is requested. On August 1, 1977, a variance of lot width was granted by this Board for subject Lot 80 of Rolling Meadows Subdivision with the stipulation that the front yard setback be 40'. The developer at that time was Ernest R. (Buddy) Coleman. Steve Rucker, E.R.C. Properties in Fort Smith, explained that both Lots 80 and 81 of Rolling Meadows have failed to meet the front yard setback of 40'. He said, in order to save as many of the large trees as possible, the houses were moved in their present position. He said, of the three lots on the cul-de-sac, the house on Lot 82 worked out fine but Lots 80 and 81 wound up encroaching into the setback because of a 26" Oak tree Rucker said the distance was measured from where the back of the sidewalk would be which was in error. He said the house was thought to be within the setback and the error was only picked up in the title search. He added that the corners of the house are set back far enough and only the inner portion is encroaching. Frances Hafer, petitioner, stated that the lots in question are extra large and would support a larger house. She said there is a lot of room between the houses on the cul-de-sac and they look well. There being no one else present to speak either for or against this appeal, Mills turned the discussion to Board members. • 10 • Board of Adjustment February 17, 1986 Page 2 Tompkins inquired as to the City's role in setback violations. He said the minute a minimum standard is violated, it becomes extremely critical. He said the regulations were thought out and put into law by the community and he expressed concern regarding the responsibility of the developer as well as the City's enforcement. Mills introduced Freeman Wood, Building Inspector, to explain the process of five inspections undertaken by the City. Wood explained that an inspector is given the plot plan for the site which was presented with the builder's permit application. He said the inspector asks where the lot lines are and whether or not there are any easements, so as to avoid building over same. Wood said his inspectors are not surveyors and have no way of knowing for sure the exact location of a property line. He commented that there were only two errors of setback measurement in 200 housing starts last year. Tompkins said this kind of problem occurs time and time again. He asked what Wood's role and responsibility in enforcement is if the developer's word is taken for locating the property line. Wood replied that he would not allow a footing to be poured if he knew it did not meet the setback. He said the front is judged using the curb but • the side lines are more difficult unless there is already a house built next door. Discussion ensued regarding the other four inspections in the full process and Wood advised that setbacks are checked only at the first footing inspection. Mills asked if surveyor's stakes are ordinarily found on site in the building process and Wood replied that there are sometimes stakes but that once a backhoe or 'dozer moves in to prepare the lot, the stakes are often covered up. In answer to Boyd's question, Wood replied that a copy of the plot plan should be available on site. Boyd noted that a 40' setback was unusual and would not be noticed unless it was drawn to attention. Carlisle advised that many 40' setbacks exist on culs-de-sae. Boyd said, on examination of the property, he didn't think the house was set anywhere near 40' back. Becker advised that the radius would be the same all the way around and the survey presented would indicate that the setback line intrudes into the house more than is shown. He said the house is actually closer than the 36.1 indicated in the appeal. Tompkins asked the responsibility of the foreman to lay out a structure correctly Rucker replied that the foundation sub -contractor is usually furnished a copy of the plot plan. He said, in this case, the matter • of responsibility was a joint process between the field supervisor and the foundation sub -contractor with the contractor setting it up and the field supervisor double-checking with the plot plan. qrl • Board of Adjustment February 17, 1986 Page 3 Mills noted that the owner of this property had come to the Board several years ago asking for a variance and said she thought the builder would have been extremely careful to adhere to the setbacks as specified at that meeting of August 1, 1977. Rucker said no one involved with the property at that time would remember the variance and conditions attached to it. Carlisle, in reply to Mills' question, advised that building setbacks are noted on permit applications as are other requirements such as required sidewalks, etc. Rucker said the actual and the finished product are somewhat different because of maneuvering around the trees in order to save them. He added that the lots on this cul are difficult to build on because of easements and a drainage ditch, as well as a dramatic drop-off towards the east. Tompkins asked if a different floor plan for each lot had been considered when the subdivision was first developed. Jeff Caudle, J. B. Hays Realtors, stated that the best house plan for the cul-de-sac was chosen for these lots, especially in that they are very narrow. He said other house plans considered would have necessitated cutting the tree. • Tom Tucker, Building Inspector, said he asks the person laying the foundation whether he is within the property line. He added the only way to find a property line is if there is a house next door. In answer to Mills' question, Tucker answered that the footings were quite far back from the line but were not measured. Tompkins asked if the street is usually in when a house is built and Tucker replied that they are and the curb is usually built. Tucker said he must rely on the person digging the footings although mistakes have been made and several houses have had to move. Tompkins asked if the Planning Commission is aware of the problem the Inspection Department encounters regarding the finding of property lines and Wood said it has been mentioned several times and has been a problem for many, many years. Mills said she was bothered that the inspector only takes the word of the person laying the foundation without measuring himself. Caudle explained that, unless there is a defined radius point marked in the middle of the cul-de-sac, you could not swing a 40' are and expect the house to be within the bounds of it. Mills said she thought a measurement could be taken from the sidewalk and Caudle replied that he did that and was still in error. He further explained that the sidewalk was not existing at the time of construction but a planting strip was installed between the sidewalk and the curb. He continued that • the sidewalk was eventually installed against the curb, as was done in the remainder of the subdivision, contributing to the error. a • Board of Adjustment February 17, 1986 Page 4 Becker said he thought this was another peculiar situation. He noted there are no safety problems, there is plenty of room between houses and plenty of setback. He also noted there are plenty of other lots around culs-de-sae that are less than the 70' minimum required lot width. Becker said he thought the houses look fine, that most front yard setbacks are 25' and this one is 36'. He posed the question whether the developer should pay for a decision made in 1977. He advised the error amounts to 30% and felt that something needs to be done about repeated appeals of this nature. He did not think forcing the City to set stakes was a good idea and added he felt it legitimate to try to save the tree. Becker questioned whether the Board should ignore errors such as this which is the builder's responsibility and not the City's. He said he thought someone should have come forward and explained the tree was prohibiting development of the lot as was originally agreed upon. He asked if this type of issue should be addressed all at once or case by case. Mills expressed concern regarding where to draw the line and where the responsibility will be. Tompkins noted that the City has some responsibility in the inspection process. He said part of these little things that keep nibbling away detract from the quality of life which the ordinance is to maintain. He said he was not only concerned about • the managerial enforcement process, but the long term enforcement as well. He added that if the appeal is granted, he would like to see it restricted to the structure and not the entire property width. Allred said he would like to find a way to prevent this from happening in the future. He mentioned there are builders who change their plans the minute they leave the Planning Office. He remarked if there is no policing on zoning, there is no purpose of having a Commission or Board of Adjustment. He also said he felt the City should be responsible for zoning or footing inspections and suggested a survey which would stake out the house or addition. Wood agreed. Tucker said it would take two inspectors to take the kind of measurement being suggested and he thought a surveyor would be the most qualified person to do this chore. Wood said setbacks could be checked if stakes were set out. He added he thought this proposal would need approval on a higher level. Wood also said he thought the problem would not end until someone told a builder that their next encroaching structure would have to be moved. He said his department has the equivalent of 3.25 inspectors, including himself, who performed 14,000 inspections last year. He said this did not include any sick -time or vacation and amounted to an inspection every nine minutes. Attorney, Earl Hafer, suggested waiving the 40' building setback on • Lot 80, noting that there is no problem aesthetically or safety -wise. AhW fa • Board of Adjustment February 17, 1986 Page 5 Mills said she had a problem with that suggestion, in that when this developer came before this Board several years ago, he was very adamant that he would adhere to the 40' setback if granted a reduction in the minimum lot width requirement. She said there is enough information available that should have been forwarded to the superintendent, the foreman and the person pouring the footings to alert them to a possible problem. Carlisle explained that the Board had granted the developer's appeal of 1977 in order to preserve the minimum lot width requirement at the 40' setback. Boyd said the two lots in question were difficult to develop but he would have preferred that the developer come in to express the problem. He advised if this lot were an easy one to develop, he would be in favor of having it moved. Mrs. Hafer noted the remainder of the homes on the street were built by the same developer and stayed within requirements. Boyd pointed out that only three lots, including the two in question, presented any problem. NOTION isBecker moved approval of the requested variance for Lot 80 with the stipulation that it be applied only to the structure and not the lot width. Allred seconded and the motion passed 3-2-0 with Mills and Tompkins opposed. In answer to Wood's question, Mills explained that if the house were destroyed by more than 50%, it may not be rebuilt as it is non -conforming and the variance applies only to this house. AMRNDNRNT Upon a suggestion from Tompkins that the above appeal and that of Appeal #86-2 for Lot 81 Rolling Meadows are so similarly unique, the previous discussion should apply to both. Becker amended his motion to include Appeal 86-2; Allred seconded. Tompkins clarified that he wished Appeal 86-2 addressed separately. MOTION Becker moved that Appeal 86-2 be approved as per his motion pertaining to Appeal 86-1. Allred seconded followed by discussion. Carlisle explained the driveway on Lot 81 is on a utility easement and Becker advised if the utility company demands access, the driveway must be replaced at the cost of the owner. Mills asked if the drive, as shown, was encroaching on the next property and Carlisle agreed that it was. Carlisle also advised that a driveway must be a minimum • of 5' from a property line. Hafer said the driveway goes directly into the garage and Rucker said he thought the draftsman had transposed dimensions from the field examination to the survey which was submitted. • Board of Adjustment February 17, 1986 Page 6 MOTION Tompkins moved to table Appeal 86-2 until corrections can be made to the information submitted. Hafer noted that the title insurance is being held up because of the setback discrepancy. Mills advised that the motion to table is to take time to gather accurate information as opposed to speculation of the driveway location. Tompkins expressed concern that another variance will be needed for the driveway. Allred questioned whether the Board may address a non-conformance for which a variance has not been requested. The motion to table died for lack of a second. Becker called the original question and the motion to approve Appeal 86-2 as stated by Becker passed 3-2-0, Mills and Tompkins opposed. Mills requested input as to a solution for the preceeding problem and Allred asked if measurements for front yard setbacks can be taken from the curb. Becker thought this was possible and Wood agreed, • if the curb were installed accurately. Becker suggested that it is not foreign to have a surveyor lay out units for townhouses which could be adopted for houses as well. Allred noted that visible stakes would provide the inspector something to measure from. He also noted that builders sometimes change their plot plans as soon as they leave the Planning office but Becker advised that having a survey would give something to enforce. Mills suggested Carlisle draft a letter to the acting City Manager stating the problem. Tompkins noted the following as aspects to be addressed: 1. timing sequence; 2. a referent; and 3. lack of personnel. Carlisle suggested said letter be forwarded to the Street and Subdivision Sub -Committee as they are currently addressing related issues. Board members agreed, requesting a copy be sent to the acting City Manager. All agreed that support was needed from higher levels. Becker suggested survey stakes be set prior to the initial footing inspection, noting that it would be sufficient to stake the building setback lines rather than the entire house. Boyd pointed out the cost involved in surveying each property. Wood suggested a fine for code violators. Mills noted that most builders in town do adhere to zoning regulations while only a few are offenders. • There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:20 P.M. I C>