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>