HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-01-15 Minutes:r :0 •I 11•�i I 0)414XQ OWN
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday January 15,
1990, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Dennis
Becker, Larry
Tompkins,
Gerald Boyd and
Robert Davis
a+nu a Dee Wright
PRESENT: Freeman Wood, John Merrell and Elaine Cattaneo
The minutes of
the regular
meeting on December 18,
1989 were approved as
distributed.
APPEAL NO. BA90-1 - VARIANCE FROM BUILDING SETBACKS
JOHN WATKINS - 669 CLIFFSIDE DRIVE
The second item on the agenda was Appeal No. BA90-1 for a Variance from the
Building Setback submitted by John Watkins and represented by Albert Skiles,
Architect. The property is located at 669 Cliffside Drive and zoned R-1, Low
• Density Residential. The request was to vary the building setback from the
front property line by 8' (from the required 25' to 17').
Albert Skiles, Architect, stated that they are asking for an 8' variance on the
front building setback from the proposed carport to the property line. He
advised that their main concerns are to try to save several trees that are
located right around the area of the proposed carport and to try to build on
this lot with minimal disruption of the property. There are two houses on either
side of this lot that are rather close to the property lines. There are some
considerations of not disturbing the ground because of soil problems in the area
which requires piers to be dug for all houses along this street. The neighbors
have voiced concern about this proposed house and carport not being put too close
to their house or too much excavation being done that would perhaps disrupt their
foundations. This proposed configuration fulfilled the requirements of the
clients and minimal disturbance of the lot with the loss of maybe one tree.
The idea is to create a carport in front of the house in order to avoid
constructing a long driveway back to the house. Moving this carport back would
probably cause a loss of a great deal of the trees on the lots and there is also
a particularly steep incline on the lot. He advised that they have gathered
not only approval of their variance from the neighbors, but also actual
recommendations from them encouraging the Board of Adjustment to consider this.
Mr. Skiles noted that as he understands it according to the ordinance, they could
put a carport at this location without a variance but they couldn't put a roof
over it. However, none of the property owners around here would be happy with
• an uncovered carport here. Visually, this carport will not appear to be right
on the road because the road is 10' to 12' up above this. To preserve this
design, their options are either to leave the driveway as is with no roof on the
0\
• Board of Adjustment
January 15, 1990
Page 2
carport or to back the carport up another 8' which would require piers being dug
and change the distance off the ground from about 2' as planned to about 6'.
He advised that they have obtained letters in support of this from Frank Broyles
who owns three lot across the road, Dr. Joe Henley who lives on one side, Dr.
Donnie Holden who lives next door on the other side, Roy Stanley who lives down
the street, Bill Outhouse who lives on Cliffside and Dan Ferritor who lives near
here. They presented the letters to the Board for review. He further stated
that Drs. Henley and Holden both have copies of the site plan showing the
proposed development.
He stated that they have taken great care to preserve the natural beauty of the
site and they feel that their variance request would be in keeping with the
intent and desires of the neighborhood. He presented photographs of the lot
showing the trees and lay of the land along with the proposed location of the
carport.
John Watkins stated that he purchased the lot from Dr. Henley who is very
concerned about what development is going to take place here. He added that they
discussed their preliminary construction plans with Dr. Henley before they
applied for a variance.
• Albert Skiles stated that they weren't aware until today that there was going
to be any objection to the variance as the staff report reflects. At that time,
they collected the letters of support from the neighborhood to present to the
Board.
In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, John Merrell stated that the staff hadn't
received any opposition to this.
Chairman Mills asked if there was anyone else in the audience that would like
to speak in favor or in opposition to this appeal. There being no response, it
was turned over to the Board members.
In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Skiles stated that they would
potentially lose seven trees if they move the carport back 8'. Mr. Tompkins
noted that when he drove by the site, most of the trees looked like they were
kind of old and rotten. Mr. Watkins stated that one of the trees is rotten and
will have to be taken out no matter what, but the others look pretty nice during
the leafy season when they are trimmed. He added that the trees they would lose
if they move the carport back would be among the nicest trees on the lot. In
his opinion, any trees are better than no trees.
Mr. Tompkins noted that the houses in the rest of the neighborhood are really
built up with a lot of fill. He asked if the other houses have any problems.
Mr. Watkins advised that the house next door has a foundation problem, although
Dr. Henley's house doesn't because it was built on piers. Gene O'Neil, an
engineer, worked with Dr. Henley and he is also working with them on this
Isproposed development to try to eliminate any problems. Mr. Skiles stated that
they haven't done the engineering yet, but they have been made aware that all
the other houses along here have piers and the ones that don't have cracks.
`12
• Board of Adjustment
January 15, 1990
Page 3
Mr. Watkins noted that the farther they move the garage back, the more support
difficulties they will have because of the slope of the lot. He advised that
the lot isn't uniform and there are two sections where it is almost flat: the
upper section where the carport is designed to go and the lower section where
the house is designed to go with a slope in between. Therefore, the placement
of the carport will make the difference in a 2' retaining wall and a 6' retaining
wall.
Mr. Tompkins clarified that they are satisfied that sitting the carport close,
which appears to be totally out of character with the rest of the neighborhood,
will not be detrimental to the aesthetic aspects of the neighborhood. Mr.
Skiles answered, yes, although there are some houses in this neighborhood that
are right near the road. He added that he doesn't see anything out of character
with their design approach even though it will be different from the houses on
either side. Mr. Tompkins stated that he thinks it is out of character to have
the carport out front. Mr. Watkins advised that the people who live nearby
obviously don't share any concern about the aesthetics since they are in
agreement with the plan. He advised that he wanted to avoid having a basement
because of the problems he has had with basements in the past hence this design.
• In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Skiles stated that the carport would
be open on at least two sides because of the drive through with the circle drive.
Mr. Watkins noted that they would like this to be more -like a gazebo or a
pavilion instead of the standard carport and it will be connected to the house
with a covered walkway.
Chairman Mills stated that if they move it back, it won't really bother the way
it looks but will require considerable more excavation, piers, etc. Mr. Watkins
advised that it would do three things: 1) cause them to lose the trees, 2)
require a 6' retaining wall rather than a 2' one which would have an effect on
the way the lot looks from the house and 3) require some structure changes and
a lot more fill on the lot.
Mr. Tompkins stated that he is quite interested in the soil problem. He doesn't
understand the soil problem in the sense that it is going to be that detrimental
to the garage. In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Skiles stated that
there have been problems with soil movement on the house next door which has
caused a crack in the foundation wall of the garage.
Freeman Wood, Inspections Superintendent, stated that he would be of the opinion
that in this location there will be some soil movements and could be some cracks
in the foundation without piers. Mr. Skiles stated that they plan to put in
piers no matter what. Mr. Watkins noted that they want to avoid the high
retaining wall.
Mr. Becker asked who is writing the guarantee on the two trees that look like
• they are less than a foot off the corner of the carport on the proposed site
location. He advised that in his experience, getting that close to a tree with
development could kill it. Mr. Watkins noted that his position is that he would
1I�
• Board of Adjustment
January 15, 1990
Page 4
rather take a chance of it surviving than knowing it is going to be cut down.
Mr. Becker stated that he doesn't think this is a case of just dealing with 17'
vs 25' because most of the houses through here are a lot farther back than the
25'. He noted that he thinks it would be better to move back the 8' and deal
with the difference. He noted that he sees a lot of trees that won't be affected
by moving the carport back.
Mr. Watkins stated that with regard for the setbacks of the other homes, the 8'
isn't going to make a lot of difference in terms of how it looks next to the
other houses. The concern is the trees.
Mr. Skiles advised that they are 12' below the street level where it is shown
now and the roof line would be the same in relation to the street if the carport
were moved back.
Mr. Davis stated that with this driveway design, there will be a swimming pool
in front when it rains.
Mr. Tompkins stated that they could look into putting the carport in some of the
other areas on the lot that don't indicate trees. Mr. Skiles noted that either
• one of those cases would make for a lot more cement. There is a basic conflict
here of a setback vs ending up with something not meeting the aesthetics. This
design seemed to meet the requirements of the client as well as the concerns of
the neighbors. Mr. Watkins noted that if the carport is put on the side of
the lot, it would be closer to the neighbors houses. The closer we put it to
the property line, the more the neighbors are concerned about the affect of this
building on their foundations.
The public hearing was closed.
Mr. Becker stated that he thinks there are some topographical considerations and
the better conditioned trees would be affected by relocating the carport. The
fact that it is a downhill side lot has a lot to do with the visual appearance
of the carport. Moving it back the 8' really becomes a moot point in the sense
of satisfying the Code as opposed to saving the trees. He added that he would
hope that this Board is flexible enough to understand the original intent of the
ordinance of protecting the neighborhood, etc. There would not be any less
visual appearance if it was moved back unless it was lined up with the other
homes. He advised that he would go along with the design as an attempt to save
those trees with as little disruption to the lot as possible.
Mr. Tompkins
stated that he concurs
with Mr.
Becker,
but he sees other
alternatives
from the design point of
view. He
added
that he feels that a
hardship can't
be justified
and that he
is opposed
to the
variance.
Mr. Boyd stated that any way this can be developed so that there is a minimum
• fill and cut is an advantage. He noted that he does see this as a hardship lot.
Chairman Mills noted that she feels like all the lots out here are somewhat of
\1A
• Board of Adjustment
January 15, 1990
Page 5
this nature. With some work, possibly the carport could be set back and the
ground used. Trees that are lost could be replaced with new trees. She noted
that with the other houses set so far back, even if they meet the setback this
house will look a little out of sync.
MOTION
Mr. Boyd moved to approve the variance as submitted as a carport with the two
ends open, seconded by Davis. The motion passed 3-1-0 with Boyd, Becker & Davis
voting "yes" and Tompkins voting "no".
1'1 •I.. '1 11M:
U' '1'G' 1' i � 1 C' �•
The third item on the agenda was appeal #BA90-2 submitted by ERC Properties, Inc.
and represented by Tom Parks for property located at 4053 Cambray Drive (Lot 22
of Brookhollow Subdivision). The request was to vary the front building setback
from the required 25' to 21.8' with a deficiency of 3.2'. The property is zoned
R-2, Medium Density Residential.
• Tom Parks , Production Manager for ERC Properties, stated that it is very plain
that the reason for this appeal was just simple error. He commented that the
staff's recommendation as he sees it in the staff report is that the Board of
Adjustment issue a letter in the City's name stating that at such point in time
as they sell the house, enforcement will not be taken. Mr. Davis advised that
the staff is recommending a letter, not the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Parks noted that they have an offer on the house and they certainly recognize
that it is in violation of the setback requirements. He stated that if this
variance is denied and the loan companies, abstract and title companies will not
accept a letter as is suggested in the staff report, he is at a loss as to where
they would go from here.
Chairman Mills asked how the house was first sold to the people who live in it
now. Mr. Parks stated that they have an accepted offer and the buyers have been
approved on the basis of the balance of their application and in the process of
the loan company processing their loan a final survey was done. This final
survey was the point at which the encroachment was discovered. He noted that
he was not aware that the people had moved into the house until he got in town
this week. The Vice -President of Sales at ERC Properties has stated that the
house was sold at what they had in it. At this point, if they are unable to
close permanent financing on the house, he doesn't know where they will go from
here.
In answer to a question from Mr. Davis, Mr. Parks stated that he would have to
surmise based on the reports that he has received that the people have been
• living in the house two weeks at the maximum and he assumes that they are living
there on a rental basis. He stated that ERC Properties is not financing the
mortgage; their mortgage division was disbanded. He commented that it is his
11�
• Board of Adjustment
January 15, 1990
Page 6
understanding that this loan is with a loan company entirely unassociated with
ERC Properties.
John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that the staff has a copy of
the survey that was done by Crafton, Tull & Associates dated December 27, 1989.
This survey indicates that it was done for Thomas D. & Vicki A. Hill. Mr. Parks
stated that the Hills are the people who are currently in the house.
Chairman Mills stated that she is assuming that the footage of 21.8' is from the
property line to the side of the house rather than the eave of the house. Mr.
Parks stated that he believes that distance is from the property line to the eave
of the house because the people at Crafton, Tull & Associates are very much aware
of the City's requirements that the setback be from the property line to the eave
of the structure. Chairman Mills noted that ordinarily the surveyors measure
to the side of the structure rather than to the eave.
Mr. Becker commented that unless the survey notes that the setback distance is
from the property line to the eave, you have to assume that it is to the base
of the house. Normal engineering practice is to note it on the survey if the
measurement is anything other than the distance from the property line to the
base of the house.
• Mr. Parks stated that the superintendent who built this has been terminated and
is no longer an employee of ERC Properties. He advisedthat when he looked
through the records on this, he noted on the plans that what would have been a
normal 12" overhang had been shortened. It appeared from dimensions on the
plans that it was noted very early on that the house was going to a tight fit
and maybe that overhang was shortened in an attempt to get in conformance.
In answer to a question from Larry Tompkins, Mr. Parks stated that it is part
of the bedroom that is encroaching.
Mr. Parks advised that he is has taken some steps to prevent this kind of
careless mistake in the future. He is now paying their engineers to go to the
job sites twice: once to locate the corners prior to any grading or preparation
and then a second time, after the size of the house is decided, to locate those
corners again prior to digging the footings. This is to make sure that they
are complying to City Code.
Mr. Merrell noted that relative to the statement he made in the staff report
regarding the best way to handle this, he had spoken with the former City
Attorney on this some months ago related to another case. He advised that he
wants to amend his staff recommendation such that he would recommend that the
Board postpone their vote on this in order to allow time for him and the new City
Attorney, Jerry Rose, to discuss this. Mr. Rose may have a different feeling
on that.
• Chairman Mills
clarified
that
Mr.
Merrell is recommending
that this appeal be
tabled until he
can meet
with
the
City Attorney on this.
�16
• Board of Adjustment
January 15, 1990
Page 7
MOTION
Mr. Becker moved to table this request until the next meeting (first Monday in
February), seconded by Davis. The motion passed 3-1-0 with Boyd, Becker & Davis
voting "yes" and Tompkins voting "no".
In answer to a question from Mr. Parks, Chairman Mills advised that a letter as
an amendment to this survey stating whether the setback shown is from the
property line to the side of the house or from the property line to the eave of
the house would suffice.
OTHER BUSINESS
Item U1: Ethics Disclaimers
Chairman Mills reminded all the members to turn in their required Ethics
Disclaimers by the 31st of January to the City Clerk.
Item #2: Clarification of Staff's Report
Chairman Mills asked for clarification on the recommendation in the staff's
isreport regarding appeal BA90-2. Mr. Merrell stated that he was implying that
perhaps the staff could review "after the fact" --setback encroachments
administratively. He noted that they did have one other situation last summer
that was similar to this one. The former City Attorney felt that the staff had
enough latitude to handle it administratively with a letter to the loan company.
Mr. Merrell stated that he would feel more comfortable addressing the Board of
Adjustment on this after he has spoken with Jerry Rose, the current City
Attorney, to get his input.
Mr. Tompkins stated that the Board of Adjustment is a discretionary
administrative body not a judicial and it appears to him that when they get into
this, it could be carried on quite a ways. Mr. Merrell advised that he has a
lot of respect for the Board of Adjustment and he wants to do what they think
is best. His main concern, no matter how these "after the fact" encroachments
are handled, is that the message that is being sent to the builders isn't that
it is o.k. to go out and build a house too close to the property line and expect
relieve from this Board or the staff after the fact.
Mr. Davis stated that if the staff had that opinion from Mr. McCord last summer,
why did it not figure into the Charms Homes appeal by Wade Bishop. Mr. Merrell
stated that his recollection is that this opinion from the City Attorney came
after the Charm Homes appeal.
Chairman Mills noted that they have always been extremely concerned about the
errors that the builders make.
• Freeman Wood, Inspections Superintendent, stated that the staff doesn't check
the building setbacks; it is the owner's responsibility to make sure they comply.
111
• Board of Adjustment
January 15, 1990
Page 8
Mr. Merrell stated that he will meet with Freeman Wood and the City Attorney to
discuss the administrative policies on this.
Item 03: Report on Design Review Practices
Mr. Tompkins stated that there is a movement throughout the world looking at
design review practices. There are established committees in various communities
in Europe and England that will actually review the design of a house; the
aesthetics and the appearance of all structures. He advised that there are
now about 2,000 communities in the United States that have a Design Review
Committee. He noted that he has some material on the things that were discussed
at the meeting in New Orleans that he just attended. He stated that he sees this
to be a rather significant movement; one which he thinks is going to continue
to become more and more important in the United States in the next ten years.
Item #4: Report on Planning Commission meetings
Mr. Becker, who has been attending the Planning Commission meetings, gave a
report on the last few meetings.
• There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
•
01
PAGE
SUBJECT
DATE
125
BA89-2, Wade Bishop, 1537 Thornhill
2-20-89
128
BA89-1, First Assembly of God, 550 E. 1Sth
2-20-89
BA89-2, Wade Bishop, 1S37 Thornhill
4-3-89
.32
37
BA89-2 Rehearing, 1537 Thornhill
4-17-89
145
BA89-42 Karl Thiel $ John Lewis
7-3-89
150
BA89-6, Packaging Specialties, 1663 Armstrong
8-7-89
159
BA89-8, Don Ward, 201SO Huntsville Rd.
11-6-89
161
BA89-9, Dave Letsch, 313 IV. Dickson
11-6-89
165
BA89-9, Scott Lunsford, 513 N.,Washington
12-18-89
171
BA90-1, John Watkins, 669 Cliffside Dr.
1-15-90
175
BA90-2, ERC Properties, 4052 Cambray Dr.
1-15-90
179
BA90-2, ERC Properties, 4053 Cambray Dr.
2-5-90
182
BA90-3, Leslie Goodman,
2-19-90
183
Discussion of 2010
2-19-90
187
BA90-4, Clyde Iglinsky, 931 Shrewsbury
3-5-90
188
ERC Violation Discussion
3-5-90
190
Discussion of 2010
3-5-90
194
BA90-6, Mildred Gracian, 221 E. Lafayette.
4-2-90
197
BA90-8, Jeff Roberts, 2000 N. Crossover
S-7-90
198
BA90-9, George Faucette, 3208 Wroxton
S-7-90
201
BA90-7. Kern Jackson, 235 Baxter Lu.
5-21-90
206
BA90-7, Kern Jackson, 23S Baxter L`n.
6-4-90
208
BA90-10, Floyd Harris
6-4-90
211
BA90-11 Through BA90-14, BMP Development, Fiesta Park
Ph. I
6-18-90
215
BA90-15, Patricia O'Leary, 3S2 Rollston
7-16-90
219
BA90-12- DENNIS CAUDLE - 4559 WEDINGTON
8-20-90
212
BA90-18- GEORGR'S MAGESTIC LOUNGE - S19 WEST DICKSON
ST.
10-1-90
BA90-20- DAVID KERWIN - 1000 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE.
10-15-90
�24
27
BA90-21- Katherine Gay - 324 Sutton ST.
11-19-90
228
BA90-22 -JOE PAUL -668 GRAY AVE.
11-19-90
230
BA90-23- DENNIS HARPER - 164S SOUTH SCHOOL AVE.
11-19-90
233
BA90-25- DAVE $ JUDY STEVENS - S OF CATO SPS, W OF 71
BYPASS
12-3-90
238
BA90-26- RICHARD PAKMER - 818 POLLARD AVE.
1-7-91
241
BA90-27- GEORGE FAUCETTE - W OF GREGG AVE, S OF DOUGLAS
ST.
1-7-91
242
INFORMAL PRESENTATION BY RICHARD SHEWMAKER ABOUTPOLK
BUILLDING
1-7-91.
ON DICKSON ST.
•
i
1
7
m
�
b
2
A
m
�I
C_