The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-06-18 Minutes.■ A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, June 18, 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, Robert Davis, Robert Waldren, Gerald Boyd and Dee Wright OTHERS PRESENT: Elaine Cattaneo, Freeman Wood, Jerry Rose and Mark Marquess The minutes of the regular meeting on June 4, 1990 were approved as distributed. APPEAL No. BA90-11 THROUGH BA90-14, TO VARY BUILDING SETBACKS BHP DEVELOPMENT - 29469 29389 2937 & 2945 FIESTA DRIVE The second item on the agenda was an appeal to vary building setbacks - Appeal No. BA90-11 through BA90-14 submitted by BMP Development for properties located at 2938, 29370 2945 & 2946 Fiesta Drive (Lots 1, 3, 28 & 29 of Fiesta Park is Addition, Phase I). The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. Chairman Mills advised the Board members that the staff has provided them with the building permit applications on each of these addresses for their review. Robert Waldren advised that because of some business ties that his company has with BMP Development, he is going to abstain from voting on this appeal. Mark Marquess stated that he is a partner with BMP Development. The Fiesta Park development consists of a single-family subdivision with 102 lots. With this development, their main priority was to offer something in an affordable concept for Fayetteville. He explained that their surveyors set up the lines for these homes, which were the first four houses that they started in the subdivision. The problem was that the surveyors lined it up exactly on the building walls and didn't allow for the roof overhang. It became apparent to the partners that there were some encroachments after the houses were built. As soon as they became aware of it, they approached the City as to what they could do to resolve it before selling the homes. Their intent was to put in a nice subdivision using quality products and to keep it eye pleasing from the curb. He stated that it would be a problem to cut those roof overhangs off at this point and would also raise a possible problem with water runoff since the roof would be cut off flush with the existing stem -wall. He advised that they are asking for some sort of settlement that would allow them not to have to change the houses, possibly a cash settlement. He noted that they have agreed to stagger the remaining homes 25' to 27' back to give a nicer look to the subdivision. He advised that this is their first subdivision in Fayetteville, and they have • no excuse for what has happened. However, they have made the necessary changes to make sure it doesn't happen again. They have taken notice of this problem with the other nine homes presently under construction. He advised that one • Board of Adjustment June 18, 1990 Page 2 of the problems with the R-2, Medium Density Residential, zoning district is the 25' required rear yard setback. (The R-1 & R-3 zoning districts only have a 20' rear yard setback.) He noted that they aren't asking for zero lot lines or closer setbacks on the front. In answer to a question from Mrs. Wright, Mr. Marquess stated that these four addresses are the only homes that are encroaching. He noted that lot 29 doesn't have an encroachment on the rear setback because it is a corner lot and the rear is considered a side. Chairman Mills advised that lots 1, 3 & 28 has front and side encroachments and lot 29 has only a front encroachment. Mr. Becker stated that Mr. Marquess has mentioned in his letter a tender and an offer to stagger setbacks on the remaining houses in the first phase of the subdivision. Mr. Marquess stated that they are willing to do what they have offered on the whole development including the second and third phases. He noted that they do need to keep in mind that they would only be giving up 2 to 3 feet of setback to give it a better eye appeal. One of the tenders would be two car driveways (24' wide) for good off-street parking. He noted that, with the larger setbacks and wider driveways, they would be spending a • considerable amount of money for extra concrete on that subdivision plus their cash settlement. In answer to a question from Mr. Becker, Mr. Marquess stated that, with their plan, some of the driveways may be set back to make it pleasing to the eye. They will also try to keep the homes as far apart as possible with as much side yard as possible. He commented that the R-2 zoning does allow for a zero lot line development if approved on the front end. He noted that they have restrictive covenants for the subdivision that address the quality and the control in maintaining their homes. The Public Hearing was closed and discussion took place among the Board members. Mr. Boyd stated that he sympathizes with their argument, but he doesn't see that their offer of settlement and staggering setbacks is relevant. He added that he doesn't think the Board of Adjustment had the authority to consider those things. Chairman Mills stated that the Board of Adjustment has no authority whatsoever to consider a monetary settlement. They need to just consider the variance and whether or not to grant it. She advised that, if the variance is granted, they are free to continue. If not, they must bring the house into compliance or seek other avenues of relief. Freeman Wood, Inspections Superintendent, stated that, if the Board of Adjustment denies this appeal, Mr. Merrell would like a recommendation from them to the • Board of Directors at this meeting. Mr. Boyd stated that he doesn't see grounds for a variance in these cases. 7 �� • Board of Adjustment June 18, 1990 Page 3 Mr. Davis stated that he is of a mind not to get involved with it at all but send it back to the staff to handle. Mr. Boyd stated that, in general, the only times the Board of Adjustment has allowed even minor after -the -fact type of variances are on occasions where it is two or three owners down the line that had absolutely nothing to do with the encroachment. In his opinion, the conditions under which the ordinance allows them to grant these variances doesn't give them the authority to do it. Mr. Waldren stated that, if they were going to go strictly by the book, the Board of Adjustment wouldn't be needed. He added that there are other considerations which need to be taken into account and that is what the Board of Adjustment is for. One of the factors that might be taken into account here is that the developers came in to try to rectify the problem as soon as they found the error. He commented that these are minor variances and it is commendable that they came in as soon as they discovered the problem. Mrs. Wright stated that she agreed that, if the ordinance was to be strictly followed, the Board of Adjustment wouldn't be needed. She added that the Board of Adjustment is here to hear appeals like this one. The fact that they are • first time offenders especially when they have made provisions to keep this from happening again in this development is in their favor. Mr. Becker stated that the Board of Adjustment has taken a position beyond "yes" and "no" in the past. They have tried to recognize compromises with several builders that have come before the Board with a problem. They have tried to be conciliatory in arriving at a compromise. He noted that he would prefer a better project rather than chopping off 14" of roof. He stated that he would have a tendency to vote in favor of the variances. The staggering setbacks would lend itself toward a better project than cutting off the overhangs. He noted that he thinks they have an overall guiding responsibility to do what is best for Fayetteville. The developers could meet with John Merrell, Planning Management Director, to discuss the staggering of the rest of the houses which would allow greater front setbacks, more space and more greenery. MOTION Mr. Becker moved to accept the variance as presented in the applicant's letter and accept the tender that has been made with the proviso that the staggering of the units would be cleared with the Planning Director, seconded by Davis and followed by discussion. In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Becker stated that his motion includes everything presented in the letter, including the monetary settlement. It includes money in lieu of chopping off 14" and an effort to rectify the mistake that was made on the first four houses leading to a better project. • Chairman Mills advised that the motion is to grant the variance, accept the monetary offer and the offer of staggering the houses with the proviso of the 215 • Board of Adjustment June 18, 1990 Page 4 Planning Director's approval. The motion passed 3-2-1 with Wright, Becker and Davis voting "yes", Mills & Boyd voting "no" and Waldren "abstaining". There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. • zJ4