Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-03-15 MinutesMINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, March 15,- 1993, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Gerald Boyd, Don Mills, Marion Orton, and Thad Hanna MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: PROTOCOL Lonnie Meadows and Larry Perkins Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, Lamar Pettus, Elmer Chasar, John Knight, Ben Caston, and J. D. Foche Ms. Don Mills called the meeting to order. She explained the format of the meeting. She also noted there were only four members of a 7 -member board present and advised the applicants they could, if they so desired, table their request until the next meeting when more members would be present. APPEAL NO. BA93-13 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS ELMER CBASAR - 3510 W. YALE The first item to be heard was a request for a setback variance on property located at 3510 W. Yale requested by Lamar Pettus on behalf of Elmer Chasar. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and the request is to allow a 20 -foot 4 -inch setback (4 -foot, 8 -inch variance) from the property line. Mr. Conklin explained the report he would be giving covered the subject variance request together with the following three located at 3497 West Yale, 3482 West Yale and 3454 West Yale. He advised the properties were owned by the same person, being worked on by the same contractor, and.all had the same variance request. - He explained each site was currently being developed with a single family home within Walnut Park Subdivision, Phase II. Hestated that, when setbacks were. measured, the builder did not measure from' the property line.-' He advised the City had not become aware of the setback violations until staff had been contacted by the owner/developer. Mr. Conklin stated staff had informed the applicant a variance would have to be requested and granted by the Hoard of Adjustment to allow for a reduced setback. He noted staff had also informed the applicant that, if the variance were to be denied, all portions of each structure within the required setback would have to be removed. He explained the applicant had also been informed that the setback was to be measured from the eve and not the foundation or wall. He further advised all building permits stated in bold lettering that "property lines can only be accurately determined by a survey. The street is not the front of the property line." Mr. Conklin explained two separate "checks" had been made to assure the setbacks would be met: one at the time the building permit was issued (the owner/developer is required to sign a setback guarantee included as part of the building permit process) and again at the time of footing inspection, the contractor was required to indicate a property line which was measured by the building inspector and signed by the contractor. He pointed out the stage of construction which had occurred on each lot: Lot 12 and Lot 13 - foundation installed, Lot 14 - foundation and slab installed, and lot 16 - framed. Board of Adjustments March 15, 1993 Page 2 Mr. Lamar Pettus, representing the applicant, stated that on lots 12 and 13 both the footings and blocks were installed. He advised the four tracts were at the end of a cul-de-sac with vacant property to the west. He explained the applicant had not had a copy of the plat, showing the right-of-way extended 9 1/2 feet and had measured 30 feet from the curb. He also pointed out a sidewalk was not required on the subject tracts. He advised that, when the city inspector had inspected the footings, he had not measured the setback but had just asked what the setbacks were. He also pointed out the four houses would not stick out from the rest on the street because of the slope of the terrain. He expressed his belief these houses would not detract from the neighborhood and advised the owner/developer of the subdivision had no objections nor did the owner of Lot 17. He also pointed out there was another home in the subdivision that was also requesting a variance of the setbacks. Mr. Pettus also advised the Board that the owner had immediately notified the City when he discovered the houses were in the front setbacks. He requested they consider granting the variance requests. Mr. Mark Barker, owner of Lot 17, stated he had purchased the lot after the applications for variances had been filed. He advised he had been aware the houses were in the setbacks but did not feel it would be a hinderance to his property. Mr. John Knight, the contractor for the four houses, explained he had made an honest mistake. He advised he had even gone back five feet further than he thought was required because he did not want to be so close to the setback. In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Knight stated the only subdivision covenant he was aware of was that the houses needed to be at least 1,200 square feet in size. He further noted he had contacted all of the surrounding property owners regarding the requests for variances and found none of them had any problems with the requests. He pointed out they could not physically move the house without pouring a new foundation. Ms. Orton asked what the City could do so this would not happen again. Mr. Knight stated that, while he was aware the city inspectors had a big load, he believed they should physically measure the setbacks at the time they inspected the foundation. Mr. Chasar stated the inspector asked what the setbacks were and those numbers were the ones that had been written down. He pointed out that, if the inspector had measured at that time, they could have just moved the footings back to comply with code. Mr. Boyd asked about the document Mr. Chasar had signed with the building permit. Mr. Chasar expressed his opinion the building inspector created the problem because he had not measured the setbacks at the time of the footing inspection. Mr. Pettus stated it would assist the contractors if they had a copy of the plats. Ms. Mills asked if they did not have a copy of the plat on site. Mr. Chasar explained they constructed from plans drawn up by the architect in Dallas. He noted there was a 25 -foot setback on the plans and that was what the contractor had gone by; that the plans did not show the right-of-way in the front of the property. 11g Board of Adjustments March 15, 1993 Page 3 Ms. Mills pointed out the building permit application noted the street was not the property line. Mr. Knight advised he had been unaware of the right-of-way. He pointed out the street was not designed to go through and there would not be any development to the west. Mr. Boyd advised that, if the Board were going to be consistent, he did not see how they could grant the requested variances. Ms. Mills agreed and noted staff had "gone the extra mile" to get information to the contractors that the street was not the property line. Mr. Hanna noted it would cost from $5,000 to $10,000 per house to move the houses back. He advised he believed it had been an honest mistake and it would create an undue hardship on the owner to require the houses to be moved. He also pointed out the houses were being built on speculation so the buyer would know what they were getting. He stated he did not believe these houses would cause any damage to the neighborhood. Ms. Orton pointed out all the forms signed by the owner and contractor noted the responsibility was theirs, not the city's, for the location of the property lines and meeting the setbacks. She noted the city did not have an adequate number of inspectors at the present time. Mr. Boyd explained there was not a provision reviewed the reasons for granting a variance. conditions and circumstances would have to exist structure, or building involved and which were structures or buildings in the same district. for hardship in the code. He He pointed out that special which were peculiar to the land, not applicable to other lands, MOTION - BA93-13: 3510 W. YALE Mr. Boyd moved to deny the request. Me. Mills seconded the motion. The vote was 2-2-0 with Ms. Mills and Mr. Boyd voting "yes" and Ms. Orton and Mr. Hanna voting "no". MOTION - BA93-14: 3496 W. YALE Mr. Boyd moved to deny the request. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. The vote was 2-2-0 with Ms. Mills and Mr. Boyd voting "yes" and Ms. Orton and Mr. Hanna voting "no". MOTION - BA93-15: 3482 W. YALE Mr. Boyd moved to deny the request. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. The vote was 2-2-0 with Ms. Mills and Mr. Boyd voting "yes" and Ms. Orton and Mr. Hanna voting "no". 1079 • • • Board of Adjustments March 15, 1993 Page 4 MOTION - BA93-16: 3434 W. YALE Mr. Boyd moved to deny the request. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. The vote was 2-2-0 with Ms. Mills and Mr. Boyd voting "yes" and Ms. Orton and Mr. Hanna voting "no". Mr. Pettus recommended the city inspectors do their job. He also recommended the setback be measured from the street. Mr. Knight stated he was aware it was his responsibility to met the setbacks but the inspector had not measured at the time of the footing inspection. APPEAL NO. BA93-17 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIRffiMENTS BEN CASTON - 1635 N. SALEM RD. The next item was a request for a variance in the amount of 6.5 feet presented by Ben Caston for property located at 1635 N. Salem. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Conklin advised the request was to allow an 18.5 setback from the property line (Yale Street Side). He explained the site was currently being developed with a single family home within the Walnut Park Subdivision, Phase II. He explained that, when setbacks had been measured, the builder had been under the impression they were to be measured from the street. He advised the City had not become aware of the setback violation until it was contacted by the owner/developer. He stated staff had informed the applicant that a variance would have to be requested and granted by the Board of Adjustment to allow for a reduced setback. He noted staff had also informed the applicant that, if the variance were to be denied, all portions of the structure within the required setback would have to be removed. Mr. Conklin advised all building permits stated in bold lettering that "property lines can only be accurately determined by a survey. The street is not the front of the property line." He further noted two separate "checks" were made to assure that setbacks would be met. He explained that, at the time the building permit was issued, the owner/developer signed the setback guarantee now included as part of the building permit process. He advised that, at the time of footing inspection, the contractor indicated a property line which was measured by the building inspector and signed by the contractor. Mr. Caston showed photographs of the subject house and explained the front of the house did meet the setbacks, it was the side street where the problem occurred. He stated this was the first time he had'constructed a house in Fayetteville and he had not been aware the setbacks were not measured from the curb. He advised the house was approximately 80% complete. He explained he had tried to figure out how they could move the house but had not come up with a solution. He stated the bathroom was on the wall that would have to be removed and there was no way to do that without destroying the structure. Mr. Joe Foche, superintendent for Mr. Caston, explained he had always measured back from the curb and gone an extra 2 feet. He also advised the inspector had not measured the setback but had just taken his word. He noted the plat did say 25 -foot setbacks but did not say from what point. 4 • • Board of Adjustments March 15, 1993 Page 5 In response to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Foche explained that in Springdale the setbacks were measured from the curb and this was the first house he had constructed in Fayetteville. He further stated the inspector should have measured the setbacks; that it was just as important as any of the other items they inspected. Ms. Mills stated the inspectors were not there to determine the setbacks. Mr. Caston stated he had talked with the adjoining property owners and there had been no objections to the variance. Ms. Little pointed out word had been spreading among the builders regarding the setback problems. She expressed her belief the builders were being educated as to what was required. She stated the subject case had double 25 -foot setbacks since it was a corner lot. In response to a comment from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Foche advised the only stake on the property had been the back corner pin when they started construction. Mr. Hanna expressed his belief that Ms. Little had a good point with the fact that the subject house had two 25 -foot setbacks. He pointed out the house was almost completed and to remove the portion in the setback would destroy the house. Mr. Boyd stated the requests for variances got harder and harder but the Board was called upon to administer the rules. He pointed out they had denied variances for homes that were 80% or more complete. MOTION Ms. Orton moved to grant the variance. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion failed with a vote of 2-2-0 with Ms. Orton and Mr. Hanna voting "yes" and Me. Mills and Mr. Boyd voting "no". MINUTES The minutes of the February 22, 1993 and March 1, 1993 meetings were approved as distributed. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Orton expressed dismay regarding the vagueness of the Parks Board presentation to the City Council on the signs at the baseball and softball fields. Ms. Little advised the ordinance had been much more detailed than the presentation. The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. 131