HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-04-05 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AND BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, April 5,
1993, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
PROTOCOL
Gerald Boyd, Don Mille, Larry Perkins, Lonnie Meadows and Thad
Hanna
Marion Orton
Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, Robert Ahr, Virginia Ahr, Kirby
Walker, Mary Bassett, Bill Helmer, and others
Ms. Don Mille called the meeting to order. She explained the format of the
meeting.
APPEAL NO. BA93-18 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS
ROBERT & VIRGINIA AHR - 213 OAKWOOD STREET
The first item to be heard was a request for a variance of bulk requirements (lot
width and lot area) and for a nonconforming lot presented by Robert and Virginia
Ahr for property located at 213 Oakwood Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low
Density Residential.
Mr. Conklin explained the request was to allow a 7000 square foot lot and 70 feet
of frontage for the establishment of a duplex. He stated the applicant desired
to rehabilitate an existing home into a two unit structure. He noted that, at,
the time the building permit was issued, a two -unit structure had not been
indicated as a proposed use for the structure. He advised the applicant had
stated that the home had been illegally used as a duplex for over 36 years.
He stated the applicant owned two lots which were 70' x 100' with the existing
home sitting on one of the lots. He advised the existing home did meet all
setbacks but did not meet lot area or frontage requirements and, as such, was a
legal but nonconforming lot. He pointed out that, on the other lot, there was
an accessory building which had, in the past, been used to construct boats. He
explained the applicant wanted the City to look at both lots as separate
buildable lots.
Mr. Conklin noted the applicants contended the home had been rented as two units
for 36 years; however, the home had never been developed into two physically
separate dwelling units as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. He explained the
ordinance required physical separation between the units and two separate kitchen
facilities.
He advised further that under Section 160.031(D) the minimum lot area and lot
width requirements were set out. He explained that for a single family home the
minimum requirement was 8,000 square feet and 70 feet of frontage on a public
street but for a two family structure the minimum requirement was 12,000 square
feet and 80 feet of frontage on a public street.
Mr. Conklin explained that Section 160.136(A) and (B) also required that
nonconforming lots of record had to be in separate ownership and not of
continuous frontage with other lots in the same ownership if there were to be
developed. He advised the section further required "if two or more lots or
combinations of lots and portions of lots with continuous frontage in a single
ownership are of record at the time of this passage or amendment of this chapter,
and if all parts of the lots do not meet the requirements established for lot
Ii Z
Board of Adjustments
April 5, 1993
Page 2
width and area, the land involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel
for the purposes of this chapter."
He explained that section of the zoning ordinance required the City to look at
both parcels as one undivided parcel which would result in a parcel of
approximately 14,000 square feet with 240 linear feet of lot frontage. He stated
that would be adequate for a duplex development and would not require a variance.
He advised the Board of Adjustment would be reviewing the bulk and area
requirements only and not the proposed use. He explained that, if the applicant
did not own the adjacent lot, then Section 160.136(A) and (B) would not enter
into the facto of the subject case. He further advised that, if the applicant
did not wish to develop the second lot, there would be no issue about how the lot
would be utilized. He stated the Ahrs, however, did wish to have the option to
develop the second lot and, therefore, the variances were requested.
Mr. Conklin stated he had contacted the City Attorney regarding an opinion as to
whether the Board of Adjustment could vary Section 160.136(A) and (B) in order.
to allow use of the second lot. He stated he had received the opinion from the
City Attorney advising the Board of Adjustment did have that authority.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Conklin explained the 240 feet of
frontage included both streets, since the property was on a corner. He advised
the second lot had more frontage than the first lot. He explained the main issue
was the lot area requirement.
Ms. Virginia Ahr appeared before the Board and explained she and her husband
acquired small rental homes, upgraded them, and re -rented them. She advised the
subject home was a ranch with a lower level which had been used as a garage. She.
stated it was the garage area they were turning into a one bedroom apartment.
She explained that, before they acquired the house, the upstairs had been divided
and each half was being used by separate individuals sharing the kitchen. She
noted the house was concrete and had to be gutted. She explained neither the
wiring nor plumbing were adequate so they had applied for a building permit.
She stated they had looked at numerous pieces of property in the area but had
been attracted to this house because it was a strong structure and had an extra
lot. She advised they had been lead to believe they could build on the extra
lot. She further advised they saw no problem in making the house into a rental
since her husband was a builder. She noted there were many illegal multiple
family dwellings within the city. She advised there were many places throughout
the city that had two or more dwelling units that were advertised in the MLS
books as duplexes, triplexes, etc. which had less than 70 feet of lot frontage.
She stated she also had a list of new homes which had been constructed on lots
of less than 8,000 square feet. She pointed out there were many illegal lots
throughout the city. She advised they were supplementing their social security
through rental property. She stated that, if they did not get the subject
property as a duplex, they would have to sell it because they had too much money
in the project to rent it as a one -family rental.
Ms. Ahr expressed her belief they were upgrading the neighborhood, not hurting
it. She stated she was aware some of the neighboring residents were opposed to
their plans but the property had previously been lived in by the owner who rented
a portion of it to someone else. She further pointed out the entire block on
Washington, backing up to College, was zoned commercially and stated this
property would be a good buffer between the commercial properties and the single
family homes. She advised it was an older neighborhood with an excellent
location. She stated that neighborhoods deteriorated if the property was not
upgraded. She noted they were totally upgrading the house and it would be
something the neighborhood would be proud of. She advised one of the neighbors
had complimented them on cleaning up the house and lot. She further noted they
Board of Adjustments
April 5, 1993
Page 3
did not intend to cause any animosity among the neighbors. She requested the
Board grant the variance.
Mr. Boyd asked why the building permit application had been made for a one -family
dwelling.
Ms. Ahr explained they originally had not determined what they would do with the
structure but had believed they would have a single family structure. She
further advised they had found so many structural problems they had determined
the best use would have been a three-family dwelling but had decided to just
convert the house into a two-family dwelling. She stated she did have a floor
plan of the house prior to remodeling and also a plan of how it would be after
they remodeled it. She also advised they would be removing the temporary
building on the second lot.
Mr. Conklin advised the Board it was at the time the building permit was issued
that staff looks to see if the proposed use was allowed within a zoning district.
Mrs. Bobbie Siegel, an adjoining property owner, presented a petition opposing
the variance signed by the neighboring residents, together with a letter from the
previous owner stating the property had not been used as a multi -family dwelling.
Mrs. Frances Rudco, an attorney, advised the petition had been signed by 16 of
the neighbors in opposition to the variance, a letter from the owner of three
lots at 319 Oakwood (Mr. Mitchell) requesting they deny the variance, a letter
from the previous owner stating the property had never been used for rental.
purposes. She further advised that Dr. and Mrs. Siegel had lived next to the
subject property for 42 years and stated there had never been a rental property
in the subject home.
Me. Mabel R. Phillips, 1146 N. Washington, stated she lived on the south side of
the subject property and had lived there for 32 years. She advised the Ahrs had
cleaned up the subject property which had rotten limbs, trash, etc. She noted
the City Inspector and the police had been aware of the trash on the property.
She stated she had attempted to sell her home previously but the realtore told
her it would not Bell because of the trashed property adjoining hers. She
further stated the Ahrs were not only making the street pretty but also making
the City of Fayetteville beautiful. She advised their workmanship was superb;
they worked hard. She stated the apartments they were constructing would be
ideal for someone like her. She advised she welcomed them with open arms and
welcomed them to the neighborhood.
Me. Siegel stated the subject property had never been used as a duplex nor was
there a duplex on the hill.
Ms. Anna Peters stated she had lived in the neighborhood approximately 7 years.
She advised they had moved to the area because it was a well established, quiet
neighborhood with younger people purchasing the houses and remodeling them. She
stated they had purchased their home because the neighborhood was zoned R-1. She
stated she resented the comment the neighborhood was a derelict one, they had
just remodeling their home because they were so proud of the neighborhood.
Mrs. Patti Erwin, 309 Oakwood, stated there were several young children in the
neighborhood. She advised they liked the area because it was quiet.
Mrs. Pam Steelman, 329 Oakwood, stated she resented the implication the subject
property was a "pit" in the neighborhood. She explained the neighborhood had
originally been called "Pill Hill" because the physicians at Washington Regional
had lived on Oakwood. She advised many of the houses in the area were valued at
$150,000. She expressed concern that allowing the Ahrs to put in a duplex would
lay
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
April 5, 1993
Page 4
lower the property values. She stated it was a very well established
neighborhood with people taking care of their houses and their property.
Dr. James Mashburn advised he lived directly across the street from the subject
property and had lived there since 1955. He pointed out the majority of homes
in the neighborhood were on oversized lots or two lots or more. He advised none
of the houses were crowded on the lots. He further advised the subject property
had never been used as a duplex. He noted the subject lot was completely non-
conforming and was not at all compatible with the existing neighborhood. He also
stated the Ahrs had installed three electrical units because they were apparently
going to put in three living units.
Mrs. Barbara Mashburn stated the Ahrs had misrepresented things to her, saying
their aunt and daughter were going to live on the premises. She stated they had -
asked her to sign a petition in their favor and, thinking it would be family
members living in the structure, had done so. She advised that when she had seen
three electric meters and three front doors she had been astounded. She asked
that her name be removed from the petition she had signed in the Ahr's support,
noting they had mislead her.
Mr. Gary Thornton, 240 Oakwood, agreed the lot looked much nicer and stated he
was sorry about what was happening to the Ahrs. He advised they had, however,
made the mistake of not checking into city ordinances to find out what they
could do with the property before they purchased the property. He stated he did
not want to have to pay for their mistakes and did not feel the Ahrs need for the
income from the property should bear upon the Board's decision. He too advised
there were three front doors and three electric meters on the structure.
Mr. Robert Ahr stated they were familiar with quality and presented pictures of
both his previous home in Indiana and rental properties they owned. He further
stated they currently had a home in Springdale. He advised they did not request
three units. He stated they ran into a small problem with the electrician
because he had oversold them on the unit for electric. He advised their request
was for two units.
Ms. Mills explained all of the members of the Board had been by to look at the
subject property and know what it currently looked like. She further explained
their concern at this meeting was the bulk of the lots, not the use. She noted
the Planning Commission would be the entity which made the decision regarding the
use.
Mr. Ahr stated they were spending a great deal of money on renovating the
property, they had over $100,000 in their investment and could document it.
Ms. Phillips stated her property was the one most affected by the house and she
had heard the previous owner talking to a man he rented to. She further listed
structural problems with the house. She noted there had also been some relatives
living with the previous owner. She advised the property had been rented.
Me. Rudco stated she believed the property had changed hands in October. She
noted the residents had not received notification of the request for a variance
until March 10. She asked when the construction for the multiple housing began.
Me. Mills explained the Board's concern was not for the duplex but the size of
the lot. She noted the request regarding the use would have to go before the
Planning Commission.
In response to a question from Ms. Rudco, Mr. Conklin advised the Board of
Adjustment was considering a variance from 160.031(D) which required a minimum
lot area of 12,000 square feet and minimum lot width of 80 feet. He advised they
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
April 5, 1993
Page 5
also would decide on section 160.136(A) and (B) which required when there were
two nonconforming lots of record, with one owner, the City had to look at both
lots as one when trying to determine what could be constructed on the lots. He
explained that section also needed a variance because the Ahrs had indicated to
staff they wished to develop both lots.
Mrs. Ahr stated the property had been used as a rental.
Ms. Mills stated she was aware the use was a problem for everyone but the Board
of Adjustment could not consider the use.
Mr. Hanna noted the Ahrs were asking for two things. He stated that, if they
considered the property as one lot for one duplex, no variance was needed.
Mr. Boyd agreed and stated the Planning Department would determine the use. He
stated the Board of Adjustment needed to decide if the property could be treated
as two lots.
Mr. Hanna stated that, if they agreed the property was two lots, they would thing
need to consider the variance for the bulk.
Mr. Conklin advised the zoning ordinance did state that only a single family home
could be built upon a non -conforming lot. He explained they needed to look at
the property as two separate non -conforming parcels first because, if they
considered the tract as one lot, there would be no need for the second variance
request.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Langley advised the lots had
recently been split; that originally the lots had gone the other direction.
Mr. Conklin stated a better term would be "property line adjustment" since no
additional lot was created and the lots retained the same square footage. He
stated the property line was just moved from running east and west to north and
south.
Mr. Boyd pointed out the lots were now 70 feet wide rather than 50 feet wide.
He advised the neighborhood was unusual because there were some large homes and
also a few modest homes which appeared to be built on 50 -foot lots. He advised
his opinion was each lot could contain a single family home, exercising their
right to overturn the adjoining lot problem.
Mr. Meadows pointed out each lot was 1,000 square feet short for single family
homes.
Mr. Hanna stated the Ahrs wanted a variance on the first lot for a duplex.
Mr. Boyd stated that, if they wanted a lot for a duplex, they would need to give,
up constructing on the adjoining lot.
Mr. Hanna pointed out they were not asking for a variance for two single-family
lots.
Ms. Mills advised that, if the Board considered both lots as one, no variance
would be required for the duplex but a conditional use would be required from the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Hanna asked Mr. & Mrs. Ahr if they would rather have a single lot which would
meet the bulk and area requirements for a duplex, or two single lots.
Mr. Ahr advised they wanted two single lots, as it was now.
136
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
April 5, 1993
Page 6
Me. Mille explained that would mean they could not use one of the lots for a
duplex, it would have to remain as a single family dwelling.
Mr. Ahr stated that had to be determined when it was taken to the Planning
Commission; they were not asking for that determination from the Board of
Adjustment.
Mr. Conklin advised they would need a variance if they wanted to construct the
duplex because the code required 12,000 square feet and 80 feet of frontage for
a duplex lot.
Ms. Mills stated that,
separate lot, it would
one lot because it did
if the Board of Adjustment granted a variance for each
be with the condition they did not have a duplex on the
not meet the bulk and area.
Ms. Ahr asked if they granted the variances requested, but the Planning
Commission denied the conditional use, would their vote become null.
Ms. Mills stated she would assume that, if they granted the variances requested,
it would be subject to approval of the conditional use by the Planning
Commission.
Mrs. Ahr stated if the Planning Commission did not grant the conditional use they
would be "dead in the saddle" but if the variances were not granted, they would
be "dead in the saddle here". She further noted that without the variances there
would be no reason to request the conditional use.
Ms. Mills explained the Board's concern was they did not want to grant something
that the Ahrs were not interested in. She stated there would be no point in
giving a variance for something they did not want. She further stated they had
indicated they wanted to try for the duplex on one lot and a single family home
on the other.
Mrs. Ahr corrected Ms. Mille by saying they were asking for an extra apartment
in the basement.
Me. Mills stated she believed that since they wanted a duplex on one lot and a
single family home on the other lot, there was not nearly enough square footage
to grant the variance for that request. She stated if they had been willing to
have a single family home on each lot she would have looked at it more favorably.
Mr. Boyd agreed. He stated he believed it was their automatic right to put a
single family home on the second lot.
Mr. Conklin advised if the second lot were owned by a separate owner, the code.
had provisions for constructing a single family home on the lot. He pointed out
that, since both lots were owned by the same person, the code required the city
look at it as one undivided parcel.
Mr. Meadows agreed that the lot did not meet the square footage for a duplex.
Mr. Boyd reaffirmed the Ahr's did not want a variance for two single family homes
on the lots.
Mrs. Ahr asked if someone else owned the second lot they would be granted the
right to build on it.
Mr. Conklin advised the code allowed a single family home to be built on one lot
under one ownership, as long as they met the setbacks. He further advised the
code also required that if two lots were owned by one person, they could not sell
I3%
Board of Adjustments
April 5, 1993
Page 7
a lot if it made the other lot more nonconforming. He stated that, since both
lots were nonconforming, they would be prohibited from selling the lot to another
individual.
Mrs. Ahr asked about the lot sizes in Rolling Meadows, Brookhaven and Walnut
Park. She advised they did not contain the required square footage.
Mrs. Mills stated they only thing they were concerned with was the subject lot.
MOTION
Mr. Boyd moved to deny the requested variances.
Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
l3.A
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
April 5, 1993
Page 8
APPEAL NO. BA93-19 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS
KIRBY WALKER - 145 E. 26TH CIRCLE
The next appeal was presented by Kirby Walker for property located at 145 East
26th Circle. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and the appeal
was for a variance of the bulk and area regulations (building setbacks).
Mr. Conklin explained the applicant had constructed a front porch which extended
two feet into the required front setback at its maximum extension. He stated the.
total area within the setback was approximately 3 square feet as the house was
situated on the diagonal.
He noted that, at the time the building permit was issued, the applicant had
indicated a 40 -foot setback on the site plan. He pointed out the required
setbacks were 25 feet from the front property lines (along the street right-of-
way). He stated the applicant had signed the "Certificate of Owner" which stated
the property owner was responsible to determine the proper location of the
structure by survey, if necessary. He advised the Planning Department had stated
in the Certificate of Occupancy issued for the structure that setbacks had not
been measured by staff and they were relying on the information submitted by the
owner on the building permit.
Mr. Conklin advised the subject property was a corner lot that required two 25 -
foot setbacks (from the street right-of-way) and two 8 foot setbacks from the
side property lines. He noted there was a section in the zoning ordinance which
allowed front porches to extend approximately six feet into the front setback if
the structure was not conforming at the time the ordinance was passed. He
explained he was advising the Board of this code in order to point out porches
did not have the impact to the neighborhood that a structure had.
Ms. Mills pointed out that the code regarding porches did not apply in this case.
Mr. Conklin agreed and explained he just wanted the Board to be aware they had
determined porches did not impact adjacent neighbors as much as a structure. He
explained when the ordinance had been adopted in 1970 this section of the code
allowed the future addition of porches in the setback area.
Mr. Perkins asked if the variance included the overhang.
Mr. Kirby stated it included both a portion of the structure and the overhang.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Kirby explained he was the
owner/builder. He stated he had subcontracted the work. He advised this was the
only house he had ever built and the only one he would ever build. He advised
it was an honest mistake. He stated the area in the setback was less than 1/10
of 1% of the house. He explained that, when he applied for the permit, he had
just purchased the lot and did not know where the house would set on the lot.
He also pointed out he did not benefit from the porch being placed where it was,
it could have easily been moved had he been aware of the problem.
Mary Bassett, the broker representing the property, spoke in favor of the
variance.
Mr. Boyd stated he believed the amount of variance requested was diminutive and
it could be approved on those grounds.
Mr. Hanna pointed out they were more lenient on setbacks on corner lots.
13y
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
April 5, 1993
Page 9
MOTION
Mr. Hanna moved to grant the variance as requested.
Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
April 5, 1993
Page 10
APPEAL NO. BA93-20 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS
BILL HELMER - 3534 VASSAR STREET
The next item was a request for a variance presented by Bill Helmer for property
located at 3534 Vassar Street. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density
Residential. The appeal for a variance is from the bulk and area regulations
(building setbacks).
Mr. Conklin explained the request was to allow a 15 foot setback (10 foot
variance) from the front property line and a 20 foot setback from the rear
property line. He stated the house was located in Walnut Park, Phase III, which
was currently being developed for single family homes. He pointed out there was
no difference in the front setback requirement between R-1 and R-2 but there was
a larger rear setback in R-2 (25 feet opposed to 20 feet). He explained the
variance was being requested because the applicant had stated the requirement
setbacks created an "insurmountable problem in trying to build a house of typical
size and style to other homes in the subdivision". He noted no homes had been
constructed on Vassar Street at the present time.
He advised the subdivision covenants required the main living area of the
structure to be a minimum of 1,100 square feet. He pointed out the buildable
area on the subject lot was approximately 2,212 square feet. He expressed his
belief the applicant could design a house within the buildable area.
Mr. Conklin stated the subject lot was situated at the end of a "temporary" cul-
de-sac that had a 50 -foot street easement to the west. He explained the
configuration of the lots around the cul-de-sac and the 20 -foot utility easement
to the west created a smaller buildable area for lots 14 and 15 than the rest of
the lots had along Vassar Street but the buildable area was 2,212 square feet.
He advised the applicant contended the cul-de-sac would revert back to the
adjacent property owners when the street was completed, which would result in an
increased distance from the front of the structure.
Mr. Boyd stated he had never heard of that before.
Mr. Helmer explained it was noted on the plat.
Mr. Conklin agreed and explained the plat indicated an easement to the west for
the street to be extended. He further explained that once the street was
extended the applicant could request a right-of-way vacation and, if approved,
would revert to the property owner.
Mr. Boyd pointed out the property would not automatically revert to the property
owner and someone would have to pay to jackhammer out the curb.
Mr. Conklin agreed with Mr. Boyd. He further advised the Planning Commission had
approved the final plat for this subdivision. He stated staff did recommend the
denial of the requested variance. He explained the developer of the subdivision
knew at the time the lots were platted that those lots at the end of the cul-de-
sac would have reduced buildable areas. He pointed out that, since there was
adequate buildable area, the owner would have the responsibility to design the
structure to fit within the lot.
Ms. Mills asked when they believed the street would be opened.
Mr. Conklin explained the street would be opened at the time development occurred
on the adjoining property. He also pointed out the adjoining property might
never develop so the street might never be extended. He did note, however, the
area was developing rapidly and he would guess that, unless something happened
141
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
April 5, 1993
Page 11
to the economy, the adjoining property would develop within the next five years.
He further advised this was the only cul-de-sac off of Salem Road which was
designated to be extended to the west.
Mr. Hanna asked if the developer would have to remove the cul-de-sac and put in
curb and gutter once the street was extended.
Mr. Conklin stated he did not believe the developer would have to do that; that
the homeowner or city would have that responsibility, if it were done at all.
Mr. Helmer stated he had a contract to purchase the subject lot and planned to
construct his home on the lot. He agreed he could construct another style of
home on the lot but he desired to construct one compatible with the existing
homes in the area. He advised he had attempted to purchase another lot in the
subdivision but found they all had been sold. He pointed out the front setback
variance would be just for the garage.
Me. Mille asked what would happen to the house plans if they did not grant a
variance in the back but did grant one in the front.
Mr. Helmer explained it would just move him five foot closer to the street. He
pointed out he would be back further than the other houses in the area because
of the curve of the cul-de-sac. He further explained that, while the subdivision
was zoned R-2, the covenants set out that only single family homes could be
constructed.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Helmer stated he had not had a copy
of the final plat when he purchased the lot but did have a copy of the
preliminary plat, which was somewhat different. He advised the City had required
the cul-de-sac rather than a "T" turnaround.
Mr. Boyd expressed his view that, if the lots on the cul-de-sac were a problem
even before the subdivision was built, the Planning Commission should perhaps
amend the code regarding those lots. He advised cul-de-sacs had always created
a problem for building lots. He noted it was possible to build on the lot. He
also explained that, if they granted the variance, they would have to negotiate
on all cul-de-sac lots.
Mr. Helmer explained hie position was that he did not want to spend a great deal
of money constructing a house that he might not be able to sell at a later date
because it was the odd house in the neighborhood.
Mr. Boyd questioned whether the street would ever be extended.
Mr. Conklin advised they city had just required a street to be extended and there
was another one they were getting ready to call. He noted the subject area was
growing rapidly. He updated the Board on the annexations and rezonings in the
area.
Mr. Helmer advised he had talked to the adjoining property owner to the west and
had been informed they did plan to develop the property into single family homes
but not immediately.
Mr. Hanna pointed out that the applicant would need a 10 -foot variance on the on
the west end but only a 2 -foot variance on the east end due to the configuration
of the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Boyd stated he believed there was a special way of measuring lots on cul-de-
sacs.
►4L
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
April 5, 1993
Page 12
Mr. Hanna also pointed out that, should the adjoining property to the west never
be developed, there would only be two houses affected -- the subject lot and the
lot across the street. He further pointed out that, if they granted the variance
and the street were extended, the owner would request the right-of-way be vacated
and the house would be in compliance. He stated he did not see a problem in
granting the front variance.
Mr. Conklin noted that, even if they granted the variance, the house would set
back further that the other houses on the block.
In response to a question from Mr. Perkins, Mr. Conklin explained the reason
developers in the area had zoned the property R-1.5 and R-2 was to have smaller
lot sizes, which meant they could create more affordable single family homes.
He further explained R-2 zoning had a larger rear setback due to multi -family
housing -- more people, more children, pets, etc.
MOTION
Mr. Hanna moved to grant the variances (both front and back) as requested.
In response to a question from Mr. Perkins, Mr. Boyd explained his concern was
that other property owners with cul-de-sac lots would also request a variance.
He advised he believed the Planning Commission should take those lots into
consideration when approving a subdivision. He stated that, since the property
did butt up against the property line and the street was designed for extension,
he would go back on his normal leanings. He noted this was an unusual set of
circumstances. He seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
MINUTES
The minutes of the March 22, 1993 meeting of the Board of Adjustment were
approved as distributed.
The meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
)43