Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-05-05 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Wednesday, May 5, 1993, at 3:45 p m in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Gerald Boyd, Marion Orton, Larry Perkins, Bob Blackston and Thad Hanna MEMBERS ABSENT: Lonnie Meadows OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Sharon Langley, ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN Me. Orton nominated Larry Perkins as Chairman. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. PROTOCOL Mr. Perkins called the meeting to order. He explained the format of the meeting. APPEAL NO. BA93-21 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF ARBA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS JACK MARTIN & HOLLY SMITH - 808 PARK AVENUE The first item to be heard was a request for a variance of bulk and area requirements (setbacks) for property located at 808 Park Avenue presented by Jack Martin and Holly Smith. Me. Little advised the applicants had withdrawn their request. APPEAL NO. BA93-22 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF ARRA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS HERBERT LEWIS - 327 N WASHINGTON AVENUE The next item was a request for a variance of bulk and area requirements (setbacks) for property located at 327 N. Washington Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Ms. Little advised the Board the application was to allow a four foot setback (four foot variance) from the side property line. She explained the applicant was proposing to build a back-to-back two -car garage at the rear of the house, four feet from the south property line. She noted the house had been constructed in 1899 and had been purchased by the applicant's father in 1935. She explained the applicant had stated he chose to build the garage at the subject location in order to save a large, mature magnolia tree; and, there were several dozen garages and out buildings located in the historic district located either on the properyt line or very close to the property line. She reminded the Board R-1 zoning required a minimum of 8 feet between the overhang of the structure and the side property line. Ms. Little explained that, due to the historic placement, design of the structure and the location of existing trees, the applicant ws very limited in locating the addition in an area either on the side, front, or rear of the house that would be outside the required setbacks and architecturally compatible with the historic character of the structure. She noted the site had many historical features that would be adversely impacted if the applicant built the garage outside of the _'Board of Adjustments p.11Ap i -mss, 1993 Page 2 setbacks. She pointed out the only other alternative site would be for the applicant to construct the garage in the rear year, which would impact the existing swimming pool and 29 year old flagstone deck area. She advised the Board the deck area had been constructed in 1964 by the applicant's father and had concrete impressions of his children's handprints located in the deck. She further advised the next door neighbor and the City of Fayetteville Police and Fire Departments had reviewed the plans and had no objections. She also pointed out the Chairman of the Fayetteville Historic District Commission recommended approval of the variance request. Ms. Little recommended approval of the request. She expressed her believe approval of the request would not adversely affect adjoining properties. In response to a question from Ms. Orton, Me. Little explained there would be one car behind the other in the garage, but they could not drive in one side and out the other. She noted the applicant was requesting the minimum they could get by with. She stated they did have the need for two -car storage. Me. Orton asked if it would be possible to do maintenance on the pool from the back. Mr. Lewis advised that property was not owned by him. Me. Little asked about the area to the north of the home. Mr. Lewis stated that property contained two old dogwoods. He further advised he did not believe there was sufficient room for a garage. 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 • • Board of Adjustments Acm17175, 1993 Page 3 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 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 facts 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. Me. 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 )46 • • • Board of Adjustments &per 5, 1993 Page 4 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 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. Ms. Mabel K. 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 realtors told her it would not sell 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. Ms. 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 I 10 Board of Adjustments App -4.4. 5, 1993 Page 5 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 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 hie 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. Me. 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. Ms. 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. Ms. 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. /NY Board of Adjustments • 5, 1993 Page 6 • • 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 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. Me. 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 •y� Board of Adjustments I I �UkApetl 5, 1993 ()Page 7 • • 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. Ms. Mills 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 Commission denied the conditional use, Ms. Mills stated she would assume that, it would be subject to approval of Commission. variances requested, but the Planning would their vote become null. if they granted the variances requested, the conditional use by the Planning 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. Me. 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. Mills by saying they were asking for an extra apartment in the basement. Ms. 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. /SO Board of Adjustments • Ju_aptii-5, 1993 00 Page 8 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 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. NOTION Mr. Boyd moved to deny the requested variances. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • • 131 Board of Adjustments Al 5, 1993 Page 9 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. 15.7 •Board of5Adjustments A$r*+ , 1Page 10 MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to grant the variance as requested. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. • • IS; 4111n14 Board of Adjustments AIM= 5, 1993 Page 11 • • APPEAL NO. BA93-20 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS BILL BELMER - 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 Boardof Adjustments • nu_Sr 1993 Page 12 • • 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. Mills 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 his 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. Iss • • Board of Adjustments Agr4r1 5, 1993 Page 13 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. NINOTES 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. r&v