HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-06-06 Minutes•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AND THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals was held on
Monday, June 6, 1994, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration
Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Marion Orton, Craig Rivaldo, Lonnie Meadows, Gerald
Boyd, and Thad Hanna
MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Perkins
OTHERS PRESENT: Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, and others
PROTOCOL
Mr. Boyd called the meeting to order and explained the format of the meeting.
APPEAL NO. 8A94-12 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS
MIKE GILBRAITH - 156 E MEADOW
The only item was Appeal No. BA94-12 - a request for a variance from the required
building setbacks submitted by Mike Gilbraith for property located at 156 E.
Meadow Street and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential.
Mr. Tim Conklin advised the lot at the subject site was non -conforming consisting
of a 26 -foot width and a 126 -foot depth for a total of approximately 3,270 square
feet. He noted there was an existing dilapidated house on the lot and the plan
was to remove it and construct a 1,322 square foot one -bedroom, one-story house
with living quarters in the attic, making the house 24 feet in height. He noted
the applicant had stated he expected to sell the house for $70,000 to $80,000
which would be much more than the value of most homes in the area. He advised
the required side setback for a 24 -foot structure in an R-2 zone was 12 feet and
the variance request was for a 2 -foot side setback.
Mr. Conklin reminded the Board a report had been presented at an earlier meeting
but this item had been tabled due to the absence of the applicant. He advised
that, since that meeting, the applicant had amended his request from the original
two-story house to a single -story house because of concerns expressed by the Fire
Chief that the height requested would block light and air to the neighboring
homes. He advised the amended proposal addressed those concerns in that the
building height had been reduced to 24 feet from the original 29 feet and the
applicant had agreed to use non-flammable construction materials as suggested by
the Fire Chief.
Mr. Conklin advised the staff's recommendation was in favor of the request
because a new house would be an asset to the neighborhood and would replace a
current hazardous structure which was an eyesore. He noted approval would be
contingent on the applicant's commitment to construct the house with non-
combustible exterior walls or wall coverings (brick veneer, stucco, or steel
siding); and a non -wooden roof (a composition roof would be acceptable); and on
the lot being under a separate ownership than the adjoining lots as required by
Section 160.136 of the Code.
Mr. Tim Omstead, representing the applicant, reiterated Mr. Gilbraith was
interested in building on the subject site in order to upgrade the area.
Ms. Marion Orton expressed concern that getting building materials onto the
property would be difficult with only 3 to 4 feet of area on the sides. She
noted that, if the applicant purchased the adjoining property, he could construct
a tri-plex or find some other solution for development.
Mr. Conklin pointed out the structure on the west side of the subject site
currently had, a 12 -foot side setback and the house to the east had a 15 -foot
asg
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment/
Sign Appeals
June 6, 1994
Page 2
setback. He noted the applicant might be able to work with the adjoining
property owners.
In answer to a question from a Board member, Mr. Conklin explained the Fire Chief
had stated he was not opposed to the proposed structure as long as it was
constructed with non-flammable exterior materials.
In answer to another question, Mr. Conklin advised there would be a note placed
on the building permit for the building inspector to insure that the condition
regarding type of materials to be used was met.
Ms. Orton asked if a variance for the width of the lot as well as for setbacks
was needed.
Mr. Conklin explained there was a provision in the zoning ordinance which allowed
placement of a single-family home on a non -conforming lot of record even though
it did not meet the current lot width requirement.
Mr. Boyd contended the Code stated if a non -conforming house were removed, a new
structure would not be allowed on a non -conforming lot.
Mr. Conklin advised the Code would allow it as long as it was in compliance with
the current zoning requirements which was why the variance was being requested.
Mr. Boyd expressed concern that rebuilding the existing house might serve a
better purpose in that location than constructing a larger, $80,000 house.
Mr. Omstead advised the existing house was very overgrown and they had not
entered it because of the fear it would collapse. He explained the applicant
did not know much about what the house was like.
In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Conklin advised the staff had not
measured the width of the existing house.
Mr. Boyd noted the existing house looked to be about 12 to 14 feet wide and
contended the same size structure could be rebuilt without expanding a non-
conforming structure.
Mr. Conklin advised the proposed structure would be 18 feet wide not including
the overhang.
Mr. Omstead noted the applicant had talked to the landowner to the east regarding
the proposal, but had not able to get in contact with the landowner of the house
to the west.
Mr. Boyd contended the lot on the east was big enough that a little strip of land
could conceivably be bought from that owner to add to the subject lot.
Mr. Omstead noted he had not entertained that idea.
Mr. Rivaldo contended that, if any of the homes in that area had to be torn down
and rebuilt, they would have to get a variance to rebuild since all of the lots
were non -conforming.
Mr. Boyd noted he would like to know the size of the existing house because he
did not want to make a situation worse than it already was.
�>9
•
•
Board of Adjustment/
Sign Appeals
June 6, 1994
Page 3
Mr. Conklin stated he could see Mr. Boyd's point; but he contended the existing
house was abandoned and overgrown and probably a fire hazard.
Mr. Boyd pointed out that, if the existing house was torn down, permission to
rebuild the existing house would have to be requested since it would not have the
required 8 feet side setbacks. He noted, however, it would at least have 5 1/2
or 6 foot side setbacks instead of the requested 2 or 3 feet setbacks.
In response to questions about the discrepancies in the amount of the side
setbacks in the drawings supplied with the agenda, Mr. Conklin advised hie
understanding was the variance request was for a 2 -foot side yard setback.
Ms. Orton expressed concern that the numbers supplied by Mr. Gilbraith had not
been verified by the staff.
Mr. Conklin advised he had relied on Mr. Gilbraith's calculations, but he could
measure the property, if the Board desired, since there were discrepancies.
In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Conklin stated under the current
ordinance anything over 20 feet in height increased the required setback by one
foot.
Mr. Rivaldo pointed out the proposed structure would not have the required
setbacks, but it would be a tradeoff in that they would have some input in what
the house will look like. He contended anything would improve the existing
situation. He added the only other alternative for the lot would be for it to
stay as it was with a dilapidated house on it.
Ms. Orton agreed it would be good to have the lot improved, but expressed concern
that the amount of variation in this project would be more than they should
allow.
Mr. Boyd questioned why the existing structure could not be replaced with one of
the same size. He contended there was plenty of market for a 1,000 square foot
house and speculated it might be difficult to get a mortgage for a $80,000 house
on such a small lot in that particular location.
Mr. Conklin advised he could measure the existing house for the Board, but as far
as locating the property lines, it would be impossible without a survey to know
exactly where the house set in relation to the east and west property lines.
MOTION
Mr. Rivaldo made a motion to approve the variance as presented.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Hanna.
The motion passed 3-2-0 with Mr. Hanna, Mr. Rivaldo, and Mr. Meadows voting
"yes"; and Mr. Boyd and Me. Orton voting "no".
OTHER BUSINESS
It was pointed out there was an opening for a new member as a replacement for
member, Bob Blackston, who had recently resigned. The staff advised the position
was in the process of being advertised.
• There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
040