Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-03 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND SIGN APPEALS A meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Board of Sign Appeals was held Tuesday, September 3, 1996 at 3:45 p.m., Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain St., Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Larry Perkins, Gerald Boyd, Marion Orton, and Robert Nickle. Thad Hanna, Paul Wilhelms, and Michael Andrews Rich Lane, Heather Woodruff, Burt Rakes and Steve Catteneo. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 19,1996 Minutes were approved as distributed. • BA96-15.00 VARIANCE FOR SETBACK JAMES WETWISKA- S. OF SANDINGHAM AND W. OF HIGH AVE. • The first item on the agenda was submitted by James Wetwiska for property located south of Sandingham and west of High Ave. The property is zoned R-1 and contains approximately 0.34 acres. The request is for a variance of approximately 6" from the required 25' setback. Mr. Lane stated the home was approximately 2,400 square foot and encroached .55 ft into the front setback and utility easement. He added Mr. Wetwiska was on the Planning Commission agenda for September 9, 1996 for a vacation of the easement. He advised Mr. Wetwiska had stated there had been an error in the staking of the lot. He stated the staff recommended approval contingent upon approval by the Planning Commission and City Council for the utility easement vacation. Mr. Lane added the building permit was received before the Inspection Dept. had adopted their new procedures and requirements. MOTION Mr. Boyd moved the wavier be granted. Ms. Orton seconded the motion. The roll was called. The motion passed unanimously. 0 Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals September 3, 1996 Page: 2 BA96-16.00 VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED SETBACKS. LALEH AMIRMOEZ- N. OF PHARRIS AND W. OF MALINDA. The second item on the agenda was submitted by Laleh Amirmoez for property located north of Pharris and west of Malinda. The property is zoned R-2 and contains 6,655 square foot. The request was for a variance from the required setbacks. Mr. Lane stated the request was for a variance from the side setback of 8' on the west by 2' and the required front setback of 25' on the east by 2' to allow for the proposed roof overhang. The stated reason for the variance was to allow the facade to be aesthetically pleasing with the full overhang, as well as to preserve the structure from the natural elements. He stated the applicants had received a lot split for this property last year. The conditions of the lots split stated that no variances would be recommended for the property. He added the property was created by the applicant and the design of the structure should have been taken into account. Mr. Boyd questioned Ms. Amirmoez if she had participated in the lot split. Ms. Amirmoez stated she had participated and had been granted 25' of buildable space She stated her understanding was that there would be no variances on the 8' setback. Mr. Lane read from the minutes, " a minimum setback of 8' would be required on the west property line of the created lot. He stated the staff will not support any variances from the setbacks as required in the R-2 zone. Ms. Amirmoez stated she interpreted that as from the 8' side not on the street side. Mr. Boyd added that she was requesting one from the 8' foot side. Ms. Amirmoez replied that she made the request prior to having a copy of the minutes. She was requesting that the two sides be looked at separately. She stated the reason for the request was to help break the facade and, because most of the homes in the area were single story, she would set the second story back so it would not impact the street. Mr. Boyd asked if she was overbuilding the lot. He commented when she split off from the original lot she was gaining a free lot to build on. He added, since she had been granted the lot, she was entitled to build on the property but there were certain restrictions which she should comply with. Ms. Amirmoez stated the conditions were for the 8' setback side. 40 °I0 • • Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals September 3 1996 Page: 3 Mr. Boyd stated she was not entitled to a variance on any of the sides. He added they had a minimum size lot with a large home. Ms. Amirmoez stated the overhangs would help the home fit better into the neighborhood, but she did not have to add them. She wanted to clarify the condition that no variance be allowed on the west side and she could ask for one on the east side. Ms. Emestin Patterson, an area resident, expressed concerns that other residents would seek variances for duplexes if this one was issued. Mr. Boyd responded the applicant already had permission to build on the property, that they were here to discuss the overhang issue. Ms. Patterson questioned if others would be allowed to build duplexes. Mr. Boyd stated the Planning Commission had the authority to grant variances for duplexes. Mr. Lane clarified the structure was a single family unit and not a duplex. Ms. Amirmoez added, even though the zoning allowed them to build a duplex, they decided it would be overbuilding the lot. Unfortunately, they did not decide this until the foundation had been laid. She stated they were trying to work with the existing footings. Mr. Boyd added the height of the building would also be a problem. In R-2 the height could not be over 20' with out making a 1' concession for each foot over 20' and the proposed roof was 24'. Ms. Amirmoez stated she could build the second story back to meet the setback standards with out a problem. Mr. Nickle read, "any building which exceeds the height of 20' shall be setback" he added she would need to set the structure back 12' instead of 8'. Ms. Amirmoez replied her interpetation was the portion that went over 20' would have to be set back not the entire building. Mr. Nickle stated it did not read the portion that exceeded the 20' would have to be set back, but read the building shall be setback. Mr. Lane stated it was the entire building. Mr. Nickle stated technically she was asking for a 6' variance instead of a 2' variance. • Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals September 3 1996 Page: 4 • Mr. Perkins asked Ms. Amirmoez if she would like them to table the item until a later meeting, so they did not make a ruling that would deny her something she could be entitled to. Mr. Provara, an area resident stated he had been informed when he bought his home that all the houses were to be a single story. Mr. Boyd stated there might be restrictive covenants, but the City could not enforce them, they were enforced by the property owners. Mr. Nickle added the in title policy would list the covenants of the subdivision. He added, the City could not enforce private covenants, it was the home owners associations responsiblity. Mr. Joe Crouse, an area resident, expressed concern they were trying to put to much house on the small lot, adding it would be the only two story house in the neighborhood. Mr. Ali Sadeghi, part owner of the property, stated he was only asking for what was his right: it was their right to ask for a lot split, which they had received; it was their right, in Arkansas, to build a duplex for their aging parents. He added he had gathered forty-eight signatures in favor of the duplex, but they decided it would be in the best interest of the neighborhood not to build it Mr. Perkins stated the lot size was 6,655 square feet and it would have required a variance to construct a duplex. Mr. Sadeghi stated it was his right to request an adjustment. He advised theey did not have to build the overhang, but it would increase the attractiveness of the building. Mr. Nickle suggested they reconsider their request because of the height restrictions. He felt the plans would have to change to much to grant the overhang variance. He asked if they would like the Board to table the request. Ms. Amirmoez asked to table the item until the issue about the height could be clarified. Mr. Lane stated the entire building would have to be set back. Mr. Nickle added the house plan or the request would have to change. Mr. Lane stated Ms. Amirmoez would need a variance for the height. • Mr. Nickle explained, to build the house even without the overhangs, she would need a variance of 4' 6". Z • Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals September 3, 1996 Page: 5 • • Ms. Amirmoez stated she would like to put the request in for a four foot variance if it was acceptable. Mr. Perkins suggested they would need to address the request before the Board and formalize a another request at a later date. He stated the request was for a variance of two feet on each side of the property. One would be a side setback from 8' to 6'( a 2' variance) and the other would be from 25' to 23' on the side facing Malinda two setback request: one for the back yard and one for the front. Mr. Steve Catteneo, inspector, stated he had made the original footing inspection on the property and they were really close to the property line setbacks. He added the southwest corner string line was exactly 8'. It would be difficult to even place siding on the structure. Ms. Amirmorez stated her original request for a variance was made from his measurements. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to deny the item, adding he was not comfortable with the plan and the changes that would have to occur. He did not have any idea how the building would look, unless they granted everything they were asking for. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. The roll was called. The item was denied unanimously. Ms. Amirmoez asked if she could submit another request now. Mr. Perkins stated she would have to resubmit with a revised plan or consider a single story dwelling within the required setbacks as ordinally spelled out on the conditional use approved in 1995 q3 43 • Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals September 3 1996 Page: 6 • BA96-19.00 SETBACK VARIANCE DAVID HUFF- S. OF OVERCREST AND E OF JUNEWAY TERRACE. The third item on the agenda was submitted by David Huff for property located south of Overcrest and east of Juneway Terrace. The property is zoned R-1 and contains approximately 0.29 acres. The request is for a 10" variance from the required 8' setback. Mr. Lane stated the existing structure containing approximately 1900 square feet was built in the 60's and the applicant was proposing an addition 26.2' by 12' to the south end of the home. He advised the applicant was requesting a variance from the side set back to preserve the architectural integrity of the home. The staff opinion was that there was enough room in the rear without being in the setback. Mr. Nickle questioned the use of the room. Mr. Huff stated the room would be an extension of the bedroom and bath. In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Huff stated the house had a hip roof. Mr. Boyd stated it would be a little more difficult to move the addition over than it would be on a gable roof. Mr. Nickle questioned if the addition would be at the same level as the existing building. He added that normally he would suggest Just moving the addition over, but since there was a hip roof, it would required a lot of alteration. Mr. Perkins asked if the owner of lot four, the adjacent property, had sent in any comments. Mr. Lane stated they had not received any comments and that everyone had been notified and a sign had been placed on the property. Mr. Boyd asked if the home on lot 4 was close to the proposed addition. Mr. Reagan, Mr. Huff contractor, stated the neighbors house was forward of the proposed addition. He added there was a fence and vegetation between them. Mr. Perkins asked if it was the overhang in the setback or the actual structure. Mr. Reagan stated it was the overhang. In response to a question, he stated the floor at the back • of the addition would be about 30", adding the slope was gradual. qa 9t( • Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals September 3, 1996 Page: 7 • • MOTION Mr. Boyd moved the request to be granted. Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. The roll was called and the motion passed unanimously. 47 Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals September 3, 1996 Page: 8 BA96-20.00 VARIANCE FORM SETBACK MARK PRENGER- N. OF SUMMERSHADE DR. & W. OF BROOKBURY CROSSING The last item on the agenda was submitted by Bill Baker on behalf of Mark Prenger for property located north of Summershade Dr. and west of Brookbury Crossing. The property is zoned R-1 and contains approximately 0.35 acres. The request was for a variance of approximately 3 from the required 8' setback. Mr. Lane stated the request was for the east side setback, the house was approximately 2400 square feet with a 636 square foot garage. He noted the applicant claims the lots were staked off the preliminary plat. In the final plat the lot sizes changed from a rear measurement of 99.08' to 90.77'. Mr. Boyd asked if the fence was existing when the lot was laid out. Mr. Catteneo stated it was placed afterward. Mr. Nickle questioned where the nine foot went. Mr. Lane replied it had gone to several different Tots. Mr. Boyd asked who were the developers. Mr. Prenger responded it belonged to Mark Foster and Buddy People. He stated his builder had pulled off the original pins that were placed on the property. Mr. Borgstadt, resident of lot 10, stated the building encroached on his lot. He stated he built off the same pins for his house and his house was sited correctly. Mr. Boyd asked if he had an 8' side yard, adding the fence looked wider than 8'. Mr. Borgstadt stated he tried to give 8"-12" on either side to be within the neighborhood covenances and city restrictions. Mr. Lane commented that regardless of the location of the pins, the lot sizes did change. Mr. Borgstadt stated they did change and part of that change went to his lot. He had gained approximately 5', but the pins had been set and they had built prior to lot 11. Mr. Baker stated they had used a pin to pull a string down the side. He added when the inspector was out to inspect the footings there had been plenty of room off the metal pin they had used. b 40 • Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals September 3 1996 Page: 9 • Ms. Harrington, attorney, stated that contrary to the letters that had been submitted they did not have knowledge of this problem until July, and at that time they began trying to solve the problem. Mr. Baker stated by July they had already bricked and placed the cabinets. Mr. Prenger stated Mr. Borgstadt had contacted him at the office the latter part of June, expressing concern that his house was into the setback. He reviewed the sequences of events. He went out that afternoon to check and the southeast comer pin was gone; he contacted Dave Jorgenson, who had done the original survey: Mr. Jorgenson had resurveyed the lot on the first or second of July; drawing was made on the eight of July. He stated neither he or Mr. Baker had ever had this problem before. He added they had not dragged their feet in trying to correct the problem. He stated they did not have any indication of a problem, it had not been red flagged during the footing inspection and until the fence went up, there was no reason to suspect a problem because there was 18'7" from brick to brick between lots 10 and 11. Ms. Harrington stated neither of the two men had ever applied for a variance before, but they had no choice now, because they had not know there was a problem when the house was beiing constructed. Mr. Magness stated that, when he wrote to the City, he had received a letter stating Bill Baker had been through this problem before and had gone to court to negotiate a settlement. Ms. Harrington stated that was not true Mr. Baker stated he did not blatantly ignore the codes; he had built ten to fifteen houses in this subdivision and this was the only one that had problem. Mr. Prenger admitted there was an error and they were trying to correct it by calling it to the City's attention. He stated that from the center of his garage, from brick to brick, the houses were 18' 6" apart. There had been nothing to suggested they were off. Mr. Nickle questioned how typical was it for construction to start using preliminary plat. Mr. Baker stated he did not look at the plat, but at the engineering pins at the corners. Mr. Nickle questioned if the engineer would have placed the pins from a preliminary plat and then gone back and repinned on the final plat. • Mr. Baker stated that, on the first of July when they had it resurveyed, they could not find the front, southeast pin. c7 q7 • Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals September 3 1996 Page: 10 • • Mr. Lane stated Mr. Baker had built several homes in this subdivision and there had been no other requests for variances. He added this problem occurred before the Inspections Dept started requiring more stringent site plans. Mr. Magness expressed concern that the problem would occur again in the addition, adding it was only 15% developed. Mr. Baker stated he did not want to go through this again, there needed to be stronger guidelines. Mr. Magness commented that when he was talking with other neighbors he found there had been other homes built too close to the lot lines in this subdivision, but in most of the circumstances the builder had a series of lots and had been able to make adjustments with the lot lines. Mr. Nickle stated visually there was more than 16' of space. Mr. Prenger stated that before the brick was on, the measurement was even more. Mr. Boyd stated the inspection was usually made when the footings had been dug and there was a concrete truck sitting there. He added that, when looking at the footing, the inspector did not usually have a full set of plans; the inspector would not know if there was an over hang or not. They had to work with what was submitted to them. Mr. Prenger stated part of the answer might be to have an engineer set the building corners and off sets. Mr. Boyd stated there was usually enough money in commercial building to do this, but for homes there was not enough money to make it feasible. Mr. Baker suggested saw cutting the curb so there would be a permit mark that could not be moved. Mr. Nickle asked whether the neighbors had different feelings about Mr. Baker based on what they had heard and finding this was not a reccurring problem with him. Mr. Brogstadt stated it was not worth losing a neighbor or a friendship, but what had been presented was not completely accurate. He stated the pins that had been set were correct and had been they were set after the final plat. He added that between the preliminary and the final his lot and house had changed because his lot grew and Mr. Prenger's lot had shrunk, but the pins had been right. He stated that visually the space had been there because he had taken the extra step of cutting off a couple of feet of his house. He stated his irritation was with the builder, because ci3 "1? • Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals September 3 1996 Page: 11 he had not double checked his measurements. He added it was the responsibility of the general contractors to fulfill the requirements and not the inspectors to make sure it was correct. The general contractor was responsible. He stated codes and regulations were here to protect the citizens. Mr. Nickle asked if he was understanding him correctly, that he was willing and satisfied that Mr. Penger could live there and not tear down half a garage, because he was the one most affected by the situation. Mr. Brogstadt stated there was a loss of property value for him and there should be some type of compensation for him, although that was not his intention today. Mr. Nickle stated they could not negate any kind of compensation. Mr. Rakes stated there was a cooperative effort between Planning and Inspection. He added the builders had been a lot more careful Mr. Nickle stated he could see there had been some steps taken by the City to address the • problems. • Mr. Perkins stated the staff recommended denial because the builder had not exercised due diligence. Ms. Harrington asked if the staff would have recommended denial if they had known the builder did not have the information before the first of July. Mr. Lane stated he could not speak for Ms. Little, but he believed it would be best to have no recommendation because everything was hearsay. Mr. Boyd stated that historically it was very seldom that the builder would have to tear off part of the structure. He explained that if the board denied approval, the builder could sue them for not exercising proper discretion that would cost the builder money, and in the end the building would remain. He advised the owner could take civil action. Mr. Magness expressed concern of the builder getting off without any penalties, because the values had gone down. He asked if mistakes were allowed to occur what good were the building codes. Mr. Nickle responded the city was taking action to help prevent and minimize these problems in the future. ciet • Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals September 3 1996 Page: 12 • • Mr. Boyd asked if they had an architectural control committee in the subdivision. Mr. Magness stated there was protective covenants, and they would have such a committe later. Mr. Nickle stated they should bring the matter up to Foster and Peoples expressing the problems they had had in the past and their future concerns. He stated the Board of Adjustments job was to make decisions when problems like this one arose and not to make blanket decisions. Mr. Magness questioned how many variances they had denied to date. Mr. Nickle stated they had denied one out of three at the present meeting. Mr. Boyd stated that, in the past, they had builders who appeared before them two and three times and the builders had been warned. Mr. Magness stated he had written letters expressing his concerns that something was not working right. Mr. Nickle stated the neighbors should get together and go before Foster and Peoples expressing there concerns. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the variance. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. The roll was called and the motion passed unanimously. )OO (00 • Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals September 3 1996 Page: 13 • BA96-16.00 VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED SETBACKS LALEH AMIRMOEZ - N. OF PHARRIS AND W. OF MALINDA Mr. Lane asked to clarify the height issue for Ms. Amirmoez. Mr. Boyd stated they voted on the request as written. 10 101