Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-09-16 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 Monday, September 16, 1996 at 3:45 p.m., Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain St., Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Thad Hanna, Michael Andrews, Paul Wilhelms, Marion Orton, Larry Perkins, and Bob Nickle. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little and Heather Woodruff APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes were approved as distributed. NEW BUSINESS BA96-21.00 REQUEST FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE WALKER CONSTRUCTION -NE CORNER OF PATRICK ST. & PLUM TREE ST. The first item on the agenda was submitted by Walker Construction Co. for property located at the northeast corner of Patrick Street and Plum Tree Street. The property is zoned R-1.5 and contains approximately 7,520 square feet. The request was for a variance of approximately 2' from the required 25' setback. Ms. Little stated the 128.95' dimension (the north south direction) on the final plat was incorrect. The actual dimension was 95'. She explained, Walker Construction pulled off the northern most pin, believing they had enough room for the house. She added the staff was going to recommend against the variance, but when they discovered there was an error on the final plat, they did not feel it was the builder's fault. She added Walker Construction had been in front of the Board four previous times, one for a sign variance, one was before the fact and the other two were after the fact variances for errors. Mr. Perkins questioned what had happened to the extra footage. Mr. Jorgenson explained it was a typo error. Ms Little stated it was the first mistake of this kind she had seen. Mr. Perkins questioned if it were customary to measure off only one boundary when setting a • footing. /o2 tov • Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals September 16, 1996 Page: 2 • Mr. Steve Johnson, inspector, stated some builders did pull all of the strings, but not all of them. He added, there might not have been a pin on the south side. Mr. Walker stated he did not recall finding a pin on the south side. He explained had checked several measurements and they had been correct, so they went ahead and laid out four houses in a row (lots 133, 134, 135, and 136) that same morning. Ms. Little stated that if the City were to require that all the lot lines be strung off, the Board would be seeing fewer request for variances of this type. Mr. Walker explained he had figured the diagonals in his office and did not have all the dimensions when he went to the site. He explained he usually used one property line to measure from if there was plenty of room. Mr. Andrews questioned the distance of the slab from the north property line. Mr. Walker explained it was 14'-15' from the property line because of a utility easement. He added he had tried to center the house on the lot so he had pulled a couple of feet farther in than necessary. He added they usually set the houses back 27' to 28' back from the street to leave enough room for the overhang. Mr. Perkins clarified they would actually need a 4' variance to allow for an 18" or 2' overhang. Mr. Hanna questioned how the south property line would line up to the street. Ms. Little stated they were 9.5' from the property line to the curb line. Mr. Hanna clarified the actual distance from the building to the curb would be 31.5'. Mr. Perkins questioned if the visibility from the corner would be affected. Mr. Walker stated it would not be and added it was undeveloped property to the east. Mr. Andrews commented, if the house had been set on the lot correctly it still would have encroached on the setback. Mr. Walker replied, if they had known the lot was smaller, they would have used a smaller house plan. Mr. Andrews stated Walker Construction had placed too large of a house on a lot in one of their other request for variance. 1D3 toy • Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals September 16, 1996 Page: 3 Mr. Hanna stated he did not have a problem with the request under the circumstances, but he felt they needed to adjust the request so the overhang did not encroach on the setback. Mr. Perkins suggested the City should require the lot lines to be strung off. Mr. Walker stated if they had known it was going to be such a tight fit, they would have pulled strings from both sides. Mr. Wilhems questioned if the previous plats had been correct. Ms. Little stated the preliminary plats had measured 95'. Mr. Perkins questioned what kind of hardship would it cause if Inspections were to start requiring strings to be drawn on all lots. Mr. Walker stated it would not be a hardship, the hard part was finding the pins. Ms. Little stated that, compared to requiring a survey before the beginning of construction, • stringing of the lots would be nothing. • Mr. Walker stated the Inspections Dept. had changed the specifications; they now required that all easements and details be shown on a scaled drawing. He added, by requiring the drawing they were helping the builders develop a check list. MOTION Mr. Wilhem moved to accept the request, but amend it to a four -foot variance to allow for an overhang. Ms. Orton seconded the motion. Mr. Andrews stated he had a problem with the City of Fayetteville allowing such a large house on such a small lot. He believed they were pushing the limits. The motion carried unanimously. 5-0-0. evil 10`-t /05- 166 aS Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals September 16, 1996 Page: 4 BA96-22.00 REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM REQUIRED SETBACK CHARLES WORDEN- N. OF WOODLAWN AND E. OF MISSION. The next item on the agenda was submitted by Charles Worden for property located north of Woodlawn and east of Mission. The property is zoned R-1 and contains approximately 0.41 acres. The request was for a 5.6' variance to the east and 1.5' variance to the west. Mr. Perkins stated they were requesting two variances, one on the east side from 8' to 2.6' or a 5.6' variance and the other on the west side from 8' to 6.7' or a 1.5' variance. Ms. Little stated the staff was recommending denial. She added, there was enough space in the back for them to accomplish the project, but not as they had designed it. Mr. Andrews questioned how garage would be accessed if it was in the rear. Mr. Perkins replied they could pour a slab by the side. Mr. Wheaterton representing Mr. Worden, confirmed there was room to pull a car around to the rear. Mr. Wilhelms commented the whole purpose of the zoning codes were to help provide public safety. He expressed concern about the other house being so close to the lot line, adding a fire could easily spread from one home to the other with all the surrounding vegetation. Mr. Weatherton stated there had been some confusion about the lot's property line. He explained, they had based the preliminary design off the belief the lot would be considered a non -conforming lot but, after the survey, they found the lot was a conforming. Mr. Hanna questioned if the owners were averse to redesign. Mr. Weatherton stated they had applied for a loan and they had sent out the bids. Mr. Wilhelms questioned if there were any hardships that drove them to use this amount of space. Mr. Weatherton stated they were tring to use as much as was theirs Ms. Little added the existing carport was limited by size to a single car garage and they needed a two -car garage. Mr. Wilhelms questioned what the hardship was, since they were aware of the constraints of the lob • Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals September 16, 1996 Page: 5 • • property when they purchased the lot. Mr. Weaterton stated they were tring to expand without having to relocate a garage. Mr. Wilhelms explained that by granting the variances, they were putting a hardship on the adjacent property owners. Mr. Perkins clarified they would be using the survey pin near the retaining wall. Mr. Nickle commented he did not have a problem with the garage being near the retaining wall, because the area was still preserved with the hedges. He questioned if the neighbors objected to the addition. Mr. Perkins stated neighbors could change overtime and there was plenty of room to the south. Mr. Weatherton explained the owners had explored other options and were set on this layout. Mr. Nickel questioned what was behind the garage. Mr. Weatherton explained it was a heated utility room and storage area. In response to a question, he thought they could bring the west side back into compliance with the 8' setback. Mr. Perkins stated they could redesign the property to the west, the major concern was the property line to the east which would place them 2.6' to the retaining wall or approximately 10' from their neighbor's house. Mr. Perkins stated they could delete one appeal, because they could build the west side to conform to the setbacks, but there was a major variance on the east side of the property. MOTION Mr. Wilhelms moved to deny the appeal. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion too deny was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. ion Ibtt