HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-07-07 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, July 7,
1997 at 3:45 p.m., Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gerald Boyd, Robert Nickle, Thad Hanna, Marion Orton
and Michael Andrews.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Perkins and Paul Wilhelms
STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin and Sharon Langley
Mr. Gerald Boyd was acting Chair of the meeting due to the absence of Larry Perkins.
BA 97-12.00: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SETBACKS AND LOT AREA
GLEN GERSTNER - SW CORNER OF CLEBURN & WILLOW
The first item, submitted by Glen Gerstner for property located at 255 E Cleburn, was a request
for a variance from the 25 -foot front setback to allow the existing structure to have a 9 -foot 6 -
inch setback, to allow a second story addition to have a 10 -foot 6 -inch setback, and to allow an
addition to a non -conforming lot (7,227 square feet). The property is zoned R-1, Low Density
Residential.
Mr. Conklin pointed out there were three variances being requested: (1) the existing structure
was placed approximately 9 1/2 feet from Willow when the setback was 25 feet; (2) the proposed
second story addition would extend to approximately 10 feet from Willow Street when the
setback was 25 feet; and (3) the lot area is 7,227 when the minimum lot area in R-1 was 8,000
square feet.
He advised staff recommended approval of the variance requests subject to the entire structure
being renovated at the time the addition was made; or, if the addition was not made, renovation
of the existing structure; and that the variance be considered null unless a building permit was
issued within 30 days from the date of this meeting. He explained the existing house needed to
be brought up to code and a new roof and siding.
Mr. Gerstner explained the house was located on a hill and there was a basement area at the south
end with a deck over the basement and the second story addition would cantilever over the deck.
Mr. Conklin also advised staff had asked the applicant to put the address on the structure and that
the entrance to the house be from Willow.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments/
Board of Sign Appeals
July 7, 1997
Page 2
Mr. Nickle asked if the applicant was in agreement with staff recommendations.
Mr. Gerstner advised he was and believed he could comply with the requirements.
Mr. Hanna asked the purpose of the second -story addition.
Mr. Gerstner advised the addition would make the house more liveable.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Conklin advised the applicant had applied for a
building permit but the permit had not been issued due to the numerous setback encroachments.
Mr. Boyd asked how many square feet were in the existing house.
Mr. Gerstner advised it contained 1,108 square feet and the addition would bring it to 1,600
square feet. He added the structure was quite old and had been added onto previously a number
of years earlier. He advised the structure was in need of renovation to make it fit into the
neighborhood.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Gerstner advised he had lived in the house 20 years
and also advised he had the money for the renovation.
Mr. Bob Reed, an adjoining property owner, advised he had lived in the house immediately to the
south of the subject property for 40 years. He presented photographs of the subject property and
expressed concern regarding the quality of the maintenance of the property, pointing out trashed
sheds, vehicles in the yard without wheels. He advised the property was an eyesore. He also
presented photographs of other residences in the area, pointing out the contrast with adjoining
properties and the subject tract He stated that in 20 years the property had degenerated; the
north side of the structure had been boarded; the west side appeared to be a tarpaper shack. He
further stated he did not know of any house within 6 blocks of the site which was in as poor
shape. He asked what encouragement the neighborhood had that the property would be
improved. He also noted that, due to the condition of the structure, all other residences in the
area suffered a $5,000 - $8,000 loss in property value.
Mr. Nickle asked if Mr. Reed had any suggestions as to what he would like to occur on the site.
Mr. Reed stated he would like to see the debris removed from the yard. He advised he believed
City staff and boards had some commitment to the area and adjoining property owners.
37
•
•
Board of Adjustments/
Board of Sign Appeals
July 7, 1997
Page 3
Mr. Conklin pointed out the conditions of approval and stated they could add a requirement that
the debris be removed from the yard. He stated he had talked to Mr. Reed and would talk to
Mike McKimmey from the Inspections Department.
Mr. Gerstner expressed surprise at Mr. Reed's concerns. He advised he had now money to
upgrade the building. He noted the house was not a big house and he did plan to re -roof and re-
side the house so it would better fit in with the neighborhood.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Gerstner advised he planned on doing some of the
work himself, he was a contractor He further advised he had not planned to re -side the storage
building but could do so. He further advised some of the material stored in the yard had been in
anticipation of the remodeling of the structure. He stated the majority of the material in the yard
would be used in the remodeling.
Mr. Nickle pointed out everyone was in agreement that improvement needed to be made to the
property.
Mr. Boyd pointed out they would be enlarging a non -conforming structure. He stated that, unless
they were assured the structure was being enlarged to make it better, he could not vote for the
variances. He advised he would like to see the details on the proposed addition and other
improvements to be made to the existing structure, including a floor plan, a section through the
sidewall, a section through the roof, etc.
Mr. Conklin stated he understood Mr. Boyd's concern. He noted they normally did not consider
the materials to be used when considering the variance request.
Mr. Boyd stated he did not have a problem in approving the existing structure but was concerned
with making the structure larger without knowing whether the structure would be better.
Mr. Hanna stated Mr. Reed had pointed out the entire neighborhood, with the exception of the
subject structure, had been refurbished. He further noted he would have the same concerns as
Mr. Boyd and Mr. Reed but it did appear Mr. Gersner was willing to make a financial
commitment to improve the structure and bring it up to the standards of the rest of the
neighborhood.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Gerstner advised he planned on using vinyl siding
with painted concrete block.
Mr. Nickle stated he believed Mr. Reed's points (especially regarding the yard areas) were well
• taken. He further stated he believed Mr. Gerstner's plans would be an improvement and, while
38
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments/
Board of Sign Appeals
July 7, 1997
Page 4
the Board could not demand nor enforce any good neighbor policy, maybe since Mr. Gerstner
was aware of the neighborhood concern he would try to be a good neighbor. He added he would
like to see the property improved.
Mr. Conklin asked the applicant when he intended to start the project and when it would be
completed
Mr. Gerstner stated that, if the variances were approved, he would immediately apply for a
building permit and he believed the project would take approximately a year. He further stated
the plans he presented were exactly what he would build.
Mr. Hanna asked the distance from the Reed house to the Gersner house.
Mr. Gerstner advised it was 40 to 50 feet.
In response to a question from Mr. Nickle, Mr. Reed stated he was encouraged by what he was
hearing regarding the vinyl siding and the proposed improvements. He stated it seemed to be a
considerable improvement.
Mr. Conklin suggested that, if the Board chose to approve the variance requests, they include that
the house be constructed exactly as the elevation drawing presented by the applicant.
Mr. Andrews requested someone from staff look at the storage shed and be sure it was a
conforming structure.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Gerstner assured the Board the addition would not
be a rental unit; that it would contain two bedrooms and a bath.
MOTION
Mr. Hanna moved that the variances be approved subject to the installation of vinyl siding on the
entire exterior of the structure, re -roofing the structure, that the addition conform to the drawings
submitted by the applicant, and all other conditions as noted by staff.
Mr. Nickle seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously, 5-0-0.
39
•
•
Board of Adjustments/
Board of Sign Appeals
July 7, 1997
Page 5
BA97-11: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SETBACKS
OTTIS T. DRAIN - 5590 W WEDINGTON DRIVE
The next item was a request submitted by Ottis T. Drain for a variance to allow a 9 -foot, 6 -inch
side setback instead of the required 20 -foot side setback required for property located at 5590 W.
Wedington. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural, and contains approximately 1.8 acres.
Mr. Conklin explained the site was zoned A-1, Agriculture, which required a 20 -foot side
setback. The applicants were requesting to construct an addition with a 9 -foot, 6 -inch side
setback. He explained that currently the carport and 6 inches of the existing house were located
within the setback. He advised the applicant had stated that, due to the location of the sewer line
and the way the house was constructed, the proposed area was the most reasonable area for
placement of the addition. He also noted the house was constructed in 1969 prior to annexation
into the City.
Ms. Orton asked the adjoining zoning and side setbacks.
Mr. Conklin stated the area surrounding the property was zoned R-1.5 with 8 -foot side setbacks.
He advised there were still some areas with A-1 zoning but the area was becoming residential in
nature.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Drain stated the addition would be used for a
bathroom and utility room.
Mr. Boyd stated it appeared the carport extended 7 8 feet east of the house. He asked if they
could not place the bathroom and utility room in the area being occupied by the carport (244
square feet).
Mr. Conklin stated he had the same concern and had discussed it with the Drains. He advised the
applicants felt the area was the most logical place for the addition.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Drain again contended the side was the most
logical place for the addition. She also noted the sewer line ran at the back of the house.
Mr. Nickle asked if there would be a setback encroachment if the property were zoned R-1.
Mr. Conklin stated there would not be any encroachment since the side setback in R- I was 8 feet.
Mr. Boyd stated he could go along with approving a variance for the width of the carport, since it
• was already existing.
90
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments/
Board of Sign Appeals
July 7, 1997
Page 6
In response to a question, Ms. Drain stated the proposed addition would go two feet beyond the
existing carport. She stated that, while she could live with the addition being the same width of
the carport, she would prefer the additional 2 feet.
Mr. Nickle pointed out that, if they denied the variance, the applicant's alternative would be to
request a rezoning, which was rather cumbersome. He further noted that, by the time the
applicants included the overhang, the room would be only slightly larger than the carport.
MOTION
Mr. Hanna moved to approve the variance as requested.
Ms. Orton seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously, 5-0-0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the June 2, 1997 meeting were approved as distributed.
yi