Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-08-28 - MinutesMICROFILMED MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF CONSTRUCTION APPEALS A meeting of the Board of Construction Appealswas held on August 28, 1985 at the City Administration Building, Room 111, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Member present: Tommi Ackley -Perkins, Gary Deckart, and Neal Albright. Others Present: Freeman Wood and Beverly Erwin. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Albright at 4:14 p.m. The first item we discussed was a request from David Lewis to have a lower ceiling than the code allows. The code states that the minimum height be 7'6" and he only has 7'1" in a basement. In order to occupy basement of said structure the concrete floor would have to be removed and lowered, which could disturb the rest of the structure. Wood told the Board he didn't have much problem with the variance and went further by explaining what Mr. Lewis was dealing with. The building is a two-story with basement and they are wanting to make the attic into another story. They can't use the attic without one hour protecting the building throughout and building another stairway. The owner is in Little Rock and they want to do as little as possible to the building before using it. The contractor who is remodeling it has a permit for the stairway and the two floors and is one hour protecting the two floors. He doesn't have a permit for the basement. Everything will be one hour protected, which means there will be one hour rated sheetrock put on everything. He does have doors to the outside and windows he can get out of. Ackley -Perkins said that there was ventilation. Wood stated the only problem was if there was a tall person living there, for example a basketball player it would be uncomfortable for him. Albright stated that on the application Mr. Lewis had noted that kitchens allowed lower ceilings. Wood stated that kitchens, hallways, bathrooms, and closets all allowed lower ceilings. Deckart stated he felt that the architectural structures in Northwest Arkansas were unique in many aspects. He told the members if they felt the same way he did then he would have no problem with granting the variance. Deckart asked why the law established 7'6" ceiling height. • • • • Ackley -Perkins stated she thought it was for sanitary purposes and also ventilation. She stated these have windows in them and have access and hallways. Deckart stated he would go with the majority with this one. Ackley -Perkins stated she saw no problem with this one either. Albright stated he had no problems. Ackley -Perkins moved that they grant the variance. Deckart seconded the move. The vote was unanimous. *** The second variance was requested by Greg House for a pool pavillion in the flood plain that was constructed without a permit. Albright asked if this was considered habitable area. Wood stated that it was not habitable area. He said it is only for convenience for the pool. In answer to Ackley -Perkins question, he stated that it did have restrooms in it. Wood stated he had two concerns about it when he first saw it. The first was infiltration into the sewer. According to Don Bunn it would not be a problem because the manholes are below this and they will flood before it gets to the swimming pool. He showed them where it was located on the flood plain map. He stated that he didn't think the water had ever got that high. There are some apartments that would be flooded and to his knowledge they have never been. Deckart asked if there wasn't some other structures that were built in the flood plain, for example Ranco Building Supply. Wood showed them several different building that are in the flood plain. Wood stated that they were looking at the new flood plain map put out in 1981 and those building were built under the old flood plain map put out in the early 1970's. Wood stated there are a lot of houses in the flood plain under this map that weren't under the other map. The ordinance is confusing in that one hand it says nonresidential construction, any type of nonresidential construction such as new construction, prefab construction, or any substantial improvements to a structure shall be such that the commercial, industrial or other non-residential structure shall either have the lowest habitable floor two feet above or flood proof. There is another section that defines • • • • permanent structure and it deletes accessory building out of it. Ackley -Perkins asked if it said that a pool pavillion is not permanent construction? Wood stated that it was not but it leads you to believe that is what they are saying. Deckart said his question is would this structure add anything more to the sanitary dangers than we already have. Wood stated it would not. Wood stated two things you are looking at are does it increase the elevation of the flood, that is one provision, and is there any danger of it being swept downstream and endangering something else. He feels it is anchored down where it won't float off. Deckart asked exactly what it was and how large of a structure it was. Wood explained that it is a pool pavilion with bathrooms and shower in the center and the structure is approximately 25' long and 15' wide. It is a pole structure with the exception of the center where the shower and bathrooms are located. Ackley -Perkins asked how old of a building it was and Wood stated that the building was new and they had just started building it and didn't get the permit. Deckart asked who did the construction? Wood stated that Greg House did the construction. Ackley -Perkins said that she thought he would know that was in the flood plain. Wood stated that he probably didn't know that was in the flood plain. He stated he should have known to get a permit. He stated you probably wouldn't think about the flood plain there. Ackley -Perkins stated that he is probably right and if Mr. House were to read the definition that he would probably interprete it that it wasn't a permanent structure. Wood read where it defines permanent structure, which says the first placement of permanent construction of a structure other than a mobile home on a site, such as the pouring of slabs or footings or any work beyond the stage of excavation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading, and filling. He read the rest of the definition and then stated that he felt it seems to conflict with what he read earlier. Ackley -Perkins stated that it isn't occupied. Wood stated it isn't occupied, it is an accessory building. He said it stated non residential construction, it could be interpreted to mean nonresidential but commercial. Deckart asked how far into the flood plain elevation the floor grade is? Wood stated he didn't take any elevations but it will probably be maximum 2' over the swimming pool. Deckart asked if it were 2' or less would it be unreasonable to request that the floor grade of that building be raised. Wood stated there was no way to raise it without tearing down the structure. Ackley -Perkins asked if it was a wooden building. Ackley -Perkins said that the definition said other non residential structure. Wood told the members to look at this from a point of interpretation. He stated it may be the interpretation is that none is required. If you say that paragraph does not apply, if it is talking about commercial buildings, instead of other non residential then it doesn't apply because it won't be permanent construction under the definition. Albright stated that it is not habitable. Deckart stated non habitable to him means to him no sanitary systems. Ackley -Perkins stated that non habitable meant that no one would be living in it. Wood stated that in the building code they call a bathroom a non habitable area. Ackley -Perkins said if they don't call that permanent construction then this doesn't apply. Deckart stated if there is no problem with the sanitary system, he doesn't see any reason to deny it. Wood stated he didn't see any reason why a building that size could raise the flood elevation, it couldn't increase it very much, if any. Albright asked if the building was water tight? Wood stated that it was not. Deckart stated that if the buildings in the flood plain or very close to the flood plain are going to be flooded anyway. Wood stated they had discussed raising the elevation. Wood stated they did have to have a permit to fill in the flood plain but not to do site work. Under this ordinance, you can fill in the flood plain but not in the flood way. Deckart asked if they are out of the floodway. Wood stated they are out of the floodway. Ackley -Perkins asked Wood if they owned a lot and part of it was in the flood plain could they put a garage in the flood plain? • • Wood stated that they could. Wood stated that when he read the ordinance it didn't register to him that they were talking about commercial property when they were talking about other property. Ackley -Perkins stated it said commercial or any other permanent structure. Wood stated it could be a matter of interpretation or whether it was going to increase the flood hazard. Albright asked if they were going to file for a permit. Wood stated he had refused to issue the building permit until they got this worked out. Albright asked him if they would file a belated permit. Wood stated yes that they had already filled out the application. He told them they would either need a variance or tear the structure down and start over. Wood told the members if it was their interpretation that it doesn't require a variance then there is no need for the variance. • Ackley -Perkins stated she felt they didn't need a variance because if you could put a garage in the flood plain then this should be alright. Albright stated you could even attach a garage to a house and it be in the flood plain and the floor of the residence be raised. Deckart asked how serious we were about flood plain. Wood stated that we are very serious for two reasons. One was to protect the citizens who might buy in the flood plain area and the other one is in order to have flood plain insurance for people to buy the City had to participate in the Flood Plain Management Program put out by the Federal Emergency Management Association called FEMA. In order for us to continue to participate in the Insurance Program we have to manage and maintain our flood plain. We had to send the flood plain ordinance before we passed it to FEMA for approval. He further told the board that they come occasionally and check us out. If there is a problem or violation then they send a letter to the Mayor. He went further to state that you can't buy flood insurance anywhere in the county except in Fayetteville. Ackley -Perkins stated she didn't think they needed to grant a variance on this. Wood said he felt just an interpretation would be enough. • Deckart stated he would go along with the majority. Albright stated he would go along with the majority. The interpretation of the board was that it is an accessory building that was non habitable and it was allowed in this location. A variance was not required so there was no vote taken. The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. • NOTICE OF APPEAL TO BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS 174.vto L �, ADDRESS ZI S /�1' l✓LOCK- AV6 HOME TELEPHONE 52-! 3 4 4 S DATE Zc lig 5" BUSINESS TELEPHONE 4 4 3-13 4 1 ADDRESS OF PROPERTY WHERE VARIANCE REQUESTED: 3CoO AraKis, '/E. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY WHERE VARIANCE REQUESTED: 4C/ -01f1.-5 s�2.e- .r.He.9 a� — 3) 4 S• LOQ / d V X )50+-0 ^ n' • VARIANCE REQUESTED: Vaji,cp -t O - -��� /wv r` C_22"-`( REASONSS"FOR REQUESTING VARIANCE: ez5 5::4A -LO it, cel" ot` a 2-. • INTERPRETATION O BUILDING OFFICIAL APPEALED FROM. -L _t�.es . --7=(0„ Mi�.7-� • REASONS DECISION OF BUILDING OFFICIAL SHOULD BE MODIFIED OR REVERSED: / 6 ,� -cLte 2 Vii', "Ca = wo.N.z � '`Q."7" NOTE: A fee of $10.00 shall accompany each Notice of Appeal. Section 111.5 of the Building Code provides that the Board shall meet within ten (10) days after Notice of Appeal has been re- ceived. Section 112.1 of the Building Code provides that Notice of Appeal shall be filed within ninety (90) days after the de- cision is rendered by the building official. Mtr.) • NNIE NOTICE OF APPEAL TO BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS DATE 7-23" ?/ • ADDRESS (MO ' P/L`( Qom' HOME TELEPHONE 1 BUSINESS TELEPHONE5V- O 6, (� • • ADDRESS OF PROPERTY WHERE VARIANCE REQUESTED: goo (.1 LE0ErR_ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY WHERE VARIANCE REQUESTED: F a� w . 4- CAS % W . cer—` CAFt) --3c3" t J VARIANCE REQUESTED: REASONS FOR REQUESTING VARIANCE: e Pa -4-12-t-,; - INTERPRETATION OF BUILDING OFFICIAL APPEALED FROM: 3 6-,m REASONS DECISION OF BUILDING OFFICIAL SHOULD BE MODIFIED OR REVERSED: Signature NOTE: A fee of $10.00 shall accompany each Notice of Appeal. Section 111.5 of the Building Code provides that the Board shall meet within ten (10) days after Notice of Appeal has been re- ceived. Section 112.1 of the Building Code provides that Notice of Appeal shall be filed within ninety (90) days after the de- cision is rendered by the building official.