No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-02-07 - MinutesMICROFILMELY • MINUTES OF THE MEETING • OF THE BOARD OF'CONSTRUCTION APPEALS • A meeting of the Board of Construction Appeals was held on February 7, 1986 at the City Administration Building, Room 111, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Members Present: Neal Albright, Tommi Perkins, and Gary Deckart. Others Present: Hugh Kincaid, Joel Lueders, Jim Comley, Freeman Wood, Bert Rakes, and Beverly Erwin. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Albright at 3:07 p.m. The first item on the agenda was from Hugh Kincaid of KHT, Co. regarding the size of attic crawl space. Wood explained the problem of the crawl space. He stated the direction of the trusses run across the building and the bottom cord of the truss would have to be cut to make the crawl space the size that the code calls for. The space between the trusses is 22" because the trusses are set on 24" centers. It is bad to cut trusses. There is nothing in the attic as for furnace or storage. He suggested they appeal to this board for a waiver of the 22 X 36 requirement. Deckart asked how big the opening was now. Wood stated it was probably 22 X 24, at least 22 X 22. Albright asked what the code requires, if it was 22 X 36. Wood stated we haven't enforced the exact dimensions but they have enforced the total square inches of a hole 22 X 36 whether it be square or rectangle. This opening is smaller than code requires. Perkins asked where this is. Kincaid stated it was across from his address, the Walker Stone House Townhouses. He stated there are fourteen of these holes that would mean 28 trusses that would have to be cut. What happened was when the code was changed to require draftstop between each unit instead of one hole for each building there is one for each unit. During the time of construction they had no problem with the workers going up and down through the holes. THey would prefer not to have to make the holes larger. All of the units are occupied except for three. Deckart asked how large they were. Kincaid stated they were 22 X 24. Albright asked what they were. Kincaid stated they were access to get into the attic. He stated they would dust prefer the tenants wouldn't put anything up in the attic. He stated the major problem of cutting the holes larger is it would hurt the structure. Deckart made a motion that the appeal be accepted. Perkins seconded the motion. After no further discussion, the vote was taken at 3-0. *** The second item on the agenda was for Joel Lueders for Lindsey Construction Company on the wrong bedroom window size. Lueders stated he is at fault. He stated what happened originally was there was a comment about checking the ingress/egress requirements on his plans when he applied for the building permit. He had never been in a position where he had to pick a window or make any type of decision like that. He got out the building code and it said you had to have 5 square feet net and he had twin windows with the total square feet net of about 8.3 square feet. He checked with some other guys in the Construction Co. and he got inaccurate advice. He proceeded as though everything were right. Deckart asked who brought it to his attention. Wood stated he had a big window area with a mull between it that cuts down the area for getting out. He meets the 24" requirement in height and the 20 inches in width. He doesn't have the 5 square feet of openable area. He has about 27 inches by 24 inches width. As Mr. Lueders stated, the note was on the plans and they were told about but the building was inspected and an Inspector overlooked it. They should have been told before it ever got to this stage but it should have been done correctly. The windows are large enough so that a person can get out of but they don't meet the 5 square feet requirements. Wood suggested he try the variance because it will be very expensive for him to fix. He thinks the window is safe but they don't want it happening again. The way it was brought to his attention was another contractor. He stated he didn't personally have a problem in this case with a variance. Rakes added they are close to grade. Albright stated the way he understood the ordinance was the main reason for the square footage is for escape in the event of a fire. Wood stated in all the rooms except for one there is fixed glass area that is tremendous in size. A fireman could knock out the glass with an axe without any problem. There is a window that is at least 6' long by 5' high. Lueders stated in his situation there is a girl in charge of picking the appearance and she wanted windows slightly taller and narrower. • • He stated he checked but was given the wrong information. Rakes stated he took the fire inspector out to the next house on the agenda and his main concern was he could go along with it but he didn't want it happening again. He didn't have that big of a problem with it. Wood told the members they may want to look at the next case since they probably wouldn't want to grant one and turn one down. Perkins stated the problem she had was feedback from the other builders. Albright asked if they would be acceptable in tabling this item until they hear the other item. Comley stated he has built in Fayetteville, Springdale, and Rogers. He stated it was simply an error. He builds this same house in other part of Northwest Arkansas with the size windows he has and has never had a code problem, so it was simply an oversight on his part. There are two bedrooms involved in this case The only reason he is asking for a variance is inconvenience and delay in construction. He doesn't believe it would be a safety hazard. He went this morning and crawled out of the windows just so he would know what he was up against. Rakes stated he went out on an inspection and walked through one of the bedrooms and it was fine and walked into one of the other bedrooms and he had triple 3050 windows in it and walked into the other bedroom and noticed very quickly that it was a twin 2040 window. There is not a 2040 window that meets the requirements that he is familiar with. They changed it to size that they had in the other bedroom. He tried to come up with 5 square feet of openable area on that window but couldn't. They have plenty of window area, they have twin 2050 windows in each bedroom and in the other bedroom they have a single 2050 window. It is a matter of being close and they are close to grade. The situations are similar except the other one has fixed glass. Albright asked if along with the square footage requirement do they have a width requirement also. Rakes stated they meet the width and height requirement. Wood added they have 24 inches high in clear and 20 inches wide in clear. Albright stated that one was a 2060 window. Rakes stated the openable area is about the same inches. Lueders stated his window works out to about 4.3 square feet. Rakes stated that was about what he had. Deckart stated he can't compromise when it comes to health and safety. • Albright asked him if he were making a motion to deny the request. • • Deckart stated he is not making a motion he is only telling them how he will have to vote. Perkins stated she felt the same way he did. Perkins moved that the request be denied. Albright asked if the motion was concurrent for both of the requests. Perkins stated yes it was. Deckart seconded the motion. After no further discussion, the vote was taken at 3-0. * * * The fourth request was for Arkansas Highway Department for a replacement bridge at Mud Creek at Old Missouri Road. They had a variance previously for the bridge and what they are wanting now is an approval to make the bridge larger. Wood told them they had received a variance back on May 14, 1985 for the bridge. The design they had originally planned was not adequate to handle the traffic in the future, so they have redesigned it and made it larger. Albright explained the redesigning didn't have anything to do with the width but the elevation. Wood stated raising it would make it better instead of worse. Deckart asked if it would increase the size of the piers. Wood stated it would probaby increase the size of them but it would also increase the area for the water to flow through. It has been approved by the Corp of Engineers and their Engineers certify that it meets the requirements. Perkins moved to grant the variance. Deckart seconded the motion. After no further discussion, the vote was taken at 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 3:35. j NOTICE OF APPEAL TO BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS NAME / ADDRESS ? 0' (,/.(c • DATE 70274 HOME TELEPHONE BUSINESS TELEPHONE 52/-7er 0 ADDRESS OF PROPERTY WHERE VARIANCE REQUESTED: -'-, � � 7a 1 `72 ' L! 7 � 297 :291 2 9�r 2 9 2 `>q'n ' Co ZLi ?.se4 Z`f4 Zs`2 )/10--,, f� LEGAL DESCRIPTION �OF'PROPERTY WHERE VARIANCE REQUESTED: 0 eb & oN9,5 auc. teniS /ocA.41 A221' VARIANCE REQUESTED: REASONS FOR REQUESTING VARIANCE: • INTERPRETATION OF BUILDING OFFICIAL APPEALED FROM: '— REASONS DECISION OF BUILDING OFFICIAL SHOULD BE MODIFIED OR REVERSED: Com(h / - t�.LL..U�L,<i 77:.=.r:�ias 74--/ zeJ 7L 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 nin- .1 ._ aftar 4 -ha A. • NAt+E NOTICE OF APPEAL TO BUILDINCG BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS //7 JS9 / /J7 T/Th /j -."e, ADDRESS--1'-,pEO2i.:'P- 7�?DI DATE ,2A HOME TELEPHONE EUSINESS TELEPHONE c2/ -6-603 ADDRESS OF PROPERTY WHERE VARIANCE REQUESTED: 2/g-' Aigngefliver LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY WHERE VARIANCE REQUESTED: / 8 ?/cck / / />/,/;, t/,�;../� l VARIANCE REQUESTED: REASONS FOR REQUESTING VARIANCE: /�///J DCcJ lnls7/;Lc. C.!) /S S//EOE i1PoC/Ct )/ I2 / c/CFD INTERPRETATION OF BUILDING OFFICIAL APPEALED FROM: p, frot4i v,A. oj' $ c, A !/ -72)ec4crets. REASONS DECISION OF BUILDING. OFFICIAL SHOULD BE b1ODIFIED OR REVERSED: 17/E- 4.v- 1 - L .,7:r. °,tea _,cd°c,/: n<✓_^‘4S r2 • etc' / CV/ ttS e%/ez / 7a cu1 ' i4 C<Q( 47 r 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. • • • NAME NOTICE TO BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS r.t Iet CoiLa(r`l 7 OF APPEAL ADDRESS /`/zo l-✓ Cd,✓s_.�f -,��'2-r.r 74,4E7a yam' t../7/ HOME TELEPHONE 7s i- G 3 5-3 DATE 7 — G _ 5-1‘ BUSINESS TELEPHONE 75 -7 -CIF -7v yq3—t5`3� ADDRESS OF PROPERTY WHERE VARIANCE REQUESTED: 3Yo i Se,,.f-e. r -- Fz. ,v: /[e QrG LEGAL DESCRIPTION /OF PROPERTY WHERE VARIANCE REQUESTED: L04- 3 VARIANCE REQUESTED: 1� REASONS FOR REQUESTING VARIANCE: ARIANCE: f/7/L. ,yr dK S,z�D, 74 + 5i v Q.axes C/S. .6W `✓S 6 N0�sc L .5 1. .r1 ar `c3 -e7 CoK5/�-✓c f7o.�/ fN"r'.<544 � h.L�<,I --so� I f'l�l //ta2 3 f% �1. /iitrer.T e) �� 4 4-. Ei- pro ! �sc C Olaf 0,orJrcad INTERPRETATION OF BUILDING OFFICIAL APPEALED FROM: -- ou/ 0 Oi,ccGewr REASONS DECISION OF BUILDING/ OFFICIAL SHOULD BE MODIFIED OR REVERSED: �o,..+-Gey („ v1 /-t i7-o..tic5 Is L CP'al.`K'err t&19611-4)1 •f{O +-J% 8o: (c(�ci— /` /� /� Wit I ��,��1 nl,"(c, /G -GJ D +.J gev Wtrr Art 7y `d" -a s WL live_ • Cit._ II / / / /. �� i rJ r -t W ` h 2 vac_ C (4 Zid Cd cels- z A e/- r d L Z< R7 $ / 5 I.'/ 1-1 o.r4-k .5.1:7 p+-faO{ <-o Lecca,—c-s f -c2 Q rc c L J cLc (‘k , , e Q. rayr -Efa•^� c� Cc J r Q e WL tiI✓sz y 14,1 //til<4 J /1 as /u;f"dorz. ✓ re> &7c.4 e/ di Jr eL.�ppa/ s t� c chr e 5' 5 , 5 Fos 1 Pta �G•A45 (.0rrcc ar s. it .5''e4¢ us� / ` �/81/ ignature 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. NOTICE OF APPEAL TO BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS NAPE Arkansas State Highway Dept. ADDRESS P. 0. Box 2261 Little Rock, Ar 72203 HOME TELEPHONE DATE January 31, 1986 BUSINESS TELEPHONE 501-569-2000 ADDRESS OF PROPERTY WHERE VARIANCE REQUESTED: Mud Creek Bridge and Approaches at Old Missouri Road LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY WHERE VARIANCE REQUESTED: 0. Section 35, Township 17 North, Range 30 West VARIANCE REQUESTED: REASONS FOR P£QUESTING VARIANCE: VU' Because it could produce a 0.1 foot increase above the 1.0 foot increase in the flood elevation allowed with the floodway encroachment. INTERPRETATION OF BUILDING OFFICIAL APPEALED FROM: Because it could produce a 0.1 foot increase above the 1.0 foot increase in the flood elevation allowed with the floodway encroachment. REASONS DECISION OF BUILDING OFFICIAL SHOULD BE MODIFIED OR REVERSED: Don L. Potter/AHTD 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. • • ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT Henry Gray, Director Telephone (501) 569-2000 December 20, 1985 City of Fayetteville PO Drawer F Fayetteville, AR. 72701 ATTENTION: Mr. Freeman Wood Building Inspector Superintendent P.O. Box 2261 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Re: AHTD Job No. Mud Creek Br Old Missouri Fayetteville • Dear Sir: 4928 ..and Apprs., Road The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) Hydraulics Section requested a variance in a letter dated April 23, 1985, for the construction of a replacement bridge at Mud Creek on Old Missouri Road in Fayetteville. Subsequent to this request, a variance was approved by the City Building Board on Adjustment and Appeals and a letter was sent to the AHTD per- mitting the construction of this structure. Upon further consid- eration by the AHTD, however, it was decided that the proposed structure was inadequate to meet the future needs at this location. Therefore, a new bridge and approaches was designed for this cross- ing which provided a larger bridge opening and elevated approaches not subject to inundation by frequent storms. As a result of this redesign, it was necessary for the AHTD Hydraulics Section to re- quest another variance and permit for the construction of the pro- posed bridge and approaches. In the original variance request, it was noted that the Little Rock District Corps of Engineers analyzed the proposed bridge and recom- mended the previous variance and approval issued by the City. The computations for the Corp's analysis was subsequently revised for the new design and base flood and floodway were recomputed • FA • • • City of Fayetteville December 20, 1985 Page 2 to verify adequacy. The base flood elevations with the floodway in place remain well within the limits allowed by the local flood- plain ordinances for Fayetteville, Arkansas. The AHTD Hydraulics Section certifies that the design of this pro- ject meets the floodplain objectives of Fayetteville. We further certify that the project satifies all requirements for granting a variance in Section 2944 of the Fayetteville Code of Floodplain Building and Development Regulations. We request that the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals grant a variance for the construc- tion of this project. Two sets of the bridge layouts, and roadway plan and profile sheets are included with this letter for your review. If any additional information is needed with respect to this request, please contact Thomas Black in the AHTD Hydraulics Section at 569-2586. Your earliest possible consideration for this project will be greatly appreciated. Don L. Potter Engineer of Hydrualics DLP/TFB:cl 4=i) Enclosures •