Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
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
•