No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-05-20 - Minutes• A meeting of 1986, at the Arkansas. MICROFILMED MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF CONSTRUCTION APPEALS the Board of Construction Appeals was held on May 20, City Administration Building, Room 030, Fayetteville, Members present: Others present: Neal Albright, Tommi Perkins, Gary Deckart and Lonnie Meadows. Ken Smith, Larry Poage, Dennis Ledbetter, Freeman Wood and Beverly Erwin. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Albright at 4:10 p.m. The first item on the agenda was for Julie McGinnis who was represented by Ken Smith of the Community Development department. He was requesting a variance on the ceiling height for sloped ceilings in a residence. Smith told the members that Mrs. McGinnis applied for a loan through the Community Development Department to convert the attic into a bedroom. She has recently been awarded custody of the boys and one stipulation the judge made was the boys were required to have a separate bedroom. C.D. is not allowed to construct new additions or structures they can only work within the existing house. The attic conversion was the only way they could use 'the house as it is only a four (4) room house with one bedroom. The attic ceiling is 7'7" to the existing gable roof and he expects to end up with 7' from the floor to the peak after adding to the existing ceiling foists so they will carry the load as a floor joist. He has planned to come in 3' from each side and would leave a 10' by 30' room which would be 300 square feet of living space. The code requires 1/2 or 150 square feet be conforming. Wood stated these requirements are put into the building Bode under light ventilation and sanitation section. If there is a sloping roof 50% of it has to meet code requirements. 50% of it would have to be 7'6" and the rest could be at a lower height. He will only have about 10% that would meet the code. The space will be used for small children but it might be used for something else in the future. He has no problem with the intended use and they are going to have to build dormers or put a door to the outside so they will have ventilation and egress to the outside. Smith stated he intended to put a 3o3o casement window at each end of the gable and build a 3' staircase going up into the attic from below. Deckart asked what the problem was with the dormer. Smith stated her income was such that they were trying to do it as economically as possible and the construction of a dormer would be an added expense The only alternative to not converting the attic would be to sell the house and buy a larger one. Albright asked for comments from the Fire Department. Poage stated he was there for the second item and he didn't have a comment. Wood stated he thought that some of the requirements got into the node bank prior to air conditioning. Because if there isn't a big problem with the requirements they don't get changed. Poage stated that if it had egress than it would be acceptable. He asked if there would be a smoke detector. Smith assured him that he would be installing one. Meadows asked him how he was planning on insulating it. Smith said the house. Insulation rooms. that EOA is furnishing all the materials for insulating They are planning to insulate the ceilings and floors. of the floor is mainly for a noise barrier between the Dekeart asked Smith if this was a loan that she would have to pay back. Smith stated it is a low income loan through C.D. that is on a sliding scale that she will pay bank at 3% interest. Deckart stated he didn't like what they were doing but he would go along with the majority. Smith asked him for his comments on what he didn't like. Deckart stated that there are a lot of structures that are not to node and he doesn't want to keep adding to nonconforming structures. He also feels it is going to hurt the resale value if the house is not to code. He thinks it would be better for the owner in the long run to go ahead and do what is necessary to meet the node. If her income is sunk that she can't afford to do it correctly then he will go along with it. Smith suggested to her that she try to get a loan elsewhere so it could be done correctly and she said she could not pay the interest rates with her income. Denkart made a move to grant the variance with Perkins seconding. After no further discussion, the vote was unanimous for granting the varianee. • • • • The seeond item on the agenda was from Larry Battle for a building located at 2786 N. College Avenue. The building that is existing is going to be torn down and Mr. Bittle would like to build a building bank there with wood construction. The existing building is wood eonstruetion as is the building next door. The proposed building is in a number 1 fire district which means that the building would have to be constructed out of noncombustible material such as steel, blocks or bricks. Wood explained to the members that due to previous engagements Mr. Bittle was unable to attend the meeting. At the time Battle was in the office to talk to Freeman, a meeting was trying to be set up and Freeman thought it would be easier to go ahead and let this go before them without Battle's presence than to have a separate meeting for this appeal. Perkins asked what kind of building is located at 2782 N. College. Wood stated he thought the building was wood frame and brick. He said it would be a type 6 construction. Albright asked if there was a separation requirement whereby he could comply if he had some open space between the buildings. Wood stated that what has been used in the past for other variances for type 6 construction in the fire zone was in the area modification in the Arkansas Fire Code if you have 30' of permanent open spade Wood can grant him an area increase of 100% without sprinkling the building. The board can granted variances based on the location and what is around it and whether it has 30' of open space around the building or not. He has never opposed one as long as they had the 30' and the fire department hasn't up until this point. The proposed building is about 15' from the adjoining building. Dedkart asked if Bittle had a problem with getting the thirty feet. Wood stated he thought that Bittle had a problem with it. Poage stated he thought by looking at the diagram that he mould move them over. If he is going to tear one down and build another then it looks like he could move it over. Wood stated he wanted to build it with a wood frame and brick exterior with a class A roof. The outside would meet the fire Bode requirements but the structure would not. Albright asked if it would change his elassifieation if he used metal studs instead of wood studs. Wood stated if he used all metal then it would be classified as noncom- bustible structure. He could build it out of heavy timber and then fill in between the timber with frame tonstruetion. The difference would be that the heavy timber would take longer to burn than lumber. • He could also build a metal building and metal studs and bar joists. Denkart stated he would have some added expense in the roof in that he doesn't want a flat roof. Poage stated that his idea of saving a number 1 fire distriet is for the fact in the future these buildings can grow together. There are other places in town where he can build this building that is not in the fire zone. He thinks that the buildings will grow together in the future. Wood stated they would not grow together unless he permitted them to. Poage stated he is correct. If he sells it in a couple of years the new owner might allow them to grow together. Wood stated the new owner will have to get a permit and if he doesn't want to build a fire wall then it will be back to this Board. Poage stated that his idea of a first fire distriet is the buildings growing together. Wood stated that the first fire district regulations were written to protect buildings when they are jammed together. If they are not the right kind of construction then they could burn a whole block down. In this ease if you don't have anything within 30' then it isn't going to burn a whole block down just that building. He is talking about permanent open space not wanted open space. It is a requirement that it be permanent open spaee, an area that cannot be built on. In this case you don't have 30' on one side only 15'. Poage asked if he could get 30' by moving the building to the North 15'. Wood stated he didn't know if he could and still get his parking in. In reply to Deokart's question, Wood stated there is a setback require- ment. Meadows stated the building is going to be brink so there wouldn't be a fire problem. Wood stated it would not meet node requirements today. It did when the building was built but not now. Perkins asked if the problem they were looking at is there is going to be 15' between the buildings. Wood stated only if they were going to use 15' to grant a variance. He told the members it was up to them on what they used to grant a variance. Deokart asked if there was a possibility of tying the buildings together in the future. Poage stated if they did then they would be required to build a four hour fire wall. Wood stated it would depend on the square footage. You can build a 7,000 square foot type 6 construction without putting a four hour fire wall. There would have to have at least an one hour fire wall for the different offices. He told them that if the buildings were joined together they could not be built out of type 6 construction. Albright asked if he built a firewall for that one wall and type 6 construction. Wood said he could if they granted him a variance to do so. Without the variance he could not use. type 6 construction. Wood stated the cost difference would probably be in the roof support. Perkins said he has some options. Wood stated he had those options before going before the Board. Albright said he didn't see how they could grant the variance without some options. Wood explained to the members after Perkins question that he couldn't use type 6 construction even if he had 1,000 feet between the buildings. In the past there have been some cases where they have used the 30' permanent open space as a basis to grant a variance. The first fire zone is mainly for buildings that are built together. He stated if he were voting he would require a four hour firewall if he was going to grant the variance. Poage said they could fight a fire and save the building next door with a 4 hour firewall. Perkins stated that he would have the option of having 30' of permanent open space or put in a four hour firewall. Wood stated he is protected on all sides except that one. Deckart made a move to grant the variance with the option of either having 30' of permanent open space around the building or have a four hour firewall. Meadows seconded the motion. After no further discussion, the vote was unanimous for granting variance. • NAME ADDRESS NOTICE OF APPEAL TO BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Jottc *Comas S, abvee aal S• HOME TELEPHONE 97-4'5Y/ BUSINESS TELEPHONE G447S. 12WJC4v Sr. DATE c-/9-2‘ ADDRESS OF PROPERTY WHERE VARIANCE REQUESTED: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY WHERE VARIANCE REQUESTED: PAtr of flIE illog wtotSr 4vAi2 (No4) or F>FE NAeNiver dudes 614 40 or $acn0N Twoufl/ -0006 Cal) 70W4'SNIP SrxlrEM (i') ,uoam, 2A 004E 7}kary (30) (g&3r of 771C 'germ P2Me/PAG naRavnA) ,045Ilaueprdk Ce anali, iftentNsA-s VARIANCE REQUESTED: ^b7G,A4 gr/o,qr Fa S/DOED Ct7L/M $ REASONS FOR REQUESTING VARIANCE: SPACE /S TD 9C (/SED /15 ejagoOH rot Cf/i&P OJ 6AT77C /A! 0451c good INTERPRETATION OF BUILDING OFFICIAL APPEALED FROM: 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. NOTICE OF APPEAL TO BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS NAME 4 RAY • ESC— DATE V// ///J 1 o? 7 r Col/S ��IF vi//E, S4,0ss HOME TELEPHONE 7 V,,2--53,510 BUSINESS TELEPHONE .JA i' -h dQ J ADDRESS ADDRESS OF PROPERTY WHERE VARIANCE REQUESTED: Co N, Colic j.f 7+C/9/177E 0/A/lh� 4434 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY WHEHE VARIANCE REQUESTED: 1 \5721 /9 TM rd• SU ,PV y � IRAcerS ® AAA_ • VARIANCE REQUESTED:0 Qa ! /J Id -g- / //PE / t n4)57.0(I c ©A) /%U /J 'R .ZDV cs� !lam/ REASONS FOR REQUESTING VARIANCE: ivy ° /4£ R Con) 371tcc7thit) oh co 1cl / i / N 9 0 ho P %S /041oaosd atos/RcccCi64"3 INTERPRETATION OF BUILDING OFFICIAL APPEALED FROM: 4 vsTuc-te) 4/07 4//ou>e_d , U S;Pz Z©,ag, REASONS DECISION OF BUILDING OFFICIAL SHOULD BE MODIFIED OR REVERSED: 31/1 e,7)1 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. ‘9°- 6 0-n_2 • 24- Ot('7e1t6fL (47 • datAi let „a, Asinz 1 pega„g(Jfiz aat /Adel:4th pixc, itag;t4;14/L- Awortee e'deee4 "A4-e-(7- €1-/A.±-eLOV- ado -Le -e- -et o1-7 Car i.netaeHAR- it SEW °e\- /0:1 d 4,s_88* 4.e_ ta: Ate. Y4-0-10- a