Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-11-04 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountai ITEMS CONSIDERED VAR 02-27.00 (1014): Variance (Pendleton, pp 486) Page 2 VAR 02-28.00 (1035): Variance Page 5 VAR 02-29.00 (1036): Variance Page 8 VAR 02-30.00 (1037): Variance Page 16 VAR 02-31.00 (1038): Variance Page 19 MEMBERS PRESENT Sheree Alt Joanne Olszewski James Kunzelmann Michael Green Bob Nickle STAFF PRESENT Shelli Rushing Dawn Warrick David Whitaker (Kohler, pp 443) (Norbash, pp 291) (Charlton, pp 484) (Allen, pp 484) November 4, 2002 at 3:45 p.m. n, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Tabled Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Michael Andrews Marion Orton STAFF ABSENT Renee Thomas Board of Adjustment November 4, 2002 Page 2 Green: Welcome to the November 4, 2002 meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment. Please call the roll. Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call there were five members present with Mr. Andrews and Ms. Orton being absent. VAR 02-27.00 (1014): Variance (Pendleton, pp 486) was submitted by Steve Williams of Williams Construction Company on behalf of Mary Carolyn Cherry Pendleton for property located at 111 W. Skyline Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.03 acres. Skyline Drive is a Historic Collector with a 50' street Right of Way. The requirement is for 30' front setback. The request is for a 16' front setback (a 14' variance). Green: Ok, the first item of business is VAR 02-27.00 submitted by Steve Williams of Williams Construction Company on behalf of Mary Carolyn Cherry Pendleton for property located on Skyline Drive. The requirement is for 30' front setback. The request is for a 16' front setback (a 14' variance). Dawn, would you like to give us some background on this? Warrick: Yes Sir. The subject property is located at 111 Skyline Drive. It is near the top of Mount Sequoyah across the street from the Methodist Assembly property. The property contains one single-family home that was constructed in the early 1900's. Surrounding properties are primarily single-family residences. This is an R-1, Low Density zoning district. The site is relatively narrow, it is very steep, it slopes steeply to the west, which is the rear of the property and there are many mature trees surrounding the existing structure on the property. One issue that is somewhat unique to the property aside from the topography, is the fact that Skyline Drive is designated on the city's Master Street Plan as a historic collector street. That means that the right of way required for it to be built out according to that Master Street Plan is a total of 50' of right of way. The existing right of way right now is 40', therefore, it is shy 5' on either side of center line. That increases the amount of setback that would be necessary because the City Council has passed an ordinance that requires us to consider the Master Street Plan with regard to setbacks when we are looking at building permits or development plans so that would increase the setback amount by 5' along the front property line. The standard setback in an R-1 zoning district is 25' from the front property line. In this case because the sufficient right of way is not existing the required setback would be 30'. This proposal, basically the applicant wishes to construct a stairway to connect the various levels of the structure and it would be located at the southeast corner of the structure itself. The proposed stairway would not actually encroach the required setback anymore than the existing structure already does. Of course the existing structure encroaches because there were no setbacks at the time that it was built. The request is to allow the stairway, as well as the existing structure, to encroach the required setback and in Board of Adjustment November 4, 2002 Page 3 Green: order to accommodate the existing structure and the Master Street Plan, the amount of variance that is needed is 19'8". Unique circumstances, as I mentioned, deal with the age of the structure and the fact that it was erected prior to zoning within the city and the slope of the site, which is very steep. Also, with regard to the addition that is being proposed, it is a stairway that connects functional areas within the structure and of course, those areas need to be able to access those stairs so that also drove the location of the proposal as well. Staff is recommending in favor of the variance request with the condition that it apply only to the existing structure and the proposed stairway addition. Ok, thank you Dawn. I had one question about the right of way and the setback concerning that. What will happen in the future if Skyline is widened and because of the location of the patio porch area, is that a possibility that they will physically widen Skyline or is it merely a setback regulation for that kind of collector? Warrick: It is a setback because in the future the city would like to see the street widened to meet that standard. In this particular case, Skyline Drive, many of the structures would encroach that required setback area. I think that in this particular location and most of the others around it may be a situation that the city has to go in and request or purchase right of way on the other side of the street where there is more room available and there are no structures in that area. Of course if we were looking at acquiring right of way on this side of street we may be looking at condemning or purchasing a whole lot of structures and the other side of the street of course is the Methodist Assembly and it is less steep and it is also less developed. It is somewhat of a unique situation and I am not sure how realistic it is to say that Skyline Drive is going to be expanded and that 5' is going to be utilized for street purposes. It could be that the street is widened and that area is, instead of actually part of the constructed street, part of the right of way that would contain green space or sidewalk on the other side. It is pretty hard to tell how that street section would actually end up. Green: The applicant is here, do you have anything to add? Williams: I am Steve Williams and am here just if you have a question. I think the architectural design and what is drawn out goes along with the building. I am trying to make it look like it has always been there. It is a good design and it will help them gain access from the upstairs to the downstairs. Olszewski: I am a little confused here, it says the request is for a 16' setback and 14' variance. Warrick: That was modified. The correct information is in the recommendation below. Thank you for pointing that out. It is for a 19'8" variance. The reason that that was Board of Adjustment November 4, 2002 Page 4 Green: Nickle: Kunzelmann: Green: modified is the original request only accommodated the stairway addition. We modified that to incorporate the existing structure because it also encroached. Are there any other questions or comments? I agree with Dawn, if the city ever widens this thing the inner part of the circle around the mountain is the obvious way to go from just about every standpoint, cost of construction, everything else that would be the other side would almost be prohibitive I would think and that perhaps would give them a chance to put a sidewalk around that inner circle, which would help the people walking around not get run over so I would be in favor. I would make a motion to approve the variance as requested with the staff comments. Second. There has been a motion and a second to approve the request for variance. Is there any further discussion? Are there anymore comments from the audience? Call the roll. Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 02-27.00 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Green: The variance passes, thank you very much. Board of Adjustment November 4, 2002 Page 5 VAR 02-28.00 (1035): Variance (Kohler, pp 443) was submitted by Robert Kohler for property located at 695 N. Gray Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.51 acres. The requirement is for a 25' front setback from Cleveland Street and Gray Avenue. The request is for 17.5' front setback (a 7.5' variance) on Cleveland Street and a 9.7' front setback (a 15.3') on Gray Avenue to accommodate the existing non conforming structure and a proposed 700 sq.ft. addition. Green: The next one on our agenda is VAR 02-28.00 submitted by Robert Kohler for property located at 695 N. Gray Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.51 acres. The request is for 17.5' front setback (a 7.5' variance) on Cleveland Street and a 9.7' front setback (a 15.3') on Gray Avenue to accommodate the existing non conforming structure and a proposed 700 sq.ft. addition. Shelli? Rushing: This property is located on the southwest corner of Cleveland Street and Gray Avenue. Cleveland Street is an historic collector and Gray Avenue is a local street. On this one we don't find that there is any additional right of way that is required to meet the Master Street Plan. There is a 2,950 sq.ft. single-family house that sits on this property. It is approximately 1/2 acre. The structure was built in the 1930's prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. It is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and right now the structure sits 17 1/2 feet from Cleveland Street and 9.7 feet from Gray Avenue. Right now the existing structure does not meet the 25' front setback requirement. The applicant is proposing to make an addition to the southeast corner of this structure. The addition is approximately 700 sq.ft., which is a 24% increase in size. The proposal includes a portion of the second story that extends into the front yard setback at Gray Avenue by 11'. The addition is proposed at this location to avoid the removal of mature trees on the site. The applicant is requesting a variance from the 25' front setback requirements for Cleveland Street and Gray Avenue and these variances apply to the existing structure. The proposed addition is less of an encroachment into the setback than what the existing structure is. I did want to point out to you that the applicant at this time does have a building permit for the second story. They are permitted under our ordinances to increase in height if it is an existing non -conforming use and they are working on that right now. However, they have not begun any kind of construction on the extension or the addition that encroaches into that side setback. I just wanted to let you know about that because there are some photos in the staff report that show that it is under construction. We are recommending approval of the request. The structure is existing. The proposed addition is less of an encroachment than the existing structure and this will simply make this a legal non -conforming structure. Green: Ok, does the applicant have anything to add to this or would you like to address the board? Board of Adjustment November 4, 2002 Page 6 Kohler: Rushing: Whitaker: Kohler: Green: Kohler: Green: Nickle: Kohler: Whitaker: MOTION: Nickle: Nothing other than I'm an architect and I have designed this second story that is architecturally appropriate in this configuration verses if it was not approved it would have a much more awkward configuration on the property. In addition, I was told by a previous owner, Richard Atkinson, who used to own this house, told me that he had gotten a variance on the Cleveland side anyway back in the late 70's and on the Gray side, that was approved back then. He had done some alterations on the original house that was built in the 1930's. I assume every time you make a modification you need to get a new variance if it is a new encroachment. We did not come across that in our research. I believe if the variances had already been approved you would be able to go ahead and expand within those, whatever the variance was for. There may have been specific conditions placed on that variance which would potentially require you to come back but we did not find any record. It is not unusual. Often your first ones will be that it apply only to the present thing, etc. That may well have been what happened. So if you do a new legally non -conforming encroachment or whatever maybe you just need to do the whole process over again. In any event, I just wanted to address that. Your name for the record? Robert Kohler. Ok, do we have any questions for Mr. Kohler or staff? Is there a motion of any kind? I noticed in driving by the place out there that the saving of the tree is quite commendable. They even built the house around the tree there it looks like. I suspect knowing that Atkinson is a lawyer, that he probably did go through that process, but as Mr. Whitaker indicated, it was probably just for that one instance and what was there, etc. That is not unusual to happen. Do variances typically travel with the property? Unless otherwise conditioned. It may not have been for any additions like what you are looking at. I move that we approve with staff comments the request. Board of Adjustment November 4, 2002 Page 7 Kunzelmann: Second. Green: There is a motion and a second to approve the variance as requested along with staff recommendations. Is there any further discussion from the board or the audience? Call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 02-28.00 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Green: The variance passes. Board of Adjustment November 4, 2002 Page 8 VAR 02-29.00 (1036): Variance (Norbash, pp 291) was submitted by Sid & Sherrie Norbash for property located at 2482 Jimmie Ave. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.44 acres. The requirement is for a 20' rear setback. The request is for a 11' rear setback (a 9' variance). Green: The next item on our agenda is a Variance request submitted by Sid & Sherrie Norbash for property located at 2482 Jimmie Ave. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.44 acres. The requirement is for a 20' rear setback. The request is for a 11' rear setback (a 9' variance). Who has the information? Rushing: This property is located north of Township and east of College. Right now there is an existing single-family structure with 2,400 square feet. The site is approximately 0.44 acres and it was built in the early 1980's. The property has a steep slope and the existing structure sits back on the lot. It is in an R-1 district which bas a 25' setback but the structure is setback 871/2'. There is also a 15' easement located on the south side of the property and there is an in ground pool located in front of the house. The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the house, a 740 square foot addition to the rear of the existing structure. This is a 31% increase in size. The location that they are proposing is to avoid the removal of existing mature trees. The addition would extend 9' into the required 20' rear setback and they are requesting a variance for that 20' rear setback to allow for an 11' setback. We have received one call from a neighboring property owner that was concerned about the addition obstructing their view. I did want to let you know about that. The addition will be no higher than the existing roof. We are recommending approval of this request based on the conditions of the site, which include the steep slope, that the existing structure is pushed back from the existing right of way and that the location of the addition is to avoid the removal of mature trees on the site. The only condition that we have is that the variance apply only to the 740 sq.ft. addition. Green: Ok, does the applicant have anything to add? Norbash: I am Sid Norbash. No Sir, we are here for any questions. Green: Does anyone have any questions? Nickle: This will not increase the total roofline of the house correct? Rushing: No, the addition will be actually lower than the top of the roof. Green: The addition is actually toward the hillside instead of out so it really shouldn't cause any kind of increase in the projected field of view of the other people I don't think Board of Adjustment November 4, 2002 Page 9 Norbash: I have this handout for you. I thought this might explain just a little what we are up against and what we are doing here. The green shaded area is the 9' in question that we are asking for. What we are saying is that if you would allow us to just add onto the back of the house. If that is denied then that would push us to the pink area there and that is where the trees are unfortunately, that is what is going to complicate the construction as well. Green: Pettus: Ok, there was some other comment? I am Donna Pettus, I am an attorney for Drs. Moberly and Webb. They are not here today. Unfortunately they wanted to be here. Dean Moberly had an emergency come up this morning, he is in the hospital and he may be having emergency surgery as we speak. For that reason, if you have lee way not to make a decision today he would request that because he did want to be here to speak. However, if you can't then I will speak on his behalf. Do you want me to go forward? Green: Yes, could you please state his concern? Pettus: His number one concern is not the obstruction of the view as said by the staff, but the house will be so close to his property as to devalue his property. Dean and Mrs. Moberly purchased the property in September which is hardly more than a month ago, their property is on Sherwood Lane which is the east of the Norbash property. They paid a considerable sum. That Sherwood Lane property is all very expensive property and they bought in reliance upon the situation as it was. We took some photographs not only from the back of the Dean's property but Mr. Norbash's property. It was their understanding that they could go on and inspect Mr. Norbash's property and so they did and they took a couple of photographs. I am sorry, I don't have copies for everyone but if you would pass these around. You can see how close this first photograph is from my client's property showing how close the existing house already is to their property line. There is a driveway and a garage at the back of my client's property and this shows also how close it is to my client's driveway, this one as well. These are all of the Norbash property. This one is from the deck of my client's house. I understand that the staff report says that there is considerable screening from the trees. However, you should also remember that six months out of the year there are no leaves and no screening at all. This also is from the Norbash property showing potential site for a building that would not encroach back in there and would also possibly come forward just enough not to even cut down the trees. This shows the back how close the building line would be to the back of the property. This is also a plat of my client's property where you will see that the driveway in the back actually a foot or so is into the back easement so these properties are very close together. Their main concern is that they have just spent several hundred thousand Board of Adjustment November 4, 2002 Page 10 dollars on a house that will considerably lose value if this extension is built back too close to their property. People that spend that kind of money on a house in that particular situation do not want neighbors any closer than they already are. They buy in reliance upon that. I think that is basically what I have to say. Do you have any questions? Green: Your client does understand that it is just going to be a low first story? Pettus: It is not the height that concerns them, it is the fact that it is so much closer that he will actually when he looks out off his deck he will be able to see into the Norbash's house. The Norbash's will be able to see into my client's house. Their living area is at the back. That is where everything is opened up to the view of the backyard. Green: Probably in the alternative I guess would be to stay within the setback requirement and go up higher. Pettus: That really does not affect. Green: That might be as big of a problem if not worse. Pettus: I don't know how that would affect the property right now. I just know how it would affect with what Mr. Norbash is proposing. Green: Are there any questions of Ms. Pettus anyone? Stockland: My name is Tom Stockland, I am an attorney in town but I am here on my mom's behalf. She has the vacant lot that is right beside Ms. Pettus' client's lot. Basically my concern is my mom is retirement age, she works retail, her house and lot represent a big part of what she is worth and at some point she may need to sell them for living expenses and the closer you get to the property line the more it is going to reduce the value of that vacant lot. I understand Mr. Norbash not wanting to take the trees away because they obviously add value to his lot but it seems like it would detract from the value of my mom's lot to let him keep the trees that value his lot. That is not something that we want, we want to protect the value of her lot to the extent that we can. Green: Norbash: Mr. Norbash? There are several things that I would like to address the board with. That drawing, as I showed you, I just want to emphasize that the pink area is what we are allowed to do today. First of all, Ms. Pettus mentioned that this addition here is on the side of the house to build on, that is not going to serve any purpose for us. It is a split level Board of Adjustment November 4, 2002 Page 11 and we just don't have any use for the lower area, that is a bedroom that we cannot use in any way. It really does not do any good for us to build over there because it really doesn't serve any purpose for us. As far as looking into somebody's living area, please understand that these are large lots. There is going to be almost in excess of 80' distance, we are not talking about a flat neighborhood where people are looking into each other's house. This is a special terrain, a special hill. As far as looking into somebody's living area, they are already looking at us down there anyway. I am just appealing to you, this is all we are asking for, if you would picture our wall right here, all we are asking right here is three steps, that is the 9'. If you are up there looking down at this hill believe me three steps is not going to make any difference in your perception as far as closeness of the house goes. That is all it is, just three steps. From the pictures you can see yourself from the pictures that were handed out, this is a well private area there. There is a 20' easement on Sherwood Lane, all of the utilities are in already and there are not going to be anymore utilities going through there so there would not be a chance of cutting the trees down or anything like that. I understand, in winter time you can see forever in Arkansas when the foliage is out, that may be a reasonable thing to say but please understand that anywhere you look once the foliage is gone you can see forever. As far as the valuation of the property, most of you, when they assess a property it is the neighborhood that they really basically assess. I don't think anybody is going to come and say "Ok, this is 10' closer to the property line so therefore, I am going to cut off $200,000 off of this house." Essentially what it is is when you look at the house next to you and say the value of this house is actually increasing by this addition. That is my argument on that. As far as the valuation. That is a very subjective thing, how you would evaluate something. I am just appealing to you as far as the structure itself, all we are asking is three steps closer, just three human steps closer. This is totally enclosing our own backyard right now and I would invite anybody to go over there and look down and see if you can tell three steps from 80' away as far as perception goes. I am sorry for being long winded, I really do appreciate that. I am trying to put on a show for my family here, we couldn't afford an attorney so I am their attorney. Our lifestyle has changed. We really are in need of this and we want to do the right thing. We want to do something that is right but I think you will agree with me that building on the pink area there would really be distractive, they would have more building to look at. If you turn me down right now I will have to go do my planning again and go ahead and build on the pink area which the law allows me to do. All I am asking is for just a little common sense. Would you rather look at 8'of building or would you rather look at 37' of building? That is all I am asking, I appreciate your time. Green: Ok, thank you. Stockland: We did have someone look at the lot and the lot hasn't been listed or hasn't been up Board of Adjustment November 4, 2002 Page 12 Pettus: for sell but they have already expressed concern about how close that house is to the lot, which I understand it is within the law. That has already become an issue, someone came up and looked at the lot and said "Well, the lot would be worth this but you have got to take something off for how close the house is." I think as the house gets closer and closer that that becomes a bigger issue. I don't think that when people buy houses they go by the county's property assessment anyway. They go by real estate appraisers who do look at these factors, how close the neighboring property is, how intrusive it is to your property, especially in properties with these values. I ask that you do consider, as well as common sense, if a house comes closer to you than it was before and you bought your property relying on it being where it was when you bought it and then this happens, it is going to have a significant affect upon your property values. Green: Ok, are there any other comments from the audience? Are there any questions for the board? Kunzelmann: I have a question for Ms. Pettus. Do you know if your client is concerned about the profile of that house going from 37' to 80'? Pettus: Green: No, I don't know the answer to that question. That is the problem with the fact that they are not here today and only because of an emergency. They would be here if it weren't for that if Dean Mobley wasn't in the hospital. The staff I think had looked into all of their particular requirements for their recommendation, do you have anything else to add as far as what your recommendation was based on? Rushing: Our recommendation still stands based on the fact of the size that they need to increase, the existing structure, and to help avoid the removal of those existing trees. Olszewski: This map you gave us shows the trees in line with the existing house right or is this the addition? Whitaker: That is where the addition would have to go if he doesn't get the variance is what the pink is. Olszewski: The pink is what he wants the variance for? Whitaker: The green is the variance, 11' is the variance. Board of Adjustment November 4, 2002 Page 13 Olszewski: Whitaker: Olszewski: Pettus: Green: Pettus: S. Norbash: Norbash: Green: Olszewski: Ok, so if he doesn't get it he would do this right here. Yes, because that is within his setbacks. Ok, I get it. I understand that he is saying that doing an addition, which I say he could do more forward and save the trees is of no use to him but it could be built that way. It would avoid devaluing anyone's property and still have his addition up higher on the same level that his current house is. If you will look at what I'm talking about here, this one right here, these are the trees he is talking about right here and if the addition was built approximately where the vehicle is right now he could still save the trees. That is quite a bit lower than the elevation of his floor though. No, his floor is up here. He could build up to level with his floor just like the rest of the house is built. We are wanting to add accommodations for the family and they would have to enter through my room. It doesn't really make any sense to get to the laundry room or the arts and crafts room. It is a split level, it really does not, first of all, on the hill we only have two parking spaces. By the way, we did not ask anybody to take pictures, we are under construction here and the mess is because we were doing some reinforcement on the foundation. If you see construction going on I do apologize for the mess around the house but what we are asking is that this area here is two parking spaces that we have. If we have company that is where they can park. First of all, we have to sacrifice that plus it is a huge elevation difference and it would be very costly for us and be of no use at all. Are there any other comments? It looks to me like we have at least three choices before us. We can either table the matter to get additional information or if the Board thinks that we have all of the facts that could be brought forward at this time then we can either vote to approve the variance as it has been requested or we can deny it and I suppose there might be some other possibilities or options within those two extremes. If we tabled it that would give us the opportunity to go to the Sherwood properties and look at it from that viewpoint, which we don t normally do when we go visit the house, we usually don't go to neighbors and look. That is one option, that would be one advantage. The disadvantage is of course that your bedroom would be waiting Board of Adjustment November 4, 2002 Page 14 Pettus: another month and then you are into winter. I think that when you are talking about the two property owners who are most affected by this addition are both objecting then I think you owe it to them to examine it just a little further. Nickle: I would agree with Joanne. I didn't think to go up to Sherwood and look down. Not being aware of the objections, I wouldn't mind, I know it is an inconvenience for the applicant, but since these issues have been brought up I wouldn't mind going up and looking down from that perspective assuming we can get those people's permission to cross their land and look and everything like that. I don't know how much the value of any of these things are going to be affected and I would rather not give my opinion until I go up there and look down. Those are my thoughts. Green: That is certainly a valid thought and reasonable. Actually I did drive up there and as far as I could see between the houses and everything from the street. Of course at this time of the year there was still a lot of leaves on the trees and you really couldn't see much from the street up there. I didn't want to trespass and get arrested for doing my civic duty so I just really had to observe it from the street but whatever is the board's pleasure. Pettus: Taking into consideration that Dean Moberly is in the hospital and has a serious illness too, maybe next month he will be able to make his objection known. Green: Can I ask what one month's delay would do to your schedule Mr. Norbash? Norbash: It would be very inconvenient for us but listening to our neighbors and everything, and we do appreciate our neighbor's concerns, we really do appreciate their concerns. We invite the board to come and look at it and make the best judgment that you can. We trust your judgment, that is why we are here. I would welcome that Sir and even though it is going to greatly delay us and put us in bad weather. We do want the neighbor's assurance and that would be fine with us Sir. Green: Ok, is there a motion to table or postpone? MOTION: Kunzelmann: I move that we table this item until our next regularly scheduled meeting. Alt: Green: I second. There has been a motion and a second to table, there is no discussion after that, can Board of Adjustment November 4, 2002 Page 15 you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Norbash: May I say just one more thing? When you do come, as you saw in the picture, I have two string lines for you, I will have those strings in our backyard and you are more than welcome to come look from up there and from down there and we do appreciate your time. Green: Ms. Pettus, will there be an easy way to schedule access to your client's backyard? Pettus: Yes Sir, either with me or the Moberlys. The Moberlys may not be available right now because they are in the hospital, but you can call me and I will work it out through you. Green: We can do that through the staff? Warrick: Yes, we will be glad to assist. Green: Thank you, that variance request is tabled until next month. Board of Adjustment November 4, 2002 Page 16 VAR 02-30.00 (1037): Variance (Charlton, pp 484) was submitted by Mary Charlton for property located at 306 N. Willow Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.17 acres. The requirement is for an 8' side setback. The request is for a 4' side setback (a 4' variance). Green: The next item on our agenda is a Variance request submitted by Mary Charlton. The property is located at 306 N. Willow Avenue. The request is for a side setback variance and also a variance to the minimum lot width requirement. Can you give us some background on that? Rushing: Yes. This property is located north of Dickson Street, it is on the east side of Willow Avenue. There is a single-family structure currently sitting on the lot. The lot is 50' wide, which is smaller than our existing 70' requirement for an R-1 district. The structure was constructed in 1929, which is prior to our adopted zoning ordinance and sometime between the time that the house was built and the time that the current property owners purchased the property the garage was turned into a basement room. Therefore, they do not have a garage for parking, they do park outside. The property does share a drive with the house to the south, which is 304 N. Willow. That structure has been split into three units and I do want to let you know that that is a legal pre-existing non -conforming use, the adjacent structure. The applicant is proposing to construct a carport on the south side of the property. The carport is approximately 162 sq.ft. and will be using an existing wood fence for the north side of the structure and then on the south side of the proposed carport would be 7' tall with 3" posts to support the roof and the roof is proposed to be tin. The applicant is requesting a variance from the 8' side yard setback to permit a 4' side yard setback, this would allow for construction of the carport. The size of the carport is to accommodate one single car. Also, we are recommending that the request go ahead and include a 20' variance for the lot width to ensure that the lot is legal. We did receive one call from an adjoining property owner that was in support of granting the variance and upon review we are recommending approval of the requested side setback and the lot width variance. The conditions of the property with the existing structure, the existing lot size, and the fact that the garage was enclosed for a room prior to this particular property owner, we are recommending approval with the condition that the 4' side setback variance apply only to the carport structure that the applicant has shown on their attached site plan. Green: Ok, is the applicant here? Charlton: 1 am Mary Charlton. Green: Do you have anything to add? Board of Adjustment November 4, 2002 Page 17 Charlton: No, she made an excellent presentation. I will just answer any questions. Green: Are there any questions from the board? I have one question, I think it is pretty obvious from the survey but it looks like the existing driveway exactly straddles the property line and that is nice that houses can share a common driveway like that, it might be difficult to do now days if we tried to do that. I suppose that there are access easements that are necessary for access to both properties? Warrick: The city allows for a shared driveway. We take into account the setbacks of additional curb cuts in proximity to where that driveway is located so that we have some distance between residential curb cuts. In this particular case I think that it's a pretty narrow driveway and it was most likely pre-existing even current zoning regulations. We don't have a setback requirement for a driveway because it is not 30" in height or greater it is not required to meet the setback. Therefore, it can abut a property line immediately. Nickle: Do we know when the area that was formally a garage was enclosed? Rushing: We do not know when that was enclosed. We did research our building permit records and did not find anything like that. Warrick: Our permit records typically go back to the 1950's and 1960's as far as earliest records that we can find in most cases. Nickle: So it wasn't anything new. Warrick: It doesn't appear to be a new addition or enclosure. Charlton: We bought the house in 1983 and it was like that. Green: Ok. Nickle: I think it would be nice to have a place for the owner to get a car off the street and out of the driveway both. MOTION: Kunzelmann: Hearing no objection from adjacent property owners, I move that we approve the variance as requested with staff recommendations. Olszewski: I second it. Board of Adjustment November 4, 2002 Page 18 Green: There has been a motion made and a second to approve the variance as requested along with staff comments. Is there any further discussion? Call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 02-30.00 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Green: The variance passes. Board of Adjustment November 4, 2002 Page 19 VAR 02-31.00 (1038): Variance (Allen, pp 484) was submitted by Rich Brya of 3GD Inc. on behalf of Sara Allen for property located at 319 E. Maple Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and contains approximately 0.18 acres. The requirement is for a 30' front setback and an 8' side setback. The request is for a 23.5' front setback (a 6.5' variance to accommodate the adopted Master Street Plan) and a 2.5' side setback (a 5.5' variance). Green: That brings us to our last item on the agenda today. It is a variance submitted by Rich Brya on behalf of Sara Allen for the property located at 319 E. Maple Street. The property is zoned R-1 and the request is for a front setback adjustment and also a side setback adjustment. Do we have some background? Warrick: I will cover this one. What is not listed in the brief description of the project is also a request for a lot width variance for an existing narrow lot. The subject property is located within the Washington Willow Historic District. It is on Maple Street between Willow and Walnut. There is currently a 1,272 sq.ft. single-family home on the property. The site is sloped up and away from the street, it is fairly steep. There is a narrow single car width driveway located along the west property line providing access to the home. The rear yard again slopes up to the south, a small in -ground swimming pool is located in the rear yard. This is a situation that is affected by the city's adopted Master Street Plan, similar to Skyline Drive, Maple Street is classified as an historic collector requiring 50' of right of way, 40' is existing. Therefore, the setbacks increase by 5' to accommodate that Master Street Plan. The applicant proposes to utilize the existing structure and to increase the size of the house by adding a second level which they would be able to do under our current non- conforming regulations. They are also proposing to add a garage and additional area on the ground resulting in a living space of approximately 2,950 sq.ft. with a 325 sq.ft. garage. The applicant's architect has stated that the existing foundation and many of the existing walls will remain, specifically the front and east sides of the home would basically be remaining as the ground level exists today. The rest of it you are looking at a structure that is going to go up in height as well as an addition to the southwest corner. The applicant is requesting several variances in order to make this change. The first is as I mentioned a lot width variance. A variance of 15' is requested and that is needed in order to make the lot a legal, non -conforming lot. Secondly, the location of the structure right now is 24.5 feet from the front property line. In order to accommodate the Master Street Plan as well as the 6" encroachment that is currently existing a total front setback variance is being requested for 6.5'. The third variance request is for a side setback along the western property line. The applicant is proposing a garage and room addition in this location that would be located, including overhangs, 21h feet from the property line. The wall itself of the structure is proposed to be 3 '/Z feet with a one foot overhang. This particular variance was probably the one that gave us most cause for concern because it is proposed to be so close to the adjoining property line. In this particular case the Board of Adjustment November 4, 2002 Page 20 adjoining lot is a corner lot and the side setback for that corner lot adjacent for that corner lot adjacent to this addition is an 8' setback. If that adjacent structure was ever to be increased in size to maximize the setback line the two structures would have 10'h feet separating them. If they maximized their setback and this particular applicant received the variance that they are requesting. We are still looking at a distance that would be provided as far as space between the two structures and that was important for us as far as the consideration. The greatest change that we are looking at in this particular situation aside from improving a relatively derelict structure would be height and bulk. The structure is basically going to more than double in size and it will be increased in height more than a story as right now it is a single story structure and they are proposing a second story addition that sits back from the street so it is not the very front of the structure that would go to a second story height but it will step back and there are elevation drawings in your packet along with a site plan that show the intent of that increase in height. Unique circumstances, with regard to the lot width this lot was originally created as a 40' lot, which was standard in the area at the time that it was developed. At a later date the lot was actually increased in size and a 15' lot line adjustment along the west property line was accomplished, which made the lot 55' in width, which is its current width. That is definitely a unique circumstance that the lot just can't comply with current 70' single-family lot regulations. The slope of the lot is fairly steep from the street toward the rear or south of the lot. The location of the driveway is set due to topography as well as existing retaining walls that enclose the front property line of this structure as well as the front property line of the adjoining property. Topography as well as the location of the curb cut and the backyard swimming pool which is a fixed entity that restricts the lot area for additions or alterations to the structure. Another thing that I have researched and seen in aerial photography, there did used to be a garage and room addition approximately in the location that the applicant is proposing this addition. Just looking at it, it looks like there was some sort of structural problem, it could've possibly burned out, I haven't got the research back from the Fire Marshall who was looking into records to see if they had any record of a fire in that location. Aerial photography from 1994 does indicate that there was an existing garage and possibly a room addition beyond that and the applicant has provided some historical information as well that kind of verifies that fact that there was something in that location in the not really so distant past. Nickle: I believe it was a carport. Warrick: There was a room also because there is some plumbing. The applicant's architect indicated that that was a dark room. Nickle: I was in that house probably 10 or 15 years ago but I remember a little carport is what my memory is telling me and maybe there was a little room back there. Board of Adjustment November 4, 2002 Page 21 Warrick: You can tell that something was attached to the roofline of the structure and there is some plumbing and some other fixtures there as well. With these circumstances staff is recommending approval of these variances. We have recommended six conditions and I will read through those. The first is that the variance only apply to the existing structure and the addition as proposed in this application and shown on the attached site plans. 2) The existing structure shall not be completely demolished, existing foundation walls within the structure shall be utilized to the proposed alteration addition project. 3) Construction shall be initiated within twelve months from the date of approval. 4) Compliance with building and fire codes, proximity of exterior walls to property lines may cause restrictions in openings. 5) Report or letter from an Arkansas Registered Architect or Engineer stating that the existing foundation is adequate to support the proposed addition. 6) The project shall be built in accordance with the plans and drawings submitted with this application. Major changes including but not limited to, an increase in proposed square footage will require a review by the Board of Adjustment. However, minor changes may be reviewed by the Planning staff. Some of those conditions specifically go to the utilization of the existing structure and the reason that I frame worked it that way is that if we are taking down an existing structure to put up a new one we don't need to be looking at variances. As long as we can improve and add onto a structure that is sound enough to accommodate an improvement or addition then I think it is something to consider variances for but if we are starting from scratch and we are taking this down to absolute raw dirt then we are starting with a lot that needs to be accommodated and setbacks that need to be met. Olszewski: A question on number three. Do we usually say that you are going to start it within twelve months, is there a finish date or is that just left open? Warrick: We can place a finish date if the board feels that it is appropriate. I think permits expire in certain periods of time. Whitaker: Building permits already have an expiration date so if something is going to catch it along the way the project is abandoned. Warrick: Typically if there is no action on a permit, no inspections requested, no activity on a site within l believe six months then the Building Safety Division basically calls it null and void and the permit is no longer valid. Olszewski: The other thing is when you are in that driveway, you were talking about there is an 8' setback from the lot line to the neighbors, what are they building there? Warrick: I am looking into that, there is some activity going on over there and I don't know if Board of Adjustment November 4, 2002 Page 22 it is a garden project or what it is that they are doing. Green: There are several poles. Olszewski: It looks like the beginning of a shed. Warrick: There is no building permit that has been pulled for it. Olszewski: We are assuming that there is going to be 10 '/z feet there so we are making this assumption that you could get into the back if you had to. Warrick: Unless you all were to grant a variance to the adjoiner, which they would need to build in the location that it looks like they may be thinking about, so yes. I will see if I can maybe find out some more. Olszewski: Maybe those are big tomato stakes. Green: Have we heard from that adjacent property owner to the west? Warrick: Staff has not heard from any adjoiners with the exception of one property owner who does own property which adjoins. Mr. Brya, have you spoken with Ms. Woods? Brya: No, I have not spoken with Ms. Woods but I do have a letter here from Doyle Morrison who is the adjoining property owner on the west side. Also, I believe the poles are temporary because his existing shed is falling down so he is going to put the stuff in there temporarily under some plastic and if he does a shed I assume he will get a building permit for it. I do have a letter here from him stating his support for the project. He is fully aware that the variance will permit the structure to be 2'h feet from the overhang and he doesn't have a problem with that. Also, we would just like to reiterate that we do not intend to tear the structure down. We definitely want to keep what is there and add to it. Warrick: The adjoiner that I heard from has property that does adjoin this at the rear of the subject property and she understood that they were not requesting variances to the rear setback and was not concerned that this would affect her property detrimentally. Nickle: A question on number four on the recommendation there. Compliance with building and fire codes. Does the Fire Department look at something like this when it is going to be built this close to the setback line? Do they ever see it in the process somewhere? Board of Adjustment November 4, 2002 Page 23 Warrick: The Fire Marshall does review building permits. With this being a variance request and having gone through a process I can make specific requests that they approve and sign off on a building permit for this particular project and I will do that. I spoke with the city building inspector with regard to openings and I am sure that the project architect has done his homework and it looks like he has, because typically a structure that is 3' or closer to an adjoining property line has restrictions on openings and we are talking about a proposal that would be 3 '/2 feet from the property line but those are things that will have to be looked at more specifically when structural plans are submitted for permit. Nickle: I would just feel more comfortable especially when we approve something like this specifically because of that side setback and the proximity of that to have the Fire Department specifically approve the building permit and if they turn it down then all bets are off as far as what we are approving on that side setback line. Warrick: If the variance was contingent upon that condition then if it was not met then the variance would be void. Green: According to the Fire Code, does that wall have to be a one hour fire rated wall if it is that close to the property line? Brya: I don't believe so but I will have to study the code. Usually it has something to do with the amount and size of openings on that wall. Green: Ok, are there any other questions? MOTION: Nickle: I move that we approve the variance request with all of staffs comments and specifically review by the Fire Marshall or whoever at the Fire Department needs to when the building permit is issued. Kunzelmann: Second. Green: Ok, there has been a motion made and a second to approve the variance request along with staff's six itemized conditions of recommendation plus adding to essentially number four there to request that the Fire Marshall approve the compliance with building and fire codes. Is there any other discussion from the audience or the board? Call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 02-31.00 was approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Board of Adjustment November 4, 2002 Page 24 Green: The variance is approved, thank you. Is there any other business that should come before this board? Seeing none, we are adjourned.