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.