Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-11-03 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, November 3, 2003 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. VAR 03-29.00: Variance (Bristow, pp 251) Page 2 VAR 03-30.00: Variance (Nichols pp 557) Page 10 VAR 03-31.00: Variance (Larsen/Ila Street, pp 445) Page 13 MEMBERS PRESENT James Kunzelmann Michael Andrews Sheree Alt Joanne Olszewski Bob Kohler Bob Nickle STAFF PRESENT Dawn Warrick Renee Thomas David Whitaker Kris Bunten Suzanne Morgan ACTION TAKEN Approved No Action Necessary Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Michael Green STAFF ABSENT Board of Adjustment November 3, 2003 Page 2 Please note that some portions of this meeting were inaudible due to technical difficulties. Renee Thomas, Senior Secretary VAR 03-29.00: Variance (Bristow, pp 251) was submitted by Virginia Bristow for property located at 515 E. Red Bud Lane. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre. The request is to allow construction of a storage building with a rear setback of 2 V211. A variance of 21 '/211. as there is an existing setback of 24' to the house. Andrews: Welcome to the November 3, 2003 meeting of the Board of Adjustment. The first item on the agenda is approval of the minutes. Are there any modifications or changes to be made to the minutes? Seeing none, they will be approved. Next is an item on the agenda that was submitted by Virginia Bristow for property located at 515 E. Red Bud Lane. The property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -family, 24 units per acre. The request is to allow construction of a storage building with a rear setback of 2 V2 ft. A variance of 21 '/2 ft. as there is an existing setback of 24' to the house. Staff is recommending denial of this requested setback variance. Staff? Warrick: As you mentioned, the request is to allow construction of a storage building. This property is zoned RMF -24. Basically, it is single family homes on smaller lots and so they requested the RMF -24 zoning district. The existing home does meet setback requirements. The request is for an accessory structure to be located within the setbacks. A 10'x12' storage building is proposed to be installed. The information that staff did receive from the adjoining property owner is that the structure has already been erected. I have not confirmed that. The applicant is requesting a rear setback of 2.5' to allow the storage building. What is important for you to realize in this particular situation, and it is evident on the survey which is on page 1.9 of the packet, the area at the rear of this lot is not only a required 25' setback, it is also a 10' utility easement. By our city ordinances we do not have the ability to establish a structure within any utility easement. Therefore, we are recommending denial of this request because we do not have the ability to permit it even if the variance was granted. It is not something that we have the ability to do with our ordinances. That is in short, the recommendation for denial. It is a small lot and there are some constraints on the property with regard to the fact that it is small and there are some easements. It is very uniform with the rest of the subdivision and because of that easement being there. I will be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Andrews: Does the board have any questions or comments? Board of Adjustment November 3, 2003 Page 3 Nickle: I drove by and didn't see a sign. I tried to see over the fence. Warrick: I know that the notification got out. The signs fall down sometimes. Andrews: I went around the other street to see it, it looks like it is probably about 90% constructed. Kohler: Regarding the easement, Dawn expressed the city's deterrent in not being able to grant this. Bristow: I am Virginia Bristow. I would like to explain how this happened if I could. I just moved there in July. I have been a Fayetteville property owner for 50 years and I've never dealt with an easement behind my house before. They have always been in front of the house for the utilities. When I built this I didn't know there was an easement there. I came down to get a permit. Three different times I've tried to get it and they kept sending me back home to fill out more paperwork. It was Greek to me. I don't know anything about all this building stuff. I came down twice and they sent me back. Finally I took it to my carpenter to fill out what he could and in the meantime people kept saying "You don't have to have a permit for a storage building." There are people in the area that have them and friends of mine said that you don't have to have it. We went ahead with our building because we thought we didn't have to have it. Then I found out it was on an easement and I didn't know that until I got a complaint from the neighbor. If I would've known that I would've stopped it right away and we would've done something about it. I had all the utilities come out and mark the easement where the line was. Everybody was ok with it except SWEPCO and they said they would like for me to move the building 7' forward and that would give them the 10' on my side and 10' on the other side of the easement. I would like to, if I could, to show you what it looks like. Andrews: For the record would you state your name please? Bristow: Virginia Bristow. We are trying to make it real nice and we are planning to put vinyl siding to match the house. The roof matches the house so it is going to blend in with my property. I had no idea that we weren't allowed to build a storage building because they are next door, they are built right up against the fence one house over. Kohler: From what I can tell there is no concrete slab under it. Bristow: No. There is a difference between 10 and 12 as far as allowing me to build the building. I am making it look very, very nice. Board of Adjustment November 3, 2003 Page 4 Warrick: Anything over 80 sq.ft. requires a building permit. Even if a structure is under the 80 sq.ft. if it is over 30" in height it must meet the setback requirements. Bristow: I didn't know that there was a difference between the 10' and 12' as far as the building permit. Kohler: One possibility, assuming you can't build on an easement would be to resubmit in another location right? Bristow: Yes, to move it forward. Warrick: We would be able to approve a building permit if this structure met the 25' rear setback, 8' on the sides. Bristow: I have 8' on the side but 25' is my backyard. Kohler: Also, you need to ask for a variance that is within the 25' but also outside of the utility easement. That might be a little bit more compatible. Whitaker: From a legal standpoint this board has the authority to grant setback variances but you cannot waive the provisions of 166.12 which is the blanket statement `No portion of any structure shall be built over any public utility easement." Yes, outside the 10' you have discretion as to whether you want to grant a variance of the setback. Bristow: SWEPCO is ok with it. They came out three times and were just real nice. He stepped it off and if I move the building forward I will be ok as far as they are concerned. Nickle: The reason for the 25' rear setback is because this is multi -family zoned whether it is single-family or not. Warrick: The zoning district requires a 25' rear setback. Nickle: If it were a regular R-1 it would be a 20' rear setback. Bristow: What was confusing is there are storage buildings all over there. I went around and took pictures of a lot of them. Some of them are right up on the easements there in the back just like mine is. I didn't know that there was a problem when I built it because there were storage buildings all along there. Kohler: What would you like for us to do? Board of Adjustment November 3, 2003 Page 5 Bristow: I would like for you to allow me to move my building forward. It is not going to be an easy thing because it is a sturdy, sturdy building but I would like to be able to keep it because I've invested quite a bit in it. I don't feel like I can just throw it away. I put money into it I really didn't have to spend. I'm on social security and I live alone and this was quite an effort for me. Kohler: Correct me if I'm wrong, that is not what this application is for though. This application is to let you build in the easement. Bristow: I would love to be able to keep it there but SWEPCO doesn't want it there. Kohler: That's what I'm saying, maybe we should table it. Warrick: The board has the ability to modify a request. If you choose to grant a variance for this structure to be located within the 25' setback requirement, however, outside of the 10' easement you can do that at this meeting if you wish. That's something that the board needs to decide. Olszewski: Who is your builder? Bristow: Mark Prince, he did tell me to go get a permit and believe me I tried. I just never did fill it out properly because it was just Greek to me. Mr. David Truax helped me fill it out. I just don't know about that kind of thing. Warrick: It is just really important that before any construction commences that a permit be issued so that the city understands what the extent of your project is. Part of the reason that you weren't getting a permit is because we didn't have the ability to grant it because of this easement. Bristow: Well, they just kept saying I didn't have enough filled out. In the meantime everybody is saying you don't have to have one of them. Since they had one I thought it was ok. I'm sorry I caused problems. Nickle: What are the dimensions of the building? Bristow: 10'x12'. Olszewski: How much room is back here? Warrick: There is about 24' from the structure to the rear property line. Bristow: I can move it forward like this, get it away from the fence line so there will be 10' left back here and get it closer to my house. Board of Adjustment November 3, 2003 Page 6 Olszewski: One possible mitigating circumstance is that there is no way you can do a building back here, is that right? Kunzelmann: She has got 12' and itis 10' wide. Bristow: It is 12' wide and 10' deep. Warrick: That is if there are no overhangs of course, we do measure to the overhangs. Andrews: Does that violate any other codes? Can you have a storage unit that close to the house? Warrick: Not that I'm aware of, certainly not for zoning purposes if there is a building code regulation it would very likely have to do with the openings in the walls and what may be stored in that accessory structure. That is something that our building safety inspectors would need to review for. Olszewski: To me one of the issues here is that we had a similar thing a year or two ago with someone who went to Lowe's. Warrick: I have a huge file on the Scarbrough case. Olszewski: You drafted a letter to Lowe's and Home Depot and said that you cannot keep selling these and telling people that they can just put them up. My question was to the contractor, were you not aware of the setbacks for the building because we are in a difficult situation here. I see a case where there is no other place to put it. The contractor has a responsibility to be sure to tell you this before they start building. Bristow: Lowe's just put one across the street. Andrews: Would anyone from the audience like to address this? Brown: Johnnie Brown, I'm her next door neighbor. I don't really want to address it. I just wonder what the big problem is. The thing is not offensive at all. It is just a little house, it is not a house, it is a place to put storage things in there. It is not bothering anybody. It is behind her house, it is also behind the house in front of it on the other side of the fence. Even if it wasn't there they are not going to look at anything but the rear of her house anyway. The whole thing seems a little foolish to me. Sorry. That's all. Bristow: May I show you what you are putting on the building? It will match my house so it won't be unattractive. We put little windows in it so it will look more like a little house than a storage building. I plan on making it really nice. Board of Adjustment November 3, 2003 Page 7 Kohler: I guess if we were to talk about the options, one option would be to place it right on the line of the utility easement. Perhaps the 8' setback point at the intersection of the 8' side yard setback and the 10' rear utility easement, that would be the minimum distance that it would be out of the easement in any way. That would keep it as far away from the house as possible. Is that what we should vote on? Our options are to vote on that and get it closer to the house or turn it down all together or table it. Warrick: I'm not sure that any new information is going to come forward if we table something on this particular item. Kohler: Unless she wants to change the size of it or do something herself. Nickle: Is this a kit house? Bristow: No Sir. He has built things for me before and he has done a wonderful job. It is a sturdy, sturdy building. Brown: It is going to have siding just like her house. Nickle: There would be minimum space between the actual structures even if we gave them a 10' variance. Warrick: I think it would be about 4' from the existing house, maybe a little bit less with the overhangs meeting the 10' line. That is the minimum that the board would have the ability to grant if you chose to grant a variance to the rear setback requirement is a 15' variance to equal a 10' setback in the rear. Nickle: I guess I think there were good intentions. It is just one of those things I guess. I am inclined to look at this as an existing structure even though it is not complete. It is way along. I can see giving them a 10' variance. A 10' variance would get it out of the utility easement. Andrews: It is a 25' setback. Warrick: The request would be for a 10' setback, a 15' variance if it were to be the way you are describing it. Nickle: It meets the side setback now? Warrick: My understanding is that it is 8' from the side property line. Nickle: Does that include any overhang? Board of Adjustment November 3, 2003 Page 8 Prince: The roof is 14'x14'. Warrick: It could be located so that the structure including the overhangs could meet the 10' rear and 8' side? Prince: Yes, on the front where the door is it is a 3' overhang. On the sides it is 1' all the way around. Kohler: For what it is worth, my experience in other cities, in Dallas anyway is that there are lesser setbacks for accessory structures like storage buildings or garages. Warrick: We will be glad to do some research on that. Warrick: Staff did recommend conditions should you choose to approve the request. Item number one is not applicable but conditions two and three would make the variance applicable only to the accessory building and require a permit. I would request that the motion might include those. MOTION: Kohler I will make a motion that we approve VAR 03-29.00 subject to the two conditions of approval, granting a 15' variance in the rear and that is from eaves and overhangs and away from the utility easement. Nickle: Second. Be sure that the overhangs are within the 8' side setback and the rear setback. Bristow: What else do I do now? I don't want to do anything I'm not supposed to do. Warrick: Let's let the board act and we'll see whether or not this is approved. Andrews: We have a motion and a second for a 15' variance granting a 10' setback with item number two and three as staff conditions on the project. Are there any other questions or comments from the board? Will you call the roll? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-29.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Warrick: The next steps in this particular action Ms. Bristow, you need to revise the site plan and the information on the building permit application and take that to the Building Safety Division, which is here on the first floor of city hall and submit that so that it can be reviewed and approved. Planning staff will be able to approve it with these provisions that your new site Board of Adjustment November 3, 2003 Page 9 plan shows that you need the 10' rear setback and the 8' side setback. You will then be able to post that permit on site and finish the construction of your building. Bristow: Where do I get all of this because I turned in everything in that I had. Warrick: We can get you copies from our office in the Planning Division. It will need to be tomorrow morning because we've got the files active right now here. Bristow: I come down stairs to get that? Warrick: The Planning Division is two doors down. If you will start there we will get you copies of what you started with and then you can come up to Building Safety and submit your materials. Bristow: Thank you very much. Board of Adjustment November 3, 2003 Page 10 VAR 03-30.00: Variance (Nichols pp 557) was submitted by Dodi Nichols for property located at 2806 Old Farmington Rd. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single- family, 4 units per acre. The requirement is for a 30' front setback. The request is for a 25' front setback. A variance of 5'. Andrews: The next item is VAR 03-30.00 submitted by Dodi Nichols for property located at 2806 Old Farmington Rd. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. The requirement is for a 30' front setback. The request is for a 25' front setback. A variance of 5'. Warrick: The subject property is 0.39 acres zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. The north portion of the property poses difficulty to develop due to the topography. As a result, the owner wishes to build further south on the lot. However, the shape of this property is peculiar due to the eastern boundary following the centerline of curved dirt access road and narrows from 203.62' at the north to 64.25' at the southern property line. Mr. Culver, the owner to the north of the applicant's property, has informed Staff that the dirt road that borders the east property line is located within a 60' private access easement which forks north from a 60' public access easement south of the property. Under these circumstances, 30' of said easement is located along the east property line of the subject property. The City's UDC does not require that structures are setback from an easement. The request is to allow for a large enough building envelope to allow for a single family residence to be built on the subject property, the applicant proposes a 25' setback from the east property line. I am more and more convinced that there is not a need for this variance but I did want to go ahead and bring this forward so that the board can discuss it. Like I said, we don't have the ability to allow structures in access easements or utility easements. There is not, however, dedicated right of way in that location. Our setbacks are from the property line, or from the street right of way if there is a street right of way existing. In this case the 30' access easement is not a street right of way and therefore, there is not an additional setback from that. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Whitaker: There is no variance actually being requested here. Warrick: That is correct. If this would've been dedicated right of way there would've been a setback requirement. That is why we brought it forward as we did. Estes: I'm Pete Estes, here with Ms. Nichols. Really, initially what we had been informed or understood was a potential complete setback with 30' of the easement and the 25' setback that we were eating up 55' of our property. As Dawn has indicated and as we recently learned, there is no setback requirement. It is not our intention to want to build within the 30' that is Board of Adjustment November 3, 2003 Page 11 the easement. That is fine with us and had that been our understanding in the beginning we wouldn't have brought this to you all and tied up your time. We have no interest in getting into that 30' easement. We thought at that point in time there was an additional 25' building setback. Since there is no action going to be taken we are happy to. Kohler: This isn't going to preclude you building a house on that? Estes: Since we are entitled to build up to the 30' setback that does not hinder our purposes. This property is hard to build on and with a total of 55', the 30' and the 25', it was almost unusable but with the 30' easement that is there building up to it, it gives adequate room to put a nice residential structure there. I appreciate your time. I am sorry that we had to take it up. Thank you. Culver: My name is Richard Culver. I own 70 acres to the north of this piece of property. My concern is, and if this board doesn't have any authority to take any action these questions I have may just be rhetorical, I don't know. I understand what you are saying is that she can build her house up on that, at the edge of that 30' road easement. Warrick: Yes Sir. Culver: What happens if my property, when my property is developed and a city street is put in there, are you saying that I'm preempted from putting a city street in there? Warrick: No Sir. We don't have the right to consider that as public because it is not dedicated as public and therefore, we don't have the ability to require a setback off that private access easement. The conditions that may happen in the future will have to be addressed at that point in time and access for any future development will have to be addressed at that point in time. If the property owners right now wish to dedicate that easement as public right of way then there would be Culver: I understand from this previous item that you discussed, there was some setback required from an easement in that case. Warrick: No Sir, the easement that was dedicated for that particular lot was 10' from the property line and the board granted her a variance to set the structure at that 10' mark. Culver: You granted her a variance though so she could set it at that 10' mark. Warrick: That is because there was also a setback requirement that was greater than the easement that was dedicated. Board of Adjustment November 3, 2003 Page 12 Culver: You are saying in that case that there was a setback requirement from a property line but in this case there is no setback requirement? Warrick: The requirement is that it be off of the easement. Culver: In one case there is a setback requirement from the easement and in our case there is a setback requirement from the easement. Warrick: There was not a setback requirement from the easement in the other situation. There was a setback requirement from the rear property line. The setback requirement was wider than the easement. The easement is 10' from the rear property line. The setback was 25'. Any structure in that situation would have to be located 25' from the rear property line. This board was able to grant a variance because the setback was wider than the easement but we did not have the ability to grant a variance for the structure to be located within an easement. Nickle: At such time you choose to develop or sell your property and someone else develops it, and there is a dedicated route, roadway into the property at that time of development those setbacks will come in place. Because this isn't a publicly dedicated roadway, we cannot require a front setback. They won't let you build in the easement because it is an easement but it is not dedicated right of way. Kohler: If she builds a house there and in the future that is dedicated then what will happen? Warrick: It will be an existing non -conforming structure. That very well could happen. Board of Adjustment November 3, 2003 Page 13 VAR 03-31.00: Variance (Larsen/Ila Street, pp 445) was submitted by Barbara Dillon on behalf of James and Mary Larsen for property located at Lot 6 of the Englewood Addition. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. The requirement is for a 70' lot width. The request is to allow a 64.5' lot width. A variance of 5.5'. Andrews: The next item is VAR 03-31.00 submitted by Barbara Dillon on behalf of James and Mary Larsen for property located at Lot 6 of the Englewood Addition. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single-family, 4 units per acre. The requirement is for a 70' lot width. The request is to allow a 64.5' lot width. A variance of 5.5'. Warrick: This is an existing non -conforming lot in the Wilson Park neighborhood. The zoning district, RSF-4, requires 70' of frontage on a public street, 8,000 sq.ft. of lot area. This particular lot meets the size requirements for lots in the RSF-4 zoning district. However, it is narrow. The applicant is considering purchasing this lot and is requesting a 5.5' variance for a 64.5' frontage for a single family residential lot, rather than the 70 feet required by zoning regulations. The purpose is to eventually construct a single family residence on the combined lots, without obtaining additional waivers for lot width. The existing lot width was platted prior to current bulk and area zoning regulations. However, they would like to ensure if they do purchase it so they are seeking a variance at this time. The applicant has contacted the neighborhood association and there have not been specific concerns from them about this request. Staff is recommending in favor of this variance for the reasons stated in the findings. Staff recommends approval of the requested 5.5 -foot lot width variance as shown on the attached site plan with the following conditions: The proposed development shall comply with all development regulations for a single-family home in the RSF-4 zoning district. 2) No more than 1 single family dwelling unit shall be constructed on this site. 3) A building permit shall be obtained for this project prior to commencement of any work. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. What we wanted to do is just make this a legal lot. Yes it is a non- conforming lot of record. This is just further assurance to the purchaser of the property. INAUDIBLE Andrews: Does anyone else have any comments? I will bring it back to the board. Do we have a motion? Nickle: I will move that we approve VAR 03-31.00 subject to the staff's conditions of approval. Alt: Second. Board of Adjustment November 3, 2003 Page 14 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 03-31.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Andrews: I will adjourn the meeting of the Board of Adjustment. Warrick: Before we adjourn the meeting of the Board of Adjustment I would like to introduce Suzanne Morgan. Suzanne is an Associate Planner who will be writing some reports for the Board of Adjustment. Board of Adjustment November 3, 2003 Page 15