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