Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-11-08 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held Monday, November 8, 2004 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Items Discussed Action Taken BOA 04-1300 (RUDZINSKI, 215) Page 2 BOA 04-1273 (MIKE PARKER, 444) Page 6 Members Present Michael Green Michael Andrews Robert Kohler Joanne Olszewski James Kunzelmann Bob Nickle Approved Approved Members Absent Sherree Alt Staff Present Staff Absent Dawn Warrick Renee Thomas Leif Olson David Whitaker Board of Adjustment November 8, 2004 Page 2 BOA 04-1300 (RUDZINSKI, 215): Submitted by YUME RUDZINSKI for property located at 3259 N KINGS CROSS. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.18 acres. The requirement is for an 8' side setback. The request is for a 5' side setback (a 2'7" variance.) Andrews: We will convene the Board of Adjustment. The first item on our agenda is the approval of the minutes of the September 7th meeting. I will note on page 17 the top had duplicating. Hearing no other changes, we will enter those minutes into the record. The next item is approval of the minutes of the Board of Adjustment of October 4th. Does anybody have any changes or corrections on those? It shows me as present, I was absent that meeting. Other than that, is there anything else? Hearing none, we will enter those into the record. That brings us to our first item for the agenda today, under new business, BOA 04-1300 Rudzinski, submitted by Yumi Rudzinski for property located at 3259 N. Kings Cross. The property is zoned RSF-4, single family four units per acre, and contains approximately .18 acres. The requirement is for an 8' side setback, the request is for a 5' side setback, which would be a 2'7" variance. Olson: This property is located at 3259 N. Kings Cross. The lot is approximately 7,832 sq.ft. The lot frontage on Kings Cross is approximately 37'. These do not comply with the minimum lot area or width in the RSF zoning district. The request is for a side setback of 2'7", which would result in a 5' setback along the west side property line. Additionally, the driveway which would provide access to this structure is elevated and therefore, would also constitute a structure so a variance from the front setback would be required in addition. The side setback, our ordinance requires 8', however, this subdivision was platted in the late 70's and per their covenants it would require a 7'7" setback, that is how you get the 2'7". Staff, in looking at special conditions, no special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land or the structure that are not applicable to surrounding properties and buildings within the zoning district. The zoning regulations will not deprive the applicant a right commonly enjoyed by other surrounding properties. The request for the variance is the result of the applicant's proposal to construct a structure on this property. Special privileges, granting the variance would confer special privileges to the applicant that are denied by zoning and would require a variance request from other properties within the same zoning district. No other non -conformities were considered as a basis for findings stated in the staff report. Staff is recommending denial of the side setback variance. However, we would support a variance from the front building setback in order to accommodate the driveway structure. Andrews: Is the applicant present? Would you like to add anything? Board of Adjustment November 8, 2004 Page 3 Rudzinski: My name is Yumi Rudzinski. We will be building a single family residence there. When we bought the property we knew it was difficult. The reason it was so hard going out there was that we are in one of the pies of a cul-de-sac and all the pies are the same shape. Ours is also the steepest lot in that whole pie. The woman that bought that property 15 years ago could not find a contractor to build for her because it was a steep lot. Driving over rather than down the hill would mitigate the slope. The front curb cut, which is only 37.2' we had to have room to bring a car in with that sharp turn. The result of that, we moved the stairs there so that the leftover space could be livable space. Because the condition of the pie being so small and what is so important about having that land stick out we want to have enough space it is a little warning thing, they don't trip over the stairs. We wanted plenty of clearance space to move down the stairs safely. The garage took a lot of room for the two cars. We needed to have that extra 2'7" so we could have a bigger space in front of the door as you come in for safety. The geometry of it, we would have to push the house back 7'6". When we had the bridge engineered they said don't make that bridge too long. We will be building a singe family home. When we bought this lot we knew it was difficult. We contacted an architect. All of the houses in that subdivision are in the setbacks. We need the stairs there for the extra living space. If we move the stairs you won't have enough space for people to come in and move down the stairs safely. Because of the garage being the way it is it uses a lot of room for the two car. We just need to have adequate access. Staff recommended lessening the rear porch and pushing the house back there. But there is a lot of engineering with the soil there. One nice thing about this subdivision is that there are a lot of mature trees that buffers our neighbors in the rear. Andrews: Olszewski: Warrick: Nickle: Warrick: Does anybody have any questions? How did they get this lot size? When it was platted, although our current regulations were in placed, it was under a Planned Unit Development and that allows for flexibility in the lot size. It was one of the first P.U.D.s if I recall. One of the reasons for the small sized lots was there is a bunch of greenspace, common area to this subdivision. That was a requirement, a minimum of 30% open space within the development. When they increased that to 35% they were able to increase the density permitted within this development. Even within this single family zoning a Planned Unit Development may have a higher density. Board of Adjustment November 8, 2004 Page 4 Olszewski: Does this mean that every house in there needs a variance? Green: I'm curious why this isn't a hardship as well as the other ones? It looks like this one has a hardship since there is a utility easement. Then the other one that has a utility easement is also encroaching with the corner of the building over that. Olson: Every house on this block is encroaching in one setback or another. However, we are just looking at this one lot. We are not looking at surrounding lots. Nickle: Is that why you found that way under special conditions that this wouldn't be? It seems like all of the neighbors are currently enjoying encroachments. Olson: I think most of these homes were built out in the 1980's. This lot has been sitting there. Obviously, there are some constraints when you try to put a dwelling of this size on that small of a building envelope. Nickle: This is one of the smallest ones in that cul-de-sac. It just seems like we are almost denying them what these others took advantage of whether they intended to or not. We certainly didn't grant a variance for all of those. Warrick: I think it is important that we are not supposed to consider other non - conformities. What you are supposed to be looking at is whether or not this lot is sufficient for a single family home. Andrews: My take on it is with the utility easement it is a hardship, the amount of trees that are there create a hardship. Rudzinski: We tried to put a smaller home on there but the architectural review committee said no. Nickle: You met with the architectural committee of the P.U.D. to try to get the footprint smaller to meet the covenants. What are the covenants? Rudzinski: It is 1,100 sq.ft. We have a design that fits within that. Kohler: Does the requested variance include overhangs? Rudzinski: Yes. Olson: If I can just add, when staff looked at this, I looked at if you move the whole dwelling further back you could fit it within the building envelope, however, you would lose a portion of the screened in porch shown on the rear or a variance would need to be requested from the rear setback for the Board of Adjustment November 8, 2004 Page 5 MOTION: Green: rear of the lot. However, since that is all common area behind it and the 25' setback does exceed what our current requirements would be. That is what Ms. Rudzinski was talking about that once you extend that bridge. I just see several hardships there that should justify a variance under what we normally have seen come through here. Especially in lieu of it being a P.U.D. that homes are supposed to be very close together. We haven't heard any objections from neighbors or anything like that. I move that we grant the setback variance as submitted and I would also like to include in my motion the approval of the driveway as shown. Nickle: I will second that. It seems like with the alternative request you are still going to have to get a variance and I would be just as comfortable as giving this. Andrews: We have a motion and a second. Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 04-1300 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Board of Adjustment November 8, 2004 Page 6 BOA 04-1273 (MIKE PARKER/REMINGTON PLACE, 444): Submitted by MIKE PARKER for property located at 1060 W EAGLE STREET. The property is zoned RMF -40, MULTI FAMILY - 40 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.34 acres. The requirement is for a 25' front setback. The request is for a 4' setback (a 21' variance.) Andrews: We will move to our next item, BOA 04-1273, Parker, submitted by Mike Parker for property located at 1060 Eagle Street. The property is zoned RMF -40, Residential Multi -Family, 40 units per acre and contains approximately .34 acres. The request is for a front setback of 4', a 21' variance. Olson: This property contains a home that is approximately 2,240 sq.ft., including the basement. It sits on a lot of approximately 14,810 sq.ft., which does comply with the minimum allowable lot area in the RMF -40 zoning district. It has adequate frontage onto Eagle Street. The applicants have provided a letter stating that they did some repairs to the structure, which required the replacement of a wall in the basement. When that wall was taken out the front porch had to be removed. The applicant has replaced the basement wall, the front porch, the front porch is in the same dimensions and in the same location as it was originally. The attached survey shows that. The RMF -40 zoning district requires a 25' front setback. The applicant has requested a 21' variance from the 25' setback, which would leave you with a 4' setback. Special conditions, staff feels that the subject and surrounding properties adjoin a 50' right of way and require the 25' building setback. Special conditions do exist to the land or the structure not applicable to properties and buildings in the same district. The subject home was built prior to the current regulations. Literal interpretation of the zoning regulations would prohibit access into the existing structure which could cause a safety issue by limiting entrances and exits. The resulting actions are not from the applicant. The home was constructed in 1958 prior to the existing regulations. No special privileges will be provided granting the requested front setback. No additional development shall occur within the required setbacks and all bulk and area regulations are accommodated with the existing development. With that, staff would recommend approval of the requested variance for the structure as it is currently cited on the lot. The variance does not include additional encroachments but will allow the existing structures to be conforming as it is currently developed. With that, staff would recommend two conditions of approval. 1) That the proposed development shall comply with all other development regulations for a single family home in the RMF -40 zoning district. 2) No future alterations or additions shall be permitted on the southern portion of the property without Board of Adjustment approval. Andrews: Is there anything else that you would like to add? Board of Adjustment November 8, 2004 Page 7 Parker: That pretty much sums it up. We really wanted to put a porch all the way across the front of it. I had to replace the whole basement wall. I have photos of the before, after and during. We put the porch back exactly where it was. That is the only place we could put it. We talked before hand about doing a covered porch. They had to jack the house up, dig the basement out and rebuild the wall. The old one was not safe. Kohler: I'm just curious how the work got done before it got to this point. Parker: We talked with inspections during the process and the contractor understood if you put it back exactly like it was then there is nothing to be done. This was second hand because I wasn't there when the whole thing happened. Warrick: Our inspector realized they didn't meet setback after the fact. Parker: It amounts to having an eye sore. We replaced that whole wall and it really came out a beautiful place. Nickle: I think we did something similar on South Street. They just put back what was originally there after they went in and had to redo things. MOTION: Kohler: 1 move that we approve the Variance with the recommendations as stated by staff. Kunzelmann: Second. Andrews: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve VAR 04-1273 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Andrews: Is there anything else for the Board of Adjustment? Seeing none, we will adjourn.