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.