Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-03 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45 p.m. on Monday, January 3, 2005 in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville Arkansas. Item Considered Action Taken BOA 05-1354 Page 2 BOA 05-1355: Jones Page 6 BOA 05-1356: Johnson Page 9 BOA 05-1355: Miller Page 13 Members Present Robert Kohler Robert Nickle Michael Green Michael Andrews Joanne Olszewski James Kunzelmann Approved Approved Approved Denied Members Absent Sherree Alt Staff Present Staff Absent Suzanne Morgan Leif Olson Renee Thomas Board of Adjustment January 3, 2005 Page 2 BOA 05-1354 was submitted by Matthew Griffith for property located at 161 S. Hill Avenue. The property is zoned RMF -40, Residential Multi -Family, 40 units per acre and contains approximately .22 acres. The request is for a 10' variance in lot width. Andrews: I will call the January 3rd Board of Adjustment meeting to order. Welcome everybody. We didn't have any minutes so we will get those next time. The first item on our agenda is BOA 05-1354 which was submitted by Matthew Griffith for property located at 161 S. Hill Avenue. The property is zoned RMF -40 and contains approximately .22 acres. The requirement is for a 60' lot width and the request is for a variance from the lot width requirement to allow the existing 50' property width. Would staff like to give us the report on this? Morgan: Yes Sir. As stated, this property is located west of Hill Avenue north of 6`l Street and it is zoned RMF -40. Within that zoning district there is a requirement for a 60' lot width for a single family home. There is currently an approximate 1,000 sq.ft. single family home built on this site. It was built in about 1920. The existing lot does not have the required lot width, which is shown on some of the maps in the rear of your packet on page 1.8. You can see that several of the lots were platted with a 50' lot width. The existing structure on this lot is non -conforming and encroaches within the required 8' side setback to the north. The applicants are requesting that the lot be brought into conformity so that they can build a carport as well as a two story for not only cars but for living on the top floor on the lot within the required setbacks. Granting this variance however, would not bring the existing structure into conformity and they are aware of that. Staff does recommend approval of this variance. This lot was created and developed for the single family use prior to adoption of current zoning regulations and is consistent in lot area and lot width with other existing lots in this area. This is the minimum variance to be able to develop this lot as is requested and staff finds that it is compliant with the surrounding area. We are recommending however, three conditions of approval. One is that they comply with all development regulations in the RMF -40 zoning district. A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of any construction. Third, expansion or rehabilitation of the existing non -conforming structure shall comply with city ordinance requirements. Andrews: Thank you. Is the property owner here? Griffith: I'm Matt Griffith representing the property owner. Andrews: Is there anything that you would like to add? Griffith: No, since all the findings seem in favor of granting the variance I have nothing else to add. Board of Adjustment January 3, 2005 Page 3 Andrews: Green: Morgan: Olszewski: Griffith: Is there anybody in the audience who would like to address this issue? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Board. I just have a couple of questions. They are not requesting a variance on the side setback to bring that into compliance? That is correct. They did not submit for that. I brought that to their attention. What they are requesting right now is just approval for the lot to be compliant. That would allow them to build this additional structure. Should they ever want to sell it without any restraints on the property or increase it above the amount allowable within the code for an owner occupied structure on the existing house they would need to seek a variance. Did they say why they didn't want a variance? Yeah, the lot is fairly small and the house nearly fills it anyway. Once this new structure is built in the rear there will be very little rear yard left to build in and so in their mind they are not going to add onto the existing house substantially anytime in the near future. That is why. Nickle: I might point out if they turn around next year and sell this the survey shows that the buyer, without a variance that would effectively allow that encroachment there, might want to reconsider purchasing the house or they would have to come back before us then to do that. Are they aware of that? Griffith: They would not even be able to purchase the home without getting that variance? Nickle: They can purchase it. Griffith: They just might not want to. Nickle: The financing agency might balk at that. Griffith: So you suggest also asking for that variance. Does that need to occur coincident with the variance for the new structure? Andrews: Most of the times when there is a house that has been existing this long prior to our city codes being established we can bring that into compliance at this meeting and do it alt at one time. Board of Adjustment January 3, 2005 Page 4 Olszewski: The other thing is if it were to burn down you wouldn't be allowed to build it right there again, you would have to come over. Most people want to use that same footprint. Griffith: That is a good point. I am sure my client would be interested in receiving a variance for the existing structure if that is something that can be done at this point. Andrews: Does staff have any problem with us doing that? Morgan: It wasn't notified in such a way, I don't know if that would require notification. Whitaker: From my reading of it, this amendment that they are amending the application wouldn't change what they are really asking for because it is not changing the footprint any different than what the notice that everybody got meant. If the board were to grant a variance to add on another 500 sq.ft. and the neighbors had not been notified I would have great trouble with that. This looks more like a procedural thing to me. While it is here it might as well be cleaned up and get the whole lot into conformance. Nickle: I would think so just so we don't have to look at it again. Whitaker: That and then there is the matter of fees charged to just come here. This way you would only pay one fee. Griffith: Ok, I appreciate the suggestion. Green: The other question I have, it is pretty obvious that that existing little out building will be removed. Griffith: It already has been so the lot is now more in conformance than it was before. Kunzelmann: I have a quick question. The proposed structure should access from the east and the west. The maps that we have from the city doesn't show the alley going all the way around the property, is that an error on the map? Morgan: The alley actually does extend just to the very northern point. There really is no alley access. They could enter and exit this carport from Hill Avenue or possibly look at some sort of an access from the adjoining property owner to the east. They will have at least access from Hill Street. Griffith: I notified the client of that, it was brought to my attention about a week ago. Board of Adjustment January 3, 2005 Page 5 Olszewski: Is their plan to drive straight through? Griffith: Their plan was to do that. Obviously, they will need to talk to their neighbors. Kohler: There is an existing drive there off of Hill Street? Griffith: There is, if you go visit the site there is a well established alley that is not on city maps that is back there. The apartment building that is in the center of the block uses it as it's only access and two houses to the rear of the client's lot uses it for their parking access. The client is good friends with each of the two immediate property owners so it may be something that they can work out. No plans have been made to actually pave back to there. Andrews: Does anybody have any further questions? I will entertain a motion. Green: I move that we approve the variance request with the 10' lot width variance as requested along with staff's three conditions and recommendations and also, to approve a variance of 3.34' in the side setback with the building footprint of the existing structure. Olszewski: I will second that. Andrews: We have a motion and a second. Would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve BOA 05-1354 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Board of Adjustment January 3, 2005 Page 6 BOA 05-1355 was submitted by Brandon Jones for property located at 516 Litton Avenue. The property is zoned RMF -24 and contains approximately .17 acres. The request is for a 3' variance from the side setback. Andrews: The next item is BOA 05-1355 submitted by Brandon Jones for property located at 516 Litton. The property is zoned RMF -24 and contains approximately .17 acres. The requirement is for an 8' side setback. The request is for a 5' side setback, which is a 3' variance. Would staff like to give us the report on this one? Morgan: Yes, the subject property is located in the Fairfield addition on Litton Street. This property does not comply with the lot frontage requirements but the applicant received approval from the Subdivision Committee to construct a single family home on this lot. Therefore, the lot is still non- conforming but the homeowner was permitted to build this single family home on this property in compliance with all of the required setbacks. The applicant received a building permit to construct the home and the shape of the lot is shown on page 2.11, is slightly abnormal in that the lot lines angle somewhat. The way that the building is set on this is very strange. You can see that they have proposed a deck on the southern portion of the property and a portion of that deck does encroach within the 8' setback. We do permit decks and structures that are 30" or lower within the setback and after speaking with the applicant, due to the slope of this property and the way that that southern lot line lays the only portion, this is the encroachment proposed, the only portion over 30" is this small little bit. Staff, therefore, has no problem with the variance request for this deck. Only a small portion of it will be over 30" of height within this area. Kohler: So even though you recommended denial, you are now recommending approval? Morgan: That is correct. At the time we were not aware of the height of the deck and in realizing that it is only slightly larger than 30", I believe it is 34", we are satisfied that it is complying with the spirit of the ordinance. Andrews: Thank you. Is the property owner here? If you would state your name. Jones: I am Raymond Jones. Andrews: Mr. Jones, do you have anything that you would like to add? Jones: No, I think it is pretty clear. The piece that is going to be encroaching that may not be less than 30", I don't know if you have pictures or not, 30" is about 4" or 5" below the door and that is without any top soil on it. It is roughed in right now. The board you see around there I took from the Board of Adjustment January 3, 2005 Page 7 Green: bottom of the 2x4 that I used the toe board to push the 2x4 into the ground to the top of that board was 28 1/4" and then that little edge that sits on the top is another 1 3/4" and so that is where the 30" is on the grade without any top soil or anything like that on it. The piece that may be over it a little bit is not very long or very wide. It pies out right there. If I understand this correctly, had we had that information to begin with staff could have administratively approved this due to what we have about 12" in lead way or something like that? Nickle: I know we did that some time ago. Green: So you wouldn't have to have a variance request for 3" or 4" or 6" of encroachment. Nickle: We did that a couple of years ago. Whitaker: That would be consistent with the spirit of the ordinance where it is within the spirit that 32" and 30" are not big enough to invoke a whole new process. Olszewski: Are we in the same thing that they are going to have a non -conforming lot, are they thinking about asking for that? Morgan: They had the opportunity at the time that they requested that a home be built here that they could either go to the Subdivision Committee and request that a structure be built there on a non -conforming lot or to come to this board to receive approval to bring that lot into conformance. I haven't spoken with the applicant in regard to whether or not he wishes to pursue bringing this lot into conformance due to the 57' of frontage instead of the 60' that is required. Olszewski: Jones: Olszewski: Jones: Have you considered asking to make this conforming? No, I'm learning something every day. Staff has been great to work with. It has been a pleasant experience for me. I just want to put a deck up there. I own the lot below it. I don't know if it is going to be bothering me up there or not. I am open to your advice if you think I should do something like that I would be more than glad to do it. I want to do it right for sure. I don't want it coming back to bite me later. The same thing that we just said to the previous applicant, those would be the reasons to ask for it. Like if it burned down or something. Board of Adjustment January 3, 2005 Page 8 Olszewski: Knock on wood it wouldn't. Andrews: That or the next time it sells there won't be a problem. Jones: Ok, can we do that right now also? Olszewski: Our attorney has said yes. Jones: I would like to ask for that then. Andrews: Is there anybody else that would like to address this issue? It makes sense to bring the lot into compliance. Does anybody have any further questions about that? I will entertain a motion. Nickle: David, does the motion have to include then the request for the variance for the encroachment? Whitaker: Which one? Nickle: The one that we kind of said could be handled on an administrative basis? Whitaker: It doesn't have to be. Kunzelmann: Does the motion have to be two motions, one for the lot width, one for the setback? Whitaker: I think it can be a single motion. If you approve it obviously, it takes the burden off of administrative staff. Nickle: I would move that we approve the Variance requested as well as approve a lot width variance of 3' to get us into compliance with the RMF -24 zoning district, and the variance requested for the ramp. Green: I will second. Andrews: We have a motion and a second. Would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve BOA 05-1355 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Board of Adjustment January 3, 2005 Page 9 BOA 05-1356 was submitted by Tom and Rita Johnson for property located at 309 S. Gregg Avenue. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately .35 acres. The request is for a 15' front setback variance. Andrews: The next item is BOA 05-1356 submitted by Tom and Rita Johnson for property located at 309 S. Gregg Avenue. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately .35 acres. The requirement is for a 25' setback. The request is for a front setback of 10', which is a 15' variance. Olson: This property is located at 309 S. Gregg Avenue. Currently there is an approximately 1,000 sq.ft. single family home on it. The applicant currently is going through the process with Planning staff of doing a property line adjustment. These were originally platted as three individual lots and they are moving their property line to take Yz of the middle lot to each of the end lots. They are taking three lots and creating two. That brings it more into compliance with the bulk and area requirements in this R -O district. However, with a lot size of 4,387 sq.ft. it is less than the minimum allowed for a single family home. The lot does meet the frontage requirements. It is required to have 60' of frontage and it is provided with 75' of frontage. The attached survey shows the location and dimensions of the structure. The R -O zoning district requires a 25' front setback for a residential use. Gregg Street is classified as a local street on the Master Street Plan which requires a 50' right of way. The applicant is requesting a 15' variance from the required 25' setback, which would place the home 10' from the Master Street Plan right of way. Staff does recommend approval of the requested variance and the structure as it is currently sited on the lot. That does not include additional encroachments that would allow the existing structure to be considered as conforming. It is currently developed. In terms of findings, special conditions, staff found that there are special conditions or circumstances which exist that are peculiar to this land that are not applicable to surrounding properties and buildings. These lots were platted in this configuration in the distant past and therefore, they are not as wide or deep as what the city would currently require. The location of the railroad to the west of this lot is at a significantly higher elevation than the existing home and to move the home back far enough to meet the front setback requirement would place undue burden on the applicant due to the topography. Again, the applicant has applied for a property line adjustment. Looking at this area with regard to the Downtown Master Plan, it would be zoned Neighborhood Conservation. The Downtown Master Plan has not been formally approved. However, looking at some of the bulk and area requirements that this would be proposed to be zoned, it would go from a required setback of 25' to a build to line which would be located between 5' and 20' from the property line. If the Downtown Master Plan code had been adopted there would be no need for a variance Board of Adjustment January 3, 2005 Page 10 request on this property. Deprivation of rights, literal interpretation of zoning regulations would significantly alter the ability of the applicant to assess the existing structure. The circumstances that have arisen is the result of the bulk and area of the lot as it was platted. The applicant has taken steps to bring this lot more into conformity with the zoning regulations. Granting the requested front setback variance would not confer special privileges on the applicant. The requested variance is the minimum variance necessary to accommodate reasonable access into the existing structure. Staff believes that granting the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning regulations and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The location of the structure is similar in nature to other structures in the area and many smaller homes and structures in this older neighborhood were located closer to the right of way than is currently permitted under our zoning regulations. Staff does recommend approval with the conditions as stated on page one. If you look at the drawing on page 3.8 it shows you the right of way line and then the front setback line as it comes across. It really cuts pretty much through the center of the home. The applicant did not request a variance for the lot next door, which would be shown as Lot 8A. However, if the Board finds that this variance does meet the intent, you should perhaps consider granting the variance from the area requirement and from building setback also if you wanted to clear all of this up at one time. Nickle: This is the most bazaar group of zoning I've ever seen on the zoning map. You have everything from Industrial to RMF -40 to R -O to RSF-4. Olson: The Downtown Master Plan Code would clear up a lot of these things. A lot of this down here was zoned probably with the 1970 zoning and a lot of it was zoned industrial along the railroad tracks. It is really a hodge podge. Nickle: Ok. Andrews: Once the lot line adjustment is made they will still be out of compliance? Olson: With the area compliance, they will be at 4,380 sq.ft., the requirement is 6,000 sq.ft. Andrews: That is one thing that we have been requested to do. Olson: Yes, then the other thing is for the front building setback. The Master Street Plan calls for a 50' right of way for a local street. Gregg Avenue, as it is constructed now in this location, doesn't carry a whole lot of traffic and 50' may be a pretty excessive right of way. If you look at the homes Board of Adjustment January 3, 2005 Page 11 across the street and to the south they all sit very close to that street. It is just the way that neighborhood was built. Nickle: You are saying the area requirement needs to be adjusted for Lot 8A and not 10A? Olson: It will need to be for both lots. Nickle: It looks like 8,208 on Lot 10A. Olson: Maybe I'm mistaken on that lot. Morgan: For a single family home in the R -O zoning district, it is required to have 6,000 sq.ft. of lot area. Olson: I'm sorry, that was a mistake. They meet the lot area requirements. Kohler: The setback for the one house, but my question is would you then also, that would not necessarily transfer over to that other lot because that isn't being applied for but with the Downtown Master Plan you have build to lines so assuming that is enacted before another house is planned for that other lot that will address those issues. Johnson: It is pretty well moot at this point. We have already poured the footings for the new house and have met all the setback requirements. We are preparing for the foundation. Kohler: So you are staying behind the 25'? Are you the owner? Johnson: Yes Sir, my name is Tom Johnson. We went ahead and built that deck, I wasn't paying attention and didn't think I would be encroaching on the setback requirement. Particularly since my neighbor's house next door, my front porch is about the middle of his house, he is that much closer to the street. I will say that Planning Staff has been of utmost value and I'm so glad they have been there. I wasn't aware of the 6,000 sq.ft. requirements. Staff has been really good with working with us. It is a learning process and staff has been extremely helpful. Andrews: Are there any more questions for Mr. Johnson? Would anyone from the audience like to address this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Board. You would like for us to bring both of these lots into compliance? Olson: The applicant said he can meet the setback for Lot 8A. Kohler: I wouldn't be adverse to since we are eventually going to a build to line which would actually be better than the 25' setback, I wouldn't be adverse Board of Adjustment January 3, 2005 Page 12 to doing a preemptive variance request and allowing him to come closer if he wanted to stick something on the front. Johnson: I could do that. There is a city park right across the street and next to that is the walking path. Kohler: It is all about streetscape and walk ability. I don't know, if that is over the limits? Whitaker: I think it would be premature. Morgan: Looking at the pictures it appears that the deck on the existing home would meet that 30" requirement. Olson: However, it is covered so you would have to include the roof. Once you do a covered deck that 30" requirement is no longer. It then becomes a structure because it is covered. If you wanted to do something similar on Lot 8A as the deck that you did on Lot 10A, your foundation is right on that setback line, you would need a variance from the front setback to do a covered porch. If it was an open deck under 30" then you wouldn't need a variance. Kohler: Since that is going to go to a 20' build to line eventually, it hasn't yet, and that is the problem. Whitaker: I also think in this situation where you talk about giving it for a possible deck/porch structure. I think he would be better served if you were granting a variance based on some drawings of the actual porch/deck rather than just granting a blind variance. Green: I move that we approve the Variance as requested along with staff's two recommendations. Kunzelmann: Second. Andrews: There is a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Renee, will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve BOA 05-1356 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Andrews: The variance is granted. Thank you. Board of Adjustment January 3, 2005 Page 13 BOA 05-1355 was submitted by Chase Miller for property located at 1352 E. Columbus Blvd. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately .34 acres. The request is for a 10' front setback, (a 15' variance.) Andrews: The next item on our agenda is BOA 05-1355 submitted by Chase Miller for property located at 1352 E. Columbus Blvd. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per acre and contains approximately .34 acres. The request is for a front setback of 10', a variance request of 15'. Will staff give us the details please? Olson: this property is located at 1352 E. Columbus Blvd. Currently it is vacant. The lot consists of 14,810 sq.ft., which does comply with the minimum allowed lot area in the RSF-4 zoning district. It also has adequate frontage on Columbus Blvd. A little background, property records indicate that this lot was originally owned by the property owner to the east and the home on the lot to the east was constructed in 1984. It appears that that home was built very close to the side property line and probably would need a variance to be in compliance with today's setback regulations. For this lot the applicant proposes a variance from the front setback requirement of 25' for the purpose of locating the home closer to the street in order to make room for a backyard area. In terms of findings, special conditions, staff finds that there are no special conditions that exist that are peculiar to this land which are not applicable to other lands in the district. All of the lots in this area are sloped to some degree, which presents unique site characteristics to all surrounding lands. Because of the street configuration many of the surrounding lots are also odd shaped. The applicant has shown that the structure that they propose can be placed on this lot and meet the setback requirements. It appears that all of the homes in the immediate area meet the front building setback of 25' and to grant the variance for this lot would not be in harmony with the general character of the neighborhood. Literal interpretation of the zoning regulations would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. All of the lots in this area are unique in size and shape with some having large rear yards and some having very large rear or side yards. Special conditions do not result from the actions of the applicant. Granting the requested front setback variance would confer special privileges on the applicant. This would be the only home in the area that would sit that close to the street. Staff recommends denial of the requested front setback variance as described in the staff report and based on the findings herein. I believe there is a typo, staff is recommending denial. Green: On page 4.2 it says staff recommends approval. Olson: That is a typo. Board of Adjustment January 3, 2005 Page 14 Andrews: Mr. Miller, is there anything that you would like to add Sir? Miller: We are just trying to get more backyard for several reasons like safety and a few other reasons. If you could go out there and see it you could see that the lot is a gentle slope but towards the back it goes to a severe slope. Since it has the double setback it is 8' off the back property line so the annoying part would be to the neighbors who would be having that practically in their backyard and for the future homeowner who would have windows literally looking into the wall. It is going to require some work. The house plan has had to be modified to fit that lot because of it's conditions. That is the annoying part. If we build it the way it is right now it is going to take a flight of stairs just to get into the front door and then the walk from the garage to the house is going to require a flight of stairs. Just by moving it down off that tall slope will get it to alleviate such a significant amount of stairs and also gives room to put in, you all know Mt. Sequoyah is famous for water problems, but we will have to put in a French drain system which I am also going to have to have room to build a swale to keep moisture away from the house. The way it is right now I don't have that. With moisture in the crawl space and mold and everything I just want to pull off that back hill just a little bit. Only the far right portion of the house would even be encroaching. Kohler: Which side is the steep side? Miller: It would be the west side. The long, straight back side. Kohler: Ok, the south side is the highest. Nickle: There are some trees right here. Miller: The tall side is actually the east side. Olson: There are some large trees where the proposed driveway is that they would go through. Miller: We will modify the driveway, we want to keep the trees of course. Again, that was one thing when building the driveway, the whole idea of the setback is to have plenty of room for cars not to get out into the street and be turning. I want to move the garage, the driveway to the south side so it is coming in and it is still going to have a nice 60' long driveway and then the garage like it usually would on a front entry garage. Nickle: What you are proposing, this 15', just a portion of the south end of the house would encroach. Do you have a drawing that would show it like that? Board of Adjustment January 3, 2005 Page 15 Miller: The way this is, this is where the hill is. What we want to do is push it in the front where it is a little more level. Nickle: You don't have a drawing that shows exactly where it would encroach? Miller: It was submitted with everything else. You should have a copy of what I have. Olson: I don't believe I ever saw one that showed that. This is the original. Miller: There is one that shows measurements pulling the house that way. Olson: This one? Miller: Yes, that is it. Olson: You don't have one that actually shows the location though? Miller: No. Kohler: That area to the north of the house would not be considered a backyard, which is what you want, that is obviously not what you are considering a backyard. Miller: The way it lies right now with just having that 8' back there with that slope. Kohler: I mean to the north, this big, open area right here. You are not considering that a useable area? Miller: That is the back yard. That is why we had this plan specially drawn so that instead of having the backyard typical to the back it is going to line the back but also move the doors to the north so it will actually be a usable back yard. Having a bigger backyard is the least of the concerns on this one. Right now the way it is it is going to have a foundation, it is going to be so tall that the finished floor elevation, you could have a walk out basement but we are not going to do that, but it just would require a whole lot of stairs and also a driveway that is very steep and tall. Olszewski: What is the square footage of the house? Miller: 2,691. Olszewski: Does that include the garage? Miller: No Ma'am. I have a blueprint if you would like. It is a beautiful home. Board of Adjustment January 3, 2005 Page 16 Andrews: How close is that house to the east? Olson: From looking at the original building permit application on microfilm, it showed 11'4". It looks like it is about 1' here. It appears that when that home was built it wasn't built to the dimensions that were shown on the original building application. Nickle: He probably thought since he owned the lot next door it didn't make any difference. Olson: It doesn't until you go to sell that lot. Miller: That is another part, having my home so close to the neighbor's home, they don't like it any better than I do. Andrews: Is there anybody in the audience that would like to address this issue? Webee: I'm Cheryl Webee and I live in the house that is just to the east up the hill from the property. I have stepped off where he has drawn the footprint of the foundation. It is approximately 18 paces and it is straight up hill and backs right up to my house. We have only lived in the house for one year and obviously, we did not make the addition. Apparently, the person who sold Chase the lot is the person who made the addition to our home. As you said, it obviously, was not compliant. He owned both lots and therefore, didn't think there was a problem but obviously, now there is a problem. Andrews: How close is the addition to the property line? Webee: We believe it actually in some places encroaches Mr. Miller's property. Our drive definitely does. Miller: We have a copy of a survey that shows the encroachment. Nickle: My concern would be if you built this house in this location too you are obviously going to have to build some kind of retaining wall there. I would hate to see any digging out of the hillside affect the structural integrity of the existing house above. Is that a concern at all? Miller: There is a French drain, I'm not sure yet until I dig where it goes. I believe it comes out on my lot. We are going to find that. I am going to have to tie that into my French drain because we really need a French drain and I really need more room. With the retaining wall there, depending on how significant that is, in everyday life when you look out Board of Adjustment January 3, 2005 Page 17 Kohler: Miller: Simpho: Andrews: Anderson: Lamar: your kitchen and living room windows and seeing a tall wall is not appealing. That is what I was going to ask. Has that wall been designed? How tall is it? The way it is set right now we have shot it and it seems like there is 11' to 14' of fall. It is a pretty nice lot but at the very end it just goes way up. It happens to fall on that 8' setback line so by gently pulling it back it still has a nice big yard in the front and a nice, big yard everywhere. It is a huge lot, it is 192' south to north. It wouldn't look at it, you wouldn't drive past it and look back and look like it is too close to the road. You would feel much more comfortable if you knew what I was talking about. I'm Debbie Simpho, I live across the street south of the lot and I oppose any kind of variance on this. The lot, personally I think the proposed house is going to be too big for that lot. It is not going to conform with the rest of the houses in the neighborhood. We all have kind of long yards and everybody is kind of setback. Even though the lots are odd shaped, there is a conformity in a sense in that neighborhood. I understand that infill is good, there are a lot of people that when they originally bought their property in that neighborhood, they bought two lots and built a house on one and had an adjacent lot for wooded area or whatever. I am not opposed to the infill but I think the variance is way too much and the house is way too big. Thank you. Is there anybody else? I'm Craig Anderson, I live around the corner from the Webees on Applebury Drive. I am not aware of any variances in our neighborhood on setbacks. All of the houses are setback and it provides a nice aesthetic appeal to the neighborhood. The existing problems with this lot were there when it was purchased so they aren't a surprise to anybody. If you look at the lot, there is also a sidewalk that goes right along that western edge so not only is the sidewalk going to be there but you are going to be right up in the house with that. I am opposed to any variances in setback. I hope you maintain the conformity of the neighborhood and the aesthetic appeal of the neighborhood. I'm Dana Lamar, I live kitty corner at 1553 Columbus. I oppose for the same reasons. Since I got the letter I've started looking through the neighborhood and this would stick out like a sore thumb. There is not another house that is close to the street and there is not another house, I can't even imagine this height that he is talking about because I live in one of the earlier ranch styles. I am opposed to any variance. Board of Adjustment January 3, 2005 Page 18 Andrews: Thank you Ma'am. Chase, is this all one story? Miller: No Sir, it is a two story. Andrews: Do you have 1,350 on both floors or what do you have? Miller: No Sir. The first floor is 2,017' and the second floor 514'. It wasn't as big as what I thought it was, it is 2,531 sq.ft. Really, there is a whole lot of room even if we build it closer to the street, the majority of the yard is still 29' away from the property line and that doesn't include the sidewalks or the street. It won't be crunched by any means. It would still be comfortable to where if you didn't know that there was a variance you would never look at it and think that there would be one necessary. Andrews: Are there any other questions? Green: We are being asked for two different variances. One is to the south and one is to the west. Andrews: I believe so. I believe we are only being asked for one to the west. I know it says 10' to the south, but that was an estimate. Olson: He has room to the south, he can come to the south without a variance. Nickle: Have you considered reorienting this plan to make it parallel with this stretch of Columbus right here? Miller: We actually did, I have the plan and it literally gets smaller as it goes south so it would conform. I can build it on the lot just the way that it is right now but really the only disadvantages to that, I'm trying to alleviate an enormous foundation, many stairs and the biggest thing, I went out to dig the footing and it is a wet lot so I'm going to have to go to the expense of having it drain properly because there are issues or I am going to have water pooling up next to the house and just with the mold issues I want to do everything I can do keep that away. It is a long house because to get the footage to fit on that lot, I really need to have room to have a slope to take the French drain around the entire back of the house. Green: Probably you could do a compromise there with a shorter retaining wall and not build it so high. There are some compromises I think you can work out on the site. French drains in the Mt. Sequoyah area, mine is 8' or 10' deep and that is just in my spot and I know everything else is about like that. It is just another one of those design restrictions that you've got building on that slope. I am not, I think it can be addressed and you can get the right compromise without having to set it up too high and without having to move it too far out toward the street too. I am sure your civil Board of Adjustment January 3, 2005 Page 19 Miller: engineer or architect will be able to look at the TOPO of that and find a good cut and fill that will make that work. Right, we are just trying to not disturb the natural land as much as we can and the way it is right now it is going to take a significant cut. Just by moving it down will give us the room for the slope to be there and we would have the room to swale to keep water away from coming straight down on the house. Green: It is a tough design problem. Miller: It is not a cheap one either. Kohler: Did staff get letters back from these folks? Olson: No, I do not believe so. I don't have any letters in the file from adjoining property owners. Kohler: I guess their presence here took the place of that? Anderson: I saw the sign two weeks ago and did not receive a letter about it. Olson: For a variance request we notify the adjoining property owners and so anybody that doesn't live across the street or next door to this lot would not have been notified by mail. However, the sign was posted and so those folks driving by could see it. Kohler: To me the neighboring property owners weigh a lot in my view of this. They are living with it as much or more as the applicant does. As far as the drainage, if you built a retaining wall there would also be addressing the retaining wall on the other side of the retaining wall on your property line. Webee: We have a defoundation drain and it does follow and comes out on the property. Kohler: With this retaining wall would you be receiving any runoff from her property? Miller: It appears so. Green: Does that need a drainage easement? It sounds like there are a whole bunch of separate issues concerning this lot that makes it tough. There are design issues, there are some access issues, some property line encroachments that somebody will need to address at some time but it is kind of in a box right now. Board of Adjustment January 3, 2005 Page 20 Andrews: Chase, is there any minimum amount? Is 15' the minimum that you could get away with and do what you need to do? Miller: That would be ideal. 10' to 12' would help a whole lot. Really, every foot I can get is that much less having to go up stairs, that much less steep driveway, to keep with the natural flow, I could build it and it would look like it was meant to be on that lot but just that little bit because of the fact that the lot goes up right there at the very end of the lot, it changes the whole house, the driveway, the sidewalk going down to the front of the street, it's going to be steep. Even 10' to 12' would help quite a lot. Webee: I guess that's where my question comes in is that when you were getting ready to purchase a lot like this did you look at that kind of issue before you purchased the lot? I don't want you to lose money. I know that you bought the lot and I know it's going to be built on but did you not realize that there were going to be this many problems? I feel like we are paying the brunt for your lack of homework because the lot has so many problems so you are trying to change the look of the neighborhood to no fault of our own but yet we are going to suffer. Miller: I would actually be the one. I am collecting the water from the lot next door. Webee: Did you look at it before you bought it? Andrews: Please address your questions to the Board. Webee: How does that happen? How does a lot like this with so many problems become available for purchase to a contractor and how can you sell a lot to someone, and this was at not fault of Chase, but how can you sell a lot to someone with my driveway sitting on it and you put it there. That is where the aggravation is coming in. Nickle: Even though you can get a loan now without a survey if it is a platted lot, it is better to have a survey. Miller: I would have liked to not have had those surprises either. Kohler: It is always to have a survey whether it is required or not. Nickle: Unlike some of the others, I think there are problems here, my most concern is about water situation and where it is all going to go eventually. This is one of the lower lots to the north that is just kind of a no mans land there that is where the water goes eventually. Board of Adjustment January 3, 2005 Page 21 Miller: There is a creek. Nickle: I think part of the problem could be solved by reorienting the house a little bit. I personally think maybe in line of a 5' variance might do something. Actually, even if you didn't run this more parallel to Columbus, a 5' variance, really I guess the only encroachment would be a little part of the porch and a tiny portion of the garage from the way this is drawn. I don't know if that would be of any assistance. I don't think visually a 5' variance along that section of Columbus where you've got a big drainage creek up to the north would be that visibly noticeable. I certainly would have a hard time justifying anything more than that at the maximum. Kohler: I'm not convinced. I don't know if this is the builder plan and how much flexibility this floor plan has. If you would have taken this and put it up in the far northwest corner and reoriented it parallel to the street instead of in the setback lines, I'm not convinced that wouldn't solve your problems. It would get it further away from the east and you wouldn't be stepping out and looking at a retaining wall and I am just not moved by your argument, the choice that you made about citing the property other than putting it in the middle of the site. I'm just not convinced a lot of your problems wouldn't go away if you re -cited this existing plan or redesigned the house in another location on the site which would alleviate a lot of the problem. I think it is possible that you are kind of going by an existing inflexible floor plan that wasn't necessarily designed to this site. Miller: What you are talking about is to move it to the north because that is the most useable part of the lot and so that is actually what I was going to do but then when we placed it out on the lot and looked at it, in theory, that sounds great to push it all that way but when we have no backyard, what little backyard there is went straight up that hill so by moving it north you take the one part of the backyard that we have got that would be the most useable part of the backyard would be right there and we could push the house to the north but then they've only got the little backyard and lose the one part of the yard they could actually use. Somebody who buys this is probably going to have kids and that is where I thought a backyard might be important and going up some stairs might be important. I was going to build it just like it is and when the surveyors went out and painted it on the lot I saw a for sale sign go up in the Webee's yards. She said that is so close to our house, I can't believe you are doing that kind of thing. I was like that is perfect because we have got that little setback that is the way it falls. I would alter the lot but that would lose the whole backyard we have. Kohler: What double setback do you keep referring to? Olson: He has got two front setbacks. Board of Adjustment January 3, 2005 Page 22 Nickle: So he has two side setbacks, two front and two sides. Olszewski: I tend to agree with Bob. I think the problem is you have a very difficult lot to work with but that house doesn't work with that lot. It might have to be smaller or whatever. It is definitely a challenge. I find it difficult to approve this. Miller: The one most affected by it would be the neighbor that I am touching, the Webee's. When we brought the back hoe out there, I knew that that was an emotional decision to go up for sale so I assume you want this? Webee: I'm caught between a rock and a hard place here. I am still not convinced that I am not going to sell my house because I have a house that has been there for over 30 years and now we are putting a house this close from every room on the back of my house. When I looked out and saw the backhoe and everything, every bedroom, every bathroom, my kitchen, every room looked out directly onto this site. It wouldn't be so bad except it is just so close. On the other hand, to have a setback that is not in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood, I'm kind of caught between a rock and a hard place here because it would be great not to have it so close to my house but I'm not sure how I feel about the setback. Given the choice between having it that close to my house and having it close to the road, I'm the one most affected here and I don't know what I think. It is kind of not great either way. I liked the suggestion of maybe 5'. Surely there is a compromise here. Miller: If I could say one thing to the neighbors. I expect the neighbors to kind of be alarmed anytime a variance is asked for just if your not familiar with general building setbacks. I would like for people who may not know that your typical setback is 20' in the back, 25' in the front and 8' on side to side. The way that that lot is going to force your backyard on the east side we have got an 8' which is usually a 20' and so if you are driving through the neighborhood and people who feel that they may be affected by it, when they are looking at a variance like mine, mine is going to look more out of place having no backyard compared to the people who actually have backyards because mine falls technically on a corner lot and we will have an 8' backyard. Lamar: I would argue that point. There are some other houses up Applebury that don't have big backyards and I'm sorry, it still looks nice from the front. The streetscape looks the same and I'm sure that was a consideration when they built their house it wasn't going to have much of a backyard because they knew the variance in that neighborhood, the oldest neighborhood on the east side of Hwy. 45, had a 25' variance. Board of Adjustment January 3, 2005 Page 23 Anderson: There are three other corner lots, directly across the street from this lot, all have very good setbacks from the street in excess of 25'. Morgan: Just to give a little explanation, on a normal lot that just has one front or one side of the lot on the street it is 25' adjacent to the street, 8' on the side, and 20' on the rear. For this property if we were looking at this property to the north and the street, instead of turning north to go straight directly to the west, it would still require that 20' front setback and there would be an 8' side setback on the east of the property and an 8' on the west and then a 20' on the rear. Because that road curves that lot therefore, has the 25' setback to the south and to the west with 8' on the north and the east. Kohler: I don't think this is anything other than a design issue so I would vote to not support the variance. Andrews: Would you like to make a motion? Kohler: I would move that we deny the variance request in agreement with the staff's recommendation. Kunzelmann: Second. 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 deny BOA 05-?? Was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Thomas: The motion carries. Andrews: Is there anything further? We will call the meeting adjourned.