Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-01-09 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on January 9, 2006 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN BOA 06-1900 (NEWELL, 322) Denied Page 3 BOA 06-1901 (BENNETT, 291) Approved Page 8 BOA 06-1902 (HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, 521) Approved Page 11 BOA 06-1903 (SMITH, 640) Approved Page 17 BOA 06-1904 (BRISIEL, 526) Approved Page 19 BOA 06-1905 (BLAIR, 448) Approved Page 23 BOA 06-1906 (HOGGATT, 638/639) Approved Page 26 Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 2 MEMBERS PRESENT Eric Johnson Michael Green Karen McSpadden Michael Andrews Sheree Alt STAFF PRESENT Suzanne Morgan Andrew Garner Jesse Fulcher CITY ATTORNEY David Whitaker MEMBERS ABSENT Robert Nickle Bob Kohler STAFF ABSENT Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 3 Andrews: Board of Adjustment meeting for January 9, 2006 is called to order. We don't have minutes this time, but I was told we will have them next month. We will get those for the last meeting and this meeting, hopefully. Hopefully the new person is caught up. Morgan: I believe we actually have the December minutes, but I think they were just not put in this packet. BOA 06-1900 (NEWALL, 322): Submitted by JACK, NEWELL for property located at 4185 MOSSY ROCK IN CLABBER CREEK SUBDIVISION. The property is zoned RSF-4 SINGLE FAMILY 4-UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.25 acres. The request is for a variance from the required 25' front setback for a 15.1' setback (a 9.9' variance). Garner: This project as you mentioned is located in the Clabber Creek Subdivision Lot 11, zoned RSF-4. The applicant was in the process of constructing his house and the survey conducted revealed that they had built the house in a setback and over four feet into the utility easement. These are really hard for Staff to make findings on; however, due the house being almost totally completed and due to our precedent of recommending approval in these incidences, we are recommending approval for the requested variance with conditions. As I mentioned, it is difficult to make findings on these, but that is our direction on that. That is our recommendation. The conditions of approval are on the front of page three: future alterations or additions to the existing structure shall meet required building setback regulations. All required permits shall be granted prior to any construction or repair of the existing structure. Supplemental information is in your packet and includes the survey, shown on page 9 of 14; actual building permit that shows the setbacks that were agreed upon; on page 11 of 14 shows the site plan that was included with the building permit. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. McSpadden: Garner: Newell: Is this the same subdivision as the last one we approved? I believe that is correct. My name is Jake Newell and I am representing the owners, PM, LLC out of Harrison, AR. The person that did the survey, surveyed off the curve instead of the actual property line. So there is a difference there. We didn't realize this until a recent inspection brought it to our attention. I talked to several of the neighbors and they just want to see it finished. Andrews: Are there any questions for Staff or Mr. Newell? Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 4 Basber: My name is Kent Basber. We own the property adjacent to this development. We just bought our home in May. We have a couple of issues we'd like to bring forward. One, this probably started about seven or eight months ago — I don't understand why, when we have an architectural committee as part of the development, why this was missed. The other thing I'd like to bring up is the fact the house is under built for the phase. It is supposed to be at least 2200 square feet. It is a two-story dwelling, I believe it is under 2200 square feet. We paid full retail for our house at $112 per square foot. We are concerned that this development is going to impair our property values, in fact it sat four months with nothing being done on it, so we are very concerned and disappointed that this got missed. I think nine feet is excessive to be granted a variance. A few feet, I can understand, but nine feet? It is quite an oversight. Andrews: To answer your first question: The Architectural Review Committee — is that the City of Fayetteville he is talking about or is that for your development? Basber: For the subdivision. Andrews: You understand that the City has no control over that. And again, on the under 2200 SF, the City can't enforce property owner bylaws and covenants. That is something that the POA has to address, unfortunately. I can understand your concerns on both of those. I live in a subdivision and we have bylaws and have been through the same thing. R. Basber: I'm Rebecca Basber, I live in the property next door also. I am wondering, is the variance (this is a corner lot) setback from Berkleigh or set back from Mossy Rock or both. Andrews: Mossy Rock. R. Basber: The other houses on our street are lined up, the trees are lined up. If you don't like that, don't buy in the subdivision. This house is noticeably farther out and impedes our view; it is noticeably different from the other houses and is right on the corner. What I wonder, if it would be denied, what would be the remedy? Andrews: The property owner would have to bring the structure into conformity. Whatever it takes to do that... R. Basber: It is bricked in, but the interior walls aren't built yet. Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 5 Andrews: If it is that far along, it would be demolition and reconstruction. Is there anyone else who would like to address this issue? Hearing none, we will bring it back to the Board. Green: This is one of those tough things to call just because it is one of these typical things we run across where they are asking for forgiveness instead of permission, and it really puts this Board in a tough position. Hopefully, this ordinance that we have recommended through the City Council is going to have some kind of remedy for that. At this point, our only decision on this is to either approve it or to turn it down. If it is rejected, then the owner must either move the structure or somehow make it conform to the setback. I can always see and empathize with those who make an honest mistake. I do believe this builder has been before us in recent months with a very similar type of forgiveness if I'm not mistaken. I'm just wondering how far we have to go or how many times do we let somebody make a gross error like this without putting the breaks on it. I don't know the answer to that. This is getting very frustrating, especially when we get repeat requests on something like this. Alt: Do you remember that Andrew? Do you remember the builder that came forth. Garner: I believe the builder was Clay Morton. It was in October. Alt: In the minutes of the October meeting, wasn't there an issue brought forth with Mr. Morton at that time? I know we don't have any jurisdiction on that but I think that we reprimanded him a little bit harsh on that at that meeting, about hindsight and foresight. This being a nine foot mistake is a little bit over the line. Newell: What it was, I represent the owner of the property and it was really the survey company's mistake and obviously the company is taking steps to check into those things. I know it would really be a hardship. There have been steps taken in our process. I know Clay and I don't think this will happen again. I know that there McSpadden: What steps have you taken? Newell: I know there is a different surveyor doing his work. I talked to him about the last meeting — I worked for the investors in Harrison, the Company was taking steps at that point in construction to check into this issue and make sure we don't have to deal with this again. Alt: This survey dated 12/01/05 by Mr. Reid — was it the first survey done? Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 6 Newell: No, this is the one we had done by the new surveyor. Green: Do we know, Staff, if the front of the house long Mossy Rock Drive, does it line up with the other existing houses there or are there any benchmarks you can look at? Garner: I believe from hearing from the neighbors that the front facade doesn't line up. I didn't get a chance to drive out there and look or take pictures of that. McSpadden: My guess is that it is 9.9 feet. Green: It really just seems that it would be an obvious misalignment I can understand some of these odd shaped lots that are very difficult to get proper references from, but this is almost a square lot. Andrews: I really don't understand even on both sides and maybe Jake, you can shed some light on this, but on Berkleigh we are up on the property line, yet we have twenty feet on the one side and the rear there is fifty feet that they could have moved this house to and didn't. I just don't understand why you would cram the house in the corner and take the risk of it being six inches, a foot, nine feet off, when you have plenty of room. Do you have any reason why the house was placed where it was? Newell: Basically, it was the combination of the survey guy and the concrete guys. Andrews: They pushed the limits and screwed up. Newell: They are not working for us any more. I'll be honest — there were mistakes made. Basber: R. Basber: I'm going to state the obvious. We can blame subcontractors all the time. I'm a subcontractor myself in the construction business for twenty years. Ultimately the builder is responsible. And if it is a $250,000 business transaction, you have to take it seriously and check your stuff, and you have to take responsibility. You have to watch over your subs. We can blame the subs all we want, but ultimately the building and investors are responsible. It is going to affect everybody on the street. What I can tell, I'm not a builder, but if we are looking at what possibly can be done, based about how much room and play there is on the lot. It is the garage that sticks out far in front of the rest of the house. If the garage were taken out and moved out to the back with a side entrance. Or something like that might be possible. Being the neighbors most affected, Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 7 1 would be willing to endure a reconstruction of that house if it meant getting it back in line with the rest of the neighborhood. McSpadden: Did you not ever notice it — wouldn't it have been a lot cheaper to fix it when it was only the foundation than now? Newell: It was never brought to anyone's attention. From our view, I had driven up to the house several times and I'm not the builder. I wish I would have taken a picture and brought it in. I don't believe it to be so off. Andrews: Well, I'm ready to make a statement that we are not going to allow this to happen any more, especially the second around for a builder. We told him last time what we would do and I'm not going to go back on my word. Alt: I agree with that. Andrews: My vote is going to be no, but someone else has to make a motion. McSpadden: I make a motion that we deny BOA 06-1900. Alt: I second. Andrews: There has been a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Will you call the roll. Roll Call Upon roll call, BOA 06-1900 is denied by a vote of 5-0-0. Andrews: What do they need to do from here? Whitaker: They are going to need to find someway to come into compliance with those setbacks. They can choose any option that works best for them as long as they get the appending/encroaching piece out of there. I also note from the Staff report, that there is an attempt to get utility easements vacated and who knows how that will go. It's almost moot at this point because now they cannot have the building in the setbacks. They have the right under State law to file an appeal with the Circuit Court. Other than coming into compliance, that would be their only option at this point. Andrews: Thank you. Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 8 BOA 06-1901 (BENNETT, 291): Submitted by JO BENNETT for property located at 2473 N. JIMMIE AVENUE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.33 acres. The request is for a variance from the required 25' front setback for a 15' setback (a 10' variance) Fulcher: This is property located on Jimmie Avenue north of Township. It is currently a vacant lot in a developed subdivision. The applicant plans to build an approximate 2300 square foot home on the lot. The request is for two variances to preserve four large trees which would have to be removed if the home was located at 25' setback. The literal interpretation of the zoning regulations would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. As you can see on the survey, it is about a third of an acre lot and there is obviously plenty of room to locate a home. What Staff looked at is the impact to what we consider hillside — looking at our maps in the office — there are many areas that have fifteen percent or greater slope on here, especially the front portion and all the way down the hillside. It is fairly wooded as you can see from the photos on pages 6, 7, and 8. By allowing this reduced front setback, it would allow the home closer to the street which would preserve additional canopy. Looking at our hillside ordinances and other documents that we are looking to implement, the purpose of this is to preserve the integrity of the hillside, reduce potential impact from water erosion, soil or storm water erosion, plus preserving the visual quality of the hillside. We take all of these factors on hillsides into account when trying to locate a home. We realize there is opportunity to locate this home in different areas on the lot, but as you can see from pictures, the applicant is doing her best to keep as many of the large species of trees on the lot, to preserve the integrity of the hillside. With that in mind, the Staff is recommending approval of this requested setback variance from the front with full conditions of approval. On item number two, based on the slope it appears that this would average greater than fifteen percent slope which would require a grading permit with the building permit. Condition number four, the purpose of this variance is to preserve the trees on this site — appropriate measures should be taken during development of the property including, but not limited to, tree preservation fencing around the trees to ensure their preservation. I would be happy to answer any questions that you have. Andrews: Thank you. There is no chance this street would be widened as far as the City is concerned. Fulcher: There are no plans that I know of to widen the street. It is a fairly wide street. Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 9 Green: If this plat map is accurate to scale, there are some houses along Jimmie Avenue that look closer to the street. Fulcher: I did some rough measurements and as you can see, looking at the plat right to left or east to west, the houses on the east side are generally pushed up the hillside and the houses on the left side are pushed closer to the street. There is an average of fifteen to twenty-five feet of setback; some of them are setback all in there. I think you can get a pretty good idea from that copy there. Andrews: Is the applicant present? Is there anything you would like to add? Bennett: I came down to ask the City Planning what the variance was, I wasn't sure what the variance was. He said twenty-five feet from the curb. I took that to mean that's where the garage and the building would start. Well, it is actually fifty feet from the center of the street which we would work from the plats and building permits. And we have all the plans. I had promised to keep every tree I could on that property and those four are absolutely crucial for western sun. I had built another house, my husband and I had on that same street and made a mistake of cutting down trees on the western side of the view, and the sun is important. Andrews: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience would like to address this issue. If not, I will bring it back to the Board. Are there any questions for Staff or the applicant? I think your point that most of those houses on that side being pushed up and closer has great significance in my view of justifying this. It is not going to affect any of the neighbors. And as Staff says it will preserve the integrity of the lot and the hillside. Johnson: It seems like a reasonable request to me. I for one like to see responsible development on hillsides, so preserving trees is definitely one of the stated goals on hillside development. It seems like a reasonable request. Alt: I concur. Johnson: I move that we approve BOA 06-1901 with Staff's recommendations as shown. McSpadden: Second. Andrews: We have a motion and second. Do we have any further discussion? Green: Just this one point I would like to make. We keep referring to the fifteen percent slope in the hillside ordinances as if it were passed. We just have to remember that it has not passed City Council yet. It is something we Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 10 use for planning and recommendations, we have to keep reminding ourselves that it is not the law at this point. Roll Call Upon roll call, BOA 06-1901 is approved by a vote of 5-0-0. Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 11 BOA 06-1902 (HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, 521): Submitted by HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF WASHINGTON COUNTY for property located at 1101 INDIAN TRAIL. The property is zoned RMF -24, RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY — 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.13 acres. The request is for a variance from the requirement of 6,000 square feet lot area minimum and 25' front setback on Paris Avenue to allow for an existing 5625 square foot lot (a 375 square foot variance) and a 19' setback (a 6' variance) Morgan: This property is somewhat of a combination of two lots of a platted subdivision, platted prior to our current codes. It is approximately 75' by 75' which would allow for 1,764 buildable area within the setback. There was previously a two-story single family dwelling built around the turn of the century. There are several single family dwelling units to the west of this on Indian Trail, and there are multi -family dwellings up on the hill south of this property. Recently this past summer, the home that was existing on this property was demolished and Habitat for Humanity is interested in purchasing this property to construct a one-story dwelling unit. They have requested a variance for the lot area so that they can actually build on this property as well as the setback so that they can build closer to Paris Avenue than allowed. I would like to address our findings to these separately. With regard to the variance request on the lot area requirement, Staff does find that granting that variance would be in harmony with our current regulations. To not allow that would basically be to deny any development rights on this property. It is just shy of 400 square feet from meeting that requirement and the development of a single-family dwelling on this property. As for the request for various setbacks, Staff finds that the lot has buildable area, approximately 1700 square feet on the property. The building setbacks to the lot itself are not peculiar; any corner lot is subject to two 25' building setbacks off of each street and then a 8' building setback on the other two property lines. We do recognize that there is considerable slope on the southern end of this lot; the previous home was built into that slope and there is currently a retaining wall there. The applicant recognizes this and proposes to further excavate into the slope for the proposed home, but not any further excavation to alleviate encroachment into the building setback. Staff suggests that modifications of the footprint of the proposed dwelling and additional excavation into this slope would allow conformity with the setback requirements. For that reason, Staff has recommended the approval of the lot area variance request with two conditions of approval, and denial of the requested of the requested variance for the front setback. Andrews: Any questions for Suzanne. Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 12 Johnson: I have driven that road Paris Avenue and Indian Trail quite a bit, and from memory, Paris Avenue does not actually end in the center of the right -a- way, but may be located closer to this building. Morgan: They are in the right-of-way but the center line of the existing street does not conform with the center line of the plat driveway. Paris, when you look at the street itself, is constructed a little bit closer to the property line than you see otherwise. Andrew: Is the applicant present? Brewer: I am Patsy Brewer, Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity. Over the past few years we have been fine tuning our footprint so that we can go in and work for a three or four bedroom home, so we can work for multiple dwellings at one time. So we have a footprint that we use and that is what we use on every lot, so to do that we need the variance. It would make no difference if we turned the house the other way, because the lot is square. And if we turned the lot the other way, we would be digging further into the hillside which we don't want to do. We will have to move into it a little bit just to be able to set the house on the property. Andrews: What would be the effect of taking off the front six feet so the house would be in compliance? Brewer: Having bedrooms eight by eight would be the result of that. The rooms are not huge by any means, but that would really cut down on the living space of the home tremendously. Johnson: Where on here are you going to provide for parking? Brewer: It would be on the upper part, the south side of the property. Andrews: Is there anyone from audience that would like to address this issue? Venable?: I am Cleo Venable? and we own the properties on two sides of this land. One side is really steep and we were told some time ago that we couldn't do anything with that, couldn't build on it. And we have let it set. The other side has apartments built on it. We were told that we could on it and they could not build on the place that they are here for now. There is a kink in that street, Paris Street. It is a very narrow street, both streets are very narrow. The house was built when there was a railroad out there. We don't feel that a building on that lot would enhance the neighborhood at all. All the buildings are setback from Paris and Indian Trails streets. Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 13 Ms. Gilo Venable: If they want to make this house, there is a house in the back. This house they would make in the middle of the street, just middle of the street. All high school children going to restaurant go this way. More need sidewalk, we don't need another house. I like all of you to walk over there and look at the property and after that you decide. This would make house very ugly just middle of the street. Two sides have a street. If they make house, they would like my parking lot. We have problems with this land for nine years. That owner — that is old building 50-60 or 90 years - that owner abandoned. He had this place and all druggies come over there. I complain about that to the City. Why do they want to make the street ugly? (very hard to understand) Andrews: According to our papers, it is 19' from the street. Is there anybody else. Hearing none, we will bring it back before the Board. Johnson: There is one other concern that I would like to bring up because I have driven that street quite a bit. I think, going along with part of what she was saying, there is a bend in this road and it doesn't actually follow the line of the easement. The way the house was before, it was in the setback. It was still very much obscuring the view of the street because of the way it bends. Encroaching into the front setback on that side, would make the visibility of the street almost negligible. So anybody coming down would be obscured by the front of the house. McSpadden: So anyone traveling on Paris you couldn't see traffic? Johnson: On the rest of Paris, it is deceptive. It is hard to explain. I support Habitat for Humanity's cause and I would really like to see something better. There couldn't be much worse built on the lot than what was there before, but this would be the absolutely worst side to encroach. I would rather see them encroach in the Indian Trail side. Green: This is a unique situation for a lot, being below our minimum size slightly and it is also a corner lot which gets 25' setback on two sides instead of just one. I think that further restricts the building and the usability of what is left there. The main situation though is the fact that I totally understand that fine tuning their floor plans to get those in a very efficient buildable way where they can get the most bang for their buck, when they are trying to build an affordable house. I don't think having them lop six feet off of it and redesign the whole foot print is something that is very feasible either. Just looking at the unique situation of the corner lot, the fact that what they are going to put there is going to be a great improvement to the neighborhood, over the dilapidated structure that was there, I think it is reasonable to allow the setback variance on that. Also, that is only adding 160 square feet in the encroachment and we are pretty much in agreement, Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 14 McFadden: Johnson: McFadden: Johnson: Morgan: Johnson: Green: I think that 375 feet of reduction in the minimal block size width should be acceptable for this particular lot. What that is saying is, if we give them 375 square foot reduction, that this is only 160 some square feet of that. I don't think that it is a significant encroachment into the easement, especially considering the improvement that is going to be for the neighborhood. It is a unique, a small completely square lot; and that being two 25' setbacks on a corner lot, makes this a unique situation. I appreciate what you are saying. On page 11, it looks to me like there is an extra 14' on the south side — there is a dotted line there. The house is being built 22' from the southern property line, with an 8' setback. So you have another 14' to work with. Am I understanding correctly that the only reason why you wouldn't use that space instead is because of the canned nature of the building design? They would have to excavate out. There is a hillside here. So that's the side that already excavated in. So the only way for them to site their pre -designed house is to site it the way it is, unless we granted them a variance towards Indian Trail. It would have to be a much greater variance, it looks like. My only concern is that I think that the road here is actually probably built on the property line if not over the property line. It is really close to the existing house and if they are going to get closer to the street, it is going to be really bad. To further elaborate on that, I would agree that going out there on the site. Looking at the map on page 18, you can see Paris Avenue, there are two different line types that kind of cross each other, one is curved and one is straight. The straight represents what was originally platted and the street wasn't built like that. It was difficult too, to really determine setbacks and such because the site plan that was submitted by the applicant doesn't reference any specific point in space, such as center line, etc. I would highly recommend that they will need to show that for any kind of building permit application, but I would recommend a survey of the property so we can really identify where the property lines are and where the street is. If the property is constructed based on the property lines, I think you are going to be really, really close to the street, more so than maybe 19'. But that is going by my drive by knowledge, not any survey information. So if the street is really built outside the right-of-way, then that is probably a different issue. We might need to look at other remedies for fixing that. Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 15 Johnson: I certainly wouldn't mind granting them — I guess if we need it — I guess the only grants we would need would be the square footage. My only concern is the actual setback. I hate to make the situation worse than better. McFadden: I support Habitat for Humanity as well and their mission, but it seems, like Mr. Green was saying, that we have a unique lot and it requires a unique design. I know that means extra money, but we have architectural schools, that as a community we have the capacity to come up with a design that would fit the site a little better than this one. Johnson: You can kind of see what I'm talking about on page 17 where the public hearing sign is posted. It is the corner of where the existing house was built. I don't know if it was built on the property lines or not. Andrews: I don't feel I have enough information to make a call on that, because it is where the street is. Brewer: You have to realize that that we have built two two-story homes. We will probably never build another one. Volunteers do not like to get up on scaffolding to put on siding on the second story. They certainly don't like to get up to do a roof. So you have to realize the man power we are using. There are people who don't even like to get up on six foot high scaffolding to do peaks on a single story. We have to take all those things into consideration when we are looking to build a home. Johnson: Have you had a land surveyor of any sort look at this lot. Brewer: When you go down to the Courthouse, the plats that you have are from 1927 when the whole thing was platted out. There is nothing new on record. Until we get ready to move forward..... we always get a survey ultimately for each property we own to pass on to the family. We have not ordered one on this property. Green: I feel that if the lot is going to be usable for Habitat, we are probably going to have to grant both of these variance issues, just to make it buildable for their particular constraints. I know it is getting harder and harder to find single family lots in Fayetteville that even qualify for something that Habitat can use. So with that, I would move that we follow Staff recommendations to approve the lot area variance — 375 square feet with those two conditions of approval. Also, I move that we recommend approval of the six foot setback variance with an additional requirement that a survey be required to identify exactly where all these elements are prior to getting their building permit. Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 16 Andrews: Is that all one motion? Green: I intended for it to be all one motion. Alt: I have a question on your motion. You are saying that with the recommendation that they have a survey. What if that survey comes up that it is more than a six foot variance. Green Then they would have to come back here for further relief or do something else. The six feet is all the motion includes. Alt: I second that. Roll Call Upon roll call, BOA 06-1902 is approved by a vote of 3-2-0. The motion carries. Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 17 BOA 06-1903 (SMITH, 640): Submitted by BRETT PARK for property located at 49 E. 27TH CIRCLE. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.32 acres. The request is for a variance from the requirement of an 8' side setback for a 4.3' setback. (a 3.7" variance) Morgan: This property is located in a subdivision that was plated in 1975 with a lot area and lot width compliant with the requirements of a RSF-4 zoning district. This house, approximately 1700 square feet in size, was constructed in the early 1980s and is compliant with all required building setbacks. The request is for a side building setback less than 8' for a new, approximately 400 square foot, addition to the existing single-family home. A total 19.3 square feet of this proposed addition will encroach within the building setback. Staff finds that special conditions do not exist for this property related to the side building setback. As a whole, Staff finds that the lot is of sufficient width and area to allow the construction of single-family dwelling which has already occurred, that the property is located on a cul-de-sac and has a lot width of less than 70 feet at the right- of-way is not a special condition which affects this property alone, as all surrounding lots on this cul-de-sac as well as our zoning district requirements for a cul-de-sac in an RSF-4 zoning district are held to the same lot width requirements. Additionally, there is a minimum 70' lot width at the 25' front building setback which is a standard requirement. This property has been utilized for a single-family use for more than twenty years and can continue to be enjoyed in its current condition, therefore Staff recommends that current owner modify the location and/or size of the addition to comply with the RSF-4 zoning district regulation. We do not feel that enforcement of this setback would create a deprivation of right. As acknowledged by the applicant, this request is a result of the applicant's desire to construct the addition. Staff does not find that the shape or size of the lot creates special circumstance, however. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of the requested the side setback variance. Andrews: Is the applicant present? Park: I appreciate Staff's comments, recommendations and requirements for considering a request for a variance. This is something that falls outside of the issue of deprivation rights and that sort of thing. The Board's consideration would help with that. The Smiths came to me to design a garage addition to their house, they had anticipated it just being a widening of the existing garage which would result in a much greater encroachment into the side setback. The design that you see is the result of our consideration in trying to minimize the encroachment on the setback in pushing it back as far as we can on the lot. That location is as far back as we can push it and still have connection to the existing garage Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 18 into the addition, which is very important to them. Another issue to consider is a construction issue. The ridge of the roof runs along — basically the center line of the new proposed garage addition is the center line of the existing roof so there are significant construction advantages in just continuing the ridge line. As a result of that and as a result of the angled property line, our encroachment is a small triangle rather than a uniform encroachment over the entire length of the setback line. What I'd like for the Board to consider is that we put particular effort in being sensitive to the setback requirements, and we have also put particular effort into designing a functional solution that helps to meet our client's request on this project. I have a late piece of information. The Smiths got a letter of support from a neighbor. They also interviewed all of their neighbors and I would blame it partly of the holidays, they got one written response. But they have had universal outpouring of support from all the neighbors. Whether it is appropriate to submit this....(handed letter to Mr. Andrews.) Andrews: Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this issue? Smith: I am Roger Smith. We own this property. We thought this would be just a minor deal. I appreciate your work. I am not ever going to volunteer for one of these jobs. Andrews: Well actually we have a couple positions opening up.... It looks like they have done everything they can to minimize the encroachment. It is just a small corner. They have come to us before the fact to ask permission instead of forgiveness. We don't have any neighbors that are in opposition to this, so I don't have any reason to deny this. Green: The fact that these cul-de-sac lots are a real problem, for most of the setbacks. There are a lot of problems with these unusually shaped lots. It is difficult to pin down the property line in some cases, unless there is a fence along that property line. I don't have any problem granting this variance especially in light that there is no opposition to this. I would move that we approve this requested side setback for 4.3' just in that triangle that they are proposing and not for the entire side setback. Johnson: I'll second. Roll Call Upon roll call, BOA 06-1903 is approved by a vote of 5-0-0. The motion carries. Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 19 BOA 06-1904 (BRISIEL, 526): Submitted by BLEW, BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located at 639 HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY — 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.58 acres. The request is for a variance from the requirement of 70' lot width to a 61.63' lot width (an 8.37' variance) Garner: The property is located at 639 Happy Hollow Road, approximately 300' north of Huntsville Road. The applicant proposes to split the lot. It is approximately 0.40 acres. They want to split it evenly down the middle into lots of 0.2 acres. In doing so, the proposed lots would not have the required lot width of 70'. As shown on Table 1 of your report, page two, they are requesting an 8.37' variance for each of the lots that would be created with the lot split. Regarding the findings, Staff does find that this lot is relatively large for this neighborhood and you can see on some of the exhibits in the back — on page eight is shown a parcel with a variety of sizes of lots. Some across the street are 70', the ones adjacent are larger than 70', but then just north of the property, there are lots that are 55'-60' in width, so we don't find that this lot would be out a character or create an adverse impact to the neighborhood. We are recommending approval of this variance with conditions as noted: 1) one additional single family home may be permitted on the new undeveloped lot; 2) a building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of construction; 3) all existing structures, easements and utilities shall be located on the site plan submitted for building permit consideration; 4) existing accessory structures on the new lot shall be removed prior to lot split for the new lot; and 5) is referencing the approval of the lot split. Andrews: Is the applicant present? Brisiel: My name is Tim Brisiel and I am the owner of the proposed lot split property. We do several projects like this a year, where we go in and improve and update an existing house. This one is a little different; it is a very unique home. It was the original home on this property, and was part of a large parcel of property. It is a rock house. We have gone in and completed updated it, upgraded the inside of it. We are very pleased with the way it turned out. When we got done, we realized there was a lot of land there where possibly we could go and build another house, that would be 1200-1300 square feet, be an affordable house that we would sell. It wouldn't be a rental. It would be sold to someone in the community. We thought it would be a great possibility to provide affordable housing to someone in the community. Like the Staff recommended on one of the contingencies of approval, is that we would go in and remove the accessory structures. The shed will be relocated. The rock garage will be have to be demolished — it is a more permanent structure than the other temporary sheds. It is also interesting to note that there is an abandoned Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 20 easement on the backside of the property. We are in the process of researching that and doing a quitclaim to that property so that would be a part of this property when the additional home is constructed. This would allow for a privacy fence. A lot split conforms with all of the square footage requirements. It will create a large, deep lot. It is about 81/2 ` short as far as the width requirement goes. We appreciate your consideration. Andrews: Is there anyone else that would like to address this? Justin: Karen Justin: I have a question for the owner. With the removal of the garage, the current driveway will be done away with. Where would a new driveway go in the new plans — trying to see how large each side of the house is compared to where the new yard would be, where the yard of the current neighbor is. Brisiet: With the existing driveway there, that driveway would be enlarged towards the south, on the original property. The new structure would have a new driveway. I will have to research the exact driveway requirements, and whatever we do we will maximize the front yard of both those properties. If we can do a shared driveway to minimize the impact of the front, we might do something like that. Andrews: Anyone else? I will bring it back to the Board. Green: I have technical question for the City Attorney. On an RSF-4 — 4 units/acre, which comes out to 0.25 a quarter of an acre per unit, it if this is reduced to 0.2 per acre, does that make it an RSF-5? Johnson: I think the assumption is that is goes to right-of-way. Green: Or is that RSF-4 an average over a certain area? Whittaker: That is not something I am going to comment on because number one, I don't know what the practical effects are. The folks in planning deal with this every day. Do you all want to field that? Green: Since this did come down to 0.2 acres per lot, I just wanted to know what the interpretation of the RSF-4 is in regards to specific per units - is that an average of the entire acre. Garner: If it was split as proposed, it would not automatically change the zoning, unless there was a rezone. The proposed lots have the amount of square footage as required in RSF-4, which is 8,000 square feet per lot for a single-family dwelling unit. Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 21 Morgan: Green: Andrews: Morgan: Brisiel: McSpadden: Brisiel: Alt: Brisiel: I think typically when we are looking at rezoning a subdivision — a whole entire piece, it is an average. You can't have more than four units per acre average and that's including all the rights -of -ways, dedicated park land that will be dedicated. In the previous issue with regards to Habitat for Humanity, that was a 24 unit per acre, but we didn't really calculate all the surrounding property to make sure each of those was an average. Because it is an individual lot we looked at it — that 6,000 square feet per lot. I think we would do the same thing here. If we were looking, for instance, for a lot split in a recently developed subdivision, and they wanted to create a lot that was a little smaller than 8,000 square feet, we would check the overall subdivision and make sure that that one new lot did not increase the density to more than four units per acre. That is probably a good answer — to look at an overall subdivision and you want to average out to no more that four per acre. Where did we get the 0.4, because at the beginning it says it contains approximately 0.58 acres. In your background, you say 0.4. It says 0.4 on the drawings on page six. It was kind of a learning experience for me, too. When I went and had the surveyors do it. Basically, the original piece was larger. Once we go to do the lot split, we dedicate, as we always do as being good citizens, land to the City for additional right-of-way. And so that's where it was lost along Happy Hollow Road. If you are looking at the survey, you see the "found pin not used detail" and that is a little bit further to the east where the actual property line. I believe that was the original north -south property line along Happy Hollow Road. How is parking now on that existing house? Other than the garage? Are you planning on constructing another garage or how is that going to work? It will be concrete. I don't plan on constructing another garage, simply because of the width constraints. But that driveway will be improved. I don't know the driveway regulations. We will comply with all of that. That will be improved. If I can do a shared driveway to minimize the impact of both of those lots and reduce the amount of square footage we use, we'll do that. Not that you will need a side setback variance later for this new lot to construct a garage? No, I actually have some floor plans for a 1200-1300 square feet. It will be similar to the house that is there, except a little more square, like a 38 x Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 22 40 square. They will conform with all of those setbacks as well as include a two -car garage. Johnson: I move that we approve BOA 06-1904 with Staff's recommendations as shown. McSpadden: I second. Roll Call Upon roll call, BOA 06-1904 is approved by a vote of 5-0-0. The motion carries. Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 23 BOA 06-1905 (BLAIR, 448): Submitted by CHRIS BARIBEAU for property located at 1011 TANGLEBRIAR LANE. The property is zoned RSF-4 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY and contains approximately 2.51 acres. The request is for a variance from the required 25' front setback for 0' setback (a 25' variance). Fulcher: Before I get started on the report, did everyone get a copy? The second page is the best view which shows the 25' setback in yellow along Tanglebriar Lane. As you can see, the proposed home, where the yellow crosses the white, this pedestrian bridge is what we will be discussing. I didn't realize that just south of that walkway, you can see a white line which is a retaining wall within that 25' setback. I spoke with the applicant this morning. It varies from about 18" to 6 to 8'. I think they will be able to answer more questions on that. I did not mention that in the Staff report or make findings for that. I ask you now to let me cover that in the Staff report and to make that a part of the variance request also. Andrews: Sure. Fulcher: The property is located adjacent to 1011 Tanglebriar Lane and is all under one ownership. It includes lots 11, 12, and 13 of Rockwood Addition. The existing home is located on Lot 11 and there is an existing tennis court located on Lots 12 and 13. The surrounding properties consist of single family residential development and is zoned RSF-4. The applicant plans to build an approximately 5,100 square foot home on Lot 12. However, if you look on the third page of the colored survey and diagrams, you will see that only a small portion, approximately 1900 square feet, will be built on the ground level. This design is based on topographical challenges, existing drainage ways and vegetation on the site. The applicant has tried to design a home that will minimize disturbance to the land. Since the applicant has chosen not to significantly grade the property, the home will sit well below the street grade level. To access the home from the street, the applicant has proposed a pedestrian bridge, which you can see on page two, shown within the 25' building setback. The bridge and retaining wall will both be over 30" in height, therefore are required to meet building setbacks. Therefore, the applicant has requested a variance to permit construction of the pedestrian bridge and the retaining wall within the front building setback. The literal interpretation of our zoning ordinances would not prohibit a house being built on this lot. There is adequate room to build a home on this lot. What we are looking at here is how to construct a home without severe grading, without removing a large amount of the existing canopy and vegetation on site, that will not create a large amount of disturbance to the natural environment. That is what they have shown here, that is what they are intending to do. I think the applicant can explain a little more, especially on page three. You can see that the home is built on three levels and these Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 24 retaining walls all are part of this design to limit the amount of disturbance on this property. Because of the grade changes, not going in there and grading the site out, it is going to create the elevation difference between the street level and the home. Therefore the pedestrian bridge and retaining wall to hold back those elevation differences to soil there, are required to be put on the property to fall within the front building setback. Based on the site limitations and environmental design on this lot, Staff finds that the requested setback should be granted with three conditions of approval. Number one is that the front setback variance will only apply to the pedestrian bridge and retaining walls. All other structures, including the proposed home, (page three) shall meet all required building setbacks. Items two and three are basic conditions of approval. Andrews: Is the applicant present? Baribeau: I don't have anything to add. I will respond if there are any questions. Andrews: Any questions. Johnson: They are basically here because retaining walls and bridges are considered structures. Fulcher: They are all over the 30" height limit. Johnson: But the actual livable structures are located of outside of it... Baribeau: And the footprint of the building to get the 1900 square feet — basically that's the garage that is set below and to enforce the entire house. The rest of the house doesn't touch the earth. Andrews: Would anyone from the audience like to address this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it back before the Board. Green: It seems very sensitive to the site. I commend them for that. Johnson: I think building on hillsides is something that there is a significant advantage to because you definitely don't want to impact it too much. It seems like a very good way to minimize the impact but still create something that has all the advantages of being on the hillside. I motion that we approve BOA 06-1905 with recommendations as shown and with Staff request to include the retaining walls as part of the variance request. McSpadden: Second. Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 25 Roll Call Upon roll call, BOA 06-1905 is approved by a vote of 5-0-0. The motion carries. Whitaker and McSpadden: Had to leave the meeting. Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 26 BOA 06-1906 (HOGGATT, 638/639): Submitted by HALLEY H. JR. & CANDACE HOGGATT for property located at 1068 CATO SPRINGS ROAD. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 0.20 acres. The request is for a variance to allow a 0' front building setback off of Cato Springs Road and a 10' front building setback off of South Garland Avenue. This is a variance of the front building setback. Garner: This property is located at 1068 Cato Springs Road and Garland and contains 0.3 acres. This structure has served as a residence since 1960, prior to current zoning regulations. Recently, the two-family structure suffered substantial damage due to a grease fire. They want to repair the structure on the property, however, it is currently zoned I-1 which is industrial, so in order to do that, they need to have the property rezoned to RMF -24. As well they want to rebuild the structure within the same footprint as the existing structure and that would require variances even if the rezoning is approved. The rezoning is before the Planning Commission tonight and then going to City Council at the next meeting, kind of fast tracked so hopefully they can get their building permits going. As discussed in the description, they are requesting front building setbacks on Cato Springs Road and Garland Avenue. As shown on the survey, Cato Springs Road, a portion of the old building footprint encroaches into the Master Street Plan right-of-way approximately two feet, so the Board of Adjustment would not be able to approve a variance to construct in the Master Street Plan right-of-way. That would also require a City Council approval. The variance request before you is for a 0' setback on Cato Springs Road and a 10' setback off of Garland. Staff finds that special conditions and circumstances exist for this structure that was built prior to zoning regulations in 1960 and served as a residential structure. Any repair of the structure would require variances to the regulation. We find that these variances would not be injurious to the neighborhood, as it is surrounded by residential development in a similar type configuration. As we noted, any construction within the Master Street Plan right-of-way would require City Council approval. We are recommending approval and the conditions as noted on page one. Condition one — the setback variance would apply to the existing structure with the site plan submitted for this request; condition two — that the building footprint would not be extended any further into the building setbacks; condition three is related to the building permit that would be required; and condition four — the rezoning would be approved with the setbacks that are proposed for this variance. Andrews: What is the City's plan for widening either of these roads? Garner: Cato Springs Road is designated as a minor arterial, that is why the right- of-way encroaches so far into this lot. It is 45' from center line on the Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 27 Master Street Plan. I don't have any specifics on the timeframe for construction on that. Johnson: Is the 45' right-of-way setback here, is that from the center line? I assume the lines drawn on page nine are center lines of the road? Garner: That is my understanding. This isn't done from a survey, but I scaled it out and checked with aerial photos, and it appears to be from center line. Andrew: Is the applicant present? Hoggatt: I am Haley Hoggatt. To answer the question, it is from center line of the road. The only thing I have to add is that the structure has been there since 1960. We just finished putting $35,000 worth of renovations into this three months ago. The structure is not getting rebuilt. There was never any damage done to the structure; we had interior damage, primarily dry wall, cabinets, trim, everything within the existing of one side. There is melted vinyl that will be replaced. The renovations we did recently didn't require any permits, so we weren't aware of these zoning issues and the setbacks. We don't set back any different than any other home on the street. We have actually owned the property for 13 or 14 years. We own quite a few properties and this was the last one we renovated, because Cato Springs Road had not had any money put into. It was pretty dilapidated area and in the last five years, we have seen quite a bit of improvements to structures that are the same distance off of that road. After that, we did our part to bring our house up to standards, as more of a neighborhood area. I don't know how it ended up industrial in the first place, but it is pretty apparent to me that it is not going to continue industrial. There is nothing industrial being built down there. Johnson: And it is going to before rezoning tonight? Garner: Correct. Green: It looks pretty cut and dried to me. I am going to move that we approve the variance request as requested along with the five items of Staff recommendations. Alt: Second. Roll Call Upon roll call, BOA 06-1906 is approved by a vote of 4-0-0. The motion carries. Board of Adjustment January 9, 2006 Page 28 Andrews: Any further discussion? I'll see if I can get the Bobs' signature on this and get a cover letter and get it before the Ordinance Review Committee. The meeting is adjourned at 5:15 p.m.