The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1985-04-15 MinutesMINUTES 1' A :1:'1 1' ADJUSTMENT M A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, April 15, 1985 in Boom 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chester House, Don Mills, Robert Waldren, Larry Tompkins and Dennis Becket MEMBERS ABSENT: None The regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chairman House and the minutes of the April 1 meeting were considered and approved unanimously upon a motion by Tompkins and a second by Mills. 1 a: 1• / •� 1 I:11 The first and only item of consideration today was a request for two variances of the setback requirement. The first request is for a carport setback of 0' to property line; required is 8' from overhang • to property line. The second request is for a carport setback of 4 1/2 ft. to property line; required is 8' from overhang to property line. The property is located at 875 Fritz Drive, owned by Mark Theissen and represented by Attorney Wayne Ball. Ball stated that the request is for existing structures at the above address which were constructed for Theissen by a builder who Theissen relied upon to place at the current locations and apparently were placed erroneously. Ball said the problem was not significant at the time because there is a rock wall, as shown on the survey, which was thought to be the property boundary line. He said the neighbor on the north has brought out the discrepancy regarding the boundary line with respect to the rock wall. Ball said the first request is for variance on the carport attached to the house on the north side which extends up to the lot line and the second request is for the side and rear yard setback on the carport at the rear of the property. He said the neighbor west of Theissen has agreed to deed Theissen enough property to bring the west setback into conformity. Ball said he preferred to obtain a variance for that setback rather that going through the process of deeding additional property. He indicated that the present location of the carports is the only ones at which they can be placed because of the slope of the land as well as the cul-de-sac street which is not condusive • gh • Board of Adjustment April 15, 1985 Page 2 to street parking. He said the land drops down about 10 steps at the side of the house and he added that the structure on the north does not block air or light to the neighboring house. Waldren asked if there would be any new construction and Ball replied that there would not, although some of the north side carport would be cut back somewhat. Tompkins asked where the original driveway led to and Ball said that Theissen has speculated that, at one time, it led to a garage but it has been closed off so long, it is hard to tell. Tompkins asked if any alternatives have been considered in terms of locations for carports and Ball said the alternative would be to tear down the carport on the west side to move it but he repeated that there is no place that is suitable to place it because of the lay of the land. Jones commented that a builder failed to obtain a permit and the Planning Office cannot issue one without a variance being granted. Waldren asked how long ago the carports were constructed and Ball • said approximately five years. Theissen noted that the builder was a handy -man that put up the structure in stages between four and five years ago. Waldren asked why the request is needed at this time and Ball said that Theissen had a prospective buyer for his property and the survey was performed in connection with that purchase. He said that it would be difficult to burden a new owner without trying to remedy the existing problem. Jones said that, according to City Attorney McCord, there is no statute of limitations on violations of setback requirements. Mills suggested an alternative driveway path winding in a carport at the rear of the house. Theissen said he had examined this possibility and found that the cost of bringing the necessary cement to the suggested location was prohibitive and added that the cement truck could not gain passage because of trees in the way. Waldren asked what the results of denying a variance would be and Jones replied that the structures would have to come down. She said that the rear carport must meet both the rear and side setback and noted that any parking area should be 5 ft. from any other property with 25 ft. between driveways. Jones said that code has been in effect since 1970 and House noted that this house was built before that time. Theissen said that the drive was in place when he purchased the property • about seven years ago when the house was approximately 25 years old. House added that houses in this area were built after World War II. a • Board of Adjustment April 15, 1985 Page 3 House inquired whether the handy -man who constructed the carports was still in town and Theissen replied that he still uses one of them. He said that he had accepted the builder's attitude that a carport did not require a building permit. Theissen added that when the survey was performed, it was determined that the rock wall on the north side was not the northern property line as previously suspected and also, that his property extended somewhat further south into an easement which was originally an alleyway. Waldren asked what the attitude of the neighbor on the north is and Theissen replied that she does not want the carport on her property. Ball said that, initially that neighbor was agreeable to deeding over property so that the rock wall was the boundary line but has subsequently vacilated in her feelings. Theissen said she is concerned about the carport overhanging into her property and so he will trim it back to satisfy her. Jones noted that, under the zoning ordinance, the neighbor may not decrease her lot size which would result in allowing her less than the minimum required setback which is what would happen is she deeded Theissen that property. The size and legal description of Theissen's lot were discussed and he noted that, contrary to the survey report, the pin on the north • east corner was not found. He said he has done extensive rocking at that location and has never come across a pin there. Tompkins asked the size of the carports and Theissen replied that the north side carport is for a single car and the rear one is a double size. He noted that the north side carport is a drive -through type allowing the unloading of passengers under cover in the rain while the rear carport is built to cover two cars. Tompkins asked the distance between the west side of the house and the west property line and Theissen said about 30 ft. Thompkins agreed that there was not enough maneuvering space closer to the house. Jones said that if Theissen acquires land from the property owner on the west side, a property line adjustment would be necessary and she noted that the west property owner would still need to be able to meet property line setbacks. There being no one in the audience to speak either for or against this appeal, Chairman House closed the Public Hearing to Board discussion. House noted that 95% of houses in this area were built around the time of World War II when inspections were not required. Mills commented that the carports were not that old. • Theissen and Ball pointed out the amount of fall of this property and Mills and other Board members replied that it was not any steeper than many other locations in town. 3o • Board of Adjustment April 15, 1985 Page 4 Waldren said he was inclined to deny the variance for the north side carport but would grant the request for the west side carport contingent upon Theissen acquiring enough land to conform with west side setbacks. Mills said she thought that a carport could be constructed on this property even if it were not as convenient as the present structures. Becker said he found this to be a negative appeal because there are many legitimate builders in town who do operate with permits and he added that he felt this case would be "pulling chestnuts out of the fire" to accomodate a builder who is, perhaps, a marginal operation. He said he saw two possible solutions: a single, conforming (slanted) carport or building up the downhill south side to enter the rear carport. He agreed with Waldren that the north side carport should come down and said he was inclined to deny the variance on both sides. Tompkins said he thought this case was classic of not enforcing zoning. He said he was impressed with what is going on in the area, although he said he could not see the hardship here and felt that a reasonable design solution could be found. Tompkins noted that, unless the variance were tied to a structure, it would go with the land and produce future problems. He said he was inclined to deny the request. • MOTION Becker made a motion to deny this request; seconded by Mills, the motion to deny passed 4-0-1, House abstaining. Board members expressed their concern regarding the three open positions on this Board, particularly in light of the fact that it takes four members for a quorum and there are presently only five members serving, one of whom is carrying over his term until new members are appointed. Board members requested that Jones look into the status of the new appointments. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. • 791