HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-08-18 MinutesMINUTES O' THE BOARD 1' ADJUSTMENT 14I:
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday,
August 18, 1986 at 3:45 P.M. in Room III of the City Administration
Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Tompkins, Robert Waldren, Jerry Allred,
Dennis Becker, Gerald Boyd and Dennis Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT: Don Mills
OTHERS PRESENT: Roger 5 Carol Baker
The meeting was called to order and the minutes of the August 4, 1986
meeting were considered.
MINUTES
Allred made the following correction: through out the minutes should
read ... Dave Fulton instead of Dave Stanton... Upon a motion from
Tompkins and a second from Becker, the minutes were accepted as corrected.
APPEAL 86-11 SETBACK VARIANCE
ROGER 6 CAROL BAKER - 3065 QUAINTON COURT
isToday's item of consideration was a request submitted by Roger 6 Carol
Baker to vary the front yard setback from the required 25' to 20.97%
This property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District,
Roger Baker stated they would like to add a front porch to their house
and upon checking the original sketch with Sandra Carlisle the builder
of the house did not place the house on the property as shown, therefore
they would need the approval of the Board of Adjustment before they
can add their porch. Baker stated the reason why they would like
to have the porch is the front entrance has no roof and when entering
the front door of the house when it's raining or snowing the person
gets soaked from the water running off the roof, delivery people such
as UPS can't leave packages there unless there is a covered protected
area and they have this service approximately 3 days a week. Baker
also noted that out of the 64 existing homes in the subdivision 56
of the homes do have a covered entry way or porch of some nature.
Baker explained adding a front porch would not present a erowded appearance
to the neighborhood he, said their lot was a long triangular lot which
runs 100' North, Northwest from their house and there would not be
any building there, directly across the street is a pond which is
a part of a permanent green space or common area in the subdivision
•
IiLL
• Board of Adjustment
August 18, 1986
Page 2
and to the South, Southeast there is an existing home on a cul-de-sac
which is set away from their home, plus their home sets uphill from
the street which gives the appearance of being further away from the
street and his suggestion to a 4' encroachment on the existing ROW
or setback would not present a crowded appearance in the neighborhood
and would increase the property value. Baker also noted he had a
list of signatures from the neighborhood stating they had no objection
to a front porch on his home.
Waldren stated they had a home owners association in that subdivision
and Baker stated the subdivision eonvenants required a 35' setback
but they had received approval from the president of the. association
and the 3 members of the architectural board as far as the current
encroachment is concerned.
Boyd stated in the memorandum it states the restricted covenants
as to proposed eaves, step and porches not under roof shall not be
considered part of the building and what Baker is proposing would
be further in violation of the covenants.
Carlisle stated he would need a further variance from the home owners
IDassociation for the porch as well as the existing encroachment but
he would need approval from this board for the 4' encroachment into
the City's required setback. Waldren stated he would have to work
out the other problems with the home owners association as a separate
item.
Boyd stated this approval is for the existing encroachment and not
what he is proposing to do. Baker felt it would be appropriate to
have the home owners approval before he asked the Board of Adjustment
for approval.
Tompkins asked exaelty where the line would be for the 4encroachment
and Carlisle stated if he built the porch then the porch would be
the encroachment and Tompkins asked where the line would be approximately
with the proposed porch because when you look at the encroachment
line it runs parallel to the street yet the structure is not parallel
to the street. Boyd stated the builder did not build the house according
to the site plan and the survey showed the way it was actually built.
Tompkins stated theoretically from the cases he new about 35' would
be the setback he would have to adhere, even with the City. Carlisle
stated the City cannot enforce their covenants and Allred advised
to enforce a restricted covenant it would take a class action law
suit from the neighborhood.
• Waldren asked why they did not run the porch the full length of the
��I
• Board of Adjustment
August 18, 1986
Page 3
house and Baker stated there is an existing sidewalk that runs towards
the driveway and front entrance.
Tompkins asked when was the house constructed and Baker stated approx-
imately 2 years ago. Boyd then asked if they had the home built and
Baker answered no they bought it on July 10, 1985 and Allred stated
the builder built the home and lived in it for a while and Boyd asked
who the builder was and Allred answered Richard Mayes.
The public hearing was closed and discussion returned to Board members.
Tompkins commented on the appeal that was filled out it asked for
the nature of the appeal and it says a 35' setback and we are dealing
with a 25' setback and Carlisle stated this started out for an appeal
on everything until she looked at the plat and advised Mr. Baker to
go to the home owners association to get approval for the proposed
porch and the office had kept the original form as filled out. Tompkins
then said the reason he brought this up was if down the road someone
else builds and this goes to District court this would be the only
evidence and we may have trouble ultimately.
Tompkins then stated he had no problem with this variance providing
• it's just the porch.
Boyd stated he disagreed and felt this was not a aritiaal hardship,
for one thing they could put guttering on to help, he felt the Board
had turned down more justifiable appeals than this. Boyd stated this
would be a 6X27 foot intrusion and what is the purpose of the 25'
setback.
Allred stated if the house would have been built according to the
plans it would had been easier to deal with, he then said the house
was built as a Cape Cod Salt Box and those homes with that type of
architectural style do not have front porches.
Becker stated how many of these have to come up before we have an
ordinance stating a surveyor shall survey the building location before
the final certificate of occupancy is issued. Becker then said there
is a choice of keeping the water off but then Allred had made a good
point as to the particular style of this home, Beaker said they had
turned down covered aarports to keep the ice and snow off of the elderly.
Boyd stated this house was built within the City's requirements and
the house is more than 25' back and Mayes was not negligent as far
as this Board is concerned and Allred stated the house was not built
according to the plans Mayes submitted to the City and where would
that problem cease with transfer of ownership.
1 ��
• Board of Adjustment
August 18, 1986
Page 4
Allred noted this was a PUD development and the requirements would
be 25' for the front setback in an R-1 district.
In answer to Boyd's question Tompkins stated the purpose of a front
yard setback obviously was light, air, noise and air circulation,
aesthetics was not a consideration of the original concept of the
building line setback. Tompkins then stated they are dealing with
a temporary use with a porch, they can put it on or take it off, he
would have a problem if it were enclosed because then they are made
into rooms.
Baker asked if everything else met this Boards approval could they
see fit to grant this variance oonditionaly and Waldren stated the
proper way would be to table this item until they received approval
from the home owners association.
Moore stated if they approved this variance and Mr. Baker went to
the home owners association they have the right within there sub-
division ordinance to turn him down flat.
Waldren stated he saw no basic line for hardship and it was a large
• encroachment all the way down the house and he would be more inclined
if it were not so large.
Allred asked if they could construct a stoop over the front door to
protect people from the rain and Becker stated that would be more
in keeping with aesthetics.
Carol Baker stated the design they had chosen for their porch is less
stern than what the Cape Cod appears to be and purely from a personal
point of view with the pond across the street they would like to be
able to sit on the front porch and enjoy the natural beauty.
Tompkins moved to approve this variance for a front porch with a condition
that it may never be enclosed. Allred seconded and the motion to
approve passed 3-3-0, Becker, Boyd and Waldren voting "nay".
Waldren stated they planned a discussion on the consideration of the
proposed Tree Ordinance but do to the fact that it was dropped at
the last Planning Commission he felt there would be no point. Carlisle
stated Director Orton would ask the Board of Directors at tomorrow
nights meeting to instruct the Planning Commission to hold a public
• hearing on the Tree Ordinance.
• Board of Adjustment
August 18, 1986
Page 5
Allred stated he would like to send a letter to the Board of Directors
restating their position as to the wishes of the Planning Commission
be fulfilled.
?POTION
Allred moved to send a letter to the Board of Directors in support
of the Planning Commissions deeision, seeonded by Waldren, the motion
passed 6-0-0.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
CI
•
1ao
•
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
P. O. DRAWER F 72702 (501) 521.7700
September 17, 1986
Mrs, Sandra Carlisle
Director of Planning
City Administration Building
113 W Mountain
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
RE: Requisite Vote to Obtain Passage of Motion
Dear Mrs. Carlisle:
The minutes of the August 18, 1986 Board of Adjustment meeting reflect
the following on page 4: "Tompkins moved to approve this variance
for a front porch with a condition that it may never be enclosed.
• Allred seconded and the motion to approved passed 3-3-0. Becker, Boyd
and Waldren voting 'nay'." Passage of a motion requires a majority
vote of a quorum unless a higher number of votes is required by statute
or the rules of parliamentary procedure.
Sincerely,
N. McCord
:kn
cc: Mr. Don Grimes, City Manager
CI
RECEIVED
SEP 171986
OFFICE O. u n f�NNNVQ
rAYETTEnus. ARI{AN&U