Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-08-17 Minutes0 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, August 17, 1987 at 3:45 p.m. in Room Ill of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street,, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Jerry Allred, Gerald Boyd, Dennis Becker and Larry Tompkins MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Waldren and Dennis Moore OTHERS PRESENT: Kim Fugitt MINUTES The minutes of the August 3, 1987 meeting were approved as distributed. oil The only item of consideration was a request for a variance in the required setbacks. Application submitted by Jim Lindsey and • represented by Kim Fugitt for property located south of Joyce and west of Hwy 265. Requesting 10' on the south side of Joyce.from the required 25'. Property zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District, Kim Fugitt stated the lots in Paradise Valley, Tract B back up,to the Paradise Valley Golf Course and front on Joyce Street on the north. He said the developer was planning to build a duplex condominium for the lot in question. He said the developer would like to pull the duplexes back to the golf course as far as they could, mainly to get them further away from Joyce Street. He said lot 12 was very narrow (115' deep, 90' on the small end) and the front would be very close to Joyce. He also added if Joyce ever did expand to 4-lane the road would be right at the front door. Mr. Fugitt said there was a 10' easement that ran across the south property line and would also like that: to be the new setback line. He added the owners of the lots were also the owners of the golf course and there would be no conflict on the variance. Tompkins asked Mr. Fugitt what the existing ROW was on Joyce and Mr. Fugitt replied 801. Tompkins then asked if the developer was also going to asked for a variance on lot 11. Mr. Fugitt replied 40 • • • Board of Adjustment August 17, 1987 Page 2 the developer was not going to ask for a variance on lot 11 at this time. He said there were plans as of right now to do lots 11, 10 and 9 and he believed the developer was going to ask for a variance on those lots as well. Mills asked how far back would the lots be out of alignment from the ones that were already existing to the east. Fugitt said the duplex on lot 12 would be closer to Joyce street than the other fourplex that was just completed. Becker asked if the hole or the tee in the back of lot 12 would stay and Mr. Fugitt replied the hole would stay. Mr. Fugitt added there was a green on the east property line. Becker asked if Mr. Fugitt saw any proximity problems there. Mr. Fugitt replied that was a par 3 and of course there would be problems with the condos there now and they were getting hit:. Tompkins asked why even build on lot 12 and Mr. Fugitt replied the lot was valuable property. Tompkins said he could not see the hardship and could not see why anyone would build or plat the land that close to a golf course. Tompkins asked Mr. Fugitt would he design a condominium with a 10' rear yard and Mr. Fugitt replied if he was the owner "no". Boyd said if the building was going to be 80' long, asked how wide would it be. Mr. Fugitt replied approximately 49'-50' wide. Boyd then said the builder would still have to build up to the 25' line in the front therefore they were not moving it back to get it away from Joyce Street. Mr. Fugitt said in this particular design "no" they would not be moving the duplex back from Joyce Street. Mills asked if the developer thought about building a single unit. Mr. Fugitt replied the cost of the lot versus the duplex would market better. Tompkins asked Mr. Fugitt if he could design a structure on lot 12, given the design envelope for the 25' rear yard. Mr. Fugitt replied "certainly". Allred felt the widening of Joyce cut down on what the developer could do with the lot. Tompkins felt that was not a hardship. Allred said if he owned the lot it would be a hardship to him. Becker felt lot 12 was not an acceptable lot and if it were platted early on it should not of been approved as a 25' buildable side line. Becker felt whatever the case the Board of Adjustment had a problem and felt it was not necessarily of the owners making. 5� • Board of Adjustment August 17, 1987 Page 3 Boyd said the developer could put a smaller building on the lot, he added the developer did not have to build up to the very end of the lot. He felt when you try to squeeze every possible lot out of it he personally did not see a hardship. Mills asked if all the designs would be the same for Tract B of Paradise Valley and Mr. Fugitt replied "no". She then said it really would not be a problem to change the design on lot 12 and work with a single unit. Mr. Fugitt said that was possible, but he did not know if that had any bearing on this Boards decision. He said if they looked at building economics or marketing, that effects the comparison between a one-story and a two-story. He added the quality of the building effected the market value of the quality of living. Boyd asked who owned this subdivision and Mr. Fugitt replied it was a Lindsey partnership. Mr. Fugitt said the market that the developer was developing on the golf course was for retired people and the two-story places • become difficult to sell because of stairs that the retirees would have to encounter. Mr. Fugitt added all the buildings would be two-story, but the main bedroom would be downstairs with 2 other bedrooms upstairs. The public hearing was closed and discussion returned to the Board of Adjustment members. Boyd stated his feeling was anyone could make more money if buildings were more intensily built on particular lots. He said that was not a reason for granting a variance in his opinion. Tompkins said he did not see the hardship and was in agreement with the remark that this subivision was carved out of a golf course after constructed, for whatever reason. He said looking at the intent of the ordinance which was the health, safety and prosperity of an area he could not vote for this. MOTION Becker moved to grant the variance as requested, seconded by Allred. The motion to approve failed to pass 2-3-0, Becker & Allred voting "yes" and Boyd, Tompkins and Mills voting "nay". There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. is