Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-01-18 MinutesMINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MERTINC L A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, January 18, 1988 at 3:45 p.m. in Room III 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 OTHERS PRESENT: Dayton Steelman, Beverly Block and Tessi Franzmeier MINUTES The minutes of the January 4, 1988 meeting were approved with the following corrections. Change bolder to boulder Change lob lollar to lob lolly APPEAL NO. 87-28 - VARIANCE IN THE REQUIRED SETBACK DAYTON STEELMAN - 3290 OAKWOOD • The only item of consideration was a request submitted by Dayton Steelman to vary the required setbacks from the required 8' on the south to 2' and from the required 8' on the west to 2'. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. This appeal was tabled at the January 4, 1988 meeting. I.GIY(1);I Tompkins moved to remove appeal 87-28 from the table, seconded by Allred. The motion to remove passed 4-0-0. Mr. Steelman advised that he had not been able to find any documents that closed or vacated the alley in question. Mr. Steelman advised other people on the street felt the alley had been vacated because all fence lines took in the alley way. Tompkins asked Mr. Steelman if he had checked with the realtors on the actual vacating of the alley. Mr. Steelman replied the real estate company took the same position as Dr. McAlister in that the alley had been vacated, but had never saw legal documentation. In answer to a question from Tompkins, Mr. Steelman noted the proposed garage would be attached to the existing carport. Tompkins asked Mr. Steelman if he had is �5 • Board of Adjustment January 18, 1988 Page 2 pursued the slope problem and Mr. Steelman noted a footing would be poured to set the proposed garage up to the existing carport. Mr. Steelman noted the water drained to the south almost to the ROW that belonged to the City. Mr. Steelman felt there would be no additional water accumulation to the south or on other property owners to the south. Beverly Block, property owner of lot 14 said her concern was the proposed garage and the storeroom being 2' away from her property line. She felt the setback requirement was there for a reason, such as utility, fire protection and encroachment. Boyd asked what the distance was from the existing carport to the proposed garage addition and Mr. Steelman replied approximately 25'. Mills noted that it was difficult to tell how much of the lot was occupied or would be occupied with building because the sketch was not drawn to scale. Mr. Steelman advised the major part of lot 11 was front yard. Boyd asked if the proposed garage was single or double car and Mr. Steelman replied the proposed garage was a two car garage. Boyd said he could not tell from the sketch what Mr. Steelman wanted because it was not at all to scale and felt at least graph • paper would have been very helpful. Ms. Block asked if the storeroom was omitted, how many feet would there be from the overhange on the garage to her property line. Mr. Steelman replied there would be approximately 7' from the fence to the garage. Boyd asked what the setbacks were for this corner lot and Franzmeier replied 25' from Oakwood, 25' from Hillcrest and 8' on the interior yards. Boyd then noted the applicant was asking for a reduction from 8' to 2'. Boyd asked why the proposed garage could not go directly behind the existing carport and Mr. Steelman replied his architect advised him that the proposed garage would be more aesthetically pleasing, more economical and would blend in better architecturally at the proposed location. Allred asked if the storeroom could be moved to the north side of existing carport at the east side of the proposed garage. Mr. Steelman said that was a possibility that he had not thought of. Mills said the variance at the back of the storeroom bothered her more than the side variance. Tompkins asked if the proposed use for the existing carport was still for a playhouse and Mr. Steelman replied "yes". Allred asked if heating and cooling would be installed and Mr. Steelman replied "yes". Becker felt the concern was legitimate on cutting the setback from 8' to 2'. He said he would not be in favor of the variance on the south at all. Becker also felt Mr. Steelman should pursue vacating the alley and to obtain legal documentation on the additional 5'. Boyd asked Mr. Steelman if he would agree on a 3' variance rathern than the 2' variance. Boyd explained if the alley was Isvacated by the Board an additional 5' would be added to Mr. Steelmans property, then making the variance conform at that time. L • Board of Adjustment January 18, 1988 Page 3 Allred advised Mr. Steelman to try and clear up the legalities of the alley because if and when he sold, title insurance would require either variances from the Board of Adjustment or action from the Board of Directors vacating the alley. Allred agreed with Boyd in that granting the variance for 3' and with the additional 5' in the alley way would make the variance conform at some future date. Tompkins disagreed explaining he saw no hardship, but rather a design problem and felt the architect could design the proposed garage so that it would be pleasant. He also said in terms of fire and safety he really opposed any reduction of the 8' on the west side. He said in essence there was really no rear yard on corner lots. Tompkins felt the alley was there for service of the utilities and indicated there was an existing utility pole in the alley and thought there was some type of easement in the alley. Mr. Steelman said he thought the utilities were on Oakwood and the pole in the alley was vacated by the phone company. Mills said the utility situation bothered her in the alley. Mr. Steelman said the utility pole in the alley had been vacated and no longer was used for any type of service. There being no other opposition to the appeal the public hearing was closed and is discussion returned to the Board of Adjustment. Mills felt sooner or later the situation as it existed would have to be cleared up because of resale and title insurance. MOTION Boyd moved to grant a variance of 5' on the west side and to deny the variance as requested on the south side of the property, the variance was granted for a garage only, seconded by Allred. The motion passed 3-1-0, Boyd, Allred and Becker voting "yes" and Tompkins voting "nay". There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. 0