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