HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-06-06 Minutesa
•
•
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, June 6,
1988 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas,
MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Larry Tompkins, Gerald Boyd, Jerry Allred, Dennis
Becker, Robert Waldren
M:•,I:.:1; 3Z9:+`Ycomma ii�1FC'i3iS!:S31i
1 :IG' G 1 .OF-1 11
The minutes of the March 21, 1988 meeting were approved as distributed.
APPEAL 1
THE
ul rs r
:r�WASHINGTON
The only item of consideration was a request for a variance in the required
setbacks, application submitted by Herbert A. Lewis, Jr. of 327 N. Washington
Avenue, part of Lot 7, Block 18 and zoned R-1. Request was to vary the setback
on the south property line from the required 8' to 2 1/2 ' to be able to build a
two car garage there.
Cyrus Sutherland stated that he is representing the Lewis' in this project. He
advised that the owners are in need of a garage. The only way of doing it there
because of space problems is single width, but we felt that if we used the tandem
principle it would enable them to store two automobiles there. They have
arranged it so that they stay back from the property line by 2 1/2 feet and find
that it will be possible to produce an adequate garage there with the same
materials and the same architectural detailing that the house has and it will be
a relatively inconspicuous addition to the existing house which is an important
one in the historic district. Therefore, they respectfully request a waiver of
the setback regulations to enable them to do that.
Chairman Mills asked the Board members if they had any questions.
Gerald Boyd stated that it seemed like this is very similar to the one they had
N
• Board of Adjustment
June 6, 1988
Page 2
up on North Walnut. As he recalls from their discussion there, if this had been
a carport it would be legal. Bunn stated that assuming it is nonconforming, a
carport could be placed within 5' of the property line. Mr. Boyd stated that he
was concerned because in case of fire, access is denied around that side of the
house because they would be so close to the property line. He stated that he
went back and looked at it from the street, but he didn't walk back to see why
with all the space back there , it could not have been put back farther.
Mr. Sutherland stated that from a planning point of view, it is far less
desirable to use up the rather nice space back there with a garage than to place
it at the side of the building. He stated that he thinks that the placement of
the garage here doesn't deprive access to the rear of the building. It certainly
deprives access by vehicle but not pedestrian.
Mr. Boyd advised that if the property line were fenced sometime in the future, it
would be hard to get by there. Mr. Sutherland stated that there is a fence there
now on the property line. Mr. Boyd said he was thinking of the other people's
property line also. Mr. Sutherland stated that there is still pedestrian access
between the fence and the building with this plan.
Larry Tompkins asked what the distance would be to the house to the southJrom
• the proposed building. Mr. Sutherland stated that he didn't know precisely but
he referred to the photographs which show the position of the house to the south.
Mr. Tompkins speculated that it was 20'. Mr. Sutherland stated that he doubted
that it was 20'. He said the driveway to the house to the South is on the south
side of that house. It does not run parallel with the Lewis' driveway.
Mr. Tompkins asked if this had been taken to the Washington County Regional
Historical District. Is there any relationship here that we should know about.
You spoke of the historical integrity. If anything is built in here, does it
have to be through them? Mr. Sutherland advised that since it is not an
ordinance district, they have not taken it to the historical district. He stated
that the Historical Society doesn't have an official position in it.
Mr. Tompkins asked if there was an attachment requirement, is it necessary to
attach the garage to the main structure? Mr. Sutherland stated that this was
about the only way they could do it and get sufficient width of the garage and
still have some clearance from the boundary line. Mr. Sutherland answered that
there was no physical reason, it was simply a matter of space. They are
maximizing the amount of space they have by making one wall of the garage the
south wall of the house. Mr. Tompkins asked if they had looked at putting it
back in the open space. Mr. Sutherland stated that the owners and he had both
voted against that if there was any way to avoid it because of the pool and the
general openness of the yard between the house and the pool.
Mr. Tompkins stated that the tandem garage fascinates him. Mr. Sutherland stated
that it isn't ordinary, but that is one way of accommodating two vehicles when •
they cannot be accommodated by a double garage.
I5
• Board of Adjustment
June 6, 1988
Page 3
Dennis Becker asked, when this subdivision first came around, what was the
typical side setback, 5'? Mr. Sutherland stated that he didn't know. Mr. Becker
advised that the current setback is 8'. Bob Waldren stated that he would doubt
if there were any restrictions at all at the time this house was built.
Chairman Mills asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak in favor or
opposition of this request. The public hearing was closed and discussion took
place among the members of the Board.
Bob Waldren stated that he was concerned about access for fire vehicles and etc.
He stated that he went and looked at it and a vehicle couldn't get back there now
because of the large trees that are back there and the narrowness of the lot
itself. From the aspect of putting the garage behind, a lot of nice trees would
have to be cut and with this plan they could probably get the garage in with just
one tree having to be removed. He stated that his feeling all along has been
that there are certain areas in this town that because of the narrowness of the
lot and the age of the subdivision itself, should have different zoning
ordinances for those particular districts. He stated that he felt that this is
one of those areas and he is inclined to grant the variance.
Larry Tompkins agreed with Mr. Waldren on the idea that anything that would tend
• to preserve the character and historical integrity of the district is fine.
However, he stated that he does understand the open space problem to the rear
with the pool, etc., but he doesn't see the hardship in the sense of detracting
from the open space in the rear yard. He stated that this is a value thing. He
said he was quite concerned with the proposed garage attached to the house
because of fire safety, etc. If anything would go wrong then a certain distance
of 20' or so from the house could be looked at as a barrier and a contributor to
the public safety problem. He stated that he felt that it could be designed to
make use of the rear yard which would be more appropriate to the safety concept
of the zoning ordinance.
Gerald Boyd stated that the other case they had was a much smaller lot and a more
difficult situation than this is, but they didn't approve it and he felt that the
reasoning they had used with that one should be consistent with this one. It
would seem that even if they retained a tandem garage, it could be moved back
another 18'to 20' so that they could get around that corner with fire equipment.
Robert Waldren advised that this is right behind the Savings and Loan there. He
stated that any fire fighting that is going to be done, would be done over that
fence back there.
Jerry Allred advised that the situation that Mr. Boyd was referring to was on
Davidson Street and the reason the fire marshall was objecting to that particular
instance was that the carport would be within 2' or 3' feet of some existing
• garages. For that reason the fire marshall was objecting to it. Mr. Allred
stated that if this garage were constructed there would still be about 15'
difference between the two buildings which is almost what the zoning ordinances
5�
• Board of Adjustment
June 6, 1988
Page 4
allow
now (8').
It would be very close to what the ordinances
today call for as
far as
ingress
and
egress.
Gerald Boyd asked Mr. Allred if he felt like they had satisfied the hardship
aspect. Mr. Allred advised that the ordinance also says that everything needs to
pretty well be status quo for the neighborhood. He stated that he owns some
property over there and it all has a garage sitting on the property line. He
commented his area has some unusual circumstances that need to be taken into
consideration. If everything could meet the ordinances, they wouldn't need a
Board of Adjustment. He felt that they are here to look at the reasons beyond
what the guidelines call for and in this case the owners have tried to do
everything and they will even have an inconvenient garage to be able to do what
they are trying to do. He stated that he is in favor of this variance.
Dennis Becker stated that he had noticed a roof overhang on one of the photos
that was submitted and it appears that the 12' is inclusive with the wall line.
He asked Mr. Sutherland if he picked up the same overhang detail as on the
existing house, would the setback indeed be less than 2 1/2'. Mr. Sutherland
stated that they have 2 1/2' from the wall and by the time you would add the eave
line, it would probably be reducing it by 1' anyway.
is Mr, Becker stated that he had a general feeling that in the historical
significance of what is going on here, he thought that Larry's point was a good
one, there is a safety consideration. He also stated that from a historical
standpoint, by pressing the garage in there, it really detracts from the nature
of the space that these original houses had around them. He stated that he felt
in the long run they would do themselves a disservice by squeezing the garage in
there. His point would be that there really isn't a hardship. Strictly from a
historical standpoint, he couldn't go along with the variance.
Larry
Tompkins
stated that they have
a policy
of not approving variances that
make
a structure
nonconforming and this
would make
the structure nonconforming.
I.GI M (0),I
Robert
Waldren moved to
grant
the variance, seconded by Allred.
The motion to
grant
was denied 2-3-0
with
Robert Waldren and Jerry Allred
voting "yes" and
Larry
Tompkins, Gerald
Boyd and Dennis Becker voting "no".
Gerald Boyd advised if they moved the garage back and didn't connect it to the
house, using as little of the backyard as possible and keeping it tandem but with
access around it, that would relieve a lot of his concern on this. Mr.
Sutherland asked if he was suggesting moving the front of it beyond the back line
of the house so that there would be passage between the garage. It would no
longer be attached to the house, it would be free-standing.
• Mr. Sutherland stated that he would agree that fire access would probably be from
the rear. He stated that he can't imagine foreseeing the necessity of vehicles
going through here for fire purposes. I
/ /J