HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-11-03 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND SIGN APPEALS
A meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Board of Sign Appeals was held Monday, November
3, 1997 at 3:45 p.m., Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gerald Boyd, Marion Orton, Robert Nickle, Thad Hanna,
Paul Wilhelms, and Michael Andrews.
STAFF PRESENT: Tim Conklin and Heather Woodruff
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF
Minutes were approved as distributed.
BA 97-28.00 VARIANCE (STEVE AND JUDITH SINGLETON)
STEVEN SINGLETON- 836 NORTH HIGHLAND AVENUE
The variance request was submitted by Steven Singleton for property located at 836 North
Highland Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request is to
remove the existing garage and build a new 825 square foot garage 6' from the front property line
(a 19' variance) along Cleburn Street. The Boar of Adjustment may also want to consider
granting a variance for the existing house that has a 5' side setback (3' variance) to the south.
Recommendation: The staff recommended denial of the requested variance as shown on the site
plan submitted with this application for the proposed garage. Staff recommends placing the
proposed garage between the from setback and gas line which is approximately 25' in width.
This width would allow the applicant to build a typical two car garage (20 X 20 400 square feet)
staff does recommend approval of the variance for the existing house as shown on the survey
submitted as part of this application.
Mr. Conklin presented photographs of the site. Cleburn Street had 30' of right-of-way. The street
was 5' wider than a normal local street in the area. He presented an aerial photo to illustrate the
surrounding area
Mr. Singleton submitted a letter detailing the reason why the variance should be granted. He
explained his existing garage had been constructed in 1939 when the house had been constructed.
The garage had a dirt floor and no electricity. The garage was 20' X 12', which was inadequate
for both storage and cars. He wanted to construct a new two car garage, off set from the street to
be able to see out the kitchen window, although, he wanted to have the garage close to the house.
If the garage was moved to the back of the lot it would be directly across from his neighbors. He
did not believe having the garage to the rear was not a good idea. He noted there had been other
setback vacations in the neighborhood. He asked the Board to compromise and grant a 13'
b?
• Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeal
November 4 1997
Page 2
setback. He could then reduce the garage from 32' to 26' and still have enough room. He felt he
had sited the garage in the best place to benefit both his family and his neighbors.
Mr. Wilhelm questioned the size and the shape of the garage.
Mr. Singleton explained a he had measured his car with doors open (13') for two cars, a 3' walk
way in front of the cars and a work bench.
Mr. Wilhelms noted the standard dept of a garage was 24'. He suggested moving the extra space
on the width of the garage to the length, which would require a smaller variance.
Mr. Singleton replied he had considered doing that, but there was a terrace and a slope. He
wanted to build the garage close to the house without blocking the view from the garage.
Mr. Wilhelms suggested making the garage 24' X 36' or longer.
Mr. Singleton replied he had thought about doing that, but he wanted to emulate the existing
house as much as possible. He did not believe the garage would be as visually pleasing. He
• would also have to build further into the hill making the garage higher than the house.
Mr. Wilhelms stated the Board would consider how the addition would complement the
neighborhood . He noted Cleburn had a clean edge appearance. The garage would protrude out
into the space and change the character. If there were only a small protrusion, then the eye could
compensate the difference would not be noticed. He felt it would look awkward to have the
garage that close to the road.
•
Mr. Singleton replied he was willing to scale down from the original request.
Mr. Wilhelms thought a 5' variance would elevate some hardships from the grade and the
existing trees. To place the garage as close to the road as Mr. Singleton was suggesting would
be obtrusive to the neighbors.
Mr. Singleton noted he had a comer lot with two front setback.
Mr. Conklin stated there was an existing rock wall on the east property line.
Mr. Singleton stated his neighbor to the east had requested him not to place the garage next to his
bedroom window. If he was to place the garage in the rear it would fill up the back yard.
PUBLIC
6q
7m
Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeal
November 4 1997
Page 3
Mrs. Harold Fetter, adjacent neighbor, stated she lived across the street from where Mr.
Singleton was planning on placing his garage. She protested the garage. Her living room
window would be facing the garage. She expressed concern about pedestrians not being seen
when backing out of the garage. She noted the applicant had two teenager drivers. She added
all the other residences on Highland had their garages on the alley ( the back of their lot). She
stated another neighbor had expressed concern about people backing out the garage and
damaging her retaining wall.
Mr. Jonathan Wommack stated he was representing another resident that was concerned about
the garage being located in front of their living room window.
Mr. Harold Fetter, adjacent neighbor, stated the proposed garage could be made into a two story
building.
Ms. Fetter did not want a two story building in the neighborhood. She did not believe Mr.
Singleton had told her the truth about the building and his office. She was going to move after
the first of the year. She thought the variance should be postponed to allow the new owner a
chance to voice their opinion. She felt the logical place for the garage would be parallel to this
neighbors with the entrance off the alley.
Mr. Fetter felt the proposed location of the garage was to close to the street.
Mr. Singleton replied the garage would not be two story, however the pitch of the roof was steep
enough to allow room for a small office upstairs. He did not want a conflict with the neighbors,
but he was wanting to construct a garage. He did not believe the driveway would be unsafe.
Mr. Fetter felt the garage needed to face the alley.
Mr. Singleton replied he was requesting the building to be offset from the house. If not he would
have to choose between his back yard and the garage.
Mr. Boyd stated the Board of Adjustment could control was the ability of the applicant to
construct in the setbacks. The board could not address the location or the direction the garage
was facing.
Mr. Andrews suggested allowing a variance for a few feet.
Mr. Boyd stated did not believe obstructing a view of window could be considered a hardship.
He believed there was ample room to place a garage within the existing setbacks, which were set
by the city.
Mr. Wilhelms added a corner lot could not be considered a hardship.
• Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeal
November 4 1997
Page 4
Mr. Singleton noted the house was set back from the street. It would be a financial hardship for
him if he could not build the garage where he wanted to.
Mr. Wilhelms stated the setbacks were one of the givens for a design problem. Every site had
specific maximums. He had seen most garage with tighter constraints. He had lived in urban
situations that were tighter, where the garage was preferred to be in the rear because it defined
the yard.
Mr. Singleton felt the yard was already defined.
Mr. Nickle felt the structure could be constructed within the lot without going into the setback.
He added most garages were not more than 24' deep, which was acceptable. Most people could
not open both car doors at one time. He noted the proposed garage was not a conventional size.
Mr. Singleton was reluctant to construct a building inadequate in size. He did not want to block
more windows. He felt he was being asked to live with two standards. He believed most new
developments had 25' right-of-way, he had the old limitation of 30' right-of-way.
• Mr. Conklin replied the lot had 8900 square feet. The R-1 zone required an minimum of 8,000
square foot lot. The lot area and frontage met the requirement. The standard garage, in an R-1
zone, was 400-450 square feet.
Mr. Wilhelms questioned the width of the right-of-way.
Mr. Conklin stated the standard right-of-way was 50' (25' from center line.) He added the
buildable area for the lot was adequate for the addition of the garage.
In response to questions from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Conklin stated the minimum driveway dept was
12.5' from the property line.
Mr. Hanna suggested moving the garage to the east and to the south with the alley as the entry.
The location would open up the yard which was now occupied by the driveway and the old
garage.
Mr. Singleton replied the alley was small. In the winter the alley was icy and difficult to use.
In response to comments made by Ms. Fetter, Mr. Boyd stated the Board of Adjustments could
not required Mr. Single to build in a specific direction.
• Ms. Orton suggested granting a smaller variance.
11
• Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeal
November 4 1997
Page 5
•
•
MOTION
Mr. Wilhelms moved (due to the presence of the tree) to grant a 4' variance (21' setback) along
the north property line from the east corner of the house to the east property line. The 4' variance
would expire if not used within one year. A 3' variance for the existing home on the south side.
To clear the title on the existing home. The 3' variance would be for the existing structure.
Mr. Nickle seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 4-2-0. Boyd and Orton voting nay.