HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970-04-27 MinutesMINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
367-2
The Fayetteville Board of Adjustment met at 10:00 A.M., Monday, April 27,
1970, in the Directors Room of the City Administration Building, Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
Members Present: J. F. Palmer, J. F. Robinson, Ed Clement.
Members Absent: Carl Yates, Roy Clinton.
Others Present: Harold Lieberenz, John "Jack" Tuttle, Helen Edmiston,
Ned Deskin, 01 -lace Stockburger, Mrs. Fred Bailey,
Kathryn Durham, Mrs. Faye Jones,
Chairman J. F. Robinson called the meeting to order.
The Board decided to consider the Jack Tuttle request for alternate
variance in view of the Board's denial of the variance requested at "JACK" TUTTLE
the March 16, 1970, meeting. Mr. Tuttle request permission to enlarge
an existing front porch. The roof.overhang would be only 23 feet
from the front property line rather than the 25 feet required..
Mr. Tuttle explained his request. There was no one present to oppose
the request, so the public hearing was closed.
The next item of business was the application of Helen Edmiston for
a variance for a group housing project on the East side of Hill Avenue
between Stone Street and Putman Street. Also, a variance is requested
• for front, rear, and South side setbacks; and also, a variance to HELEN EDMISTON
permit parking in the front yard.
The Board reviewed the requests through a study of the proposed plans
with Mrs. Edmiston. Mss. Edmiston stated that building roof overhangs
would conform with the setback regulations; however, there will be 81,
firewalls between the apartment units which will extend closer to the
property lines than permitted in the ordinance. Chairman Robinson
asked if the 16 units proposed would be permissible on a tract of this
size under the ordinance. Mr. Lieberenz said if these units were all
contained within one building there would be ample lot area for 16 units
or even 21 units. However, since 3 buildings are proposed, there would
not be sufficient area unless the buildings are connected at the roofline.
Ned Deakin, a property owner on Hill Avenue, asked whether the drive
shown on the plot plan extending from the street across the North side
of the lot to the alley in back was a City alley that had never been
opened and was being opened. It is not. It would be a private drive.
011ace Stockburger, 142 South Hill Avenue, is the immediate property
owner to the South. He had his property surveyed at the time he purchased
it and he notices the stakes for the property in question are placed
about 6 inches over on his property, according to his survey. Also,
he questions whether they can operate to collect garbage within a 5 -foot
area. Mr. Lieberenz stated this matter was to be settled between
Mrs. Edmiston and the Sanitation Department. It will not effect the
issuance of a building permit. Mr. Stockburger stated he is below
Building "B" on a slope. Where will water be drained to?
0
4-27-70 --2-
Ned Deakin said a similar problem had been encountered across the street.
It was necessary to put in curbing to direct the water to the alley and
the alley had to be paved. He further stated that Hill Avenue is barely
wide enough for 2 lanes and is heavily traveled. The tenants of the
existing apartments park in the neighbors' yards and on the sidewalk.
They even put notices out asking the people with dogs to walk them
somewhere besides on the apartment grounds.
Mrs. Fred Bailey, whose husband has written a letter opposing the
variance, said she would like to add some comments of her own. She
objected to the perking in front and said there is a proposal to widen
Hill Avenue to four lanes, thereby eliminating the grassy area between
the property lines and the pavement. This would cause a traffic hazard.
She felt there was insufficient property for the number of units. The
parking at the rear of the lot would place the cars at the edge of the
alley. This alley is used heavily. If a car did not get in at the
proper angle it would overhang. Buildings across the alley are against
the alley. Cars meeting have to get off onto private property. The
garbage "lodal" often sits about halfway out into the alley. Mrs.
Edmiston pointed out that individual garbage containers are planned
rather than the "lodals."
Kathryn Durham, 708 Stone, owns a portion of the property to the South.
She objected to the firewall being closer than 5 feet to the South
property line. Also, her survey does not agree with theirs. They show
her apartment building encroaching on their property. She purchased
the building in 1957. All the problems listed by the other persons
present are neighborhood problems.
Mrs. Faye Jones owns property lying Southeast of the property in
question. Their survey is 2 feet over on her property. All the
houses on University Avenue have their garbage picked up in the alley.
The garbage truck blocks the alley when it goes through. Where the
alley joins Putman there is not room for 2 cars to pass.
Mr.
Stockburger
stated he
was not opposing
the apartments, but did
net
wish
to be
crowded.
There were no further questions and the public hearing was closed.
The Helen Edmiston application was discussed at some length. Mrs.
Edmiston had stated that the proposed ordinance would permit the
parking in front and it could always be added later if they wished
her to withdraw it from the plans. Mr. Robinson said he felt it
should be presented with the buildings connected at the roof to
meet the area requirements. If the parking along the alley :is
necessary to have sufficient parking, they should correct the
problem of angle there. Mr. Lieberenz said this parking would be
necessary. Mr. Robinson and Mr. Clement said they would like; to
see the firewall on the South side kept 5 feet off the property line.
Mr. Palmer said he thought they should work out the property lines
and surveys with the adjoining owners and resubmit.
368-2
HELEN EDMISTON
Ed Clement moved that in view of the information presented to the
Board, the following problems need to be worked out and the plan. resubmitted:
J69-2
4-27-70 -3- -
1. The front yard parking between the building and street.
• 2. Since the property lines are in dispute and the properties are
so close, the firewall on the South side should be sett back
5 feet from the property line.
3. The Board cannot decide on the South side because of the dispute
as to where the property line is.
4. If they are going to park on the East side, it is inaccessible
parking until some provision is made to get into this parking:
Suggest they work with the City on developing that alley so
that it will actually be access to this parking.
J. F. Palmer seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously.
Mr. Robinson said Jim Vizzier, Planning Consultant, should be talked
with about the danger of parking in front and backing out into the street.
J. F. Palmer moved the minutes of the April 13, 1970, Board cf
Adjustment Meeting be approved as mailed. Ed Clement seconded. The
minutes were approved.
Ed Clement moved the Jack Tuttle request be granted permitting Mr.
Tuttle to build within 23 feet of his front property line for a porch
roof overhang. J. F. Palmer seconded. It was approved unanimously.
• The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 A.M.
0
"JACK" TUTTLE