Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-06-25 MinutesThe Fayetteville in the Directors Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: 9p 9 -a3 - MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Board of Adjustment met at 3:30 P.M., Monday, June 25, 1973, Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Carl Yates, Connie Clack, James H. White, Suzanne Lighton. Albert Witte. None. Susie Marley, Don Thronesbery, Mrs. T. C. Carlson, Jr., Rip Lindsey, Morris Collier, Warren Seagraves. Chairman Carl Yates called the meeting to order. Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal No. 73-17, Susie Marley, 212 Oklahoma Way, on an application to vary setbacks. This public hearing had been originally scheduled to be heard June 11, APPEAL 73-17 SUSIE MARLEY 212 Oklahoma Way 1973, but had to be postponed because of a lack of quorum. Mrs. Susie Marley was present to represent the application. She stated they have already started constructing the house which is setback behind the line. She requested a 14 ft. variance to permit her to build a 4 ft. deck 10 ft. above the ground on the front of the house. Zoning and Major Street Plan setbacks require 30 ft. from right-of-way to building. Chairman Yates discussed with Mrs. Marley a telephone conversation he had had with her in which she told him she wished to go on and start the house with the understanding that she could not put the deck on it unless the Board of Adjustment granted the variance. Connie Clack asked what her alternative would be if she did not get the variance. Mrs. Marley said they would just continue to build the house, but it would not have a deck. Suzanne Lighton asked if it was not possible to move the house further to the East. Mrs. Marley told her they were getting back into the mountain. Morris Collier asked if the deck would have a roof over it and whether the setback is figured from the existing street right-of-way or from the right-of-way needed. Mrs. Marley said she would like to have the roof over the deck. (Mr. Collier's address is 724 Missouri Way.) Rip Lindsey, 203 Oklahoma Way, said that there is a 50 ft. street right-of-way with a pavement that varies from 14 ft. wide to about 8 ft. wide. It measures about 26 ft. from ditch to ditch. There is inadequate drainage and sewer facilities. There are already apartments there which he said he felt were not set back far enough from the street right-of-way. There are parking problems; where this particular driveway is the driveway goes up to the house at a very steep angle. If that street had to be widened, it would be impossible. Chairman Yates asked Mrs. Marley if she had established where her property line is and whether she is set back from it enough. She said she has and is. Chairman Yates then asked Mr. Lindsey if he was opposed to a variance of 14 ft. with that background. Mr. Lindsey said he was not arguing with the l4 ft. variance requested; he was arguing with the philosophy. Fayetteville has some very unscrupulous builders and developers. Warren Segraves, 217 Oklahoma Way, said he did not feel there was 30 ft. between the house and right-of-way. Mrs. T. C. Carlson, Jr., 790 Missouri Way, said she believed a permit was issued showing a 10 ft. deck and with the minimum setbacks shown in red. Mrs. Marley found she could not meet the setbacks. Mrs. Carlson felt it will be impossible to get Mrs. Marley's automobile off the street if that street is ever widened. They have gone ahead and started the house and even tried to blast in order to get the house started. She thought this set a bad precedent. Board of Adjustment 6-25-73 -2- Rip Lindsey said he could not conceive of anyone wanting to live in a house that sits like this one does. The builder had told him they were going to sell it when they got it finished. Suzanne Lighton asked Mrs. Marley whether the house is being built for sale. Mrs. Marley admitted it might be sold, but said they were building it to live in. Morris Collier said that until the City services are provided and completed for concentrated residential areas he did not feel that any variance should be granted. Also, not until the street is to its full width and then to see how the setbacks and topo of the ground is. Also, whether we will say automobiles can get up a 25% grade which is about what it will be if the street is ever widened. Mrs. Marley said the street widening did not have anything to do with the variance she is requesting. Don Thronesbery said that as a disinterested party he thought they have made a beautiful city out of Eureka Springs and asked if this is any worse than that. Albert Witte asked if the existing pavement of the street in front of this property is 40 ft. wide. Rip Lindsey said right in front of this property it is approximately 14 ft. wide. The west edge of the pavement is approximately 5 ft. off the West right-of-way. That would mean the building would have to be set back some 50 ft. from the edge of the pavement. He said he had not measured it, but could see that it dust does not. Suzanne Lighton asked Mrs. Marley if she had determined that the house is far enough off the right-of-way. Mrs. Marley said she was not involved in this herself, but that it had been done. Albert Witte said there was an implication that Mrs. Marley had applied for the building permit and then came back and asked for this variance. This says you will reduce the deck to 4 ft. What was your intention? Our first intention was to be able to drive under the decking (12 ft.) but we realized we could not dig back into the mountain that far and now will settle for a 4 ft. deck. Mrs. Marley also said they could get the house on the setback, but not the deck. Albert Witte asked Warren Seagraves about a letter he had written opposing the variance. Mr. Seagraves said he had personally considered buying the lot in order to keep it a vacant lot and keep someone else from building on it, but had decided no one could build: on it. Mrs. Carlson said the builders have left a strip of trees here, but she felt that the trees were all on the street right-of-way. Mr. Segraves said that the application said that the house next door has a variance. That house is his. It is a number of years old and was built before we had arty zoning regulations. There were no further questions, so the public hearing was concluded. Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal 73-18, General Management Corporation, 380 West 24th Street, on an application to waive screening of APPEAL 73-18 the parking area. GENERAL MANAGEMENT CORP. Don Thronesbery was present to represent the application. He said 380 W. 24th St, that the ordinance requires that next to the street he put up a 5-8 ft. fence, either hedge or wood, and he felt that would be a traffic hazard, would hide his building, and make it easy for thieves and vandals to work unseen. Mr. Thronesbery proposed to put up a post fence down low with a small hedge about 3 - 5 ft. high. It would be see-through and would just be for decoration, nothing else. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones read from Art. 8, Sections 9 and 10 of the zoning ordinance the requirement to screen parking areas across a street less than 160 ft. wide from residential property. Chairman Yates said that the drawing he received showed parking out to the right- of- way with a note that it must be pulled back. He asked Mr. Thronesbery if he could pull it back. Mr. Thronesbery said he could, his contractor had prepared • • • Board of Adjustment 6-25-73 -3- this drawing and he had no intention of parking out to the fence. Connie Clack asked if he could screen the parking on either side of the driveways and eliminate the parking along the very front between driveways and not have screening required Mr. Thronesbery said it would still be required on the parking back against the building. You would have an 8 ft. fence which would make people entering the street doing so blind. Albert Witte asked Mr. Thronesbery to tell him again his reasons, besides being a traffic hazard, for not wanting the fence. He said it was to prevent vandalism and theft. Chairman Yates said that if the parking has to be set back 15 ft. from the street right-of-way, could they not put the screen back that far and not have a traffic hazard. Connie Clack asked whether it would be feasible to rearrange the parking so that part of the parking could be behind the building. Mr. Thronesbery said that his entrance door would be in the center South of the building and this would be a long walk from the parking area behind the building. Also, this drops down quite a bit in the back. Mr. Thronesbery went through the building plans with the Board of Adjustment. The building is an existing building to be remodeled. Morris Collier said that when you are on the street, you cannot see the building from the street. That parking area has been established there for some 30 years. Mr. Thronesbery said he would like to cut the bank down some and that the City is thinking about rebuilding the street, then they would have to cut the bank down. Morris Collier said that looking at it from a businessman's viewpoint, he would hate to have to put up anything to hide his building or any sign he might want to put up. There were no further questions, so the public hearing was concluded. The Board returned to its review of Appeal 73-17, Susie Marley. Suzanne APPEAL 73-17 Lighton said she hated to discourage her. She could see Mrs. Marley's position that that deck would add a lot to the front of that house, but could not help but think that is something that should have been thought about when they planned the building. She said she was generally opposed to any variance in that area. Suzanne Lighton moved to disallow Appeal 73-17, Susie Marley. Connie Clack seconded the motion. Chairman Yates called for further discussion. Albert Witte said that as he understood it, the house will be built regardless, whether it should be or not. He asked Miss Lighton what the basis for her opposition was, since the house will be built regardless. Miss Lighton said she did not think it was a good place for that kind of house, she realized that was no reason to deny the request, but thought, as a matter of principle, the Board should not grant variances on the very difficult lots. Chairman Yates said that if the Board works on the assumption that the house will be built and assume that the addition of the covered balcony will add to the appearance of the house, would it not be better to go ahead and grant it for the benefit of the neighbors as well as for the applicant. Connie Clack said that she felt the plans have already been adjusted and could be adjusted another 1i ft. Chairman Yates explained that Susie Marley had called him one evening and told him they would like to get started but needed a variance. He had explained that the Board would not meet until June 11 and she had said she would lose the contractor is she waited that long. Mr. Yates had asked her if they would be building the house whether they got the variance granted or not and she said they would. Since he did not know what this Board would do, he had suggested that in order to keep from losing her builder she go ahead and get a building permit and then bring it back 06 Board of Adjustment 6-25-73 -4- before the Board of Adjustment. He had suggested that if they were going to go ahead and start, that she get as far back into that bank as she could because • this would be the first thing the Board would ask. Miss Lighton asked Mrs. Marley if her builder had determined that they could not go back any farther into that bank. Mrs. Marley said the cost would have been too high. Chairman Yates said some mention had also been made of blasting and he understood that she had talked to some of the neighbors on this. Albert Witte asked if the foundation of the house is set back 321 ft. from the Major Street Plan right-of-way. Chairman Yates and Miss Lighton said Mrs. Marley had told the Board that she is 321 ft, back from the existing right-of-way which allows for the Major Street Plan. Mr. Witte said that Mr. Lindsey had cast doubt on that fact. This was discussed; it was decided that the Board's action would not take that statement into account. Mr. Witte said it is not the Board's decision as to whether a rational builder would put a house there or not. He said he was not sure whether or not the variance should be granted, but felt because this is an unusual area and this is the reason the Board meets. He did not know how they avoid the lack of services and how that should be remedied. Connie Clack said that the basis for her feeling is that when a person purchases a lot and investigates the restrictions, it is up to him to plan a building that will meet those requirements rather than planning an ideal house and trying to get a variance. The vote was taken on the motion to disallow the application. Clack voted "Aye"; Yates, Lighton, Witte, and White voted "Nay". The motion did not pass. Albert Witte moved to grant a 1z ft. variance on Appeal 72-17, Susie Marley. James White seconded the motion. The vote was taken and White, Yates, Witte, and Lighton voted "Aye"; Clack voted "Nay." The motion passed. The Board discussed again Appeal 73-18, General Management Corporation. APPEAL 73-18 Albert Witte said he was not sure on this. The vandalism and theft argument he did not think has anything to do with the use of the property. He had no opinion and thought those facts irrelevant. As to the traffic hazard, he has travelled it a lot and the whole thing (24th Street) is a traffic hazard. It is notas bad going by this property. He was not sure how this fits in with the Board's jurisdiction. He thought Mr. Thronesbery's quarrel is with the Board of Directors. Mr. White and Miss Lighton discussed what would prevent him from using the parking as it is now. Mr. White asked Mr. Thronesbery if he would be willing to screen off the parking on the two extreme sides and in the middle put the type fence he had planned. Mr. Thronesbery said he still felt that would be a traffic hazard. He preferred to put the parking back and put up a flower garden. Mr. Witte said his position is that the legislative body of this City decided this and it is not for him to change. Chairman Yates asked what would happen if the variance is refused. Mr. Thronesbery said he has two people wanting to lease the building and use it for what was in there before and he would lease it to them. Suzanne Lighton said that he has not shown hardship, but she was considering how long he would have to wait if the ordinance is to be changed. She did not feel that when the ordinance was passed, they were thinking about a case like this. Chairman Yates asked what if the Board gave him a variance with the condition that there not be any parking closer to the street right-of-way than 50 ft. Mr. Thronesbery said the City will be rebuilding that street and he will give 10 ft. for right-of-way widening. He could put the pole fence he planned and put roses or shrubbery one out there. James White moved that if he maintains the parking area at least 50 ft. from the existing street right-of-way with a pole fence across the front with two entrances 27 • Board of Adjustment 6-25-73 -5- and with landscaping between the right-of-way and fence that the variance be approved. Suzanne Lighton seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously. The minutes of the May 25, 1973, Board of Adjustment meeting were approved as MINUTES mailed. The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 P.M. 28