HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-10-29 Minutes•
•
•
y
fts
MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
gr„ele /r --i. -
The Fayetteville Board of Adjustment met at 3:45 P.M., Monday, October 29, 1973,
in the Chamber of Commerce Board Room, 123 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Members Present: James H. White, Albert Witte, Suzanne Lighton, Connie Clack.
Members Absent:
Others Present:
Chairman Carl Yates
Mr. Herbert Hatfield, Mr. Harold Duggar, Mr. & Mrs. E.R. Keown,
David McWethy, Mayor Russell T. Purdy, Bobbie Jones, Iris Dees.
The Vice -Chairman, James H. White,called the meeting to order and explained the
procedures of the Board of Adjustment in their public hearings.
Vice -Chairman White opened the public hearing on Appeal No. 73-33, APPEAL NO. 73-33
Mr. Herbert Hatfield, 22 East Meadow Street, Zoning District MR. HERBERT HATFIELD
C-3, Central Commercial District, on an application to vary 22 E. Meadow St.
setbacks. Mr. Hatfield requested a setback of 1 foot from
the alley which would be 6 feet from the center line of the alley and 15 feet is
required from the center line of the alley. Vice -Chairman White asked Mr. Hatfield
to explain why he wanted this variance and what justification there is to the variance
and matters related to the appeal. Mr. Hatfield first asked if everyone was
familiar with the Goodyear building and where his building was. He said there was
a little rock building there when he built his garage in 1946, and he needed
something for a washrack so he used it continually and built the main garage building
on south and east of that. He said he had used it up until this last summer, but
one day when he was up in the Mcllroy Bank building he noticed how very unsightly it
was, so he made up his mind right then to do away with it and improve the area. He
said he went over and tore it down and then asked for a building permit, and he was
in trouble. He said he couldn't extend the wall of the present garage building on
back of where this wall was without going over a 15 -foot requirement and it's only
14 feet from the alley over to the main part of the building so it's impossible to
use the area without getting a variance to extend his present white brick wall on
back along side of the alley. He said he had opened that alley originally, removing
a three-foot tree, grading the alley, and black -topping it. He said he built the
garage building and set back an extra foot on one side from the alley. It's a
ten -foot alley and when he built the Goodyear building he set back another foot and
made it a twelve foot alley so the sanitation trucks could get through there. He
said, "All I'm asking is to be able to extend the wall where there was a wall
originally, and enclose the wash rack that was a little rock building with a sloping
tin roof and to make it out of white brick.'!
Miss Lighton asked if he officially dedicated the alley a public alley or was it
something for his convenience. He said it was already a dedicated alley.
Vice -Chairman White asked when he applied for a building permit on this and
Mr. Hatfield said he applied just as soon as he tore the building down. Mrs. Clack
asked if it was going to be in the same place and he said yes, all he was doing was
putting up.'a white brick wall instead of rough rock with a sloping tin roof and that
this would be an extension back from his present building. The members of the
Commission said they were familiar with the building location. Miss Lighton asked if
he applied first for just a permit for a retaining wall or what had changed since his
first application for a building permit. He said he first said he would put a
retaining wall back there which he did not have to have a permit for and then he de-
cided,' he wanted to go ahead and enclose it and put a roof on it. Miss Lighton then
asked if that permit to put a building permit there was the one Mr. Lieberenz turned
down and he said it was. She said, " but you went ahead with the building anyway?"
Mr. Hatfield said there was no wall there; there was just a building there, and all
he had was just a retaining wall. She asked, "if there had not been a stop work
order you did plan to go ahead with the building?" He admitted that he did intend
to do so without a permit. Miss Lighton asked why he thought he could do that and
Mr. Hatfield said he thought it was so ridiculous not to be able to put something
52
53�
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment -2-
Page Two
back right where it was only with an improvement. Miss Lighton asked him if
he was familiar with the ordinance and that the individual does not have the right
to violate the ordinance. He replied that it still didn't mean the ordinance was
right. Miss Lighton reminded him that the ordinance was there. He said the
ordinance is going to be changed if he lives long enough. She asked him if he knew
the procedure to do this is to get the ordinance changed and he said this takes so
much time. He said this hurts. the downtown and people are being discouraged to
do anything. He said if it was all to do over he would just forget it and let the
building stay there he was so disgusted with it. Miss Lighton asked him if
he didn't think the way to do it is to correct the bug rather than violate the
ordinance and he said that was the reason he didn't continue with the building after
the stop work order was issued. He agreed that Mr. Lieberenz had no alternative but
to issue a stop work order; but he said it still doesn't make it right. Miss Lighton
asked him if he agreed that Mr. Lieberenzi had advised him to come to the Board
of Adjustment for a variance and if they granted that then he could go ahead and
build Mr. Hatfield said he did agree with that and added that he had been two
months in getting it done and if he had it to do over he would just forget it. He
said there should be someone in the Planning Office to give a yes or no answer when
something like that comes up and someone who can issue a building permit without
having to go through this kind of procedure. He said it was so simple''and should
be allowed anytime it was an improvement where a structure was already there.
Miss Lighton asked him if he was familiar with the rule that a change in any non-
conforming structure you need a permit for. No comment. Miss Lighton said she was
not sure if the Building Inspectors Office wanted the responsibility to grant a
variance, but in any case that would take an amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Hatfield
said that either Mr. Grimes or Mr Lieberenz ought to have the authority because
we're paying them enough to make decisions. Miss Lighton reminded him that they
could not go over the ordinance. Mayor Purdy said Mr. Hatfield brought this up
before the Board informally, but the Board has no action it can take other than to
change the ordinance. Mr. Hatfield said he wanted to follow through with it and try
to work up a change to the ordinance because he is interested in downtown Fayetteville.
Miss Lighton stated that she thought his method of procedure was not very wise, and
possibly added to his delay. Mayor Purdy added that Mr. Grimes and Mr. Lieberenz
were only doing exactly what they've been told to do. Mr. Hatfield saidthat'swhat
he was contending, the Council (Board of Directors) or somebody should give them more
authority to make those kind of decisions instead of having to bother the Board of
Adjustment and Council (Board of Directors) with minor details like that.
Albert Witte said he didn't think that this was the place for this debate and
Miss Lighton and everyone agreed. No one appeared in opposition to the appeal.
Mr. Hatfield said he was going to go ahead and pave this alley to carry the water out
to Spring Street.
The public hearing was concluded.
Vice -Chairman White opened the public hearing on
Appeal No. 73-34, Mr. Harold Duggar, 1754 Janice Street,
on an application to vary setbacks in Zoning District R-1,
Low Density Residential District. Mr. Duggar requested
a 16-fdot setback from Deane Street right-of-way.. .k:25 foot;zoning: .:- _
setback plus 8 feet for the Major Street Plan or a total of 33 feet from right-of-way
is required.
APPEAL NO. 73-34
MR. HAROLD DUGGAR
1754 Janice Street
Mr. Duggar said he just recently purchased this property and he is going to make it
his home. He said he has a single garage there facing Deane Street and wants to
widen it and make it into a double garage to give him more parking and storage space.
Vice -Chairman White asked if the existing garage:building'is 16 feet from the ROW
requested and Mr. Duggar said from the RCM it is 16 feet but it is 28 feet from the
pavement. He said all he wants to do is just widen to the east; the house faces west.
He said he already has the permit for the addition on the north side of the house and
is already started, it met all the -requirements, but the.garage=is.tied'to b}iethouse;
with the roof and he can't move it back, so the only thing he could do is go to the
east of it and double the width of that garage. He said the screen porch is as
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment -3-
October 29, 1973
indicated on the map and that there is too much of value to destroy or move it. Mr. Witte
asked if there was any reason for anyone in that area to oppose it. He said he knew of
no one objecting to it. No one appeared in opposition to the appeal.
The public hearing was concluded.
Vice -Chairman White opened the public hearing on Appeal No. 73-20
which was tabled from July 23, 1973 Board of Adjustment Meeting
to be reviewed again. It was turned back for lack of definite-
ness and the applicants are Mr. & Mrs. Keown. The property is
located on Eagle Street, in Zoning District R-3, High Density Residential District, on an
application to vary setbacks, lot width, and lot area requirements and parking area
requirements. Mr. Keown and his wife were present to represent their appeal.
Mr. Keown said their original intentions were to build a garage apartment back there and
they have talked to the Planning Office and have a semi -permit to do that. He said when
they went to the bank and the bank discouraged this, they decided to put a townhouse
back there. He said they would like to have a house that's near the University and
maybe eventually put two townhouses on there as sort of a retirement project. He said
chances of that area blossoming out into a desireable apartment area were pretty small and
that he wouldn't like to put any more money into it than what they are considering. He
expressed the opinion that the building they would like to put there would be an improve-
ment to the area and on that basis thought it reasonable to let them proceed with their
plan. Vice -Chairman White asked:i£ this was the plan with one existing dwelling plus the
duplex. Mr. Keown said it is. Vice -Chairman White said the variances he would be asking
for in this proposed plan would be street frontage - with 60 feet on each lot he•has
120 feet and no problem there; building separation is 4 feet between the existing house
and townhouse. and he needs 16 feet. Mrs. Keown said that actually the two buildingsdo not
coincide all the way that even though though there is only 4 feet there it isn't the length
of the entire building. She said their eventual hopes would be to tear down the existing
house and build a second townhouse facing Storer Street. She said she thought that two
properly placed townhouses there would make a pretty desireable arrangement.
Connie Clack stated that at the time it was brought up before, there were so many variances
that would be required on the proposed plan that they had submitted and with the possibility
of the original house being torn down.... then the lot size is sufficient that a placement
of the new building could be such as to not require variances on the lot. She asked
their attitude toward that. Mr. Keown said he thought this was strictly financial and if
it didn't cost him anything he would be pleased to do it. He thought that he might be
able to get a little income out of the old house for 2 or 3 years and that he didn't want
to live in a quadraplex and did not think the location is sufficiently attractive to
build a quadraplex down there to rent. He said his whole original purpose on this was just
to:get a place close to camp.. Mrs. Keown said they would rather live in the old house
for three or four years and abandon the project than spend this much money and that they
have property in other states that they could just as easily invest this money in. She
stated they felt that if the Board thought this property is as much of a blight to the
area as they did, and it's really a shame being that close to campus, then anything they
do should be rewarded rather than penalized. Miss Lighton asked if the new building would
be a duplex and Mr. Keown said actually it's called a townhouse and they hope to build
a full basement in there because they think the rental situation is getting pretty
competitive up there. Miss Lighton asked if it would accomodate two families and they
answered yes...they said there would be no garages with it. He said if the experience with
the one townhouse turned out to be successful in the next several years they might tear down
the old house and put in another one. . again with the Board's permission. He said it
wouldn't be a complex, but it would be essentially two townhouses. Vice -Chairman White
asked if it would be a separate unit. Mr. Keown said they might not have any problems
joining the two but essentially it would be a separate unit. Miss Lighton asked if there
would be only 20 feet of shortage in the lotarea. He said yes, part of the original lot
has been sold to the adjoining property. Vice -Chairman White asked Bobbie Jones how much
lot space he would need to build another townhouse. Bobbie Jones said that with two
duplexes he would need 13,000 square feet total and that there is 12,480 square feet in
the total lot. Vice -Chairman White said on the west side setback he has 6 feet, 9 inches,
APPEAL NO. 73-20
MR. & MRS. E.R. KEOWN
Tabled from 7-23-73
.54
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment -4-
October 29, 1973
and needs 26 feet .... Mr. Keown said that's certain within a few inches anyway. Bobbie
Jones said the ordinance calls for 8 feet and if the height of the building exceeds
20 feet the setback has to be increased. Mr. Keown said they could get that roof line
down by putting a flat roof on it and leaving off the overhang, but it would make it a
less attractive building and also a less satisfactory construction because they propose
a gable roof on it and it is the gable roof that actually adds the extra height. Vice -
Chairman White asked if they met the roof height would it be 8 feet from roof overhang.
Mr. Keown said they would still need to get rid of the one foot, 3 inch overhang. Vice -
Chairman White asked if with a flat roof with no overhang would they meet the requirement.
Mr. Keown said he assumed it would. Vice -Chairman White said off street parking has five
spaces and needs_six. Mr. Keown said the old house now has a driveway in off. Eagle, and he
presumed if'that,turned out to be critical they could put another parking space or so in
there. Mr. Keown said he thought they could agree to try to supply enough parking spaces.
Vice -Chairman White asked about screening of parking and if there are 6 more spaces next
to the west line we must have screening along the west side. Vice -Chairman White said it'
looks like you have a hedge now. Mr. Keown said he thought there is some sort of fence
between the two properties if not all the way. The plan that he had actually calls for a
certain amount of brick work in there. He said they would probably put a fence in any-
way and Bobbie Jones informed them screenirig,.where required, is a view obscuring fence
or hedge between 5 and 8 feet in height. It is only required if there are 6 or more spaces
and this was included because 6 was the required number of spaces. Miss Lighton asked
Bobbie if it just means along the parking area lot and it doesn't mean the whole west side,
to which Bobbie answered yes. Mr. & Mrs. Keown said it's quite possible they might want
to fence the whole west side and if there is any question about that they would probably
put upxa screen anyway. Mrs. Clack asked Mr. Keown if he had thought ahead enough about
the size of the second building that would replace the old one. Mr. Keown said if he
put another townhouse in there he was pursuaded it would be a pretty nice looking project
if he were able to carry it out. Miss Lighton asked how far they would have to set back
from Storer Street. Bobbie Jones said a minimum of 25 feet from the right-of-way.
Mrs. Clack questioned whether they would have room to build a second townhouse. Mr. Keown
asked if they could build another townhouse which was technically built into this one.
Mrs. Clack asked if he meant joined to it instead of separate from it. Mr. Keown said
couldn't you build another townhouse exactly like this if you wanted to. Mrs. Clack
said it would not sit back far enough from Storer Street. Miss Lighton said they wouldn't
deed the 16 -foot separation between the buildings if they attached it.. Mr. Keown said
this was what he meant. Mrs. Clack said she was suggesting, in light of the possibility
of future plans, it might be that they would want to reconsider this if it's not going
to have space for four apartments. Mrs. Keown said there is no place to put it and keep
the existing building. Bobbie Jones said that on the four feet between the buildings,
she believed this might be measured from the building wall on the proposed townhouse
and she was not sure what it was measured from on the existing house. She said the
16 feet required is from roof overhang to roof overhang and that may need some clarification
Vice -Chairman White asked Mr. Keown and he said he couldn't remember and that these
townhouses are designed in such a way that you can make row houses out of them so they
might consider building a storage house to connect them. Mrs. Clack asked if that would
get rid of the building separation. Bobbie Jones said it could if it got to the point
that the roofs were connected, but they may have some trouble in doing that with the
existing house because we do have minimum window space requirements and if they get into
anything that would affect that then it's a matter for the building code. Mr. Keown
asked if she was talking about the fact that they might lose a window in the existing
house. Bobbie Jones said yes, and this is not a matter for the zoning, it is a matter
for the building or housing code. Mr. Keown said he felt sure if it's only a matter of
formally connecting the building they could do that, but maybe they shouldn't consider
the storage thing. Mr. Keown said they were living in the house now and if they were
not able to come to terms would continue living there for a few years. He said that
although the houses in the area are modest, the people think the property is valuable
because of its proximity to the University of Arkansas. Mr. White explained at this point
that the purpose of the Board of Adjustment is to view unique situations to see if terrain
or some unusual or unique situation warrants a variance from the ordinance for the parti-
cular building. No one was present to oppose the application.
The public hearing was concluded.
55
BOARD of ADJUSTMENT
October 29, 1973
The Board reviewed Appeal No. 73-20. Mr. Witte said he didn't APPEAL NO. 73-20
think the situation was any different than what it was in July.
He added that it's too vague and it doesn't relate to the purpose of the Board; it
seems more to help them out of a questionable investment. He said he was not even
sure what the Board is asked to vote on in this, there are so many changes in the
future involved. Miss Lighton said she was not sure either. Mr. Clack said she
thought the Board would really be doing them a favor to turn them down because it seems
like it's going to be a poor use of the property. Mr. Witte said he thought the
Keown's realized that themselves. Mr. Witte moved to deny the application for
variances submitted by Mr. & Mrs. Keown because they apparently want this for monetary
gain, there's no particular terrain problem; and the usual reasons for a variance are
r not existant. Miss Lighton seconded the motion. Mr. Witte agreed possibly the whole
area might need to be rezoned or go back and give it a fresh look, which the Board
is not equipped to do. Miss J•ighton said she thought this is what needs doing.
Vice -Chairman White said the reasons the Keown's give are so different from the ones
they are empowered to deal with. The motion to deny the application passed
unanimously.
The Board discussed Appeal No. 73-34, Mr. Harold Duggar.
Miss Lighton moved to grant the variances and Mr. Witte seconded.
The motion passed unanimously.
APPEAL NO. 73-34
The Board discussed again Appeal No. 73-33, Mr. Herbert Hatfield. APPEAL NO. 73-33
Mr. Witte said that although a setback of 6 feet from the
centerline rather than 15 feet figure quite strong, in looking the area over and the
proposed construction, he would not have that much objection to what Mr. Hatfield
proposes.
Al Witte moved to grant the variance under Appeal 73-33 as requested for a setback
of 6 feet from the centerline of the alley to the roof overhang and not to extend
farther north than the back of the existing building. The Board asked Bobbie Jones
to caution Mr. Hatfield to follow the due process of the law in the future. Suzanne
JAghton seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
MINUTES
Minutes of the October 8, 1973 Board of Adjustment meeting were approved as mailed
with a correction on Page 9, paragraph 2, line 4, to change "North Street" to
Baxter Lane.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 P.M.
56