Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-02-19 MinutesOfylig0p.t 4,1 ell 010„g �. i0,/975 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A special meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held at 3:50 P.M. Wednesday, February 19, 1975, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Suzanne Lighton, Connie Clack, Chairman Carl Yates, James White, David Newbern. MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OTHERS PRESENT: Claud Prewitt, Ervan Wimberly, Lynn Wade, Phil Shepherd. Chairman Yates called the meeting to order and opned the public hearing on Appeal No. 75-3, Helen T. Edmiston, 2133 Clover APPEAL NO. 75-3 Drive, on an application to vary setbacks. A setback of . Helen T. Edmiston 20 feet is required from the rear property line and the 2133 Clover Drive subdivider is requesting asetback of 7 feet. The existing old farm house was located here before the subdivision was platted out and encroaches onto a 20 foot easement platted into the subdivision. Claud Prewitt was present to represent. Mr. Prewitt said the house had been there for some time and they would like to remodel the house so that it would look nicer with the subdivision and it would provide good, economical living quarters for someone. He said that this remodeling would not move the house any closer to the property line, and . that this was the West line of the Clover Creek Subdivision; that the house was fairly well centered on the lot (North and South) but they did not have much control over the Western boundary..(The North corner of the house is about 10 feet from the Western edge.) Mr. Prewitt said there was only one adjoining property owner and that there was 70 or 80 feet between their property line and this other house on that adjoining property. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said this property owner lived in Greenland, Arkansas and had been notified. In answer to Miss Lighton's question, Mr. Prewitt said that work on the subdivision was started 2 or 3 years ago and that they knew the house would be a problem when they started the subdivision. Chairman Yates wanted to know if any of the utilities would be using this 20 foot easement that the house encroached on. Ervan Wimberly said only the gas company. He said in talking to Frank O'Donnell (Arkansas Western Gas) that there wouldn't be any problems once the gas line was in. Mr. White asked why, after all this time, that this had come to the Board of Adjustment. Chairman Yates asked if it was a normal procedure for the Planning Commission to approve a subdivision whenit had an easement that was encroached upon such as this one. Ervan Wimberly (Engineer) said that it was more of an oversight than anything else. He said they were aware that this old house would be a problem but at,that time they had other problems that were greater than this and thought they would work this out when the got to it. He said if this house had fallen on two lots of the subdivision, they would have torn it down. Chairman Yates commented that if the utilities ever needed this easement for anything they would be allowed to use it at any time. He said he would not want to put money into this house with it like that. Mr. White felt that it would be hard to get financing on this house in the situation it was in, i45 r • • • Board of Adjustment -2- February 19, 1975 Miss Lighton felt that title insurance would not cover this; however, she felt that this should not affect the granting of the variance. Mr. Prewitt said they would explore into these facts more before they remodeled the house. Mrs. Clack asked if the house was just going to be there long enough to store things during construction. Mr. Prewitt said that it was going to be used for storage during construction but that it was a salvagable house and would make good living quarters. Chairman Yates questioned whether or not the variance could be granted under these circumstances. Miss Lighton and Mr. Newbern felt that the easement was an important question but that it was not a factor in whether or not the variance could be granted. Mr. Newbern said he did not know why, however, that the question of the easement could not be taken into the Board of Adjustment's consideration in making their decision. Chairman Yates then asked if it would be possible to move the house 20 feet from the property line. Mr. Prewitt said this would be more costly than remodeling the house. He said their feeling would be that it would not be worth moving it. There was no further discussion and the public hearing was concluded. APPEAL NO. 75 Larry Carter Construction Co. Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on 1101 Curtis Avenue Appeal No. 75-4, Larry Carter Construction Company, 1101 Curtis Avenue, on an application to vary setbacks. The required setback from right-of-way of Curtis Avenue is 25 feet and the roof overhang of the building on the East side of Curtis encroaches approximately one foot on the setback The building wall of one of the buildings on the West side of Curtis encroaches approximately 2 feet and 6 inches into the setback; the roof overhang encroaches another 2 foot for a total of 41 feet. While running a final survey of the Southmont Apartment complex for the FHA, McClelland Engineers discovered that two of the buildings were encroaching upon a 25 foot building setback line along Curtis Avenue. Mr. Harold Lieberenz, Building Inspection Superintendent, stated that at the time, all the building foundations were poured, that the street was not laid out in such a way that the City Building Inspector could catch the violation. Attorney Lynn Wade and Phil Shepherd were present to represent. Mr Wade said the Southmont Apartment project had originally been owned by a limited partnership who had financial difficulties and the bonding company had to take over and the applicant "inherited" some problems. He said that the original road across the site had been intended as a private drive rather than a public road and there would not have been a setback requirement. He said Mr. Wimberly (McClelland Engineers) coming in under the instructions of the new contract of the bonding company re -surveyed and found the encroachments onto setback lines. He said when the error was discovered these two buildings were already in place. Miss Lighton asked Harold Lieberenz (Inspection Superintendent) how a building permit could have been issued on this. Mr.Lieberenz said he couldn't explain it except that he assumed that they had engineers on the job that laid this out, and if it had gone as planned there would not have been any problems. He said when his inspectors checked the footing and framing on this there were no streets laid out to make this vivid enough for them to catch this. He said if there had been any definite way to have checked the property lines this would not have happened. There was no further discussion and the public hearing was concluded. APPEAL NO. 75-3 Miss Lighton moved to grant the variance as requested on Appeal No. 75-3 on condition fig • • • Board of Adjustment -3- February 19, 1975 that this would apply only to the present house in its present location. Mrs. Clack felt that since the house was there from the beginning and it could have been taken into consideration and some adjustment made at that time to go around it that this variance request should not be granted. Chairman Yates wondered if it would be better to just postpone action on the appeal until it could be examined more thoroughly. David Newbern felt that since this house would not conform had been platted out that the appeal should not be granted. certain set of plans had been drawn up that they should be that had the house fallen ontwo.;,lots in'the subdivision it anyway; however, since it had only fallen on one lot, they Board of Adjustment asking for a variance to restore the ho Miss Lighton's motion died for lack of a second. David Newbern moved that the Board of Adjustment Appeal No. 75-3. James White seconded the motion; Yates, Clack, White and Newbern voted "Aye"; Miss Lighton voted "Nay". The motion to deny the appeal was approved by a vote of 4-.1. to the subdivision that He said that when a followed. He also said 'would have been torn down were now before the use. deny the variance application on APPEAL NO. 75-4 Miss Lighton moved to grant the variance request submitted. James White seconded the motion since he felt there was no other alternative. David Newbern was troubled by this type of situation where they bring something in and a mistake has been made and then the Board is asked to grant a variance to make it okay. He said since this was a minor variance that he would not be inclined to deny it; however, had it been a larger variance that they were seeking, he said he would have been very much opposed to it. He felt that something should be done to avoid mistakes like this in the future. The opinion was given that if the Board of Adjustment so desired, they could request these buildings be moved back to meet the setback requirements. After considerable discussion with Inspection Superintendent Harold Lieberenz, the Board of Adjustment felt that the Inspections Office should require a survey to be submitted to them before a building permit could be issued. They felt this would be for the benefit of the individual that was requesting the building permit as well as a benefit to the Planning and Inspection Office. This would supply the information that would avoid mistakes such as this. It was suggested first of all to only request a survey for things such as subdivisions, etc. however, it was felt by the Board that this would be showing a sort of "favoritism". Therefore, they felt that the survey should be submitted on all items. It was pointed out that a survey would have to be made sometime along the line anyway expecially if it was for FHA or some other financing organization. Mr. Lieberenz told the Board of Adjustment that he would talk with City Manager Don Grimes the next morning. The motion was approved unanimously by a vote of 5-0. James White moved to approve the minutes of the January 27, 1975 meeting. David Newbern seconded the motion. The minutes were approved as mailed. There was no further discussion. The meeting was adjourned at 5:02 P.M. MINUTES 147