Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-04-14 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING f,4( a21;7925 A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held at 4;05 P, M., Monday, April 14, 1975 in the Board of Directors- Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Connie Clack, Chairman Carl Yates, David Newbern, James White, Suzanne Lighton. Randall Webb, Greg Dowers, Jim Powell, Neil Ingles, Monroe Laner, Mrs. Burl ••Hankins, .Ray Trammell, Fred Vorsanger, Stanley Thompson, Patrick J. Tobin, Bobbie Jones, Janet Bowen. Chairman Yates called the meeting to order. APPEAL NO. 75-7 Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal No. 75-7 Freeman g Webb Mr. James Freeman and Mr. Randall Webb, 220 South Hill Ave. 220 South Hill Avenue on an application to vary minimum lot width and minimum lot area requirements. The applicants are requesting lot width for three duplexes of 100 feet in contrast to the required 180 feet, (60 feet per duplex) and 19,400 square feet lot area for `:three,. duplexes rather than the required 19,500 square feet. (6,500 square feet per duplex.) Mr. Randall Webb was present to represent the request. He said they had originally planned apartment units but after they had drawn up the plans they felt that these would look like a "chicken house" or a "barn". He said he felt it would be in the public interest to build duplexes; they could make them look better. He felt that there was more of a demand for duplexes than for apartments. He said there had been no objection from the adjoining property owners. Chiarman Yates asked Mr. Webb why they didn't build two duplexes rather than three and then they could meet the requirements. Mr. Webb said in consideration of the value of the lot that three duplexes would have to be built. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones showed the Board of Adjustment members a plot plan drawing for the 7 apartment units which the applicants felt could be built there and the three duplexes. She said she had not checked the apartment plot plan to see if they met regulations on height restriction and parking re- quirements. In answer to Chairman Yates's question, Mr. Webb said that they would be one-story buildings but would have to be built up to some extent in order to get into the sewer. David Newbern said he was troubled by Mr. Webb's description of the plans on the apartments as "chicken houses." He said they had had other plans before them where structures had been designed to match the shape of a lot by "stepping down" each unit. Mr. Webb said in a situation like this that people occupying the units would be paying for an expensive design rather than a place to live. He felt that they need to be built in a simple method. In answer to Mrs. Clack's question, Mr. Webb said the apartments originally planned had the same floor design as the duplexes. He said they were ranch style (like the apartments on Gregg Avenue. There was no further discussion. No one was present in opposition to the appeal. The public hearing was concluded isr Board of Adjustment April 14, 1975 -2- Public hearing was opened on Appeal No, 7547 Greg Dowers. Construe- APPEAL NO, 75-8 tion Company, on the North. .Si -de of Maple Street and at the Greg Dowers Const, Co. end of Arkansas Avenue, on an application to vary setbacks,' hlaple'St; $ Arkansas Ave. height regulations, and to vary parking requirements-, It is being requested that there be an 11 foot side setback. with. 24. foot height rather than the 22 feet required by ordinance; a 14 foot rear yard setback rather than the required 20 feet; and to be allowed to park'S feet from the adjoining property withno screen. It is required that parking whichis not set back 20 feet from the property line be screened by a view obscuring fence or hedge which is 5 to 8 feet in height. Mr. Greg Dowers (contractor) and Mr. Jim Powell (owner) were present to represent. Mr. Dowers said they planned to build four townhouse type units to the North on the back side of the lot,contemporary in design, with a sloped roof. that would be above the height requirement; the other 6 units are within the required setbacks. He told the Board of Adjustment they would like to put storage areas and balconies or redwood decks on the back of these units on the ground floor. He said they could use a concrete slab but felt that the redwood deck with a handrail would look nicer. (This would require a variance.) Mr. Dowers said the only variance on the parking that they needed was the screening. He said this was next to a sorority house and their parking was next to their parking (head to head) and the sorority did not have a screen. He said there were some trees there and they would like to preserve them. He said Mr. Powell would like them to be on his side of the fence so he could maintain them. .. Concerning the side setback, Chairman Yates asked why one unit could not be cut off or the units be moved in order to meet the setback requirement. Mr. Powell said it was because of the costs involved, the refinancing, etc. In answer to Mrs. Clack's question, Mr. Dowers said there would be 10 new units • in all and that Mr. Powell intended to refurbish the interior of the existing building. Chairman Yates asked how close the centerline of the proposed driveway was to the stop light on Arkansas Avenue and if the Street and Traffic Departments were given a copy of this. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said the Traffic Department did not receive a copy of it; however, the Street Department had but that she had not heard anything on it. She brought to the attention of the Board of Adjustment that the 161 foot strip of City property shown on the -drawing between Mr. Ingles' and Mr. Laner's properties was in the wrong place. She said it was not the fault of the applicant, that he had merely copied from what someone else had already platted out. She said this should be shown along the South side of Mr. Laner's property and was obtained by the City in 1950 to widen Maple Street. Also the description of this reads from the section line which, according to the Plat Book, is out 10 feet into the right-of-way of Maple Street. Mrs. Jones was not so much concerned with the 10 foot separation requirement between buildings if they were connected as much as whether or not this would take 10 feet off all the way across the property. She also found in her research that a section of the property beginning at the Southwest corner going Eastward 21 feet and Northward 161 feet had been dedicated for right-of-way by a previous owner in 1950. Chairman Yates asked Mr. Dowers if he could verify this; Mr. Dowers said he could not but that before they went muchfurther a survey would be made. Mr. Dowers felt this would not create a problem on parking spaces. Mr. Laner asked Mr. Dowers if they were counting the two parking spaces West of the building. He said there was hardly any way in to these without going over his property. Mr. Dowers replied that they were not counting these two parking spaces. • Mrs. Clack wondered why the parking for the sorority house was not screened. Ray Trammell, Legal Consultant to the University of Arkansas and Fred Vorsnager, Vice -President for Business Affairs were present in opposition to the appeal. Mr. Trammell answered Mrs. Clack's question by saying that the Board of Trustees owned the property adjoining this and that the sorority was merely the lessee, and /52 Board of Adjustment April 14, 1975 that zoning or planning requirements were not mandatory here because it belonged to the State. He said they opposed this appeal for several reasons; He said the University of Arkansas is the largest single ownership on this block, that there was very valuable improvement on the property on which they had issued revenue bonds which were outstanding and that they had an obligation to protect these bonds. He said they were a concerned "neighbor" since the sorority house, housing 75 girls and a housemother, was next door to this and they were concerned about the increased traffic flow that the apartments would create as well as the problem of car lights shining into the bedroom windows of the sorority house. Mr. Trammell said the fact they were requesting so many variances seemed to point out to him that they were trying to build too many units on the lot, and the University of Arkansas did not particularly want them using the sorority house driveway to get to their parking area. He felt there should be a screen along the existing shrubs as the ordinance provides. Mr. Vorsanger said he was concerned mostly about the increased traffic this would create at this corner. He felt that the tenants of these apartments would probably be mainly university students and there would be increased traffic at the busiest time of the day. He said they were not opposed to apartments at this location but they were opposed to any variances being granted that would cause the hardships which he and Mr. Trammell had mentioned. Mrs. Burl Hankins (adjoining property owner to the North) was present and commented that she was concerned about the increased traffic this would cause and she would like to see some kind of screening put up between the two properties. It was explained to her that screening was not required unless the parking was along that line. David Newbern stated that since he was an employee of the State as well as the University that he would have to abstain in the voting. (Since there were only three members present at this meeting, this meant that they could not take action on this appeal at this meeting.) The public hearing was concluded. APPEAL NO. 75-9 Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal No. 75-9, Stanley' Thompson Mr. Stanley Thompson, 1656 Mission Boulevard, on an application 1656 Mission Boulevard to vary setbacks. The applicant is requesting a side yard setback of 7 feet in place of the required 8 feet. Mr. Thompson was present to represent. He said he owned a house that was built 7 feet from the side property line and he would like to build a family room in the back and wanted to continue this in line with the existing house instead of having to jog it. He told the Board of Adjustment that he planned on doing the work himself and it would be easier for him to keep it in line with house; he also felt that it would look better. He said he had checked with the neighbors and there had been no objections. There was no further discussion. No one was present to oppose the request. The public hearing was closed. APPEAL NO. 75-10 The last item for consideration was Appeal No, 75-10, P. J. Tobin Mr. P, J. Tobin, for property located at the Southwest corner Poplar St. $ Birch Ave. of Poplar Street and Birch Avenue on an application to vary setbacks. Mr. Tobin is requesting a setback of 20 feet from the West property line rather than the required 25 feet; also a setback from the right-of-way of Birch Avenue of 41,72 feet instead of the required 50 feet zoning setback! There is also a 5 foot setback required for the Major Street Plan making a total setback. of 55 feet from right-of-way of Birch Avenue. Chairman Yates opened the public hearing. Mr. Tobin was present to represent. 153 • Board of Adjustment -4- April 14, 1975 He said he proposed to place two buildings (50' x 50') with approximately 75 feet between them on the property and in answer to Mr. Newbern's question said they would be used for small offices similar to what was already located around this property. He said one that had checked on a building is a wholesale plumbing business. He said this property had been previously platted for residential develop- ment rather than industrial usage, and this made it hard to "fit" into. He said they would have what the ordinance required (50 feet between adjoining buildings) if granted the 5 foot side setback (West). He pointed out that since this was a corner lot and Capital Tobacco had purchased just West of his property on Poplar Street that this created a problem. He felt that a 55 foot side setback was excessive since there was not much traffic on this street and parking would be in between the buildings. In answer to Mrs. Clack's question, Mr. Tobin said he had purchased the property about a month ago and had been aware of the setback restrictions at the time he purchased it. He also told her that he had thought about using a 30 or 40 foot building so that he could meet all the setbacks, but that it would be cumbersome to the tenant in trying to utilize it, since (being one building rather than two) it would be about 150 feet long. Also, he said when it gets into a smaller building it costs more money than the 50 foot for some reason or another. Chairman Yates asked if he could possibly use a 40 foot. (If the 40 foot building were used, it would mean a total variance of about 8 feet rather than 18 feet.) Mr. Tobin said it would benefit him to have a variance even if it were 10 foot less than he had requested. There was no one present to oppose the request. The public hearing was concluded. Bobbie Jones said that Mr. Vine Blumenberg, the property owner on APPEAL NO. 75-7 the South of the Freeman 4 Webb application had looked Freeman - Webb at the two plans and indicated he preferred the duplex over the apartments. The Board of Adjustment members indicated they liked the plan for duplexes better but felt that they could not, according to the ordinance, be justified in granting the variances. Connie Clack moved that the variances requested be denied. David Newbern seconded the motion. Clack and Yates voted "Aye"; Newbern voted "Nay". Mr. Newbern stated that he felt the status quo of the application was unchanged and after some discussion the Board decided to defer further action on Appeal No. 75-7 and let Mr. Webb come back at the next meeting when more of the members are present and in the meantime let him see if he could come up with another plan that would come closer to meeting the required lot area Action on Appeal No. 75-8, Greg Dowers Construction Company, APPEAL NO. 75-8 was deferred until the next meeting because Mr. Newbern Greg Dowers Const. Co. indicated he planned to abstain from voting. David Newbern moved to grant the variance as requested on Appeal No. 75-9, Stanley Thompson. Connie Clack seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. David Newbern felt reluctant to grant that much of a variance on a lot that size. He said he sympathized with Mr. Tobin since a 50 foot building was the standard size; however, he could not for granting the variance as requested. After some discussion Mrs. Clack moved that Mr. Tobin be granted APPEAL NO. 75-9 Stanley Thompson APPEAL NO. 75-10 P. J Tobin find any justification the variance in 159 Board of Adjustment -5- April 14, 1975 setback from the West property line as requested and that he be granted a variance to build wihtin 51.72 feet of the right-of-way of Birch Avenue rather than 55 feet. David Newbern seconded the motion which approved unanimously. Approval of the March 10, 1975 Board of Adjustment meeting were deferred until the next meeting. There was no other business. The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 P.M. MINUTES 155 • • •