Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-04-28 Minutes• • • fopeo ua MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING /7919Y 1 /%7S A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held at 4:00 P.M., Monday, April 28, 1975, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Carl Yates, Connie Clack, Suzanne Lighton, David Newbern, James White. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: None. Randall Webb, Ron Sherwood, Fred Vorsanger, Neil Ingles, Harry Gray, Kermos Robbins, T. L. Fox, Harvey Graham, Kathryn Stout, Russell Purdy, Bobbie Jones. Chairman Carl Yates called the meeting to order. Chairman Yates opened the reconsideration of Appeal No. 75-7, James Freeman and Randall Webb, for property located at 220 South Hill Avenue, on an application to vary minimum lot width and minimum lot area. APPEAL NO. 75-7 The applicants were requesting approval of variances to enable J.F. FREEMAN & R. WEBB them to construct three duplexes on a single lot with a width 220 South Hill Avenue of 100 ft. rather than 160 ft. and with a total lot area of 19,400 sq. ft. rather than 19,500 sq. ft. Action on this appeal had been deferred from the April 14, 1975 Board of Adjustment Meeting because there were only three Board Members present and also to enable the applicant to try to amend his proposal so that it would be more in line with the regulations. Randall Webb was again present to represent the application. Mr. Webb stated that he wanted to build 3 duplexes rather than one long apartment building because in an apartment building you eventually end up with bedrooms from one unit against living rooms of another unit. By reversing the floor plan of duplex units, this could be changed so that there would not be as much noise problems. He also said that with an apartment building he would have to build a long building with a tall wall at the rear. Mr. Webb offered to amend his request to connect two of the buildings with a covered drive-through that could be regarded as a four-plex. This would then meet the lot area requirements for a four-plex and a duplex, but would not meet the minimum lot width requirement of 150 ft. for a four-plex and a duplex. Mr. Webb said he preferred duplexes because tenants felt like they were more of a family type house and the dwelling units are more secluded. Connie Clack asked if Mr. Webb had considered lining all the units up with the length of the lot and connecting all three (duplexes). Mr. Webb said there is about a 10 ft. drop off on the lot. Chairman Yates asked if Mr. Webb had checked on building a sewer line down to University Avenue since the rear of the lot is too low to get into the sewer along Hill Avenue. Mr. Webb said he was not sure of the exact cost of doing this but that the sewer line would have to be run down the alley to Putman Street, then down Putman Street to University Avenue. Mr. White asked who the property owners to the North and South were. Mr. Webb said that Vine Blumenberg owns the property to the South and that Ron Sherwood, who was in the audience at that time owned the property to the North. Mr. White questioned Mr. Webb further about why he was opposed to apartments. Mr. Webb said that people preferred to rent duplexes. He said that the rental value of duplexes is higher, but that he would have one less unit than he could build in apartments, so the total rental value would be about the same. He said building costs would also be about the same. 156 • • Board of Adjustment April 28, 1975 -2- Miss Lighton asked Mr. Webb why he had referred to apartments as looking like "a chicken house" in the previous meeting. Mr. Webb said the building would be about 120 ft. long (if he constructed apartments) and he felt it would have the appearance of a chicken house. Mr. Webb told Mr. White that the'property is presently owned by Mr. Freeman, but that if the duplexes were built he would be a one-half owner. There was no one present to speak in opposition of the appeal and no one else to speak on behalf of the appeal. The public hearing was concluded. Chairman Yates informed the Board and audience that Appeal No. 75-8, Greg Dowers Construction Company, for property on the North side APPEAL NO. 75-8 of Maple Street at the end of Arkansas Avenue, on an application GREG DOWERS CONST. CO. to vary setbacks and height regulations; and to vary parking Maple Street requirements had been withdrawn. Chairman Yates explained that the property had been surveyed and a new plot plan, based on the survey, submitted to the Planning Office which met the Zoning Regulations. Fred Vorsanger asked if the parking along the East property line would be screened. Chairman Yates said it would be required to be screened since the request for a variance was withdrawn. Mr. Vorsanger expressed his appreciation to the Board Members for taking time to serve on this Board. He said that the University of Arkansas no longer has any objections to Mr. Dowers' plans since the parking will be screened. Mr Neil Ingles inquired if the new plot plan called for the same number of dwelling units as the plot plan accompanying the variance request. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said she thought the revised plot plan contained one less dwelling unit. The Board of Adjustment was in agreement with the request to withdraw the variance appeal. Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal No. 75-11, APPEAL NO. 75-11 Johnie Bassett, for property contained in a proposed subdivision JOHNIE BASSETT known as "College Market Addition" to be located North of College Market Addition Rolling Hills Drive, South of K -Mart Shopping Center, Rolling Hills Drive East of Malco Theatre, and West of Trinity Temple, on an application to vary setbacks. The applicant has requested that a setback of 25 ft. from the right-of-way of Rolling Hills Drive for the proposed Lots Numbered 1 and 6 be granted rather than the required setback of 50 ft. The Planning Commission approved this preliminary plat on March 11, 1975, with the stipulation that the Board of Adjustment vary setbacks of future buildings and setbacks of a masonry wall to be erected along Rolling Hills Drive since the wall would exceed 30 inches height. The Planning Commission had required that the wall to screen this commercial property from the residential property across Rolling Hills Drive be included on the plat. Harry Gray with McClelland Consulting Engineers was present to represent Mr. Bassett. He told the Board that it was necessary to go to the Planning Commission twice on street and lot arrangements in order to get the preliminary plat approved. He said the Planning Commission had requested that there be no direct access (driveways) from Lots 1 and 6 onto Rolling Hills Drive and that the applicant felt that this limiting of access would essentially dictate that this be a side lot line along Rolling Hills Drive. He added that the Commission had also requested the screening wall along Rolling Hills Drive. He stated that he and Mr. Bassett felt that the 50 ft. setback requirement in the C-2 Zoning District is associated with a frontage requirement which implies street access. He asked for the same setback requirement of 25 ft. which the residentially zoned property across Rolling Hills Drive has to observe. Chairman Yates asked what the side setback in the C-2 Zoning District is. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said it is 50 ft. from a side street, but 0 ft. from an 157 • • • Board of Adjustment April 28, 1975 -3- internal side lot line. Mr. Gray told Miss Lighton and Mrs. Clack that this is to be a commercial subdivision, but that he did not know what businesses will be located there. Mr. Gray said he thought there was really some question as to whether the Planning Commission could deny access to Rolling Hills Drive. Chairman Yates pointed out that without a variance Mr. Bassett could still build a building 80 ft. wide. He added that assuming that the Board of Adjustment did not grant the variances requested, Mr. Bassett could not file a subdivision plat showing a setback of 25 ft. from Rolling Hills Drive, but that he could still file a plat showing a setback of 50 ft. from Rolling Hills Drive. He said that this would not preclude whoever bought Lots 1 and 6 from coming back to the Board of Adjustment with another variance request. He said that he was not in favor of granting a variance just on the basis of a plat without knowing what will be built there. Mr. White asked Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones if there had been any opposition to the plat from the home owners across Rolling Hills Drive when the plat went before the Planning Commission. Mrs. Jones said they had not received any opposition, but that there is no requirement for notification of property owners across the street from proposed subdivisions. She said that the property owners may not have been aware of the proposed plat unless they read the Planning Commission Agenda in the paper. Mr. Gray said he thought the Board should consider the Planning Commission's denial of access to Rolling Hills Drive as a part of the variance request. Three property owners from the South side of Rolling Hills Drive were present. Harvey Graham, 1139 Rolling Hills Drive, said he owned the fifth house down the street and said that the full 50 ft. setback would look better than one with a building jutting out past the other buildings. T. L. Fox, 1047 Rolling Hills Drive, the owner of the house across the street, asked if there were plans for the kind of buildings to be built and if Market Street would be built. He said they saw the notice and came for information.. Chairman Yates explained that this was a preliminary plat and if subdivided the street would be built. Kermos Robbins, 1109 Rolling Hills Drive, the third house down the street property owner, was also present. There were no other questions. The public hearing was concluded. Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal No. 75-12, Johnie Bassett, for property contained in a proposed subdivision to be known as "Bassett Place' to be located North of Stearns Road and East of Highway 71 North (College Avenue) on an application to vary setbacks. APPEAL NO. 75-12 JOHNIE BASSETT Bassett Place College Avenue The applicant requested a setback of 20 ft. from the right-of-way of College Avenue (on the West side of proposed Lot 3 and the West and South sides of proposed Lot 1) as shown on the preliminary plat of Bassett Place. The Planning Commission had also approved this preliminary plat on March 11, 1975, with the stipulation that there be no direct access from. Lots 1 and 3 to the right- of-way of Highway 71 and that the minimum setbacks could only be varied by the Board of Adjustment. A setback of 50 ft. from all street rights-of-way is required in the C-2 Zoning District. Harry Gray with McClelland Engineers was also present to represent Mr. Bassett on this appeal. He said they had also had to go to the Planning Commission several times on this plat before getting preliminary plat approval. He said that although there is much the same situation here, there are some differences. He pointed out that since Frontage Road would be along the East side of the lots in question and that access was denied from these lots onto Highway 71, Frontage Road would be the "front" side of the lot. He said it seemed a shame to require a 50 ft. setback from Highway 71 when we already have a wide right-of-way there and that no adjoining property owners would be affected by this. r. Board of Adjustment h't April 28, 1975 -4- ‘.75 The Board Members reviewed their previous action on variance requests of Ozark Windows which is surrounded by this .proposed subdivision. It was noted that Ozark Windows' original building had more than met the required setbacks when it was constructed, but that after the Arkansas Highway Department took additional right-of-way, they no longer met the setback requirements. The Board had granted him variances to allow him to square up the West side of his building and build an office only 35 ft. from the new right-of-way and to enclose a loading and storage area to the South and East, building to both those property lines. Kathryn Stout, property owner to the North of the proposed subdivision, said they have no objection to Mr. Bassett building Frontage Road, but would like to know what he planned to put in there and how they would turn around'on the dead-end street. Chairman Yates asked what the Stout property is zoned. It is zoned C-2. Miss Lighton told Mrs. Stout that if she wanted to pursue the question of the turn- around, the Planning Commission still has to approve the final plat and that that would be the proper place to take that question. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones suggested that she might also talk to the Street Superintendent since he is opposed to the public driving off the end of dead-end 'streets to turn around on private property. Mr. Gray told the Board that he felt that Mr. Powell, Street Superintendent, would either require a cul de sac or'require that the street be barricaded across the end. He said that the entrance of Frontage Road onto Stearns Road has to align up with the Arkansas Highway Department's exit ramp for Highway 71. Miss Lighton asked Mr. Gray why Frontage Road could not be curved more to the East as it continued North of the intersection with Stearns Road. Mr. Gray explained that Mr. Bassett has a house there which he wishes to retain for the time being. There were no further questions. The public hearing was concluded. Miss Lighton stated that she was opposed to reducing the minimum lot width requirement for three duplexes on Appeal No. 75-7, James F. APPEAL NO. 75-7 Freeman and Randall Webb, 220 South Hill Avenue, by 80 ft. because that is a rapidly developing area. Chairman Yates agreed with her comment. Chairman Yates added that Mr. Webb's point was well made that they could build apartments without a variance, but it seems that the Planning Commission evidently felt that more lot width is needed for more than one duplex than is needed for apartments. He told Mr. Webb that he had no objection to him building whatever would be permitted under the zoning ordinance without a variance, but when he applied for a variance he should be able to justify it and that he did not appreciate being told to "look how terrible what we can build will look like." James White moved to deny the variances requested under Appeal No. 75-7, James F. Freeman and Randall Webb. Suzanne Lighton seconded the motion. Miss Lighton told Mr. Webb that the basic reason for granting variances was whenever there is a hardship of one kind or another. Mr. Webb asked if they felt that the Board of Adjustment has no authority to grant a variance if observing the requirements of the ordinance would not be in the best interests of the public. Chairman Yates read from the Code of Ordinances the powers and duties of the Board. A vote was taken on the motion to deny Appeal 75-7. The motion was approved unanimously to deny the application. Regarding Appeal No. 75-11, Johnie Bassett, College Market Addition, Mrs. Clack said she would not be in favor of granting a variance without knowing what the proposed building would be, and that she thought APPEAL NO. the variance request was premature. David Newbern agreed with her and 75-11 added that this is an area where we have a serious traffic problem, that it is an area of great congestion and it will continue to grow. He said until the Board knows what kinds of businesses Mr. Bassett proposes, it seemed the Board would be buying a "pig in a poke." He added that it seemed that greater utilization would 15q Board of Adjustment April 28, 1975 -5- ultimately mean more people. He said if a builder later came in with a proposal to build a building which would not create the type of traffic hazard he could presently envision, the Board might want to reconsider, but given the Board's present lack of knowledge of what is proposed plus the lack of any real demonstration of the difficulties that would be encountered if there were less than a 50 ft. setback, he would be inclined to deny the variance. Miss Lighton said that in her opinion it did not matter what he planned to put there because ten years from now someone else could put in something entirely different. Chairman Yates recalled that when Southland Corporation (7-11 Stores) had requested a setback of 13 ft. from the right-of-way, their argument had been that the lot was so small that it just couldn't be used without a variance and now there are two buildings on it. Southland's variances were denied. David Newbern moved to deny Appeal No. 75-11. James White seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. Suzanne Lighton moved to deny Appeal No. 75-12, Johnie Bassett, Bassett Place. APPEAL 75-12 James White requested that separate motions be made on Lots 1 and 3. He noted that Ozark Windows is presently built 35 ft. from the right-of-way of Highway 71 and suggested that Lot 1 be allowed to build as far out as Ozark Windows. Miss Lighton stated that it would be possible for them to move Frontage Road more to the East on part of the subdivision. Mr. White stated that since this is a plat, the Board could just wait until someone were ready to build on the lots. Chairman Yates agreed that he would also like to look at it at that time. Miss Lighton said that in general principle, she did not like for this Board to be asked to get someone out of a tight spot when he is going to lose the use of some of his property. James White seconded the motion to deny Appeal No. 75-12. The motion to deny the application was approved unanimously. The minutes of the March 10, 1975, and the April 14, 1975, Board of Adjustment Meetings were approved as mailed after making some minor typographical corrections MINUTES Director Russell Purdy explained to the Board the reasons behind the policy ATTENDANCE statement recently adopted by the City Board of Directors concerning POLICY STATEMENT attendance of members of various City boards and committees whose membership is appointed by the City Board of Directors, a copy of which was mailed to the Board of Adjustment with its agenda. He told the Board that in some committees the people do not attend and that the idea was "if you don't attend, move over and let someone else who can attend." He said no one would ask them to resign just because they didn't like what they were doing. He expressed his appreciation to the Board adding that at one time there were those on the Board who were very liberal, that the Board got a lot of utterly silly requests many of which were granted. He said he did not think this was true anymore. The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 P.M. 16o J •