Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-05-12 Minutes• • n Nmat Apree de el Ja,ve 3/72s MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held Monday, May 12, 1975, at 3:40 P. M. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Suzanne Lighton, Connie Clack, Carl Yates, James White. MEMBERS ABSENT: David Newbern. OTHERS PRESENT: Carl Tune, Jim Shreve, Timothy Seratt, Joe Upchurch,Hugh Brewer,Jr. Lon Farrell, Bobbie Jones, Janet Bowen. Chairman Yates called the meeting to order and opened APPEAL NO. 75-13 the public hearing on Appeal No. 75-13, Industrial Finance Co. Industrial Finance Company for property located at the Garland Ave. $ North St. Northeast corner of Garland Avenue and the future extension of North Street on an application to vary setbacks and to waive the screening requirement along the West property line. (Appendix A -Zoning, Article 7, Section 8. "Drive -In Facilities" (C) Screening Wall - "A screening wall as provided in Article 8-10 shall be erected and maintained along the common boundary of any abutting property in an A or R District.") The applicant is requesting a 40 foot setback from the right-of-way of North Street (South property line) as opposed to the required 50 foot setback. Carl Tune and Jim Shreve were present to represent the request. Mr. Tune said the City had requested that 10 more feet be taken off each side of the property for right-of-way on both North Street and Garland Avenue for the future Major Street Plan and that this left them short of building area. (After dedicating this additional footage they have 150 feet North-South left to build on.) He said that as a result of all this they would need a variance so they could put utilities and pneumatic tubes in (everything that needs to go underground) for a future drive-in window, and so they could complete what they had started. Chairman Yates asked if there was a time limit on the variance. He felt if there was,it would be useless to grant a variance when they did not intend to expand at the present time. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said there had been a time limit in the previous ordinance but not in the present one. Concerning the screening, Mr. Tune explained that it would be of no use because the steepness of the hill to the West of their property would be higher than the screening. In answer to James White's question, Mr. Tune said there was not presently anything located West of this property. Chairman Yates stated that he had talked to City Manager Don Grimes on this. Mr. Grimes told him that all the City had requested to be dedicated was the additional 10 feet off the North and South sides of the property (Mcllroy has already dedicated this.) However, the Highway Department needs some additional right-of-way; 60 feet from the centerline of Highway 16 and 80 feet from the centerline of Garland Avenue for back slopes. Mr. Yates said it was suggested that something be worked out and perhaps a temporary construction easement be provided. This way Mcllroy would still own the property but the Highway Depart- ment could use it to -get their back slopes. Mr. Tune said he would want to see some grades so he would be able to tell what the property would look like if they did go along with this. He said he wanted something that would look good. He told the Board of Adjsutment that the Highway Plans were plans drawn in pencil. He said the Council (Board of Directors) had approved this with the request for the 10 additional feet of right-of-way off 1bl • • Board of Adjustment -2- May 12, 1975 the property. He also told them that they had moved the building to the West 20 feet because. if the Highway.Department,shobld take .thii .additional footage they would be in bad shape. He said the Council (Board of'Directors) was of the opinion that the City would not be allowed to take any more land from the owner, but that instead it should be turned over to the Highway Department for them to work it out. The driveways for the proposed bank were discussed. Mr. Tune said that access would be to and from Garland Avenue. He said a future driveway onto North Street would depend on the grade. Mr. Tune said the driveway was presently proposed for 25 feet but he had put up a bond to widen this somewhat. He felt there needed to be more room there. He expressed concern about traffic congestion when the stop light would be put in at the intersection of North and Garland. He said traffic would be backed up and if there were three or four cars at the bank making night deposits it would create a problem. Chairman Yates asked if the triangular piece of property South of North Street was dedicated to the City and Mr. Tune replied that he did not know. (Later in the meeting Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said that she thought this triangular piece of property was still owned by Vernon Wilson.) There was no one present to oppose the request. The public hearing was concluded. APPEAL NO. 75-14 Timothy G. Seratt The public hearing was opened on Appeal No. 75-14, South Washington Avenue Mr. Timothy G. Seratt, 1004 South Washington Avenue, on an application to vary setbacks. A setback from the North property (side) property line is required and Mr. Seratt is requesting a 6 foot setback. Mr. Seratt was presentto represent. He told the Board of Adjustment that he would like to add a carport to his existing residence. He said his lot was 50 feet wide. He said there is 13 feet from the roof overhang to the South property line. He said his existing driveway, which is already graveled, came up to where he wants to put the carport. He said he needed the 2 foot variance because he would like to keep the North wall in a straight line and he would either have to cut 2 feet off the carport or move it South 2 feet, and it would be hard to negotiate a curve. In answer to Mr. White's question, Mr. Seratt said it would be a concrete pad but he was not sure what type of roof he would have. He said it would not be enclosed. He said he was presently using the driveway for parking. There was no further discussion or questions from the Board members. No one was present to oppose the request and the public hearing was concluded. APPEAL NO. 75-15 The public hearing was opened on Appeal Upchurch Electrical Supply Co., Inc. No. 75-15, Upchurch Electrical Supply Com-. 2355 North Gregg pany, Inc., 2355 North Gregg, on an application to vary setbacks. The applicant is requesting a setback of 15 feet from the North property line while 25 feet is required; a setback of 10 feet from the South property line is being requested in place of the required 25 feet. Mr. Joe Upchurch and Hugh Brewer, Jr. were present to represent. Mr. Upchurch said they proposed to build a shed 40' x 170' across the back part of their property that would be used to store items that are presently stored outside there - - items such as reels of conductors, transformers, etc. which are materials that are designed to be stored outside. However, he said there was a problem of getting them out of the packaging when they are left outside because the weather causes the reels to deteriorate and the pallets under the transformers to rot. Mr. Upchurch had letters from Doris McClelland, Service Supply Co., Inc., and Judge Vol Lester (surrounding property owners) stating they had no objections to this request. He said their property to the West of the proposed shed was bordered X62 • Board of Adjustment -3- May 12, 1975• by Skull Creek and the valley behind their property floods quite frequently making the area usable only for occasional cattle grazing. He said they wanted to use the back part of the property in the most advantageous way. He said he had left a 10 foot setback from the South property line when he buil;'the existing building because he did not know what type of business would be going in next to his. He also said there was 15 feet with a fence on the North property line. He told the Board of Adjustment that there would be no utilities to the shed and Mr. Brewer said they would be using SB2 rather than putting a concrete slab on the bottom. There was no further discussion. No one was present in opposition to the request and the public hearing was concluded. APPEAL NO. 75-16 The public hearing was opened on the last item which was Lon R. Farrell Appeal No. 75-16, Mr. Lon R. Farrell, 472 4 480 North Olive 472 $ 480 N. Olive Ave. Avenue on an application to vary minimum lot width requirement. Mr Farrell is requesting lot width of 100 feet as opposed to the required 140 foot lot width minimum for 2 separate single-family dwellings @70 feet. Mr. Farrell was present to represent the request. He told the Board of Adjustment that he would like to purchase the 100 x 190 foot lot which presently contains a small rent house on the rear of the property and he would like to build a new home on the front of the lot for himself. He said he checked with the surrounding property owners and they had no objections to this; in fact they said they would be pleased for someone to improve that lot. He said there was a 15 foot high hedge completely surrounding the property and a hedge across the middle of the lot and the house that he plans to rent will not be seen from Oliver Avenue. He said he plans to leave the hedges as they are all except the one along Oliver and this would have to be trimmed back or removed for visibility purposes.(Mr. Farrell presented pictures of the rental house for the Board members to see. He said he planned to paint the house and improve the looks of it but that it is in good structural condition. He said he proposed to build a drive along the South side of his own house and parking for the rental house would be on the higher level and they would have to walk down to the house just as they presently do. He plans to have access off and on Oliver Avenue with a drive-through two car garage on the West side of the proposed dwelling. Connie Clack was concerned about the parking situation. Sne felt there was not enough space to park on Oliver Avenue, and that there did not appear to be much parking space on the first level where the new house is proposed. She wondered whether there would be ample room to get in to this property if there was a fire. ;Chairman Yates asked Mr.Farrell if it would cause a problem if the Board of Adjustment approved the request with the condition that the renter could turn without having to back out onto Oliver. Mr. Farrell said he could fix it where he could turn around or give him the authority to drive through his carport. Mr. White suggested making the drive wide enough for a little turn around; Mr. Farrell felt this would be a good idea. Mrs. Clack asked about future plans for the rental house and Mr. Farrell said he would probably leave it there for around 5 to 10 years; and planned to rent it to either a single person or just a couple. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones pointed out to the Board of Adjustment a possibility that she had not been aware of until after she had seen the plans. She said that Mr. Farrell could appeal to the Planning Commission for a tandem lot approval. A 25 foot strip would have to be owned by the lot behind and there would have to be an 8 foot setback between the 25 foot strip and Mr. Farrell's property. She said this might crowd Mr. Farrell somewhat on building area. She also explained that there were a number of other conditions attached to the tandem lot idea. She thought he might give some consideration to this idea since it would become involved if he decided to sell one house and keep the other one. There was no further discussion.. No one was present to oppose the request and Chairman Yates concluded the public hearing. 143 Board of Adjustment -4- May 12, 1975 Suzanne Lighton moved to grant Appeal No. 75-13, Industrial APPEAL NO. 75-13 e Finance Co. variance as requested. Industrial Finance Co. James White seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. APPEAL NO. 75-14 Mrs. Clack moved to grant the variance on Appeal 75-14, Timothy . " Timothy G. Seratt G. Seratt, as requested. Miss Lighton seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and the motion was approved unanimously. APPEAL NO. 75-15 Upchurch Electrical Supply Co., Inc. Suzanne Lighton moved to grant the variance request on Appeal No. 75-15, Upchurch Electrical Supply Co., Inc. as requested. Connie Clack seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. APPEAL NO. 75-16 Lon R. Farrell Mrs. Clack expressed concern about the parking on Appeal No. 75-16, Lon R. Farrell She said she lived on a street where it was difficult getting in and out of her driveway because of the narrowness of the street and she felt that Oliver Avenue was much the same way. She felt that there was no possibility of parking on Oliver Avenue and that people did not like to park in a circle drive unless there is room to get around. Mr. Farrell said he would have 40 foot which would allow him enough room to do something about the parking. He said he could make a double drive so two cars could park or as Mr. White suggested make a backup type turn -around. Chairman Yates' concern was about the visibility on Oliver Avenue with the existing hedge. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said the ordinance required 2 parking spaces for each single family dwelling and they could not back onto the street when there is more than three parking spaces, and that before a building permit could be issued he would have to meet these parking requirements. Mr. White asked if Mr. Farrell provided two parking pads for the rental house and then showed two parking spaces for his own house if this would meet the requirements and Mrs. Jones replied that it would. Mrs. Clack said this would satisfy her reservations. James White moved that with that understanding (the two parking pads for the rental house and showing two parking spaces for Mr. Farrell's own house) that the variance be approved as requested. Suzanne Lighton seconded the motion. Mrs. Clack wondered if the motion would be worded so there would not be any backing out onto Oliver Avenue. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones told the Board of Adjustment that since there was as much separation between the parking spaces as there was in this case that they might want to go ahead and,make this stipulation a part of the motion. Mr. White amended his motion to state that the variance would be granted with the stipulation that the parking pads and driveway be arranged so there would be no backing out onto Oliver Avenue. Miss Lighton seconded the amended motion. There was no further discussion and the motion was approved unanimously. The minutes of the April 28, 1975 Board of Adjustment meeting were MINUTES approved as distributed. The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 P. M.