HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-08-29 Minutesi
fippigodedi
Seel:
ao7,/99S
SSP
MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held at 3::55P. M., Friday,
August 29, 1975, in the Boaid of Directors Room, City Administration Building,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Suzanne Lighton, Connie Clack, Chairman Carl Yates, James White,
David Newbern.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
None.
Ragil Phillips, Freeman Wood, Clayton Powell, Kenneth Smith,
George L. McCandless, Ted R. Davis, Russell Purdy, Bobbie Jones,
Janet Bowen.
APPEAL NO. 75-23
Chairman Yates called the meeting to order and opened the Ragil R. Phillips
public hearing on Appeal No. 75-23, Ragil R. Phillips, 870 S Washington Avenue
870 South Washington Avenue, on an application to vary setbacks. Mr. Phillips is
requesting a setback of 16 feet from the rear (West) property line and a 25 foot setback
is required.
Mr. Phillips was present to represent.
He said this addition was a hobby shop and storage area where he could work on his own
cars and get out of the house from time to time.
When asked by the Board of Adjustment members why he constructed this addition without
getting a building permit clearance, Mr. Phillips said he had submitted an application
for a building permit, he had two weeks vacation from his job, the lumber was laying
around in the way, and he didn't think it would hurt to go ahead and construct this
addition before receiving the permit since it was in line with the existing building. He
also said there were buildings on other properties that were closer to the alley than this
one.
Building Inspector Freeman Wood told the Board of Adjustment that he had helped
Mr. Phillips fill out his building permit application and it was turned in to the
Planning Office. He said the Planning Administrator in the meantime had found
a problem with. it and communications broke down somewhere along the line. Mr. Wood
then said that the next time he talked with Mr. Phillips, he did not have his
building permit and the addition had already been constructed. He said they were trying
to do the next best thing.
In answer to Mr. White's question, Mr.. Phillips said his lot was 50 feet wide.
Street Superintendent Clayton Powell was present and said that the alley to the
West had never been improved for public use and he verified what Mr. Phillips stated
about there being other buildings closer to the alley than his is. He said the alley
could not be improved without removing mature trees and existing buildings.
It was his suggestion that the property owners get together and have the alley between
9th Street and llth Street closed and let the property revert back to their own usage.
This would prevent Mr. Phillips from having to ask for a variance.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said the alley was 20 feet wide.
Miss Lighton explained that all of the people owning property adjacent to the alley
had to agree to the closing of the alley and Mrs. Jones said it cost approximately
$40.00 to file the petition but she thought there might be other costs because an
abstractor's certificate is required and the petitions are usually prepared by an
attorney.
In answer to Chairman Yates' question, Mr. Phillips said the neighbors had no objections
to the building if the Board of Adjustment were to grant the variance.
Mr. Phillips said he had lived there since 1960 and all the neighbors got along well
together.
In conclusion, Mr. Phillips stated that this was an oversight on his part due to him
being anxious to get the building constructed.
No one was present in opposition and the public hearing was concluded.
Board of Adjustment
August 29, 1975 -2-
The public hearing was, opened on Appeal No, 75-23, Kenneth. L. Smith., APPEAL NO. 75-24
459 West Cleburn, on an application to vary setbacks. Mr. Smith Kenneth L. Smith
is requesting a 21' 4" setback from street right-of-way of Cleburn 459 'West Cleburn
Street while a 25' Zoning setback plus a 5' setback for the Major Street Plan is required
Mr. Smith was present to represent.
He said the part of the structure that would require a variance would be a shelter
over the front door of the housewith outside storage facing into the shelter for
items that he might want to carry back and forth to the car. He said the parking area
was nearby. Mr. Smith explained that the lot was shallow. He said he would like to
keep the house that far forward to have more room in the rear of the house for any future
expansion.to the East and still meet the setbacks. He said he would also like to keep
the house at the West end of the lot because of three large pine trees that would
shade the dwelling. Mr. Smith explained that the shelter area would not be a drive through.
He said it was too small for a car.
In reply to Chairman Yates' question, Mr. Smith said he had an architectural friend
who was designing the house and the shelter was placed where it would be the most
convenient to the parking.
Chairman Yates asked about moving the house so that a variance would not be necessary
Mrs. Clack also asked Mr. Smith if his friend that was designing the house could not
shift the location of the storage and shelter area She stated she could not understand
why this small part could not be placed in another location, perhaps to the East (side)
or South (rear) of the house.
Mr. Smith said they had thought about placing this on the East side of the house, but
it would have to be removed if he made any future additions on that side. He said the
storage shelter would be adaptable or more convenient where it is shown on the drawing,
especially in bad weather. He said this storage area would be similar to that opening
into a carport. He said at one point he had thought about a carport with a drive through
it; however, the site is steep and he said it would mean having to request a greater
variance.
Miss Lighton said this Wilson -Adams Addition was actually the first real subdivision in
Fayetteville. She represented the Wilson family who worked with Roy Adams in
developing this whole tract. In answer to James White's question, she could not recall
for sure whether Cleburn Street was platted all the way through.when this was developed
but she felt that it was not. She said she could remember both families had talked
about what would happen some day since there was not a very good plan for this area they
were discussing today.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones stated this block of Cleburn was a replat of the
original plat and said that this part of Cleburn was not on the original plat.
In answer to Chairman Yates' question, Mr. Smith replied that the two lots to the West
were vacant and were owned (as well as the property directly across the street) by
Mrs. Adams.and she had no objections to the requested variance. He said the property to
the East of his lot belonged to the Heipels and they had no objections. He added that
the lots across the street would be even more difficult to build on because ofan
easement running across them.
Mr. White asked how far the back of the house was from the rear property line.
Mrs. Jones said that dimension is not shown but he did have the required 20 feet setback
line dimensioned on the drawing. -
In answer to David Newbern's question, Mr. Smith said he planned
doors opening out on the South side since he felt there would be
living area or terrace there later on.
In conclusion, Mr. Smith said that this variance was not for the
to have sliding glass
some.sort of outdoor
main part of the house
but that it was for a storage if this had any bearing on the case.
David Newbern asked Mr. Smith if he was suggesting that if necessary this could be
removed from the house at a later time.
Mr. Smith said that this was not what he had intended, but that it possibly could be
removed, but that it was a shelter at the front door and that it was storage space that
is needed since this is a small house.
18y A
•
•
•
IR
r
.tl
•
5c
Board of Adjustment
August 29, 1975
•
He added that he cou&dnnot envision Cleburn Street being widened on the
Major Street Plan since it. is an out-of-the-way street and not a through street.
He said he noticed that the traffic on this street is extremely light.
Miss Lighton commented that she could not imagine this street being widened.
There was no one present to oppose the request and the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Yates left the meeting at this point and Mr. White chaired the meeting.
APPEAL NO. 75-25
Next was the public hearing on Appeal No. 75-25, George L. McCandless
George L. McCandless, 1108 Hillcrest, on an application 1108 Hillcrest
to vary setbacks. Mr. McCandless is requesting a setback of 13' 8" from the
street right-of-way of Hillcrest and a 25 foot Zoning setback plus a 5 foot
Major Street Plan setback is required.
Mr McCandless was present to represent.
He said the carport which is built within sort of a U -shape of the building, is
16 feet in depth. However, at the East end of the carport at the principle part
of the house the entrance opens to the outside and this takes up another 3 or 4
feet of usable area. He said he would like to extend the roof that is there now.
He said the existing roof projected 3 feet from the rest of the house at this
time and he would like to extend it another 8 feet. He stated this would be just
a flat roof and that there would be no wall; it would be extended with beam and
two posts. He said this would give adequate shelter for a car and a boat, and
would be over the existing driveway. He said some repairs were necessary in any
event due to deterioration around the perimeter. Mr. McCandless said this would
leave approximately 14 feet from the existing street right-of-way. He said there
was a retaining wall 4 feet inside the street right-of-way and from the retaining
wall there was 6 feet to the edge of the pavement so the property line is actually
10 feet from the pavement at this time.
In answer to Mr. White's question, Mr. McCandless said this was used for a carport
but that he could not put the entire car (or boat, either) under it.
He said he had talked with his neighbor on the immediate North (Mr. Bone) and
also Mrs. McAllister (who lives across the street) and they had no objections.
Mr. White asked about putting storage for the boat at the back of the house.
Mr. McCandless said along North Street was a rock retaining wall which was not
level and this was elevated above the street. He said it would be difficult to
get to.
David Newbern said he had driven by and it looked as though some work had
already been started.
Mr. McCandless said he had done some temporary work for them to see. He said he
had torn the facia off of the old carport because of the deterioration.
Carl Yates returned to the meeting.
Mrs. Clack asked Mr. McCandless if he had considered putting the carport somewhere
else on the lot.
In reply, Mr. McCandless said he could not see any place to put the carport other
than where he had shown. He said if he put it on the South side he would still
have to request a variance. He told her there was plenty of room behind the
house but that it was not accessible.
In answer to Chairman Yates' question, Mr. McCandless said when he pulled his
car into the carport he did have room to open the doors and get out of the
car. However, the length of the car would not fit under the present carport,
nor would his boat.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said she had had some calls, not from
adjoining property owners, but from area property owners who hoped that something
could be worked out at the back of the house rather than at the front. She
said they expressed concern about it coming out closer to Hillcrest and also the
appearance of it.
18 5
Board of Adjustment
August 29, 1975
-4-
Mrs. Jones also brought up that the use listed on the building permit application
was two dwelling units and all she could find in the street files concerning this
related to a single family dwelling. She said the Board of Adjustment had no
authority on this but she would have to do some research on this and talk further
with Mr. McCandless about it. She said this was an R-1 Zone and any change from
a single family dwelling to.a two family dwelling would have to be approved by
the Planning Commission.
Mr. McCandless said it was two family when he bought it.
Mrs. Clack said she had also had some telephone calls expressing concern over
this variance request.
Miss Lighton asked if a smaller variance would be helpful and Mr. McCandless
said it would be helpful but he told _her that one reason he chose 8 feet was
because that was the standard length of the plywood decking. He said 6 feet
might be sufficient, but anything less than that would not help any.
In answer to Mr. White's question, Mr. McCandless felt he would have room to back
his car up to the boat to hook it up without being out in the street since there
was about 10 feet between the property line and the surface of the street.
Mrs. Clack asked how this building was divided into two family units.
Mr. McCandless said there was an apartment on the North of the carport and half
of the adjacent part behind the carport. The South is a two bedroom apartment
and the door that is shown on the drawing goes to the South apartment.
There was no one present to oppose the request and the public hearing was concluded.
Chairman Yates again chaired the meeting from this point on.
APPEAL NO. 75-26
The last item was the public hearing on Appeal No. 75-26, Ted R. Davis
Ted. R. Davis, 1285 Root Avenue, application to vary minimum acreage 1285 Root Avenue
requirement and minimum setback from property lines for a mobile home.
Mr. Davis is requesting a setback of 10 feet from the North property line and 30 feet
from the street right-of-way where a 100 foot setback from all property lines
is required; he is requesting that the minimum acreage requirement of 3 acres be
varied to 2.45 acres. Standard A-1 setback requirements are front 35' plus 5'
for the Major Street Plan; side 20' and rear 35'.
Mr. Davis was present to represent.
Mr. Davis submitted a letter from the property owners on the North side of his
property saying they had no objections to requests. Mr. Davis said his mother-in-law
was 70 years old and is afraid to stay by herself. He said he would like to put
a mobile home on his property for her to live in so they could look after her.
Mr. Davis said he was amazed having to go through all this with the trailer when
there was a mobile home park to the West (back) of his property. Mr. Davis told
the Board o Adjustment that he lived on the property and they would like to place
the mobile/f8fhe North of their dwelling because of a driveway going through
and there were shade trees at that location. He said this site for the mobile home
would be less expensive from the standpoint of utility lines since it would be close
to where the sewer line is going through and close to the gas line.
In reply to Chairman Yates' question, Mr. Davis said this would be a temporary situation
andlif the Board approved the request with a time stipulation or as long as his mother-
in-law was alive it would not cause any problems.
Mrs. Clack brought up the possibility of not necessarily moving the location of the
mobile home but change the position of it a few feet one way or another. Mrs. Clack
felt a mobile home should meet the same required setbacks as a house.
Mr. Davis said they had considered this. However, there was a tree where he showed
it on the drawing and the trailer would have to be placed on one side or the other.
He said if they placed it on the side next to the property line the trailer would
be up almost to the property line. If they placed it on the other side of the tree
)36 A
•
Board of Adjustment -5-
August 29, 1975
it would be 20. feet rather than 10 feet. He said this would be as far as they
could go because there is a driveway between the -house and the proposed site.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones read additional requirements contained in
Article 7, Section 12B that apply to mobile homes in the A-1 Zone.
Mr. Davis said he could locate the trailer 100 feet from the property line but it
would not be in the shade.
Chairman Yates read a letter from Harold and Lewis Johnson which follows and is
hereby made a part of these minutes:
"August 20, 1975, City of Fayetteville, To All Concerned.
RE: TED DAVIS HOUSE TRAILER
Mr. Davis has asked me_if we have any objections to his placing
a mobile home on the property adjacent to the property we own
north of him. We do not object to this.
S/ Harold B. Johnson
S/ Lewis P. Johnson "
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said this was apparently a quarter section that
is oversized. She said she was not sure whether the way the description was
drawn on the map was correct.
Walter Grimes, Western.Hills Mobile Home Park, was present. He said he did not
object to the mobile home but did object if it was not going to be put on sewer.
He said sewer was available within about 200 or 300 feet. He stated that there
were septic tank problems in the area.
Mr. Davis said the mobile home would not be placed there unless it was on sewer.
Director Russell Purdy was present and stated he felt they should consider in
making their decision that three acres was the minimum that the Board of Directors
was willing to go on mobile homes. He felt the variance on the acreage needed to
be acted upon before considering the request for a variance in setbacks.
Mr. Davis answered Chairman Yates' question by stating they had not investigated
constructing a small house rather than moving in a trailer, but felt it would be
too expensive.
Mrs. Jones said because of the A-1 Zoning he would need a variance if he did
build a house. He would need in an A-1 Zone, 200 feet minimum lot width and 2
acres minimum land area for each individual dwelling unit. She said, however,
a duplex islisted as a.permissible use in an A-1 Zone requiring a 200 foot lot
width and 4 acres. Mrs. Jones stated that a mistake was made on the zoning map.
The property that is shown as C-2 to the North of the Davis property should be
R-2.
The possibility of Mr. Davis rezoning the property was discussed but Mrs. Jones
pointed out that the A-1 Zone was the only zone that permitted a mobile home on an
individual lot. She said mobile home parks were allowed in the R-2 Zone but there
were some very strict regulations concerning this. She said a rezoning might help
him on putting a separate residence but would not help in placing the mobile
home there.
Mr. Davis said he would not want to go through a rezoning.
Chairman Yates felt that Mr. Davis was taking the most practical approach for what
he was trying to accomplish.
Bobbie Jones told the Board of Adjustment members that the Planning Office did
receive one call wanting to know if this was going to be on sewer.
Chairman Yates asked Mrs.Jones if the Board did approve this request if they needed
to condition it being connected onto the sewer.
She replied that there was a regulation that if anything was within 200 feet of
a sewer it had to be connected; however, if they wanted to place that condition on it
they could.
The public hearing was concluded.
137
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment
August 29, 1975
Suzanne Lighton moved to approve Appeal No. 75-23, Ragil R.
Phillips, as requested and the Board cautioned Mr. Phillips to
always get a building permit cleared before constructing anything else.
Mrs. Clack seconded the motion which was approved with Lighton, Clack,
in favor.
David Newbern opposed.
APPEAL NO. 75-23
Ragil R: Phillips
Yates and White
APPEAL NO. 75-25
David Newbern said this request bothered him. He said the problem Kenneth_L. Smith
as it seemed to him was that Mr. Smith had a lot of property and the use to which
he wanted to put this portion of his house that would require the variance is a
use that could be accomplished elsewhere. He said he was thinking particularly of
that portion of the house which faces opposite of Cleburn (the back of the house).
He said he could not make up his mind on how to vote on it because he agreed that
Cleburn would probably never be a through street and maybe the Major Street Plan
should not be taken into consideration. However, he said he was concerned about this
since the Board of Adjustment is charged with granting the minimum variance that is
really necessary to overcome the hardship that is imposed by the condition of the
property. He said he was having trouble finding the hardship that existed in this
case. He did state that he was in sympathy with the architectural symmetry and the
desirability of architectural symmetry and the esthetics of the property but he
wondered if that is what this Board should be concerned about.
Mrs. Clack felt that something could be designed that would still be attractive that
would/fti&trude into the area because there was a lot of space available.
Mr. White moved to waive the Major Street Plan setback(which would allow a 25
foot setback from the street right-of-way of Cleburn).
Mrs. Clack commented that the Board of Adjustment did not have the power to waive the
Major Street Plan setback requirement.
Chairman Yates clarified the motion by stating that Mr. White did not mean to
literally waive the Major Street Plan but to allow Mr. Smith to build within 25 feet
of the street right-of-way rather than the 21' 4" that he requested.
In answer to Miss Lighton's question, Mr. Smith stated he bought the lot in
January or February and was not aware of this situation at that time. He said plans
for the design of this house had been going on all summer at intervals and there
had been many alternatives from which to choose. He said this plan was the best
compromise all the way around.
Chairman Yates said the architect was aware (or should have been) aware,in his
opinion, of the limitations which he had to work with. He felt the architect should
have taken the requirements into consideration when designing the house.
Mr. Smith said that one reason the house was positioned in that spot on the lot
was the topography of theland. He said this was a more -level spot on a rather steep lot.
Mr. Smith told Mrs. Clack that he would be putting the rest of thet.lot to use by
future expansion on the East and a garden.
Dr. White amended his motion to vary the setback requirements to allow a setback
of 25 feet from the street right-of-way.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones asked what their feeling would be if Mr. Smith
decided to go before the Board of Directors to waive the 5 foot Major Street Plan
requirement.
With Mr. White's motion this would allow Mr. Smith to build within 20 feet of the
right-of-way.
Chairman Yates said it was his feeling that this Board should deal only with what was
at hand.
Mr. White agreed.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Mr. White then moved to deny the request as submitted on Appeal No. 75-24, Kenneth L. Smith.
Mrs. Clack seconded the motion.
Miss Lighton said she would be in favor of granting the request because of the way the
Igg A
r
•
•
•
rr
•
• r
•
.m
P
Board of Adjustment -7-
August 29, 1975
lot was She felt that if anyone ever did build they would not be able to hold
to the required setbacks.
Chairman Yates pointed out -that there was 14 feet to the rear of the property
that Mr. Smith could utilize.
Mr. White pointed out that Mr. Smith could build a house twice the size of this
one and still meet the required setbacks.
Mrs. Clack said there was plenty of room for him to build.
Miss Lighton agreed.
Lighton, Clack, Yates, and White voted in favor of the motion; David Newbern abstained.
APPEAL NO. 75-25
Mrs. Clack said she was opposed to granting the request because George L. McCandless
she felt the reasons that had been given were insufficient for making that much
of a change and also in view of the other people in the neighborhood. She said
she felt it would have been better if these people had come to the meeting.
David Newbern said it bothered him when people called on the telephone and don't
give their names.
Mrs. Clack said a Mr. Mullins had called her about this. She said Mrs. McAllister
had also called and was opposed to it coming any closer to the street.
Chairman Yates said it concerned him because it would be closer to the street.
He said he was not convinced that Mr. McCandless could not build a carport or
shelter east of the house.
Mr. White and Miss Lighton agreed that it looked terribly close to the street.
Daivd Newbern said he was sympathetic with Mr. McCandless wanting to do this but
he felt that it was a convenience thing for Mr. McCandless. He said he was having
trouble finding the necessity for it.
Connie Clack moved to deny the request on Appeal No. 75-25, George L. McCandless.
David Newbern seconded the motion to deny.
Lighton, Clack, Yates, and Newbern voted in favor of the motion; James White abstained.
APPEAL NO. 75-26
Miss Lighton said she agreed with Mr. Purdy and felt they Ted R. Davis
should think about the acreage first.
David Newbern said he wondered if it mattered in this case since Mr. Davis would
not place the trailer there unless he could place it on the site indicated on the
drawing.
Mr. White wondered whether, in order for land to be agricultural, it required a
minimum of 3 acres.
He wondered if this came from an old arbitrary census requirement.
David Newbern said as he understood it, the three acre minimum had more to do
with whether a mobile home could be put on it more than determining how it was
zoned.
Bobbie Jones explained that the A-1 Zone was more or less a holding zone. Anything
that is annexed into the City is put into an A-1, Agricultural, zone until action
is taken by the City or someone wanting to rezone it.
Mrs: Clack said in view of the fact that this is sort of an isolated place and
there is no access at present to Highway 62 it would seem feasible to allow Mr. Davis
to place the mobile home there for a temporary length of time She felt that it
should be limited to this particular use and this particular property only and that
it not be -rented. -
David Newbern moved that a variance be granted to allow Mr. Davis to place the
mobile home in the place indicated on the map submitted on condition that:
1. It be connected to a working sewer line. 2. That it be for the duration of the
time Mr. Davis' current mother-in-law occupies the propertyonly plus a period of
three months.
James White seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
i8q
Board of Adjustment
August 29, 1975
MINUTES
The minutes of the July 23, 1975 Board of Adjustment meeting were approved with
a change in wording on Page 2, Paragraph 9, Line 2 from "might" to "perhaps".
There was no further discussion.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 P. M.
X90
•