HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-10-13 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
it/o 0. /o, /9'75
A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held at 3:50.P;.M;, Monday, October 13, 1975,
inthe Board ,of Directors Room; City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Suzanne Lighton, Vice -Chairman James White, David Newbern.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Chairman Carl Yates, Connie Clack.
Giles Penick, Jr., Attorney Richard Hipp, Ralph Goff, Harold Lieberenz,
Bobbie Jones, Janet Bowen.
In the absence of Chairman Carl Yates, Vice -Chairman James White APPEAL NO. 75-31
called the meeting to order and opened the public hearing on Dorset. Company
Appeal No. 75-31, Dorset Company, 212-214 East Cleburn Street, 212=214 E. Cleburn St.
on an application to vary minimum lot size for a duplex in the
R-1 Zoning District.
The applicant is requesting to be allowed to build on 10,825 square feet rather than
the required 12,000 square feet.
Mr. Giles Penick, Jr. was present to represent.
Mr. Penick said the proposed duplex units which are shown running North and South on
the plans have a total floor area (including the porches) of 1,592 square feet which was
probably substantially less than a lot of one -family dwellings. He said they would be
small balcony -bedroom type units and he felt that he had adequate room on the lot for this
improvement and for adequate off-street parking without it being any reflection or any
eyesore to the City, neighbors, or to the neighborhood. Mr. Penick said he believed
the best interests of the neighborhood and the City would be served by this addition
of rental properties in the City.
James White asked Mr. Penick what he proposed against the East property line.
Mr. Penick said there was a slight drop off there and there was a difference in elevation
and that he had not planned any definite barrier.
In answer to Miss Lighton's question, Mr. Penick said this property consisted of Lot 18
and the East 19.58' of Lot 17 and has apparantly been under the same ownership for
sometime.
He said the Lehman property (the Western 60 feet of Lot 17) had about a two-bedroom
dwelling on it.
Attorney Richard Hipp was present to represent Mrs. Ella Lehman (property owner:immediately
to the West) in this matter, and stated that she would like to enter an objection because
she felt it would detrimentally affect her property and the values of it as well as
the other properties in the neighborhood, to have another duplex built there.
Mr. White said there was a duplex just West of the Lehman property.
Mr. Hipp said Mrs. Lehman also objected for two other reasons. (1) There is a
substantial slope in the land; it slopes toward her house and if the land is cleared
there would be a water problem because of this slope of the land and he said Mrs. Lehman
entered an objection because of that.
Mr. Hipp said if the land was cleared and if the request were approved, something needed
to be done about this in the Board's consideration since the water problem would damage
Mrs. Lehman's land. (2) With Mrs. Lehman's house and property line being situated as
it is and the variance being requested from 12,000 to 10,825 square feet, this would be
entirely objectionable to her with. the duplex situated as shown and she also objected
to the traffic the duplex would entail on such a small amount of land.
Mr. Hipp said they did object to the granting of this usage and secondly, they entered
an objection that if it is done, they must have some assurances of the water problem
being solved before the land is cleared. He said there was a flow of water there now
but there was plant growthto stop it.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones explained to Miss Lighton that all the
Board of Adjustment needed to be concerned about was the request to vary the minimum
lot size. This is zoned R-1, and duplexes are a conditional use on appeal to the
Planning Commission in an R-1 Zone.
200
•
•
Board of Adjustment -2-
October 13, 1975
Miss Lighton said she would like to suggest they take up with.the Planning Commission
an amendment to the ordinance as to which_ consideration should come first- - -
the Board of Adjustment's or the Planning.Commissionys,
David Newbern said the way he understood it, Mr. Hipp's concern was three -fold:
(1) The concern of the water problem if the land were to be cleared.
(2) The concern that a duplex is proposed and.wouid bring in traffic to a smaller
area of land, (3) The use of the land whichwas a consideration for the
Planning Commission.
He said as he understood it, as far as the Board of Adjustment decision was concerned,
Mr. Hipp's objection was that they would be allowing construction of a building
on a lot that was too small to accomodate the building.
Mr. Hipp said this was correct and that he also felt that the Board of Adjustment
in their decision could consider the lay of the land and make some assurances that
the water problem would be taken care of.
David Newbern said he had been by this location and understood the problem but that
this was not under the control of the Board of Adjustment. He said a property
owner had a recourse (through the Courts) if anyone diverted water onto their property.
Mr. Hipp stated he thought the Board could condition their granting of a request.
Mr. Penick said the water problem had been there for years. He said there would be
no clearance on the land at all except underbrush or weeds that are there,
and that the trees would remain as they were. He said the duplexes were going to
be constructed on the natural fall of the land as it was now.
In answer to Mr. White's question, Mr. Penick said the driveway would probably
have to be curved. Mr. Penick said he knew there was a drainage problem. He said
he would have to bring the water from the back of the lot to the front of it
without eroding. However, he said he believed that the drainage would be coming to
the South. He said Mr. Hipp's client had a retaining wall which was probably
built to protect against this.
Mr. Hipp said Mrs. Lehman was concerned about a property owner developing this in
such a manner that it would add to the water problem and she was simply asking
that the developer take reasonable actions to prevent this.
Mr. Penick told Mr. White that he was not going to deliberately divert water.
He said he expected to take whatever action was necessary to prevent the erosion
of his lot and didn't expect to throw it onto Mrs. Lehman's lot.
In answer to Miss Lighton's question, Mr. Penick said he bought the lots about six
or eight months ago, and that he did not know what the restrictions were on the
square footage at that time.
There was no further discussion and the public hearing was concluded.
Vice -Chairman White opened the public hearing on APPEAL NO. 75-32
Appeal No. 75-32, Ralph Goff, 2209 Huntsville Road, on an Ralph Goff
application to vary setbacks and/or height restrictions. 2209 Huntsville Rd.
Mr. Goff is requesting: (1) a setback of 25 feet on the pump island while a 25 foot
Zoning setback plus a 5 foot Major Street Plan setback is required; (2) A setback
of 20 feet for the canopy covering. the pump island while a 20 foot zoning setback
and 5 foot Major Street Plan setbackis required; (3) A setback of the building
from the East property line with residential zoning to the East of 10 feet while
a 10 foot zoning.. setback plus a 3 foot (1 foot for each foot of building height
over 10 feet) is required; OR he is requesting a setback of 52 feet from the
right-of-way of Jerry Avenue while a 50 foot zoning setback plus a 5 foot Major
Street Plan setback is required. (Applicant requests approval to either:
(1) build 10 ft. from the East property line and 55 feet from Jerry Avenue
right-of-way, or (2) build 13 feet from the East property line and 52 feet from
rn Jerry Avenue right-of-way. Either of the above would require a 3 foot variance.)
Mr. Raplh Goff was present to represent,
He submitted pictures of the location to the Board of Adjustment so they could see
that the street was quite a way from the right-of-way. He said this was across from
Mhoon Beef Company on Highway 16 East. He said if the highway went all the way to the
a01
Board of Adjustment -3-
October 13, 1975
right-of-way it would_not..be_a.problem. 'H"e'"said, however, if he had to set back 5 feet,
• it would cause -a "shotgiun!1.5effect when people had to pull that far off the road to get
to the pump island and then have go go back.. out to the highway..
In answer to Miss Lightonts question, Mr, Goff said the buildings shown on the plans
were proposed and not existing and that he did have room to comply with the required
setbacks.
Mr. Goff agreed with Miss Lighton in that if the highway were ever widened there
would not be a problem,
Mr. Goff said there was some conversation to the effect that if Highway 16 was
ever improved it would go East from the Bypass and go around behind this property.
In answer to Vice -Chairman White's question, Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones
said the Plat Book showed 70 feet of right-of-way existing there now for Highway 16;
Mr. Goff commented that even if the street were widened the canopy and pump island
would still be further back than those of any others in town.
Miss Lighton said she did not recall granting that many variances if they had been
built since the present ordinance went into effect.
Mr. Goff said there had been only one or two that he could think of.
In answer to Miss Lighton's question, Mr. Goff said on his East-West request he
could limit his building on the East to a 10 -foot height and comply with the required
setback, but to make it more attractive, it should be 13 feet in height. Therefore,
Mr. Goff said he would have to move over 3 feet.
Mr. Goff said besides a service station, this would be a convenience store and coin-
operated laundry similar to the Mini -Mart at Greenland.
Mr. Goff said he wanted to add that if the highway were not widened (if the Major
Street Plan were ever changed) he would be in compliance with the ordinance. He
said it might be 25-30 years before the Major Street Plan went through and he was
• being deprived of using that 5 foot. He said if he had 200 feet of width and a long
sweeping drive it would not look so bad, but the way this was made for a bad
situation.
He said the 5 feet would make a difference.
He answered Mr. White's question by stating that he had not decided if there would
be an entry on Jerry, but if he did it would be on the side to the laundry and not
to the pump island.
Mrs. Jones said that in talking with Mr. Goff previously they had not discussed
the coin operated laundry. She said the parking requirements would be different
from that of a convenience store, and that they would have to talk about that later.
In replying to Mr. Newbern's question, Mr. Goff said parking for the convenience
store and laundry would be on the sides and on the front.
He said there would be double parking on Jerry and parking against the building, and
also parking on the South and North. He said he had ample parking. He said he would
not have if it were not for the restrictions, but that the ordinance forced the setback
and he would be using that for parking.
Mrs. Jones said she would have to find out the size of the laundry since the parking
requirement for a luandry was double that for a store.
Mrs. Jones answered a question asked by Mr. White by saying that the driveway had to
be setback 50 feet from the intersection of Jerry Avenue.
Mr. Newbern asked Mr, Goff to explain exactly what he. meant by dog -legging.
Mr. Goff explained that that was when you had to pull so far off the road to get
to the pumps and then go some distance to get back to the highway. He explained
that it would be better for business if the pumps .were closer to the highway.
Mr. Newbern said he could not understand howthis would create a problem.
Suzanne Lighton said the Board of Adjustment was faced. with the responsibility
• of granting variances if there was a hardship,
Mr. Goff said his hardship was having to give 5 feet of his land that he doesn't
know whether or not will ever be used plus the fact he had to setback 50 feet from the
corner to make a driveway whereas, if he was not on a corner, he would not have to.
There was no further discussion.
There was no one present to oppose, and the public hearing was concluded.
202
Board of Adjustment
October 13, 19/b,
Suzanne Lighton moved to deny Appeal No. 75-31, Dorset Company.
She said the area was too small for what was proposed and she .DORSET COMPANY
• felt Mr. Penickhad not shown any degree of hardship, Appeal No. 75-31
Mr, Penick said there was not a hardship there, However, he said he would like to
spend his money and felt that it would help him as well as the City,
David Newbern seconded the motion, He saidhe was- not troubled so much by the fact the
area was too small for the buildings that were being proposed so muchas he was about
the use variance. He felt that the Planning Commission should have considered this
before it was brought before the Board of Adjustment, He said he had been thinking
about tabling this appeal but since there -were only three members present at this meeting
he would second Miss Lighton's motion.
Miss Lighton said she agreed with this and wished the Board of Adjustment could get with
the Planning Commission and come up with some agreement on which consideration should
be given first.
Mr. Newbern felt that the Board of Adjustment might have collectively felt differently
about this appeal if the use variance-had.been granted first by the Planning Commission.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said Mr. Penick had a different plan on this
originally werein he had made arrangements -to acquire the required 12,000 square feet.
She said, however, it involved a lot split from the lot to the East and it would leave
the building on that lot not meeting the requirements as far as setbacks and she explained
that this also would have had to have been approved by the Board of Adjustment.
Miss Lighton then asked the Planning Administrator if Mr. Penick would still be allowed
to go before the Planning Commission for the use varuance even if this boardcdenied
the request.
Mrs. Jones replied that he could.
Miss Lighton felt that this should first go to the Planning Commission. Then if they
approved the use variance, he could then come before the Board of Adjustment for the
lot size variance.
With the permission of Mr. Newbern, she then withdrew her motion and moved to table
Appeal No. 75-31 pending the Planning Commission's action. She said this •would allow
Mr. Penick to come before them, if the Planning Commission approved it, without having
to re -advertise the request.
David Newbern seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
They told Mr. Penick they could hold a special meeting one week later if the Planning
Commission approved the conditional use. (There would not be a regular meeting of the
Board of Adjustment on October 27 since City offices are closed that day to observe
Veteran's Day.)
Mr. Newbern said he understood the problem Mr. Goff had been trying to RALPH GOFF
demonstrate, but it was his feeling that Mr. Goff wanted the variance Appeal No. 75-32
just so cars would not have to pull off the road so far to get to the gas pumps.
He said the other situations that Mr. Goff had shown them pictures of where thes:pumps
were closer to the road were built when this type of situation was lawful (before
the existing ordinance).
Miss Lighton felt this appeal should be denied in toto.
Mr. White said he felt the variance on the pump island should be denied but that he
had mixed emotions about the setback on the East-West property line,
Mr. Newbern said he would rather give Mr. Goff the 3 feet from the 55 foot setback than
he had to grant him a variance on the pump island.
Miss Lighton and Mr. White agreed with this.
Mr. Goff said he would rather cut down the size of the building and conform with that
requirement and be granted the variance, on the pump island.
Mr, Goff asked how Speedi-Mart on College Avenue had been allowed to have their pumps
closer to the road than what the ordinance allowed, He pointed out that he had
just as mUch_of a hardship as they did and he hadto setback. the SQ feet besides the
other.
The Board of Adjustment could not recall granting a varinace on this and asked
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones if she recalled anything on this.
L.X03
•
•
Board of Adjustment
October 13, 1975.
•
-5-
She said there had been a variance granted on the canopy over the pump island, It was
pointed out to Mr, Goff.that there were probably other factorsinvolved when they granted
this variance that would not apply in his case,
Mr. Newbern told_Mr..-Go£f_ie was.in-a-position where he could put his building almost
anywhere on the lot -that he wanted 'to"North .'and South.,
Mr. Goff said he would like to have the variance granted on the setback on the East-
West property line, but that the other variance (the canopy and pump island) was
more important to him.
Miss Lighton moved to deny the request for a variance on the pump island and canopy but
to grant the three foot variance on the West side of the property.
There was no further discussion.
David Newbern seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
Under "Other Business" there was a request from the Planning Office
for an interpretation of "durable and dustless" requirements for off- OTHER BUSINESS
street parking spaces.. (Article 8, Section 9, Zoning Ordinance.)
Inspection Superintendent Harold Lieberenz was present to represent.
In answer to Mr. Newbern's question, Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said the
Board of Adjustment was being asked to look at this because they had the power
of interpretation.
Mr. Lieberenz said the ordinance was vague as to just what point the Board of Adjustment
can give the interpretation. He said the ordinance stated "It is the intent of this
ordinance that all questions of interpretation and enforcement shall be first presented
to the Planning Administrator and that such questions shall be presented to the
Board of Adjustment only on appeal from the decision of the Planning Administrator
and that recourse from the decisions of the Board of Adjsutment shall be to the courts
as provided by state law."
Mr. Liebernez said he had asked Mrs. Jones to put this item on the agenda because they
were having problems with the term "durable and dustless". He said there were two
situations: (1) People chatting driveways and then paving the parking areas against
the building. (2) Temporary types of buildings where people do not want to go to the
expense of using asphalt. He said he would like to get the feeling from the
Board of Adjustment what was meant by "durable and dustless".
Mr. Newbern felt the Board of Adjustment could not give an official interpretation
since there had not been an appeal.. to them. He then suggested that each board member
give their personal opinion of what "durable and dustless" meant.
Mr. Newbern said he felt that chat was not dustless and was clearly not durable He felt
that some type of composition should be used.
In answer to Mr. Lieberenz' question, Mr. Newbern said he would feel just as strongly
about this if it were a temporary situation since the ordinance did not account for them.
Miss Lighton agreed with Mr. Newbern in that chat was neither durable nor dustless. She
said no one really ever knew whether a situation would lie temporary or not.
Mr. White felt that the property owner has some responsibility in the matter if he was
going to rent it for a certain use.
After giving their opinions, there was no further discussion on this matter.
Miss Lighton, Mr, White, and Mr. Newbern asked Planning Administrator OTHER DISCUSSION
Bobbie Jones if she would ask the Planning Commission at their meeting on the 14th of
October to decide which request should be considered first when it involved a Board of
Adjustment as well as a Planning Commission decision.
There was no further discussion.
The meeting was adjourned at 5;Q5 P, M,
,o1'