Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-10-20 Minutes• MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A special meeting of.the Fayetteville Board of,.Adjustment Monday, October 20, 1975, in the..Board,of Directors Room, Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas, MEMBERS PRESENT: Connie Clack, Suzanne Lighton, Chairman Yates, James White David Newbern. ft 1114"cd it/o0,/o//i7g was held at 4:00 P. M. City Administration MEMBERS ABSENT: None, OTHERS PRESENT: Giles Penick, Jr.,Mrs ;:Lehman, Mr. Lehman (Mrs. Lehman's son), Attorney Richard Hipp, Bobbie Jones, Janet Bowen. Chairman Carl Yates called the meeting. He explained that the public hearing had been conducted and held open until action should be taken on it by the Planning Commission.. (Appeal No. 75-31, Dorset Company, was tabled until after the decision was made concerning the use request.) Mr. Giles Penick, Jr. was present to represent Dorset Company and was asked to explain briefly what he proposed to do. He said his request was to build a duplex on a lot which was slightly below the required area He felt there was a need for small, lower-income rental units. He explained that this was a good location for duplexes with small houses and other duplexes in the area He told the Board of Adjustment that the Planning Commission approved the conditional use request and they were trying to encourage this type of development in that area. He said these were small, balcony -bedroom design units where the balcony is the bedroom. Mr. Penick said in his opinion the best use for this land was for duplex development since it was an area of modest rents and it would be very difficult to earn an adequate return in view of today's land and development costs. Mr. Penick said he had more than the minimum on lot frontage but his hardship was in the lot depth. He said there was no way he could acquire any additional square footage without filing for a lot split. He felt that the shortage of square footage was offset in that it was a very small development. He said these units were designed for two people each and would, therefore, not increase the traffic flow that much. He said that Mrs. Lehman owned the property to the West, and he himself owned the property to the East. He said he had not talked personally to Mr. Imler (property owner to the North) but that Mr. Imler had sold him the land and was aware of what was proposed. Attorney Richard Hipp was present to represent Mrs. Ella Lehman. Mr. Hipp explained that the Lehmans were opposed to the request for 4 reasons: (1) .It was such an unreasonable variance request. Since Mr. Penick was asking to be allowed to build on 10,825 sq.iare. as opposed to the required 12,000 square feet, they felt that it was too much of a variance. (2) The drainage problem. Mr. Hipp explained that Mrs. Lehman was on the downhill slope from this and feared that if the land were cleared the water would create a flowage problem, and would cause damage to her home since it is so near the boundary line. There is presently brush and undergrowth there. (3) Mrs. Lehman felt it would damage her property values as well as the others in the neighborhood. (4) The traffic congestion it would create in sucha small area that close to her._ Mr. Hipp pointed out at the last Board,ofAdjustment meeting that they. did -not know if a condition could be attached to the approval if it were approved or not. He told the Board of Adjustment that Mrs. Lehman was not trying to be unreasonable but would like to avoid any water problems by making a condition that Mr. Penick would like to .avoid any water problems by making a condition that Mr, Penick would have a retaining wall or something of this nature before he would be granted the request. -- APPEAL NO. 75-31 Dorset Company Planning Commission • • Board of Adjustment October 20, 1975 Mrs. Lehman stated,' Alex Lehman He said his -2- was present but did not add any comments to what Mr. Hipp had already .(Mrs. Lehman's.son) was- also present. wishes were that the water situation would be taken care of and he thought it would create a traffic problem.• In answer to Chairman latest question, Mr. Penick said .he did consider the question of the drainage irrelevant to this hearing since they (the Lehmans) acknowledged that there was no undue drainage on them except for the slope that is there. He said the location places the proposed duplex on the West side of the lot which would actually tend to shield them from drainage coming down the East side. He said the present pattern of drainage comes from the Northeast corner, comes down roughly about the middle of the lot and out to the ditch in front somewhere a little ways past the middle of the lot. He said there was no reason to expect increased drainage onto Mrs. Lehman's lot. He pointed out that, on the contrary, there was reason to expect that the location of the house on the lot would tend to shield the drainage from going that way. He said the driveways would be on the East side and would act as a barrier and that drainage would continue to come down the East side and out into the ditch in the street. He said there would not be any drainage added to that which would go over onto Mrs. Lehman's property. Mr. Penick felt he should not be requested to prematurely preclude something that may never happen (the drainage) or that did not intend for it to happen. He told the Board of Adjustment that he could have built a single family dwelling at this same location without having to go before them or the Planning Commission and he felt that the duplex usage would not create any more drainage than a single-family dwelling would. Mr. Hipp agreed the drainage was to the middle of the lot like Mr. Penick had stated. However, he felt that this was due to the natural growth (trees, underbrush, bushes) that was there. It was felt that if this were cleared off, the drainage would create a problem on Mrs. Lehman's property. In answer to Mr. White's question, Mr. Lehman said they had owned the property since 1960. There was no further discussion and the public hearing was concluded. Miss Lighton said the Planning Commission's approval of the conditional use had a big effect on her as far as the square footage was concerned. She felt the drainage was the only problem, and stated that she would be in favor of granting the request with a condition about the drainage. Mr. White then suggested conditioning; it so that the drainage would not be aggrevated, and to take whatever action was necessary to keep drainage off of the Lehmans. David Newbern said he could go along with this. However, he felt the use of the property did not necessarily affect the drainage problem. Mrs. Clack said she hesitated to put a condition on the drainage since she could not see where this proposed use would be any worse than any other. Miss Lighton said she was merely thinking about the fact that since it was before them why not see that the problem would be taken care of. Chairman Yates asked the other board members if they felt putting a condition on this would be any differentthan conditions they had placed on requests in the past. Miss Lighton felt there was no difference. David Newbern felt that it was a little different in that the thing that was being complained about is one that would occur anytime for any purpose. He felt that sometimes the conditions that had been made seemed to be absolutely necessary to grant the variance. Mr. Newbern said he was willing to go along with this and to have a variance conditioned even on Mr. Penick satisfying the City Inspector that there has been APPEAL NO. 75-31 Dorset Company Qn r Special Board of Adjustment -3- October 20, 1975 adequate care taken to see to it that the drainage problem with regard to Mrs. Lehman's property is not exacerbated or made any worse as a result of this proposed developed. Mr. Newbern made this in the form of a motion. The motion which was seconded by Mr. White was approved unanimously. OTHER DISCUSSION Mr. White inquired of Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones why the recent parking lot at the Southeast corner of North Street and College Avenue was not "durable and dustless". Mrs. Jones said any off-site parking had to be approved by the Planning Commission and told the Board of Adjustment members that there had not been a request submitted to the Planning Commission or Planning Office concerning this. In answer to another question asked by Mr. White, Mrs. Jones said the development that had been proposed for that property must have ran into a snag, since the property was now for sale. Mr. Newbern said he noticed in driving by 321 Archibald Yell Boulevard that the variance request granted to Ira Swope (Appeal No. 74-31) for an addition that was to be used for the muffler shop, a small office and storage was now being used for a real estate sales office. The other members said they had not been aware of this and they asked Mrs. Jones to check into whether or not this real estate office had been issued a Certificate of Occupancy since this would be a way to handle this. Mrs. Jones said she would check into the situation. There was no further discussion. The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 P. M. tor, 4' • • •