HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-03-08 Minutes4
•
MINUTES OF A BOARD.OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
¶?A meeting.of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held at 350)3,.M..Monday,
'March 8y 1976? in the Board of Directors.Room, City Administration_.Building,
`;Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Ibbierkte7- "'•
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Carl Yates, Connie Clack, David Newbern.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
James White, Suzanne Lighton
Mrs.. A. P. Eason, Jr., Charles..McWhorter,.Lee Clements,.
Frank Lewis and Miss Bertha Lewis, -Russell Purdy,
Bobbie Jones, Janet Bowen.
Chairman Carl Yates called the meeting to order.
The public -hearing was opened on Appeal_No. 76-1,
A. P. Eason, Jr. and Marilyn H. Eason, 1011 Trust Street,
on an application to vary setbacks.
The applicants are requesting a rear yard setback of::17 feet from the South (rear).
property line as opposed to the required 20 feeti.from-the rear. _.. _. ..
Mr. Eason has already been issued a building permit to begin construction ori his
house. He has signed a statement that if the.variance is.not.'approved, he -will
take the 3 feet out of his garage which is to be built last.
Marilyn Eason was present to represent.
She told the.Board of Adjustment that, the way.the house would be situated on.,the.
lot, the side of the house would be to the rear of_the lot and thatthey had------- -
17 feet (rather than the required 20 foot setback from rear yard in an R-1 Zone).
She ..said there were other houses facing the same way (East) on_the s.treet.and-they .
were situated this way to take the best advantage of the view. She said they would
i not have anything to the rear of the lot that would look bad and..xhere had notbeen
any objections from the neighbors in talking with.them. She said that Mr. Garrison
(Trust Street) had sold them the lot and knewwhat they intended to build there.
She said Mr. Garrison also had a rent house there that faced this same direction.
In answer to questions asked by Board of Adjustment members, Mrs. Eason said that
Trust Street was a dead-end street.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said that these portions of both Read Avenue
and the alley had been abandoned. She also told the Board of Adjustment that
a Mrs. Gilbreth (property owner across the street) had seen the variance sign and
wondered if she needed to respond to this.
She had said she had no objections to this and Mrs. Jones had explained to her that
the Easons had a permit to go ahead and start on the house but not the garage.
Concerning the 3 feet that Mr. Eason had agreed to take off the garage if the variance
were not granted, Mrs. Eason said this would be for storage and they would very
much like to have that.. She said it would also affect the balance of the house.
There was no one present to express objections..
The public hearing was concluded..
Chairman Yates. opened the puhlic hearing on Appeal No, 76.2,
Church. of Christ, 310. W. Center, on an application to vary
setbacks and height. restrictions.
The applicant is requesting a front yard setback from Center. Street of 29.28 feet
to the entry archway rather than the total 32.5 foot setback.(30 foot zoning.
setback from roof overhang without parking -between the building and the right-of-way
plus a 2.5 foot setback for the Major Street Plan).
They also are requesting a setback of 16 feet from the centerline of an alley
(West side) as opposed to the required 25 feet and a 20.72 foot mar yard setback
as opposed to the required 25 feet.
APPEAL #7671 -
A. P..Eason,,Jr..
1101.=Trus.t -Street
APPEAL #76-2
Church of Christ
310 W. Center Street
Board of Adjustment
March 8, 1976•
-2-
NOTE; This appeal was also advertised torequegt a variance in the height
restriction. Upon a..closer examination,of.the wording in,the height restriction for
the R-0 District it is -the opinion of the.Planning Administrator and Inspection
Superintendent Harold Lieberenz that the height restriction does not apply here.
The wording is as follows;
"There shall be no maximum height limits in R-0 District,
provided, however, that any building whichexceeds the height
of 20 feet shall be set back from any'boundaiy"line"of any
Residential Distiict a distance of one (1) foot for each foot
of height in excess of 20 feet."
Charles McWhorter and Lee Clements was present to represent.
Mr. McWhorter said the proposed building would not come as close to the property
line and also that the height would be lower than that of the existing Church
structure. He said the existing residential type structure would be removed.
He told Board of Adjustment members that the additional space was needed for
classrooms.
Mr. Clements said the proposed structure would up -grade the present facilities.
David Newbern asked if the proposed building was being built compatible with the
older building.
Mr. Clements said the existing building had a lot of stairs at the front that
the proposed building would not have and that they had to build the proposed
building that far out toward the street so they could have their entrance from the
auditorium to the classrooms.
Chairman Yates said that in looking over the plans, it looked like the retaining wall
came near the centerline of the alley and asked what they had planned for this
alley.
Mr. Clements said the retaining wall, as well as the garage, was existing. He
pointed out that this proposed building would not come any closer than what was
already there. He said there were some large Elm treesin this retaining wall
that would be taken out because they were partially dead.
Mr. McWhorter said they did not plan to change the driveway entrance into the
parking lot in any way and, therefore, the alley would be as accessible as it is
now.
In answer to Chairman Yates' question, Mr. Clements said they had not planned to
move the retaining wall but that it could easily be done.
Connie Clack mentioned that there was a difference in dimensions shown -between
the centerline of the alley (the existing rock retaining wall) and building
on the plans. One drawing showed 18 feet and the other one showed 16 feet.
After some discussion, Mr. Clements said that the 16 foot shown was correct and
was based on a survey.
Frank and Bertha Lewis (sister and brother who own the apartments to the North)
were present and stated that they presently had access through the church parking lot
and the alley to the apartments and they did not see why the retaining wall needed
to be moved. They also said there had been no problems with the existing building
being as close to them as it was and the proposed structure would not come quite
as close.
Charles McWhorter said they had not had any contact withthe property owners
surrounding this. He said the City fire station was across the street
and the church owns the lot West of the fire station.
He said there was the historical building (Ridgehouse) on the East side of the
church. building and Lewises (present at this meeting) were on the North side of the
church.
It was also brought out at this point in the meeting that the front porch of the
Ridgehouse was closer to Center Street than their building would be.
•
•
Board of Adjustment -3-
March_ 8, 1976
In answer to Chairman. Yates^ question, Mr, McWhorter said the existing structure was
built around 1948 and_as far as he knew it did:meet the required setbacks at that
time
In answer to Mrs. Clackts- question, Mr, Clement said it would be more of an expense
on the church. if they made a smaller outside dimension and added a third story to
the proposed building..
Mr. Newbern asked if the church. had any alternative plans in case the appeal were
denied and Mr. Clements replied that -they had not._
He said the agenda contained a letter explaining why the proposed building had to be
constructed in that particular area. - -
Mr. Newbern_felt,that�the-Getter=explainedthefront portion:.(because„of the'needed
connection)'but.lthat it did not explain other aspects- of the variance. He then
asked Mr. Clements if there were any hardships involved.
Mr. Clements said the proposed building needed to be built in that particular area
because: (1) They could not have the two buildings any closer than they were shown
due to requirements of the Building Code. (2) If they moved across the alley,
then the two buildings (the auditorium and the proposed building) could not be
connected.
He said this connection wasneededsince this would be used for an educational building.
He also explained that they had some people attending church there that were in
wheelchairs and that it would be a hardship in that respect if they could not have
this connection.
Mr. Newbern then asked if it would cause a hardship if they could take 4 feet off the
North side of the building.
Mr. Clementssaid they designed the new building according to space needed by the
church. He said if the Board of Adjustment felt it was that necessary to shorten
the building 4 feet, they could do it, but that it would take quite a bit out
with the stairs at the top and back
Mr. McWhorter said this could cut out the possibility of rooms on each side of
the hallway and to the building, and would hamper it considerably.
There was no one present in opposition.
Chairman Yates closed the public hearing.
APPEAL #76-1
Mr. Newbern felt the issue on Appeal 76-1, A. P. Eason, Jr., A. P. Eason, Jr.
was twofold: (1) The problem of the existing law that makes 1011 Trust Street
what apparently is the side of most of the lots (houses) there the back of the lots,
which was a situation where people have put the houses on the lots in a way that
was not really compatible with the description of the lot in the ordinance. He said
he was somewhat sympathetic with the placement of the house especially in view of
the other houses that were placed in a similar way in that neighborhood. (2) If the
Board of Adjustment denies the request, they would be hampering them in a convenience
sense because they needed the other 3 feet for storage and it might affect the
symmetry of the hous-e.
He said in the past, the Board of Adjustment had not granted requests that could be
characterized as "convenience requests'.',
Mr, Newbern was also troubled by the procedure that was used in this appeal where
the applicant was given a building permit to go ahead and start construction with
the understanding that the garage could not be started until a variance was granted.
He said he preferred that the request be congidered before any kind of permit was
granted.
He was also concerned about the lengtli_of'time involved between the submittal of
the plans and the date,,of the meeting to hear the request,
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones- explained that the meeting was scheduled as soon
as possible after she received the Board of Adjustment application. She pointed out
that the request had to tie advertised 7 days- in advance.of the meeting and that
she did not get the application back until February 19th.
3
Board of Adjustment
March.8, 19.76•
rr
:r
'' Chairman Yates read an excerpt from a.memorandum on zoning variances
written by City Attorney JameS.N, McCord concerning area variances as to
whether they could confider it on.a "practical difficulty" rather than
"unncessary hardship"', and in conclusion.of this, decided that the Board of Adjust-
ment should have somelee-way-in making decisions in some of these "hardship cases".
In view of the City Attorney's memo regarding this, Mrs, Clack moved to grant
the variance request as submitted,
David Newbern seconded the motion which Was approved unanimously,
APPEAL #76-2
David Newbern asked Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones Church of Christ
to explain the height restriction concerning this case. 310 W. Center St.
She said that in the R-2 and R-3 Districts that "Any building that exceeds 20 feet
in height shall be setback from the building line one (1) foot for each foot
of height in excess of 10 feet." and that in an R-0. District the ordinance
reads "There shall be no maximum height limits in R-0 District, provided, however,
that any building which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back from any
boundary line of any Residential District a distance of one (1) foot for
each foot of height in excess of 20 feet."
She said that since the R-0 is a residential district, she considered abutting
R-0 property as being residential district and the setback, since it is from
the district boundary. line, it should be from the property line unless the
zoning on the property is split.
Connie Clack said she was a little disturbed that they had requested variances
in setbacks in so many directions when they owned so much property. She said
she did not know what to offer as a suggestion, but felt that they might could
build something without so many variances.
David Newbern said there was.apparently a need for the alley to stay open.
He did feel that perhaps the building could be built without having to request
variances from setback requirements. He said, in spite of the fact that the
proposed building did not match up on a plane with the old one in the front or
the rear, that it was close enough to him to be consistent with what was
already there.
He said he appreciated comments from the Lewises that they were not bothered
by the back of the church, but felt the Board of Adjustment should take into
consideration that the property might belong to someone else in the future.
He said he was not satisfied with the responses to all of the questions asked
about internal hardship, but thought given the nature of this property, the
fact that they did own the parking lot, and that this would probably be a very
long term use, he was favorably disposed to granting the variances as requested.
Mr. Newbern then moved to grant the variances as requested.
The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clack, was approved unanimously.
The minutes of the November 10, 1975 meeting were approved as MINUTES
mailed.
It was decided that beginning in April the Board of Adjustment OTHER BUSINESS
meetings would be held at the regular time (3:45 P, M.)
the first and third Monday of each_Month., Since there was a time
problem with_Mr, Newbern, they felt the time could be adjusted when it needed to
be, These meeting dates would be on.alternate Mondays from the Planning Commission
meetings which_was recently changed to the second and fourth. Mondays of
each.month.at 5y00 P, M,
There was no further discussion..
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 P. M.
PAGE
1,3
•
1,4
5,6
5,6
(7
9,13
11,14
12,14
12,14
12,14
13
16,23
19,23
20,23,24
29
31,38,39
32,33,35,38
33,34
34,35,38
41,43,62
45
47
49,53
50,54
51,54
51,54
6 58,61
•7539,62
63,69
65,69
66,67
71,74
72,74
77,80
78,81
79,81,85
79,82
83,88
85,87
88
•
SUBJECT
A.P. Eason, Jr. (Appeal 76-1 - 1101 Trust St.)
Church of Christ (Appeal 76-2 - 310 W. Center St.)
Hugh Smith (Appeal 76-3 - 1165 Overcrest)
Carl Clark (Appeal 76-4 - 406 Mission Blvd.)
Peter G. Estes (Appeal 76-5 - 3118 South School)
Bogddy Arias (Appeal 76-6 - 113 Skyline Dr.)
Bill Hawkins (Appeal 76-7 - 3500 W. Sixth)
Town F, Country Properties (Appeal 76-8 - 2014 West Sixth)
C.D. $ T S Const. for Jack Couch (Appeal 76-9 - 2808 Wyman Rd.)
Harold R. Fetter (Appeal 76-10 - 627 N. Leverett)
Donald W. Johnston (Appeal 76-11 - 1224 Lindell Ave.)
Bogddy Arias (Appeal 76-12 - 113 W. Skyline)
Housing Authority, City of Fay. (Appeal 76-13 - 10 South Willow)
Dr. J. B. Hays (Appeal 76-14 - 1140 North College)
Kenneth $ Evalena Boothe (Appeal 76-15 - 2820 Old Farmington Rd.)
First Federal Building (Appeal 76-19 - P.O. Box 4217)
Ridgeview Baptist Church (Appeal 76-16 - 1852 Huntsville Road)
Conlee Bodishbaugh (Appeal 76-17 - 2611 Elizabeth)
Dr. Hays (Lifestyles, Inc. - 1140 North College - Appeal 76-18)
Herbert Hatfield (Appeal 76-20 - 117 F, 123 No. College Ave.)
Rules of Procedure Board of Adjustment
David Swenson (Appeal 76-22 - 810 S. Washington)
George E. u Bobbie N. Templeton (Appeal 76-23 - 2310 Winwood)
Fayetteville Waste Paper Company (Appeal 76-24 - 13th St. and Warford Dr.)
Lonzo Ritchey (Appeal 76-25 - 1414 So. Washington)
Dr. John Andre (Appeal 76-26 - 1333 Mission Boulevard)
Robert L. Younkin (Appeal 76-27 - 10 West Bishop Dr.)
Ronnie G. Sherwood (Appeal 76-28 - 130 North College)
Kyle Shackelford (Appeal 76-29 - 227 West Dickson St.)
Robert D. Schmickle (Appeal 76-30 - 740 Broadview Dr.)
John R. Locke (Appeal 76-31 - 823 W. Center St.)
Hanna Marine, Inc. (Appeal 76-32 - 600 West Sixth St.)
University Baptist Church (Appeal 76-33 - 315 West Maple St.)
Jess Hawkins (Appeal 76-34 - 2700 Block of Wyman Rd.)
W .A. Emerson (Appeal 76-35 - 617 North Walnut St.)
J .B. Hays (Appeal 76-36 - 1915 Green Acres Rd.)
Exie Hardy (Appeal 76-37 - 573 N. Walnut St.)
Ken Lazenby (Appeal 76-38 - E. Farmers Dr.)
Herbert Hatfield (Appeal 76-39 - 117 4 123 N. College)
Rules and Procedures
90,92,97,98,99 John M. Hopkins (Appeal 77-1 - 762 West North St.)
91,93 St. John's Lutheran Church (Appeal 77-2 - 648 West Dickson St.)
94,96 Dave Tackett (Appeal 77-3 - 400 N. College Ave.)
95,96 Mrs. Velma Best (Appeal 77-4 - 679 Assembly Dr.)
Rules of Procedure
Doris McClelland - The Farmer's Daughter (Appeal 77-5 - 2583 Johnson Rd.)
Letter from Velma Best
Letter from Board of Directors
Rules of Procedure
Bryce J. Davis (Appeal 77-6 - 2365 Hatfield Dr.)
William Weston Rogers (Appeal 77-8 - 990 Company St.)
Kelley Bros. Lumber Co. (Appeal 77-9 - 2194 Lisa Lane)
Bill Imler (Appeal 77-10 - 217 East Baxter Lane)
Herbert Hatfield (Appeal 77-11 - 117 $ 123 North College)
Maurice Jennings (Appeal 77-12 - 112 West Lafayette)
C.E. Stamps (Appeal 77-13 - 730 Mission Blvd.)
97
98,100
100
100
100
102
104,107
105,108
•
106,108
106,108
107,109
110,112,114
DATE
03-08-76
03-08-76
03-22-76
03-22-76
03-22-76
04-19-76
04-19-76
04-19-76
04-19-76
04-19-76
04-19-76
05-17-76
05-17-76
05-17-76
06-07-76
06-07-76
06-21-76
06-21-76
06-21-76
08-16-76
08-30-76
08-30-76
09-20-76
09-20-76
09-20-76
09-20-76
10-04-76
10-04-76
11-01-76
11-01-76
11-01-76
11-15-76
11-15-76
12-06-76
12-06-76
12-06-76
12-06-76
12-20-76
12-20-76
12-20-76
03-21-77
03-21-77
04-04-77
04-04-77
04-04-77
04-18-77
04-18-77
04-18-77
04-18-77
05-02-77
06-06-77
06-06-77
06-06-77
06-06-77
06-06-77
06-20-77
1976 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ATTENDANCE RECORD
(over)
DATE
Yates
White
Newbern
Clack
Lighton
House
S-)16-76
Nov Smith ber
March
8, 1976
X
X
X
March 22, 1976
X
X
X
X
April
19, 1976
X
X
X
(resigned)
May 17, 1976
X
X
X
May 28, 1976
X
X
X
(Appointed
6-2-76)
June 7, 1976
X
X
X
X
June 21, 1976
X
X
X
July 9,_1976
X
X
X
X
X
August 16,
1976
X
X
X
X
X
X
August 30, 1976
X
X
X
X
X
X
_
__September 20, 1976
October 4, 1976
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
_
October 11, 1976 SPECIAL
X
X
X
X
November 1, 1976
X
X
X
X
X
X
—__November 15
X
X
X
X
X
_-
December 6, 1976
X
-X
X X
December 20, 1976
X
X
X
X X.
I
-4
New /11*e_mbr
_ _Mrs.. Don Mills
.44
MEm
•