Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-03-22 Minutes• MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held at 3:47.P,,M, Monday, March.22, 1976; in the Board of Directors Room; City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas, MEMBERS PRESENT: Connie Clack, Chairman Carl Yates, James White, David Newbern, MEMBERS ABSENT: Suzanne Lighton. OTHERS PRESENT: Pete Estes, J±.;Pete G. Estes, Hugh Smith, Mrs, Carl Clark, Lois Smith. Chairman Yates called the meeting to order. David Newbern was not present when the meeting was called to order. APPEAL NO. 76-3 The public hearing was opened on Appeal No. 76-3, Hugh Smith Hugh Smith, 1165 Overcrest on an application to vary setbacks. 1165.Overcrest. The applicant requests a setback from Elm Street right-of-way of approximately 17 feet while the Zoning Ordinance calls for a 25 foot setback. Mr. Smith was present to represent. He told the Board of Adjustment that he would like to put a redwood deck and patio on the side of his house (Elm Street) which would be covered but not enclosed. He said the deck would help the appearance of the house He said they started on the project without knowing that they needed a permit.for.it. He pointed out that his contractor felt there was no need for a permit since it was just a deck. He said he did not have room to build on the West. He told the Board of Adjustment that they had torn an old fence down on the property. He said there were no objections from the neighbors in talking with them. Mrs. Clack asked Mr. Smith what his alternative would be if the Board of Adjustment decided to deny the variance request. Mr. Smith said he would probably just have to tear it out. For matter of clarification, Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said that, by ordinance, Mr. Smith could build a deck without a roof on it without requiring a variance provided that it would not be over 30 inches off the ground. In answer to questions asked by the Board of Adjustment, Bobbie Jones said the Board would be allowed to place a condition.that'this not be enclosed if they decided to grant the variance. She then said that the Planning Office had a call from a Mrs. Holland, 1236 E. Elm, who had no objection to Mr. Smith's request, but wondered if she should respond to the notification that had been sent to her. Dr. White asked about the possibility of just putting the roof over a. portion of the deck by continuing the line of the house roof toward the South. Mr. Smith said the piers were already up and that the roof of the existing house had been torn back to be attached with the roof of the deck. He said they would like this to be ground floor level since they had sliding glass doors which would go onto the proposed deck. There was no one present in opposition and the public hearing was concluded. The public hearing was opened on Appeal No, 76-4, Carl Clark, APPEAL NO. 76-4 406 Mission Boulevard on an application to vary setbacks, Carl Clark The applicant requests a setbackfrom the Southproperty line of .:406 Mission Blvd. 4.5.feet rather than the required 8 feet. Mrs. Clark was present to represent. She said they had only two small bedrooms in their house and they needed more bedroom space in order to accommodate her invalid mother who would be living with. them part of the time. 5 Board of Adjustment March 22, 1976 CShe presently lives in Lowell, ArkansasHut will be staying with. them part,of the time.) She said they would like to add two upstairs bedrooms..She saidtheyplanned to have an inside stairway but did not propose one outside, She told the Board, o£ Adjustment that the existing downstairs part was built 9 years ago (whichis before the last zoning ordinance went into effect) and was designed to have a second story added., Since the roof on this- section is now flat they have a leaky roof which the addition will correct, She said they had talked with the neighbors and there had been no objections.. There was no one present in opposition and the piiblic hearing was concluded. Mrs. Clack said she would have to abstain on the next appeal (Appeal No. 76-5, Peter G, Estes) since she and her husband sold the concerned property to Mr. Estes. Miss Lighton was unable to attend the meeting and because of unavoidable circumstances, Mr. Newbern could not get:to the meeting until around 4:15 or 4:20 P. M. Since they did not have a quorum on the Estes appeal until Mr. Newbern arrived, Chairman Yates suggested (and the other Board members agreed) that they should discuss and vote on the first two appeals. Mrs. Clack said she was concerned about the request because it APPEAL NO. 76-3 is a relatively new area and all the other houses (as far as she Hugh Smith could tell just by looking) met the required setbacks. She said she did not like to introduce one that was closer to the street. She said she understood why it would be more convenient for the deck to be built at that location, but pointed out that Mr. Smith did have other possibilities for the location. She said she had divided feelings concerning the request. Mr. White said he was concerned about there being a roof over the whole deck. He said if this could be restricted as a porch or patio from now on, that would be one thing; however, he said he would not want to see this open up for an expansion of the house Mr. White said he was thinking in terms of Mr. Smith just extending the foof line of the existing house from North to South just over the patio portion of it. He said, however, if Mr. Smith did want to go ahead and extend the whole thing, he would not want the roof overhang to extend 2 feet outside the patio. (Mr. Smith said he had not planned an overhang on the roof of the patio and deck.) Mr. White also felt that this should not be made into a room, screened in,or made into a sunroom or enclosed porch in the future. Bobbie Jones said this restriction could be written in on the permit. Mrs. Clack said this would be hard to enforce. Chairman Yates said this was an odd -shaped lot and felt he could go along with a variance if it were conditioned that the deck not be enclosed. Mr. White agreed with this. Mr. White then moved to grant the variance with the condition that it not be enclosed by_screening or other material. Connie Clack seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. Bobbie Jones said this condition would be written in on the permit as well as the Planning Office copy. APPEAL NO. 76-4 Carl Clark Connie Clacksaid she was in favor of granting the request on Appeal No. 76-4, Mr, White said he could not see any problems since this was just an extension of the existing structure., Mrs. Clackmoved to grant the variance as requested.. Mr. White seconded .the motion which. was approved unanimously. 6 Board'.of Adjustment -3- March 22, 1976 The minutes.of.the March_8, 1976 Board,of Adjustment meeting were approved as mailed., The meeting was recessed from 4;15.P, M. until David Newbern MINUTES arrived at 4:37 P. M. APPEAL NO. 76-5 Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal No, 76-5, Peter G, Estes Peter G. Estes, 3118 South. School Street on an application 3118 South School to vary setbacks. The applicant is requesting a setback from Skelton Street right-of-way of 30 feet as opposed to the required 50 foot zoning setback plus the 5 foot setback for the Major Street Plan. Peter G. Estes and Pete Estes, Jr. were present to represent. Pete Estes said there was an existing rock dwelling on the property (35' by 35') and that they would like to move that house onto the lot back behind the C-2 Zone. He said what they proposed to do was build a 24 foot by 50 foot building with a 5 foot porch constructed on the lot in the C-2 Zone to be used for a liquor store. He said the residence was still in good shape on the inside. He said they debated as to whether or not to use the existing house for the liquor store but decided it could be fixed up and used for a residence. Mr. Estes pointed out that the other buildings along the street were setback from Skelton Street 30 feet rather than the required 50 feet and that the required setback would cause an unneccesary hardship on him. He said it would be difficult to place a building of that size on half of a block. Also, Mr. Estes said the Highway Department had already constructed the curb cuts to make two lots out of it and vehicles would have to jog into the property. He told the Board of Adjustment that once the Highway Department set the curb cuts, they could not be changed. He said this new building would improve the appearance of the property. In answer to questions asked by the Board of Adjustment, he said the drive -tip windows on most retail liquor stroes were located on the right side of the building, and pointed out that the way the curb cuts were situated, the drive-in window would have to be on the left side if a variance were not granted. In answer to James White's question, Mr. Estes said a study'made by the State. Highway Department hadrevealed.. thatthis was one.of..the•safest-intersections in the State'of Arkansas, Mr. Estes said the biggest percentage of traffic would be at the drive-in window. David Newbern felt unconvinced that Mr.'Estes could not move the location of the building to meet the setbacks and to get the driveway where he wanted it to go. Chairman Yates pointed out that there was also access from Skelton Street. Mrs. Lois Smith, property owner to the East, was present. She said she would not be so upset about the variance if Mr. Estes.was not planning to move the house on the lot next to her. No one else present sppke out in opposition. The public hearing was concluded. Mr. White felt that this lot had ample room for Mr. Estes APPEAL NO. 76-5 to meet the required setbacks from every direction and stated .Peter_G. Estes that it would be difficult for him to be in favor of granting the variance. David Newbern said he was troubled by this request, He said most of the time it was a matter of lots being too small whereas this request was being made because of the lot being too big, He felt .there was plenty of room on the lot for Mr. Estes to meet the necessary setbacks. Concerning the hardship on the driveway, 7 J Board of Adjustment -4- March 22, 1976 Mr. Newbern said it troubled him that a person could not get access at a location where they wanted it; Chairman Yates felt, that since there was another means of access, that this was not that critical. He did question Mr. Estes'' statement as to whether the curb cuttings could be changed, After further discussion, James White moved to deny the variance request of Peter G. Estes, and the motion to deny was approved by a vote of 3-0-1 with Connie Clack abstaining. There being no further discussion, the meeting was- adjourned at 5:35 P. M. 8 •