Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-04-19 MinutesMINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45,P.M „ Monday, April 19, 1976, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas., MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Carl Yates, Connie Clack, James White. MEMBERS ABSENT: David Newbern. OTHERS PRESENT: Bobbie Jones, Janet Bowen, Bogddy Arias, Rudy Moore, Helmut Wolf, Bill Hawkins, Marshall Carlisle, Harold Tom Wier, Steve Brown, Donald W. Johnston. Warren Segraves, R. Fetter, Chairman Carl Yates called the meeting to order and opened the public hearing on Appeal No. 76-6, Bogddy Arias, 113 West Skyline Drive, APPEAL NO. 76-6 on an application to vary setbacks. Bogddy Arias Mrs. Arias is requesting a setback of 81 feet from the rear 113 Skyline Drive yard line to roof overhang as opposed to the 20 feet required by ordinance. Mrs. Arias was present to represent. She said she would like to have the variance so she could build a house for her daughter. She said she had a house further South from this lot. She told the Board of Adjustment that she had originally intended to ask for a variance from the front and move the "alley"; however, Mr. Faucett (adjoining property owner) had objected to this. She felt she needed the variance because of the terrain. She said this was a small lot but she felt that a house could be built as indicated on the drawing. When asked about the 10 foot rear yard setback, Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said that the 10 feet, indicated on the drawing was to the wall of the structure itself rather than from the overhang. The required setback is measured from roof overhang. Mrs. Arias was not certain what the size of the lot was. She said there was approximately 49.9 feet on the front. A member of the audience who had checked on the size of the lot on the plat on file at the Courthouse said that the lot was about 82.6 feet along the South side and 70.55 feet on the North side, and agreed with Mrs. Arias to the 49.9 on the front. After checking the width of the existing right-of-way on Skyline Drive, Bobbie Jones told the Board of Adjustment that this street was required to have 60 feet of right-of-way on the Major Street Plan; therefore, the front setback would be 25 foot for zoning plus 10 additional feet for widening purposes.of Skyline Drive. Chairman Yates pointed out that Mrs. Arias could build a house 20.55 feet in width and still meet the setback requirements and would not need a variance from the Board of Adjustment. In answer to questions asked by the Board of Adjustment, Bogddy Arias said that she purchased the property in December of 1975 but had not checked on building limitations at that time. Chairman Yates said it appeared that Mrs. Arias did not have the minimum amount of square footage required by the ordinance but yet she had not requested a variance concerning this. Bobbie Jones pointed out Article 4, Pages 810 and 811 of the zoning ordinance regarding non -conforming lots of record in certain cases, building permits could be issued with less than the amount of required square footage (8,000 square feet) but that these non -conforming lots had to meet the setback requirements. She said Mrs. Arias would have to provide proof that this property was a lot of record under separate ownership on June, 1970, which is when the last zoning ordinance went into affect Attorney Rudy Moore was present to represent Mr. George Faucette (adjoining property owner to the South). He said he could vouch for the lot size since he had checked it out at the Courthouse and that he agreed with Mrs. Jones regarding the lot size and minimum lot requiremrnts being"grandfathered" in the ordinance. He pointed out that the lot was quite small (3,821 square feet) and they felt other problems would be created with the granting of this variance request. ) r "r • Board of Adjustment April 19, 1976 He said the access whichdiagonally crosses this lot North and South provides access for the lot to the North_as well as to Mr. Faucettets house which has been there since the 1930's. He also mentioned that there was a severe drainage problem here and that leveling this off and taking trees out would make the drainage problem worse. He said it was obvious why that access road had gone across the concerned lot where it does, since there was a severe drop from the level of the road to where the proposed access road would come into the actual access road. Mr. Moore mentioned the fact also that this access road had become a prescriptive easement - - - the term which applies to easements or rights-of-way would apply as "adverse possession" to an actual tract of land. He said he knew this roadway had been in use for at least 20 years since Mr. Faucett himself had owned his property since 1952. He felt that the law was relatively clear (particularly with regard to platted subdivisions) that when a roadway is used for a period of time in excess of 20 years, it in effect becomes a right-of-way which accrues to those persons owning the property. Mr. Moore said (as of the 16th of this month) there was a small lot in this area listed for sale in the want ads. He said he did not know whether or not it was this lot, but felt that the question deserved to be answered. Warren Segraves (adjoining property owner to the West) was present in opposition. He said he had been contacted last fall by the previous owner of the concerned property and had agreed to buy the lot. In bringing the abstract up to date, he said he was told by Mr. Greer (Greer Abstract Co.) that the access could not be closed. He said he had not been aware of the "grandfather" clause and thought that he would have to have a minimum of 8,000 square feet in order to build on the lot. He said, however, that his main concern was the way the proposed house would be situated on the lot; it would be almost literally on top of his house which has a 10 to 12 foot cut in back. Mr. Segraves said the soil was reasonably stable but that he had grave doubts about structures and so forth when putting foundations that close to the cut he had referred to. He said there was no retaining wall in the back of his house and that there was some slippage and it had to be cleaned out regularly. Mr. Segraves said his rear setback was probably about 10 to 12 feet and the proposed house looked like it would come within 10 feet of the property line. He also told the Board of Adjustment that he had a drainage problem with water running into his carport off the hill. He said this was due to the vegetation being cleared off approximately 12 years ago when a sewer line was placed partially across his property and along a pedestrian easement which is one of approximately 4 such easements platted as a part of Western Methodist ("Mount Sequoyah") Subdivision. He felt that construction on the concerned lot would double the drainage problem. Mr. Segraves said he would give the same purchase price that he had offered the former owner and buy the lot from Mrs. Arias. Helmut Wolf, 120 Skyline Drive, pointed out that with the terrain of the lot and with the 81 foot setback of the proposed house, it would cut off the access alley way. Mr. Wolf said he depended heavily on this access to get to a garage which he used for storage. He said there was a sewer line along in the access road and that there was a 10 foot easement for sewer right-of-way. In answer to Chairman Yates' question, Mr. Wolf said he did have access from Skyline to the front, but not to the back of his property. He said he had off- street parking, but pointed out that he liked to store his camper trailer and other items in the garage at the back of his property that otherwise had to set outside. - In answer to the same question, Mr. Moore said that Mr. Faucette had very little room to get off the street. There was no one else to speak in opposition. The public hearing was concluded. Board of Adjustment April 19, 1976 Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal No, 76-7, APPEAL NO. 76-7 Bill Hawkins, 3500 West Sixth., on an application to vary Bill Hawkins parking surface. requirements. 3500 W. Sixth The ordinance calls for parking area to be a durable and dustless surface. Mr. Hawkins is requesting to be allowed to use oil and white chat. Mr. Hawkins was present to represent. He told the Board of Adjustment that he had planned to use a regular chat on it, level it down, and then oil it. He said he had not planned to roll the surface down, and-that,he•had not planned to employ a firm in the asphalt business to do the job. He said he intended to do the job himself. Mr. Hawkins said he owned the building to the West of this which was used for a body shop and that he proposed to use this building for a front end, brake and muffler shop. He said he would like to blacktop the whole area, but that he could not afford it at this time. He said that he planned to oil and chat the area in front of both buildings. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said, in answer to Mrs. Clack's:question, that the question of what was durable and what was. dustless had once been brought before the Board of Adjustment. However, at that time, it had not been a specific case and they had declined to rule She said the question had also been taken to the Planning Commission and they had also declined to rule on it but that they were studying parking and fencing requirements. She said it would take at least six weeks to make a change in the ordinance and it could be even longer than that. She said the Planning Commission was thinking in terms of specifying at least a double seal coat. She said they were also thinking in terms of not requiring a durable and dustless surface where an area is going to be used for storing vehicles such as used car lots or where some of the large warehouse firms park trucks. This would be areas that are not subject to a lot of traffic. She felt one of the considerations the Planning Commission was looking at was the fact that the more land that is paved, the more the surface water runoff would be. Mr. Hawkins indicated that it would hold him up too long to wait for a decision by the Planning Commission on what would be required. Bobbie Jones said they liked to have the parking areas paved when the building was ready to occupy and in cases where the weather did not permit the paving of parking, they had accepted signed letters stating that the area would be paved. within a certain period of time. She said a building permit could be issued on this if Mr. Hawkins were willing to meet whatever requirements the Planning Commission would come up with. However, she said when Mr. Hawkins had been in the office, he was afraid that the Planning Commission would come up with a paving requirement that he could not afford to do at this time. He had told her that he had hoped to eventually be able to pave this. In answer to Mr. White's question, Mrs. Jones said that 13 parking spaces were required for both buildings. (7 parking spaces would be required for this one building It was pointed out to Mr. Hawkins that all he would be required to surface would be the 7 parking spaces (10' by 20'), the driveway, and room for maneuvering. Mr. Hawkins,'in answer to questions asked by the Board of Adjustment said he had owned this. since 1970. Bobbie Jones said Mr. Hawkins had had this rezoned before the last zoning ordinance went into effect. There was no one present in opposition. The public hearing was concluded. II A Board of Adjustment -4- April 19, 1976 The public hearing was opened on Appeal No. 76-8, APPEAL NO. 76-8 Town and Country Properties:, Inc, 20.14 West Sixth, on an Town $.Country Properties application to vary fencing requirements. 2014'West Sixth The applicant is requesting a fence only along the West 55'+of the North property line while the ordinance requires a view obscuring fence or hedge not less than 5 feet nor more than 8 feet in height.to be erected and maintained along the common boundary of any abutting residential property (R-1, R-2, R-3, or R-0). Attorney Marshall Carlisle was present to represent. He said they were required to place a view obscuring hedge or fence since the ordinance called for this where a liquor store abutted residentially zoned property. However, if the fence were erected as required, it would interfere with traffic flow through an access. Therefore, the adjacent property owner (Carl Osborn) has requested that only a partial fence ue erected between the two properties. In order to erect the fence as requested, Mr. Carlisle said it would be necessary to obtain a variance from that fencing regulation for the entire boundary. Bobbie Jones pointed out that this property was commercial in use but was zoned residential. In conclusion, Mr. Carlisle said they would like to be able to screen the portion shown on the diagram. There was no one present to speak in opposition. The public hearing was concluded. Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal No. 76-9, Community Development program by T F, S Construction for Jack Couch, 2808 Wyman Road, on an application to vary setbacks. The applicant requests an 18 foot West yard setbac as opposed to the 25 foot zoning setback plus a 5 foot setbac for Stonebridge Road right-of-way to meet the Major Street Plan. requirement. Tom Wier (T $ S Construction) and Steve Brown (Community Development) were present to represent the request. Mr. Wier said that the proposed 6' by 20' porch would be further from the right-of-way of Stonebridge Road than the existing house was. (They will be cutting back 2 feet from the West side of the house.) He said they were within full setback requirement of Wyman Road. Mr. Wier told the Board of Adjustment that Mr. Couch was suffering from cataracts on his eyes and is partially paralyzed and this porch would make it more convenient for Mr. Couch to maneuver (get in and out of his house). He said this was being done by the Community Development Program. Mr. Wier said Mr. Couch's father owned the property to the East and the North and the church was across the road. He said he had checked with the people on the Southwest corner of the intersection and they had no objections at all Steve Brown (Community Development) said the house was being rehabilitated by the Community Development Program to make it a better house and that this variance to allow the porch to be built would be an extra bonus for Mr. Couch and he would greatly appreciate. There was no one present in opposition; the public hearing was concluded. The public hearing was opened on Appeal No. 76-10, APPEAL NO. 76-10 Harold R. Fetter, 627 N. Leverett, on an application to Harold R. Fetter vary setbacks. 627 N. Leverett Mr. Fetter requests an 18 foot setback from the North., as opposed to the 25 foot zoning setback plus a 5 foot setback for the Major Street Plan. This would make a total requirement of 30 feet for a setback from right-of-way of Caraway Street (unopened). Mr. Fetter was present to represent. APPEAL NO. 76-9 Community Development and T $ S Construction k for k Jack Couch 2808 Wyman Road /� i • r i • Board of Adjustment April 19, 1976 Mr, Fetter said he would like to add a room on the back of the existing dwelling with a porchalong the Northside of the room and that it would not be any closer to the property line on the. North. when .he got finished with the addition than the existing house already was. He said there is a garage building existing which extends 18 feet further than the addition he is- proposing. Mr. Fetter said he would like to use some of the lumber stored inside this but that North it could be torn down as soon as he could get a roof over the add Mr. Fetter felt that Caraway Street would never be opened because of the land and also pointed out that there was a water and sewer the right-of-way. In answer to Dr. White's question, Mr. Fetter said the dimensions established by the framing that he had there. There was no one present in opposition. The public hearing portion of this request was closed. Next was the public hearing on Appeal No. 76-11, Donald W. Johnston, 1224 Lindell Avenue, on an application to vary setbacks. Mr. Johnston is requesting either: a 50 foot front setback and a 10 foot rear setback while the ordinance requires a 50 foot setback from right-of-way of Lindell Avenue and a 20 foot rear setback or: setback of 40 feet from the front and 20 feet from the rear (a 10 foot variance in either case) Mr. Johnston was present to represent. He said he had been asked about putting an office building on this property and in checking it out, had found that the lot was not large enough to do so. Therefore, he is requesting a variance to be allowed to build three separate offices, each one having its own entrance. Mr. Johnston said he owned the property to the South, North, and the West, but not the property to the East where the apartment house was He said he did not think that the office would be directly behind the apartment house. Mr. Johnston pointed out that the required setbacks of 50 feet from the front and 20 feet from the rear would allow only a 10 foot building since the lot was only 80 feet deep and there would be a total of 70 feet in setbacks. In answer to Chairman Yates' question, Mr. Johnston said he bought the property in December 1973 and that it was part of the tract of property to the North. He said he hoped to have the office building laid out North and South and have the parking to the West side of the building, where the paving would actually tie in with the Oak Plaza parking. His entrance would be on the South and hopefully on Lindell also. He said he would prefer the setback variance from the rear. He felt the setback from the rear would be no more harmful to the apartment house than the setback of the apartment house (which is probably about 10 feet). would be to him. He said he had not talked with the adjoining property owners. Bobbie Jones said that parking would be allowed in the front setback except for the North 50 feet. She explained that within 50 feet of R-0 Zoned property to the North parking had to be setback 25 feet from the right-of-way. She said screening would be required if there were more than 5 parking spaces within 20 feet of the R-0 District. In conclusion, Mr. Johnston said that without a variance, the lot is pratically useless. There was no one present in opposition. The public hearing was closed. ition. of the contour line buried in were already APPEAL NO. 76-11 Donald W. Johnston 1224 Lindell Avenue Chairman Yates read the section of the ordinance regarding APPEAL NO. 76-6 non -conforming lots of record. Bogddy Arias Mrs. Clack and Chairman Yates said Mrs. Arias was actually asking for a larger variance than what was stated since she apparently could not meet the front yard setback either. L '3 Board of Adjustment -6- April 19, 1976 Mrs. Clack said there seemed to be a question in Mrs. Arias'. mind was going to put the house., Chairman Yates felt that Mrs. Arias- should have been aware of the limitations on this property since she purchased it in December. an offer to buy the lot still -stood, Mr. Yates felt that he could the granting of this variance. Mrs. Clack said she felt also that she would not be inclined to go along with the granting of the variance: Mrs. Clack felt that neither the drainage nor the road problem was one for the Board of Adjustment to consider. After some discussion, James White moved to deny the variance. The motion, which was seconded by Mrs. Clack was unanimously approved. about where she building Also, knowing that not go along with APPEAL NO. 76-7 Chairman Yates read pages 868 and 869 of the Zoning Ordinance Bill Hawkins regarding improvement of parking areas. In answer to Dr. White's question, Bobbie Jones said that 7 parking spaces would be required for the building Mr. Hawkins was planning to build for a brake, front-end and muffler shop. Mr. White and Chairman Yates felt Mr. Hawkins would probably end up spending more money on chatting and oiling the whole front area than he would if he used asphalt and just did the 7 parking spaces. Mr. White said he thought they would be doing Mr. Hawkins a favor by denying the variance. He said if Mr. Hawkins used oil and chat and it mashed down he would have to do something else to it. With this commentary, Mr. White moved to deny the variance that would allow him to use oil and white chat. He felt it should be pointed out to Mr. Hawkins that he could meet the requirements by double sealing or concreting the 7 parking spaces. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Clack and approved unanimously. APPEAL NO. 76-8 Mrs. Clack said she could not see any point in putting Town F, Country Properties up a fence at all under the circumstances, but would be willing to waive the requirement that called for putting the fence across the driveway. Chairman Yates said that the fence was actually being built across the commercial property between the commercial use and the residential use, but was not being put between the residentially zoned and the commercially zoned property. Mrs. Clack moved to grant the variance as requested subject to the perpetual use of this property as a driveway between the two properties and that when they ceased to be accomodated by using it as a driveway, Town and Country Properties must erect the fence as required. James White seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. APPEAL NO. 76-9 James White moved to approve Appeal No. 76-9, Community Development Community Development. The motion, seconded by Mrs. Clack, was approved unanimously. Mrs. Clack moved to grant the variance request of Appeal No. 76-10, APPEAL NO. 76-10 Harold R. Fetter, with the provision that the other building be '. Harold R. Fetter torn down within 6 months from the completion of the new addition. The motion, seconded by Mr. White, was approved unanimously. tit Board of Adjustment -7- April 19, 1976 MINUTES The minutes of the March. 22nd meeting were approved as distributed. OTHER BUSINESS Bobbie Jones said Miss Suzanne Lighton had asked that she be replaced on the Board of Adjustment, but said that she had not submitted anything in writing. She said she had requested Miss Lighton submit her resignation in writing so the Board of Directors could replace her before Mrs. Clack left town in one month. In answer to Dr. White's question, Bobbie Jones said she thought that an ad was usually run in the newspaper advising anyone interested in the position to apply. Dr. White said he would prefer that there not be another person from the University on the Board of Adjustment. Mrs. Clack said she glad that they had an attorney on the Board of Adjustment. There was no further discussion. The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 P. M. /.5 • •