Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-09-20 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45 P. M., Monday, September 20, 1976, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Mrs. Don Mills, Chairman Carl Yates, David Newbern, Larry Smith, Chester House, Connie Clack. James White. H. J. Vetter, Colleen Lafferty, Emily Tompkins, Bloomi Ritchey, Lonzo Ritchey, Maggie Watts, Pearl Spyres, Sherman Spyres, Jerry Bird, Mr. F, Mrs. Templeton, Robert Osburn, Terry Farmer, Dr. F, Mrs. Spears, Harold Lieberenz, Bobbie Jones, Robin Northrop. Chairman Carl Yates called the meeting to order. The public hearing was opened on Appeal No. 76-23, George E. and Bobbie N. Templeton, 2310 Winwood, on an application to vary setbacks. (Also an interpretation of a rear yard) APPEAL NO. 76-23 GEORGE E. $ BOBBIE N. TEMPLETON 2310 Winwood Mr. and Mrs. George E. Templeton were present to represent this appeal. Mr. Templeton said that, basically, he thinks it is a matter of interpretation of what constitutes a rear -line; they have interpretated it to be a very small portion of the rear property line. It is a five -sided lot (this complicates matters considerably). It fronts on Winwood Drive; the original lot was platted as coming to a point. He said that a street will eventually be developed in the area. That is the basis of their concern. He said that the neighbors are in concurrence with the location of the building; and there is no conflict between the adjacent property owners. Chairman Yates wanted to know if the building is already there. If so, why is it there before getting a building permit. Mr. Templeton said that it is already there; there was an inaccurate plat. He said that he will move the building, if necessary. Mr. Newbern wanted to know if they felt that the law is being incorrectly inter- pretated, or if they are asking for a variance. Mr. Templeton said that they are making both requests. Chairman Yates wanted to know if the building was on a concrete slab Mr. Templeton said that it is; he said that it would be a considerable problem to move the building. Mr. Newbern said that they do have a "hardship," as far as the five -sided lot is concerned. Mr. Templeton said that if it were a rectangular lot, it would be simplified. One other circumstance that has bearing is the location of a large tree he wants to conserve. Mr. Newbern wanted to know, in the event that they are required to move this building, where they would place it. Mr. Templeton said that they would have to move it almost directly to the street, Mr. Robert Osburn and Mr. Terry Farmer were present to represent this appeal. Mr. Osburn said that they have just purchased this piece of property; it was formerly a waste paper company. The building burned down, they want to build it back --it will be a much smaller operation than the building previously on the site. All the equipment is set into the concrete, there is a shredder and blower which sets 3 ft. into concrete pad; there is a bailer, which sets 10 ft. into the concrete and it is practically impossible to move, they want to rebuild the building to cover the equipment there. It is impossible to meet the setback requirements. Chairman Yates wanted to know if they will utilize the equipment that is there now. Mr. Osburn said that they would --it is impossible to move the equipment. He said that they would have to replace some wiring and the motors to the equipment, but that the equipment would be useable. Chairman Yates wanted to know what type of construction this would be. Mr. Osburn said that it would be steel truss and corrugated metal. Chairman Yates said that he feels that they could come much closer to meeting the setbacks. He wanted to know if they have evaluated this "dollar -wise." Mr. Osburn said that this had not been done --it would be a tremendous problem. Chairman Yates said that he sees no evidence that they have looked at other alternative ways to utilize this. Mrs. Clack wanted to know if they had made any investigations on setback require- ments before they purchased the property, and if they, in fact, have purchased this property. Mr. Osburn said that he was aware of the setback requirements. They have Sa � • Board of Adjustment -2- September 20, 1976 in order to come up with the 20 ft. that is required. Mrs. Templeton said that if they move this building in location, it will be very obvious to all the adjoining property owners. The neighbor that adjoins this line has a large, high -privacy fence; they also have a storage building in the back part of their lot and if this building were moved it would interfere with them. Its present location is desirable. Mr. Templeton said that Dr. Albright owns the property directly to the East and he has no objections. Chairman Yates wanted to know if all the adjacent property owners agree with what they are planning to do. Mrs. Templeton said that they do. Mrs. Templeton said that the requirements and interpretations of a rear line are based on a rectangular lot; and this is not a rectangular lot --there is no clear indication about what constitutes a rear line. Bobbie Jones said that her interpretation is that the front yard is along the street, to the West; the property lines along the North and South are the two (2) side lines; the back line is composed of two (2) angles (one that the Templetons call the "back", and one that the Templetons call a "side"). Mrs. Jones said her interpretation is that the side yards extend from the street back; the back line is the line that runs from side yard to side yard. The public hearing was concluded. The public hearing was opened on Appeal No. 76-24, APPEAL NO. 76-24 • Fayetteville Waste Paper Company, 13th Street FAYETTEVILLE WASTE PAPER COMPANY and Warford Drive, on an application to vary 13th Street and Warford Drive setbacks. • • • • Board of Adjustment -3- September 20, 1976 not yet purchased the property (haven't closed the deal yet), but even if they aren't granted the variance, they will still purchase the property. Mr. Smith wanted to know if they would use all the existing equipment, even if the variance is not granted. Mr. Osburn said that they would have to, but it would get cold in the winter, with no shelter over the equipment. Chairman Yates wanted to know if they plan on having any outside storage. Mr. Osburn said that they hadn't planned on any. Mrs. Clack wanted•to know ifthe paper company across.the 13th roadway is part of their operation. Mr. Osburn said that it belongs to another operation. Chairman Yates wanted to know if they could use this equipment as it sits now. Harold Lieberenz, Inspection Superintendent, said that his department had contacted the previous owner that had this many times in the past. He said that the operation across 13th roadway is done by Mr. Dee Keller, they have started this up without any kind of building permit, and notice has been given to him to cease this or comply with regulations. He said that Mr. Osburn's property is in the Industrial Zone (I-2), and it requires a 100 ft. setback from the street right-of-way. This property is just slightly 60 square feet less than an acre If it were an acre, it would be considered a large scale development, and would require that he dedicate his half of Warford Drive (street). He said that non -conforming uses are handled by the Zoning Ordinance, Article 4, Section 1, it permits non -conforming uses to continue until they are removed, and rebuilding is not encouraged. Article 7, Section 11, (Junk yards, Storage) --requires that this use must be completely enclosed by an 8 ft. fence. He said that, in his opinion, the fence would be required on the North, East and West side. He said that he would like to request that the Board of Adjustment review this carefully and if they do allow them to rebuild, see that a condition be attached that they have screening fence to hide storage in open area. Chairman Yates wanted to know again if this equipment can be operated as it is now. Mr. Lieberenz said that it could as long as they comply with the provisions of the Ordinance. He could put a screening fence around this operation and he could use that equipment --if it is decided that it was not destroyed to more than 50% of its current replacement cost. Mr. Lieberenz said that they cannot build a frame building. An all metal building would be sufficient. The public hearing was concluded. The public hearing was opened on Appeal No. 76-25, Lonzo Ritchey, 1414 South Washington, on an application to vary setbacks. Mr. Lonzo Ritchey was present to represent this appeal. APPEAL NO. 76-25 LONZO RITCHEY 1414 So. Washington Mr. Ritchey said that he wishes to build a porch, it would be 6 ft. wide, would go as far West as the rest of the house, and they would have a roof over it. He said that the porch would not be enclosed. There was no one present to oppose the request. The public hearing was concluded. The public hearing was opened on Appeal No. 76-26, Dr. John Andre, 1333 Mission Boulevard, on an application APPEAL NO. 76-26 DR. JOHN ANDRE 1333 Mission Boulevard 5/ • • • Board of Adjustment -4- September 20, 1976 to waive the minimum land area requirement for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Ordinance requires 5 acres, and Dr. Andre has 21 acres. Dr. John Andre was present to represent this appeal. Dr. Andre said that if they don't get the variance, he will wind up with 1 3/4 acres back yard. Chairman Yates wanted to know what they propose to build. Dr. Andre said that he doesn't plan on doing anything radical, just to build a few houses. Perhaps two houses on the back, and one on the front --all single- family dwellings. He said that his land is right below the three houses, facing Edgehill, that Bill Graue constructed. He said that there is an existing old house that has a driveway coming off Mission Boulevard --he said that they want to concolidate the driveways and have only one driveway. Dr. Andre said that he plans on renovating the old house. Bobbie Jones said that her office can permit a maximum of three splits on one piece of property. The Planning Commission could approve a tandem lot, a lot behind another lot, with a 25 ft. strip extending to the street, if it would meet driveway requirements. Chairman Yates wanted to know if he could build a street on the North property line and build three houses. Bobbie Jones said that he could; though, he would have to get Planning Commission approval of a subdivision plat and the street location would have to be worked out with the City Engineer, Street Superintendent and Traffic Superintendent. Bobbie Jones said that the Ordinance, originally required 20 acres for a PUD, that was reduced to 5 acres in March of 1973. They have since had a TASK Force Study, in which the City Manager appointed different people to study some problems the Planning Office had and the Committee had recommended the minimum be reduced to 2 acres. The Planning Commission did not approve that recommendation. Bobbie Jones said that with a large scale development, it could never be divided up. With a PUD, individual property could be divided up. She said that she had referred Dr. Andre to Larry Wood and the Street Superintendent when he first contacted here. Dr. Andre said that he talked this over with Larry Wood, and Larry Wood suggested this method as the best way to go. Bobbie Jones agreed that he is following Larry Wood's suggestion. Dr. Andre said that this set of circumstances is recommended because of the driveway situation. He said that they will go along with the City as far as the driveway is concerned. Dr. Andre said that there are two possibilities --(1) Widen the existing driveway; (2) Putting it on the North boundary line. He said that he presently owns the property. He said that there is a "hardship" from the standpoint of the driveway situation. Mr. Newbern wanted to know what he would do if this was denied. Dr. Andre said that he didn't like the thought of having a 1 3/4 acre back yard, too much. Colleen Lafferty, 1300 Edgehill Drive, said that she is one of the property owners of the houses that Bill Graue constructed. She said that she cannot see how they can fit two (2) houses there (they will be looking at back yards). She said that she wants to know if they will be single-family dwellings (if they are in that zoning district). Bobbie Jones said that a PUD does allow Medium Density uses, but requires 100 ft. setback from the other property. Ms. Lafferty said that she feels that the Board should look and see how the S2 Board of Adjustment -5- September 20, 1976 property sits. Mr. Jerry Bird, 1403 Old Wire Road, said that to his understanding, a PUD could get various uses (not limited to R-1 uses). He also indicated that there would be setback requirements. He asked if they could have some apartments, which would require less setbacks. Bobbie Jones said that single-family dwellings and duplex family dwellings would have regular R-1 zoning setbacks, but multi -family dwellings built would require a setback of 100 ft. from other property. Chairman Yates said that a PUD must go before the Planning Commission for approval Gloria Spears, 1324 Edgehill Drive, said that there is an "L" between their backyard and Spyres, and the "L" is sitting between two backyards. She said that she feels that the property value will go down, if anything goes in there. She said that this is a poor access between two houses Emily Tompkins, 1701 Old Wire Road, said that she would like to know what the dimensions would be for a standard street. Dr. Andre said that if a PUD is approved, it would be a 25 of 50 ft. (ROW) street. Bobbie Jones said that 30 ft. of paving, flow line to flow a public street. Mr. Jerry Bird said that the major concern would be apartments, townhouses, and duplexes would appear. Dr. Andre said that there would be three (3) houses Pearl Spyres, 1317 Mission Boulevard, said that she would put a dome house there. Dr. Andre said that one of the reasons they like the property, has great potential for displaying houses. He said that he does a geodetic dome on the corner; it will be his residence. H. J. Vetter, 722 Calvin, said that his primary concern was in regards to duplexes in the area. He is against duplexes, and multiple houses. He wants to know if it will be single-family residences, or duplexes. He said that Mission Boulevard is a deathtrap. He said that showing geodetic houses is Dr. Andre's business. He requested that the Board consider this request carefully. Mr. Bird said that he gets the impression that this variance, set a "precedent." Chairman Yates said that the Board would not consider it as a precedent. Colleen Lafferty recommended to the Board of Adjustment that they go out property. She doesn't see how they can get three houses in there. Maggie Watts, 7307 Mission Boulevard, wanted to know what the requirements would be as far as the size of the houses is concerned. Bobbie Jones said that the Zoning Ordinance does not have a size requirement, except in R-1, Zones, the buildings cannot occupy more than 40 per cent of the land. Minimum livable spaces would come under the Housing and/or Building Code. Dr. Andre said that he will have only one dome house on a large lot; he has no intentions of knocking down anyone's property value. The dome will sell for $70-$75,000.00. Emily Tompkins wanted to know about the access. Dr. Andre said that he will go along with whatever the City says. The public hearing was closed. that ft. street, instead line, is required once clearance for is given, built, no more. understands that Dr. Andre is that it plan on putting if granted, would to the • David Newbern moved that the Board of Adjustment APPEAL NO. 76-23 overrule the Planning Administrator's interpret- GEORGE E. & BOBBIE N. TEMPLETON ation of which property line is the rear yard line, 2310 Winwood on Appeal 76-23, George E. and Bobbie N. Templeton. Larry Smith seconded the motion (pertaining to use, as it is worded in the Zoning S3 4 • • • • • • Board of Adjustment -6- September 20, 1976 Ordinance). Mr. Newbern said that it is his opinion that there is a lack of clarity in the Ordinance as to what a rear yard line is. He feels wherever there is a question it ought to be decided in favor of the property owner. Property owners should not have to suffer. He said that he probably would not vote in favor of a variance because he did not see where the size and shape of the lot necessitated the placing of the building where it is. - .?.. -. , . Connie Clack said.; that.she is in favor of leaving the building where it is, but would prefer to uphold the Planning Administrator's decision and grant a variance. The vote was 5-0-1, with Smith, Yates, Newbern, Clack, and Mills voting in favor of the appeal, and Mr. House "Abstaining." Concerning Appeal 76-24, Fayetteville Waste APPEAL NO. 76-24 Paper Company, David Newbern said that the intent FAYETTEVILLE WASTE PAPER COMPANY of the Ordinance is to get rid of non -conforming 13th Street and Warford Drive uses and not let them be rebuilt. Chairman Yates said that the property could be utilized with much lesser variance than requested. Chairman Yates said that the suggestion he could give them would be for them to turn the building 90° so a lesser variance would be required. Mr. Smith said that the metal building is a small amount of the total cost; it is very inexpensive. Mr. Osburn said that the fire burnt the wooden poles and the roof fell down, but all the original equipment is o.k. Connie Clack said that she would be in favor of denying the variance and letting him find out what he can do. Chairman Yates said that he will have to talk to the Building Inspector to determine if the building was damaged by less than 50 per cent of its current replacement cost. Bobbie Jones said that it cannot be rebuilt if it was destroyed by more than 50 per cent of its replacement cost. Mrs. Clack moved that they deny the variance until he can get something worked out, but to allow him to come back at the next meeting if he worked out an alternate request. Mrs. Mills seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously by a vote of 6-0. Connie Clack moved that the variance be granted as APPEAL NO. 76-25 requested on Appeal 76-25, Lonzo Ritchey. LONZO RITCHEY Mrs. Mills seconded the motion. 1414 South Washington Mr. Newbern said that he cannot see any "hardship" in this case. He is not in favor of granting a variance. Chairman Yates said that he is in favor of this. The vote was 5-0-1, with Yates, Mills, House, Smith, and Clack voting in favor of the appeal, and Mr. Newbern voting "Nay." In further discussion of Appeal No. 76-26, Dr. John APPEAL NO. 76-26 Andre, Mr. House mentioned that four people were DR. JOHN ANDRE killed within 40 ft. of his house, when he lived near 1333 Mission Boulevard this intersection. Mr. Newbern said that he feels that the City would have to go along with the building of the street. 5i • • Board of Adjustment -7- September 20, 1976 Chairman Yates agreed --it would come under Subdivision Regulations. Chairman Yate said that because of the location and traffic hazard, if they did grant a PUD with restrictions, it seems that this would be a much better way to go for this particular land, than leaving it here to be developed. Mr. Newbern said that one of the considerations is that they should be concerned with the traffic problem and a solution to this. He said that they should permit a PUD, with the condition that Dr. Andre have only one (1) exit on to Mission Boulevard; have a maximum of three (3) one -family dwellings on the lot --that is much more prefarable to subdividing the property. Mr. House said that this would permit one (1) 50 ft. street and he could get 12 to 14 lots if the old house is torn down. The Arkansas Highway Department had told him that the street would have to be in place of the old house, when he, himself, had thought about purchasing the property at one time. Mr. Newbern agrees with Carl Yates that this is a preferable solution to something else. Larry Smith wanted to know if the street would be on the North side. Chairman Yates said that the North side would be more preferable. Mr. Newbern said that they could condition a PUD with it having one exit satisfactory to the City and Highway Department. Mr. Newbern moved that the variance be granted with the following conditions: (1) No egress or ingress other than one driveway or street be permitted on to Old Wire -Road or Mission Boulevard; (2) Only one -family dwellings will be erected on the property; and (3) That only three dwellings, in addition to the house that is presently located on the property will be built; (4) Ingress and egress be made satisfactory to City or Highway Department, or other public officials who may have jurisdiction and be concerned with this. Mrs. Clack seconded the motion. There was some discussion as to whether the motion should say, "only 3 dwellings, in addition to the house presently located on the property", or "no more than a total of four (4) houses on the property." Mr. House said that on the West side --it is quite low; there is a lot of run-off, he is concerned about water drainage. Mrs. Clack said that she doesn't think that the Board of Adjustment has to be concerned on this. Chairman Yates said that he can take all the water to the Highway and Old Wire Road. Mr. Newbern requested permission to amend the motion to state that "no more than four (4) dwellings be: permitted to exist on that tract of property." Mrs. Clack seconded the amendment to the motion. The vote was 5-0-1, with Yates, Newbern, Clack, Mills, and Smith voting "Aye", and Mr. House "Abstaining." The minutes of the August 30, 1976 Board of Adjustment MINUTES Meeting were approved as mailed. It was decided upon that the "Rules of Procedure for the OTHER BUSINESS Board of Adjustment" be heard at the next regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment. Mrs. Clack mentioned that she will be out of town for the next three to six weeks. There was no further business to be discussed. The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m. 55