Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-10-04 Minutes56 A • • • MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45 P. M., Monday, October 4, 1976, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman Carl Yates, Chester House, James White, David Newbern, Larry Smith. Mrs. Don Mills, Connie Clack. Carl Drake, Harold Lieberenz, Ronnie Sherwood, Robert Younkin. Chairman Carl Yates called the meeting to order. The public hearing was opened on Appeal No. 76-27, Robert L. Younkin, 10 West Bishop Drive, on an application to vary street frontage requirements. Mr. Robert L. Younkin was present to represent this appeal. APPEAL NO. 76-27 ROBERT L. YOUNKIN 10 West Bishop Drive Mr. Younkin said that, basically, he is requesting permission to erect a single family dwelling on property adjacent to and having access from the dead end portion of the proposed extension of Bishop Drive which is now in the planning stage in Bishop's Subdivision, Unit 2. He said that a number of factors entered into his decision to request permission to build on this site. He plans to subdivide his property, which is presently used as a private airplane landing area in connection with his airplane repair business located on this property, sometime in the future. Also, it is essential that vehicular traffic be controlled to prevent a hazard out on the landing area. Hence it would, in his opinion, be ideal to stop the traffic at the dead end section of Bishop Drive and he would construct a private drive from this point to terminate as a circle drive at his home. He would construct a fence along this private drive to prevent traffic from entering the landing area. He further stated that he has made arrangementswith Mr Wade Bishop, developer of Bishop Subdivision Unit 2, to extend the water and sewer mains so that they would be available to serve his home. He felt that this would be better than a "tandem lot" arrangement with a private drive all the way from Appleby Drive to the north. Mr. Yates asked Mr. Younkin what he would do if Bishop Subdivision Unit 2, was not completed. Mr. Younkin said that he felt that Bishop Subdivision Unit 2 would be completed and asked Mr. Lieberenz what the status of the subdivision was at this point. Mr. Lieberenz said that the subdivision plat was currently being processed by the Planning Office. He felt that there was a street extension problem being worked out with the developers of Villa Mobile Home Park and the City. Mr. Yates asked if there was a time problem with regard to the construction of his home. Mr. Younkin replied that there was. His contractor is available now, and any delay might cause him to lose his contractor at this time. Mr. House asked if the two (2) acre plot shown on the drawing is the exact portion that would be "deeded off" or used in connection with his home and if • • • Board of Adjustment - 2 October 4, 1976 so, would the future street have a jog in it to go around this two (2) acre tract Mr. Younkin replied that he set out two acres to comply with requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance for A-1, Agricultural District. When he subdivides in the future, he would reduce the lot to comply with the new zoning. Mr. Yates asked Mr. Younkin if he would be willing to dedicate the right of way to extend Bishop Drive across 160 feet of his lot. He also pointed out that the Board of Adjustment did not have any jurisdiction in the matter of whether or not that he would have to improve the street. That would have to be worked out with the appropriate City official. Younkin replied that he would be willing to dedicate the street right of way. It would be in line with his future plans of future subdivision of his property. Mr. Newbern asked what would be the requirements for this plot of land or building site if it was rezoned to R-2? Mr. Lieberenz stated that if they would sell the plot that the subdivision ordinance calls for subdividing the property to provide adequate streets and utilities or to obtain a subdivision lot waiver. I think the answer to your question would be that selling this plot would not be possible without dedicating street right of way and possibly improving it. Mr. Newbern asked if there would be a requirement in the R-2 zone that there be a certain percentage of the property on an actual street? Mr. Lieberenz stated that the Planning Office usually works cases like this one out with the street department and the City managers office, but I don't believe the Zoning Ordinance sets out any certain percentage of the street that must actually be improved. No one was present to oppose the appeal request. The public hearing was concluded. The public hearing was opened on Appeal No. 76-28, Ronnie G. Sherwood, 130 North College Avenue, on an application to vary building setbacks from College Avenue. Mr. Ronnie G. Sherwood was present to represent. APPEAL NO. 76-28 RONNIE G. SHERWOOD 130 North College Mr. Yates asked if a fifteen (15) foot setback was not required from the rear property line in this zoning district. Mr. Lieberenz answered that according to the definitions in the City Zoning Ordinance, that corner lots do not have any "rear yards" but have two front yards and side yards The Zoning Ordinance permits zero side yard setbacks in the C-3, Central Commercial District. Mr. Sherwood stated that his request was based on the fact that the lot is only 89 feet in depth and, in designing the office areas in the building, he felt that he needed a thirty foot building in order to work in a hallway and work area. He pointed out that he could build on the back (East) line but he felt it was not good taste to do so. Also, there had been a lawsuit over the East property line and by court order the points were located and set. He would like to stay away from the East line. Mr. Freeman Wood, City Building Inspector, had said that if he setback with his East wall three (3) feet and one (1) inch, that he could use eight inch concrete blocks to construct this East wall of his proposed building. Mr. Sherwood also stated that since he submitted the sketch with his application that he would like permission to erect a one hundred (100) foot building instead • • • Board of Adjustment - 3 - October 4, 1976 of the ninety (90) foot shown. He also pointed out that he would have fifty-five (55) feet for off street parking for many years until the major street plan widening took place. Mr. Newbern asked if Mr. Ron Sherwood owned the property. Mr. Sherwood said at this time he has it under contract and that he did have an offer of acceptance. He had hoped to close the contract by today, but they were not able to. Mr. Newbern asked if his agreement to purchase the property was not conditioned on obtaining this variance. Mr. Sherwood answered no, that it was not. The owner lives out of town and he felt that if there was this condition attached to the sale that he would have to be here for this hearing. He chose not to, so I have had to buy it like it is strictly by going through and researching with the many people with the City hoping that I could use the lot. Mr. Newbern asked Mr. Sherwood if he was satisfied that he could use the property. Mr. Sherwood answered somehow. I might not get to use it for an office building. Mr. Yates asked if the proposed structure would be one story. Mr. Sherwood answered that the plan was for a one story structure designed to accomodate three seperate offices. Mr. Sherwood pointed out that there exists now, a variance which was approved to reduce the building setbacks for a service station. Mr. Lieberenz stated that Mr. Sherwood was correct, However, he did not remember the particulars as to the variance. He also said that he understood that Mr. Jim McCord, City Attorney, was of the opinion that variances granted would run with the land as long as the use of the land remained the same as it was at the time of granting variance. Mr. Larry Smith stated that he was working on the design of the proposed structure and therefore, he could not vote on the variance request but that he did wish to discuss the matter. He felt that thirty foot building was pretty narrow when designing an office layout. He said that in working with this lot, that the percentage of useable area was only about thirty (30) percent. He felt that this was an economical hardship. Mr. Sherwood stated that the only other thing that he would like to add, would be that he has a strong interest in Fayetteville and its development. He said that he thought Mr. Lieberenz, Inspection Superintendent, could verify that in working with him in the past. He felt that he wanted to come and request this as openly as possible and that personally he felt it was a reasonable request. No one was present to oppose the appeal request. The public hearing was concluded. Mr. Newbern stated that if the street is dedicated APPEAL NO. 76-27 along the width of that lot, then .hy bother with a ROBERT L. YOUNKIN variance unless we are talking about improved 10 West Bishop Drive street or actual street. A number of the Board members indicated that they had the same thing in mind. Mr. Yates said that this Board did not have the power or authority to say about improving the street. Mr. Newbern said that Mr. Younkin has expressed a willingness to dedicate the street and that he did not plan to start anything until water and sewer was available. Mr. Newbern indicated that he personally would consider granting a variance 58 • • • Board of Adjustment - 4 October 4, 1976 although he didn't like to call it that, on condition that Mr. Younkin dedicate the street as that seemed to him to satisfy the intent of the ordinance. Mr. White moved that a variance be granted subject to the dedication of the street. Mr. Yates further stated that it would be up to Mr. Younkin to work out with the City whether or not he would have to improve the street. Mr. Newbern asked that Mr. White amend his motion to add that the street be at least 160 feet in length along the south border of the property for which the variance was requested. Mr. Newbern seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously by a vote of 5 - 0. Mr. Newbern stated that he was having a problem APPEAL NO. 76-28 seeing how this lot has substantially enough RONNIE G. SHERWOOD hardship to grant a variance if it is commercially 130 North College feasible to use this lot for the purpose that Mr. Sherwood suggests. Mr. Sherwood is certainly purchasing the lot with full knowledge. Mr. Yates stated that the fact of the matter was that this lot is here in this depth and that there certainly was a question in his mind that given the size of the lot whether or not the shallow depth enough to make it a hardship. Mr. Newbern said that our job is to enforce the ordinance and that he had done lots of reading in connection with our rules and everything seems to indicate that anytime there is a question of whether the lot will be useable or not. If the lot is useable for commercial purposes in a commercial zone without a variance then that is not a hardship and no variances should be granted. He said that he was torn by this because he felt that Mr. Sherwood is making an honest effort to do the right thing here but feels that the way the law is that the Board is almost required not to grant a variance in a case like this. Mr. Yates mentioned that he understood that Mr. Herbert Hatfield was requesting the City Board of Directors to change the City Major Street Plan. Maybe Mr. Sherwood could wait to see what the outcome of that would be. Mr. White mentioned that the depth of that lot, as he remembered it, had been changed twice since it had been originally platted by the initial widening of College and the second widening of College and the Major Street Plan was another widening of College. He thinks that this was one of the things that the Board weighed fairly heavily when granting the variance for the service station. Mr. Larry Smith stated that he was working on these building plans and could not vote on this variance. He would like to know how the fifty (50) foot requirement was established in front of the buildings in this zone. Fifty feet does not actually lend itself to any parking arrangement that he knows of. There followed a general discussion among the presons present at length concerning such things as whether or not the City's Major Street Plan should be reduced for this section of College Avenue; whether or not the applicant had to dedicate the Major Street Plan widening before a building permit could be issued; rearranging the location of the proposed structure on the lot; redesigning the floor plan of the proposed structure and whether or not there had to be a blatant hardship before a variance could be granted by the Board. Larry Smith said that the thing that he was concerned about was that if a person figures the percentage of useable area of this lot, it would be approximately 30 percent. There are several lots such as this in the City 54 • • • Board of Adjustment - 5 - October 4, 1976 that are setting and not being used because of this problem Chester House said that the main thing that he was concerned with was that he knew they would have to go down seven or eight feet to get that East footing. Even if you moved back three feet you would get into the filled area He believes that he would move the building back if he was sure of the East line if he was building the structure. The problem of getting the property owners permission to the East to work on his property if Mr. Sherwood built on the East line was discussed. Mr. Yates asked if the Board members present felt that a delay would help decide the matter. Several members indicated that they would still feel the same after a delay and maybe it would not be fair to Mr. Sherwood to delay the decision. Mr. White moved to grant the variance. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Chester House stated that he would like to see Mr. Sherwood be able to build his building but he feels that he should not vote as he is in the same business as Mr. Sherwood. Mr. Newbern said that in that case he moved to table the request until another meeting was called by the Chairman. He felt that the rest of the Board needs to be present because a vote by three Board members would not be fair to Mr. Sherwood. Mr. White seconded the motion. The vote was 4 - 0 - 1, with Yates, Newbern, House, White voting "Aye", and Mr. Smith "abstaining". Mr. White requested that before this matter is reheard by the Board that he would like to have the conditions of the previous variance granted by the Board for the service station on this lot a few years ago. Mr. Yates asked if the members wanted to get into discussion of the "Rules of Procedure for the Board of Adjustment" now at this time or is it too late. It was felt that it should wait for another day. Mr. Newbern moved to approve the minutes of September 20, MINUTES 1976. Mr. White pointed out that there was an incomplete statement in line seven on page six. He thinks that it should read: "Connie Clack said that she is in favor of leaving ....". The minutes of the September 20, 1976 Board of Adjustment Meeting were approved as corrected. The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 P. M. 60