Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-10-11 MinutesMINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING The Fayetteville Board of Monday, October 11, 1976, • Fayetteville, Arkansas. • • MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Adjustment met in a special meeting at 8:30 A.M., in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Chairman Carl Yates, Mills, Larry Smith. David Newbern, Dr. James White, Mrs. Don Chester House, Connie Clack. Bobbie Jones, Planning Administrator. Chairman Carl Yates called the meeting to order. Chairman Yates explained that the purpose of this meeting was to reconsider the action taken by the Board on October 4, 1976, on the appeal of Robert L. Younkin, Appeal No. 76-27, 10 West Bishop Drive, 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 the Bishop Addition, Unit 2. On October 4, the Board had voted to grant the variance subject to Mr. Younkin dedicate at least 160 ft. in length along the South border of the property for which the variance was requested. Chairman Yates said that it now seems that the City would much prefer that Mr. Younkin not dedicate a street because of some problems the City has run into down the line (when a street has been dedicated, but not improved.) Dr. White said that he has discussed this case with Inspection Superintendent Harold Lieberenz; and, if Mr. Younkin didn't specify an acreage, he would need 400 ft. of frontage on Appleby Road for his entire 17.47 acres in order to build another dwelling on the property. There is a trailer house on the property now. Mr. Younkin has 383.71 feet of frontage on Appleby Road. Dr. White said that, after talking to Mr. Lieberenz, he feels that if Mr. Younkin would not specify the two acres, the Board could grant him a variance of 17 ft. for the total frontage needed on Appleby Road. Chairman Yates said that he had thought about suggesting to the Planning Commission that the ordinance be amended to forget the requirement for 200 ft. of street frontage as long as they have street access; in other words, he has a street coming up to his property, but none going into his property. David Newbern asked Mr. Yates if he was suggesting that the ordinance is too strict. Chairman Yates said that it might be in the A-1 Zoning District. Larry Smith asked the difference between this case and lots on the end of a cul de sac. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones explained that 80% of the minimum lot width require- ment must be at the street right-of-way line for lots not on a cul de sac with the full lot width at the setback line. In the case of lots on the turning radius of a cul de sac, the 80% is waived, but the full lot width is still required at the setback line. Dr. White moved to grant Mr. Younkin, Appeal 76-27, a variance of 17 ft. in the amount of lot width required for the total 17 acres, if Mr. Younkin was willing to adjust his plans accordingly. Chairman Yates questioned whether it was necessary to include in the motion some provision to void the action taken by the Board on October 4. David Newbern said he saw no need to undo what the Board had done on October 4. If the City won't go along with that action, it becomes moot and the Board can grant him an additional variance. He explained that what did bother him was the fact that this would be an entirely different variance from what Mr. Younkin had asked for and it has never been advertised as such. He said he also would like to see Mr. Younkin build his house there; it bothered him that Mr. Younkin would be denied to build a house on all that property. However, he thought the purpose of requiring street frontage is to require Mr. Younkin to do one thing or another: either he takes the necessary steps to subdivide his property, or he doesn't APPEAL 76-27 Robert L. Younkin 10 West Bishop Dr. • • • Board of Adjustment October 11, 1976 and he keeps it A-1 and keeps his airfield there. Mr. Newbern stated that he tended to agree with Chairman Yates that maybe the ordinance should be loosened up, but he was not sure it was the place of the Board of Adjustment to make such a decision on the ordinance. Chairman Yates said that the other approach would be to just grant the variance as requested without requiring a dedication for a street. Mr. Newbern asked for the reason for granting a variance in that way. Chairman Yates said that he did not know whether the City has refused to accept the dedication of a street; they have stated they are hesitant to do so. It looks as if he won't be able to build a house without a variance. Dr. White said that with the use Mr. Younkin is presently making of his property, it would create a hazard to put a street back there. If the street is improved, it is public property and Mr. Younkin could not deny anyone access, so someone could drive almost all the way out to the airfield runway. Chairman Yates commented that Mr. Younkin had indicated he would put a fence across the end of the public street, if he were permitted to have a private drive off the end of Bishop Drive. Mrs. Mills noted that the land out there is so level, someone could just drive around the end of a fence. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones explained that there has been a street improvement district in the formation stages that might cross the south end of Mr. Younkin's property. If it does, he will have an additional 383.71 ft. of street frontage on the south end of his property. However, this district might stop somewhere to the East of his property, or it might extend all the way to Johnson Road to the West.(from College Avenue on the East.) Dr. White's motion to grant a variance in total frontage based on Appleby Road died for lack of a second. Dr. White then moved to very reluctant to accept public maintenance until Larry Smith seconded the Mills, Yates, White, and granted as requested. approve a variance as requested on the basis that the City is the dedication of an additional 160 ft. of Bishop Drive for Mr. Younkin's property is subdivided. motion. Smith voted "Aye"; Newbern voted "Nay"; the variance was Chairman Yates said that he had been contacted by Ronnie G. Sherwood (Appeal 76-28) who has advised him that he has been in contact with Mr. John APPEAL 76-28 Mahaffey, the property owner to the East, and they have worked RONNIE G. SHERWOOD out a plan to build a common wall between their properties with 130 N. College some permission for Mr. Sherwood to be able to be on the neighboring property during construction. Chairman Yates said that he understands that if Mr. Sherwood is able to do this, he may not need a variance any more Larry Smith said that in addition to moving the building to the East, Mr. Sherwood has cut the size of the building down. Chairman Yates also noted that the Board of Directors is considering amending the Major Street Plan along College Avenue in the vicinity of the property on which Herbert Hatfield requested a variance and which the Board of Adjustment denied (Appeal 76-20). David Newbern stated, and the other members agreed, that if the Major Street Plan needs to be changed, it should be along there, and not varied on a case by case basis. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 A. M. APPEAL 76-20 HERBERT HATFIELD 117-123 N. College changed for tbe_benefit of 62