HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-08-07 MinutesMINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, August 7, 1978, at 3:45
P.M., in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Carl Yates, David Newbern, Mrs. Don Mills, Chester House,
Dr. James White.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Richard Osborne, Larry Smith.
Bobbie Jones, Angie Medlock, Scott Van Laningham, Mrs. Exie
Hardy, Sid Davis, Tom Mathias, Robert Windham, Sam Swieggert,
Jewell Hughes Bushey, Walter Cole, Conlee, Bodishbaugh, and other
unidentified persons.
Chairman Carl Yates called the meeting to order.
The first item was the public hearing on the
Appeal No. 78-12, Mrs. Exie Hardy, 573 N. Walnut,
on an application to vary setbacks, or more specifically
she is asking for a 5 foot setback from the south property
APPEAL NO. 78-12
Mrs. Exie Hardy
573 N. Walnut
line and the ordinance requires an 8 foot setback from the
side property line.
Mrs. Exie Hardy was present to represent.
Mrs. Hardy explained that she wants to build a wall in line with the present
house to build a room to the south. She said she needs the room for her freezer
and dryer, and for exercise equipment since she has arthritis in her knees and
needs to exercise. She explained that at the time her house was built, there was
only a 5 foot side yard setback.
Chairman Yates asked Mrs. Hardy how long she has owned the property and Mrs. Hardy
said she has owned it since 1949.
No one was present in opposition.
The public hearing was concluded.
Next was the public hearing on Appeal No. 78-13, Ray
Lofton, 5270 E. Huntsville Road on an application to
vary the distance from a dwelling on the same premises
for animal related usage.
No one was present to represent the appeal.
Mr. Yates noted that there was a letter in the agenda from Mr. Putman, attorney for
Ray Lofton, asking that this hearing be tabled until August 21, since he is out of
town.
Attorney Sid Davis said he is a partner to Mr. Putman, and he also owns interest in
30 acres adjoining to this property. He said when it came to Mr. Putman's attention
that Mr. Davis has interest in adjoining property, Mr. Putman said he would tell Mr.
Lofton that he would withdraw from the case. Mr. Davis said he feels Mr. Lofton
may not know that Mr. Putman has withdrawn from the case since he is out of town
and said he felt it would only be fair to table the hearing until Mr. Lofton could
be present.
Chairman Yates said the Board has made it a policy not to take up consideration on
a hearing unless the owner of the property is present. Mr. Yates questioned if the
Board wanted to go ahead and hear the appeal.
APPEAL NO. 78-13
Ray Lofton
5270 E. Huntsville Rd.
25
Board of Adjustment Meeting
August 7, 1978 -2-
David Newbern said he feels those persons interested in this request would be
better served if they postpone the hearing. He said it seems they should hear
what Mr. Lofton has to say and Mr. Lofton could hear what they have to say.
Chester House noted thatiseveral people have made an effort to get out and.
come to the meeting and they may not be able to be present at the next meeting.
Chairman Yates questioned if any of those( present would not be able to be present
at the next meeting. No one objected to postponing the public hearing.
Tom Mathias, stated that he lives 3 doors to the west of Mr. Lofton, and at times
the odor is extremely offensive. He said'this is really a feed lot operation, and
not a holding pen as represented. He said he feels property values have been
downgraded considerably.
Freeman Wood, Building Inspector, was present to clarify some things said in
a letter submitted with the request. He said he did not know who wrote the letter,
but there are a few things which are not correct.
Mr. Wood said under 1C, he did go out there to see if the building was in or
out of the city limits and the building is out. He noted that the letter stated
that the building was 50% complete when he checked it and he said it looked to
him like it was 100% complete. He said all the walls were up and the roof was
on the builidng. Mr. Wood said he did not give his approval to the building.
It is outside the city limits and the City does not have any authority outside
the City limits.
Mr. Wood said the letterisaid the City had inspected the plumbing on the south
end of the pens, but thelInspection Department does not have a permit for the
plumbing, and if there was a plumbing inspector who inspected the lines, he
will not admit it. Mr. Wood explained that the building is outside the City
but the pens are inside the City.
The public hearing was continued until another meeting when Mr. Lofton could
be present.
Next was the public hearing on Appeal No. 78-14, APPEAL 78-14
Jerry D. Sweetser, Inc., Lots 13 through 17, and Jerry D. Sweetser
a part of Country Gardens Addition, on an application Lawson $ Gregg
to vary minimum land area for a Planned Unit Development,
or more specifically, helis asking for a PUD with 1.99 acres, and the Ordinance
requires S acres minimumlland area.
Robert Windham was present to represent.
Mr. Windham read a prepared statement, which is on page 5. He said the way the
property is laid out, it is impossible to get a good development. He said on a
square footage basis, they could get 7 duplexes and they are only asking for 6.
He said he feels people are afraid if the Board grants the variance, they will
go in and build apartments. Mr. Windham stated that they will only build six
2 -family residential structures. He saidthey will do what they can to make it.
look nice.
David Newbern questioned what they could do and conform with the Ordinance.
Robert Windham said the way the property is laid out, they have two 60 foot lots
and one 40 foot access into the inner part of the property. The minimum lot width for
a single family dwelling in R-1 is 70 feet.
Chairman Yates questioned when they bought the property and Robert Windham said
he thought it was in 1975.
Mr. Yates said the regulations were the same when they bought the property as they
are now and said they should have been aware of the restrictions. Dr. White
ques..oned if the property is platted now as it was when he purchased the property
and Bobbie Jones said "yes".
26
Board of Adjustment Meeting
August 7, 1978 -3-
Mrs. Mills asked if the duplex would be a one-story building and Robert
Windham said they have not planned that far ahead yet. He said they would
like to take each individual site and use it to the best advantage. Chairman
Yates questioned if they could build two duplexes on Lots 13, 14, and 15.
Bobbie Jones said they would have to use a portion of the back property to
get enough square footage.
Robert Windham said this would make the property in the back useless.
Sam Swieggert, 410 Holly, said his property borders 400 feet on the south
side of this property. He said the Planning Commission and Board of
Directors had turned them down on rezoning the property for apartments.
He said Mr. Sweetser is trying to do now with a PUD what he could not do
without a rezoning.
Jewell Hughes Bushey, was also present in opposition. She said these
duplexes would be in the back yards of 14 people who live on three sides of
this square block. She said with students running around as they do, the
place would become very noisy. She pointed out that if there is heavy traffic
and noise, the property value would diminish. She asked that the Board use
some consideration for the property owners.
Walter Cole, corner of Holly and Shady Lane, noted that about 10 years ago
there was a bad winter and both of those streets were torn up and the City had
to repair them. The City surveyed the street and thought about widening the
street but decided not to because of the trees. He felt the street would not
ever be widened. He said he feels there is already too much traffic for that
street
Mrs. Bushey had said earlier that each duplex could have up to 6 students,
and Robert Windham stated that the City has regulations which allow only so
many residents in apartments. Bobbie Jones said the definition of a family
is no more than 3 persons who are not related by blood or marriage. Mr. Windham
said their apartment leases state that no more than 2 people will be allowed
in each apartment without express consent of the owner. Mr. Windham said
Mr. Sweetser is trying to do something which will attract families. He
said they will do a nice job of developing the property and it will enhance
property values.
David Newbern said this problem seems to have degenerated into a controversy
between Mr. Sweetser and the neighbors. He said the question here is what
does the Ordinance allow and what are the reasons for the variance. He
said the opening statement of the material received addresses these questions
and this is what he is more interested in. Robert Windham said Lots 11 and
12 were both bought back by the Agee's. He noted that there was a verbal
agreement between the two when the property was sold that if the Agee's wanted
the property back, Mr. Sweetser would sell it to them. He sold them the
property back for the amount which he bought it.
The public hearing was concluded.
Next was the public hearing on Appeal No. 78-15, APPEAL NO. 78-15
Shilo Properties, for property on the northwest Shilo Properties
corner of Poplar Street and Green Acres Road, Poplar $ Green Acres Rd.
on an application to vary setbacks, or more
specifically, they are asking for a 10 foot setback from the rear property
line and the required setback is 25 feet.
Conlee Bodishbaugh was present to represent the appeal.
Mr. Bodishbaugh said they want to develop the property with office buildings
somewhat similar to Dr. Harris' property to the east. He said they feel
this type of building has appeal to tenants. He noted that this would also
provide a buffer between the commercial to the north and the school.
Mr. Bodishbaugh said they are trying to get away from this area having a
very commercial appearance. He stated that they are asking that the Board
allow them to go to a 10 foot setback on the north side so they can build
Board of Adjustment Meeting
August 7, 1978
the buildings they are proposing. Mr. Bodisbaugh said they have an option to
buy this property.
Chairman Yates questioned if they have had any contact with the adjacent
property owners and Mr. Bodishbaugh said his partner had talked with Dr.
Hays and he did not seem to have any objections. Mr. Bodishbaugh said this
is the only plan they could come.up with which provides enough leasable area
to make the development feasible.
David Newbern asked if they are asking for the variance for asthetic purposes
and Mr. Bodishbaugh said they need it in order to build the type of buildings
they want to build and to spread them out so they will look nice.
Dr. White questioned what kind of clutter there would be at the back of the
building and Mr. Bodishbaugh said they do plan to put a dumpster in the back.
Chairman Yates questioned if they know who the tenants will be and Mr. Bodish-
baugh said they do not, they have had inquiries from accountants, doctors,
dentists, and other people in the medical fields.
The public hearing was concluded.
Mrs. Mills made a motion to deny the variance.
She said Mrs. Hardy could set back and build
an addition and still meet the 8 foot setback
requirement. Mrs. Mills said there is plenty
of room at the back of the house which she could use.
David Newbern seconded the motion which passed 5-0.
Mrs. Mills questioned if there are any plans
for improvements to Lawson Street and Bobbie
Jones said she did not know of any. She noted
that if the street is at least 300 feet long and
APPEAL No. 78-12
Mrs. Exie Hardy
573 N. Walnut
APPEAL No. 78-14
Jerry D. Sweetser
Lawson & Gregg
connects to streets on each end, they could approach the City Board
about paving it with something less than 31 foot pavement, but the property
owners would have to bear most of the expense.
Chairman Yates said this property was purchased in 1975 by a builder who
be familiar with City regulations. He questioned if they should grant a
of nearly 60% on the size of a PUD.
David Newbern noted that this lot is an
reason he can see for a bulk variance.
buys property with the thought of having
Mrs. Mills said if they had not sold two
use the property.
Mr. Newbern stated that he see property thatcannot be developed
right in the middle of other property which is well developed, He said,
however, he does not feel the Ordinance would permit them to grant this
variance.
David Newbern made to deny the request.
motion, which passed 4-0-1, with Newbern, White,
"Aye" and House abstaining.
Mrs. Mills said there is no reason for a variance.
She said it is a useable piece of land, and their
problem is they don't want to put on the land what
is required.
David Newbern said he is in sympathy with
something there which would be appealing,
granting a variance.
should
variance
unusual shape. He said this is the only
He said it does bother him that someone
it rezoned.
lots off, it would be mucheasier to
hates to
a motion
Dr. White seconded the
Yates, and Mills voting
APPEAL No, 78-15
Shilo Properties
Poplar &,'Green Acres Rd.
the property owner's wanting to put
but he could not see any reason for
Board of Adjustment Meeting
August 7, 1978
Dr. White made a motion to deny the variance requested. Mrs. Mills seconded
the motion, which passed unanimously.
The minutes were approved as mailed. MINUTES
The meeting adjourned at 5:30 P.M.
August 7, 1978
We are seeking this variance to allow us to put a total
of six duplexes on this property because we feel that this ti(,LII/En
is the only equitable solution to the planning problems of
this property. /\UG 7197
We'havesought on two previous occasions to rezone this
property to R-2, Medium Density Residential. On November ,,o
25, 1975, we asked simply for rezoning, with no specific
plans. Due to much opposition from the neighborhood, this
was denied. We then prepared detailed plans for consideration
by the Planning Commision on April 10, 1978. Again, with
extensive opposition to apartments, we were denied the rezoning.
After the meeting of the 10th, we were undecided as •
to the course of action to take regarding the property.
However, several residents, Mrs. Margaret Schweiger in par-
ticular, expressed to us the desire to see some nice"duplexes
on the land. We then decided to apply for a conditional
use for lots 16 and 17 to allow one duplex on•the two lots.
At that meeting, although•we were not represented, Mr. Taylor
expressed approval of a duplex, but stated reservations
concerning a townhouse plan. The Planning Commision then
granted our request for a Conditional Use.
Due to the adjacent property owner's concern, we changed
our initial idea for a townhouse plan to a single -story
duplex. This duplex, currently under construction, contains •
1400 Sq. Ft. each side with three bedrooms, two baths, and
washer -dryer connections. We feel that this will be a residence
that will be desireable for married couples as well as students.
We feel that the site as a whole is not suitable for
even tandem lot development. This type development with
a 31 foot street and cul-de-sac would place severe limitations
on building sites and would destroy the possibility of
clustering the residences to preserve more of.the green space.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Meeting
August 7, 1978
Our specific proposal for the land is as follows:
a) a total of six duplexes on1y,,1250 to 1450 Sq. Ft. ,
b) a mixture of plans and exterior_ detailing to„ -
eliminate the "apartment". look
c) 20 foot concrete drive as shown with off-street
parking .
d) preservation of all flora and fauna possible
with extensive landscaping to restore the natural-
ness after construction •
Last week, I spoke with Mr. Taylor, and expressed our
desire to meet with him or any interested party to discuss
our plans and ideas. However, since the first rezoning request
of 1975, all we have encountered is opposition to whatever
we are trying to accomplish, and not one person has
approached us with any constructive proposals concerning this
property.
Anyone who will take the trouble to view our other
developments will see that we are serious builders that are
not in the habit of constructing shoddy or undesireable
dwellings. Not being speculative builders, we develop
property which we retain for rentals. All we ask for this
property is the chance to do something nice, aesthetically
pleasing, for which we can receive a reasonable return on our
investment.
30