Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-03-19 Minutessit A • • MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, March 19, 1979, at 3:45 o'clock P.M. in the Board of Directors Room, City Admini- stration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Dr. James White, Chester House, Larry Smith and Steve Nickles. Chairman Carl Yates, David Newbern and Mrs. Don Mills. Gail Biswell, Harold Lieberenz, Bob Sweetser and Wade Bishop. In the absence of Chairman Carl Yates, Dr. James White called the meeting to order and presided over same. PUBLIC HEARINGS: The first item for business was the rehear- ing of Appeal No. 78-30, Shirley Sweetser, for property located at 101 E. 13th Street, appli- cation to vary setbacks. Mr. Bob Sweetser, hus- band of the petitioner, was present to represent. Dr. White reviewed the history of this appeal, stating that it had first been turned down in 1978 for the reason that the Board felt the lot fronted on College Street and therefore did not have sufficient frontage to acquire a building permit. Several years ago this lot and the lot immediately south of it were under single ownership. The lots were sold separately, contrary to the governing ordinance, and now neither lot met frontage requirements. It was noted that the lots have been sold several times since the original split. The first appeal was also turned down since the lots were under single ownership at the time the ordinance was passed which required lots of single ownership which would not meet individual frontage requirements to not be split. Appellants contacted the City Attorney who, after studying the matter, wrote an opinion stating that he felt the Sweetser lot could be considered as fronting on Thirteenth Street, thereby meeting ordinance requirements for:sufficient front- age. The City Attorney advised that if the Sweetsers would deed two ft. from their lot to the lot South of them then that loth would also have sufficient frontage and the two lots could be considered as having the minimum amount of required frontage and building permits could be issued. Mr. Sweetser stated that he and his wife were quite willing to deed the two feet to the lot south of them, and having done that, they would like a setback variance from the existing right-of-way which would allow a 22 ft. setback in lieu of the required 30 ft. setback in order to build a duplex on their lot. Mr. Sweetser noted that the lot had been lying vacant for many years and was an eyesore ("weed patch"). He stated that he felt a duplex would be the best use for the lot, but to build the duplex he would need the variance requested. He also stated that Thirteenth Street ran only one block deep and then off -set into Ella Street. He stated that the agenda map showing it as a "through" street was erroneous, and that the street had only been mapped as "to be extended". He stated that he did not feel the street would ever be widened or extended either one since there were houses which would have to be torn down and a fire hydrant which would have to be relocated before this could be done. REHEARING OF APPEAL NO. 78-30 Shirley Sweetser 101 E. 13th Street Board of Adjustment Meeting March 19, 1979 Page 2 Harold Lieberenz noted that the son of the property owner of the lot to the South had been in his office questioning whether his mother would indeed receive two additional feet from the Sweetser lot if the variance were approved. Mr. Lieberenz stated that he had assured the man that approval would be conditioned upon transfer of the additional frontage to his mother's lot. After further discussion, Dr. White asked if there were any further comments or questions by anyone present, and there being none, the public hearing was de- clared closed on this appeal. The next item for consideration was the public hearing on Appeal No. 79-8, Wade Bishop, for property located at 2932, 2934 and 2936 Sun- ny Lane, application to vary setbacks. Mr. Bishop was present to represent. Mr. Bishop explained that he was request- ing a waiver from the 25' rear setback requirement in order to allow a 20 ft. rear setback. Mr. Bishop explained that the setback variance was being requested since his building contractor had erroneously computed the front setback require- ment and had therefore placed the building closer to the rear property line than is allowed. He stated that the building (triplex) would have had sufficient front and rear setbacks if it had been placed properly on the lot. Now that the foot- ings have been dug and the concrete poured, he stated, it would be very expensive to go back and move the building closer to the front of the lot. Mr. Bishop explained that the contractor had made the error since he was trying to keep from getting too close to the cul-de-sac in front of the lot (which he had done on a previous job). He stated that he had admonished the builder to stay at least 75' from the center of the cul-de-sac and the builder, wanting to make very sure he did not violate the front setback, had overlooked the fact that the rear setback was improper. Mr. Bishop stated that he had asked to be allowed to begin framing of the triplex but had not begun any framing of the storage buildings until this Board could decide whether to allow him to build the storage rooms as planned. A dis- cussion ensued concerning possible alternatives to relocate or redesign the stor- age rooms in order that the rear setback requirements would not be violated. Harold Lieberenz noted that it had also been brought to his attention that another triplex Mr. Bishop had built at 2931, 2933 and 2935 Susan Carol did not appear to meet the 25 ft. rear setback requirement, but that Mr. Bishop had sold the property and was therefore no longer owner thereof. Mr. Lieberenz also stated that a neighboring property owner, Tony Latrechia, had called and discussed the fact that he did not object to Mr. Bishop's variance request, however, he did want to know whether Mr. Bishop could be required to install a drainage ditch covered with drain tile in the ditch running between his and Mr. Bishop's lots. Mr. Liberenz stated that he had informed Mr. Latrechia that the City could not require such an improvement unless a subdivision or large scale development was being planned, however, he advised Mr. Latrechia to check with the City Street Superintendent regarding whether a culvert could be installed at that location. After further discussion, Dr. White asked if there were any further comments or questions by anyone present, and there being none, the public hearing was declared closed on this appeal. PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL NO. 79-8 Wade Bishop 2932, 2934 $ 2936 Sunny Lane • OPS • • • Board of Adjustment Meeting March 19, 1979 Page 3 CONSIDERATIONS: Chester House stated that he would like to see someway for Mrs. Sweetser to build the duplex she wanted since he knew that the lot was lying vacant and unusuable in its present state. He stated that he sympathized with property owners who had to pay taxes on property and pay for upkeep (such as mowing, etc.), but could not use the lot to build upon, thereby improving the condition and appearance of both the lot and the neighborhood. Mr. House therefore moved to approve the waiver request, subject to Mrs. Sweetser's deeding an additional two feet of the lot to the adjacent lot south of it in order that this southern lot could also meet minimum frontage requirements. Larry Smith stated that he would like to see the lot improved also but that the variance requested was sizable (8 feet) and that he would feel better about voting to approve the request if he felt sure that the street would never be ex- tended and improved. A discussion ensued concerning the possibilities of improve- ment and extension of Thirteenth Street. Larry Smith then seconded Mr. House's motion, which passed 3-1 with Mr. Nickles abstaining. Mr. Nickles stated that he had not been a member of the Board at the time the first hearing on the appeal was held and he therefore did not feel qualified to vote on the matter. CONSIDERATION OF REHEARING OF APPEAL NO. 78-30 Shirley Sweetser 101 E. 13th Street Chester House stated that he sympathized with Mr. Bishop in that he understood the prob- lems that could occur "when you put a man out to do something for you and sometimes they'll do it right and sometimes they won't." He stated that he understood how hard it was to work with a cul- de-sac and try to stay at least 75' from its center. Steve Nickles stated that he felt the Board "had to look at the ordinance." He said that nothing in either the ordinance or the enabling act permitted a vari- ance simply because a mistake had been made. Mr. Nickles stated: "It doesn't sway me at all that a mistake was made since the employer is ultimately responsible for the actions of his employee." He continued, stating that the contractor work- ing for Mr. Bishop was probably more aware of City ordinances than most people. He also noted that a person is presumed to know the law and that "in the absence of anything in the ordinance, I have to oppose this request." Dr. White stated that he felt that "if worse came to worse" that the storage rooms could be redesigned in order to meet the ordinance, and that if something was needed for privacy a privacy screen or fence could be erected between the units Larry Smith and Harold Lieberenz agreed. After further discussion, Steve Nickles moved to deny the request. Larry Smith seconded the motion, which passed 3-1 with Chester House abstaining. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL NO. 79-8 Wade Bishop 2932, 2934 4 2936 Sunny Lane The minutes of the previous meeting of March 5, 1979, were approved as mailed. There being no further business to come before the meeting, said meeting adjourned at 4:45 o'clock P.M. • 83