HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-05-07 Minutes•
•
MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, May 7,
1979, at 3:45 o'clock P.M. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration
Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice -Chairman James White, Chester House, Mrs.
Steve Nickles.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Don Mills, and
Chairman Carl Yates, David Newbern and Larry Smith.
Bobbie Jones•, Gail Biswell, John Honeycutt, Kim F, Cecily Brawner,
Tom Burke, Bill Mandrell, Sabra Hassel, Jim Treffinger, and
other unidentified members of the audience.
In the absence of Chairman Carl Yates, Vice -Chairman James White called the
meeting to order and presided over same.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
The first appeal for public hearing. was
Appeal No. 79-11, John Honeycutt, 528 Lytton,
Zoning District R-2, Medium Density Residential
District, Application to vary setbacks.
Mr. Honeycutt was present to represent.
Vice -Chairman White noted that the appli-
cant was requesting either a 15 ft. setback from the street right-of-way for
the future Fletcher -Morningside extension, or a 15 ft. setback from the Lytton
Avenue right-of-way. He noted that the required setbacks for either right-of-way
would normally be 25 ft. without a variance.
Mr. Honeycutt stated that he needed to add onto the main house and in order
to do so he would need a variance from the required setbacks. He stated that the
lot is pie -shaped and therefore very difficult to find a normal house plan that
would fit inside the required setbacks. Bobbie Jones noted that the small triangle
drawn inside the diagram included in the agenda would be the shape any house which
is built within the required setbacks would have to be to conform to said setbacks.
Mr. Honeycutt noted that the small existing building located on his lot would be
removed if a variance was granted.
A discussion ensued concerning possibilities of redesigning the proposed
addition, as well as discussions concerning the City's plans for building the
future extension of Fletcher Street. Mr. Honeycutt stated that he had filed this
appeal requesting an "either/or" variance since he was not sure which variance
the Board would find more suitable. He stated that, although he was not particular
about which variance the Board preferred, the alternate plan would have less square
footage of building lying outside the normal setbacks.
After further discussion, Vice -Chairman White declared the public hearing
closed on this appeal.
PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL NO. 79-11
John Honeycutt
528 Lytton
86
Board of Adjustment Meeting
• May 7, 1979
Page 2
•
•
The second appeal for public hearing was
Appeal No. 79-12, Kim & Cecily Brawner, 91 South
Duncan, Zoning District R-3, High Density Resi-
dential District; Application to vary minimum
lot width for a two-family. dwelling. Mr. $ Mrs.
Brawner were present to represent.
Vice -Chairman White stated that the applicants were requesting a 40 ft. lot
width for a two-family dwelling rather than the 60 ft. required by ordinance for
such a dwelling.
Mr. Brawner stated that he and his wife had purchased the house last October
with the intentions of remodeling the house for eventual use as a duplex. He
stated that the house and lot had been very run down and that the previous owners
had stated no desire to keep up the single-family residence as it is surrounded
by multi -family residences. He stated that the main level of the house contains
1,100 sq. ft. of space and that the full basement also contains 1,100 sq. ft. of
space. He said that the main house contained all the room he and his wife needed
and that they had hoped to remodel the full basement into another living unit for
rental use. He stated that they had been told when they purchased the house that
it was well suited as a duplex. He said the basement is all above -ground except
for the front portion and that it has several windows and two exists. Although
the lot is very narrow, he stated, it is also very deep and there would be plenty
of room behind the house for all the parking that would be necessary for a duplex.
Mr. Brawner noted that the alley running beside the house was owned partly
by he and his wife and partly by a neighbor, Mr. Ellis Melton. He stated that the
alley had once been owned entirely by his lot, but part of it had been sold off to
adjoining lots in order for those lots to meet lot width requirements. Mr. Brawner
stated that Mr. Melton owned the greater portion of the alley at this time and
that Mr. Melton had suggested that they join forces and improve the backs of both
lots jointly whenever they began to put in the parking spaces behind the house.
Dr. White acknowledged a letter from Mr. Melton stating his support of the Brawners'
request. A copy of said letter is attached to the minutes of this meeting and made
a part of the record hereof.
After a lengthy discussion, Vice -Chairman White declared the public hearing
closed on this appeal.
PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL NO. 79-12
Kim $ Cecily Brawner
91 S. Duncan
The third appeal for public hearing was
Appeal No. 79-13, The New School; property lo-
cated North of Township Road near ANL Labora-
tories; Zoning District R-0, Residential -Office
District $ A-1, Agricultural District; Applica-
tion to waive requirement that a lot have frontage
on and access to a public street. Attorney Tom
Burke and School Director Bill Mandrell were
present to represent.
Vice -Chairman White stated that the applicant requested access to the proposed
new location for the school to be by way of a private drive which presently serves
ANL Laboratories and the home of the Drs. Nettleship. Dr. White noted noted that
the zoning ordinance requires that the lot have frontage on an improved public
PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL NO. 79-13
The New School
N. of Township Rd.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Meeting
May 7, 1979
Page 3
street so as to provide safe and convenient access for servicing, fire protection
and required off-street parking.
Mr. Burke presented pictures of the proposed new location of the school and
also passed out pamphlets describing the operation of the school. He stated that
the school is a nonprofit corporation which was organized over 8 years ago in order
to provide education, emotional and social development for children aged 3-6 years.
Mr. Burke stated that the original site of the school was very near the newly pro-
posed location, although present facilities are at the Leverett Garden Apartments.
Mr. Burke stated that Drs. Anderson g Mae Nettleship had dedicated approximately
two acres of land to the school and that access to this property would be (if this
variance is granted) by an existing roadway which presently serves ANL Laboratories
and the Nettleship home. He stated that this roadway is about 12 ft. in width and
is a good, improved roadway. Mr. Burke continued, stating that the Nettleships
have also dedicated a permanent, perpetual easement in favor of The New School
along the course of that roadway. "The alternative to this," he said, "would be
to locate the school on a public access street as required by ordinance." "We
think a good argument can be made against that sort of requirement considering
the use contemplated by The New School," Mr. Burke continued. "As far as the
children are concerned, they would be better served by locating away from a main
thoroughfare, for safety reasons, as long as there is suitable access." Mr. Burke
stated that the natural character of the land can be preserved if this location is
used for the school. He stated, however, that if the variance could not be granted
and the Nettleships were required to institute a large scale development plan
which would require installation of city streets and other such improvements,
the economics of business would require that this land be used for something other
than the school, thereby destroying the natural characteristics of the land.
Mr. Burke alleged that destruction of such natural characteristics would "constitute
a hardship to the land."
Mr. White questioned the number of students which the facility would serve
daily Mr. Burke replied that the enrollment is currently about 60 students and
that they hoped to ultimately increase that number to approximately 100 students.
Mr. Mandrell added that about half of the children stay all day while the other
half stay only a portion of the day.
Mr. Nickles questioned whether the grantors of the property (the Nettleships)
own land fronting on Township Road which could be used for the school without the
necessity of a variance. Mrs. Jones replied that they do not own land on Township,
but that they do own land fronting on Johnson Road and Villa Avenue. Mr. Burke
stated that he did not consider the question of whether other Nettleship land could
be used for the school as an issue since the variance was being requested for this
particular property only. He stated that they had not discussed the possibility
of obtaining other Nettleship land fronting on an improved street since they did
not want "to look a gift horse in the mouth, so to speak."
Mr. Burke noted that the School would have to obtain Planning Commission ap-
proval for a Conditional Use even if this variance is approved. Discussion ensued
concerning the type of building being proposed for the site, and Mr. Mandrell
presented plans for such building to the Board members.
After further discussion, Vice -Chairman White declared the public hearing
closed on this appeal.
8$
Board of Adjustment Meeting
May 7, 1979
Page 4
The last appeal for public hearing was
Appeal No. 79-14, James P. Treffinger, 318 E.
Lafayette; Zoning District R-1, Low Density
Residential District; Application to vary
setbacks. Mr. Treffinger was present to
represent.
Vice -Chairman White stated that the applicant was requesting a side setback
of 6 inches rather than the required 8 feet, and also a rear setback of 5 ft. 6
inches rather than the required 20 feet. He noted that Mr. Treffinger had stated
that the existing garage would not be removed, but would only be remodeled, al-
tered and expanded.
Mr. Treffinger stated that the present garage is structurally sound, but
that the roof leaks and the building is not very attractive. He stated that he
primarily wanted to redesign the roof and add new siding to the garage, but that
a 3'22" overhang would also be added to the front of the building in order to
keep it in character with the main house. Otherwise, he stated, the main dimen-
sions of the garage would stay largely the same.
Mr. Treffinger stated that all his neighbors had been contacted and that they
were all in favor of his improving the appearance of the garage and the neighborhood.
Mr. White questioned what the proposed attic would be used for and Mr. Tref-
finger replied that it would be for storage only and would have access by a "pull-
down" type stairway from the garage.
After further discussion, Vice -Chairman White declared the public hearing
closed on this appeal.
PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL NO. 79-14
James P. Treffinger
318 E. Lafayette
CONSIDERATIONS:
Mr. Nickles moved to grant the variance,
stating: "According to the ordinance, there
must be some special condition or circumstance
peculiar to the land and in this case I think
the triangular shape of the lot is such a
special circumstance or condition, as well as
a hardship." After consultation with Mr. Honey-
cutt, Mr. Nickles qualified his motion to allow
the variance from the rear ofthe property only.
Mr. Nickles stated that he felt the building should be kept as far back from
the front "street" as possible for both aesthetic and safety reasons. Mrs. Mills
seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (4-0).
CONSIDERATION OF
APPEAL NO. 79-11
John Honeycutt
528 Lytton
Mrs. Mills moved to deny the variance,
stating that she could not see any real hardship
or necessity for the variance, although she
fully sympathized with the petitioners since
she understood that they had purchased the property
thinking they could convert the house into a duplex.
Mrs. Mills also stated that she felt the house
CONSIDERATION OF
APPEAL NO. 79-12
Kim $ Cecily Brawner
91 S. Duncan
89 A
•
Board of Adjustment Meeting
May 7, 1979
Page 5
might be better suited as a duplex, but that she did not feel the Board could
approve the variance since it did not meet the criteria given them in the City
ordinances.
Mr. Nickles seconded the motion, stating that he agreed with Mrs. Mills
and was also in sympathy with the petitioners. However, he stated, the fact
that the surrounding area is multi -family was insufficient grounds to approve
the. variance.
Considerable discussion ensued concerning possible ways the petitioner
might achieve their wishes for the property (such as petitioning the City Board
to amend the ordinance that restricts two-family dwellings to lots with at least
60 ft. in width, etc.).
After a vote having been taken upon the motion to deny, same passed
unanimously (4-0).
Dr. White stated that he felt the access
road to the proposed location was too narrow for
the additional traffic which would be generated
by the school. He stated that he felt the width
of the roadway would definitely need to be en-
larged before he would seriously consider voting
for a variance.
Mr. Nickles stated that he once again had a
problem seeing the request as meeting "the special
conditions or circumstances" required for a variance to be granted. Mr. Nickles
stated that Mr. Burke had argued that the desirability of retaining the lot for
this purpose, thereby retaining its unique character (shade trees, etc.), was
the special condition or circumstance. Mr. Nickles stated that he did not agree
with Mr. Burke, adding that he felt Mr. Burke was arguing more for the special
condition of the use of the land rather than the building itself. Mr. Nickles
continued, stating: "I don't see the flexibility that the enabling act of the ordi-
nance gives usbeing suggested here. While I might agree in principle that this
might be a more desirable location than on a busy highway, still we have to assume
that there is some reasonable basis behind the ordinance. I don't see anything
peculiar to the land or the building."
Mr. Burke replied that his point in argument was that "the natural features
of the land are unique and those features constitute our special condition." He
added: "Isn't it a hardship on a land owner to deny that landowner a variance
for a beneficial use where the purpose is in part to preserve the natural charac-
ter of the lot? That is just as important as the shape of the lot or the size of
it. The statute just refers to the unique character of the land and doesn't say
what that character is."
Dr. White questioned Mrs. Jones whether Dr. Nettleship himself could build
the building and let the school use same without need of a variance. Mrs. Jones
replied that Dr. Nettleship would have to file a large scale development plan
and would have to retain ownership of the property and would probably be required
to build a city street with curbs and gutters as a result of that plan.
Dr. White asked about the minimum city street standards Mrs. Jones replied
that the minimum right-of-way is 50 ft. and the minimum roadway iw 30 ft. with
curbs and gutters and a sidewalk on one side of the street.
CONSIDERATION OF
APPEAL NO. 79-13
The New School
N. of Township Road
QO
•
•
Board of Adjustment Meeting
May 7, 1979
Page 6
Dr. Sabra Hassel, present in support of the request, stated that she was
present as a parent of a child attending the school, as a member of the school's
Board of Directors, and as a Consulting Psychologist for the school. She said she
favored the new location since it was away from busy streets and since it was a
beautiful lot with many trees and other natural features. Dr. Hassel stated that
the present location of the school in Leverett Gardens uses a private drive for
access and that there have not been any traffic problems on said private drive.
She stated that she did not foresee any traffic problems on the proposed private
drive access either since most of the students come and go at varying times.
After further discussion, Mr. Nickles stated that he still felt the petition-
ers had not shown any special condition or circumstance peculiar to the land and
he therefore did not see how the Board could grant a variance. He noted that the
Board is an administrative body, not a legislative body, and had to use the cri-
teria given it by its enabling ordinance in order to grant a variance.
Mrs. Mills moved to deny the request, and Chester House seconded the motion,
which passed unanimously (4-0).
Mr. Nickles stated that he had asked Mrs.
Jones before the meeting whether there was any
way Mr. Treffinger could remodel his garage
without need for a variance. He stated that
Mrs. Jones had said that a variance would not
be needed as long as the building was not en-
larged. Mrs. Jones added that a brick veneer
or other similar improvement could be made without
necessity for a variance as long as the building
was not enlarged or heightened in any manner.
After a short discussion, Mr. Nickles stated that he felt the petitioner was
really asking for a variance of style rather than of need or necessity. He stated
that he did not see any hardship which would necessitate a variance, although he
agreed that improvement of the garage as proposed would definitely improve its
appearance and the total appearance of the neighborhood.
Discussion ensued concerning possible ways the building could be remodeled
without need for a variance, i.e., moving the building, redesigning the improve-
ments, etc. Mr. Nickles moved to deny the variance, stating: "I do not see any
special condition or circumstance peculiar to this request and since you (the
petitioner) are in essence causing the reason for need of a variance." Mrs. Mills
seconded the motion, which passed unanimously (4-0).
CONSIDERATION OF
APPEAL NO. 79-14
James P. Treffinger
318 E. Lafayette
The minutes of the previous meeting of April 16, 1979, were approved as mailed.
There being no further business to come before the meeting, said meeting adjourned
at 5:05 o'clock P.M.
q)
1
•
To: Fayetteville Planning Commission
From: Ellis Melton
owner of property at
Date: May 3, 1979
I support the r
on their proper
As owner of the
wrong with this
multi -family:
on their proper
as I can see,
93 S. Duncan
equest of the Brawners for a variance
ty on South Duncan.
property next door, I can see nothing
request. The neighborhood is obv•ously
Parking seems to be adequate. A duplex
ty will not harm the neighborhood as far
6g,:, dig}
lliY
rr�
42