HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-11-19 MinutesMINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45 P.M., Monday,
November 19, 1979, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Chester House, Don Mills, Larry Tompkins, and
Larry Smith.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Chairman Carl Yates, Bob Waldren, and Steve Nickles.
Bobbie Jones, Michelle Hale, John I. Mehrholz, Guy Nelson, Al McQueen,
Jim Jackson, Bob Werner, and other unidentified members of the audience
In the absence of Chairman Yates, Chester House, Board Member having the longest
tenure, called the meeting to order and presided.
The first item for discussion APPEAL NO. 79-32
was the public hearing on the Appeal John I. Mehrholz
No. 79-32, John I. Mehrholz, 1723 N. 1723 North College Ave.
College Avenue, on an application to
vary setbacks. Present to represent were John I. Mehrholz and Guy Nelson (Realtor from
Stagecoach).
Mrs. Mills advised that she would abstainfrom voting on this case.
Mr. Mehrholz stated 3 variances would be needed. He said the variances would in-
clude the setback of a small canopy, of a mansard roof style, directly over the entrance
to the front office area; planter areas in front of the building which would be trimmed
with brickwork set flush -with the existing grade; and, a screened area at the NE corner
of the existing building. The building sets at an angle to the street, and at its
closest point is 36 ft. from the right-of-way. The canopy would extend to a 35 ft. set-
back. Mr. Mehrholz said what they were trying to do is improve the overall appearance
of an eyesore on College Avenue. He asked the variance be approved.
Mr. Tompkins asked about the scale at which the plot plan was drawn. It was 1"=20'.
Mr. Tompkins stated his concern was with safety and the perpendicular parking in
front of the building. He asked how you could back out of there at a 900 angle with the
fast traffic there is along College Ave. Mr. Mehrholz said it would be more of a pro-
blem trying to get out of the property if you were South bound. Mr. Tompkins said it
could create a problem with the fast moving traffic. More use of the rear of the pro-
perty for parking could eliminate the problem. Mr. Tompkins said the first 2 parking
spaces could be moved to the rear of the building so they would not be view obscuring.
Acting Chairman House asked Mrs. Jones if there has been a permit issued for imp:
provements;to this building in the past 3 or 4 years. Mrs. Jones said there has been
at least one issued within the past 9 years, about the time Long John Silver's was built.
She added the amendments to the Ordinance to allow a 25 ft. setback, if no parking was
between the building and the street and with landscaping, has been in effect for only
one year or so. The 50 ft. setback has been in effect since 1970.
Mr. Smith asked if this property was once part of the Long John Silver's tract.
Mrs. Jones said it was.
There was no one present to oppose the variance request.
The public hearing was closed.
The next item for discussion was the
public hearing on Appeal No. 79-33, Robert
J. "Bob" Werner, 410 E. Huntsville Road,
on an application to vary setbacks and other
APPEAL NO. 79-33
Robert J. Werner
410 East Huntsville Rd.
126_4
Board of Adjustment Meeting
November 19, 1979
Page 2
bulk and area requirements for a garage apartment at the rear of 410 E. Huntsville Road.
Present to represent were Bob Werner and Attorney Jim Jackson.
Mr. Jackson stated Mr. Werner bought the property in 1975. One of the reasons
he purchased the property is so he could use the garage for a residence. He added there
were a number of affidavits filed with the Planning Office saying the structure had been
used as a residence in the past. When Mr. Werner purchased the property he began re-
modeling, he was not aware he needed a building permit to do what he was doing. In
June someone from the City came out for an inspection and a building permit was issued.
In August a stop work order was issued stating that the remodeling he was doing was not
in compliance with the permit.
Mrs. Jones called attention to the memo from Harold Lieberenz, Inspection Superin-
tendent. At the request of one of the Board Members he had made an inspection of the
garage. In his memo, he said he had viewed a section of burnt sewer pipe which Mr.
Werner had replaced. Mr. Lieberenz's memo added that it appeared to him to have been
used as a living space at some time in the past
Mr. Jackson said the 30 inches raised on the roof was done in ignorance, if Mr.
Werner would have known about the permit he would have. gone through the proper channels.
He added he has used the words garage apartment in his presentation but, he was referring
to a living space that appears at some time to have been a garage. There is no garage
in the structure.
Mr. Tompkins asked if the building to the rear (garage) was a single-family struc-
ture. It is. Mr. Tompkins said he had 4 questions:
1. Was the alley the only way to get vehicles to all of the property in there
from Huntsville Road? Mr. Werner said it was the only access.
2. Was the structure 10 ft. from the South line of the alley right-of-way?
Mr..Werner said it is..
3. The structure will not be used as a garage? Mr. Werner said it would not be.
4. Why none of the affidavits stated a date when the structure was used as a resid-
ence? Mr. Jackson said because the people were vague and could not remember
how long ago the garage had been used.
Mr. Tompkins asked how the open space for the two separate structures would be
allocated. Mr. Werner said the 3 lots on Barton Street across the alley are open. Mr.
Tompkins said if the lots across the alley had access to a street they could be developed
Mrs. Mills asked why all the affidavits were dated on the 5th. Mr. Jackson said
the 5th was when they were acknowledged. He said they were signed and then brought to
him. Mrs_ Mills asked Mr. Werner what his occupation is. Mr. Werner said he is self-
employed, he does remodeling, painting, and building. Mrs. Mills asked in his line of
business hadn't he run into a requirement to obtain permits. Mr. Werner said he hadn't
done anything extensive enough to require a permit. Mrs. Mills asked if he had done
any plumbing. Mr. Werner said he read about it a lot, but he has never done anything
extensive. He said he did not do the plumbing work in the garage.
Mr. Werner stated he did not know a permit was needed for raising the roof, he
thought a permit was needed only when expanding the base of a structure.
Mr. Tompkins asked if he would be renting the garage apartment. Mr. Werner said
he intended to live in the garage apartment and rent the 2 units in the house in the
front.
Mrs. Jones stated that for a single-family residence the parking space requirements
are 2 spaces per unit or 4 spaces for a duplex. Mrs. Jones said if this garage apart-
ment were accepted as having been an existing structure she would not require any add-
itional parking spaces for remodeling of the structure. Mrs. Jones said the big house
was a duplex, which, with a single unit in the "garage", would require a total of 6 off-
site parking spaces. She said they would not increase the number of spaces if the number
of units were not increased. Mr. Tompkins asked if there would be enough room for 5 or
6 off-street parking spaces. Mr. Werner said there was enough room to the West.
,Q7
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Meeting
November 19, 1979
Page 3
Mr. Smith asked, if it is decided the garage was a living space, would the question
be the 30 inches added to the height. Mrs. Jones said there wouldn't be any other
question before the Board. On the basis of Mr. Lieberenz's memo it is the setback for
the portion of the building with the raised height. Mr. Smith asked if the height of
the structure was in violation of the Ordinance. Mrs. Jones said the setback was only
10 ft. whereas it should be 25 ft. Mrs. Mills asked how tall the building was Mr.
Werner said it was approximately 151 ft. tall.
Acting Chairman House pointed out that just because Mr. Werner "diidn't know" a
building permit was needed was noi:excuse. Mrs. Jones said Mr. Werner may want to check
out what does and does not require a permit.
Al McQueen (510 Huntsville) stated when he first moved into the neighborhood, the
building was an eyesore. He added, since Mr. Werner has made improvements on and around
the building it is more of a pleasure to walk down the alley.
There was no one present to oppose the variance request.
The public hearing was closed.
Acting Chairman House invited APPEAL NO. 79-32
further comments and/or motions on Appeal No.
79-32.
Mr. Tompkins stated he thought it was great that they were improving the structure.
He said he was concerned with the one parking space in the front blocking the view. Mr.
Smith stated the parking arrangement bothered him also. Mr. Tompkins added that this
kind of weaving of traffic at this speed would be a problem.
Acting Chairman House stated there shouldn't be any parking in front because of the
actual setback. There is room for 1 car in front so that it could turn around and head
out into the flow of traffic. Acting Chairman House thought more than one parking space
in front of the building is too dangerous. Mr. Smith asked if the space was being used
for parking now. Mr. Mehrholz said it was. Mr. Mehrholz said they would prefer some
parking space in front of the building. Mr. Smith said the space in the front would be
perfect to curb off and use it as green space.
Mr. Tompkins said you need at least 20 ft., in addition to the parking space, to get
the car out.
Guy Nelson (Realtor from Stagecoach) stated Mr. Mehrholz was not prepared to discuss
the parking lot arrangement. He added they utilized the front space in the best possible
manner.
Mr. Smith stated that asking for a 36 ft. variance did bring up the parking problem.
He asked Mr. Mehrholz what the problem would be in moving the parking lot to the rear.
Mr. Mehrholz said site improvement at the present time its expensive and the weather would
be a problem in putting in a hard surface area He said there the:elevation of the land
to the rear of the building rises. Mr. Mehrholz added that eventually there will be
improvements made at the rear of the building.
Mrs. Jones remindedthe Board they could grant a variance and attach conditions to
them.
Mr. Tompkins moved the variance be granted on the condition the 3 parking spaces
in the front be moved to the rear for the promotion of community safety. Mr. Smith
seconded it, which carried 3-0-1, with House, Tompkins, and Smith voting "Aye" and Mills
abstaining from voting.
Mrs. Jones asked if there was a time limit.on how soon the parking should be moved
to the rear of the building. Acting Chairman House said it should be done in one year.
Mrs. Jones said usually parking requirements should be met by the time the building is
occupied. In some cases, the Planning Office allows a reasonable length of time to
get it completed due to the climate. Mr. Tompkins stated the parking should be developed
in conformance with the time it is being used for business. He said the spaces should
be moved, but they could have 1 year to surface the rear.
Mr. Mehrholz said if the parking spaces are eliminated in the front, there is no
121
•
Board6of Adjustment Meeting
November 19, 1979
Page 4
need for a variance because with no parking between the building and street the Ordinance
only requires a 25 ft. setback. He asked the variance be docketed until it could be
heard by the full Board.
Mr. Smith said he would be in favor of a rehearing because they were not ready to
discuss the parking.
Mr. Tompkins made the motion to table the variance request until the next meeting.
Mr. Smith seconded it, which passed 2-1-1, with House and Smith voting RAye", Tompkins
voting "Nay", and Mills abstained from voting. The abstention going with the majority
to constitute a majority of those present, the motion passed.
Acting Chairman House invited further APPEAL NO. 79-33
comments and/or a motion on Appeal No. 79-33.
Mrs. Jones said she was willing to accept Mr. Lieberenz's memo on this. He was
satisfied there had been plumbing in there before. She said that to consider it a living
space, the City looks for it having a kitchen sink. On the basis of his memo, Mrs. Jones
said she was willing to sayit had been a residential building. She said the question now
was the building setback. She added the height restriction applies in the R-2 and R-3
District but does not apply in an R-1 Zone except in a PUD.
Mr. Jackson pointed out the property to the rear or North was on an upward slope.
Acting Chairman House asked who did the electrical work. Mr. Werner said it hadn't
been done, but he said he would like to do the electrical work and the plumbing himself.
Acting Chairman House pointed out he would have to live in the house at least one year
before selling it or renting it, if he did do the electrical work.
Mrs. Mills asked on a building permit if they were limited to what work was listed
on the permit. The Board questioned the fact that the building permit was issued for
$500.00 worth of work and in the variance he said he had done $2000.00;:worth of work.
Mr. Jackson said the $500.00 was for materials, and the $2000.00 was computed with the
labor and work done.
Mrs. Mills questioned the work he did on the building. Mr. Werner said he did not
know a permit was needed to go up on a building.
Mrs. Jones said if the variance was granted he would have to alter his permit to
include the work he has done or make out another permit application to include the work
he has done.
Mr. Smith stated he could take the building down the 30 inches he has added and
remodel it without a variance.: He didn't think the 30 inches were a problem at this
point.
Mr. Tompkins said you have to look at the long-range aspect. He asked if there
was a hardship created by the design of the property.
Mr. Smith said he probably had "snow ball" ideas while remodeling. Mr. Tompkins
pointed out it took extensive remodeling to get the building in the shape it was in now.
Mr. Jackson stated the wall, floors, and half of the roof are the same. The change
is the other half of the roof that was burned.
Mrs. Mills asked what he meant on the permit by "repairing" the roof. Mr. Werner
said the roof was leaking and he only intended to repair it, but when he started he found
the rafters and decking had started rotting so he took them out.
Mr. Tompkins moved to deny the variance request.: .:The motion died for lack of a
second.
Mrs. Mills pointed out Mr. Werner bought the property in 1975 and did not get a
permit until 1979. She asked him if he did any repairs during that time. Mr. Werner
said he did some but nothing extensive.
Mr. Smith moved to approve the variance as requested. Mr. Tompkins seconded it.
Acting Chairman House pointed out to Mr. Werner that he would need new permits for
the additional cost of the improvements. Mrs. Jones added the Building Inspector may
require Mr. Werner to furnish copies of bills to verify his cost.
The motion passed 2-1-1, with Mills and Smith voting "Aye", Tompkins voting "Nay"
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Meeting
November 19, 1979
Page 5
and House abstainingfrom voting. The abstention going with the majority votes con-
stitute a majority of those present to pass the motion.
Mr. Tompkins moved to approve the
minutes of the November 5, 1979 meeting.
Mrs. Mills seconded it, which passed 4-0.
MINUTES
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:25 P.M.
130