HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-05-19 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45 P.M., Monday
May 19, 1980, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Chairman Chester House, Mrs. Don Mills, Robert Waldren, David
Crittenden, Larry Thompkins.
Larry Smith (one position vacant).
Larry Sumrow, Dr. Garland Melton, Jr., John W. King, Carolyn Madison,
Elnora Bennett, Ray Adams.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
The first item of business was the Public Hearing APPEAL NO. 80-10
on the Appeal No. 80-10, Sumner F, Greener (University SUMNER $ GREENER
Hilton Hotel), SE Corner of Meadow F East St., application UNIVERSITY HILTON
to vary setbacks. Larry Sumrow was present to represent
Sumner 4 Greener, the Architects, and the owners on the
University Hilton project. Dr. Garland Melton, Jr., was also present. Mr. Sumrow
said that there is a requirement in the Zoning Ordinance for a setback from the center-
line of an alley to be 8 ft. for a building structure. He said to the East of the
proposed structure there is an existing 10 ft. alley, therefore, the setback required
is 3 ft. inside the project's property line. Mr. Sumrow said that the requirement
had been complied with all around the lower part of the structure; the building has
been set back three and one half feet. Mr. Sumrow stated that on the top floor of
the proposed building there is a balcony that "cantilevers" three feet out on the alley
side, which brings it only 6" behind the property line, and 5 ft. 6 in. from the
centerline of the alley. Mr. Sumrow said that he felt the intent of the ordinance
is to maintain the usefulness of clearances in the alley. Mr. Sumrow said that the
projection into the setback line would be 113 ft. above the alley.
Chairman House asked for discussion for or against the project.
Larry Thompkins asked if the cantilever projected into alleys both to the East
and to the North. Mr. Sumrow said that the cantilevered balconies were on the `East
and North, however, the balcony on the North side meets all required setbacks.
Larry Thompkins asked if the balcony was designed for aesthetics and Mr. Sumrow
stated that it was. Larry Thompkins asked if the Architects had considered reducing
the size of the balcony to ineet the requirements:.. Mr. Sumrow replied that in order
to meet the setback requirements, they would have to remove the balcony altogether. Mr.
Sumrow said that if the balcony was removed, it would ruin the aesthetic value of the
tower and the symmetry of the structure.
Mr. Thompkins asked if the Architect had overlooked this when designing the
structure. Mr. Sumrow said that they had overlooked it, and, when made aware of it,
felt that it did not violate the spirit of the ordinance, as the alley is not blocked,
only air space above the alley.
There was no one present to oppose the request.
Chairman House asked for further discussion, there being none, the Public Hearing
on Appeal 80-10 was closed.
150
Board of Adjustment Meeting
May 19, 1980
Page 2
The next item for discussion was the Public APPEAL NO. 80-11
Hearing on the Appeal No. 80-11, John King, 204 JOHN KING
Miller Street, application to vary setbacks. 204 MILLER ST.
John King was present to represent.
He stated that his reasons for filing the Appeal were,
that there was an existing building on a 15 ft. strip of property adjacent to his
property, which he was hoping to buy. Mr. King stated that the building wall, as it
existed now, was about 6 inches from his property line and that the roof of this
building overhangs his property 3 to 4 inches. Mr. King said that if he bought this
piece of land, the building wall would be 32 inches from the new property line on the
East and the overhang would be about 2 ft. from the new property line. Mr. King said
that he would like to have the 8 ft. setback requirement waived.
Chairman House asked for discussion for or against.
Robert Waldren asked Mr. King what kind of property existed to the East of Mr.
King's property. Mr. King replied that the property was R-1 residential with a small
stone house on it, and that this house would be about 11 ft. from the new property line.
Mr. King said that he was also asking for permission to build a storage building exten-
sion on the back of the existing building, which would maintain the same setbacks as
the existing building.
Mrs. Don Mills asked Mr. King if he had considered building his storage building
somewhere on his property where it would meet setback requirements. Mr. King replied
that he had, but felt that an addition to the existing building would be the neatest
and most convenient way to build his storage building.
Mr. Thompkins asked if purchasing the additional 15 ft. would make the present lot
non -conforming. Mr. King replied that it would not. He stated that the adjacent lot
was presently 90 ft. by 150 ft., and his purchasing the additional 15 ft. would make
both lots 75 ft. by 150 ft. Bobbie Jones stated that without the additional 15 ft.,
Mr. King's lot was presently non -conforming. Mr. Thompkins asked Mrs. Jones if by
purchasing this additional 15 ft. Mr. King's lot would become conforming. Mrs. Jones
stated that that was correct.
Bobbie Jones stated that she had spoken with the adjoining property owner, Carolyn
Madison, and that Ms. Madison's house will meet required setbacks. Mrs. Jones stated
that the two lots were originally platted 75 ft. by 150 ft. and that somewhere along
the line, 15 ft. had been cut off of Mr. King's property and tacked onto Ms. Madison's
and that Mr. King was trying to get it back.
Dr. David Crittenden asked if it was in the power of the Board to make someone
tear down a building. He stated that it appeared that Mr. King was requesting two
things; first, that he be allowed to keep an existing structure. Secondly, that he
would be allowed to add to an existing non -conforming structure.
Bobbie Jones said that when she talked to Ms. Madison that she had told Ms. Madison
that if Mr. King bought the property, that she would want something in writing from
him, stating that he would remove the non-conformingbuilding. Ms. Jones stated that
she told Ms. Madison this before she was aware of Mr. King's Appeal to vary setbacks.
Mrs. Mills asked Bobbie Jones if she was saying that Mr. King would have to remove
the building if he purchased the 15 ft. strip of land.
Bobbie Jones stated that that would be the alternative, unless the Board granted
him his requested variance.
Larry Thompkins asked if the present building on the present lot (Ms. Madison's)
was presently non -conforming. Mrs. Jones stated that it was non -conforming in setback
requirements from Mr. King's present property line. Mr. Thompkins stated that it was
his understanding that whoever owned the property, the existing building would be
non -conforming.
Bobbie Jones said that if Mr. King purchases this property, the building will be
less non -conforming. Presently, the roof overhang on the existing building encroaches
153 A
Board of Adjustment Meeting
May 19, 1980
Page 3
onto Mr. King's property, and the roof overhang4would be 2 ft. from the new property
line.
Bob Waldren asked what type of building the existing structure was Mr. King
replied that it was a cement block building on a concrete slab, with a gabled roof.
Mr. King said that the building had been boarded up, but that he suspected that it
had originally been used as a garage.
Mr. Waldren asked Mr. King if he proposed to build the same type of structure onto
the existing building. Mr. King said that what he had in mind was to build an addition
with a sloping, shed -type roof, made of tin, and either wood or tin vertical siding.
Mr. King said that part of the building might be on a concrete slab and part may be
openwith a dirt floor.
There was no one present to oppose the request.
Chairman House asked for further discussion, there being no further comments, the
Public Hearing on Appeal No. 80-11 was closed.
The next item of business was the Public Hearing APPEAL NO. 80-12
on the Appeal No. 80-12, Elnora Bennett, 718 S. Locust Ave., ELNORA BENNETT
application to vary setbacks. 718 S. LOCUST AVE.
Ms. Bennett was present to represent. Ms. Bennett
stated that she was buying this 50 ft. lot in Ferguson Addition.
She said that the lot had a small house existing on it, which was now 13 and one-half
feet from the North property line on which she was requesting the variance from setback
requirements. Ms. Bennett stated that this spot seemed the most appropriate to
build a car port. She did not wish to build a car port in front of the house and, to
build one in the rear would propose problems with turning, as the lot is so narrow.
Ms. Bennett said that she was applying for a variance so that she could build to
within two and one-half feet from the adjoining property line. She said that she
was proposing to build a car port and a storage shed adjacent to the car port.
Mr. Thompkins asked Ms. Bennett if the 160 ft. lot depth was insufficient to build
a car port to the rear of the house and still have sufficient space for turning her
car. Ms. Bennett said that it would require much more area to build in the rear of
the lot, but that it would not be impossible.
Mr. Thompkins asked how close the neighbor's back door was. Dr. Crittenden said
that it was about 30 to 40 ft. and that the neighbor's back yard faces the side of
Ms. Bennett's house. Dr. Crittenden asked Ms. Bennett who presently owned the house
that Ms. Bennett was buying. Ms. Bennett stated that she was buying the house from
Barbara Cox Colepsca, who owned the house before Ms. Bennett. Ms. Bennett stated that
she was presently occupying the house.
Chairman House asked for discussion for or against. Mr. Ray Adams, the adjoining
property owner addressed the Board. Mr. Adams stated that he had no objections to
Ms. Bennett's proposal. He stated when the house on the corner was constructed, it
was actually built out into the Seventh Street right-of-way.
At this time Ms. Carolyn Madison addressed the Board in favor of Appeal No. 80-11.
She stated that she was the adjoining property owner, and that she approved of Mr.
King's plans to purchase the 15 ft. strip of property with the existing building.
Dr. Crittenden asked Ms. Madison if she also approved of Mr. King's plans to
add on to the existing building. Ms. Madison stated that she did.
At this time Chairman House closed the Public Hearing on Appeal No. 80-12.
1syA
Board of Adjustment Meeting
May 19, 1980
Page 4
Chairman House reopened discussion APPEAL NO. 80-10
on Appeal No. 80-10, the University Hilton. Mr. House
stated that at one time the Board had approved a walk -way
from the proposed building, over the alley and into a
parking garage. Chairman House stated that a variance was granted at that time.
Chairman House stated that he felt the granting of a variance at that time should
cover the variance requested. now.
Mr. Thompkins asked for what floor the variance for the walk -way had been granted.
Chairman House replied that the variance had been granted for the third floor.
House said that considering the heighth and aesthetic value, it was his opinion that
the project should be allowed to go ahead.
Waldren moved that the variance be, granted.
Larry Thompkins voiced concern that the hardship had been created by the applicant.
Waldren stated that he felt the basic intent of the ordinance was to keep the alley
clear for vehicles.
Thompkins asked if the setback variance was being limited only to the 15th floor,
and that the building would comply to setback requirements from the 14th floor down
to ground level. Bobbie Jones said that unless the Board invalidated their previous
approval for a walk -way to the future parking garage, they could come back in and put
in the walk -way as it had already been approved.
Dr. Crittenden seconded Bob Waldren's motion to grant the variance. The motion
passed with House, Crittenden and Waldren voting "Aye", Thompkins voting "Nay",
and Mills abstaining. (3-1-1)
The Board now addressed Appeal No. 80-11. APPEAL NO. 80-11
Chairman House said that there were a couple of things
that he felt were somewhat confusing. Chairman House
stated that there was a non -conforming building sitting on this property. If Mr. King
purchases this property, it will still be non -conforming. House said that there is
also the question of allowing Mr. King to build onto the back of this non -conforming
building, which would mean issuing a permit for non -conforming construction.
Mrs. Don Mills felt that if Mr. King purchased the strip of land, the building
should be allowed to remain. Mills stated she felt that Mr. King should not be allowed
to add on to this non -conforming structure.
House asked Mr. King if he had applied for a building permit. Mr. King replied
that he had not. Mr. Waldren said that in his application, King was requesting
permission to extend the existing building.
Waldren said that he did not feel the property owners should be penalized for an
existing building. But, he did not feel the situation should be compounded by allowing
King to build his addition.
Mr. Thompkins said that he liked the idea of getting a non -conforming lot of
record off the books. Thompkins said that in terms of perpetuating the non -conforming
structure, he looked at the storage addition as temporary.
Dr. Crittenden stated that there was a car port on the property that was not
included:in the'drawing.
Mrs. Mills said that there was no apparent hardship in this case, that Mr. King
had plenty of land for building his storage area and that he was applying to extend the
existing building purely for convenience.
Thompkins stated that he felt that an addition would be better than building
another structure.
Mills said that it was specifically stated in the Board's guidelines, that there
is a section that states, that you do not contribute to a non -conforming structure.
Mrs. Mills moved that if the land is purchased, the existing structure be allowed
�ss�
Board of Adjustment Meeting
May 19, 1980
• Page 5
•
to remain as is. Waldren seconded. The motion was unanimous.
Mills moved that the portion of the Appeal be denied to add onto the existing
structure Crittenden seconded. The motion passed (4-1) with House, Crittenden, Mills
and Waldren voting "Aye" and Thompkins voting "Nay".
Mr. King asked if he purchased the 15 ft. of land if he would be allowed to
build a garage all the way to the present building if he met the 8 ft. setback require:-.
ment. House replied that that was correct.
The next item for discussion was the APPEAL NO. 80-12
Appeal No. 80-12. Chairman House asked the
Board's thinking on this item. Waldren
asked Bobbie Jones if this lot was non -conforming. Bobbie Jones said that a 50 ft.
lot would be non -conforming as the minimum width requirement for R-2 zones is 60 ft.
Mrs. Jones stated that there was a section of the ordinance that stated that where
there are two non -conforming lots side by side, if they are not owned by the same
party, a building permit could be issued for a single family dwelling if the builder
can meet required setbacks.
Mrs. Mills said that she felt the proposed car -port was too close to the side
property line, and that she felt arrangements should be made for a car -port to the
rear or front.
Dr. Crittenden asked Ms. Bennett how long she had lived at 718 South Locust.
Ms. Bennett replied that she had lived there since September.
Chairman House stated that this was a case where there was sufficient room in the
back of the lot with no obstruction to getting back to the rear. House felt that the
proposed car -port and storage area should be placed there.
Dr. Crittenden stated that he agreed with the Chairman. He stated that the lot was
160 to 170 ft. deep and that there was plenty of room to build, without encroaching
on the garden space. He also said that Ms. Bennett knew what it was when she purchased
it.
Mills moved to deny the request for a variance from setback requirements. Thompkins
seconded. It was unanimous.
The Chairman said that he felt Ms. Bennett's storage area and car -port should be
placed in the back. Ms. Bennett said that she thought she would work on the front.
At this time Chairman House stated that Steve Nickles had resigned from the Board.
Bobbie Jones said that the City Manager's Office would run an advertisement in the
paper requesting applicants for the vacant spot on the Board of Ac}lustment.
The minutes of the May 5, 1980 meeting were4approved
as mailed, with Thompkins making the motion and Mills
seconding. It was unanimous.
The meeting adjourned at 4:20 P.M.
MINUTES
)s6