Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-09-02 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting was held of the Board of Adjustment at 3:45, P.M., Tuesday, September 2, 1980, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman Chester House, Larry Thompkins, Don Mills, David Crittenden, Wayne Ball. Bob Waldren. Jim Lindsey, Gary Carnahan, Mrs. Roy Brumfield, Arthur L. Evans, Sr. The first item for consideration was the Public Hearing on the Appeal No. 80-17, Applicant - Jim Lindsey for Fowler Fast Foods, Inc.; Located at 2117 West Sixth Street (Hwy. 62 West). Application to vary setback requirements from 25 ft. from street right-of-way to 13 ft. from street right-of-way. Jim Lindsey and Gary Carnahan were present to represent. Lindsey stated that Fowler Fast Foods, Inc. and Mr. Lester had entered into a contract to purchase this piece of property knowing that the State Highway Department would obtain right-of-way. At the time, Mr. Fowler understood that they would take 5 ft. Lindsey said the Highway Department had obtained more than the usual amount of right-of-way in order to accomodate a drainage structure. The drainage structure consists of a ditch that runs through the piece of property. It is partially culverted underground, to outside the Highway right- of-way. Mr. Fowler will tie the culvert together across his property. Lindsey stated that it is a policy of the Highway Department to offer any right-of-way obtained and not used back to the owner, he can purchase it back if he wishes. Lindsey said he felt the hardship occured due to the triangular piece of property obtained for right-of-way. Mr. Fowler cannot construct his standard building, meet setback requirements, and still leave room to accomodate sanitation vehicles, etc. that might need to drive around the building. Lindsey pointed out that the building will be setback the same distance from the Highway, the culvert will be buried, and there will be no paving done on top of the culvert. Gary Carnahan stated that at the most extreme point of the right-of-way, the setback will be 11 ft. He said that in the drawing previously submitted to the Board, the setback had been measured from the wall of the building (13 ft.) instead of from the buildingoverhang (11 ft.) Crittenden asked if the area in which the culvert is built will be bare ground. Lindsey replied that it would be, however, if the Highway Department will allow them to landscape the area they will. Wayne Ball asked if the building is existing. Lindsey replied that it is not. Don Mills asked if it would not be possible to change the building plans to meet the setback requirements. APPEAL NO. 80-17 FOWLER FAST FOODS, INC. 2117 WEST SIXTH STREET • • • Board of Adjustment Meeting September 2, 1980 Page 2 Lindsey stated that they had thought about placing the building side -ways, but that it would crowd the East boundary between the other buildings, and perhaps make it impossible to drive around the building. As far as shortening the building, or changing the building plans, Fowler Fast Foods feels that this size of building will be needed to accomodate the Volume of business they anticipate. Mr. Lindsey said that no matter who goes into this piece of property, a tremendous amount of site, and dirt work will have to be done, in preparing this site. House asked where the catch basin will be located in relation to the Highway. Lindsey stated that as it stands, the catch basin is right at the edge of the Highway. Lindsey said the Highway Department will drop the culvert into an open ditch, and that Mr. Fowler will be required to bring it across his own, as well as some of the Highway Department's property, and tie it into the existing culvert. House said, in other words, it will be a box culvert all the way across the property. Lindsey said that is correct, there will be no open ditch. Smith asked if Fowler Fast Foods does not purchase this property and build on it, will the culvert remain an open ditch until such time as the property is developed. Lindsey said that is correct. The Chairman asked if there was anyone else in the audience in favor or in opposition to this request. There being no one present either to oppose or in favor of the request, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing on Appeal No. 80-17. The next item for consideration was APPEAL NO. 80-18 the Public Hearing on Appeal No. 80-18, MRS. ROY BRUMFIELD Applicant - Mrs. Roy Brumfield; Location - 1224 NORTH HILLCREST AVE. 1224 North Hillcrest Avenue; Application to vary setbacks from 25 ft as required from street right-of-way to 19 ft. from street right-of-way. Mrs. Brumfield was present to represent. Mrs. Brumfield stated that this request had been made before by another property owner, and the Board had denied the request. She stated she wishes the variance in order to construct a carport. She stated she was aware of this condition when she purchased the property. Mrs. Brumfield said she has plenty of room behind the house, but that there is not room at the side property lines to get around the house to the rear of the property. She proposes to place the garage parallel to the street and make it look like an addition to the house. In order to do this, she will require a 6 ft. variance from setback requirements. Mrs. Brumfield said she had consulted her neighbors to get their feelings on the garage, and they had no objections to her plans. She said that as she parks now, her car sticks out closer to the street than the proposed garage would. Crittenden asked if the garage would cover the entrance to the house as it exists now. Mrs. Brumfield stated it would not. Bobbie Jones stated that Mrs. Brumfield was, in fact, requesting a variance in side setback requirements from 8 ft. to 5 ft. on the South property line also. Crittenden asked if that means the house is presently non -conforming. Bobbie replied that is correct. House asked Mrs. Brumfield if she intends to pull in and back out of the drive into the street the same way after the proposed garage is built. Mrs. Brumfield stated she had considered leveling the 10 ft. on the North side of the property to incorporate a turn -around area. House said he felt it was easier and safer to 173 • • Board of Adjustment Meeting September 2, 1980 Page 3 back straight out onto the street. The Chairman asked if there was anyone else present in regard to this appeal. There being no one else present either in favor or against the request, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing on Appeal No. 80-18. Next the Board considered Appeal No. 80-19; Submitted by Arthur L. Evans, Sr., for property located at 327 South Combs Avenue Application to vary setbacks from the required 25 ft; from street right-of-way to 23 ft. from the street right-of-way. Arthur Evans, Sr. was present to represent. Mr. Evans stated he is asking for the variance in order to build a porch on the front of the house. He felt that the porch would improve the looks of his home. Larry Thompkins asked if the variance sign had been posted at the wrong address. Mr. Evans stated the variance was being requested for 327, and that someone had posted the sign at 324, however, he owns the house at 324 Combs also. The Chairman asked if anyone was present in the audience either for or against this request. There being no one present for or against the request, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing on Appeal No. 80-19. APPEAL NO. 80-19 ARTHUR L. EVANS, SR. 327 SOUTH COMBS AVE.,'. The Chairman opened Appeal No. 80-17 APPEAL NO. 80-17 to comments from the Board. Thompkins stated he had been concerned about the site distance. However, the way the exits and entrances have been designed, he could see no problem with this request. Mills said she had a problem in that she feels the Developers of the site should be able to build to accomodate the site, even if it means modifying the building plans. Wayne Ball stated he understands the franchise concept in regard to design. He felt the configuration of the property that was condemned, and the fact that the property condemned will not be used for future development, that he had no problem with the request. Smith said that apparently, the right-of-way is for the purpose of construction and maintenance of the box culvert. If the culvert across the property is installed and covered over, it will look much better than an open ditch. He said some of this piece of property could also be reverted back to the owner. Crittenden asked Lindsey if Fowler Fast Foods would have a sign. Lindsey stated they would Crittenden asked if it could be constructed in the right-of-way. Lindsey said that nothing can be constructed or erected in the right-of-way. Crittenden stated that the building would not look any closer to the street, and that he had no problem with the request. House said that actually this will be a construction easement, for construction purposes only until the road is completed, then it will be the property owners' responsibility to maintain the easement. House said he had been concerned that the building may interfere with the catch basin, but since the catch basin is located next to the street, he saw no problem with the request. J4k Board of Adjustment Meeting September 2, 1980 • Page 4 • orN Thompkins said that, generally, he is opposed to any violation to front building setback requirements. He said, however, the highway has taken this right-of-way and narrowed the site. Thompkins said this is an interesting hardship case, and that it is a valid case. Thompkins moved to approve the request to vary setback requirements as presented today (11 ft. setback from right-of-way at closest point). Larry Smith seconded, the motion was approved (5-1) with Thompkins, Ball, House, Crittenden and Smith voting "Aye", and Mills voting "Nay". The Board considered Appeal No. 80-18. APPEAL NO. 80-18 Thompkins stated he was sorry that the existing carport had been enclosed and made into a den. He said he has a problem justifying a variation of the front yard setback requirements, in a residential neighborhood. He said he felt the 6 ft. requested was quite a substantial addition in regard to how it will affect the environment. He said he had a problem with the request Mills said that she felt the addition would be hard to camouflage. Smith said it is too bad the den cannot be converted back into a garage, and the den added onto the back of the house. Mrs. Brumfield said that there is no way to get around the house to the rear yard. She asked if the Board denies her request, if there will be a problem with laying some cement so that she will be able to park parallelto the street. House said that she could concrete her yard if she wishes to do so. Wayne Ball moved that the request be granted, incorporating both the variance in front yard setback requirements, and the side yard setback requirement to allow the construction to line up with the existing South side of the house. Crittenden seconded. The motion failed to pass (3-3) with House, Crittenden and Ball voting "Aye" and Thompkins, Mills and Smith voting "Nay". The Board considered Appeal No. 80-19. APPEAL NO. 80-19 Mills said that Mr. Evans would like to construct a porch, but the right-of-way is there. Thompkins said the neighborhood is trying to improve, and appears to be on the upgrade. Thompkins said that a 4 ft. porch could be constructed and Mr. Evans would still meet the setback requirements. Mr. Thompkins said he could see no hardship, and therefore, was not in favor of the request Ball stated that he felt the same about this request as he did the previous request Crittenden stated he had not looked at the site, as he had misunderstood the request. He asked if Mr. Evans house was presently non -conforming. House stated that Mr. Evans house is presently conforming. Smith asked if Mr. Evans could possibly build his porch on the South side of the house. Mr. Evans replied that the driveway is on the South side of the house and takes up all his building space. Mills moved to deny the request, Thompkins seconded. The motion passed (3-1-2) with Thompkins, Mills and Smith voting "Aye", Ball voting "Nay", and House and Crittenden abstaining. 175 • • \ • Board of Adjustment Meeting September 2, 1980 Page 5 Upon a motion by Crittenden and a second by Mills, the minutes of the August 4, 1980 Board of Adjustment meeting were approved as mailed.(5-0). MINUTES Bobbie Jones stated that the Planning OTHER BUSINESS Commission had discussed the Townhouse Development recommendations and that the City Attorney felt there were some areas that had not been addressed. The Planning Commission voted to continue the public hearing on Townhouse Developments. She said the recommendation from the Planning Commission had been to change the height requirements to accrue setbacks from 20 ft. rather than 10 ft. so that one foot of setback would be required for every foot of building height over 20 ft. The Planning Commission had recommended that there be no minimum width requirement, that would be taken care of in the bulk and area requirements. Mrs. Jones said there had been some discussion as to a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment to discuss the Board of Adjustment's duties and powers. Some of the Planning Commission members had felt that the Board of Adjustment was pretty well locked in by State Statutes. The Planning Commission also discussed the possibility of a dual membership of one member on the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment. Larry Thompkins said he would be interested in such a meeting to discuss the intents and purposes of the Board of Adjustment, and how it fits into the scheme of things in regard to zoning and planning. Bobbie Jones said that the Planning Commission had authorized a contract with the Regional Planning Commission for the review of the Zoning Ordinance as well as the entire comprehensive plan, for the purpose of seeing if it needs updating. Bobbie Jones stated she would convey to the Planning Commission that there is a desire on the Board of Adjustment for a joint meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:00 P.M. 176