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