Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-10-06 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45, P.M., Monday, October 6, 1980, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman Chester House, Don Mills, Wayne Ball, Robert Waldren, Larry Smith, Dr. David Crittenden, Larry Thompkins. None. Mrs. Roy Brumfield, Debbie Wikstrom, Blanche Hight, J. A. Pennington, Al Donaubauer, Joseph Henry, J. W. Gould and other members of the audience. The Chairman called the meeting to CALL TO ORDER order at 4:00 P.M. The first item of business was APPEAL NO. 80-18 a rehearing on Appeal No. 80-18, Mrs. MRS. ROY BRUMFIELD Roy Brumfield, 1224 N. Hillcrest Ave., 1224 NORTH HILLCREST AVENUE application to vary setbacks. Debbie Wikstrom was present to represent. She stated that Mrs. Brumfield was requesting a variance of 6 ft. from the required setback from street right-of-way, in order to construct an enclosed garage. Ms. Wikstrom stated that Mrs. Brumfield has presented the enclosed garage in the only manner it can be placed on the lot. The slope is steep, and the house is situated on the lot in such a way that there is no access to the rear yard. Ms. Wikstrom stated that the addition of the garage to the house would not deteriorate the neighborhood, but may improve it. Ms. Brumfield is not being granted any special priviledge as other houses in the neighborhood have garages. Ms. Wikstrom asked the Board to reconsider Ms. Brumfield's request. Ms. Brumfield addressed the Board. She stated that she really needs the enclosed garage, and she had some neighbors with her to speak in her behalf. Mrs. Blanche Hight spoke in favor of Ms. Brumfield's request. She stated that she lives directly across the street from Ms. Brumfield. She did not feel the addition of the enclosed garage would be any detriment to the neighborhood, and that she felt it would improve the looks of the house. She said she has an enclosed garage as well as her neighbors. The house to the South of Ms. Brumfield's is higher, and looks out over her roof -top, and the addition of the garage will not block anyone's view. The house to the North is below Ms. Brumfield's house, and their view will not be disturbed either. Ms. Hight said that the way Ms. Bruih'field's car sits out in the drive, it is liable to vandalism, as the neighborhood has a problem with persons generally vandalizing. Earl Williams addressed the Board. He said he could see no reason why Ms. Brumfield's request was not granted in the -first place In his opinion, the addition would help the neighborhood. Board of Adjustment Meeting October 6, 1980 Page 2 J. A. Pennington addressed the Board. He stated he had designed the enclosed garage, and he was present for informational purposes, and to answer any questions. the Board may have. Bobbie Jones addressed the Board. She stated that in the -information enclosed in the agenda pertaining to this item, there:is an item that was not included in the information, that being that Mrs. Brumfield also needs a variance in side setback requirements on her South property line from 8 ft. to 5 ft. Bob Waldren asked Ms. Brumfield if there was not a car port or garage on this property at One time. Ms. Brumfield stated that is correct, that the den of her house was once a garage. Waldren expressed some concern this might happen in the future with her garage if the variance is granted. Mr. Donaubauer addressed the Board in favor of Ms. Brumfield's request. He stated that Ms. Brumfield could not build shelter for her automobile to the North or the South as there is no space, nor to the East in her back yard because there is no access to the back yard. He said that he is a property owner to Ms. Brumfield's West, and that he has no objection to her request. There was no one present in opposition to the request. The Chairman closed the public hearing on Appeal No. 80-18. The next item for consideration APPEAL NO. 80-21 was the Public Hearing on Appeal No. OZARK FOOD COOPERATIVE 80-21, submitted by the Ozark Food 401 WATSON STREET Cooperative, 401 Watson Street, application to vary setbacks. Joseph Henry was present to represent. He stated that he is representing the Coop, and that they are requesting the variance in order to construct a solar greenhouse, on the the South side of the building. He said that the Coop had been awarded a grant to construct this greenhouse from the Federal Department of Energy. This is a demonstration grant, and it was awarded to the Coop as it is a public store, and people would be able to see it work and it would demonstrate the feasibility of using this form of technology to the public. The greenhouse will help heat the building and will also be used for growing food. The variance has been requested for the South side of the building so that the greenhouse can benefit from that exposure to the sun. Mr. Henry said he had discussed his plans with the adjacent property owners, and they had no objections. He said that the property on which the greenhouse will be constructed is on an old railroad spur. The Chairman asked if there was anyone present either for or against this request, and no one responded. Wayne Ball asked if the Ozark Food Cooperative was operated under the same charter from the State as the Warehouse. Mr. Henry replied that they operate under separate charters. Ball said he is currently representing the Warehouse, and did not want to create a conflict of interest. Larry Thompkins asked Mr. Henry if he had obtained written permission to build the greenhouse from the railroad. Mr. Henry replied that he had not. He stated that the Planning Office approval depends upon whether the railroad will give its permission for the construction of the greenhouse, and at this point the greenhouse is hypothetical. 1(78 Board of Adjustment Meeting • October 6, 1980 Page 3 • • Mr. J. W. Gould of Industrial Finance stated that the property had been abandoned by the railroad. Thompkins asked if the loading areas to the rear of the building are used for loading and unloading of materials and food. Mr. Henry said that the loading ramp is used for food to be loaded and unloaded from the trucks. Thompkins asked if the trucks use the abandoned railroad spur for access. Mr. Henry said that he was not sure how the trucks enter, but that they exit by the spur out onto West Street. Thompkins asked if Mr. Henry could perhaps put the solar unit on the roof. Mr. Henry replied that is not a possibility because the solar heat storage units consist of 55 gallon drums, painted flat black, filled with water, and the roof simply would not support that weight. Thompkins asked if the solar unit would heat the entire Warehouse. Mr. Henry replied it would not, it would be used for the Ozark Food Coop only. Crittenden asked how far South the greenhouse would extend. Mr. Henry stated it would extend 8 ft., that it would be an extention to the building. Crittenden asked if this would impede traffic flow. Mr. Henry stated there would still be 38 ft. for access. Crittenden asked how much the grant was for. Henry said $2666.00 Thompkins asked if access would be on railroad property and not on the Coop's property. Henry said that the Coop owns the property to the centerline of the old railroad spur. Mr. J. W. Gould stated that the owner of the property has made arrangements for the Coop to lease the balance of the property. Waldren asked i.if: the possibility of putting the greenhouse a little further to the West,_iinstead of centered in the building was feasible. Mr. Henry stated in order to do so a new wall would have to be constructed, and that would be too expensive. At this time the Chairman closed the public hearing on Appeal No. 80-21. The Chairman reopened APPEAL NO. 80-18 Appeal No. 80-18 for comments from the Board. House cited the letter to the Board of Adjustment from Ms. Brumfield, which requested the rehearing. The letter stated that''the Board did not fully appreciate the unnecessary hardship to me in strictly enforcing the setback requirement which denied me the right for a garage for my car. Also, the Board did not thoroughly consider the application which demonstrated all necessary reasons for allowing a variance. Because of the placement of the existing house on the lot, and because this house does not presently have a garage, as do all other houses in the area, special conditions exist peculiar to this house and lot ' The Chairman stated that he takes exception to all of these statements. Mr. House said that when the house was purchased it was in its present condition, and Ms. Brumfield was aware of this. The Chairman stated he had voted for the variance when it was first presented. However, in reexamining the request, over half of the new structure's square footage will extend into setback areas. Ms. Wikstrom stated that she had drafted the letter to which Mr. House had taken exception. She hoped that her drafting the letter would not be held against 11s. Brumfield. i7q • • Board of Adjustment Meeting October 6, 1980 Page 4 Thompkins stated that in light of the fact that two variances are being requested, this is a special priviledge. He doubted that the granting of this variance would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. Also, as Mr. Waldren had brought up, this brick enclosed garage, could very easily be made into another room. Waldren asked if there had not been a request for variance on this property in the past. Ms. Brumfield stated that is correct, a Ms. Martin had made the request. Ms. Martin had wanted to extend her garage straight out towards the street, Ms. Brumfield's proposal was to build the garage parallel to the house Wayne Ball stated he was in agreement with the exceptions the Chairman had made to the letter. However, he felt that there should be some sort of balancing that should take place in terms of continuing the harmony of the zoning ordinance and the desires of the neighbors. Ball said he was impressed by the support Ms. Brumfield's neighbors had given her. Ball said he would continue with his original vote. Dr. Crittenden moved to grant the variance incorporating both the 6 ft. front yard variance and the 3 ft. side yard variance. Wayne Ball seconded. The motion passed (3-3-1) with Ball, Crittenden and Waldren voting "Aye" and Mills, Thompkins and House voting "Nay". Larry Smith abstained, so his vote went with the motion. The Chairman reopened APPEAL NO. 80-21 Appeal No. 80-21 for comments by the Board. The Chairman asked why the railroad right-of-way had not been deeded to the property owner. J. W. Gould stated that the abandonment had been recorded in the Courthouse, and also appears in the abstract. Thompkins stated he felt that there was no hardship shown, and that the spirit and intent of the ordinance, in his opinion, was to require that 15 ft. perhaps for access. He felt that perhaps the solar unit could be placed in the parking area. Dr. Crittenden felt that$2OOO.00 was a hardship. Mr. Henry said that the grant money had already been appropriated, and that it would be impossible to go back and ask for more money at this time. Mr. Henry said that he was not aware of the violation when he started this project. Mills said she did not see a problem with access. She said she had driven to the site and felt there was ample room for entering and exiting either at West Street or at Watson Street. J. W. Gould stated that the land had been abandoned by the railroad and the property South of the centerline was owned by Jim Hargis and Mildred Whitt and that Industrial Finance owns the property North of the centerline, and has leased it. If the lease runs out, the new leasee or owner could hypothetically build a fence and cut off access to the North. Don Mills moved to grant the variance as requested. Bob Waldren seconded. The motion passed (4-1-2) with Mills, Crittenden, Waldren and Smith voting "Aye", Thompkins voting "Nay" and Ball and House abstaining. )80 Board of Adjustment Meeting October 6, 1980 Page 5 Upon a motion by Crittenden and a second by Mills, the minutes of the September 2, 1980 meeting of the Board of Adjustment were approved as mailed. MINUTES There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:00, P.M. is, A