Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-03-16 MinutesMINUTES OF:*BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45, P.M., Monday, March 16, 1981, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Chester House, Don Mills, Dr. David Crittenden, Larry Smith, Wayne Ball. MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Thompkins, Bob Waldren. OTHERS PRESENT: Bobbie Jones, Cynthia Stewart, Gary Goff, Wade Bishop, Ward and Melba Adams. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 3:50, P.M. The first item of business was APPEAL NO. 81-2 the public hearing on Appeal No - 81-2, WARD AND MELBA ADAMS Ward and Melba Adams, 1368 North Leverett 1368 N. LEVERETT AVENUE Avenue, application to vary minimum lot width for three or more units. Ward and Melba Adams were present to represent. Ward Adams addressed the Board. He stated that the request for variance in lot width is in regard to his lot on North Leverett. The lot is 83.25 ft. wide on the front, and 90 ft. of lot width is required for the proposed four units. A variance of 6.75 ft. is being requested. This variance would allow him to remodel the structure into four efficiency apartments. Wayne Ball asked what the current use of the structure is. Adams replied it has always been a single family home. Ball asked how many square feet would be in each unit. Adamsstated he did not have that figure, but there is around 2200 square feet in the total structure. Ball asked if adequate parking could be provided. Adams replied there is ample room for the required number of parking spaces. Ball asked if Mr. Adams planned any future development on this lot. Adams stated he did not. Bobbie Jones interjected that a portion of the back of the lot is in the Flood Plain. Mr. Adams stated he had measured where the Flood Plain is located in relation to the house, and it is 175 ft. from the rear of the house Mills asked if Mr. Adams planned on changing the dimensions of the house. Adams replied he did not. Ball asked why Mr. Adams is putting in four units instead of two. Adams stated the floor plan of the house does not lend itself to a duplex. Crittenden asked if persons parking in the rear would be able to turn around so that they would not back out onto the street. Ward replied that the parking would be situated so that cars could turn around in the parking area without backing out onto the street. House asked if the parking area would be hard surface. Bobbie Jones replied that if the parking area contains • six spaces it would have to be paved. Adams stated he plans on conforming to parking area requirements, but that Board of Adjustment March 16, 1981 Page 2 he may need some extra time in order to bring it up to standards. He explained that the area to be used for parking had at one time been a garden spot, that it is soft, and would probably take some time to compact. He stated he proposes to put gravel in the parking area at this time, give it time to compact and bring it up to standards after a good base had been formed. Ball asked if the drive from the street to the parking area would be paved. Adams replied that it would be. House said that the parking area as well as the drive would have to be a durable and dust free surface as a condition of approval of this request. Bobbie Jones stated that the ordinance requires that any parking area for six or more cars must be paved with a durable and dust free surface. Adams stated that he would have to have at least six spaces. House stated that there had been trouble in the past with allowing extra time to comply with conditions of approval for a variance. Bobbie Jones said there is an agreement form available in the Office of City Planning, whereby an extra period of time may be granted for bringing improvements up to standards. Adams replied that he wanted the extra time to build up a good base before paving. He stated if he did not, the parking area would break up and have to be redone. Smith replied that a double chip and oil seal could be installed as a preliminary step to paving. Mills asked how much room exists for ingress/egress between the existing storm cellar and the house Adams replied that the storm cellar would be removed. There was no one present in opposition to the requested variance. The Chairman closed the public hearing on Appeal 81-2. The Commission addressed the public APPEAL NO. 81-3 hearing on the Appeal No. 81-3, WADE BISHOP Wade Bishop, 575 Margaret Place, application 575 MARGARET PLACE to vary setbacks. There was no one present to represent. The Chairman stated that since there was no one present to represent, that the public hearing on Appeal No. 81-3 would be closed. The Chairman opened Appeal APPEAL NO. 81-2 No. 81-2 to comments from the Board. Wayne Ball stated that there is considerable area in the lot and that he was in favor of granting the request because of the number of square feet required and the variance requested. Crittenden asked if Mr. Adams was planning on doing anything to the exterior of the house, such as painting it. Mr. Adams replied that the house had been painted two years before with a double coat of latex paint, and that he did not feel that painting was necessary at this time. Mills stated that since Mr. Adams is removing the storm cellar, '`room for adequate parking would be available. Also, the house was not being enlarged. Mills said she felt comfortable with the request. Mrs. Adams stated that the old screen porch would be enclosed, but that no actual square footage would be added to the structure. ,o A • • Board of Adjustment March 16, 1981 Page 3 Mills moved to grant the Appeal No. 81-2 and Crittenden seconded. The motion passed (5-0). House asked if a time limit should be imposed, or if the time limit should be extended for the paving of the drive and parking areas Larry Smith stated that the area would have to be compacted. He said that cars would do it over a period of time. Smith was for letting Mr. Adams sign the agreement mentioned by Bobbie Jones, and if he needed more time, that he could come back to the Board of Adjustment and request it. The minutes of the March 2, 1981 meeting of the Board of Adjustment were approved as mailed (4-0-1) with Larry Smith abstaining. MINUTES Smith moved that Appeal No. 81-3 be tabled until another item is submitted for review since there was no one present to represent. He did not feel that a meeting should be scheduled for this item only. Crittenden seconded. Wade Bishop arrived at 4:20, P.M. Smith withdrew his motion. As there was now someone present PUBLIC HEARING to represent the request, the Chairman APPEAL NO. 81-3 opened the Public Hearing on Appeal No. 81-3, Wade Bishop, 575 Margaret Place, application to vary setbacks. Wade Bishop was present to represent. Mr. Bishop addressed the Board He stated he would like to request the Board to grant him a variance for a normal 12" eave. The house in question was set back to the wall instead of the roof overhang, and is presently setting on the 8 ft. side setback line. He said that if the variance was granted, the eave would overhang into the setback area one ft. Bishop stated the house could be built without an eave, but he did not feel it would look proper. There being no one else present in favor of the request, the Chairman entertained comments from the audience in opposition to the variance request. Gary Goff addressed the Board. He stated that he was present representing Bill Fisher, whose home is directly affected by the request. He stated that Mr. Fisher is presently out of the country and that he would like to ask the Board to delay action until his return in about ten or fifteen days. Goff stated that Mr. Fisher is not pleased with the request. House asked if Mr. Fisher lives on Lot 9. Goff replied that he does. House stated that it is not the Board's policy to deny an item as longi as the person requesting the variance is present. Goff stated that due to the closeness of the adjacent house, Fisher would appreciate any consideration that the Board would give him. Goff stated that Fisher would not be so opposed to the requested variance if a privacy fence could be installed. House asked what kind of fence Mr. Fisher had in mind. Board of Adjustment • March 16, 1981 Page 4 • • Goff stated that the house is on a slope overlooking the kitchen in Mr. Fisher's house. Fisher would like the fence to extend from the garage to the end of the house House said that since the fence would be placed on the property line, that the cost should be shared. Goff stated that Fisher did not feel that he should have to contribute 50%, that perhaps if Mr. Bishop could contribute 75%, Mr. Fisher would go along with the request. Bishop stated that he sold Mr. Fisher his home. That there is a West slope from the street. In placing Mr. Fisher's house some earth was cut out which makes the proposed house a little higher. Bishop stated that even if a 6 ft. fence was installed, it would not give privacy because of the: slope. Bishop stated there is only one window in Mr. Fisher's house that would look on the side of the house where the variance is requested, and that window has a planter in it. Mr. Bishop stated he would consider building half the requested fence. He said the fence would help Mr. Fisher's property a lot. Mr. Fisher presently has several dogs in a pen on a 10 ft. x 12 ft. pad, which Mr. Bishop believed might encroach into the rear yard setback. Wayne Ball asked which direction the pitch of the roof runs. Bishop replied that the ridge of the roof on the proposed house runs East/West. Mills asked what problems would arise if the variance is denied. Bishop stated he would have to either move the foundation of the house or construct it without an eave. Bishop stated the lot was difficult to work with in the first place, as there is a 25 ft. water easement running through the lot. He said the house would not ordinarily have been constructed so close to the side property line. Crittenden stated that since the adjoining property owner is objecting, that the ordinance should be followed. He felt Mr. Fisher's wishes should be respected. Mills stated that the builders of the home have been working within this ordinance for some time, and that they should have been aware of the side setback. She felt that the construction of the house was still at a stage where it could be corrected. She felt correcting the problem would be the best solution. Mr. Bishop did not feel this was a great transgression, that it had been an honest mistake. He stated that the roof would be 10 ft. up in the air. Ball stated he agreed. He said that if the variance had been requested prior to the construction of the house beginning, it might have been looked on in a different light. He stated that there is a 25 ft. water easement running through this lot, and that is, in itself, a hardship. Since the eave will be so high, in the air, it will not destroy the purpose of the ordinance. Bishop stated that there will not be any water coming off the eave towards Mr. Fisher's property as the roof itself will be facing the other direction, only the eave will face Mr. Fisher's property. Crittenden stated he had misunderstood, and that this information changed his mind a little bit. Crittenden asked how Mr. Bishop felt about postponing his request. Bishop stated he did not want it postponed. Mills felt it should be acted on. Mills made a motion to grant the variance and Ball seconded. The motion passed (3-0-2) with House and Smith abstaining. The abstentions going with the motion to approve. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:40. P.M.