HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-04-06 MinutesMINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was called to order at 3:55, P.M.,
Monday, April 6, 1981, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Chester House, Larry Thompkins, Don Mills, Wayne
Ball.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Smith, Robert Waldren, Dr. David Crittenden.
OTHERS PRESENT: Bobbie Jones, Cynthia Stewart, Marvin Bradley.
The first item of business was APPEAL NO. 81-4
the Public Hearing on Appeal No. 81-4, Herbert HERBERT ,HATFIELD
Hatfield, 21 East Spring Street, application 21 EAST SPRING STREET
to vary setbacks.
Marvin Bradley was present to represent.
Mr. Bradley stated he is Mr. Hatfield's builder, that Mr. Hatfield could
not attend due to poor health. He asked the Board to consider the application,
and stated he was available to answer any questions they may have.
The Chairman asked Mr. Bradley to explain what Mr. Hatfield proposes and
why he feels a variance should be granted for this particular building.
Bradley stated that Mr. Hatfield plans to build a building approximately
28 ft. x 60 ft. to adjoin the existing service station building. The problem
is the side yard requirement on .Spring Street. Hatfield would like to line up
the proposed building with the telephone building and the body shop. Both the
telephone building and the body shop have been through the variance process. The
usage of the building will be storage.
Bobbie Jones stated that a variance was never granted for the body shop.
The telephone company did obtain a variance for their structure. The variance
was granted for' a maximum of 3 ft. from the street right-of-way, and a minimum
of 2 ft. 4 in. from the street right-of-way.
Bradley stated that the street would be improved with curb, gutter and
sidewalk adjacent to this building.
Thompkins asked if the entrance to the body shop would be from the East.
Bradley stated the entrance would be from Spring Street. The doors will be
located on the East side of the building.
Thompkins asked where the lot lines would be. Bobbie Jones stated she did
not have a break down of the lots, but her understanding is that one building
will butt up against another.
Jones further stated that in the commercial zones, there are no front
yards, the setback is called from the street right-of-way.
Thompkins asked if this structure would be a separate unit. Bradley
stated that is correct, but it will have a common wall with the body shop.
He said that fire walls will be installed per City Code.
Thompkins asked if there is a side yard requirement. Bobbie Jones said
that requirement will be as per Building Code. It is based on the size of the
structure and the materials used in construction. This building is in the
Fire Zone, and that will be a determining factor also.
House asked if sufficient parking is being provided. Bobbie Jones said
to the best of her knowledge, sufficient parking is being provided.
13
Board of Adjustment Meeting
April 6, 1981
Page 2
House stated he is familiar with this site, and so far, a variance has
been granted on the gas pumps, the canopy, and the main building. Now another
variance is being requested. He wondered if the tax payers would end up
paying for street rights -of -way -.in the future.
Bobbie Jones stated she was not familiar will all the variances that Mr.
House was referring to. House stated that the pump island he mentioned was
poured before a permit was ever obtained. Also, the canopy was put up before a
variance was requested. The work on the inspection bay footing was performed
prior to obtaining a variance, and the new warehouse was started before a building
permit was obtained.
Bradley stated that due to the existing buildings on Spring Street, he did
not feel that the widening of Spring Street would be feasible.
Mills stated she was not in favor of granting a variance of this type
when there is no hardship shown.
Bradley stated that before work commenced, the setback was measured from
an existing sidewalk. He said the sidewalk must have been in the street
right-of-way. When first measured, it appeared there would be plenty of room
for construction of the proposed building, now it appears there is not enough
room.
Wayne Ball stated, that as members of the Board are. aware, the ordinance
has certain requirements that the Board is to make findings on prior to issuance
of a variance. With that in mind, the application has been designed to
elicit- information. In this case, the application has been left completely
blank in one case, and in two places "correct" has been written in in place of
facts. It is impossible to find the facts on which this Board could grant
a variance. Ball said he felt the application was not sufficient. He said he
could not address the issue of whether the variance should be granted based
on the application. He wondered if the questionswere not understood, whether
it was not important enough to the applicant to answer the questions, or whether
the applicant did not have enough respect for the Board to provide full details
of what the applicant proposes. Ball said that, looking at the application
as it is being requested, it looked as if cars would be pulling out on to
Spring. Street. He stated he travels this street and that it is congested. Ball
felt that all things conidered, he did not feel there was sufficient reason
to grant a variance.
Thompkins asked if the applicant was requesting a side yard or rear yard
setback variance. Bobbie Jones said actually, it will be a variance of the
setback requirement from street right-of-way.
Thompkins said he has the same problem with this request as he had with
the variance requested for the same property in connection with the construction
of the warehouse He felt that granting this variance would be perpetuating
a situation that is contrary to the ordinance. He felt that granting this
variance would be detrimental in that it may create an unsafe traffic situation.
Mills moved to deny the variance. Thompkins seconded The motion to
deny passed (4-0).
The minutes of the March 16, 1981
meeting of the Board of Adjustment were
approved as mailed.
MINUTES
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:30, P.M.