Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-04-18 MinutesMINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, April 18, 1983 at 3:45 P.M. in Room 209 of the Continuing Education Center, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman Chester House, Dennis Becker, Don Mills, Larry Tompkins, David Crittenden Butch Robertson, Robert Waldren Exie Hardy, Philip Colwell, Gaston Fernandez, Stan Phebus, Bobbie Jones, Suzanne Kennedy It was moved by Larry Tompkins and seconded by MINUTES Don Mills to approve the Minutes of the April 4 meeting as distributed. The motion passed, 5-0, with Waldren and Robertson absent. At the suggestion of Larry Tompkins, the Chairman agreed to place Item 2, Amendment to Rules of Procedure, at the end of the agenda, so that the Appeals might be heard first. Public hearing was opened on Appeal No. 83-9, Philip J. Colwell, 601 N. Walnut Avenue, application to vary the parking setback of five feet from other "R" zoned property to zero feet for a driveway; and application to vary building side setback of eight feet Philip Colwell was present. APPEAL NO. 83-9 PHILIP J. COLWELL 601 N. WALNUT AVENUE for a carport to one foot. Mr. Colwell said he would clarify two items - (1) He said his original application was for paving of the existing parking area plus a._thirty.foot extension of it into the new carport area. He stated he is not merely requesting paving a driveway to the property line but also wishes to pave the existing parking area. (2) Since there'were two letteis in support of:the appeal,'both denoting_ownership of.612 N. Walnut, Colwell explained that Mr. Wimberly is in the process of selling 612 N. Walnut to Mr. Brewer, who also owns 610 N. Walnut. Colwell stated these houses are directly across the street from he and Ms. Hardy. Colwell said his request is to pave an existing driveway and he said his driveway is not a driveway but is a parking pad for two cars He said one of his problems is the lack of parking on the street for his guests. He said Johnson Street, which dead -ends at his front door, has no parking on either side of the street and the east side of Walnut Avenue has no parking to the south and the north because of the narrowness of the street. He said Ms. Hardy has a driveway to the rental property in the rear of her lot. which is large enough to park a small car. He said at the intersection of Walnut and Johnson there is a stop sign which, by ordinance, does not allow parking within thirty feet and the city ordinance does not allow parking within fifteen feet of the water hydrant on the other corner. He said the parking space in front of his house is unsafe as it is immediately within an intersection and the city ordinance does not allow parking within twenty feet of an intersection. He said a carport on the south side of his house would Ir Board of Adjustment Minutes April 18, 1983 Page Two allow him to park two cars, one in front of the other. He said he does not intend to construct a "lean-to" type carport, and would like an attic for storage within the carport. He said there is a gas meter which extends 18 inches into the proposed area and an air conditioner which extends 18 inches out also and he would use this space to store firewood. He said the hardship is that he needs to make night calls for a drugstore he operates and his medical problems are such that he needs to avoid any infections and he would prefer to be able to walk from his house to his car without being exposed to the elements; and also the carport would allow him to have clean cars. He said he has had no problem with Ms. Hardy's tenants damaging his cars where they are parked at the edge of the property line and he sees no danger to the carport being knocked down by the cars coming in and out of Ms. Hardy's driveway. He said the covered walkway and privacy fence are not included in his appeal for a variance because they require no variance. Don Mills asked Mr. Colwell how far back his lot extended and Colwell said 140 feet, that the lot was originally 190 feet when Ms. Hardy owned it and she retained fifty feet of the lot when it was sold in 1949. Larry Tompkins asked if the existing guest house was built to be a guest house and Colwell said he thought it was originally built to be a sewing room. Colwell stated the 12 feet shown on the drawing from his foundation to the side property line should actually be 11 feet 11 inches according to a survey done in 1949. There was no one else present who spoke in favor of the appeal. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to speak in opposition. Ms. Hardy stated she felt the carport would make it hard for her to rent her rental house in the back and stated this is her only source of income. She said the carport would make it too close for her tenants to drive a truck or a U -Haul down her driveway. She also said the carport would keep her from having any view from the north window of her home, and will also bring down the value on her home. She said the area Mr. Colwell had suggested could be used by her tenants as a turn -around is presently a garden which goes with the rent house and which is usually planted by her tenants. She said this area is about three feet lower and would be too expensive for her to fill in. Ms. Hardy said in her opinion Mr. Colwell would have just as much parking space without a carport as he would with one. David Crittenden asked Colwell if his intention is to build a concrete pathway all the way to the side gate, paving from the street to the end of the yard. Colwell said he would do so, would move his firewood and cut shrubbery to park there. Crittenden asked, if the Board were to grant the variance just for the driveway, would Colwell then extend the paved area all the way back and park his cars there. Colwell said, with a carport, he would do landscaping on the south side and said the existing shrubs would have to be removed whether or not the carport is built. Colwell confirmed for Mr. Tompkins that the carport is meant to be a single car width, to be 11' x 30' long, one car to be parked in front of another. He confirmed for Dr. Crittenden that, if he extended a parking pad all the way to the side gate he would have a place for four cars to park. l9 • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes April 18, 1983 Page Three The public hearing was closed and the Chairman asked the Board to deliberate on a decision. The Chairman asked Bobbie Jones for the rule on hard surface parking against an adjoining property line. Jones said cars must be five feet from any other residentially zoned property. She said the driveway may not be conforming but has probably been used long enough to be legal. She said there is a section in the Street Code that says driveways should have a 25 -foot separation, requiring each driveway to be 121/2 feet from a side property line, except where two owners share a driveway, in which case the driveways can be on the property line. David Crittenden asked if Colwell's parking area was a driveway and Jones said yes, she finds no non -conformity, that the way the curb is broken, it appears to be a shared driveway. Larry Tompkins said, the way improvements have been made to the property, it has contributed to the nice neighborhood. He said he is not sure the street should be used for parking, so the appeal is appropriate. He said he has a problem with the neighbor who suggested a fire hazard, said the purpose of side yards is to provide a means to get to the rear of the property for fire, ambulances, etc. Tompkins said he thought the property could continue to be used the way it is now and still be in conformance with the Codes, and because of the potential fire problem, he is inclined to disapprove the carport request. Dennis Becker said the parking problem is obvious, he is inclined to approve the paving but deny the carport. He said when a carport is built where the roof encloses windows into the house, exhaust from the cars is more trapped and likely to go into windows, creating an additional safety problem. Don Mills said she agreed on approval of the paving but denial of the carport. Crittenden stated he would be in agreement. Colwell asked if he could build a curb, a non -view -obscuring fence or a retaining wall 30 inches high without a variance. Bobbie Jones said yes. Don Mills asked Mr. Colwell if he prefers to have no variance or the possibility of the paving variance. Colwell said he did not intend to build a fence to the property line but it seemed strange to him that you can do that without a variance but what he is asking for seems less than what he can do without a variance. He said he would do anything he can to have a parking place for a guest. Dennis Becker moved to accept the driveway portion of the variance and deny the carport portion of the variance. The motion was MOTION seconded by Don Mills. It was clarified for Tompkins that the driveway could be paved to the south property line. The motion was voted on and passed, 3-2, with House and Tompkins voting in opposition to the motion and with Waldren and Robertson absent. Phil Colwell stated he plans on paving the parking area and asked at what time he could come back before the Board with a new proposal for a carport. Bobbie Jones said the Rules of Procedure do not state any time limit. af� a,� • Board of Adjustment Minutes April 18, 1983 Page Four Public hearing was opened on Appeal APPEAL NO. 83-10 No. 83-10, Gaston F. Fernandez, 1132 EASTWOOD AVENUE 1132 Eastwood Avenue, application GASTON F. FERNANDEZ to vary front setback of 25 feet to 22 feet 2 inches and to vary the requirement that any part of a structure exceeding height of 30 inches above ground level must meet setbacks, for a footbridge(from the street to the front door)which exceeds 30 inches in height. Mr. Fernandez was present and his contractor, Stan Phebus, was also present. Mr. Phebus stated when he applied for a building permit, the Planning Administrator had told him there could be a setback problem. He said he had measured 33 feet from the existing house to the curb, but understands they are in violation of the 25 foot setback by 2 feet 10 inches. He said he had contracted to lower the bridge and enclose a deck to be an entranceway and to relocate the front door. He said the project has been completed, they could not find survey data, but made measurements with a 100 -foot tape. He said some inspectors came out and later Bobbie Jones told him they had to either prove they met the setback or get a variance. He said there was no neighborhood opposition and they had with them a list of all the neighbors who have signed saying they go along with it. Chester House said the first thing a person should do before building is to get a survey on the lot and the surveyor is then responsible for the metes and bounds. Mr. Phebus pointed out the bridge is the only access in and out of the house, that he did change the roof line about three or four feet. Dennis Becker noted he was:in violation of the setback by about 17 feet because the bridge is built all the way to the curb and is over 30 inches high. There was no one else present who spoke in favor of or in opposition to the appeal. The public hearing was closed. Crittenden said the request looked fine to him, that the house next door is the same way, that he thought the bridge looked nice. Don Mills agreed and moved to grant both variances. The motion was seconded by David Crittenden The motion passed, 4-1, with Chester House voting in opposition to the motion and with Waldren and Robertson absent. The last item on the agenda was a PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO proposed amendment to the Rules of RULES OF PROCEDURE Procedure to enable action on each appeal to immediately follow the public hearing on that particular appeal. An amendment prepared by David Crittenden was attached to the agenda and was proposed to be added on page 3, before the final sentence of Section 7, Conduct of Meetings, as follows: "After the public comment period on a request for any variance, the Chairman may, at his discretion, close the public comment period for that variance and have the decision and deliberation period and then resume the usual order of business." Larry Tompkins moved to approve the additional sentence. The motion was seconded by Don Mills, who stated she thought this ties up some loose ends, allowing the Board to go through each case individually. Board of Adjustment Minutes April 18, 1983 Page Five Tompkins noted the wording seems only to apply to public comment on requests for variances. Crittenden said his wording was not meant to be limited just to variances. It was generally agreed to change the wording of the amendment to read: "After the public comment period of any item of business, the Chairman may, at his discretion, close the public comment period for that item and have the decision and deliberation period and then resume the usual order of business." The motion passed, 5-0, with Waldren and Robertson absent. It was moved by David Crittenden, seconded by Don Mills and passed unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 4:50 P.M.