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.