Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-10-03 MinutesMINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FETING A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45 P.M. on Monday, October 1983, in Room 110 of the Continuing Education Center, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Dennis Becker, Robert Waldren, Larry Tompkins, David Crittenden Chester House, Butch Robertson Roy Clinton, John Walker, John Womack, Walter Niblock, Raymond Mitchell, Vernon Rowe, Tom Kilpatrick, John Maguire, Jr., Bobbie Jones, Suzanne Kennedy, and others The meeting was called to order by Robert Waldren, in the absence of Chairman Chester House. It was moved by Don Mills, 1983 meeting present, and by Larry Tompkins, and seconded MINUTES to approve the Minutes of the July 18, as mailed. The motion passed, 4-0, with Crittenden not yet with House and Robertson absent. 3, The second item of business was public APPEAL NO. 83-18 hearing on Appeal No. 83=18, submitted 1657 SUNRISE MOUNTAIN ROAD by John M. Walker, to very setback from JOHN M. WALKER side property line at 1657 Sunrise Mountain Road, zoned A-1, Agricultural District (and on appeal to rezone to R-1, Low Density Residential District). Mr Walker was present, along with Roy Clinton, representing the appeal, and Architect John Womack. Mr. Clinton explained they request a 15 foot variance as they have designed the placement of the 149 foot long house to be five feet from a side property line due to the location of septic fields, and the topography of the Lot. He said they wish to lay out the house along the bluff line. He said access will be from the end of Sunrise Mountain Road. Mr. Clinton said there are two houses on the east side of the road and one, or two, on the west side of the road Bobbie Jones said the adjoining R-1 zoning is Mr. Gene Austin's property. Mr. Clinton said, if the rezoning is granted, the variance needed will only be three feet. Mr. Womack explained the part of the house encroaching into the setback is primarily a courtyard wall and balcony, that if the house were to be moved any further away from that side, a group of pine trees would have to be eliminated, and there could be some conflict with the sewer fields. Womack said the closest part of the house structure to the side property line is about eight feet. He said, as far as the historical intent of the setback ordinance, he did not think the owner would be detracting from anyone's light and venti- lation, that because of the way the land drops off, there also is a question of buildability on that side. 434 • • • • Board of Adjustment October 3, 1983 Page Two Mr. Clinton said the owner has purchased an additional 28 feet of property which will fulfill the A-1 requirement of 200 feet of frontage. He said the acreage then will be about 2.4 acres rather than 2.14 acres. Robert Waldren asked if the R-1 zoning would still be pursued if the variance were granted. Clinton said they would pursue the rezoning because they wish to have two options. Don Mills asked about the lot split being requested. Bobbie Jones explained they wish to split this property off a larger tract of land which, at one time, was an excepted tract of land in the middle of a subdivision which was platted in the 1960's. With no comments from the audience either for or against the appeal, the public hearing was closed. Dennis Becker said his view is of a large house with restricted site conditions, that he would be in favor of the variance only if the R-1 zoning is granted. Don Mills expressed agreement. Crittenden stated he prefers granting the variance under R-1 zoning, butis not strongly against granting the variance as is. Larry Tompkins said he thought the 20 foot setback should be adhered to, he does not think the topography causes the hardship as much as the septic field location causes a hardship. He said he was inclined to not approve the variance. Don Mills suggested tabling the request until the rezoning appeal is heard. Waldren suggested approval could be conditioned upon rezoning approval. Waldren also stated he would approve the variance as requested, as there are hardships, the area is not densely populated, and in years to come he thinks the zoning in that area will be residential. Don Mills pointed out this is another case where the applicant has gone as far as they have gone without realizing the zoning restrictions of the property. Dennis Becker moved to grant the variance as requested, but only if MOTION the R-1 zoning is approved. David Crittenden seconded the motion and it passed, 4-1, with Larry Tompkins voting "nay" and with two other Board members absent. The third item on the agenda was public hearing APPEAL NO. 83-19 on Appeal No. 83-19, submitted by Mitchell Oil 5675 E. HUNTSVILLE ROAD Co., Inc. for property at 5675 E. Huntsville MITCHELL OIL COMPANY Road, to vary setbacks"fromstreet right-of-way. Present was Raymond Mitchell, President of Mitchell Oil Co., Engineer Vernon Rowe, Building Superintendent Tom Kilpatrick and John Maguire, Jr., future owner of the property. Walter Niblock was present to speak for the appeal. Board of Adjustment October 3, 1983 Page Three Niblock said they are facing a serious financial problem because of the setback requirement, but said Mitchell Oil Company assumes responsibility for making an error. Drawings were distributed and Vernon Rowe drew a blackboard sketch which explained setbacks from right -of way line to the existing pump islands, the proposed location of canopy and islands, and the required locations for canopy and islands from both Huntsville Road and Mally Wagnon Road. Mr. Rowe said, since the setback problem arose, they had found four surveys of the property, all contradictory as to location of property lines, that the property is located in the center of the Section, and there is a great deal of uncertainty about where the Quarter corner is located. He said over the years the assumption was that the north and east property lines were Quarter lines, that these lines were also the center lines of the roads. He said a 40 foot easement was given off the property for Huntsville Road and a 25 foot easement was given off the property for Mally Wagnon Road. Bobbie Jones said these easements plat out to be in the center of those rights-of-way, and corner onto the very center of the Section. Mr. Rowe said, although the plat book shows it that way, the property does not survey out to be that way. He said he found that the corner line is actually 20 feet south of the centerline of the highway. Mr. Rowe presented the following measurements, stating these are based on a general agreement as to the location of right-of-way lines, and were figures arrived at by a registered land surveyor: SETBACKS FROM R/O/W OF HUNTSVILLE ROAD Existing Proposed Required Total Variance Requested Pump Islands: 16.25' 17.4' 25' 7.6' Canopy: 13.4' 20' 6.6' Pump Islands: 16.25' Canopy: SETBACKS FROM R/O/W OF MALLY WAGNON ROAD 16.25' 25' 8.5' 20' 8.75' 11.5' Don Mills asked if all the surveys were in agreement as to the location of the right-of-way lines. Rowe said three of the four surveys are in agreement and that, in addition, there are Highway Department right-of-way markers on both sides of Huntsville Road which measure forty feet from the centerline. He said the real question is where the property line is on the north side and how that relates to the easement the City has obtained off the property. He said it was his opinion, with the right-of-way lines being clearly marked, where the Quarter line is located is not really relevant in terms of measuring the setbacks. Bobbie Jones said the City's Master Street Plan shows 50 feet of right-of-way required for Mally Wagnon Road and 80 feet for Huntsville Road. Mr. Rowe said the distance between the existing highway markers on Huntsville Road measures eighty feet. He said there is also some question, when Mally Wagnon Road was built, whether it was built on the Quarter line, or further to the east. Bobbie Jones said the legal description of the property, as it was originally written, lead from the center of the Section. She said it was when the Planning Office processed a lot split, that the right-of-way dedications were taken off the property (half of the required distance for both streets). • i• Board of Adjustment October 3, 1983 Page Four Robert Waldren asked if the pump islands were pre-existing. Mr. Niblock said the pump islands on the west side of the property (not at issue) were pre- existing. He said the pump islands existing on the east part of the lot were erected by Mitchell Oil Company after the property was purchased, but this was done in error, through a misunderstanding. Bobbie Jones reported her office received a call from adjoining property owner, Mr. Heiney, who stated he had no objections to the variance. Mr. Niblock said he received a call from the Dorsey's who also had no objection. Mr. Becker asked what would happen to the old pump islands and Mr. Niblock said this had not been decided but he thought Mitchell Oil Company would be happy to remove them. Bobbie Jones explained, where the term "canopy" is used inthe Ordinance, it refers specifically to pump island canopies for service stations. Robert Waldren asked Bobbie Jones if she thought the City would release any part of the easements it took off the property for the street rights-of-way. She said she thought, if they could confirm there was a sufficient eighty foot right-of-way on Highway 16 without that easement, they would reduce any portion of it in excess of 80 feet. She said this might also be possible for Mally Wagnon Road, but in both cases, this would be a decision for the Board of Directors. Robert Waldren asked, if the pump islands were taken farther to the south, would it create a traffic problem. Mr. Mitchell said this would cause cars to be right up near the front door of the existing building. With no other comments from the audience, the public hearing was closed. Larry Tompkins said he thought the proposed plan will improve the economic and general environment of the property. He said he views the canopy as a temporary kind of improvement and does not create too much of a problem. He said he did not like the idea of having the pump islands any closer to the building because of safety considerations. He stated he would approve of a variance. Don Mills stated she felt that, although that intersection is of no consequence now, in the future it will be a different situation with more traffic.. She said, if the variance is granted, there would be a non -conforming structure situation. Crittenden said, if we imposed the setback requirements, it may eliminate that problem, but would create another as the pump islands would be in the doorway of the building. He did not agree with Don Mills' statements about future growth. Don Mills said itsurprised her the plans could have gone this far. Crittenden asked how the pump.islands had been built in the wrong place. Mitchell's builder, Kilpatrick,said he had called the City and been told to stay 25 feet back from the center of the road. He said he didn't know about the setbacks until he applied for -a building permit for the canopy. Mr. Niblock said although Mitchell Oil Company assumes responsibility for its error, he thinks these things happen when you don't get a comprehensive building permit all at one time, that he thinks this is a problem with the Ordinance. Bobbie Jones said the plans were brought into the Office in a.."piece-meal" fashion. Board of Adjustment October 3, 1983 Page Five Dennis Becker said his opinion was, if the Board granted the other variance under site conditions and aesthetics, he would be in favor of granting this variance. Waldren said he felt, to a certain extent, the area will grow, but he did not think the project would hinder visibility. He said he thought the road widths were adequate to handle future growth. After further discussion, Dennis Becker moved to grant the variance. The motion was seconded by Larry Tompkins and passed, 4-1, with Don Mills voting in opposition and with two other Board members absent. Under Other Business, Robert Waldren introduced the request in Planning Commission Minutes of NON -CONFORMING USES September 26, 1983, that the Board of Adjustment write a letter outlining what the Commission should study with respect to non- conforming uses. He explained this came up because the City Board of Directors had granted a variance for expansion to a non -conforming business, although City Attorney McCord later ruled they had no authority to do so. The Planning Commission discussed this action and decided the Board of Adjustment should set guidelines for the Commission to review restrictions on non -conformities. MOTION OTHER BUSINESS Waldren said he personally did not think the Board of Adjustment should address the issue of non -conforming uses. Jones said, in the past, the Board of Adjustment has expressed an interest in the Planning Commission reviewing the requirements for previously platted non -conforming lots or houses built before today's setback requirements. She said several Board of Adjustment members submitted comments on that last year and she passed those on to the Commission, and they appointed a committee. She said this committee met a few times and is scheduled to meet on October 10 at 4:00 P.M. Larry Tompkins said he would like the committee to study how to establish a building setback line in the front for additions where there are structures on either side which have non -conforming setbacks. Bobbie Jones said, under the present ordinance, we measure the front yard setback from the existing right-of-way to the overhang of the structure. She said the old ordinance allowed (in cases such as the example he gave) to use the average of the existing setbacks on either side and apply it to the new structure. Tompkins said he would like this reviewed again, for its merits. David Crittenden made a motion that, if the Planning Commission reactivates its committee, it study the proposals and questions which the Board of Adjust- ment has submitted on previous occasions. The motion was seconded by Larry Tompkins and passed, 5-0, with House and Robertson absent. With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:15 P.M. 4171