HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-01-07 MinutesMINUTES 1' THE BOARD 1' 11 Y I'
The Fayetteville Board of Adjustment met on Monday, January 7, 1985
at 4:00 P.M. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113
West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chester House, Larry Tompkins, Don Mills, Dennis
Becker and Dr. David Crittenden
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Waldren and "Butch" Robertson
Chairman House called the meeting to order and the minutes of December
17, 1984 meeting were discussed.
0GO 4ND
Upon a motion from Tompkins and a second from Mills, the minutes were
approved as distributed, Crittenden and Becker abstaining as they
had not been present at the meeting in question.
PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL 85-1
DAVID AND JEAN RANDLE DBA
RANCO BUILDING SUPPLY
• 701 WEST NORTH STREET
The first item on the agenda was a Public Hearing on Appeal 85-1 by
David and Jean Randle (dba Ranco .Building Supply) at 701 W. North
Street to vary two building setbacks. The first requirement calls
for a building setback of 50' from the street right-of-way (when adjoining
Agricultural or Residential districts - property adjoins R-3 on west
side) and requested is a variance to build within four inches of said
right -of �aay. The second requirement is a side setback of ten feet;
request is a variance to build into property leased from Burlington
Northern Railroad approximately six feet, eight inches.
David Randle was present to speak for this appeal. He stated that
he owns and operates Ranco Building Supply Company which was granted
a zero clearance on the north side by the Board of Adjustment in July,
1982 for what remained of the main building after the condemnation
ordered by the City for the purposes of widening North Street. (This
building wall is 14" from the [new] right-of-way). He said he was
told that the widening would begin in March of 1983 and because of
various reasons, this has not been possible. Randle said that, originally,
a ramp was planned as an entry into his property (that leased from
the railroad) but that the Board of Directors approved an entry beginning
at Skull Creek extending 60 ft. to the east instead, providing a lesser
incline for the entryway to the property.
0
• Board of Adjustment
January 7, 1985
Page 2
Randle said that the plans for widening North Street include the removal
of the existing "dips" which will result in the level of the highway
being 11 feet above grade in front of his store. He said that both
he and his neighbor to the east, Jack Burge, will share a 60 ft. driveway
between the businesses as well as parking area.
Randle said he would like to put an extension of a shed -type roof
on the east side to protect customers from the elements as well as
provide access to the building from this point (east side) instead
of the current entrance at the rear of the building.
Crittenden asked what relation the new entry had to the request for
a variance and Randle replied that, had the original plan been followed,
a driveway would have been in the space now planned for an entry to
the store and he added that he was providing some history for reference.
He said that the railroad has given him a letter which states that
he may do as he wishes on the property he leases from them and said
that the type of porch overhang he proposes is one that could easily
be removed if necessary. Randle said that the present state of his
property requires a customer having great dedication to come into
his store.
• Tompkins asked why the entire length of walkway was needed and Randle
said it was more aesthetic. He produced photos to assist with his
explanation of what the property looked like before and what it presently
looks like. Randle said that coming within 4" of the right-of-way
has already been approved and Administrator Jones clarified that the
variance approved in 1982 applied to the existing building only and
not for any additional new construction. She added that she was more
concerned about the variance request in the front of the building
than that on the side because of the fact that building on railroad
right-of-way has been done before with railroad permission.
Tompkins asked about the re -orientation of the west side of the building
and Randle replied that about 25-30 fte remains between there and
the centerline of the creek which is enough room for the work proposed
in 1982 which will replace the showroom. Randle explained that he
needs to leave enough room in the rear for truck and tractor turnings.
Mills asked if Randle intended to do anything with the building addition
previously proposed and Randle replied that there are no plans at
present. He said his current plan will allow him to utilize his property
satisfactorily until the results of widening North Street are known.
He said that after waiting two and a half years he is beginning to
feel the pinch of not having a satisfactory entrance.
Crittenden asked if there would be anything on the ground level and
• Randle replied that he is proposing a dropdown of concrete blocks
and a concrete porch.
n
V,
• Board of Adjustment
January 7, 1985
Page 3
Tompkins asked if the Traffic Department has had any comments about
this situation and Jones replied that Clayton Powell, Street Superin-
tendent, has said that it would create a traffic safety hazard due
to the configuration of Skull Creek, the widening of North Street
and the railroad crossing on the east. Tompkins asked if there would
be any internal turning problems and Randle replied that the situation
would probably be better than it is currently.
Tompkins
asked how
long the railroad
lease extends and Randle
explained
that, as
with all
railroad leases,
his is for 30 days at a
time but
he added
that he
has leased this
property since 1954 and
repeated
that the
railroad
has given the okay
to do anything he wishes
as long
as proper
drainage
is maintained.
Chairman House commented that when this issue first arose, several
City officials voiced their opinions on approving everything that
was requested and at that time there was supposed to be a settlement
for damages to the property. Randle said he felt that if he could
not obtain a variance, he would have to sell his business.
Tompkins asked if there were a reason that the proposed building will
be connected to the existing building and Randle replied that it would
• enable a better traffic flow of personnel and customers. He added
that there is currently no existing showroom or office space which
the proposed addition will provide. He said he will need to remove
a couple of the buildings in the rear of the property to provide enough
turning space.
Becker asked if the traffic flow before the condemnation was similar
to what it is not and Randle replied that parking used to be in front
of the building with the entryway but the truck traffic flow was similar.
Mills asked if it would be a traffic problem if the proposed porch
came out even with the front portion of the building and Randle responded
by explaining that the possibility of removing another 25 ft. from
the front of the building has been discussed but that he did not think
that would be appropriate. He also explained another design that could
be set back further from the right-of-way. Randle advised that removing
more building would tear out the bathroom and the electrical service.
Crittenden asked the height of the proposed porch and Randle replied
about 14". Crittenden advised that a variance is not needed for a
porch if it is less than 30" high and that he would have less of a
problem if the covered porch were set back further from the right-of-way
as he thought potential danger existed in cars turning too sharply
or running off the road and damaging the porch.
• Tompkins opened a discussion of air rights and Jones advised that
on occassion someone has wanted to build over a paved alley which
must be cleared with the City Board.
9
• Board of Adjustment
January 7, 1985
Page 4
Crittenden asked what the status of the widening of North Street is
and Jones replied that it is on the priority list. Randle said that
North Street improvements must wait until Gregg Avenue is finished
which involves the moving of some utilities.
Jack Burge, Randle's neighbor to the east, stated that he is not opposed
to Randle's plan and added that he is in a similar situation. He
said that the originally planned driveway would have taken nine parking
spaces from his lot as well as the front portion of his building.
Burge said Randle had shown him the alternative plan, which will take
only five parking spaces and 14 ft. from Burge building, just prior
to this meeting. He said he has not received any notice from the
Board of Directors indicating approval of Randle's plan.
Randle said both he and Burge are trying to make the best of a bad
situation so that they might utilize what is left of their businesses.
He said that the City Manager, City Attorney and the Board of Directors
have tried to settle this matter equitably and he feels that this
plan is the least of all evils. Burge advised that there will still
be ample room between the buildings for both businesses parking, approxi—
mately 68 ft.
• Becker asked if there had been a dollar amount agreed upon in the
condemnation suit and Randle replied that there was an original amount
agreed upon to be put aside in escrow (State) and then a second appraisal
was made (by the City) with a figure that was considerably different
from the first and a third appraisal was made which complimented the
second. Presently, he said he is trying to reach an agreement on the
difference between the original amount and what it should be. He
said if an agreement is not reached, he will go to court on March
13, 1985. Randle said he has no intention of doing anything detrimental
to himself, Burge or the City.
Becker said he was in favor of granting this appeal because it is
has been in process for a long time and whatever action can be taken
here will need a variance of one type or another.
Tompkins said he felt that Randle has done a lot to improve the property
However, he said he did not feel the use of right—of-way for access
to property is appropriate although he understands why. He said he
felt the property could be used now with it's new access. Tompkins
said he had a problem with the variance request on the front 4" because
once a variance is granted it goes with the land and someone else
could utilize it at a future time. He said the overhang could be
reduced and constructed within the side yard. He said granting the
variance for someone elses property without representation (railroad)
was not appropriate and he would vote against the variance.
• Mills said she had a problem with the porch (overhang). She said
it is too long and she would like to see it cut back some.
• Board of Adjustment
January 7, 1985
Page 5
Randle proceeded to demonstrate with photos and drawings, an alternative
which would still require a variance on the ten ft. setback requirement.
He added that he is thinking in terms of the future by constructing
an attractive building.
House asked about the possibility of a street cutting across City
property adjacent to the west near the lift station and Randle replied
that this plan has been suggested but rejected by the City.
House said he felt the request was valid and needed to be considered
as such because not having a good access to these properties could
put two men out of business. Tompkins said he felt the property could
be used as it presently is.
Randle read a letter he received from the City's appraiser which states
(in part) that the condemnation of this property will result in a
change in the highest and best use of said property.
NOTION
Becker moved approval of both variances as submitted; seconded by-
• Tompkins, the motion failed to pass 2-3-0 with Tompkins, Crittenden
and Hills voting 'nay".
rufyo (60
Crittenden made a motion to approve the second variance (to build
over the property line and into property leased from Burlington Northern
Railroad), seconded by Tompkins and followed by discussion.
Crittenden said he felt that if Randle wants to use the side for an
entry, he could use the back for a porch and roof and perhaps offer
something better for the front.
Burge said he thought the City may need to buy an additional 50 ft. of
Randle's property and Crittenden said not necessarily and he added
that he had a problem in that Randle has requested nearly the entire
50 ft. setback to be waived and that he would be more comfortable
had Randle requested a partial variance.
Randle explained that he has a zero clearance setback for the existing
building which applies to any future damages as well (approved 1982).
Reference was made and the minutes were read of the meeting at which
this variance was approved.
• Jones explained that the zero clearance applies only to the existing
building and not additional construction. She said that this Board
deals with variances for buildings as well as land.
5
• Board of Adjustment
January 7, 1985
Page 6
Randle asked how far back from the right-of-way the Board would approve
a variance and Crittenden replied that the porch itself does not require
any variance but he suggested dropping the roof covering back about
10 ft.
Mills suggested a friendly amendment which allow the variance to apply
until such time as the railroad disposes of this property and Crittenden
and Tompkins both accepted this amendment.
Randle
said
that the type of construction
he is proposing could be
removed
if it
became necessary.
The question was called and the motion to approve the second variance,
which will be valid as long as the railroad owns this property, passed
3-2-0 with Tompkins and House voting "nay".
17iYO ma k
Crittenden made a motion to allow the applicant to build within 15
ft. of the right-of-way on the northwest corner of the property.
Mills seconded and the motion to approve this variance passed 3-2-0
• with Tompkins and House voting "nay".
PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL 85-2
588 ASSEMBLY ROAD - TOM JONES
The second item of consideration on the agenda was Public Hearing
on Appeal 85-2 by Tom Jones at 588 Assembly. Requested is a zero
clearance from the street right-of-way; 25 ft, is required.
Jones was present to speak for this appeal. He stated that he would
like to build a carport on his property that will come out to the
street right-of-way. He added that his next door neighbor had been
present to voice his approval of this project but had since left.
Crittenden asked how long Jones has lived at this address and Jones
replied that he has lived there for three years and that it is exactly
as it was when he purchased it except that a small metal storage building
has been removed.
Becker asked if the carport would begin at the front of the property
and Jones replied that it would.
Tompkins asked the shape of the property adjacent to this one and
• Jones replied that it is long and narrow, as his is.
Board of Adjustment
January 7, 1985
Page 7
Crittenden asked if there was a plan for improvements on Trust Street
and Administrator Jones replied that she did not know of any. Tom
Jones said it would create a very steep incline on Trust. Crittenden
asked what the City's criteria is for paving unimproved streets and
Administrator Jones replied that it is usually done through Community
Development or a Street Improvement Group initiated by the residents.
Percentages of street inclines were discussed.
Tompkins asked if Jones had considered attaching the carport to the
house and Jones replied that he had but that it would involve tearing
down the wooden fence which he would prefer to keep intact because
it protects his yard and provides privacy.
Crittenden asked exactly where the right-of-way is and Jones replied
that it is difficult to tell but that he would be building from the
house on out towards the street. Administrator Jones advised that
when the survey was made on this property, pins were placed as markers.
Mills asked how much room exists behind the fence and Jones said about
10-11 ft.
Administrator Jones said she was concerned about the elevation of
• an existing porch and the applicant replied that she thought it was
about 2 ft. above ground level at one end and higher at the other
to account for the slope of the land.
MOTION
Crittenden moved approval of the variance; seconded by Tompkins, the
motion to approve failed to pass 1-4-0, Crittenden voting "aye".
Tompkins advised that if this variance were granted if would allow
the setback of the entire length of the property to be at zero and
Administrator Jones added that it would run with the land.
Becker advised that one of the stipulations of granting a variance
is that a hardship exists and that what is desired in this case does'nt
appear to be a hardship. He said granting this variance would open
the door for similar cases and he suggested that Jones try to work
within the confines of the ordinance.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:00 P.M.
•
/l
PAGE SUBJECT DATE
11
14
16
17
19
19
24
26
28
32
33
36
41
44
46
48
50
53
55
58
62 -
66-`
70
71
73
74
76
78
79
82
85
86
88
89
90
( 92
93
95
96
100
102
103
!104
105„
107
109
112
114
116
David 4 Jean Randle DBA (Appeal 85-1 - 701 W. North St.=Banco Bldg. Supply)
Tom Jones (Appeal 85-2 - 588 Assembly Rd.)
Mary King for the Johnsons (Appeal 85-3 - 416 Wren Circle at Gregg)
Lifestyles (Appeal 85-4 - Sycamore @ Porter Rd.)
C.E. Yerton (Appeal 85-5 - 3345 S. School)
Kiethith Lee (Appeal 85-6 - 9S6 Boone St.)
Tom Jones (Req. for Re -Hearing - S88 Assembly)
Resignation of "Butch" Robertson I.
John Maguire (Appeal 85-7 - 5647 E. Huntsville Rd.'-
Car Wash)
Sweetser Properties (Appeal 85-8'- 888 Lawson St.)
A.D. King (Appeal 85-9 - S. College)
Mark Theissen (Appeal 85-10 - 875 Fritz Dr. - Zoned
R-1)
Wade Bishop (Appeal 8S-11 - 1408 1Eton)
Lamar Pettus (Appeal 8S-12 - 246, E. Sixth St.)
Kenneth Dennis (Appeal 85-13 - 3S25 S. School)
Headstart - EOA (Appeal 8S-14 - 246 E. Sixth St. at
Willow)
Mildred Webster (Appeal 85-15 - 2050 Winwood)
Mike Hopkins (Appeal 85-16 - 742 W. North St.)
Ron Skelton (Appeal 85-17 - 819, 825 F, 825.5 N. Willow)
David Lewis (Appeal 85-18 - 360 N. Arkansas)
GSC�Company (Appeal 85-19 --2999 Through 3041 N. College)
Ozark Floor Company (Appeal 85-20 - 928 N. College)
Clarence Young (Appeal 85-21- 1625 E. Ridgeway)
Wal-Mart (Appeal 85-22 - 2999 N. College)
John Leonard (Appeal" 85-23 - Warwick at Oak Bailey)
Kathy Luther (Appeal 85-24 - 403 N. West Ave.)
David Lewis ;(Appeal 85-25 - 360 N. Arkansas Ave.)
Robert Nickle (Appeal 85-29 - 1310 & 1312 Oxford P1.)
C.J. O'Donnell (Appeal 85-30 - 1973 Austin Dr.)
Nelms Honda (Appeal 85-31 - 2781 N. College)
Bob Nickle '(Appeal 85-29 - 1310 & 1312 Oxford P1.)
Bargo Engineering (Appeal? - 1755 Armstrong)
Allen McCartney (Appeal 85-33 - 1638 W. Maple)
Mike Hopkins (Appeal 85-34 - 742 North St.)
David M. Greer,(Appeal 85-35 - 231 E. Davidson)
Mike Hopkins (Appeal 85-34 - 742 North St.)
Carl Covey (Appeal 85-36 - 1018 E. Township Rd.)
-Eben.& Linda Jones Appeal 85-37 -.2407 Mt. Comfort Rd.)
Resolution No. 1-86 Land Use Study • •f I .
.•bavid Greer (Appeal 85-35 - 23.1 E. Davidson)
Resolution 2-86 - Appreciation to Mrs. B.Joneso,
"fiances•Hafer (Appeal•86-1,= 1853 Briarcliff)
Amendment ( Appeal 86-2 - Lot 81, Rolling meadows)-•- .
Jim Lindsey ;(Appeal 86 3'=�2501 Kantz_Place).'
Ruth Lesh (Appeal 86-4 - 35,6.`N. Washington)
Fayetteville City Hospital -..221 S: School'J,, -
Georgg Faucette,' Jr. (Appeale86-6 - 2830 Stagecoach) 4.
Southwestern Energy (Appeal 86-7 - 1001 Sain Street) "::';.�.....,,•,,
Jerry Allred (Appeal 86-8.,,- 473 &.477,:N. Gregg)
Bruce T..Reed ( Appeal 86-9-a2106•Bri4rwood) --
,. Fulton-StantomllCo. (Appeal) Eder Circle) "
Roger• & Carol :Baker . (,'Appeal 86-11".- 3065 Quainton,Ct,. )•
•r; :ie 4
01-07-85
01-07-85
01-21-85
02-18-85
02-18-85
02-18-85
02-18-85
03-04-85
03-04-85
04-01-85
04-01-85
04-15-85
05-06-85
05-06-85
05-20-85
06-03-85
07-01-85
07-01-85
07-01-85
07-01-85
07-15-85
07-15-85
08-05-85
08-19-85.
08-30-85
10-07-85
10-07-85
10-07-85
10-07-85
10-07-85
10-21-85
10-21-85
11-20-85
12-16-85
12-16-85
01-06-85
01-06-85
01-06-85
01-06-85
01-20-86
01-27-86 .
0?-17-86'
02-17-86
04-07-86
04-07-86
04-07-86
04 b7-86
07-07-86
07-07-86
07-21-86
08-04-86
08-18-86
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
Jan. - Dec. 1985
n
---------------
--------------f-�ouse
_Iorn S;l
beckn- M11115_�✓2Id.1�h_1(obeFft0j,
("hjtlft2t[teh
January 7, 1985
(
✓
✓
✓�
X
?
(
✓—
January 21, 1985
v
^ --
-
February 4, 1985G1�4�1
1/
February 18, 1985—✓_—
—`
--^
March 4, 1985
March 18, 1985
A10 SeNQ0.
April 1, 1985--
`
,/
,✓_
� ern
April 15, 1985-
May
`
S
✓
✓ ,__��-.
i ✓--
. Ma_ v20 19H5---
--- --
—�-
}
i
1
June 3, 1985
f
j
June 17, 1985
S
July 1, 1985
—_C.----,
f
✓ ✓
(
July 15, 1985 — —
✓ X ✓ ✓�
j
j
—.
August 5, 1985
!
X
✓ }
X
I
f ✓
✓
August.19, 1985
AvVs-t
30
' -September 16, 1985
October.
7,
1985
October
21,
1985
--�^
November
4,
1985 /JO
WeehhIS
November
L8,
1985
December
2,
1985 /11i 0
Y11 Bcfi ��
December
16,
1985
✓ � s
�✓ I✓ y/ y/