Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-09-21 Minutes• • • [a olk 0JOY p`isioilY:I*aSION1*J OZO7 Mi l 0IOR9 U u I:A: Y7 a i 9:* A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, September 21, 1987 at 3:45 p.m. in Room Ill of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Jerry Allred, Gerald Boyd, Dennis Becker and Larry Tompkins MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Waldren OTHERS PRESENT: Raymond O.W. Jones, Jacob & Carol Phillips, Elton Duncan, James & Peggy Bell, John and Martha -Katherine Taylor, Sandra Carlisle and Tessi Franzmeier MINUTES The minutes of the August 17, 1987 meeting were approved as distributed. APPEAL 87-16 - VARIANCE ON SETBACKS RAYMOND O.W. JONES - LOT 5. BLOCK 4 FAIRLAND ADDITION The first item of consideration was a request submitted by Raymond O.W. Jones to vary the required setbacks from 25' on the east and west to 15' on the east and west. Property zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Mr. Jones stated the lot in question was a pie shaped lot. He said the largest part of the was lot 77' long and noted the required 25' on each side would not leave very much to build a home. He said in order for this piece of property to be productive at all would be for a variance to be granted. He said the City wants him to either fix up the building that exists there now or destroy the building. He said he would agree to take the existing structure down if he could recieve a variance to construct a new structure on the lot. Mr. Jones noted that other homes on Lytton street encroached into the setbacks because they were built before the setback ordinance. Boyd asked what was to the east of the property in question. Carlisle noted that Fletcher street was platted, but that it had never gone through because of the grade at that location. Boyd asked what was the reason Mr. Jones did not bring the structure closer to the south boundary. Mr. Jones explained the code I • Board of Adjustment September 21, 1987 Page 2 required 8' on the south side and Boyd said the structure still could be moved closer because of additional land beyond the 8" Tompkins said he was unclear of the Major Street Plan. Carlisle said Fletcher was platted to come off Assembly or Mt. Sequoyah then to come down and hook up with Hwy 16. She added this had been fought and won by all the residents in that area. Tompkins asked if Fletcher was a major street and Carlisle replied "no" and that it had been planned to come down and join with Morningside, but that Fletcher at that point had been taken off the Major Street Plan. Mr. Jones advised the Board that a 15' variance had been obtained by a Mr. Hunnicut prior to this request. Tompkins said what really bothered him was that the City had come in taken ROW for the platter Fletcher Street, now the City had abandoned Fletcher and asked what happened to the ROW that the City took. Carlisle said the plan had been taken away but the street was still platted. Mills asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak for or against this appeal. • There was no one in the audience to speak either for or against this petition. Carlisle advised a letter had been taken from a phone conversation in the Planning office. She noted the letter was in opposition to the size of the lot. Property owner being Robert E. Witter, 512 Lytton. Mills closed the public hearing and returned discussion to the Board of Adjustment. Boyd said the person who complained by telephone addressed the size of the lot and Boyd advised in his opinion this was not a particularly small lot and was not a large lot, but just an oddly shaped lot (200' long X 78' deep). He felt the shape of the lot was the hardship for this appeal, also if granted would not have any effect on Mr. Witters complaint for more privacy. Tompkins said he had no problem with the west side, but felt that the other side could be moved closer to the 8' setback. Becker advised Mr. Jones to look into the vacation of the platted Fletcher Street. Possibly the Board of Directors could abandon that, which would give Mr. Jones more property to work with. • MOTION • Board of Adjustment September 21, 1987 Page 3 Becker moved to grant the variance as requested, seconded by Boyd. The motion to grant the variance as requested passed 3-1-0, Boyd, Becker and Allred voting "yes" and Tompkins voting "nay". APPEAL 87-17 - SETBACK VARIANCE JACOB & CAROL PHILLIPS - 1114 VALLEY VIEW DRIVE The second item of consideration was a request submitted by Jacob and Carol Phillips to vary the setback requirements from the required 8' on the north to the requested 5' on the north. Property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. Jacob Phillips stated the request for the variance on the north side of his property evolved around a mistake he had made. He said he owned the property to the north, but it was on the market for sale. He said in order to replace the lost space he needed to build a shop building on his lot. He said he checked with the City on the rules (setback). Mr. Phillips advised he took a 1OX10 building and set it on a slab which was to close to the • required setback. Mr. Tompkins asked if the building was finished and Mr. Phillips replied "no" it was not finished. Tompkins asked what the cost would be to move the building back. Mr. Jacob said a bunch and he would just have to take it down and excavate the ground to make it flat. Mills asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak for or against this petition. Ruth Cohoon who lives to the north of the Phillips' felt the appeal should be granted because it would give her more privacy and possibly help the water flow in her yard. Boyd said if the building was moved 3' to the south it would be legal. Mr. Phillips said if he moved the building 3' to the south it would block the windows on his home. Boyd said the thing was if Mr. Phillips would have asked for permission from plans the answer would have been "no". He said the Board tends to discourage people going ahead and doing things and then coming in and asking for a variance. Mills closed the public hearing and returned discussion to the Board of Adjustment members. Tompkins felt the building was well done and that the • neighborhood was very nice. He said he had some concern about the hardship in regards to the topography and could certainly IN . Board of Adjustment September 21, 1987 Page 4 understand that. He said he was concerned about what happens in the future, in other words what if Mr. Phillips sold the home and the workshop turned into a dwelling unit. He said if there was a fire he would be very concerned that it would burn very quickly and being very near to the home to the north. He said the fire safety alone to the adjoining property was to great. Becker felt the fire code was a good point and felt that there could be a problem for the house to the north and added he would have to vote against the variance as requested. MOTION Allred moved to deny the variance as requested, seconded by Tompkins. The motion to deny passed 4-0-0: APPEAL 87-19 - SETBACK VARIANCE & BULK AND AREA REQUIREME1VX ELTON • 00 SALEM ROAD The Third item of consideration was a request submitted by Elton IS Duncan to vary the bulk and area requirement and the setback requirement. Bulk and Area requirement is 3 acres for a mobile home and Mr. Duncan is requesting .84 acres,= -setback requirement is 100' from all property lines and Mr. Duncan is requesting '25' on the south side. Property is zoned A-1, Agricultural. Mr. Duncan explained that his sisters husband was in Sunrise Manor. He added his sister would like to buy a trailer and set it on his property if they received a variance from this Board. Mr. Duncan said he had plenty of room and did not feel that the trailer would distract from other homes or his. He said he had to transport his sister back and forth to the hospital because she did not drive. He said if they could get her as close, as possible they would be helping her out. Mills advised a letter had been received by Mr. James Kimbrough who adjoins Mr. Duncans property. Mr. Kimbrough said the affect of the mobile home would have on his property as to the property value of Kimbroughs' home. There was some question about the platting of Mr. Duncans property. Carlisle advised some older deeds read across the road or across the ROW. Boyd asked if this property was in the Fayetteville City Limits and Carlisle replied "yes" it was in the Fayetteville City • Limits. Mills asked Mr. Duncan if sewer was available in that area of b� • Board of Adjustment September 21, 1987 Page 5 town and Mr. Duncan said he had a 1,500 gal. septic tank, but he had heard the City had some plans to run a sewer line down Clever Creek just below him. He said if that was ever done then he would hook on to the sewer. Mills asked what type of system did Mr. Duncan plan for the mobile home. Mr. Duncan said it would be attached to his septic tank. Carlisle advised the Planning Commission had formed a new Committee last week. She said it was a committee for some type of elderly housing and to help take care of the elderly. She added Fred Hanna was the Chairman of that Committee. Tompkins asked if Mr. Duncan had plans to build more structures and Mr. Duncan replied he had no plans to build anything. Tompkins asked Mr. Duncan if a temporary use permit would be adequate and Mr. Duncan felt temporary would not work because it would depend on how his sisters husband got along. Carlisle advised a permit was issued for a temporary mobile home use. She explained there was a $25.00/year charge and no complaints had been received by the Planning Office. Tompkins asked how long • the other trailers across the road had been there. Mr. Duncan said the mobile homes were there before the property was annexed into the City Limits. Boyd said there were some fairly new and expensive homes in that area and thought they might have been built in anticipation of the zoning that existed. Boyd added the two mobile homes across the road would wear out eventually. Boyd felt as long as a committee was under consideration, that a decision should be made to waite until the grounds were developed a litte more. Mills noted that could be sometime Mr. Duncan said the trailer would not be a rent place and it would not be there always. He said if he should ever sell, the mobile home would not be left there. Mills asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this petition. David Hanson requested the Board of Adjustment deny this appeal because he did not want a mobile home at his back door. Terry Kimbrough stated that her and her husband did not want the variance granted. She said they had offered to buy the property where the existing 2 trailers were located. She said the lady who owned the property was going to sell, but then changed her • mind. She said if they would have been able to purchase the land they were going to move the 2 existing mobile homes off the \Jv • Board of Adjustment September 21, 1987 Page 6 property. Mills closed the public hearing and returned discussion to the Board of Adjustment members. Tompkins said he could understand what had been said on both sides and felt the need for elderly housing was extremely important. He added as much as he agreed with the need, he felt the intent of the ordinance should be upheld and was inclined to disagree with the request. MOTION Becker moved to deny the variance as requested, seconded by Allred. The motion to deny passed 4-0-0. Mills announced that the Phillips had spoken with Freeman Wood and he had said there would be no problem with fire code. She said the Phillips would like to come back to this meeting at the end of Other Business. • MOTION Allred moved to rehear Appeal 87-17 because of additional information from Freeman Wood, seconded by Becker. The motion to rehear at the end of Other Business passed 4-0-0. APPEAL 87-20 - SETBACK VARIANCE JAMES & PEGGY BELL - 1534 TERRY The fourth item of consideration was a request submitted by James & Peggy Bell for a variance in the required setbacks. Required setback on the north side is 8' and the Bells' are requesting 0' on the north side. Property zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. James Bell stated they had constructed an arbor to allow a vine to grown on. He said they did not pull a building permit and was then informed a building permit would be required with the required setbacks being met. He said the arbor was completed and an inspector came out for the final inspection and the Bells' were advised that the arbor was well into the required setback. Boyd asked if a sketch was included with the building permit and Mr. Bell replied "yes". Carlisle advised when the building permit was issued the sketch showed the arbor to be within the • required setbacks. Boyd asked if the roof over the arbor did not come within the 8' setback, would there still be an objection. Carlisle replied there would be no objection to the roof if it U3 • Board of Adjustment September 21, 1987 Page 7 were detached from the fence and was 8' away from the fence. Becker asked if the roof was detached from the house would there be a problem with the setback requirements. Carlisle advised the arbor was considered a structure and would have to meet all required setbacks. Allred asked what type of foundation did the arbor have and Mr. Bell replied it was a grass foundation with columns. Mills asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak for or against this petition. There being no opposition the public hearing was closed and discussion returned to the Board of Adjustment members. MOTION Tompkins moved to deny the variance as requested, seconded by Boyd. The motion to deny passed 4-0-0. • APPEAL 87-21 - SETBACK VARIANCE WANDA BLEVINS - 16 S. WEST The fifth item of consideration was a request submitted by Wanda Blevins to vary the required setbacks. Required setback for the south side is 30' from the street ROW and the requested setback from the south side of the street ROW was 16118". Property zoned R-O, Residential District, Mrs. Blevins was not at this meeting and there was no one to represent her appeal. MOTION Allred moved to table this item for 2 weeks, seconded by Tompkins. The motion to table passed 4-0-0. Ili*):i • •• • The sixth item of consideration was a request submitted by John & Martha -Katherine Taylor to vary the bulk and area requirement from the required 1 acre to .53 acres for a Sorority House. Also requesting a reduction in the required amount of parking spaces, required 42 spaces and requesting 32 spacings. Property zoned • R-3, High Density Residential District. Tompkins went on record saying that the parking variance was not V� • Board of Adjustment September 21, 1987 Page 8 an appropriate appeal for the Board of Adjustment to hear. He said this Board dealt with bulk, area and setbacks and did not deal with land use. Carlisle advised the Board of Adjustment had dealt with the parking variances in the past. Allred noted that the Planning Commission had approved the parking variance for the Mosque. Boyd questioned if the plan as presented was within the setback requirements. Carlisle advised she checked the plan and it was within the setback requirements. Mr. Taylor pointed out that there were 3-4 beautiful trees on the lots in question and he would like to keep the trees if possible. Mr. Taylor also said 32 spaces were scaled according to the City Ordinance for required parking spaces. Mills noted the Taylors' were also asking that 30% of the spaces be compact rather than the required 20%. • Boyd felt before a decision could be made a better plan should be submitted. He said they did not know if the proposed building would be 2-stories or 10-stories high. It was decided that a written opinion from the City Attorney would be required before either Board could act on variances for parking requirements. Mills advised to split this appeal and that the Board of Adjustment would hear the bulk and area part of this petition and that the Planning Commission hear the remaining parking variance. iar:,uria Allred moved to hear the bulk and area request and make a suggestion to the Planning Commission on the parking variance, seconded by Tompkins. The motion passed as stated 3-1-0, Allred, Tompkins and Boyd voting "yes" and Becker voting "nay". Mills advised from this point the hearing would be based on the bulk and area requirement as requested from Mr. Taylor. Tompkins advised his calculations showed the property to contain .53 acres. Tompkins added that even with the one acre requirement and Mr. Taylor having .53 there would be problems. • Carlisle advised an error was on the agenda as mailed out. She noted the zoning should be R-3 rather than R-2, and the acreage requirement should be 1 acre rather than 2 acres. V� • Board of Adjustment September 21, 1987 Page 9 Tompkins said now he could understand the 1 acre requirement and what was permitted under the R-3 requirement. Tompkins said he did not see something that was not granted to others. He added almost all the fraternities and Sororities have less than 1 acre. He said he did not see a problem with the expansion of the proposed Sorority. Allred said they had been encouraging on Arkansas avenue with a number of appeals. He said as far as the bulk and area variance he would be in favor of granting this variance. Boyd felt turning existing structures into fraternities or sororities was different than tripling or quadrupling the size of an existing structure. He said that with 50 girls living there and 50 guys trying to find available parking there was going to be a big problem. Mr. Taylor noted that Mr. Diaz was going to do the architectural work on proposed plans. • Boyd said the existing house could probably be made to take care of 10-12 people. Boyd said there was a potential problem of having a full blown Sorority on that corner. Mr. Taylor noted the house that adjoined this one would be taken down. 4CO 10 COP I Allred moved to grant the bulk and area variance as requested, seconded by Tompkins. The motion to grant the bulk and area part of the petition passed 3-1-0, Allred, Tompkins and Becker voting "yes" and Boyd voting "nay". Allred felt the parking situation to be extremely critical. He said he would even consider putting less spaces in, and have the students park wherever, rather than have them jammed up in one lot. He said he would rather have adequate parking as to jammed up parking. Mr. Taylor said he would be willing to do that and added on the north side of the Speach and Hearing clinic there was parking available from 5:00p.m. until 7:00 a.m. Mills said she did not think it would be allowed to use the University parking lot for the use of the Sorority. She said the parking lot was for University students and not a public parking lot. • Mr. Taylor advised that lot was a University restricted lot just like all the rest of them around the University. He noted the sign said the lot was restricted from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. N • Board of Adjustment September 21, 1987 Page 10 Tompkins said parking was extremely critical in this area and with a proper design another 7 spaces could be obtained by moving the design a little. Mills said she had a problem with the parking and so many of the people come and say they know there's not adequate parking but we'll find a place. Carlisle advised Mr. Taylor was getting with an architect with hopes of drawing up a better plan. Carlisle noted the plan that the Board of Adjustment was looking at was not "the plan". Mills asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak for or against this petition. Frank Endabrock stated he was in favor of the required parking. Mills requested the feeling of the Board of Adjustment should be heard at the Planning Commission when Mr. Taylor attends the Planning Commission meeting to receive a variance on the required • parking. APPEAL 87-17 - SETBACK VARIANCE JACOB & CAROL PHILLIPS - 1114 VALLEY VIEW DRIVE This item was heard and denied by the Board of Adjustment as item number 2 of the above minutes. A motion was made to rehear the appeal because of some pertinent information as to the Fire Code, Mr. Phillips stated he spoke with Freeman Wood and. Mr. Wood felt there would be no problem if the wall was a one -hour or 2-hour fire wall and meeting all codes that the Inspection Department would require. Mr. Phillips said he would do whatever it took to make his building comply with City Ordinances. Allred said he voted against the first variance based upon the fire code situation. He said now felt if the neighbors did not have a problem with it and Freeman Wood did not have a problem then he would change his vote and vote for the variance. Becker felt if the Phillips' could keep the building in compliance with the Code then he would not have a problem with it and reconsider his vote. Tompkins said he was not talking about a fire code, but a fire • hazard and felt meeting at least a minimum side yard should still be required. 4*0\ • Board of Adjustment September 21, 1987 Page 11 Boyd agreed with Tompkins. MOTION Becker moved to grant the variance as requested, seconded by Allred. The motion to grant the variance failed to pass 2-3-0. Becker and Allred voting "yes" and Tompkins, Boyd and Mills voting "nay". OTHER BUSINESS Boyd advised he was the next one to start attending the Planning Commission meetings for the next quarter. He advised that he would not be able to attend the first meeting. Becker said that Boyd had substituded for him so Becker would attend the first meeting for Boyd. Don Mills would be the alternate for Gerald Boyd. Becker said he picked one item up at the Planning Commission meeting saying that a street light would be installed at the • intersection of Milsap and Hwy 71. Mills stated if a member missed 3 consecutive meetings they would be automatically off the Board. She advised Dennis Moore had missed his third consecutive meeting. She said she met with him this afternoon and told him that he would not be allowed to sit on the Board and that he was automatically removed from the Board of Adjustment roster. There being no further business the meeting adjourned about 7:00 p.m. • N