Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-11-19 Minutes• MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, November 198 1990, at 3:45 p.m. in Room Ill of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Dennis Becker, Gerald Boyd, Robert Davis, Dee Wright and Robert Waldren MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Tompkins OTHERS PRESENT: Becky Bryant, Elaine Cattaneo, Katherine Gay, Peter Roe, Joe Paul, and Dennis Harper MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of November 5, 1990 were approved as distributed. \' APPEAL NO. BA90-21 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE BUILDING SETBACK (lye` KATHERINE GAY - 324 SUTTON STREET The second item was Appeal No. BA90-21 for a request for a variance from the building setback submitted by Katherine Gay for property located at 324 Sutton Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request is to vary the bulk and area requirements (building setbacks). Katherine Gay clarified that she isn't asking to build a two -car garage. She noted that the reason for the proposed width is because of the difference in elevation which goes up about 101. Because of the 4' rock wall and hill, there isn't any way to turn toward the house very easily. She noted that the staff felt the width seems to be excessive, but she is only trying to get parking for isone car. If it was street level, she could just drive right in. The other point she wanted to make is that after discussing this with her builder, they decided that this plan would be more visually and aesthetically pleasing from the street than trying to build a tunnel walkway and carport at the street. She added that she has tried to design something that would look good with the existing roof structure of the house. As far as the four criteria, she noted that special conditions and circumstances peculiar to the land would be the narrowness of the lot and the fact that the only way to get the car off the street is to come up the driveway and park by the house. Ms. Gay noted that the staff says that two -car covered parking is not the standard of older neighborhoods. She realizes that the Board doesn't look at what other people have in terms of a variance. But she thinks that covered parking is the standard of that neighborhood. There are twenty-five houses that either front on Sutton or on the corner. Of those, seventeen houses have covered parking. Of that seventeen, twelve have garages that are built on the property line because all of those lots are so narrow. As far as the criteria the literal interpretation of the provisions of the ordinance would deprive her of rights commonly enjoyed, she would submit that covered parking is a right commonly enjoyed, based on the percentage of houses in that three block area that have covered parking. On criteria that special conditions and circumstances do not result from her actions, this house has been there for many years. On criteria that granting the variance will not confer a special privilege - having a carport is not a prohibited use. She feels that she has met the criteria. She noted that she isn't aware of any opposition by the neighbors. The gentleman, who owns the house directly to the west, is happy to have her enhance his property values, because this will actually create some privacy. In answer to a question from Ms. Wright, Me. Gay stated that the house that recently built a carport is on the other side of the street about three houses • away. The street is only about three blocks long. In her block, one side of the street is 4E with the street; the other side is about 10' above the street and she lives on the high side. ,109 • Board of Adjustment November 19, 1990 Page 2 Mr. Becker stated that the diagram she has submitted is not quite accurate. He noted that the photos seem to show that there is more room than the diagram suggests. Me. Gay stated that the diagram doesn't take into consideration the elope of the lot. She noted that the sewer line runs under the driveway. Mr. Becker stated that the sewer line doesn't seem to present a problem. He noted that the diagram makes her case look more critical that it really is. In answer to a question from Chairman Mille, Ms. Gay stated that she plans to put either a fence or a trellis in the 18' area along side of the carport. Chairman Mills advised that the 5' setback provision in the ordinance states that the carport has to be open on three sides. Ms. Gay stated that she really plane to put in a trellis which is more like a breezeway affect. It would give visual privacy, but not be the same as a wall. Mr. Boyd asked why she could not move her carport back toward the rear of the house in that "L" shaped area. Ms. Gay stated that they probably could, but there are drainage problems. She has had a lot of trouble as far as the cellar taking water and drainage from the back. They have tried to design this so as to avoid any serious drainage problems. Ms. Wright stated that there are a lot of covered parking facilities on that street. There being no one else wanting to speak to this, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Becker stated that he is opposed to the variance, because he feels that there • are other solutions that would be better. He added that the photographs don't bear out her contentions that this is the only way she could use her property. He noted that they need to consider the health, safety, and welfare aspect of a combustible structure next to the property line. Mr. Boyd stated that they need to be consistent with what has been done with other lots in that general area. He feels that if they worked a little harder they could find a solution. It could be moved somewhere else in the yard. Ms. Wright stated that she wouldn't be opposed to this if it isn't a fire hazard and doesn't hurt the neighbor's property. Mr. Waldren agreed that there is probably another solution. MOTION Mr. Boyd moved to deny the variance, seconded by Davis. The motion passed 4-1-0 with Becker, Boyd, Davis, 6 Waldren voting "yes" and Wright voting "no", \/ APPEAL NO RA90-22 - REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE `/J(\ JOB PAUL - 668 GRAY AVENUE The third item was appeal No. BA90-22 submitted by Peter Roe on behalf of Joe Paul for property located at 668 Gray Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request was to vary bulk and area requirements. Peter Roe, representing Joe Paul who owns the property, stated that they have racked their brain for any possibility for getting an automobile under cover next to the house. This is the only solution they have come up with without having to build a completely different driveway on the opposite side of the property. • There is a steep slope. There was a garage on this house that was converted into an office about ten years ago. Mr. Paul's main concern was, with a small child, they wanted to be able to put their car up against the house under cover • Board of Adjustment November 19, 1990 Page 3 to be able to walk from the car into the house in inclement weather. Originally, they discussed taking the existing garage(that can barely fit a small foreign car), knocking out the northern wall and moving it over to the very edge of the existing house. This would make a double car garage enclosed within the setback requirements. Unfortunately, after the electricity, gas and air conditioning would be moved, the moving of the wall would be prohibitively expensive. They then decided on a carport and Mr. Paul went to the bank and applied for a loan. Given the plan and the amount of money they have to work with, the bank required another survey. When this was resurveyed, a mistake was found. The whole property shifted about 3' to the south. A row of trees had been planted where the line was located with the first survey. The surveyor who did the survey ten years ago, is now dead. He noted that the 3' Bhift to the south encroached upon their carport idea. Therefore, they are requesting a variance in order to get their automobiles in. There needs to be at least 13' between the house proper and the edge of the carport which would bring them to 1,75' from the property line. One of the things the staff had stated in their recommendation is that they didn't feel it was an inherent right to have a carport in the neighborhood. To him that is just an opinion. The ordinance doesn't read in terms of inherent or not inherent. He advised that, between Maple and Cleveland, there are twelve houses with five having attached two -car carports; four of them have one -car carports, which could be expanded to two -car within the setback requirements; two have detached garages; and only one not having a carport or a garage. Mr. Paul can barely fit their little car in their existing carport and can't fit their station wagon, which is the car they use when transporting their child. He noted that he thinks this is a special circumstance. He noted that Gray Street wasn't even paved in 1980 which shows that this isn't a typical developed area. The only reason this house does not • meet the non -conforming circumstances is because of the size of the lot. If it was non -conforming, they would have been able to build an open -sided carport with a 5' setback. He presented a letter from the neighbor to the north who approves of the variance request. There is also a letter from one of the neighbors across the street Baying that she has no objections. Joe Paul stated that there reasons for the carport proposal were for cover for their cars to protect their investment, to be able to get in and out of the car without being in the weather with their child, and to enhance the property value. He noted that Gray Street is very narrow, and they wanted to be able to provide parking for guests Bo that they would not have to park on the street, causing an extreme traffic hazard. Mr. Roe stated that as far as the part about Mr. Paul not having any special privileges, there is at least one house in the neighborhood, on the corner of Cleveland and Gray, which is within 4' of the right-of-way of the street itself. There being no one else wanting to speak, the public hearing was closed. In answer to a question from Mr. Waldren, Mr. Roe stated that the original garage was an office, which they gutted and tried to make into a garage, but it wouldn't accommodate both cars. aRp 5t C Mr. Becker asked if they had looked into the possibility of putting the g�'t3i;e in the front. Mr. Paul stated that there is a huge maple tree that would have to be destroyed, and they would have to look out their dining room into the carport. Ms. Wright asked how close the house to the north is to the property line. Mr. Roe stated that it is at least 10' and their are no windows on that side of the • house to the north. Mr. Paul noted that there are only honeysuckle bushes between their house and the one to the north, because the row of trees is further to the west, so there would still be a fire lane there. • Board of Adjustment November 19, 1990 Page 4 In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Roe stated that they planned 13' of width which includes the roof line. This 13' is needed in order to bring the automobiles in and turn affectively. He noted that when an automobile is in a garage with the doors open, there is more than 8' needed. If they could obtain a varinace by subtracting a foot from it, they would be willing to do that. There was considerable discussion about how wide the garage would need to be and still accommodate two cars. Ms. Wright stated that she is in favor of granting the variance because she doesn't see this as being a fire hazard and it would enhance the property value. Mr. Waldren stated that he would be more inclined to be in favor of a variance, if it were giving them a 5' setback instead of what is being requested. Mr. Boyd agreed that he would be more in favor of a 5' setback also. Chairman Mills stated that she thinks they could do a smaller carport. MOTION Mr. Boyd moved to grant a variance to allow them to have a 5' setback from the side property line, seconded by Davis. The motion passed 4-1-0 with Wright, Boyd, Davis, & Waldren voting "yes" and Becker voting "no". APPEAL NO BA90-23 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM BUILDING SETBACKS • DENNIS HARPER - 1645 SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE The fourth item was appeal No. BA90-23 for a request for a variance from the building setbacks submitted by Dennis Harper on behalf of Littlefield Oil Company for property located at 1645 South School. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Dennis Harper, representing the petitioner, stated that they would like to put up a canopy over the two existing gasoline islands. This is non -conforming as far as the pump island setting too close to the street. He noted that the staff has requested that this variance be denied. He added that he talked with the owners, and they have stated that they would be willing to cut that canopy at an angle so that it would not be overhanging half of the setback. He noted that his company, Hughey & Associates, are doing all the remodeling for them, and the owners have asked him to represent them at this meeting. He advised that they have authorized him to make any decisions for them in this case. Elaine Cattaneo, Planning Secretary, noted that there is a letter of authorization in the file for Mr. Harper to represent Littlefield Company. He noted that having a canopy would possibly help their business. The extra lighting for safety reasons would probably help business. Mr. Davis stated that he is concerned about how old this station is and the facts that the gasoline tanks are buried under a concrete slab. Mr. Boyd stated that there are tires dumped in the ditch behind the station and oil lift. Mr. Harper stated that these are safety hazards. He advised that Littlefield has gotten new people in to run the business, and they are trying to clean the property up so that it will be a respectable business. • In answer to a question from Mr. Waldren, Mr. Harper stated that the canopy would have a 15' clearance. 930 • Board of Adjustment November 19, 1990 Page 5 Chairman Mills stated that there would be room to move the non -conforming pump island back. Mr. Harper stated that is a possibility, but it would be cost prohibitive. He noted that they could cut back the canopy so that it wouldn't be so close to the street. He added that he understands they don't want to grant them special consideration that the other service stations wouldn't get, but there are existing structures that are closer to the street than this. Mr. Becker stated that if they granted a 10' variance, the customers would still get wet because the canopy would only cover the inside. Mr. Davis advised that he had checked into who is responsible for the ecology and dumping aspect. The tanks would have to be tested. He noted that if there was a leak, it would feed right into the White River, which feeds into Beaver Lake. He noted the County is going to look into this. Mr. Boyd asked if this is a general overall remodeling. Mr. Harper answered, yes, they are doing renovations for the new management. He advised that the EPA has a schedule which states that everyone has to be up to the new specifications by a certain deadline. Mr. Davis stated he thinks there are important things to be looked at on this property, first, as far as the line testing, etc., before the Board of Adjustment look at it. Mr. Waldren noted that the EPA does require all tanks to be pressure tested once a year. • Mr. Harper stated that he agrees that the safety aspects are more important than dressing up the place. He noted that Fina, which is the company fitting the bill, would most likely argue the point that they can't do anything until they get their name on it. There being no one else wanting to speak, the public hearing was closed. MOTION Mr. Davis moved to deny the variance until the other factors are taken care of and followed by discussion. Chairman Mills stated that her feeling is that, if they put a canopy over the pump island that is extending out, they would be contributing to a non -conforming structure in an area of extremely heavy traffic. She noted that there is enough room to move the pump island back. Mr. Becker agreed and stated that, even if they put the canopy at an angle or cut it off, they would only be getting 50% efficiency out of it. He added that this is not a hardship situation in his opinion. This could be moved to the south. Mr. Waldren stated that he agrees that there is no hardship situation. Mr. Waldren seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-0, OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Mills advised that all the members had been given a copy of the latest revision of the new Rules for the Board of Adjustment. • MOTION ,�3t • Board of Adjustment November 19, 1990 Page 6 Mr. Waldren moved to adopt the new Rules for the Board of Adjustment, seconded by Boyd. The motion passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. • • a32