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