Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-10-30 MinutesMINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING The Fayetteville, Arkansas Board of Adjustment met at 3:45 P.M., Monday, 40 October 30, 1972, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Members Present: Albert M. Witte, Carl Yates, Connie Clack, James H. White, Members Absent: Suzanne Lighton, Others Present: Marshall Carlisle, Pete Young, Larry L. Baggett, David McWethy, Marion Orton, Russell Purdy, Bill Bequette, C. T. Zini, Pat Neeley. Chairman Carl Yates called the meeting to order, The first item on the agenda was the public hearing on Appeal 72-30, APPEAL 72-30 Shenandoah Garden Apartments, 1200 East Fifteenth Street, on an SHENANDOAH GARDEN APTS, application to varty minimum lot width, This public hearing had been 1200 Ea 15th Sto postponed from October 9, 1972, because no one appeared at that time to represent the appeal. There had been no opposition present on October 9. Marshall Carlisle, Attorney, was present at this meeting to represent the appeal, He stated they have asked for a variance to canstruct eight units in one building on the South side of the swimming pool with access from Highway 16 By�pass (Fifteenth Street). The ordinance requires 90 ft. of frontage for three or more units. Mr. Carlisle said they could put the parking closer if desirable or spread it out more. He supposed from a fire protection standpoint that the closer they could get in to the building, the better it would be. James White said this was what he had been concerned about, He asked to whom the easements shown were. Carl Yates asked about the possibility of the applicant buying an additional 20 ft. from the property owner to the West so a variance would not be needed. Mr. Carlisle did not think this was possible. There were no further questions. There were no comments from the audience. The public hearing was closed, I I The second item on the agenda was Appeal 72-31, Humble Oil & Refining APPEAL 72.3 Company, 601 West Sixth Street, on an application to vary' setback of sign, tabled from October 9, 1972. There was no one present at this time to discuss the appeal, The third item on the agenda was Appeal 72-32p Larry L. Baggett, 697 West APPEAL 72-32 Center Street, on an application to vary height of sign, continued from LARRY L.BAGGETT October 9. 1972. Mr. Baggett was present. Carl Yates stated that the 697 W. Center S - last time the Board talked to Mr. Baggett they had asked him whether he could move the sign back from University Street. Mr. Baggett said he had checked and that he can move the sign back 43 ft. from the edge of the pavement. The pavement is 21 ft. wide. Mr. Yates said the right-of� way is 42 ft, wide and that assuming that the pavement is in the center of the right-of-way, the sign would be back about 33 ft. from the right- of-way. Mr. Baggett is still requesting a maximum height of 18 ft. Bobbie Jones asked whether placing the sign back from the street right- of-way would eliminate any parking spaces, as those shown when the building permit was issued was the minimum number for the property. Mr. Baggett said this would not eliminate any. The public hearing was closed, 10-30-72 -2- The fourth item on the agenda was the public hearing on Appeal 72-34, APPEAL 72-34 Bill Bequette, 1000 South Washington Avenue, on an application to vary BILL SEQUETTE minimum lot width and minimum lot area for a duplex, continued from 1000 S.Washington October 9, 1972. Mr. Bequette was present. Chairman Yates stated that there had been some ladies present at the October 9 meeting that had some objections to the variance, but the public hearing had been continued since Mr. Bequette could not be heard at the Octobeiro 9 , meeting. Mr. Bequette said he wanted to put a duplex on the property for rental purposes. He did not think it would be feasible to put a single family dwelling on this property from a business standpoint. He thought his building would be an improvement on the lot because it is now a vacant lot with weeds grown up on it, The entry doors to the duplex would be on each side of the building. Parking would be in front and be paved, Mr. Yates asked whether he had investigated the possibility of purchasing a 10 foot strip off the adjoining property, lie said the lady said she would sell 10 ft. but that he could not afford to invest any more in the lot. Albert Witte asked Mr. Bequette to elaborate on his conversation with the ladies who had appeared on October 9 to oppose the appeal. Mr. Bequette said he had talked to Mrs. Atha and Mrs. Hawerton who own the properties on each side of his lot, He had explained what he planned to do. They had made no commitment except to listen. James White asked whether Mr. Bequette planned a fence or anything. He said he had not but would consider one, He had talked to the neighbors in terms of a chain link fence, but would consider a privacy fence because he thought it would be an advantage. There were no further questions. There was no opposition present today. The public hearing was closed. Go To Zini had arrived to represent Appeal 72-31, Humble Oil & Refining APPEAL 72-31 Company, He had obtained and presented a copy of the Arkansas Highway HUMBLE OIL & Department's right-of~way map. They have 40 ft. of right-of,,way where REFINING CO. the station is, and it goes to 60 ft. on the other side of Government 601 WaSixth Avenue. He showed pictures of the station while the recent sign was still up. He said he could not determine whether the sign was or was not on the right-of-way. He said if he could not put it back in the same location, then they were open for suggestions. He said you could see from the � pictures that the sign did not go higher than the building. James White suggested they put the sign on the punp island, Pat Neeley was also present to represent the appeal. They thought a sign on the pump island would be damaged the first time a truck came through; however they discussed this possibility as well as the possibility of locating the sign elsewhere on the property with the Board. James White moved to deny this specific request, but to have the applicant reappraise the situation on the basis of putting the sign on the pump island and have the Board hold the case open until a determination is made on the distance from the right -cif -way (property lines) and height of the building and that they will be permitted to amend the request without the necessity of readvertising if a variance is still needed. Connie Clack seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously. The Board discussed further Appeal 72-30, Shenandoah Garden Apartments, APPEAL 72-30 Inc. Albert Witte asked the other members whether they were troubled by the 70 ft. lot width especially in terms of future development. Mrs, Clack wondered why they had not made allowance for this when they developed the trailer park, and said she guessed they could get a fire truck in to the proposed apartments, Mr. Yates noted that there is vacant property to the West which they have not pursued and said that all things considered he was not in favor of the variance, He did not 10-30-72 -3- consider this a suitable use for this property. Albert Witte moved to deny the variance request. James White seconded 18 the motion. It was approved unanimously to deny the variance, James White said that regarding Appeal 72-32, Larry L. Baggett, he thought the applicant was much better off putting the proposed sign back off the street right-of-way. Mr. White moved to approve the request for a variance in height of sign but to make it conditional on a setback of approximately 30 to 35 ft. from the street right�of- way as shown on the sketch presented by Mr. Baggett. Albert Witte seconded the motion which was approved unanimously, The Board discussed again the appeal of Bill Bequette, Appeal No. 72-34. Mr. Witte said there are two things about�. this situation which bother him. One is the procedure the Board has gotten involved in where three weeks ago they listened to the opponents and now they are listening to the proponents and have not had them face to face. Also, Mr. Witte said he was involved in the recent public hearings on duplexes and was startled by the amount of public feeling on the matter. He said the citizenr7 has very strong feelings. Russell Purdy said he had always been under the impression that variances should not be given because they would enable someone to make financial gain. Mr. Yates said he could not believe having to obtain an additional 10 ft. would throw it from feasible to unfeasible. Albert Witte moved to deny the variance request; Connie Clack seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously, The minutes of the October 9, 1972, Board of Adjustment meeting were approved as mailed. Mr. White asked the Planning Administrator what checks are made on setbacks and other regulations when buildings are built. She explained the procedure of listing the minimum setbacks on the inspection file card which the Inspector uses. This is still dependent on the property owner or contractor being able to locate the property line, Russell Purdy remarked that sometimes when people talking to the Board have their backs to the audience and lower their voices in discussing the variance request the audience cannot always hear the conversation, He asked the Chairman's help in solving this problem, The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 P,MS APPEAL 72-32 APPEAL 72-34 MINUTES