Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-05-14 MinutesMINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING The Fayetteville Board of Adjustment met at 3:30 P.M., Monday, May 14, 1973, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Members Present: Carl Yates, Albert Witte, James H. White, Connie Clack. Members Absent: Suzanne Lighton. Others Present: B. H. Unger, Don Pitts, Mr. & Mrs. Ralph McCulloch, Mrs. Otis Porter, James Porter, James A. Pennington, Bob Huff, David Faught, Ray White, Harold Lieberenz. Chairman Carl Yates called the meeting to order. Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal No. 73-14, Mr. & Mrs. B. H. Unger, 2431 Mt. Comfort Road, on an application to vary minimum lot width. B. H. Unger was present to represent the appeal. He stated he has a s --II-- 93, APPEAL 73-14 B. H. UNGER 2431 Mt. Comfort lot 110 ft. wide and 660 feet deep on which he wants to build a second house for his daughter. The second house would be on the back part of the lot and there would be some 300 feet or so between the two houses. His daughter has sold her house and he said he has all this land and it is hard to keep up this much ground. Chairman Yates said the Planning Administrator had told him the drawing prepared by the Planning Office is a little in error. He asked Mr. Unger if it is the property with the trailer houses on it. Mr. Unger said it is not. Don Pitts was also present to speak on behalf of the application. They want to build the house so that if the property behind is ever developed and a street is opened up in the future, they would have access there. They plan to build a house 52 ft. wide by 26 ft. deep and face it to the South. James White asked if the tract would be divided. Don Pitts told him it would stay in one ownership. Albert Witte asked Mr. Unger if he had any other plans for the future. Mr. Unger said he just wanted this one other house. The Board was told that Mr. Unger had taken this matter to the Planning Commission as a large scale development because the property contains more than one acre. The Commission had approved the plan contingent upon the Board of Adjustment granting a variance on lot width The lot has 110 ft of width; 140 ft. is needed. Adjoining property owners present were Mr. & Mrs. Ralph McCulloch, Mrs. Otis Porter and her son James Porter. They said that the maps they had gotten were in error as to which property Mr. Unger owned. Chairman Yates said the Board is aware of this mistake and that as long as the Board understands what property they are talking about he did not see any problem. Mrs. Porter said they had been talking about opening up a street across their property which would touch the Unger property on the South and she thought the ideal way to face a house would be to the South. Mrs. McCulloch had some questions about whether any street put through there would have to come across their property. Chairman Yates said this would have to go through the Planning Commission. He asked if either of them opposed Mr. Unger building the second house. The McCullochs and the Porters said they did not oppose the house as long as it is placed on Mr. Ungerts property and not theirs. There were no other questions. The public hearing was concluded. J Board of Adjustment 5-14-73 -2- Bob Huff requested a review of the Board of Adjustment action taken BOB'S STUDIO on Appeal No. 71-5 for property located at 109 North Block Avenue. 109 North Block • Byron 0. Boyd had filed the appeal in order to construct a commercial (Appeal 71-5 building, Bobs Studio. Board of Adjustment action had been taken Brennan -Boyd Const) November 1, 1971, and allowed 2 parking spaces in front of the building which is located less than 50 ft. from the street right -of way. The 2 spaces were to be worked out in a manner acceptable to Harold Lieberenz, Inspection Superintendent. Mr. Huff said he has tried what the contractor and Mr. Lieberenz worked out and it just will not work. He had consulted Ernest Jacks with the problem. Mr. Huff displayed two separate drawings prepared by Mr. Jacks. One contained two parking spaces and the other contained three parking spaces. Both contained some landscaping and both would necessitate cars backing out into the right-of-way. Mr. Huff said he was trying to use landscaping to control the flow of the traffic and also to divorce his business from Maxine's Tap Room. Mr. Lieberenz had thought this was too great a change and asked that Mr. Huff bring the matter back to the Board of Adjustment for review. Mr. Huff stated he felt the drawing with 3 parking spaces would give better balance and better landscaping. He wanted to get this all resolved because the sidewalk is all to be torn up by Urban Renewal and they have told him that if he can have a plan ready for his property it will help. He said he preferred 3 parking spaces in front, but would accept 2. Albert Witte said he noticed the Board of Adjustment action in November of 1971 had contained the conditions that there be only 2 parking spaces and that they not be permitted to back into the street. He asked Mr. Huff if he was asking to have both of these conditions changed. At 4:10 P.M. the Board asked Mr. Lieberenz to come in and consult with them. Mr. Huff said he had not been aware that he was not supposed to • have cars back into the street until he got to the meeting in 1971. They had then decided to park two cars headed into Maxine's Tap Room. The Board asked Mr. Lieberenz if he considered the sidewalk to be part of the street. Mr. Lieberenz said he would interpret the sidewalk to be in the street. Chairman Yates said Mr. Huff is asking for two things: 1) To increase the number of parking spaces to three, and 2) To waive the requirement that he not back out into the street. Mr. Lieberenz said you either have to do the maneuvering on private property or get on the sidewalk and the sidewalk is public property. He and Mr. Huff discussed the possible danger involved in trying to do all the maneuvering on Mr. Huff's because of the difference in terrain between Mr. Huff's lot and the adjoining lot on the North. There is some danger of a car backing over a retaining wall. Mr. Lieberenz said he personally thought the plan Mr. Huff now has is a good plan if the Urban Renewal people will go along with it, because of the landscaping he proposes which is much better than he had in the original plan and Mr. Lieberenz said he knew Mr. Huff had wrestled with this thing for many months. They have talked about it from time to time. Mr. Huff said that presently most of his customers park in front of his building and that he has a parking lot in back which is almost inaccessible due to the condition of the alley. He said he thought it would be used more after the alley is improved under the Urban Renewal Program. Dave Faught with the Housing Authority arrived at 4:25 P.M. to discuss this with the Board. Chairman Yates asked him what the feeling of Urban Renwwal is on this request or whether it would interfere with anything they have planned. He said this all took place before the Housing Authority had any right for any action. There is really nothing that the Authority has any control over in an existing situation. There is nothing here that the Authority can either approve or turn down. Urban Renewal does not control 20 • • Board of Adjustment 5-14-73 -3- parking; this is left to the City. Urban Renewal's basic plans for Block Avenue concerns a street improvement using the same basic paving widths, a storm sewer, replacing sidewalks and curbing, and tying in driveways. There is no problem with this in any way with what the Housing Authority has proposed. There were no further questions. Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal No. 73-15, James A. Pennington, Pennington Construction Company, 14 West Township Road on an application to vary setbacks. Mr. Pennington was present. He said the City is requiring 20 ft. for widening of right-of-way for Township Road. Mr. Pennington said he had originally thought he would not need a variance, but the size building he wants makes for a bad situation with a little creek in there. There is a branch of that creek that gets in where he wants to put his building and he is afraid it would cause the building to settle. James White asked how this building would line up with Luther Flora's and Pat Tobin's. It was decided they would be the same distance from the street right-of-way. Mr. Pennington said he builds houses and wants the building to put a cabinet shop in and to use to build trusses and anything else they can build there more economically than it can be done on the building site. He also said he might rent out a portion of the building. There were no questions from the audience. The public hearing was concluded. Albert Witte asked the other members of the Board how they felt about the problem of the creek on Appeal No. 73-15, James A. Pennington, both APPEAL 73-15 in general and in relation to this appeal. Connie Clack said she hated to turn one down when the Board has started letting others do it; however previous variances granted were not to be considered in an application. She said she had no particular objection to granting this variance. Chairman Yates said they still have the same problem as the others, but it may not be as severe in this case. Albert Witte said that what bothers him is visibility, but under the circumstances he moved to grant the variance on Appeal No. 73-15 as requested. James White seconded the motion. Clack, White, and Witte voted "Aye"; Yates abstained because his wife and Mr. Pennington's wife are related. The variance was granted. Connie Clack said she thought what Mr. Huff is proposing is better than what was originally shown on Appeal 71-5. Mr. White said it is also better than what exists next door and what will continue to exist there. Mr. Witte said Mr. Huff has convinced him that he is trying to up -grade the area. James White moved to grant the request for a revision to allow 3 spaces as proposed. Albert Witte seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. APPEAL 73-15 JAMES A. PENNINGTON 14 West Township BOB'S STUDIO Regarding Appeal 73-14, B. H. Unger, James White said that in view of the development there now, it would be in order to grant this variance particularly in view of what the other people had to say about the possibility of a street going in there. Albert Witte said he was not opposed to another house out there. Mrs. Clack agreed. Albert Witte moved that the variance request be approved. Connie Clack seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. The minutes of the April 23, 1973, Board of Adjustment meeting were approved as mailed. Because May 28, 1973 is a holiday, the next meeting will be MINUTES held Friday. May 25, 1973. The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 P.M. APPEAL 73-14 QI