Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-09-21 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45 P.M., Monday, September 21, 1981, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Chester House, Larry Thompkins, Dr. David Crittenden, Bob Waldren. Don Mills, Wayne Ball, Larry Smith Jim Lindsey, Michael Coulson, Bill Stiles, Gary Carson, Bobbie Jones, Cynthia Stewart. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: The first item considered was the APPEAL NO. 81-11 public hearing on the Appeal No. 81-11, Coulson COULSON OIL COMPANY Oil Company, C/O Jim Lindsey, 2123 West 2123 WEST SIXTH STREET Sixth Street, application to waive the minimum frontage requirement for a gasoline/service station. Jim Lindsey and Michael Coulson were present to represent. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked for comments in favor of the appeal Jim Lindsey addressed the Board. He stated this is a unique situation where a piece of land was developed and approved by the Planning Commission with the condition that no driveways may front on or come off of Highway 62 West. The access to this property will be the East access entrance of the K -Mart Shopping Center on Highway 62. The owners of this property have acquired an ingress/egress easement from the Kentucky Fried Chicken owners to the East. Lindsey stated that if the ingress/egress is included in the frontage, the lot more than meets the minimum frontage requirement. Lindsey stated the lot would more than meet the frontage requirements, except a triangular piece of property had been taken for the radius of the drive into the K -Mart Shopping Center and cannot be counted as frontage. Lindsey stated he felt the 120 ft. minimum frontage requirement was set so a service station could have two drives to control traffic into and out of the service station. He stated this piece of property is unique in that it will be using the easement in common with Kentucky Fried Chicken and an additional driveway easement to the West. Michael Coulson addressed the Board. He stated there will be no additional drives onto Highway 62 West from this property. He stated there is a written agreement granting the right td this property to use the easement located on the Kentucky Fried Chicken property. Larry Thompkins asked if the lot was originally 120 ft. wide. Lindsey stated the Highway Department in conjunction with the City of Fayetteville took the triangular piece of property on the Northwest corner of this property in order to provide a radius sufficient to serve the Shopping Center. He stated that 103 ft. was at one time part of this property. Mike Coulson showed.the Board the proposed traffic flow on the site. He stated the station would be basically self service and it would be landscaped. Board of Adjustment Meeting • September 21, 1981 Page 2 • • Bob Waldren asked if the North/South easement West of the property is a street, Bobbie Jones stated it is not. Jim Lindsey explained it is a driveway easement. Bobbie Jones stated the Planning Commission stated there would be no more curb cuts in this area. Mike Coulson stated the crux of the appeal is a variance of the 120 ft. frontage requirement for a gas station. He stated 120 ft. is required and the owners have 119.88 ft. of . width. He stated that if the ingress/egress is considered, the lot has more than adequate frontage. Bobbie Jones stated that most lot width requirements are measured at the setback line. She stated that if the ordinance read this way, the lot would have adequate frontage. However, in the case of a gasoline/service station, the ordinance specifically reads 120 ft. of frontage The Chairman aksed if there were any further comments either for or against the appeal. There was no comment. The Chairman closed the public hearing on Appeal No. 81-11. The next item to be considered was APPEAL NO. 81-12 the public hearing on Appeal No. 81-12, Bill BILL STILES Stiles, 304 West Meadow Street, application 304 WEST MEADOW to vary setbacks. Bill Stiles was present to represent. Mr. Stiles addressed the Board and stated he would like to have a variance to construct a nonconforming building. He stated he would like the required side yard setback in R-0 reduced from 10 ft. to 2 ft. House asked how long Mr. Stiles had lived at this address. Stiles stated seven years. House stated he believed there was already a structure on the property line. Stiles stated it had been torn down. Further, Stiles stated the house on his back side sits 2 ft. from the property line. He said he could build his structure and make it conforming. If he did, the building would be narrow and long. He stated he had discussed this with his neighbor to the North and the neighbor would like to see the building constructed as far from his home as possible. Also, building the structure to meet the setbacks would necessitate the removal of a large tree. Dr. Crittenden asked what the building would be used for. Mr. Stiles stated it would be used cfor a work shop. Crittenden asked if the building would be accessible from the street. Mr. Stiles stated it would not. Crittenden stated he did not see how the tree and shrubs could be saved, even if the variance is granted. Larry Thompkins asked if the primary structure on the property is a single family home. Stiles stated that is correct. He stated he refinishes antiques. His insurance company will no longer insure him as he stores flammable materials in his present work shop which is located in his garage. He stated he would like to store these types of materials in the proposed structure. Ronald Moore, 101 North Locust, addressed the Board. He stated he lives in the house immediately to the North of Mr. Stiles. He stated that, apparently, Mr. Stiles' and his property were at one time owned by the same people. They built two houses on the property and did not pay very careful attention to where they built the structures in relation to the lot lines. Mr. Moore stated that he was aware that Mr. Stiles has enough property to construct his building whether he gets this variance or not. He stated that the granting of the variance would allow 31 Q ra , G 2g Board of Adjustment Meeting September 21, 1981 • c Page 3 Mr. Stiles to construct his building in a location that would be more pleasing to him. Moore was of the opinion that Mr. Stiles' proposed structure would improve C3 the property. He stated that Mr. Stiles had already improved the property. U The Stiles' home was at one time condemned and Mr. Stiles has resurrected it. He hoped the Board would grant the variance.as requested. The Chairman asked if there..were any other comments in favor or in opposition to the requested variance, there were none. Crittenden asked if the refinishing of antiques :was allowed in R-0. Bobbie' Jones stated it would depend on the length of time the operation had been going on. Crittenden asked how long Mr. Stiles had been refinishing and selling antiques at this location. Mr. Stiles replied seven years. Bobbie Jones stated the use is non -conforming. The Chairman closed the public hearing on Appeal No. 81-12. • oc©Qtre, 8 CI-MOg GMQVgar) • L The next item for consideration was the APPEAL NO. 81-13 public hearing on the Appeal No. 81-13, GARY CARSON Gary Carson, 118 North Block Avenue, 118 NORTH BLOCK AVE.. application to vary setbacks. Gary Carson was present to represent. Carson addressed the Board in favor of the request. He stated that Wayne Ball and he had purchased the building in question and were planning on using the building for law offices. In the process of remodeling, a metal awning was removed. When a building permit was sought for the construction of a wooden awning to replace the metal awning, it was discovered that the awriing.would encroach into the setback. He stated that since there is parking between the building and the street, the setback is 50 ft. If there was no parking, the setback would be 5 ft. and no variance would be required. Carson stated the building faces West and the sun shines right into the building, some type of awning is needed. Carson stated the awning is the only thing proposed. for the front of the building, other than some painting and a door. The Chairman asked if there were any further comments either in favor or against the appeal. There were none. The Chairman closed the public hearing on Appeal No. 81-13. The Chairman opened Appeal No. 81-11 APPEAL NO. 81-11:_ to comments from the Board. Larry Thompkins stated this appearstto be an interpretation of frontage. Thompkins stated he was under the impression that every lot is required to have access to a,public right of way. Bobbie Jones stated the Planning Commission can waive this requirement in connection with a Shopping Center. She stated this can be waived if adequate access is provided for services such as fire protection and sanitation pick-up. Jones stated in this case, all the lots in the platted commercial subdivision are limited to two points of access immediately to the West of this property and further to the West. Bobbie Jones stated this property owner had requested a curb cut for access from this property to Highway 62 and it was denied by the Planning Commission. Thompkins stated he felt the request was reasonable, he felt a unique situation exists, and that the plan makes maximum use of the property. He stated he has �2 A • • Board of Adjustment Meeting September 21, 1981 v� Page 4 no problem with the request. Bob Waldren stated it appears a variance of 12/100 of a ft. is the question. Access is being provided; he did not see any problem with the request. Ob Crittenden asked if the minimum lot area requirements were met by this lot. Q Bobbie Jones stated the lot contains more than enough area for a filling station. EJ Crittenden stated he does not have any problem with the request. However, he felt e9 the area the proposed service station is located in is congested and he did not see any relief from the traffic problems. S3 House stated he would be inclined to approve the request. Thompkins moved the Appeal No. 81-11 be approved as requested. Bob Waldren seconded. The motion passed (4-0). v f )g.012MC & G0&50 C: C0t7GOP The Chairman opened Appeal APPEAL NO. 81-12 No. 81_12 for comments from the Board. Bob Waldren stated he felt Mr. Stiles had done an amazing job with the house He felt the improvements Mr. Stiles made would be attractive. However, he was a little apprehensive about granting a variance for a use that does not appear to be allowed in the R-0. Waldren said he did not want to see Mr. Stiles invest a lot of money in something that may at some time be discontinued. Mr. Stiles stated he had been operating this out of his home for seven years, and was not aware he was in violation of any ordinances. He said he had had no complaints in those seven years. Dr. Crittenden stated it appeared that Mr. Stiles'(operation had outgrown his house. He stated he could see no hardship or extenuating circumstances by which the variance could be granted. 'Also, the fact that the use of the building would be nonconforming bothered him. He said for those reasons he was not in favor of granting the variance. Mr. Stiles stated he could build the building, hecwas requesting the i. variance so it would not stick out in the side yard. Larry Thompkins stated he felt Mr. Stiles was improving the neighborhood. However, the 10 ft. side yard requirement in R-0 is there for reasons such as accessby fire protection vehicles to the properties. Mr. Stiles stated if the structure is constructed according to the requirements, it will be far more difficult to get fire protection vehicles into the lot. Thompkins stated the building could be built in conformance with the ordinance. Crittenden moved the appeal be denied. Waldren seconded. The motion passed (3-0-1) with House abstaining. The Chairman opened this appeal APPEAL NO. 81-13 to comments from the Board. Crittenden stated he felt this variance was trivial and that it would improve the building. He stated he was for granting the requested variance. Waldren stated he has no problem with the request. Thompkins asked if the variance is granted if it means the Board is granting permission for parking in front of the building. Bobbie Jones stated there has been parking in front of the building all along. She stated if there was no 33 Board of Adjustment Meeting September 21, 1981 Page 5 parking between the street and the building, the petitioners would not have to seek a variance. Thompkins felt that a 14 ft. setback for a building.':with parking between the street and the structure was too close. He felt it would be a hazard. Crittenden stated the presence of the awning would not affect the parking one way or another. Crittenden asked how many parking spaces are located in the front of the building. Carson stated there are two in front of the building,..two on the side and space for two in the rear. Bob Waldren moved that the variance be granted. Dr. Crittenden seconded. The motion passed (3-1) with Thompkins casting the "Nay" vote. Upona. motion by Waldren and a second by Crittenden,_the minutes of the August 17, 1981 Board of Adjustment meeting were approved as mailed. The meeting adjourned at 4:55.P.M. MINUTES 311 J