Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-12-07 MinutesMINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45 P.M., Monday, December 7, 1981 in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman Chester House, Don Mills, Wayne Ball, Dennis Becker, Larry Thompkins, Dr. David Crittenden. Bob Waldren. Tom Hughes, R. J. Keating, Richard Roessler, Bruce Vogelsong, Walter Brown, Herbie Houser, Mrs. Fleming, Maurice McClelland, Don Grimes, Paul Logue, Ken Mourton, Mike Todd, John R. Cox, Harold Lieberenz, Cynthia Stewart, others. The first item considered was APPEAL NO. 81-19 the Public Hearing on the Appeal No. AMERICAN AIR FILTER 81-19, American Air Filter -Allis Chalmers, 2355 ARMSTRONG AVENUE 2355 Armstrong Avenue, application to vary number of parking spaces. Tom Hughes was present to represent. Tom Hughes, Plant Manager for American Air Filter addressed the Board of Adjustment. He stated American Air Filter is in the process of adding about 110,000:square feet to the existing plant facilities. The developer is requesting a waiver of the parking space requirement for the addition. The present requirement for parking spaces is based on the square footage of the building. The developer proposes to provide parking based on the number_:' of employees working the first shift. He stated the first shift consists of approximately 70 employees, the secondand third shifts consist of 45=50 employees. He stated the code calls for 148 parking spaces, the developer proposes 119 parking spaces which they feel will be more than adequate for their needs. Larry Thompkins asked what if all employees were working at one time. Hughes stated the facilities will only accomodate about 65-70 employees. The first shift includes office, engineering and maintenance personnel which will not be working the second and third shifts. Larry Thompkins asked what the hardship is. Hughes replied it is largely economic. He felt if all the parking spaces required by ordinance are installed they will never be used Crittenden asked how many parking spaces are there presently. Hughes replied about 69. Crittenden stated the number of parking spaces proposed will double the about presently there. Hughes stated that is correct, but the number of employees will not double, there will only be about 25 new employees.added to the first shift. Cynthia Stewart stated the Planning Commission has appointed a committee to study the possible amendment to the parking requirements for Use Units 21, 22 and 23. She stated the amendment, as proposed, could reduce parking requirements in some cases. The Chairman stated he had taken a look at the parking lot at American Air Filter on December 4, 1981 and it was only half full. Hughes stated at the time the Chairman viewed the parking lot, there were only about 1/2 the amount of parking spaces that are presently provided. The parking area has been partially torn up during the construction phase.of the addition. The Chairman Board of Adjustment Meeting December 7, 1981 Page 2 felt the present parking facilities are more than adequate. Ball asked if the variance could be granted based on the number of employees. The Chairman asked if there was anyone else appearing in favor of the request. There was no response. The Chairman asked if there was anyone appearing in opposition to the request. There was no opposition. The Chairman closed the public hearing on Appeal No. 81-19. The next item of business was the Public Hearing on the Appeal No. 81-20, R. J. Keating, 409 Patricia vary setbacks Richard Keating APPEAL NO. 81-20 R.J. KEATING 409 PATRICIA LANE Lane, application to Keating was present to represent. addressed the Board. He stated he is the owner of the lot and gave the Board members a drawing showing existing trees on the lot. Keating stated he is requesting a variance from the rear yard setback requirement. The lot is located on Patricia Lane just off the corner of Patricia and Vandeventer. The requirement is a 20 ft. setback, he is requesting a 10 ft. setback. A sewer easement runs diagonally across the lot and there is a storm drain located at the Northwest corner of the lot. The location of the storm drain makes it almost impossible to build on the front portion of the lot, also, the terrain at the front of the lot is steep and it slopes to the Northwest. The rear of the lot is the logical place to construct the house, there is a 5 ft. setback from the sewer easement. Keating said the lot is buildable without a variance, however, there are only a few good trees on the lot and the variance would aid in saving as many trees as.possible. If the variance is not granted, it will restrict the size of the house and will make removal of more trees necessary. Keating further stated the lots in the neighborhood are deep, and he did not feel that having the house sitting further back on this lot would damage other properties in the neighborhood. Crittenden asked if the front of the house Mr. Keating proposes would be about even with the back of the house to the West. Keating stated that is correct. Larry Thompkins asked where parking would be placed on the lot. Keating stated there is ample room in the front of the lot for parking. The Chairman asked if there was anyone present in favor of the request. There was no response. The Chairman stated he would entertain comments in opposition to the request. Richard Roessler, 407 Patricia Lane, addressed the Board. He stated he lives on the East of the lot in question and that he is opposed to the variance request for the following reasons: 1. The placement of the house, as proposed, would put it so far back that it would look directly into his patio area, bedroom windows and back yard; 2. It would place the house in variance to his house as far as the distance it sits from the street and would give the neighborhood an unplanned look; 3. The existence of the sewer there is no surprise, it has been a problem with the lot for over 20 years, this applies to the storm drain also; • • Board of Adjustment Meeting December 7, 1981 Page 3 4. Building so far to the rear of the lot will excessively restrict the size of the home. The home, as proposed, would be about 800 square feet in size. Roessler did not feel this would enhance the value of other homes in the neighborhood.which are 2 to 3 times that square footage. He felt the scale onthe drawing submitted makes the proposed house appear to be about the same size as the houses around it but it is not. Roessler stated for these reasons, he hoped the Board would consider this variance request carefully, and take into account his objections and concerns.: Bruce Voglesong, 1127 Vandeventer, addressed the Board. He stated he lives to the South of the lot in question. Mr. Roessler echoes a lotof his feelings of opposition to the variance request. He said the house, as proposed by Mr. Keating, would not be very far from the rear of his home. He plans on expanding the rear of his home and the closeness of this proposed house would preclude the expansion. He stated he too would like to voice his opposition to the request. Mills asked Mr. Voglesong if his house is in line with all the other houses He stated it is; his house faces Vandeventer and the others face Patricia. Voglesong stated that even though he does not live on Patricia he agreed that the placement of the proposed house would give Patricia a disheveled look. In response, Keating said he has enough room to construct a home that would be approximately 38 ft. by 30 ft., two stories high. It would be as large as any house on Patricia. He restated that the lot is buildable without the variance, and that he does intend to build on the lot. The granting of the variance would allow him to build a house that would fit into the neighborhood, and save trees. If the variance is not granted, the trees will be removed, and a house will be constructed that will be smaller than he wishes to construct. He said he does intend to build on the lot and that he wants to build the best house possible. Walter Brown, 1138 North Vandeventer, addressed the Board. He stated he lives on Lot 2, on the East side of Vandeventer and he has lived there since 1955. He had, at one time, considered buying this lot but did not because of the location of the sewer easement. He said his property is higher than the lot in question, and he can look right down on it. Also, he had discussed this with the City Engineer and he indicated there is a possibility that the sewer line could be relocated at the owner'_s expense. Brown said the location of the creek in front of the lot and the sewer in the middle of the lot is a bad situation. The neighbors in the area are opposed to this variance. Maurice McClelland addressed the Board. She stated she does not live adjacent to the lot in question, however, she felt the construction of an 800 square ft. house would adversely affect other properties in the neighborhood. Other homes in the neighborhood have reasonable front and rear yards She is afraid the home will become rental property. The zoning and subdivision regulations are set up to regulate orderly growth and she felt the Board of Adjustment should stick with them and not grant this variance. There being no further opposition, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing on Appeal No. 81-20. 47 Board of Adjustment Meeting December 7, 1981 Page 4 The next item of business APPEAL NO. 81-21 was the Public Hearing on Appeal CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE No. 81-21, City of Fayetteville, 303 West 303 WEST CENTER STREET Center Street, application to vary setbacks. Don Grimes and Paul Logue were present to represent. Don Grimes, City Manager addressed the Board. He stated that since the Recycling Center on West Street closed, there has been a desire expressed for the recycling of materials, mostly paper. There is a place for aluminum and copper to be dropped off but not for newsprint. When the Recycling Center closed, the Energy Committee and the Solid Waste Committee of the Board of Directors encouraged the City to set up an experimental route. The pickup of newsprint can be profitable when it is done on the regular sanitation route. The experimental route was in a North-Central part of town and the response was good. However, when the experiment started, the price for newsprint was $25.00 per ton and has since dropped to $10.00 per ton. Also, the City is trying to cut out one sanitation route. The drop in price, as well as the consolidation of the sanitation routes has resulted in a situation where people have no place to drop off their newsprint. The proposal is to provide a place for people interested in recycling to drop off their newsprint. The proposal is not to process the newsprint, only to provide a transfer point. Nonrecyclable materials will be placed in a 6 yard container. The money will be used for the Firemen's Activity Fund, some may go into civic projects. The Chairman asked if there was anyone else appearing in favor of the request. Paul Logue, Fire Chief addressed the Board. He stated the variance is requested in order to construct a temporary structure where the newsprint will ..be stored. In order to construct the structure, the City is requesting a variance on the rear yard from 25 ft. to 2 ft. tSouth Side) and .a..0 ft. setback on the West side instead of the required 10 ft. Larry Thompkins asked if it would pose a fire hazard. Logue stated it will not, there will be no heat or electricity to the structure. Thompkins stated it appears that one parking space will be eliminated.. Logue stated that is correct, but it will not be a problem. Larry Thompkins asked if this would be a temporary situation. Don Grimes stated the City does not wish to compete with private enterprise. If the operation becomes a problem, it will be done away with. Thompkins asked if the Fire Chief felt circulation would be a problem. Logue stated he did not, that they had gotten the big fire truck through there. Crittenden asked where the dumpster would be relocated. Logue stated it will be placed towards Center Street. Crittenden asked why not place it towards Locust Street. Logue stated that would eliminate another parking space The Chairman asked if there was anyone present in opposition to the request. There being no opposition, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing.on.Appeal No. 81-21. There being no one present to represent, the Board took no action on this item. APPEAL NO. 81-22 R & P.ELECTROPLATING 2000 PUMP STATION ROAD Board of Adjustment Meeting December 7, 1981 Page 5 The next item of business APPEAL NO. 81-23 was the Public Hearing on the SAFEWAY STORES, INC. Appeal No. 81-23, Safeway Stores, Inc., COLLEGE AND LAFAYETTE 380 North College Avenue, application to vary setbacks. Ken Mourton and Mike Todd were present to represent. Ken Mourton addressed the Board. He stated Safeway is requesting a waiver of the setback requirement for a loading dock. He said actually, it is an unloading dock. Safeway recently purchased properties immediately to the East of the existing store and immediately to the South of the existing store. They intend to expand the store about 13,000 square feet. This will create approximately 30-40 new jobs. Prior to the purchase of the additional property, the loading dock sat 10 ft. from the property line. With the expansion, the developer plans to move the dock further to the East. It will have a structure type enclosure which trucks will back into. Even though the dock will be closer than 50 ft. the type of enclosure will substantially reduce the noise compared to the existing loading dock. Safeway had the additional property rezoned earlier in the year and assured the City as well as the property owners that landscaping and a fence would be installed by Safeway between the Safeway property and the property owners adjacent. The property owners have been furnished a copy of Safeway's expansion plans. Becker asked what the position of the Lot owners of 3, 4, 7, 8 a 9 is on the expansion. Mourton stated that after negotiations, all property owners. supported Safeway in the rezoning. They were also provided with plans of the proposed expansion. Ball asked if the proposed dock would be above or below ground. Mike Todd explained it would have a ramp leading down to the dock. Larry Thompkins asked if some access points along Lafayette were to be eliminated,and if it would cause sight -distance -problems. Ken Mourton stated that two entrances would be eliminated on East Lafayette. This will result in less of a traffic hazard. The back entrance on Lafayette will be the only one to remain open: Becker stated the compact parking was fairly distant from the entrances. They all appear to be on the South side of the building. Mourton stated the compact parking spaces will be used mainly for employee parking. Crittenden asked if there would be an entrance to the Store on the South side of the building. Mourton stated there would be only a fire exit located there and that there is one there now. The Chairman asked if there was anyone else appearing in favor of the request, there was no response. The Chairman asked if there was anyone appearing in opposition to the request. There being no response, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing on Appeal No. 81-23. Harold Lieberenz stated the developer is currently negotiating with the City Board of Directors Street Committee on the right of way recommended to be dedicated which consists of 10 ft. for College Avenue and 8 ft. for East Lafayette. He said if negotiations do not go in favor of the developer, it will cut out a substantial amount of his proposed parking and he may have to come before this Board for a variance on parking requirements. y9 � Board of Adjustment Meeting December 7, 1981 Page 6 The next item of business APPEAL NO. 81-24 was the Public Hearing on SEEBURG MUFFLERS Appeal No. 81-24, Seeburg 433 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE Mufflers, 433 North College Avenue, application to vary setbacks. John R. Cox was present to represent. John Cox addressed the Board. He stated that Seeburg Mufflers plans to move its location from Cato Springs Road to the proposed location at North College and Maple. He is requesting an adjustment of the requirement that a nonenclosed accessory to -a garage use be setback 12 ft. from the street line. This variance is needed in order to place a ten ton lift to raise mobile homes and large trucks over 3/4 quarter ton, on the North side of the building. Placing the rack on the East side of the building would leave only 7 ft. between the rack and the entrance to the office and may create a hazard to persons entering and exiting the office. Also, if it is placed on the East side of the biuilding, it will be in full view of the highway. Don Mills asked where the lift would sit in relation to the building. Cox said it would line up with the back of the building. Larry Thompkins asked if there was a proposal for the roof. Cox replied no variance is needed on the West side. He stated that Seeburg would use only that portion of the lot up to the retaining wall. Phil Colwell addressed the Board. He stated he owns the property to the West of this tract. It is zoned Commercial. There is currently about 15 ft. of wooded area West of the property in question between the building and his apartments to the West, which he was concerned about. Cox stated the wooded area would not be disturbed. Harold Lieberenz stated that since the tract to the West of Mr. Cox's is zoned commercial, he could build right up to the West property line. Mr. Cox stated he does not intend to expand past the retaining wall. Becker stated the retaining wall looks as though it may need some work done to it. Cox stated the retaining wall may be incorporated into the existing structure. Don Mills expressed some doubts about the maneuverability of a mobile home into the lift. Cox said it would be tight. Crittenden asked what was wrong with the present location at Cato Springs Road and South College. Cox stated Seeburg wants to move further North; closer to downtown. Harold Lieberenz stated the ordinance requires four off street parking spaces for each enclosed service bay. He wondered where Mr. Cox proposes to put parking and if he plans to keep all bays open. Cox stated automotive lifts will be placed in two bays. One bay will be used for storage and equipment to bend pipe. The northern bays will be used for service, the Southern bay will be used for storage. and equipment. The Chairman asked if there was anyone else present in favor of the request. There was no response. The Chairman asked if there was anyone present in opposition to the request. There was no oppoition. The public hearing on Appeal No. 81-24 was closed. 50 51y • • • Board of Adjustment Meeting December 7, 1981 Page 7 The Chairman opened Appeal APPEAL NO. 81-19 No. 81-19 to comments from the Board. House stated he felt that if more parking was needed, American Air Filter would provide it. He stated he was in favor of the request. Also, he felt the parking provisions at this time were adequate if all shifts were present at the same time. Mills stated that she went by Standard Register which also operates a three shift operation and there were about 50 vacant spaces between 1:30 and 2:30 P.M . Mills said she felt the parking as proposed is adequate. However, if another expansion is proposed she would like to see more parking spaces. Thompkins stated that on the North side of the building there could be another 22 spaces provided. Also, there is room on the East side for more parking spaces. He felt the required parking could be provided. He felt that until the Planning Commission comes up with a revision to the parking requirement for uses such as these he would have to vote against the waiver. Wayne Ball stated he sees the hardship in that the parking requirement is much larger than the number of employees it will serve. He felt the parking requirement should be keyed to the number of employees. If it becomes a problem, Ball felt American Air Filter should provide more parking or get another variance. Harold Lieberenz stated the Board of Adjustment has the authority to prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards on their approval. Dr. Crittenden stated that Mr. Hughes had said he could run no more than 70 employees at one time. Becker stated he agreed with Mr. Ball, that the number of parking places should be keyed to the number of employees. Mills wondered if the Board could work with this keeping in mind that the Planning Commission is working with the problem and that the problem may be eliminated in the near future. Crittenden moved that the variance be granted as requested, and that the variance applies only to this expansion, and not future expansions. Don Mills seconded. The motion passed (5-1) with Thompkins casting the "Nay" vote. The Chairman opened Appeal No. APPEAL NO. 81-20 81-20 to comments from the Board. Mills stated she was concerned in that Mr. Keating could build without the variance. Larry Thompkins stated he was concerned for the privacy of the neighbors. He said that he has a situation himself where his neighbors dining room looks right into his living room. He stated he was opposed to the variance as it would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. Mills stated she was not opposed to the house not lining up with the other houses, but that the lot could be built on without a variance. Becker stated he would have enjoyed a scale drawing. Since the applicant said he could build without a variance, he saw no reason to grant the variance. Wayne Ball agreed. Don Mills moved the variance be denied. Larry Thompkins seconded. The motion to deny passed (6-0). S; A • • Board of Adjustment Meeting December 7; 1981 Page 8 Appeal No.'81-21.was opened up to the APPEAL NO 81-21 Board for comments. House stated that the service proposed is necessary and that he is in favor of the request. He felt that if the use is ever stopped, the building should be removed. Mills felt that this proposal is the answer for the time being. Wayne Ball felt it was a good idea. Larry Thompkins agreed. Crittenden stated the only people that could be adversely affected would be the Fire Station. Crittenden moved the variance be granted. Wayne Ball seconded. The motion to approve passed (6-0). Crittenden moved that if the building should ever cease to be used as a drop off point for the recycling of newsprint that it should be. removed. Wayne Ball seconded. The motion passed (6-0). Appeal No. 81-23 was opened for APPEAL NO. 81-23 comments from the Board. Mills stated she was glad that the two Western accesses on Lafayette were being closed. Thompkins felt that Safeway was doing a good job, and that their proposal fit well with the intent of the ordinance. He stated he has no problem with the request. Don Mills agreed. Crittenden stated he would vote for the variance, as the persons living adjacent had no objection to Safeway's plans. However, he did not feel that the expansion was necessary and that he hated to see the area between the savings and loan and the existing Safeway building,paved. Larry Thompkins moved the request be approved as submitted. Becker seconded. The motion passed (6-0). Appeal No. 81-24 was opened for APPEAL NO. 81-24 comments from the Board. Don Mills did not feel that the placement of the lift left enough room between Maple Street right of way and the building for traffic. Crittenden did not feel the location was a good one for the proposed use He felt the proposal would adversely affect the property around it. He stated he was not in favor of anything that would encourage this project. Becker stated this is just the tip of the iceberg, he felt a tabling at the least would be his thought. Harold Lieberenz brought up the point of the jockeying of cars on the site. Also, the close proximity of the school bothered him. He did not feel this use was the best use for the location. Thompkins agreed. He felt that the placement of the lift three feet from the right of way and the activity occuring at this location, were not indicative of a safe traffic condition. Board of Adjustment Meeting December 7, 1981 Page 9 Mills moved the variance request be denied. Larry Thompkins seconded. The motion passed (5-0-1) with Thompkins, Mills, Ball,_. Crittenden and Becker voting "Aye" and House abstaining. Don Mills moved the minutes of the November 16, 1981 meeting of the Board of Adjustment be approved as mailed. Dr. Crittenden seconded. The motion to approve passed (6-0). MINUTES With the approval of the full Board, the Chairman stated the Board of Adjustment would recess until the First Monday in January. There being no further business,_the meeting adjourned at 5:40 P.M. .s3�