Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-11-21 Minutes• • A meeting of the MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Board of Adjustment was held at 3:40 P.M. on Monday, November 21, 1983 in Room 209 of the Continuing Education Center, Fayetteville, Arkansas MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Chester House, David Crittenden, Larry Tompkins, Robert Waldren. Butch Robertson $ Dennis Becker. Gary Carson, Lenwyn L. and Kathy Edens, Peter Roe, Bobbie Jones, Jeanette Crumpler and others. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Chester House. It was moved by Larry Tompkins and seconded MINUTES by Don Mills, to approve the Minutes of the October 3, 1983 meeting as mailed. The motion passed 5-0 with "Butch" Robertson and Dennis Becker being absent. The second item of business was Public APPEAL NO. 83-20 Hearing on Appeal No. 83-20, Lenwyn L. 646 W. SYCAMORE and Kathy Edens, 646 W. Sycamore, LENWYN L. AND KATHY EDENS application for ruling on Planning Administrator's interpretation. Attorney Gary Carson was present to represent Mr. $ Mrs. Edens, with the Edens being present as well. Mr. Carson requested to go over the background of this situation stating that Mr. $ Mrs. Edens came up with what they thought was a good idea to put a laundry where there would be a lot of people in the neighborhood as well as a lot of apartments. They wished to put the laundry in where people could wash their clothes or give. them to laundry employees to wash their clothes and do some ironing or steam pressing. While they were waiting for their clothes, they could go into the back of the laundry which would be a restaurant and the customer could eat while their clothes were being cleaned. Mr. Carson stated that in September, Mr. Edens talked with the Planning Administrator about his proposal. The Planning Administrator looked through the regulations and said this would be fine. There would be no problem. There was some discussion as there was a question about the restaurant being permitted, as the zoning was I-1. Bobbie Jones, Planning Administrator, also advised Mr. Edens what the parking situation and setbacks would have to be and as a result of this advice, Mr. Edens went to Northwest Engineers and had the plans prepared according to what Bobbie Jones had given to him and also as to what the Health Department and Water and Sewer Department had given to him. Mr. Carson stated that the .. next step was when Mr. Edens went back to Bobbie Jones and requested a Building Permit. At that time, Mr. Edens was advised that there might be a problem. Jones advised that after looking at the Code, there could be a possibility that a coin operated laundry would not be allowed in the I-1 zone. Carson stated that what it seems to boil down to is a matter of definition, i.e., what • 441 • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 21, 1983 PAGE TWO a laundry is and what a coin -op laundry would be. Mr. Edens, as stated, proposes to have an establishment for people to come in, wash, dry, and also if they wish, to have their clothes folded, ironed or steam pressed. This service will be offered as well. Carson stated that Mr. Edens has spent a great deal of money relying on what the Planning Administrator told him originally. Mr. Carson stated that a laundry does appear in Use Unit 17, still with the question of determining what is meant by laundry. He stated that when someone wants to take their clothes to a dry cleaners, this is where they take them. If you wish to get your clothes washed, then you take them to a laundry. Carson stated that Webster defines a laundry as a commercial laundering establishment and that is exactly what Mr. Edens proposes. Carson stated that Use Unit 17 allows a laundry, and he is asking the Board of Adjustment to interpret Use Unit 17 as allowing the type of establishment proposed by Mr. Edens. Chester House then asked about the restaurant and was advised by Carson that this matter has been worked out with Bobbie Jones. Bobbie Jones then advised that the zoning does allow for a restaurant without dancing or entertainment. Tompkins requested Mr. Carson to give the definition of I-1. Carson advised that I-1 was Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial. Carson stated this would be completely compatible with those uses which are currently in the area. Robert Waldren questioned if this matter was something that should be heard by the Board of Adjustment since it involved a question of use. Bobbie Jones responded that it was within the powers and duties of the Board of Adjustment to confirm or reverse any decision which is made by the Planning Administrator, even to an interpretation on uses. Carson again reiterated that Mr. Edens had spent a great deal of out-of-pocket money, as well as securing a loan with a bank, on the original advice of the Planning Administrator and requested to know if he had said anything that was incorrect. Jones advised that he was correct in what he had said, that she was intensely concerned about the restaurant in this zoning district, and had failed to look into the coin-operated laundry for that reason. She stated that she still has some problem with allowed use. Larry Tompkins advised he thought this Board was only interested in variances, not in use. Jones again advised that the Board of Adjustment has the power on appeal to reverse the decision of the Planning Administrator, and Jones further stated that this rests on any portion of the Code. David Crittenden then requested to know what zoning district Use Unit 15 is allowed in. Jones advised it was allowed in C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4. Chairman House then advised he always thought a laundry was something on the order of Razorback Linen or Fayetteville Linen Service and a neighborhood laundry was a washerteria. He stated that with this in mind, he would tend to look at this in a different light and not as a commercial type laundry and more as a neigh- borhood operation. House stated he would think it would be in order to allow • • • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 21, 1983 PAGE THREE this building to proceed as planned. David Crittenden requested to know what type of restaurant was proposed. Carson and Edens advised that it would be a snack bar having piiza by the slice, baked potatoes any way you want them, hot dogs any way you want them, cheese nachos, a 4' screen T.V. and a light board on the wall showing when your wash is finished. Crittenden asked if there would be an entrance other than through the laundry. Edens advised that according to fire code, he was required to put a double swinging door in the rear of the building and a double swinging door in the front of the laundry and a steel door between the laundry and the restaurant with a 2 hour fire wall. Mrs. Don Mills then asked if the facility would be open 24 hours. Mr. Edens responded they would not be open 24 hours. Edens stated he could not see any use for laundering after 11:30 at night. Edens stated there would be some- one in the building from the time it opens until the time it closes. There will be an attendant in the front and two attendants in the restaurant. Mills stated that her interpretation of a laundry was when she took her laundry into a place where they wash and iron it and then she comes back and picks it up without staying on the premises. Carson stated he felt the word laundry today was becoming synonomous with the word self-service. Edens stated there were two coin-operated laundries in the same area. Mills then stated that they are zoned differently. Mills wanted to know the distinction between coin- operated and laundry. Jones advised she could only guess, but thought it was primarily because of the neighborhood service aspect of it. There was no one present to oppose the request. The public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Robert Waldren and MOTION seconded by David Crittenden to approve the construction of the laundry(and interpret the use as described to fall under "laundry" as listed in Use Unit 17). Motion passed 3-2 with Mrs. Don Mills and Larry Tompkins voting "nay". The third item on the agenda was APPEAL NO. 83-21 Appeal No. 83-21, Danny Larson, DANNY LARSON 104 W. Boles Street, Application 104 W. Boles Street to vary setbacks. Chairman House requested to know what the petitioner had in mind to do. Peter Roe was present to represent Mr. Larson. Roe advised that Larson would like to build a greenhouse. Roe stated that the building currently does not meet the setbacks. What Mr. Roe was planning was to come out from the house approximately 3' farther than the stairs do now. He stated the stairs are over 30" high within the setback. Mills asked if this would be over the garage. Roe stated it would have parking under it. He stated there would be no stairs to the greenhouse, but you would obtain entry 50 • 0 m 1 n BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 21, 1983 PAGE FOUR from the front porch of the house. He stated this was the only place it could be built to be efficient and obtain southern exposure. Crittenden requested to know how much of the 14' depth was deck and greenhouse Roe advised that 6' was deck and 8' greenhouse Mills asked the purpose of this: construction. Roe stated it would be for plants and also for use as solar heat with an air regulation system and baths. He stated the project would have an approximate cost of $2300.00. Roe stated he had located the appropriate setbacks by measuring back from the center of the street. Crittenden then asked if the houses on either side of the Larson residence were owner -occupied. Roe stated that both houses in question were owner -occupied. Jones stated there was a property owner who did express concern over this construction. Their concern was due to the smallness of the lot, the size of the building, and the fact that while they do not have a car, they have had their driveway used by other people who were visitors in the neighborhood, pulling out and parking in their driveway and their yard. Crittenden wondered how the construction of the greenhouse would change that. Jones stated she did not know that it would, unless the property owner's concern was due to the possibility of using the deck for entertainment. Roe advised there is no parking allowed on that side of the street at all. He stated that the parking spot which is being referred to is a wide spot in the road, and Mr. Larson parks his car in his garage. Jones stated the property owner did not actually register an objection, but did express concern. House requested to know what the overall plan for that area would be. Jones stated that it is zoned R-0 which is residential office, and the only zone that these lots would correspond with would be C-3, Central Commercial. She stated it is simply an older part of town which is intensely developed, probably more intensely developed than any other part of town. Mills asked if there was any possibility that the existing front porch could be glassed in for use as a greenhouse. Roe advised this would not be practical from a construction point of view as well as the fact that the sun would not hit it properly. Roe also advised that to have the solar effect, there must be some type of storage tanks in the greenhouse which the porch would not support. He stated that the new greenhouse would be built with the strength to hold heavy water drums. Roe stated they tried to minimize the deck as much as possible. Mills asked if there would be access to the deck from the front porch. Roe stated there would be access from the deck toi:the.front porch. Waldren asked if there was an entrance from the deck into the greenhouse Roe advised there would be no entrance from the deck to the greenhouse. Crittenden stated that he was of two minds about this situation, one being that this area was already crammed in with little or no room, on the other hand, this would be an improvement to the dwelling which would make it look nicer. There are no great plans for this area in the future either. Mills stated it was her general feeling that this area was a congested area, and did not know if adding more to the setback problem would be the right thing to do. 5► • • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOVEMBER 21, 1983 PAGE FIVE But then Crittenden questioned "So what"; If there is no great plan for this area and someone wants to improve their home, why not? Crittenden expressed that he wished a policy would be established of doing this one way or the other in this area. Roe stated that one of the reasons for bringing this issue before the Board of Adjustment was the possibility of rezoning this area eventually trying to improve it because all of the owners in the area are tied by the same zoning where they really cannot do anything. Mills stated she would feel better about the greenhouse if it did not have a deck. Tompkins stated that the idea is good and looks like a good plan. However, the intensity of the development bothers him. He feels that this would cause structures to come closer and closer to a violation of the front yard setback which contributes to the health, safety and welfare, and quality of life to adjoining structures. He stated that even though it would be an upgrade to the structure, it would tend to create a quality of life or environment that could be detrimental to others. There was no one present to oppose the request. The public hearing was closed. Robert Waldren moved that the variance be MOTION granted for the greenhouse portion only, dimensions of which would be 8 feet x 12 feet. Motion seconded by Don Mills. Crittenden asked if the motion was open for discussion. He wanted to know why the deck was not in the motion. Waldren stated that he felt the deck was extraneous to what is trying to be accomplished and if the owner was looking for a place to sit, he could sit on the front porch. Waldren stated that if the main purpose for the construction is the greenhouse which would provide additional heat, then that is O.K. He stated he would not go along with some- thing that was felt to be for recreational reasons. Motion passed 4-1 with Larry Tompkins voting "nay". The Board of Adjustment requested knowledge OTHER of the status of the Update Committee. BUSINESS Bobbie Jones advised that they are having regular meetings scheduled from 4-6 on Tuesday in Room 107 of the Continuing Education Center. Motion was made by David Crittenden.to adjourn and seconded by Larry Tompkins. Meeting adjourned at 4:35.