Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-04-02 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING The Fayetteville Board of Adjustment met 3:55 P.M., Monday, April 2, 1984, in the Conference Room No. 111 of the new City Hall, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chester House, Robert Waldren, Dr. David Crittenden, Dennis Becker, Larry Tompkins. MEMBERS ABSENT: Don Mills, "Butch" Robertson. OTHERS PRESENT: Eric Lloyd, Randy Ingle, John Banks, Bobbie Jones. Chairman Chester House called the meeting to order. MINUTES Minutes of the meeting of February 6, 1984 were approved as mailed upon a motion by Crittenden and a second by Waldren. APPEAL 84-1 The first item considered was Appeal 84-1, Eric Lloyd, 352 N. West Avenue, zoned C-3, Central Commercial District on an application to vary the 10 foot building setback from the south property line and 5 ft. parking setback from the east property line. Eric Lloyd, owner of the property, was present to represent the appeal. Mr. Lloyd stated that he would like to extend his bike shop approximately 42 feet in the rear of the building, while retaining the width of the building. The building is now 15' by 25'. It would be a concrete block addition. He would like to have a variance on the east side from the 5 foot setback for parking spaces. Mr. Lloyd told the Board of a next-door neighbor being allowed a variance on their property. He stated, also, that he needs an additional 5 parking spaces for his bike shop. Bobbie Jones said that Mr. Lloyd's property was R-0 and has been recently changed to C-3. She also said that the property in question is the only C-3 north of Watson Street. The setback from the east property line would be 5 feet before parking could begin. Mr. Lloyd stated he would have to remove the vegetation in order to make room for the new parking spaces. Bobbie Jones stated that a 10 foot building setback would be required on the south side of the property because the adjoining property is R-0. She said if it were C-3, there would be no setback requirement. Bobbie stated that the setback on Lafayette Street is 15 feet between the parking and the street because it has R -zoned property to the east of it. There would not be a setback requirement for parking if it were not for the fact that it has R -zoned property bordering it. The code specifies one and one-half parking spaces per unit for the residential portion. Parking does not refer to the number of people in each unit. 46 6� � • Board of Adjustment April 2, 1984 - Page 2 • • Dr. Crittenden expressed doubts about being able to get 11 parking spaces in the designated area. Dr. Crittenden was also concerned about the expansion of the bike shop coming so close to the other building; removing the existing vegetation along the east property line would expose the apartments completely to the property to the east. He said he would give an ok for one variance but not the other. Mr. Lloyd expressed his willingness to save some of the old trees or plant bushes in the yard or to screen the whole place in. (Dennis Becker arrived at 4:10 P.M.) Larry Tompkins asked if there are two buildings on a single lot. Bobbie Jones answered in the affirmative. Mr. Tompkins expressed his thought that, if granted, this particular lot would be developed for intense use and would violate the intent of what we want to do with side yards. He expressed fear that this variance would bring a perpetuation of non -conforming structures into the future development of this particular area. It was stated by Mr. Tompkins that he did not think there was anything saying that Mr. Lloyd could not put a parking lot in front of the rent house on the property. He (Mr. Lloyd) could use the property presently, in conformance, by utilizing this suggestion. Robert Waldren expressed his concern about the proposed addition being too close to the other building (in the back). He said four and one-half feet is very minimal. Waldren also said he did not like the parking lot up against the property line, but if Mr. Lloyd would agree to screen it in, he might go along with the variance. Lloyd would still need a variance even if he shortened his building, but Waldren said in that case, he (Waldren) would be more likely to grant it. Bobbie said she had referred Lloyd to Inspection Superintendant, Freeman Wood on the distance between structures. Lloyd reported that Freeman told him that there would be plenty of room as long as the structure didn't have windows in it and that he (Lloyd) didn't intend to have any windows in it. MOTION Dr. Crittenden made a motion that both variances be disallowed. Larry Tompkins seconded the motion. The vote was 4-0-1 with Becker abstaining because he was not present for the entire discussion. APPEAL 84-2 The next item considered was Appeal 84-2. Randy Ingle, 906 W. North Street. An appeal was made to retain his existing privacy fence and vegetation within the front yard. A complaint had been submitted to the City Prosecutor's office regarding this. Bobbie Jones read the code in reference to this appeal: Appendix A, Art. 8, Sec. l...at • Board of Adjustment April 2, 1984 - Page 3 • • corner of street intersection, and Sec. 2... in required setback area nothing over 2.5 feet high which impedes vision between vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Ingle stated that unofficially about 14,000 cars pass this area per day He stated that a large portion of the interior of his home could be seen by passersby if there were no screening. He also stated that the vegetation has been there since the house was built or approximately 25 years and that in all that time there have been no major traffic accidents at this location. Larry Tompkins inquired on the usage of the alley and Ingle replied that (98% of the time) only himself and the trash collectors use it. Neighbors do not use the alley way for access to parking. Robert Waldren and Ingle discussed the problem of traffic traveling South on Storer Avenue and agreed that the excessively large trees'might be dangerous, but that many other intersections were far more dangerous for the same reason. Ingle stated that the widening of North Street destroyed his front yard and that everything had been in proper order before that. He also stated that he had inquired about some protection against heavy pedestrian and vehicular traffic at the time North Street was widened but was not warned that he was not allowed a privacy fence. Tompkins asked Ingle to clarify his need for a fence higher than 2.5 feet at the corners of the property, the sight triangle. Ingle replied that he would be willing to remove the large tree at one corner. Bobbie Jones stated the nature of the complaint, which came from the City Prosecutor's Office. Ingle stated that he believes the complaint was filed by the person who owns the rest of the block and who would like to have Ingle's property as well. No one else was present to speak for the appeal. Ken Lazenby, of Lazenby Trust, wished to speak in opposition of this appeal. Lazenby stated that he would like to go on record as having made no formal complaints on this situation but he now feels compelled to. He said he felt that the problem was traffic coming south onto Mt. Comfort Road. He stated that in order to see any clearance of traffic you would have to project your car almost half way into the street. Lazenby said that he is a trustee of Lazenby Trust which owns the property to the north of Ingle's property and also the property across the alley. Mr. Lazenby continued by informing the Board of the difference in the care of the vegetation on the property by the previous owner and the present owner, Mr. Ingle. Basically, he reported that the property has become overgrown and brushy which impedes vehicular vision. Mr. Lazenby went on record that he has no objections to Ingle rezoning the property but that he would like to see the shrubbery cleaned up. He also stated that the Lazenby Trust has no designs on Ingle's property 68 Board of Adjustment April 2, 1984 - Page 4 but that they are merely concerned with safety and would like to see the large tree in question cut down. Robert Waldren inquired as to how long the fence had been there and why the complaint was first being filed at this time. Mr. Lazenby replied that there is a new person in the inspection office who found the problem and filed the report. MOTION Mr. Waldren made a motion that the appeal be tabled until the inspector who found the problem be present at the meeting to clarify some of the information concerning this appeal. Mr. Becker seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-1 with Tompkins replying "nay". APPEAL 84-3 The third and final appeal heard was 84-3. John G. Banks and David R Banks, N. West Avenue or 406 W. Spring Street. The request is a variance of the required 5 ft. zoning setback from West Avenue. Bobbie Jones explained that a 10 ft. total setback is required with 5 ft. of it being a C-3 zoning setback and the other 5 ft. being a Master Street Plan requirement which can only be wawived by the Board of Directors. John G. Banks was present to speak for the appeal. Mr. Banks stated that he purchased the property from John Porter, formerly operating Porter Produce at the above address. Banks said he would like to have the building house two businesses one of which would be his own antique shop and the other being the continuation of John Porter Produce and that he needs a separate entrance on West Avenue. This is an historical building and Mr. Banks said that he intends to renovate it and add flower boxes. Claud Prewitt was also present to speak for the variance. He said that Mr. Banks has gone to a lot of trouble to help save Porter's Produce business because the produce business had nowhere to go. Paul Sanders, a part-time employee at Porter Produce, stated that because of the location (close to the elderly citizens hi -rise) and the very low prices that Porter offers, many citizens would be greatly inconvenienced by the exclusion of Porter's Produce business. No one was present to speak against the appeal. MOTION Becker made a motion to approve the appeal as requested. Waldren seconded and the motion passed 4-1 with Tompkins voting "nay". There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 P.M.