Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-04-16 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING The Fayetteville Board of Adjustment met at 4:25 P.M., Monday, April 16, 1984, in the Conference Room No. 111 of City Hall, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chester House, Robert Waldren, Dr. David Crittenden, Dennis Becker, Larry Tompkins, Don Mills, and "Butch" Robertson. MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Randy Ingle, Ken Lazenby, Jerry Brannon, Eric Lloyd, Jack Butt, Bobbie Jones and Paula Brandeis. Chairman House called the meeting to order. MINUTES Minutes of the meeting of April 2, 1984, were approved as distributed. APPEAL 84-2 The first item considered was a continuation of the public hearing of Appeal 84-2, Randy Ingle, 906 W. North Street which had been tabled April 2, 1984. A motion was made by Robert Waldren and seconded by Larry Tompkins that this item be removed from the table for discussion. Mr. Ingle was present to speak for the appeal. Ingle restated his desire to retain an existing privacy fence and the vegetation within his front yard. By removing said fence and vegetation, Ingle said that a large portion of the interior of his house could be seen by passersby. He stated that the vegetation had been there for the life of the house (about 20 years) and that the fence has been in place for about five years. He also said that he has owned his present home for eight years and that everything had been in accordance with the City code until North Street was widened, at which time the traffic increased and came within 16 feet of his house, eliminating any privacy that had existed previously. Ingle reported that within a year after the final construction he called the City to inquire about putting up a fence and was not told that he could not. He repeated that in the last 8 years or so, there have been no traffic accidents at this location. Ingle volunteered to pay for installing a one-way sign for the alley adjacent to his property if this would eliminate the danger of vision impedement by his fence. He also volunteered to supply proof of the date of when the fence was erected. Tompkins asked if the fence was on the City right-of-way. Ingle replied yes, but that the City had told him that this would be alright as long he would remove the fence should the City need to widen the sidewalk. 70 Board of Adjustment April 16, 1984 - Page 2 Waldren said that he wanted the inspector to be present at the meeting so as to determine where the complaint came from in regards to the fence and vegetation. Bobbie Jones replied that both the inspector and Terry Jones from the prosecutor's office were present. Terry Jones, Prosecuting Attorney, stated that he had received a complaint from a citizen saying that Ingle had a view obscuring fence on his property and that Mr. Bert Rakes, Inspector was sent out to verify this, which he did. Jones agreed to allow Ingle some time to correct the problem. Rakes said that he investigated the complaint and found that the problem did exist. He also said that one did not need a permit to put up a fence. Rakes said that he wanted to find out how all of this came about and so he discussed the matter with Clayton Powell, Street Super - intendant and Perry Franklin, Traffic Inspector and found that the cut in curb on Mt. Comfort had been left for a driveway. Mr. House inquired whether the privacy fence was sitting on City property and Mr. Rakes replied affirmative. Mrs. Mills asked where exactly the obstruction of view was and Rakes replied that it happens when traveling South on the alley and turning onto Mt. Comfort. Rakes also said that the Traffic Department told him they could put up a sign saying that the alley was one-way because the code does not regulate traffic on alleys as it does on streets. There was no one else present to speak in favor of this appeal. Mr. Ken Lazenby wished to speak against the appeal. He told the Board that he has been familiar with the property in question for some time and that before it had been sold, the previous owner had kept the vegetation neat and trimmed and had never let it become view obscuring. Lazenby also reported that when Mr. Ingle backs out of his garage there is no way that he can enter Mt. Comfort without exposing half a length of his car. He stated that he thought the wooden fence had been erected less than two years ago and because of the obstruction of view, Ingle has been cutting across a vacant lot belonging to Lazenby Trust. Lazenby Trust subsequently erected a steel post fence with smooth wire with red and yellow flags to keep it from being torn up. Don Mills inquired as to where Mr. Lazenby lived and Lazenby replied that he lives about two miles West. Mrs. Mills asked why Lazenby uses the alley adjacent to Ingle's property. Lazenby responded that he has need to service many of the properties in this area. Mrs. Mills wanted to know from which direction Mr. Lazenby enters the alley and there followed a discussion of whether or not there was a curb across the alley at Hazel Street which is the street Mr. Lazenby uses. 171 Board of Adjustment April 16, 1984 - Page 3 Bert Rakes stated that there was access to the Lazenby properties from Mt. Comfort Road. There was no one else present to speak in opposition to the appeal. Mr. Ingle reiterated that there is some vegetation that impedes vision and also that there is almost no one using the alley except himself and the trash collectors. Lazenby said that he would agree to closing the alley way entirely. He said that he does not object to Mr. Ingle's fence but that he does not understand why Ingle will not trim the vegetation. Mrs. Mills inquired if there were any other way for Ingle to get to his garage besides using the alley off of North Street. Ingle replied that the only other way would be to use the North end of the alley which would involve jumping a curb. The Public Hearing was closed and turned over to Board discussion. Dr. Crittenden said that he thought the fence was view obscuring but was not sure that cutting it down to two and a half feet would solve the problem. He said that he could go along with the alley being made one-way and definitely thought that the fence is a problem. Barring fixing the alley he said he would vote to deny the variance. Dennis Becker stated that he thought it was a dangerous situation with or without the fence as far as coming south on the alley. One would have to keep all of the shrubbery trimmed. Under the extenuating circumstances, he would be in favor, in this particular case, with the provision that the alley be made one-way North. Dr. Crittenden agreed. Robert Waldren stated that he felt the same. He said he felt that Ingle was in a trap because of the increased traffic at this location and that he was in favor of granting the variance with instruction to have the Street Department make the alley one-way going North. Dr. Crittenden stated that when he investigated the area he found that there was not much activity aside from Mr. Ingle's. Don Mills agreed, saying that making the alley one way would solve the problem. "Butch" Robertson also agreed. Larry Tompkins said that he felt that any time you slow down to turn into an alley you would be encouraging rear -end accidents; there is a very high traffic volume and the way the traffic moves going one-way 72 Board of Adjustment April 16, 1984 - Page 4 creates hazards. He stated that he did not understand the hardship in this case. Tompkins did agree that lowering the fence would not solve the problem. He said that he does not understand the logic wherein "because no accident has occurred in the past that none will occur in the future". He said that the probability existed 50-50. He also stated that he saw no problem in denying access to the alley and that he could see no reason why a driveway could not be put in on Lot 2 (which is owned by Ingle) for access to the owner's garage from Storer Avenue. Tompkins said he felt that the owner could use the property as plotted. Chester House cited the ordinance regarding the intersection of streets and alleys and Mrs. Jones further expounded upon the code. MOTION Waldren moved that the variance be granted as requested with provision that the Street Superintendent be instructed to post the alley one-way going North. Motion seconded by Don Mills. There was no further discussion and the motion passed 5-2 with House and Tompkins voting "nay". APPEAL 84-4 The second item on the agenda was a Public Hearing on Appeal 84-4, Jerry Brannon, 50 E. Seventh Street. Zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District. Requested: only 2 parking spaces and to be allowed to back into the street; also to vary the one acre lot area required. Mrs. Brannon has .38 acre. Jerry Brannon was present to speak for the Appeal. She explained that she has worked in her home for many years and has outgrown it. She would like to erect a shop building on her property to which none of her neighbors object. She said she is requesting only two parking spaces because she expects a very small trade and does not expect very much traffic as Seventh Street does not go through to Highway 71. Mr. Tompkins wished to have clarified which street the vehicles would be backing into. Ms. Brannon said it would be Seventh Street. Dr. Crittenden asked whether this request was for a separate structure or an addition to the existing home. Brannon said a separate structure was her objective and that she thought her drawing was correct as to her lot size when she drew it; she later learned that it was not correct and proceded to clarify to the Board what the exact measurement of her property is and the desired size of the addition; she has .38 one hundredths of an acre. 73 • Board of Adjustment April 16, 1984 - Page 5 • • Bobbie Jones explained that there is a listing under Zoning Districts R-2 and R-3, Use Unit 25, that professional offices are allowed in these zones upon appeal to the Planning Commission with a one acre requirement. Jones stated that Brannon had attended the last Planning Commission meeting and had attained a conditional use, "interior decor- ating", in an R-2 District with approval from the Commission. Jones stated, however, that the Commission could not waive any of the re- quirements that Brannon is presently requesting. Jones said that the requirement is for one acre and that Brannon has .38 acres fronting on Seventh Street, not including the area on which Brannon's house sits. Don Mills inquired whether or not Brannon could attach her proposed structure to the existing house with a breezeway. Mrs. Mills suggested that Brannon construct a driveway from Seventh Street to service the shop and Bobbie Jones replied that Brannon would still not meet the one acre requirement. Tompkins requested to know what the results would be if the lot was split into two lots and a separate single-family structure was built. Brannon objected to this suggestion because she said she felt that her house was large enough and that she preferred to have the separate work space. Dr. Crittenden suggested that Brannon center the building and obviate some of the need. House replied that she might wish to build another house but Brannon said that the reason she does not wish to center the new building is because she has a garden site on part of her lot. Crittenden inquired if the setbacks were ok and being answered in the affirmative said that he didn't see any problem. Dennis Becker, Robert Waldren and "Butch" Robertson all agreed with Dr. Crittenden. Larry Tompkins said that he thought that this would be commercial zoning no matter how it was presented and that this was not the Board's prerogative in terms of land use. Secondly, he said that he did not like the idea of vehicles backing out into Seventh Street. If there were development of the other side of Seventh Street this could be an important factor. He also stated that he thought Brannon could develop the property as it is now without hardship. Mrs. Mills wished to know why Brannon needed to back out onto Seventh Street and Brannon replied that if that was a problem to the Board, that she would be willing to construct parking for three vehicles as well as a turnaround. IP • Board of Adjustment April 16, 1984 - Page 6 MOTION Mr. Becker made a motion to accept the variance with the recommendation that the turnaround capabilities of the property be addressed. "Butch" Robertson seconded. Motion passed 6-1, Tompkins voting "nay". Dr. Crittenden left the meeting at 5:25. APPEAL 84-1 Item three on the agenda was a request for a re -hearing of Appeal 84-1. Eric Lloyd, 352 N. West Avenue. Zoned C-3, Central Commercial District. Application to vary building and parking setbacks. Jack Butt, Attorney, was present to speak for the appeal. He explained that Lloyd had retained him to clarify his needs in this matter. Butt told the Board that Lloyd did not need approval from the Board to accomplish his needs in regards to expanding his bike shop, but that in doing so in this manner, he would not be preserving the aesthetics of the neighborhood, which is one of Lloyd's objectives. Butt stated that Eric owns a large number of houses and buildings in this area and is eager to maintain a smooth transition from Commercial to Residential neighborhood. He also said that Lloyd was willing to do anything the Board wished in attaining his goal of increasing his shop space. He explained the changes Lloyd has made in his presentation as far as number of feet to be added on to the present shop, which would be practically invisible from the street. Butt went on to explain how he and Lloyd had tried to make room for the required number of parking spaces and had arrived at the conclusion that there was ample parking on the street and adjacent parking lots which are not used for anything else. Thus, Lloyd is still requesting a variance on the number of required parking spaces. He stated that the alternative to the two requested variances would effectively destroy the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Butt clarified for Tompkins the relationship of Eric's properties listed on the National Historical Register. He also explained that Lloyd was personally interested in preserving the aesthetics of the area and was under a Bill of Assurance not to change the usage of either the rent house or the bike shop. In answer to Robertson's question of number of employees Lloyd maintains, Mr. Butt told the Board that both the barber shop and the bike shop were run by Lloyd alone. 175 Board of Adjustment April 16, 1984 - Page 7 Dennis Becker expressed his belief that the area in question is one of incentive to "keep downtown cooking" and that he would be in favor of approving the variances. He stated that his only concern was that of the possible cutting off of light to the building next door and that he hoped that Lloyd would give some consideration of the occupants. Waldren stated that his previous objection was the extending of the bike shop all the back to the corner of the next building and that he believed that problem had been addressed and corrected. He said that, while the parking arrangement does not meet the code, he knows of other places in the City where parking facilities have at least dual usage. Mr. Waldren said that he would be in favor of the variances at this time. Mrs. Don Mills asked who owned the parking lot behind the West Avenue Annex and Mrs. Jones replied that it is the University Baptist Church. Mills said that she hates to see the bike shop added on to because of the location, although she could see the need. Robertson said that by cutting ten feet off the requested addition made the appeal acceptable and alleviated any problem he may have had in approving it. He stated that he would be in favor. Larry Tompkins expressed two comments in regards to this appeal. He said that approving the variance on off-street parking would run contrary to what the Board is intending to do. He agreed that we do have duplicate use of parking space throughout the City but he didn't see any reason for perpetuating this problem. He also felt that by approving the setback variance we would be perpetuating some problems with regards to sunlight and air as well as non -conforming structures which would run contrary to the intent. Tompkins complimented the client on his investigation of the problem which recognizes all of the questions that had previously been raised. Because of the perpetuation of non -conforming structure, Tompkins said that he was not in favor of approving these requested variances and that he did not see any hardship. MOTION "Butch" Robertson made a motion to approve both variances as requested which was seconded by Dennis Becker. Motion passed 4-2 with Don Mills and Larry Tompkins voting "nay". Mr. House adjourned the meeting at 5:50 on a motion by Robert Waldren and a second by Robertson. • 76 J