Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-09-15 MinutesMINUTES OF THE BOARD 1' ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, September 15, 1986 at 3:45 P.H. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Robert Waldreu, Larry Tompkins, Gerald Boyd, Dennis Becker and Jerry Allred MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Moore OTHERS PRESENT: Bill Lazenby, Ken Lazenby and Steve Dyer The meeting was called to order and the minutes of the August 18, 1986 meeting were considered. Boyd made the following correction: Page 2, paragraph 5, ...Baker felt it would be appropriate to have the Board of Adjustment approval before he had the home owners association -approval... Upon a motion from Tompkins and a second from Boyd, the minutes were accepted as corrected. VARIANCEAPPEAL 86-14 ON BULK1 AREA REQUIREMENTS KEN IAZENBY - SOUTH END OF FARMERS LANE The first item of consideration was a request submitted by Ken Lazenby for a variance on the Bulk and Area Requirements. Requested 170' of frontage and required 200' of frontage. This property is zoned A-1, Agricultural. Ken Lazenby stated they wanted to build 2 small duplexes on the property in question. He said this property was zoned A-1 and required 200' of frontage and would allow up to 4 units. Mr. Lazenby said they had 170' of frontage and 85' per lot. He said the lot at present was vacant and he felt it would help the community more than it would hurt it. There are 5 duplexes to the North of the lot in question plus other rental property. Larry Tompkins asked if rezoning was pursued and Ken Lazenby stated it was not because of the time involved. Tompkins said he was sorry that Sandra Carlisle was not present because one of the purposes of the Agricultural District is to promote orderly development to the extent that an area was transformed enough to were R-1 would be appropri- ate. Tompkins said the same question was raised 2-1/2 years ago, he said it was all spot zoning. Tompkins felt it was about time to look at the zoning. He said if that would occur there would be no • 10E] Board of Adjustment • September 15, 1986 Page 2 reason for the gentleman to come before the Board of Adjust- ment. Tompkins stated in an Agricultural area a 2 acre minimum was required for two family structures and asked how much acreage did they have. Ken Lazenby said they had a little over 1/2 acre. Tompkins said under the regulations a 2 acre minimum and 86,500 sq. ft. would be required. Tompkins then said they were only asking for a variance on width. Ken Lazenby stated when the Planning Office mapped this property out he was advised to ask for a variance on the frontage. Tompkins noted on the attached sketch they were proposing 16' on the side yard and an interior lot would require 20" Tompkins asked if the area was in the variance, he said the variance was for 170' of frontage and the required was 200' of frontage, that would tell him the variance is for dimension of frontage and not area. Mills then said what they were asking for was the bulk and area require- ment. Waldren stated he did not understand how that little piece of A-1 • was left and surrounded by R-1 and R-2. Ken Lazenby stated there was a house there but it had burned down. Tompkins stated if it was destroyed by more than 60% it would revert back to original zone. Beaker stated it was a zoning problem. Waldren stated if this were zoned R-1 there would not be a problem. Boyd asked if a lot split would be required on this property if there were going to be 2 buildings on one lot. He then asked if they had to be joined together and Bill Lazenby stated he did not think so. Tompkins stated he assumed this property would be 2 lots. Bill Lazenby stated they could make them 2 lots with an abstract. Waldren then said it would have to go before the Planning Commission for a lot split. Boyd stated he thought they could approve one duplex, but did not see how they could approve 2 duplexes on this one lot. Waldren stated this was something that needed to go before the Planning Commission either for rezoning or lot split before they eould rule on it. MOTION Waldren moved to table this variance until they had gone to the Planning • Commission. Tompkins seconded and the motion to table passed 6-0-0. Bill Lazenby asked if it was rezoned would they still need the variance la0Z • Board of Adjustment September 15, 1986 Page 3 and Waldren stated if they had it rezoned and a lot split then they would not need to come back to the Board of Adjustment. Boyd said if they needed to come back to the Board of Adjustment they would not have to pay another $25.00 fee. SETBACKAPPEAL 86-13 VARIANCE A The second item of consideration was a request submitted by Fayetteville City Hospital to vary the setback an additional 10' into the ROW. This property is zoned P-1, Institutional. Steve Dyer, Assistant Administrator at the Fayetteville City Hospital, stated the request they bring to the Board today was related to the request they had granted them at their April meeting. He said there had been some developments since they were granted their last request of 0' to the ROW. Dyer stated it was always their intention to go the entire width of the driveway. He said they had received a letter from Sandra Carlisle that stated the 10' transfer in 1983 which the City Hospital considered an easement was in deed a property transfer an obviously it was her eouteusion they could not build on City property, • therefore the City Hospital was in agreement with that and went up to the edge of City property. Dyer stated during the course of recon- struction of School Street, they were in contact with the City Street Department and members of the City for two purposes; they provided the general contractors work on redoing the Hospitals driveway during the construction and the Hospital reimbursed them as such and also trying to work out the situation with the canopy and it's best use with the variance that had been granted to them. Dyer stated after they finished the construction on School Street the City did not have a problem with granting them a 10' easement. Dyer said Mr. Grimes went to the City and got a temporary easement which basically states the City had no problem with the Hospital using that area for the purpose of the canopy and driveway, but with the understanding if something should come up in the future the Hospital would relinquish that position. Dyer said they felt this would be in the best interest of the public because they have approximately 500 people per month coming through the Hospital and it would be a better utilization than the previous request simply from the stand point of getting the entire driveway covered. Dyer stated Mr. Tompkins had a comment from the last meeting concerning the traffic, Dyer said the drive itself would not constitute any increase in traffic and the visibility would not be a major concern. He said they intended to use a sign for a one-way drive. • Boyd said they could put a sign on their exit "no left turn". Boyd then said they were not asking for anything other than a roof for unloading area. 1623 isBoard of Adjustment September 15, 1986 Page 4 Waldreu stated they had already granted this variance to the edge of the ROW prior to this. Waldren said now the City had given the ROW back to the Hospital and accentually the Board said it was alright for them to come to the edge of the ROW and if the Board said it once it would make since to him to continue their same vote on this. Dyer stated they were basically back beeause they wanted to touch base and not step on anyones toes. He said they were pleased with the variance they received at the last meeting because they felt that was the best they could hope for. But once the City had no problem with the Hospital using the additional 10" the Hospital felt it would be much better use of the canopy. Waldren stated it seemed, in a way, that the City Board had granted the variance at City Board level which he did not know if they could do that or not. Beaker questioned the diagram showing the street ROW covering the easement and asked why an easement was inside a ROW. Dyer stated the existing building that was erected in 1912 came out a lot further • to School Street than it did now. He said the front of the old building was taken off and the new area was layed in and they had never been able to satisfy the setback requirements because the street was already there and the building was already there and they were already to close to one another. He said the Hospital had been trying to give back as much ROW as possible and in 1983 they gave a 10' ROW for that purpose. Dyer said with the reconstruction project on School street, they felt like the area would be stable enough to take that chance. Beaker said he had never known an easement to set inside a ROW. Waldren said a street ROW was used for traffic and utilities and not for the construction of a building or canopy for the property owner. Beaker said it looked like they needed an encroachment permit not an easement. Tompkins asked if the street ROW was on the Master Street Plan or was that the proposed street plan that had been adopted by the community. Tompkins also said he still had a problem with the entry coming north and blocking one lane of traffic and turning left. He said there was still a sight distance problem over the hill. Tompkins said he was not clear on what temporary meant. Dyer stated it meant if there was a need in the future that would not be conducive to the canopy being there then they would have to move the canopy. Tompkins questioned the temporary easement, said premises shall be needed for "street purposes" what if there were other kinds of public purposes in addition to or in lieu of a street purpose. Waldren said that might be why • they went with a temporary easement rather than an encroachment because an encroachments generally states. Allred stated a temporary easement is at the call of the City. 1A • Board of Adjustment September 15, 1986 Page 5 Dyer stated everything in that area that would be affected had just been done and that was why they were willing to take the risk of going to the expense of putting up the canopy. Tompkins said in terms of the canopy it's function would be to keep people out of inclement weather for both sides, the driver side and the one exiting. He said if they reduced it back to the previous variance then they would only be covering the passenger side. Dyer said it would not be the most advantageous use because the driveway would already be there so why not cover it. Boyd asked if ambulances used this and Dyer stated there was a different entrance for ambulances. Tompkins asked what their hardship was and Dyer stated it was not so much their hardship but the hardship for the patients and the community by having to get out in inclement weather situations. The public hearing was closed and discussion returned to Board members, isWaldren said they gave them a 0' variance to the ROW the last time they saw this and the City has seen fit to go ahead and allow them on a temporary basis to use what the Hospital had deeded over to the City. Waldren said he could not see any difference in what the Board had granted before and what the City Hospital was asking for now, they still wanted to go out as far as they could go. Waldren said he had no problem with it and he had looked at it from a Company stand point and it would not be a problem for SWEPCO. Mills stated she had a problem with this, she said it. stated "no con- struction of any sort may be placed over the ROW", she did not see a hardship. She said it would be convenient to have the entire thing covered but it bothered her to come all the way out. Waldren said he had a little problem with who had the jurisdiction, the City said they would grant them a temporary easement to build their canopy. Tompkins stated Waldren had raised a very good question, he said the City had actually given them air rights to use the ROW above property not owned. Dyer made a comment to Chairman Mills concern, he said the existing drive was already in the ROW and all they were asking was to use the air space above the two supports. Mills said it was not the supports • that bothered her it was the canopy coming out to the ROW that she had a problem with. ia5 • Board of Adjustment September 15, 1986 Page 6 Becker said she had a valid point because there was encroachment to start with, forget the canopy, there was a technical problem to start with. Dyer stated that problem had existed for a number of years. Beaker stated was the canopy safe, it was an air rights thing, it comes over the top, can they make it half way safe, there was the history of a public building being to close to the original ROW. Beaker said the basic problem was there's already an encroachment. MOTION Boyd moved to grant the addition 10' variance to the ROW. Allred seconded and the motion to approve passed 4-2-0, Mills and Thompkins voting "nay". There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. CI u I.04V