Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-09-08 Minutes• • MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, September 8, 1992, at 3:45 p m in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkanssss. MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Gerald Boyd, Marion Orton, Don Mills, Robert Davis, Larry Perkins, Lonnie Meadows and Thad Hanna Alett Little, Sharon Langley, Joe Bader Ms. Mills called the meeting to order and explained the protocol of the meeting. APPEAL NO. BA92-17 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS JOE BADER - 2050 W. 6TH The first item to be heard was a request for a setback variance (setback not to be used for parking) on property located at 2050 W. 6th presented by Joe Bader. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Bader stated he was present to answer any questions they might have. Ms. Little explained the Section 160.118(D) (6) allowed for reduction in the building setbacks required for a C-2 zone from 50 feet to 25 feet provided vegetation having a minimum height of 1.5 feet at the time of planting and occupying 10% of the open area was installed and no off-street parking was provided in the remaining front yard. She further noted this lot was triangular in shape consisting of approximately 1/3 acre, and had frontage on three streets. She explained to the north was Farmington Road, to the west was Sang Avenue and to the southeast there was frontage on U. S. Highway 62 (West 6th) . She advised that, due to the unusual configuration, with frontage on three sides, a setback from each street right-of-way of 50 feet was required. She explained the applicant was proposing to demolish the current building which occupied the lot and to replace it with, in Phase 1, a 1300 square foot restaurant and in Phase 2, an additional 1200 square foot building. She further explained that, at completion, the buildings would occupy approximately 20% of the lot which was in the acceptable category for building area (60% being the maximum) . She stated that, under Use Unit 13, Eating Places, one parking space per 200 square feet of area was required, thus a total of 13 parking spaces would be required. She noted the developer planned on providing 16 parking spaces; however, due to the unusual shape of the lot, the 16 spaces would not fit without encroachment into the setback area. She advised the use of the setback area was prohibited under the referenced section. Ms. Little explained the applicant was requesting a variance to allow use of the setback area for parking in order to accommodate the proposed development of a Little Ceasars Pizza. She also expressed concern that parking spaces 6 through 9 would be backing directly into the street onto Farmington Road. • Ms. Little recommended approval of the requested variance conditioned upon a vision triangle of ten feet being maintained at each corner where streets intersected. She • Board of Adjustments September 8, 1992 Page 2 explained this requirement was stated at Section 160.110, Visibility at Intersections in Residential, Nonresidential Districts. Mr. Boyd pointed out Farmington Road was one-way at the subject tract. Mr. Bader explained there was an inset from the center lane of the road and it appeared there was room to back out onto the road. Mr. Boyd stated the car would be going the wrong way on a one-way street. Mr. Bader stated he could change the parking of those few cars. Mr. Wayne Eckert stated he had worked at that location for nine years and had seen approximately 200 to 300 people per month go through the station lot in order to avoid the intersection. Mr. Richard Noyce, a customer and part-time employee of Mr. Eckert, agreed the intersection was quite busy. Mr. Boyd advised the applicant only needed 7 parking spaces in phase 1 and he would be able to get 7 spaces without the request for a variance. • Mr. Bader stated he believed he would need the parking. Mr. Boyd suggested Mr. Bader redesign his plan so there would be no exits on 6th Street, only entrances. Mr. Bader explained most of the traffic would be at the pick-up window and he had planned it would be one-way coming from Old Farmington. He explained having the entrance on Highway 62 could cause problems whenever the traffic was backed up at the pick-up window. Mr. Eckert expressed concern for the children crossing the street at that location. He requested some type of safety measure such as a crosswalk. Mr. Bader explained 80$ of his business was done between 5:00 and 8:00 p.m. which would be after school hours. In response to a question from Ms. Little, he explained the Phase 2 was to be used as a rental property. Mr. Boyd asked why he needed so many parking spaces if the customers picked up the pizzas. Mr. Bader explained only 40% of the customers used the pick up window, the remaining 60% came in, ordered and waited 10 to 15 minutes for their order. He further explained corporation headquarters requested each restaurant have 12 parking spaces for a 1300 square foot building. • In response to a question from Mr. Hanna, Mr. Bader explained he would be using the existing pad but would have to remove the tanks. %8 • Board of Adjustments September 8, 1992 Page 3 Mr. Davis asked if there had been any consultation with the Traffic Department for yield signs to bepainted on the street or crossing warnings. Ms. Little stated she had not talked with Perry Franklin regarding that matter. There was discussion regarding traffic flow and realignment of the parking spaces. Mr. Boyd stated he did not see how Phase 2 could be completed. He recommended the Board table this matter to give the applicant time to redraw Phase 1 without the addition of Phase 2. Mr. Davis agreed the matter could be tabled in order to use the expertise of the Traffic Department. MOTION Mr. Davis moved to table the request to better determine a traffic plan. Ms. Orton seconded the motion. The motion carried with Ms. Mills, Mr. Davis, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Orton voting "yes" and Mr. Hanna, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Meadows voting "no". APPEAL NOS. BA92-18, BA92-19 & BA92-20 - REQUESTS FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS GERALD BOYD - 1685 MAINE, 1626 MAINE, & 239 S. EASTERN The next three requests were for variances of area and bulk requirements presented by Gerald Boyd for property located at 1685 Maine, 1626 Maine and 239 S. Eastern. All three tracts of property are zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. Ms. Little stated the first of the properties, located at 1685 Maine, stated the request was for a variance on the front setback from 25 feet to 11 feet, and the side setback from 8 feet to 3.7 feet. Mr. Boyd pointed out this was a corner lot and he would need a variance from 25 feet to 3.7 feet. Ms. Little stated there were two dwelling structures on this tract plus a garage. She stated the first request was for the structure closest to Maine Street which currently existed only 11 feet from the property line, requiring a variance of 14 feet. She explained the garage was located to the rear of the property and sat 3.7 feet from the property line, requiring a variance of 21.3 feet. She recommended approval of the request because there were existing structures. Ms. Little stated almost the same situation existed on the property located at 1626 Maine Street. She explained it was an existing structure and the porch had been removed from the property. She advised she had estimated the porch had been 6 to 8 feet wide which had reduced the amount of variance required. She noted the requirement was for a 25 foot setback and the building currently sat 17.5 feet from 71 • • Board of Adjustments September 8, 1992 Page 4 the property line, leaving a variance request of 7.5 feet. She recommended this request for approval since it was an existing structure. Ms. Little stated the third request was for property located at 239 S. Eastern Street which also had an existing structure. She explained the setback requirement was 25 feet, the building currently sat 18.6 feet from the property line, requiring a variance of 6.4 feet. She further advised this structure had also had the porch removed which had reduced the variance requested. Ms. Little presented pictures to the Board of the three tracts for their review. In response to a question from Mr. Davis, Mr. Boyd explained he had completed remodeling of two of the structures and planned on remodeling the house on Eastern Street. Mr. Davis asked why, since the structures did exist and would not be enlarged, Mr. Boyd was requesting a variance. Mr. Boyd explained if the structure should burn he would be able to rebuild it with the variances. He further stated it would be necessary, in order to get title insurance, should he plan on selling the property. He advised all three of the tracts were in an older part of town and the property had been purchased prior to properties being surveyed. Ms. Mills recommended they consider Appeal BA92-18 located at 1685 Maine. Mr. Boyd explained the structures currently existing were in existence when he purchased the property together with a house immediately to the east of the existing house. He stated he had torn down one of the houses. He stated the house had originally had a front porch which had been enclosed and made a part of the livingroom. He advised he had removed that portion of the structure thereby reducing the encroachment. He also noted he had made two of the structures into a duplex. Mr. Perkins pointed out the setbacks were consistent with the surrounding neighborhood properties. MOTION Mr. Perkins moved to approve the requests for variance. Ms. Orton seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0-1 with Mr. Boyd abstaining. Ms. Mills stated they would consider the property at 1626 Maine. Mr. Boyd explained this was the first property he had purchased on the block and now owned all the property on both sides. He stated this property had also had a front porch which he had removed in order to lessen the encroachment. t0 • Board of Adjustments September 8, 1992 Page 5 MOTION Ms. Orton moved to grant the variance. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0-1 with Mr. Boyd abstaining. Ms. Mills stated they would consider the appeal at 239 S. Eastern. Mr. Boyd explained he had purchased this tract because the structure encroached onto his property. He further stated he would be remodeling this property also but did not want to move the structure because it had a basement. He also pointed out the garage was also in violation of setbacks but he did not want a variance on the garage. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to grant the variance as requested. Mr. Davis seconded the motion. • The motion carried 6-0-1 with Mr. Boyd abstaining. MINUTES The Minutes of the Board of Sign Appeals of the August 17, 1992 meeting were approve as distributed. The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. •