HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-02-12 MinutesThe Fayetteville
in the Directors
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Others Present:
3G'/ 0262.73
MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
Board of Adjustment met at 3:45 P.M., Monday, February 12, 1973,
Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Connie Clack, James H. White, Carl Yates, Albert Witte,
Suzanne Lighton.
None.
Ray White, David McWethy, Hugh Smith, Jack Burge, Maupin
Cummings, Walter Niblock, Mrs. Faye Sutherland, Mrs. Ermel
Fox, David Malone, Ronnie Woodruff, Ken Lazenby, Kerry
Schultz, Mrs. Charles Barrett.
Chairman Carl Yates called the meeting to order.
Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal 73-4, Mr. Burger
(Hugh Smith, 1194 North Garland Avenue (Oak Plaza Shopping Center), on
an application to vary height of sign. Hugh Smith and Jack Burge were
present to represent the application.
Mr. Burge informed the Board that Mr. Smith had been working since last
August to select a site location, let the building contract, and get
the plans; approved and obtain a building permit He had checked on the
size of the sign last year and was told a roof sign was not permitted, but
had not been told he could not place a sign on a pole.
Chairman Yates said the City has since had a change of sign ordinances
and explained the differences between the two ordinances.
Mr. Burge said Mr. Smith had already bought the sign when he applied for
a permit. There is only one free standing sign in the shopping center now.
The proposed sign would be located right against the building on the South
side. Mr. Burge said this restaurant will have take out service only; there
will be no inside food service.
Chairman Yates asked if the walls were such that a wall sign could be mounted
on them. Mr. Burge said there is an overhang of about 15 or 16 inches depth
and this is the only place a wall sign could be hung. The height requested
of 13 ft. 10 inches would place the bottom of the sign right at the top of the
building.
Mr. Smith said he is caught between two sign regulations; the new ordinance
allows signs 30 ft. high, but only one sign per piece of property; the old
one allowed more than one sign, but did not allow them to go above the top
of the building. This appeal was filed before the new sign ordinance took
effect.
Albert Witte discussed the sign size with Mr. Smith.., Mr. Smith said he had
told the manufacturer to keep the size 74 sq. ft. or less.
There were no further questions and no one present to oppose the appeal.
The public hearing was concluded.
APPEAL 73-4
MR. BURGER
(HUGH SMITH)
1194 N. Garland
Chairman Yates called for the public hearing on F. J. Hughes, Inc.,
Appeal 73-5, 101 East 13th Street (Southeast corner of 13th and College), F.
on an appeal from an administrative decision of the Planning Administrator;
and on an application to vary setbacks. There was no one present to
represent the application. There was no one present to oppose the appeal.
Further consideration and discussion on this appeal was deferred until
someone could be present to represent the application.
APPEAL 73-5
J. HUGHES, INC
101 E. lath
•
Board of Adjustment
2-12e73
-2-
Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal 73-6, Maupin and Louise APPEAL 73-6
• Cummings, 1604 West Sixth, on an application to vary setbacks. Judge MAUPIN CUMMINGS
Cummings and Attorney Walter Niblock were present to represent the appeal. 1604 W. Sixth
Mr. Niblock said they would delete the plans for an overhang of a mansard
roof on the East side toward Eastern Avenue. They would make the roof
flush with the building on this side. Mr. Niblock said they would still
:like to have the overhang on the West side and on the front.
Judge Cummings said he wished to extend the present building 50 ft. to the
West and 75 ft. to the North on the West side and put Ratliff's Used
Furniture in it. He wanted to keep the fronts continuous and put a new
brick front on the building.
Albert Witte asked if both buildings would be used by Ratliff's Used
Furniture. Judge Cummings said they would be, but that the two buildings
would become one building.
Suzanne Lighton told the applicant that the building which is there now
is non -conforming as to its setbacks and that adding to that building
is altering or changing a non -conforming building.
Chairman Yates asked if they have. considered offsetting the new portion
of the building to meet the setback requirements from Highway 62, and
letting the Board grant a setback from Eastern Avenue.
James White asked about the possibility of building an independent
building completely away from this existing structure containing the
space required by the proposed use. He has plenty of space to do this.
Suzanne Lighton said she would hesitate to grant that much of a variance
along Highway 62. Mr. White said that they would not be permitted to park
between the building and street if the building is only 26 ft. from the
right-of-way because cars would have to back out into the right-of-way.
Adjoining property owners, Mrs. Ermel Fox and Mrs. Faye Sutherland said
they understood parking was to be to the West of the building. They asked
how deep the property was and whether a liquor store could be placed on it.
Mr. Niblock said the lots were 165 feet deep and that a liquor store could
be put there but that they do not intend to do so.
Judge Cummings said he could omit the plans for the mansard roof, but wanted
to be able to brick the existing wall. He said he wanted to improve the
building's appearance.
There were no other questions. The public hearing was concluded.
Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal 73-7, H. D. Mixon,
1041 North College, on an application to vary setbacks. City Attorney
David Malone said he had gotten in on this because the City is trying to
obtain some additional right-of-way at North and College Avenue in connection
with widening of the highway. He told the Board the amount of additional
right-of-way the Arkansas Highway Department is requiring off this property.
When Mr. Malone had contacted Mr. Mixon regarding purchasing of the necessary
right-of-way, Mr. Mixon indicated he wanted to construct a building of the
largest size permitted by ordinances. Subsequently, Mr. Mixon had met with
the Street Superintendent, City Engineer, City Attorney, and City Building
Inspector. At this meeting, they came up with a proposed building size of
90 ft. by 70 ft. which would require a setback all the way to the South
property line and a 15 ft. setback from Pollard Avenue. It would conform to
the setback requirements from College Avenue and North Street. In preparing
the drawing they had thought an additional 10 ft. could be put in the building
North-South and still meet the required setback from North Street; however,
the Planning Administrator had found that they had omitted 10 ft. of the Major
Street Plan setback, so they are requesting a 10 ft. variance on North Street.
APPEAL 73-7
H. D. MIXON
1041 N.Collegi
Board of Adjustment
2-12-73' -3-
Mr. Malone said that Mr. Mixon had agreed to give the City the right-of-
way to construct these improvements on the street if the variances are
granted. Mr. Mixon has not been guaranteed any variances and if the
Board of Adjustment does not feel the variances are desirable, it will be
the City's responsibility to obtain the rights-of-way through condemnation.
Mr. Malone said he thought Mr. Mixon might accept variances to permit a
building 90 ft. by 70 ft.
Albert Witte asked what the use of the building to the South is and was told
it is offices. That building is owned by a Mr. Penick in Tulsa. He had called
David Malone earlier in the day.
Mr. Witte asked if there were any problems with traffic and traffic hazards
on College Avenue. Mr. Malone said the building will meet the required setback
from College.
James White asked about the parking for the proposed building. Mr. Malone said
it will have to be underneath the building and Mr. Mixon understands that and
also understands that driveways would probably have to be off the rear. Albert
Witte asked about reactions from various City offices. The Planning Administrator
said Paul Mattke did not favor any variances on North or College but would not
oppose the other two.
Attorney Ronnie Woodruff was present on behalf of Mr. Mixon. He said he had not
been in on the discussions to which Mr. Malone referred and could not assure the
Board of Adjustment Mr. Mixon will give the right-of-way. The City will just
have to take Mr. Mixon at his word. He had told Mr. Woodruff he wanted to build
as large a building as he can.
Mr. Malone suggested a compromise of setbacks from the South property line of 5 ft.
and a setback of 35 ft. from North Street to give the same size building.
Ken Lazenby, Lazenby Real Estate, owns the second property to the South. He
said he and his company had no objections to the variances requested, but that
Mr. Penick had asked him to inform the Board that he did object to any variance from
the 10 ft. required setback from the South property line. Mr. Penick had no objection
to the other variances requested. Mr. Penick has a driveway against the common
property line between the two properties.
James White asked how Mr. Penick's building is situated on his lot. It is South
of the 10 ft. driveway. He has access to the property from both College Avenue
and Pollard Avenue. Mr. Lazenby said he himself now has parking only off
Pollard. He said his building is about 10 ft. from the new right-of-way
line. He does not know how far back Mr. Penick's building is, but it is leas
than 40 ft. Mr. Malone said Mr. Mixon's proposed building would probably be
farther off College than Mr. Penick's.
The public hearing was concluded.
Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal 73-8, Mrs. Elwanda APPEAL 73-8
Billingsley, 1843 North College Avenue, on an application to vary setbacks. E.BII.LINGSLEY
Kerry Schultz was present to represent the application. He said Mrs. Billingsley 1843 N.
owns all the surrounding property both North and South including everything College
from where Roscoe's Bar-B-Que was to the intersection of Green Acres Road
and College Avenue. To the South is a Lion Oil service station and to the
North is a car wash. He said the property is really in the name of Tri-State
Realty but that Mr. Billingsley has disappeared and Mrs. Billingsley has more
or less inherited the property. Chairman Yates asked if the walk on the East
side of the building is proposed to be covered. Mr. Schultz said it is not,
so the variance requested from College Avenue is for a setback of 45 feet.
There was no opposition present. The public hearing was concluded.
Mrs. Charles Barrett had arrived to discuss Appeal 73-5, F. J. Hughes, Inc.
with the Board. She said she was not very familiar with the appeal but
Board of Adjustment
2-12-73 -4-
her husband is sick and had asked her to represent the appeal.
Chairman Yates said that first the Board must determine whether or not
it has the power to hear the request for a variance and this is the
basis of the appeal for an interpretation. He asked City Attorney David
Malone some questions on the interpretation. Mr. Malone said he personally
agreed with the opinion of the Planning Administrator and Harold Lieberenz,
but the applicant has asked the Board for a ruling on that.
Discussion brought out that this is an old subdivision.
There was no one else present interested in the application.
The public hearing was concluded.
Albert Witte said he was not bothered by the height requested for a sign APPEAL 73-4
on Appeal 73-4, Mr. Burger (Hugh Smith) since this is under the maximum
height limit, but he was troubled by the measurements of the sign.
Mr. Witte moved the variance requested for a sign height of 13 ft. 10 inches
be granted subject to the condition that there is no variance of the current
size limit in the new sign ordinance. Suzanne Lighton seconded the motion
which was approved unanimously.
James White moved to uphold the findings of the Planning Administrator on APPEAL 73-5
Appeal 73-5, F. J. Hughes, Inc.; Albert Witte seconded the motion which
was approved unanimously. The interpretation of the Planning Administrator
had been that the Board of Adjustment did not have the power to vary the
second paragraph of Article 4, 2. of Appendix A -Zoning, Fayetteville Code
of Ordinances, "If two or more lots or combinations of lots and portions of
lots with continuous frontage in single ownership are of record at the time
of passage or amendment of this ordinance, and if all parts of the lots do not meet
the requirements established for lot width and area, the lands involved shall be
considered to be an undivided parcel for the purposes of this ordinance, and no
portion of said parcel shall be used or sold in a manner which diminishes compliance
with lot width and area requirements established by this ordinance, nor shall
any division of any parcel be made which creates a lot with width or area
below the requirements stated in this ordinance."
Chairman Yates said that with this finding, the request for a variance in
setbacks is not pertinent.
After further discussion on Appeal 73-6, Maupin and Louise Cummings, James APPEAL 73-6
White moved to grant the necessary variance on setback from Eastern Avenue
and the variance in setback from Highway 62 as requested on the existing building
but to deny the variance in setback requested from Highway 62 for the new
structure. Suzanne Lighton seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
The Board discussed again Appeal 73-7, H. D. Mixon. Connie Clack wondered
if they could not allow a 90 ft. by 60 ft. building so he would not need a
variance anywhere except in the setback off Pollard Avenue. Albert Witte
consulted with David Malone on this question. Mr. Malone said he thought
he needed a 90 ft. by 70 ft. building in order to be able to get sufficient
parking under the building.
Albert Witte moved to allow the proposed building to be 90 ft. by 70 ft.
and that there be three variances in setback granted, 1) a 5 ft. variance
in setback from North Street, 2) a 5 ft. variance in setback from the South
property line, and 3) a 15 ft. variance in setback from Pollard Avenue.
James White seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
APPEAL 73-7
Board of Adjustment
2-12-73 -5-
The Board discussed again Appeal 73-8, Mrs. Elwanda Billingsley. APPEAL 73-8
Albert Witte said that without getting into the merits of this request, this
• seemed to be the type of problems which this Board was established to deal with
He saw one negative factor, this would contribute to the College Avenue
traffic factor.
Chairman Yates asked whether or not they had considered an alternate
arrangement on the lot. Mr. Schultz said they have, but this one seemed
the best. He also said he did not think they could cut down the East-
West dimension of the building. Albert Witte moved to grant the variance
as requested. James White seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
Chairman Yates said it was not necessary for the motion to include any
reference to the parking on the East side of the building because the
Planning Office would take care of this question.
The minutes of the January 22, 1973 Board of Adjustment meeting were
approved as mailed with one correction of a typographical error.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 P.M.
IO