Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-03-26 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING The Fayetteville in the Directors Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: 41- 3- Board of Adjustment met at 3:45 P.M., Monday, March 26, 1973, Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Carl Yates, Connie Clack, James White, Albert Witte. Suzanne Lighton. Mr. & Mrs. Clarence F. Gorman, David McWethy, Conlee Bodishbaugh, Mr. & Mrs. Paul Sullins, Bob Stout. Chairman Carl Yates called the meeting to order. Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal 73-10, Clarence F. Gorman, 1111 East Elm Street, on an application to vary setbacks. Mr. & Mrs. Gorman were present. Mr. Gorman said when they purchased the house 4i years ago it had a patio on the West side of it. They have been bothered with mosquitos and such and want to screen it in. The roof overhang would be only 6 ft. 6 in. from the side property line rather than 8 ft. Mr. Gorman presented a letter from the neighbor on that side of his property agreeing to a setback of 7 ft. Chairman Yates read the letter and asked that it be noted in the record of the minutes. There were no further questions from the Board. There was no opposition present. The public hearing was concluded. APPEAL 73-10 CLARENCE F. GORMAN 1111 East Elm St Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal 73-11, AMC, Inc., 2210 South School Avenue, on an application to vary setbacks. Conlee Bodishbaugh was present to represent the application. He said strict adherence to the requirements of the zoning ordinance would leave them no place to build. The rear of the building would be high out of the ground if the building were turned to run East and West. Mr. Bodishbaugh cited problems caused by topography, a change in zoning regulations, and the need for maneuvering room for trucks. They presently store materials along the South property line, also. They have owned the property about 5 years. He said the improvements proposed would allow them to get some materials inside and enhance the appearance of the property. He said in the future they hope to remove both frame buildings there and add a new brick office building. Chairman Yates noted that they could move this building 17 ft. to the South and still meet the side setback from the South property line and asked why they could not do this. Mr. Bodishbaugh said they need that area for trucks, and that to put a driveway in would destroy what they are now using for outside storage area. He said they already have the foundation in and the steel framing for the building is already up. They had understood that the setback requirement was 25 ft. from the property line. Connie Clack asked if they anticipate requiring a variance for the future office building. Mr. Bodishbaugh said they would like to line up the North line of this building with the office building; but if that became an issue they could move the location of the proposed office building, as that location is not critical, just desirable. Chairman Yates asked from which street they have access. Mr. Bodishbaugh said their present access is from Highway 71; but they have previously had a driveway off 22nd Street and want to establish a new one off 22nd Street. Mr. Bodishbaugh told Mr. Yates the building will not be a prefabricated one, but will(just be corrugated metal. APPEAL 73-11 AMC, Inc. 2210 S. School 113 Board of Adjustment -2- 3-26-73 The present width of 22nd Street was discussed. The City Plat Book shows the width to be 40 ft. in right-of-way. The drawing submitted by AMC shows the right-of-way to be 20 ft. The Major Street Plan lists this street as a 60 ft. collector. The letter prepared for the Board of Adjustment based the setback requirement on the drawing submitted by Mr. Bodishbaugh. If the City Plat Book is correct the required setbacks would be 10 ft. less than that contained in the letter. Mr. Bodishbaugh said he would question whether there exists more than 20 ft. Mr. Eoff owns the property immediately North across 22nd Street. Albert Witte said that perhaps special topography problems justify some relief, but on the other hand "jumping the gun" on the foundation without a building permit cannot be considered by the Board of Adjustment as grounds for a variance. Chairman Yates asked Mr. Bodishbaugh if the Board saw fit to deny this request or to grant a lesser variance what increments of the building they would need to work with. Mr. Bodishbaugh said the framing is on 10 ft. centers. He said moving the building would be expensive, but that in a couple of years they could write the loss off. He said he was bothered more by being tied to a land usage that would be a consistent problem with the handling of trucks. James White asked him whether he could turn the building the other way. He said it would be impossible to get in and out with any kind of trailer if he did. He said the zoning designation has changed since they bought the property. Paul Sullins, adjoining property owner, was present and stated he had sold AMC the property and had no objections to the variance. There was no opposition present. The public hearing was concluded. Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal 73-12, Stout Petroleum APPEAL 73-12 Company, Inc., 1701 West Sixth Street on an application to vary setbacks STOUT PETROLEUM of a canopy. 1701 W. Sixth Bob Stout was present to represent the application. Mr. Stout stated they want to put a free-standing canopy over the gasoline pumps and there is no way to move the building. They are limited in space. They want to rehabilitate the service station, pave around it, up grade it and try to improve its looks. The canopy would be 12 ft. on either side of the pump island. Chairman Yates asked whether they could reduce the size of the canopy a foot or so. Mr. Stout said they had figured that if the highway is ever widened, it will wipe them out at that location completely. Albert Witte asked Mr. Stout for information about the cost of the canopy and how much traffic hazard it would be. Mr. Stout did not feel it would block traffic any There was no opposition present. The public hearing was concluded. Chairman Yates said he felt that if you let them put the pump island, he could see no readon to deny them a canopy. Albert Witte agreed and said if the APPEAL 73-12 base is already there, it is as much of a benefit to the public as it is to the owner to have a canopy. He said he felt differently about this request from the way he had felt about the Sonic Drive Int because it is buil€ and here and the canopy would be detached. Albeit Witte moved that the application for Stout Petroleum Company be granted. James White seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. James White said that the character of the area around 22nd Street and APPEAL 73-11 South School and the width of 22nd Street as it exists now makes it look like a disaster area. He said there is, nevertheless, a street easement and it might be extended in the future if it can get around the pump station. The Board checked Ordinance 1239 for the setbacks that would have been required Board of Adjustment -3- 3-26-73 with either C-2 or I-1 zoning at the time the property was acquired. Albert Witte suggested the possibility of a variance that would take • 10 ft. off the North end of the building and move that 10 ft. to the South end. Connie Clack said that would still be a large variance and was as much of a variance as she would be inclined to agree to. Both Chairman Yates and James White felt they could agree to a variance under those terms. The Board members discussed again the question of the width of the existing street right-of-way. Lames White`': moved to deny the application as presented and to amend the appeal of AMC, Inc., Appeal 73-11, and to grant a variance to allow a setback of 46 ft. from the centerline of 22nd Street. Albert Witte seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. Albert Witte moved to approve Appeal 73-10, Clarence F. Gorman, as requested. James White seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. APPEAL 73-10 By unanimous consent the Board members present requested that future meetings be scheduled for 3:30 P.M. on the second and fourth Monday of /.2ETING TIME each month rather than 3:45. This would not conflict with the schedules of any of the members at this time and would enable the meetings to be dismissed earlier. • • Therminates ofctheiBoatddoft Adjustment meetings for February 12 and MINUTES February 26, 1973 were-appzoved as mailed. The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 P.M. 15