Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-02-11 MinutesA meeting of the 3:45 P.M. in the MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held February 11, 1974 at Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Chairman Carl Yates, Connie Clack, James White, David Newbern, Suzanne Lighton. None. Bobbie Jones, Mayor Russell Purdy, Attorney. -James Roy, Iris Dees, Ralph Guthary, Jr. Chairman Yates called the meeting to order. Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal No. 74-3, CAPITOL TOBACCO CO. Capitol Tobacco Company, 523 West Poplar Street, on an 523 W Poplar application to vary setbacks. They request to be allowed to Appeal No. 74-3 build within 16.72 feet of the property line on the east side of the proposed building. The ordinance would require 25 feet. Mr. Ralph Guthary was present to represent the company. Mr. Guthary said they need an 80 foot wide building very badly and that they had considered building a 75 foot building on their lot but they need more room. He said there is a natural drainage ditch between this lot and the one on the east side end there would be quite a space of land there that would not be useable. Chairman Yates asked if he was saying he needed the 80 feet for a certain size structural steel building because it came in standard 20 -foot lengths. Mr. Guthary agreed and said a 60 foot building would not be large enough. Mr. Guthary said the building would be used for a warehouse. He said the 30 feet shown on the west side was going to be used for parking spaces. He said the truck loading dock was going to be on the west side and would be inside. He indicated they need 30 feet of driving room to drive the vehicles inside. Mr. Guthary said there is nothing over there on the east side. David Newbern said the natural drainage ditch runs across this property and he failed to see how another building would be close to this. He said he could. understand the variance request better if it were on the other persons property. He said he could not see how the zoning law was at fault and saw no particular hardship. Mr. Guthary seid the ditch does run partially on the other property. David Newbern asked when Capitol Tobacco Company purchased this property. Mr. Guthary said approximately one year ago. Mr. Guthary said they let their realtor handle all the details including checking the lot to see if it would be suitable for a 75 foot to 100 foot wide building. Connie Clack asked if any consideration was given to opening the garage to the front and moving the office. Mr. Guthary said yes but he didn't think they could do that. Chairman Yates suggested they consider going to the rear or south with the building. Mr. Guthary explained the size of trucks they will be loading and conveyor systems for handling materiels. Chairman Yates asked if they grant him a variance of 21.72 feet instead of 16.72 would this be of any value to them. Mr. Guthary said he would have to check with his superiors. David Newbern asked what the parking space requirements were for this and Bobbie Jones said warehousing is one space per 1000 feet. Mr. Guthary said since they bought the property they had given 5 feet off the east side of their lot but they obtained 5 feet on the west side so the lot is still the same size. There was no one present to oppose the application. The public hearing was concluded. Connie Clack said she was not in favor of granting the variance and could not see where he could not just adjust his building. James White said it is an all new area opened up in the past year Miss Lighton asked if the area was being developed by one developer. Bobbie Jones said those are platted lots The lots normally run 126.72 feet wide. The lots on the corners are really going to be problems. This Is A • •f • asl • • 4 • Board of Adjustment Page Two February 11, 1974 was all under the same ownership recently. Bobbie Jones said she was checking on the • the five-foot lot split. She said Mr. Grimes said we would need 25 feet of right-of-way on Poplar in the future and that doesn't go along with the Major Street Plan. This doesn't present a particular problem in this case; they are set back far enough. Connie Clack moved that the variance be denied. James White seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Miss Lighton moved that if Mr. Guthary p new plan that he feels justifies the will hear it without new advertising. is able, within the next month, to come up with Board's rehearing this matter, that the Board The motion died for lack of a second. The next matter for discussion was Dandy Oil Company requesting that the Board of Adjustment make an interpretation and ruling as to whether or not a variance is actually required for their DANDY OIL COMPANY 15th & School Interpretation Request proposed Automotive Service Center at 15th and School. Attorney James Roy was present to represent Dandy Oil Company. Dandy Oil Company had previously requested.a 40 foot setback from the right-of-way of School Street and a 50 foot setback from the right-of-way of 15th Street. There is a 50 foot zoning setback plus ?5, feet required for the Major Street Plan on School. Also, 50 feet of zoning setback plus 10 feet of Major Street Plan required for 15th Street. On January 18,1974 the Board had denied a variance in setback from School Avenue for the proposed building; denied the variance in setback from 15th Street for the proposed building; approved the variance in setback to allow a mansard roof to be erected on the existing building (along both streets) and approved the request to vary the requirement for 20% landscaping. Chairman Yates informed the Board that there had been p Notice of Appeal filed with the Circuit Court of Washington County. He said this had been discussed with the City Attorney, Jim McCord, and Mr. McCord said that Dandy Oil Company could not force the Board to hear them again legally but if the Board desired to hear them it would be alliright. He asked the members if there were any objections to hearing this again and no one objected. Mr Roy said the proposed building is farther back than the existing building and that they were requesting that setback measurements be taken from the current right=of=way of School Avenue and 15th Street. He requested an interpretation of the Board to determine whether a variance is required in light of measurements on the recomputed map. Mr. Roy said the building proposed to be constructed and the existing building are in compliance now with setbacks for the current right-of-way of Highway 71 South. He wanted the Board to rule if Mr. Lieberenz' interpretation was correct in stating that the variance is not required as the setback lines are in conformity with what is right-of-way at the present time. Bobbie Jones said the 80 foot requirement is a City Major Street plan. The present street plan was adopted in 1970 and ammended last year. The intersection was not affected by the ammendment to the Major Street Plan. Chairman Yates said he would not agreeewith them that they were in accordance with the measurements on South School. Discussion followed about the survey made of the property and a Dandy Oil Company representative said the survey was taken from State computations that he did not agree with. Chairman Yates reminded him that there was a discrepency in measurements before and this is the second time he has disagreed with his surveyors; and that he needs to be sure and show proof of what he believes is correct. The Board said a variance would be needed on School Street with what the measurements 'show on the last survey. Mr. Roy then asked that they make a ruling on 15th Street. Mr. Roy said he believed that any widening of the street and taking of their property requires compensation and we feel that we are being deprived of the use of our property right now and it is being taken right now and we should have compensation. Miss Lighton said there are a lot of property descriptions that run out into the street and she thought they are bound to the Major Street Plan. James White said he felt the first issue was the boundary dispute of state property and private property. David Newbern asked Mr. Roy if he was asking the Board to disregard the City ordinance and Mr. Roy said they wanted an interpretation and ruling made as to whether or not a variance is required. Chairman Yates read a definition of official setback line from Article 17 of the 116 Board of Adjustment Page Three February 11, 1974 Zoning Ordinance. Miss Lighton said it is official that whether the Major Street Plan • is put in effect or not that the plan as shown by the Major Street Plan has to be treated as if the street were widened to that point. David Newbern said he was sympathetic to their position of compensation for taking of the property but that this question could not be ruled on by the Board of Adjustment. • Miss Lighton moved that the Board uphold the opinion of the Planning Administrator or Building Inspector's that a variance is required. James White seconded the motion which carried unanimously. The minutes of the January 28, 1974 meeting were approved as mailed. MINUTES Connie.Clack expressed her concern that the fact that the Board of Adjustment had granted a variance to Ozarks Floor Company might seem to convey to the Planning Commission an approval of the Large Scale Development Plan. She moved that the Board adopt a resolution that the Chairman of the Board of Adjustment notify the Chairman of the Planning Commission that the granting of a variance by the Board of Adjustment does not constitute an endorsement of any proposed use that would require Planning Commission approval. RESOLUTION NO, 1-74 WHEREAS, Ozark Floor Company, Inc. filed an appeal for a variance from the required setbacks imposed under Article 5, Appendix A -Zoning, Fayetteville Code of Ordinances with the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 1974, seven (7) days following the publication of a notice in the Northwest Arkansas Times and seven (7) days following the placement of a sign on the Ozark Floor Company, Inc. property at 928 North College, the Board of Adjustment did approve variances in setbacks for a proposed building and truck berth NOW BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Adjustment wishes to make known to the Fayetteville Planning Commission that the granting of variances by the Board of Adjustment does not constitute en endorsement of any proposed use that would require approval of the Fayetteville Planning Commission. PASSED AND APPROVED - llth day of February , 1974. The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Carl Yates, Chairman n4 �