Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-07-01 Minutes• The Fayetteville Room of the City MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Ca%o,0764* 2 -..?4-7y MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Board of Adjustment met at 3:30 P.M., July 1, 1974, in the Directors Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Carl Yates, Suzanne Lighton, Connie Clack, James White, David Newbern. none James E. Lindsey, Dr. M. B. Painter, Warren Segraves, Bobbie Jones Linda Jackson Chairman Yates called the meeting to order. Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal No. APPEAL NO. 74-18 74-18. The applicant was Mr. James Lindsey - location Mr. James E. Lindsey 524 South School Avenue; Zoning District C-2. Thorough- 524 South School Avenue fare Commercial District. The application was to vary the rear yerd setback. Requested is a zero (0) foot setback from the West edge of the alley or rear property line. Bobbie Jones explained that there seems to be a possible conflict in the Zoning Ordinance under Bulk and Area Regulations. The following set- backs are required: Back Property Line R-0 C-3 C-1 C-2 (Central Business) (Shopping Center) 25' 20' 20' Back Property Line 15' 25' • without public easement or alley Centerline of a 20' 20' Public Easement Centerline of a Public Easement or Alley 25' 15' 20' Mr. Lindsey was present and explained to the Board that the property was 144' deep; there are four older buildings on it at the present time. Three are used for residential pur- poses, and one is used for e. cafe. The alley in the back has been used as a drainage ditch. Connie Clack asked Mr. Lindsey on which side of the right-of-way of trees did the alley run, and Mr. Lindsey answered that the alley ran to the East of the trees. Mr. Lieberenz said the basic problem is with 144 feet in depth plus what the State Highway Department is contemplating taking, it is extremely questionable whether any real or substantially good development could go in there, with a 60 ft. setback off of School Street. Otasco who is interested in going in there has completely redesigned their building to 150' long x 75' in depth. (Last sentence, Mr. Lindsey's comment) He said they actually would probably move off of the back property line approximately 5 or 6 feet, to enable them to solve any problems that they would have with the ditch and their footings and foundations. Mr. Lindsey felt that the variance was justified because the present required right-of- way has made this property difficult to develop. He said he has been trying to develop the property for three years and has had great difficulty in trying to do so. He said ell four (4) of the existing buildings will be razed, from the existing right-of-way of School Avenue. Mr. Lindsey stated his thought was that he wanted something very nice taking up the whole block rather than trying to squeeze in a lot of buildings. Mr. Lindsey said that he would dedicate the 10 feet to the City upon issuance of a building permit Chairman Yates read a note from City Manager Don Grimes to the Planning Administrator 100 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING -2- July 1, 1974 which was as follows: "A few days ago I contacted the Highway Department, Re': Jim Lindsey's proposal to dedicate 10 feet along his development site at the North East corner of Highways 71B and 62 intersection (10 ft. x approximately 300 ft.). Charles Venable, Assistant Chief Engineer for Planning, calied today and said this is good. All they will need on that side other than possibly a temporary construction easement." Bobbie Jones stated that setbackssin a C-2 zone require 20 feet from the back pro- perty line and 20 feet from the centerline of a public easement and that alleys are not mentioned in the C-2 zone. She did not know if that was intentional or whether it was an oversite. Miss Lighton mentioned that she thought that there was no advantage to either pro- perty owner in closing the alley. There was no one present to oppose the request, therefore, the public hearing was concluded. Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal NO. 74-19, Hamopah, Incorporated, 765 Lollar Lane, Zoning District - R-0, Residential -Office District and R-2, Medium Density Residential District; Application to vary setbacks and parking requirements. Requested is a setback from Front Property Line (East)23 ft. The required zoning setback is 30' plus 5 ft. Major Street Plan with a total setback of 35 ft. (without parking be- tween building and right-of-way); or a 50 ft. zoning setback plus 5 ft. for Major Street Plan, with a total setback of 55 ft. (with parking between building and right- of-way) The applicant also requests a varianceto continue using parking between existing building and street pavement. This parking is partly on street right-of- way at present. Mr. Warren Segraves and Dr. M. B. Painter were present to represent the appeal. Mr. Segraves said that originally, they were going to remodel the house, however, after investigating the situation, they decided it was a better plan to abandon remodeling the house and just build a slightly larger addition. The floor space and parking needed will be about the same. Dr. Painter stated: The building to the West is presently used as office space. Chairman Yates confirmed the fact that if the Board was to grant the variance for a setback, it might be that they would want to eliminate the parking on Lollar Lane. Dr. Painter said that there would have to be some type of unloading zone retained there for sick patients. Mr. Segraves said that they would not be definite on their plans for parking until they have some core drillings to see how much excavation they can do. We have enough area on the site to provide the required number of parking spaces without placing them on Lollar Lane. Mr. Segraves said that it would be a hardship if the Doctors had to set the new building farther to the West and added they are trying to improve the traffic flow (patient flow) inside the buildings, and any relocation of the new building would make this difficult He also commented that if they had to move back, it might cause e problem with the rear setback, and the water line to the west of the build- ing. It was noted that the minimum rear yard setback required is 25 ft. There was no one present to oppose the appeal. There were no further questions or comments, therefore, the public hearing was con- cluded. APPEAL NO. 74-19 HAMOPAH, INCORPORATED Diagnostic Clinic 675 Lollar Lane lol A • • • • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING July 1, 1974 Mrs. Connie Clack moved that the setback request be granted es presented contingent upon the discontinuance of the pre- sent angle parking on Lollar Lane at such time as the exist- ing white house to the West of the existing clinic building is removed, which time is to be no more than one year after the completion of the new facility. Dr. James White seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. The Board discussed Appeal No. 74-18 and questioned what the APPEAL NO. 74-18 attitude of Lonnie Shook, property owner across the alley might be to the varience request. Bobbie Jones said her office doesn't normally cross streets or alleys with notifications on Board of Adjustment appeals. Miss Lighton noted that the sign has been posted there, so that would really be all that is actually required Mr. Yates asked Mr. Lindsey if Mr. Shook is aware of the development. Mr. Lindsey said Mr. Shook end he had discussed trying to close the alley. He said he tried to buy the land from him one time but they never made a deal. He said Mr. Shook hes been extremely agreeable to everything he has tried to do, and that he felt there would not be any problems with Mr. Shook. Miss Lighton moved that the Board of Adjustment grant the variance as requested on condition that Mr. Lindsey grant the 10 ft. easement for widening of Highway 71B as he indicated he planned to do.when he obtains the building permit for the present proposed plan. Dr. White seconded the motion. Mr. Newbern commented that this is a big variance footage wise and added that in looking pt the description of C-2 and the character of that neighborhood, he was inclined to grant the variance too; but, he was »ginning to wonder about what particular hardship is involved and under what circumstances would the Board not grant the variance. He said his vote is being in favor of granting this variance, influenced in large degree by the character of the property as it exists now. But, if the Board granted the request, they would be permitting Mr. Lindsey to develop this property for Otasco in a very permanent way. Chairman Yates discussed with Mr. Newbern that when the lots were platted, they were plat- ted for residential use. This might have reason to cause a hardship now. There is no problem with the side variances, the problem is with the back variance. In every case, however, it is created by the original developing. The property is no longer residential and is no longer suited for'residential use. Mayor Purdy said it seemed to him that the Board's responsibilities are not tied totally to the herdship clause, they surely have some discretion. He added that otherwise, it would be impossible for the Board to move. Bobbie Jones read from the Ordinance some definitions of yards. "In the case of a cor- ner lot yards remaining after full front yards have been established shall be considered side yards" She also thought that the question of the setback from the centerline of the public easement in C-1 and C-2 and the setback from the centerline of 6 public easement of the alley as written in the R-0 and C-3 is another reason why this is before the Board. Also, the alley is not mentioned in C-2 but is mentioned in R-0 and C-3. Chairman Yates said the fact that Mr. Lindsey does have the entire bl ck does influence his thinking. Miss Lighton said she thought he is going to be able to come up with something that will be e great improvement to that whole end of town. A vote was taken on Miss Lighton's motion to epprove the variance on condition that he give a 10 ft. easement for right-of-way. The motion was unanimously approved. APPEAL NO. 74-19 HAMOPAH, INCORPORATED Diagnostic Clinic 675 Lollar Lane Chairman Yates referred to the last meetings minutes; and Appeal No. 74-16, Pennington Construction Company for Berl Hall. The Board had decided to delay action on that until the Board could talk to Jim McCord about conditioning the variance on the dedication of this. MINUTES APPEAL NO. 74-16 Pennington Construc- tion Company BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING -4- July 1, 1974 Chairman Yates said that Jim McCordtnld hbahe had done some research on it that the Board • would be on pretty shakey ground. Chairman Yates asked Bobbie Jones to put this on the next agenda and request the applicant to be present. The minutes of the June 10, 1974 meeting were approved as mailed. The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 P.M. l03