Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-08-19 MinutesMINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING C cPJ71 The Fayetteville Board of Adjustment met at 3:30 P. M., Monday, August 19, 1974 in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERSABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Connie Clack, Carl Yates, David Newbern Suzanne Lighton, James White Tom Daily, Carl Abbott, Mrs. Gene Burson, T. L. Nelms, D. • Opal Neal, Charles Atkinson, J. Land, Bobbie Jones, Janet Bowen. Chairman Yates called the meeting to order. APPEAL NO. 74-22 Mr. Peter Bartz Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on the Appeal No. 74-22 638 Whitham Ave. Mr. Peter Bartz, 638 Whitham Avenue on an application to vary setbacks. No one was present to represent Mr. Bartz, however there were those present to present objections.Chairman Yates suggested that the matter be discussed later in the meeting in order to see someone might arrive to represent Mr. Bartz. if Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal No. 74-23, Mrs. Opal Neal, 641 South Government Avenue, on an application to vary setbacks. Mrs. Neal was present to represent the application. Mrs. Neal had APPEAL NO. 74-23 requested a side setback of 5 feet while a setback of 8 feet is Mrs. Opal Neal required. The application is to build an attached carport -641 South Government Avenue on the South side of the house. Mrs. Neal stated that she had a driveway and that she wanted a carport with a utility room at the end of it added onto the house. Chairman Yates suggested that there seemed to be plenty of room at the back of the house and asked Mrs. Neal if she had considered building a carportthere. She stated that they had considered this but there was such a short turn between the existing garage that they have on the property and the house that there would not be enough roomto drive a car in there. Mr. Newbern raised the question of how the carport would attach to the house since the house has a considerable overhang. Mrs. Neal said that the carport would be attached to the house and that the existing overhang would come down over the carport. In answer to a question from Mr. Yates, Mrs. Neal said she did not know how wide the carport -would be but said that they had planned to use green corrugated material with wood framing. Mrs. Clack asked if they were going to continue to use their garage, and Mrs. Neal said that they were going to close it in and use it for storing their lawnmowers and other things. Mr. Newbern expressed concern about the proposed carport bringing them so close to neighbor's property_line, and asked if all three vehicles he noticed parked there belonged to them. Mrs. Neal stated that they do. Mr. Newbern then suggested locating the structure on the property behind the house and possibly either tearing down the existing garage or knocking one end out of it where they could drive through and have a wider turn back behind it. Mrs. Neal stated she did not wish-to:.do this because this would be taking her garden and calf lot. Chairman Yates asked her if the Board delayed action on the matter until the Adjustment Board met again August 26, would she consider having the man that was to build the carport to have another look at the situation and see if it could be built within the minimum variance or a lesser variance and also to determine how wide the carport would be. Mrs. Neal said that they had discussed it thoroughly and that adding the carport onto the side of the house would be their cheapest way out and that they would not consider it any other way. When Chairman Yates asked if there was anything else that she should say about the matter, Mrs. Neal said that she had discussed this with the neighbors and that they didn't object to her building the log -2 - Board of Adjustment 8-19-74 carport there. Mr. Yates remarked that the house on the property to the South was about 16 to 20 feet from the property line. The public hearing was concluded. Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal No. 74-24, McRoy Inc., 16 East Mountain Street on an application to vary setbacks and parking requirements. The applicant proposes to build a restaurant and has requested a setback of 0 feet from the alley rather than 15 feet from the centerline of the alley, and -a waiver ofthe parking requirements which re- quires 5 parking spaces. Attorney Charles Atkinson and Mr. Gene Burson, the pros- APPEAL NO. 74-24 pective tenant, were present to represent the applicant. McRoy, Inc. Mr. Atkinson said that it was his understanding that the 16 East Mountain St. Urban Renewal authorities had already acquired a title to the property on the East side of the square which would back up to the West side of this north -south alley and that it was to be opened as a Pedestrian Mall through from Center Street to Mountain Street. He stated that since this is to be left open as a mall area there would be no additional congestion on the South side if this request was granted. It is believed that the applicant owns 37 feet from the proposed building to the alley, but does not wish it included as it is currently used for parking for McRoy-McNair. Mr. Atkinson stated that with respect to the parking variance, there would be room for 4 vehicles off the street in front of this building. Mr. Burson said that most of his business would be pedestrian traffic as his restaurant would open for the breakfast hours and close around 4:00 P.M. and would serve the employees that were within walking distance from their places of work. The restaurant would seat 38-40 people. Mr. Atkinson also brought to mind that the imminent relocation of the many government offices into the Federal Building would require a place for these people to eat lunch and that he thought the Board should take this into consideration. Chairman Yates asked where the entrances to the restaurant would be and Mr. Burson said there was to be a service entrance on the West side and a customer entrance opened near the middle of the building on the South. Chairman Yates then asked if Mr. Burson could get by if he were granted less of a variance, and Mr. Burson felt that he could not as he would have the very minimum of space as it was. Mrs. Clack asked about the arrangement of the four parking spaces, and Mr. Burson said there would be two spaces on each side, east and west. Mrs. Jones, Planning Administrator, commented that it takes about 10 feet by 20 feet for each parking space and an additional 21-22 feet to get out of a parking space.. She suggested that vehicles could be nosed into the East and get 4 spaces or nosed in toward the building and get five parking spaces but that would be getting close on maneuvering space. Mr. Newbern said he was convinced that there would not be much need for parking spaces and that it would be a nicer facility if grass could be planted in front if the variance were granted and that it would be a futile effort to try to solve the parking problem with the four spaces being discussed. Mr. Newbern then asked Mr. Burson's reaction to the possibility of omitting the parking altogether and Mr. Burson finding an alternate parking location for himself. Mr. Burson found this acceptable. There was no opposition present. The public hearing was concluded. Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal No. 74-25, Mr. 248 West Dickson Street, on an application to vary setbacks. Mr. requested a_setback of 5 feet from street right-of-way on Dickson Street to erect a canopy over a doorway. A 5 foot zoning 248 T. L. Nelms, Nelms had APPEAL NO. 74-25 Mr, T. L. Nelms West Dickson St. \0't • • • • • -3- Board of Adjsutment 8-19-74 • setback is required plus 121 feet for the. Major Street Plan making a total of 17' feet total setback kr. Nelms was present to represent the application. He stated that they would like to improve the looks of the building and that the rain comes in. He said that most people still think that it is the old laundry building. He also said that the building is only 5 feet from the street and that the new street plan was on the inside of the building. He stated that if they took the building he could remove the awning and that it would be mainly to improve the looks of the building. kr. Yates asked where the present right-of-way is. Mr. Nelms said there is a double width sidewalk there and Mr. Grover Thomas, the property owner, had told him the property line was the line between the two sidewalks. Chairman Yates advised Mr. Nelms that the City Board of Directors would have to waive or vary the Major Street Plan portion of the setback. There was no opposition present and the public hearing was concluded. There was still no one present to represent Peter Bartz; therefore, objections were heard on Appeal No. 74-22. Mr. Tom Daily, a lawyer from Fort Smith was present to represent his father-in-law, Mr. Carl Abbott and other property owners near 638 Whitham. He stated that their oppositionto the request APPEAL NO. 74-22 was not directed to the specific proposed project but a general objection to granting any variance in connection with this property until the use of the property conforms to the existing zoning requirements. He said the property is now being used as a small scale salvage yard. Mr. Daily questioned the credibility of the applicant in saying that he was going to build a carport. Mr. Daily presented a petition opposing this application and bearing 14 signatures to the Board and Chairman Yates asked that it be inserted into the minutes of the meeting. The petition follows in its entirety and is hereby made a part of these minutes: "We, the undersigned property owners are opposed to this application of the Appeal No. 74-22, due to the use of this property other than residential, such as used car lots, junk yards, television repairs, and the use of a welding torch. Property owners and residents: s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ Carl Abbott L. A. and Ione M. Brown Ione M. Brown John A. Upton Helen J. Abbott Lamar Sharp Winifred Sharp David A. Johnson Mick R. Hopper Hall H. Logan Bruce E. Wilkins Lawanda Wilkins Mary Campbell Fletcher Mildred M. Watt There being no further information, the 688 621 610 706 688 620 620 641 Whitham Whitham Whitham Cleveland St. Whitham Whitham Avenue Whitham Avenue Whitham Avenue 1512 North Garland 630 Whitham (1149 Waneetah) 641 Whitham 641 Whitham 626 Whitham 626 Whitham" public hearing was concluded. 110 -4 - Board of Adjustment 8-19-74 Discussion was opened as to why the gasoline pumps have not yet been moved to the West side of the building at 275 East Huntsville Road. (Appeal No...73-36, Mr. D. J. Land, December 17, 1973.) Mr. Land was present and stated that he had been "riding" the gas company and all they would say about the matter was that they hadn't appropriated the money to move the PETITION TO MOVE GAS PUMPS pumps yet. He also said that he had signed all the Mr. D. J. Land necessary papers, including the lease, and that 275 East Huntsville Rd. everything was ready except for the company saying go ahead. Chairman Yates asked if it would help if the Board wrote a letter telling the company that he had been granted the variance providing the pumps were moved. Mr. Land agreed that it would and it was decided that the letter would be sent by the Planning Office reminding Mr. Land that the terms of the variance required the pumps to be moved and Mr. Land could use that letter to tell the company to "get going." Connie Clack said she was not in favor of granting the variance request of Peter Bartz because he could build behind the house. APPEAL NO. 74-22 David Newbern moved to deny Appeal 74-22, Peter Bartz; Connie Clack seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. David Newbern moved to deny Appeal No. 74-23, Mrs. Opal Neal. APPEAL NO. 74-23 Mrs. Clack said Mrs. Neal had several other alternatives. Mrs. Clack seconded the motion. The appeal was unanimously denied. There was a discussion on Appeal No. 74-24, McRoy Inc. Connie Clack said she wondered why they couldn't come up APPEAL NO. 74-24 with a different shaped building. David Newbern said it seems the proposed building abutting the alley really isn't much problem, and he did not see how it would hurt anything to abut the building to the alley. He said he did have some misgivings about the four parking spaces in front of the building as it seemed inevitable that they would be getting onto Mountain Street or the alley in a dangerous way. He said it seemed more consistent with the Urban Renewal Plan to have a grassy area in front. He said he would be in favor of granting the variance on the setback from the alley with a condition that no parking be included in the front of the building and with a waiver of the parking spaces required, and this might hide a large trash container on the property. Planning Administrator.Bobbie Jones said she had not been aware of the container and expressed concern over whom the container belonged to and where it could be relocated. David Newbern moved to table the appeal until August 26, 1974, when the next Board of Adjustment Meeting would be held. Connie Clack seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. It was decided that since the applicant had already left the meeting and did not know about this additional information that letters would be sent to Mr. Burson; the applicant; Mr. Brt, Sanitation Superintendent; and also Mr. Atkinson to request more information about the trash container. On Appeal 74-25, T. L. Nelms, Mrs. Clack moved that the request be granted for a variance for the construction of a canopy over the APPEAL NO. 74-25 entrance of the building, up to the edge of the property line, but not to encroach on any existing street right-of-way. Mr. Newbern seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. The minutes of the August 5, 1974 Board of Adjustment Meeting were approved as mailed. MINUTES The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 P. M. • • •