Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-11-11 Minutesi &flnaueI./1-675 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held at 3:35 P.M. Monday, November 11, 1974, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Carl Yates, Connie Clack, David Newbern, James H. White, Miss Suzanne Lighton. MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OTHERS PRESENT: Gene Woodard, Bobbie Jones, Charles Barrett, Ira Swope, Janet Bowen. Chairman Yates called the meeting to order. Chairman Carl Yates opened the public hearing on APPEAL NO. 74-31 Appeal No. 74-31, Ira Swope, 321 Archibald Yell Boulevard, Ira Swope on an application to vary setbacks. A setback of 50 feet 321 Archibald Yell Blvd. from street right-of-way is required by ordinance and Mr. Swope is requesting a setback of 30 feet in order to build an addition onto an existing building. Mr. Ira Swope was present to represent the appeal. Mr. Swope told the Board of Adjustment that he lived out of town but his son operated the muffler sales and service at Archibald Yell Boulevard. He stated that at the time he purchased this it was going to be used as a muffler shop, but business had grown and his son now needed more room in which to operate. He said this had been a service station at one time, but was closed before he bought it and that the deed prohibited him from ever using it as a service station again. He said they planned to build on- to the existing building approximately 23 feet in width to the west and the depth of the addition would be the same as the old building. They want to add another bay for the muffler shop and have a small office plus some storage area. Mr. Swope said the building as it was now did not meet the required 50 foot setback but did not set as close to Highway 71 right-of-way as the service station to the west of him; and he did not feel that it would interfere with any plans the Arkansas Highway Department might have to widen the highway. To a question asked by Chairman Yates, Bobbie Jones, Planning Administrator, explained that when there was a corner lot there were actually two fronts and two sides and that no side setbacks were required in a C-2 Zone, and that even though the south side is the rear of the building it is still a side setback. David Newbern asked Mr. Swope how long he had owned this property and if he had been aware that a variance would be needed. Mr. Swope answered that he had owned it for a year and that when he purchased it he did not have this in mind and did not check into the required setbacks at the time. Mr. Swope told Chairman Yates and Miss Lighton that there was no backing out onto College Avenue. Mr. White suggested the possibility of building a bay 14 feet in width the full depth of the building and have the office setback from this and being about 16 feet by 16 feet. (This would be to build the office up against the south property line but extend only 16 feet north.) Mr. Swope said he had not thought about this possibility and that the only problem here was the office would be hidden, and perhaps difficult for people to find. Chairman Yates suggested putting a sign with an arrow to indicate where the office would be. Mrs. Clack asked Mr. Swope if he had tried to buy additional property, and he answered that he had. In answer to a question asked by Chairman Yates, Mr. Swope said he would like about 14 feet for the bay area and would like to have at least 10 feet for office (this is combined with storage). There were no further questions. No one was present to oppose the request. The public hearing on Appeal No. 74-31 was concluded. 12l Board of Adjustment November 11, 1974 Page Two The Board discussed Appeal No. 74-31, Ira Swope, Archibald Yell APPEAL NO. 74-31 Boulevard further. Ira Swope Connie Clack stated she felt sympathetic about the fact that the building '. is already too close to the right-of-way but in view of the fact that he purchased this property long after the ordinance was in effect she did not feel that it was in order to grant the variance in order for him to add onto this. Miss Lighton said she would definitely have been opposed to the 30 foot setback. Chairman Yates agreed with Mr. White in that he felt the variance should be granted for Mr. Swope to build a 14 foot bay with the office to be setback further. Mr. White said the only other possibility would be to permit Mr. Swope to rennovate the existing office into another bay if this were technically possible. Mr. Swope said they had thought about this possibility but the station was not constructed where this would be possible. There was no further discussion. There was no one present to oppose the appeal. Mr. White moved that the necessary variance be granted to permit Mr. Swope to build a 14 foot bay to the west and in line with the north line of the existing building and having the same depth*as the existing building; and for the office to extend northward 16 feet from the south(rear)property line (south line of the building) and about 16 feet to the west of the new bay. (The closest point from the building to the right-of-way would be between 30-34 feet and would be in line with the north line of the existing muffler shop.) Miss Lighton seconded the motion. Lighton, Yates, and White voted "aye"; Clack and Newbern voted "nay"; the motion to approve an amended variance was approved. OTHER BUSINESS Under other business the Board of Adjustment discussed Appeal No. 74-33, Charles E. Barrett, 118 South College Avenue, on a variance of parking requirements. At the October 29, 1974 meeting, the Board of Adjustment members had asked Mr. Barrett to return with another drawing (perhaps a more suitable one) for them to consider. Mr. Barrett and Mr. Gene Woodard, Architect, were present to show these drawings. They had the original drawing which showed the variance as it had been requested. They said that there is one piece of property approximately 65 feet in width at the corner of Washington and Rock that they do not own and it was not for sale; therefore, the house at the corner of Washington and Rock Streets will not be removed. Mr. Barrett also had two alternative proposals drawn up 1. The first alternative would eliminate any parking, and therefore the need for a variance, on the property on the southeast corner of Rock and College; but would have variances given on setback from street right-of-way and adjoining R -zoned properties for the lot on the North side of Rock Street. There would then be only 45 parking spaces as opposed to 60. 2. This proposal showed what would happen if they went by the zoning as it is now with no variances. (This would affect half of the parking on the lot'' north of Rock and leave only seven parking spaces on the south of Rock. Mr. Woodard told the Board of Adjustment members that he had drawn the parking spaces on nine foot before he knew the ordinance requirement was 10 feet in width. Mr. White pointed out that they would .lose the front four parking spaces, if not more due to the change in the ground elevation as they entered the parking lot north of Rock. Bobbie Jones explained that on the southeast corner of Rock and College *'North-West dimension (Corrected 11-25-74.) bj 1D9 Board of Adjustment November 11, 1974 Page Three they would have to set back five feet with screening or 20 feet without screening from adjoining R -zoned property. There would be a setback of 25 feet from College Avenue and they would lose some parking spaces here. Mr. Barrett said that the excavation at this site would help the intersection. It was then suggested that they obtain a 10 foot variance and give up those four parking spaces on the parking lot at Rock and College and also give up some of the parking spaces along the north side of Rock Street. Mr. Woodard suggested that he redraw the plans as indicated at this meeting and present them to the Board of Adjustment to consider before taking action on it. Mrs. Clack felt that a variance would not help the little parking lot but had no objection to a variance being granted on the big lot. Mr. Newbern felt that any development, even a parking lot, would help this corner. Mr. Newbern and Mr. White felt that it would be a good idea for Mr. Woodard to redraw this proposal and bring it back to them at the next meeting, and this was agreed upon by everyone. There was no further discussion on Appeal No. 74-33, Charles E. Barrett. No one was present to oppose the variance. MINUTES a9 The minutes of the October 11, 1974 Board of Adjustment meeting were approved as distributed. The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 P.M. iib A