HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-06-23 MinutesMINUTES OF A. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
»yp,eoae d%
cica 30, /925
A meeting o£ the Fayetteville Board,o£ Adjustment was held Monday, June 23, 1975,
at 3:45 P. M., in the Board of Directors- Room, City Administration Building,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Carl. Yates, Suzanne Lighton, Connie Clack, James White,
David Newbern.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OTHERS PRESENT: Nancy Ault, Freddie Koviach,-Warrgn Segraves,.Russell Purdy,
A. P. Eason, Jr., James Knutson, Bobbie Jones, Janet Bowen.
Chairman Yates called the meeting to order and opened the public hearing on
Appeal No. 75-18, Freddie R. Koviach, 2739 North College Avenue, on
an application to vary setbacks. Mr. Koviach is requesting a set- APPEAL NO. 75-18
back of 141 feet from the street right-of-way of College Avenue, Freddie R. Koviach
while the Ordinance requires 50 feet. 2739 N. College Avenue
Mr. Koviach was present to represent.
Mr. Koviach told the Board of Adjustment that he and his brother-in-law,
William Sherwood, (also his partner in this carry -out pizza business) had decided
to change their request. Rather than putting a canopy out front and placing
eating tables outside, he said they had decided they would like to add a small
dining room to the North of the existing building. He said this room would be
constructed out of concrete blocks as the existing building and would be
approximately 14 x 16 feet in size. This would be on a concrete slab. He said
they planned to put about 15 to 20 restaurant -type tables in this proposed dining
room. Mr. Koviach said the carry -out business was not doing too well and he felt
that people wanted to have a place where they could come in and sit down to eat.
Mrs. Clack asked about parking arrangements.
Mr. Koviach told her that they had all the area out front of the existing building
for parking and also the area to the west. He said Dr. Hays had a lot next door
to this place which adjoins their lot and this could be used also.
In answer to Miss Lighton's question, Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said
she had not checked the parking closely enough to know if there would be a problem
involved. She told Miss Lighton that the Ordinance required one parking spacefor every
300 square feet for a restaurant.
Mrs. Clack commented that she knew there was quite a lot of room out front but did
not know whether it was arranged for parking.
Mr. Koviach said they would be willing to blacktop this area if it were used for
parking.
Miss Lighton then asked Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones if there was anything
in the Ordinance that would require the parking in front of the building to be
properly supervised.
Mrs. Jones answered that where parking has already been in the past that they would
not be required to "re -do" it.
In answer to Miss Lighton's question, Mr. Koviach said that approximately 10 to 15
cars could park in the front area.
Bobbie Jones told the Board of Adjustment that she thought only part of the
building was being used as a restaurant.
Mr. Koviach said the back part of the building was being used as a garage. He told
them the Health Department had "okayed" this becuase the two were completely
separated. Hesaidhis brother-in-law kept some antique cars in this garage and
worked on them.
Chairman Yates asked Mr. Koviach how.. it would affect his plans if the Board
decided to approve this request without parking in front of the building, and
Mr. Koviach told him they would really prefer to keep this area clear anyway and
166
A
Board of Adjustment
June 23, 1975
it would not affect them any. He said they had enoughroom on both sides.of the
• building for parking anyway.
David Newbern inquired as to why the applicant could not use the rest of the existing
building that was presently being used for a garage. This would keep him from having
to request a variance.
Mr. Koviach said it would require more financially than they wanted to put into it
right now. He said they would rather wait and see how good`the business did before
they went into it this much.. Also, he said they had talked to Dr. Hays (owner of
the building) and he preferred they add the dining room off to the side.
Mr. Newbern then brought up the question of re -advertising. He felt a notice should
be published regarding this request since it was different from the original one.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said the notice in the newspaper read
"to vary setbacks" and it would cover this request also. However, the information sent
to the adjoining property owners would not cover this request.
Mr. Newbern brought out that anyone that might come into the Planning Office to look
at what was being requested would not be aware of this change in the request.
Mr. White felt there were other possibilities that could be explored on this matter
and perhaps Mr. Koviach could come up with a better plan.
No one was present to oppose the request.
The public hearing was concluded.
APPEAL NO. 75-19
The public hearing was opened on Appeal No. 75-19, First Federal Savings $ Loan
First Federal Savings and Loan, 112 West Center Street, 112 West Center Street
on an application to vary setbacks. The applicant is requesting a 4 foot setback
from street right-of-way (Center Street). The Zoning Ordinance requires 5 feet and
there is a 21 foot requirement for the Major Street Plan, making a total of 71 feet
required setback. Also, the applicant requests a 7' 8" setback from the centerline
of the alley to the West and 10' 4" setback from the centerline of the alley to the
North. The Ordinance requires a setback of 15 feet from the centerline of an easement
or alley.
Architect Warren Segraves and A. P. Eason, Jr. were present to represent the request.
Mr. Segraves said they were proposing to build a 7 story building plus basement west
of the existing building. He said they proposed to put it in line with the wall
of the existing First Federal Building which is about 4 feet back. He said the
alleys were 10 feet wide and with 15 foot setback from the centerline of the alley, this
would take 10 feet off of each side of their lot and would cut the building area
down. He said they needed all the floor area they could get since the lot is only
98 x 110 feet. (Their legal description takes in the alley and this measurement is
excluding the width of the alley.) Mr. Segraves said Mr. Duggan of the Housing Authority
had seen the plans and had no objections.
Chairman Yates asked what the plans for the old First Federal Building would be and
Mr. Eason said they hoped to tear it down and come back with a plan for a one-story,
plaza -type construction.
Mr. Eason said they were cramped in the present building space wise and it was felt
if they could do something like this downtown it would help the area.
In answer to Miss Lighton's question, Mr. Segraves said they would probably have some
trees or small shrubs at the front of the building.
Miss Lighton asked how the buildings to the North of the East-West alley compared
in setback with. the East line of the alley and Mr. Segraves said they varied.
In answer to Chairman Yates•' question, Mr. Segraves said they did not have a parking
problem in this phase of their proposal.
Miss Lighton asked Director Russell Purdy if a waiver of parking granted by the
Planning Commission had to also be approved by the Board of Directors.
Mr. Purdy said that it did not and he expressed concern -at the excessive amount of use
being granted by the Planning Commission for off-site parking.
147
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment
June 23, 1975•
-3-
Miss. Lighton stated she had the same concern on this subject.
Mr. Eason said they would not be spending money on this if they could not get the
problems on the parking worked out. He indicated.he.thoiaght a parking garage
was inevitable in the future;
Mr. White asked if the alley to the north was used for vehicular traffic and
Mr. Segraves said it was not, that it was used for pedestrian traffic.
When asked about the trash. situation, Mr. Segraves said they would probably use some
sort of compactor service.. He said they would have some type of internal way of
disposing of the trash rather than using the container they were now using.
There were no further questions.
No one was present to oppose the request, and the public hearing was closed.
APPEAL NO. 75-20
Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal No. 75-20, Nancy Ault
Nancy Ault, 617 North Wilson Avenue, on an application to vary 617 N: Wilson Ave.
minimum lot width and Article, Section 2, regarding Non -Conforming Lots of Record.
A minimum lot width of 60 feet is being requested by the applicant while the
ordinance requires 70 feet in an R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zone.
Mrs. Ault was present to represent.
She said she would like to move a 2 bedroom bungalow -type house on the lot, and she
could meet all the requirements except the lot width. She said Lots 12 and 13 were
both owned by Mr. and Mrs. Ellis Burgin on June 29, 1970. The house on Lot 12
had been sold twice, the first time to Mr. Segers,.and then to Mr. James Knutson.
Mrs. Burgin retained the vacant lot (Lot 13) which Mrs. Ault purchased just this year.
She said there was a drainage ditch which was eating away at the edge of their lot
and they would have to build a retaining wall.
Mrs. Ault then referred to Use Unit XXVI of the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances which
defines Single -Family Dwellings.and allows for a density of 4 families per acre. She
said an acre would be approximately 4 lots with these lots being the size they were.
Chairman Yates said he was not sure from a legal standpoint what the Board of Adjustment
was getting into in this case. He felt that the City Attorney should be consulted on
this request.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones stated that she felt she knew what house Mrs. Ault
was hoping to move on her lot. She said the house had a wooden -shingle roof on it and
this type of roof is not permitted in a fire zone. The house is presently located in
the fire zone and had caused some problems when this matter went before the
Building Code Board of Appeals several months ago. However, if the house were moved
to this lot on Wilson Street, it would not be in a fire zone.
Mr. Knutson (surrounding property owner) was present and stated that he was not
present in opposition to the request but would like to know how close to the property
line the house could be moved in.
Chairman Yates answered that the minimum side setback was 8 feet and the house could
be that close.
There was no further discussion; the public hearing was concluded.
APPEAL NO. 75-18
On the Freddie Koviach appeal David Newbern and Suzanne Lighton . Freddie 12,- Koviach
felt that the public should be notified about the change in the request and this
should be mailed out from the Planning Office and the change on file in the
Planning Office in case an interested party might want to come in and look over the
request. -. -
James White moved to table Appeal No. 75-18, Freddie R. Koviach, until a change in
the request could be mailed oat to the concerned parties, Mr. White also suggested
that the. alternative of using the existing building, or at least'part of it, be ex-
plored.
David Newbern seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.'
168
Planning Commission -4-
June 23, 1975
APPEAL NO. 75-19
First Federal Savings F, Loan
Mr. Newbern said he was sure the proposed First Federal building would be a nice,
attractive one and would help the downtown area. However he felt this would be the
perfect opportunity to comply with. the Zoning Ordinance. He said he liked the
whole idea and would be in favor of it except this was the chance to ultimately
get real compliance withwhat the law requires.
Miss Lighton stated she felt the same way.
After a lengthy discussion concerning the setback from the alleys and Center Street
it was suggested by one of the Board members that Mr. Eason check about the
~) possibility of closing the north alley. This would allow the building to be built
farther north and would, therefore, require a lesser variance. However, this
would take some time and would hold up plans.
Mr. Segraves wondered about the setback that was required by the Major Street Plan;
he felt this might never come to pass in the area of the square anyway and it was
still not certain what Urban Renewal had in mind as far as street closings on the
square.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones stated that one of the Planning Commission
members had placed a discussion on zoning setbacks, particularly in the Industrial
districts that would probably be taken up at the next Planning Commission meeting
(Tuesday, June 24, 1975). She told the Board of Adjustment that this item had been
tabled several times because of the length of the Planning Commission agendas, but
felt that with the short agenda for the next meeting, discussion on this matter
would probably be taken up.
It was the decision of the Board of Adjustment that someone should call the
Chairman of the Planning Commission before their next meeting and tell them that
the Board of Adjustment needed to know whether or not the 5 foot setback from
street right-of-way in a C-3 Commercial Zone was necessary, and if it was not, to
take the necessary steps to change this.
It was the feeling of the Board that it would be necessary to find out about the
setbacks before they could make a decision on this request as well as on other
requests in this area which they felt would be coming to them in the future.
David Newbern moved to table Appeal No. 75-19, for one week and hold a special
meeting on June 30, 1975.
James White seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
Chairman Yates was inclined to believe that the City Attorney APPEAL NO. 75-20
should be contacted before the Board could take action on Nancy Ault
Nancy Ault.
Mr. White felt that this was in line with a deed restriction. He said a deed
restriction called for a 15 foot side setback while the Zoning Ordinance called
for an 8 foot setback from the side. He said the City would not enforce a deed
restriction, that they would instead enforce the zoning setback. The only ones that
could enforce a deed restriction would be if the surrounding property owners wanted
to get together and have it enforced.
After further discussion Miss Lighton moved to table Appeal No. 75-20, Nancy Ault,
until they had an opinion from the City Attorney.
James White seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
At their meeting on September 23, 1974, the Board of Adjustment approved a request
submitted by Miss Lenore B. Swearingen to vary the height limitation to permit her
to erect a picket fence on her corner lot at 473 Oliver provided:
1. The fence be located 5 feet southof the northproperty line (5 feet
from the right-of-way of Maple Street).
2. The diagonal line of the fence across the northeast corner of the lot
1�9
Board of Adjustment -5-
June 23, 1975
be moved back. to 12 feet from what would be the point of intersection
if the fence were extended,
Miss Swearingen was present at this meeting and told the Board members that when
her property line was located therewas only 91 feet between the street and her
property line at the intersection of Maple and Oliver and at the other end of the
lot along Maple there was 141 feet.. She felt the fence would look odd if it were
erected as the Board of Adjsutment had approved it.as it would angle back away from
the pavement as much as 191 feet at her northwest corner. She was present to
request that she be allowed to erect the fence parallel to Maple Street, coming to
her actual northwest property line.
David Newbern moved to clarify the intent of the variance as approved on September 23,
1974, to permit the fence to run parallel with the pavement of Maple Street.
James White seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
MINUTES
The minutes of the June 3, 1975 Board of Adjustment meeting were approved as mailed.
There was no further business.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:15 P. M.
Itto