Loading...
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