HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-06-30 Minutesand White voting
171 1.4
•
•
•
77/',4o de�j
Jul y ///7,5-
MINUTES
/97s
MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was- held at 3:.55 P. M. Monday,
June 30, 1975, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Suzanne Lighton, Connie Clack, James White, David Newbern.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Carl Yates.
OTHERS PRESENT: Freddie Koviach, Nancy Ault, Warren Segraves, A. P. Eason, Jr.,
Nadine Dennis, Bobbie Jones, Janet Bowen.
In the absence of Chairman Carl Yates, Vice -Chairman James White called the meeting
to order.
A public hearing was held at the June 23, 1975 Board of Adjustment APPEAL NO. 75-18
meeting on Appeal No. 75-18, Freddie R. Koviach, on an Freddie Koviach
application to vary setbacks, at which time it was tabled due to a change in the
request by the applicant.
Mr. White asked for additional comments and opened the appeal for discussion.
Mr. Koviach was present to represent.
He said since the last meeting he had talked to Dr. Hays (owner of the building) and
he would not go along with using the other part of the existing building for a
dining room as was suggested by the Board at that time. Dr. Hayes preferred that they
build the 13.5' x 16' room to the North of the existing building. He said they had
adequate parking facilities and the areas in front of the building and on the side
would be paved.
In answer to Mr. White's question, Mr. Koviach said the room would be constructed
of concrete block and would extend with the existing roof and attach to it.
Suzanne Lighton moved to grant the request for the variance as amended.
Connie Clack seconded the motion.
David Newbern said he was in sympathy with Mr. Koviach and felt he was before them
in good faith to get more space for his business. He felt, however, that this was
a situation where the Board should be dealing with the property owner, as he thought
it was the property owner's interests which were being adjudicated. He said the
Board was being asked to create a variance for something that could be done within the
existing building as it is now. Mr. Newbern said that because of this he was not in
favor of the motion.
Mrs. Clack asked Mr. Koviach if he had checked into another location for his business
and Mr. Koviach said he had leased the building for 2 years and they already had
their business set up at this location.
Mrs. Clack said she agreed with Mr. Newbern to some extent, however, she felt this
would not be any further of a projection toward the highway. She said she thought
it would look strange and would not be the best use of the property but she hated
to see Mr. Koviach be the victim of this.
David Newbern agreed with and said he felt that Mr. Koviach would suffer financially
if the variance were not granted. However, it was his feeling that this was not
the question that had to be decided. He felt this was not much
variance when the remainder or at least a part of the remainder
be used.
Miss Lighton agreed with. David Newbern on the principle of it, b
what else could be done on this.
There was no further discussion
The motion that was on the floor was approved with Lighton, Clack,
in favor and Newbern opposed.
of a case for a
of the building could
ut she did not know
•
•
Board of Adjustment
June 30, 1975 -2-
Vice-Chairman White opened discussion for additional comments APPEAL. NO. 75-20
concerning Appeal No. 75-20, Nancy Ault, onan application to vary Nancy Ault
minimum lot width. and Article 4, Section 2 regarding non -conforming lots of record.
This was tabled from the June 23, 1975 Board of Adjustment meeting and is being given
further consideration at this meeting after seeking the City Attorney's opinion.
concerning this matter.
Mrs. Ault was present.
Miss Lighton said she had talked with. City Attorney Jim McCord on this and he said
the Board had the right to act on it.
Mr. White said he had also talked with Chairman Yates on this and had been told that
the City Attorney had told Mr. Yates that since the ownership had changed hands so
many times it would be difficult to go back and get relief from the parties that had
transferred the property.
Miss Lighton moved to grant the request for a variance on Appeal No. 75-20, Nancy Ault,
as requested.
Mrs. Clack seconded the motion.
In answer to Mr. White's question, Mrs. Ault said she still planned on a side setback
of 14 feet on the North side and 20 feet on the South side.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said she did meet the required side setbacks of
8 feet, and that she was showing 35 feet setback on the front which would be.plenty.
Mrs. Jones suggested that if Mrs. Ault did anything to the creek that she contact
the City Engineer and/or the Street Superintendent since this could affect drainage
on both sides all the way up to North Street.
There was no further discussion.
The motion to grant the variance was approved unanimously.
•
Mrs. Nadine Dennis was granted a variance at the December 30, 1974 APPEAL NO. 74-37
Board of Adjustment meeting to put a roof over an existing,porch. at Nadine Dennis
her residence at 1018 South Washington Avenue and to extend it 2 feet further
to the rear (East and 4 feet further to the North. The porch would be 6' x 15'.).
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said Mrs. Dennis called the Planning Office recently
and said they already had the footing poured for an 8 foot wide porch, and she now wants
to build an 8' x 19' rear porch.
Miss Lighton felt that this should be advertised again since it was a change of request.
After some discussion David Newbern moved to table this until the next regularly '
scheduled meeting'When consideration would begiven to'the request -lot that time after
a remailing of information to adjacent property owners. Mr. Newbern felt the public
notice would cover this change of request.
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said she had mailed this information to the
surrounding property owners on Friday; Mr. Newbern felt that was not sufficient time
for them to be aware of the change of request.
Suzanne Lighton seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
APPEAL NO. 75-19
The last item was further consideration on Appeal No. 75-19, First Federal
First Federal Savings and Loan Association, 112 West Center Savings $ Loan Association
Street, on an application to vary setbacks which was tabled from the June 23, 1975 Board
of Adjustment meeting. The Board tabled this awaiting a discussion of setbacks by
the Planning Commission at its June 24, 1975. meeting.
A. P. Eason, Jr. and Architect Warren Segraves were present to represent.
Mr. Segraves said he had no further comments.
In answer to Miss Lighton's question Mr, Segraves said he did not check into the closing
of the alley since he felt the space needed to be there whether or not the alley was
closed.
Miss Lighton pointed out that appeal had been tabled at the last meeting to see
if discussion of setbacks at the Planning Commission meeting of June 24, 1975 would
be taken up and also the Board of Adjustment wanted to see if that would include
any proposal in the Major Street Plan.
Board of Adjustment
June 30, 1975 -3-
Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said this was not discussed in detail at the
Planning Commission meeting. She said she had pointed out that the Board of
•
Adjustment had a case before them and would like to know what the Planning
Commission's .feelings were on it and why the 5 foot setback from.the street
right-of-way was required and the 15 foot setback from the centerline of an alley
was required. She said she did mention to them that a 15 foot setback from
the alley would give a 30 foot width between buildings; however, the Commission
felt they were not ready to make comments at this time.
Miss Lighton asked if there would be a study of the Master Street Plan on Center
Street
Mrs. Jones said a motion was passed by the Board of Directors in December to study
the Major Street Plan requirements within the Urban Renewal area, but said as
far as she knew there had not been anything done on it. She said that in December
the Board of Directors did pass an ordinance in which they amended the Major Street
Plan for East Avenue only to a right-of-way width of 55 feet, which is the existing
right-of-way, from Mountain to Dickson.
In answer to Miss Lighton's question, Bobbie Jones said the Major Street Plan called
for 60 feet width on Center Street and it was presently 55.feet.
Mr. White had the Urban Renewal Plan for the central square and commented that
it called for a front yard setback of 5 feet minimum except if parking is provided
then there would be a 50 foot front setback. (This is Urban Renewal Plan for
Commercial use of property.)
Bobbie Jones said this would mean that Urban Renewal would have to waiver the
front yard setback on the First Federal appeal and she did not know how they went
about doing this since the Planning Office sends them the applications for them
to be approved or disapproved.
Miss Lighton pointed out that this Urban Renewal requirement coincided with the
• present zoning requirement but did not include the Major Street Plan requirement.
In answer to another question asked by Miss Lighton, Bobbie Jones said she thought
they were bound by the Zoning Ordinance (which includes the Major Street Plan)
even though the Housing Authority plan was passed by the City Board 'of Directors.
Mr, Duggan of :the Housing Authority of Fayetteville was present and stated that
there had been a direct conflict between the Major Street Plan and the Urban
Renewal Plan and that this went before the Planning Commission a few weeks agoito get
the two to coincide. He said they were now asking for the closure of one block each
of Center Street and Mountain Street between Block Avenue and East Avenue, and
it was his feeling that the Planning Commission approved this but needed to hold
a public hearing on the change of the Major Street Plan. He said if this
one block of Center Street was taken out it would almost have to change the
classification of it.
Mr. Duggan told Miss Lighton that the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors
had approved the closing of the North and South sides of the square.
Bobbie Jones commented that the City Board of Directors and Planning Commission
had approved this with the exception of amending the Major Street Plan to agree
with the Urban Renewal Plan.
Mr. Duggan told Miss Lighton that he would follow up on trying to get the problem
of setbacks on the square taken care of. He said the Urban Renewal program did not
call for the closing of any alleys on the square but they would be widening and
paving some of them. He said City Manager Don Grimes had talked about this feeling
that there should be an ordinance for the downtown area so that anyone wishing
to re -develop in this area would not have to come before the Board of Adjustment
for a variance.
Mr. Duggan said there should be something so that a new developer could at least
Cr1 build in conformity with the old buildings. He felt that it would probably be
best if the Board of Adjustment could wait for a decision from the Planning Commission
on the setbacks before they made a decision on this appeal that was now before them.
Miss Lighton said this would create a problem for Mr. Eason.
173
Board of Adjustment
June 30, 1975:
Mr. Eason said theyweregoing to build on what they considered a not too desirable
site, but he felt the association should tryto do something to start development
downtown. However, he said their assets were going to be over 40 million dollars
today and at the very best they would be close to 60 million dollars before they
could get into this building. Therefore,they could not afford to wait all that
time. Mr. Eason said he understood the Board of Adjustment's problem in granting
the variance but that if the variances were not granted, the property would not
be sold and there would not be anything built back. Mr. Eason -asked the question:
"If the street is widened as proposed on the Major Street Plan, what will be left?"
David Newbern felt this was the point they were dealing with. He felt they were
dealing with a problem in the ordinance that should be changed. He said the Major
Street Plan was now out of date and since the Urban Renewal Plan had been adopted,
was now one that they could no longer afford to deal with. He said, however, that
the worst possible way to change the Major Street Plan would be to have every
property owner to come before this board and ask for a variance. He felt the
Housing Authority should do something to try to get the ordinance amended and he
stated that he would support them as an individual, but as a member of the Board of
Adjustment his obligation is to uphold the law unless he saw a need for the variance.
Mr Duggan said they would take the initiative in trying to get the ordinance changed
for the downtown area and asked the. -Board. of Adjus.tment'that if they did take the
initiative, could they not go ahead and grant this variance that was being requested.
Mrs. Clack asked what the result would be if the ordinance was not changed.
Bobbie Jones said if the variance were to be granted, the Board of Adjustment would
be varying the zoning setback and their setback as proposed is in excess of the
21 Major Street Plan setback. Therefore, the City could still come in and take
that 21 feet unless it was waived by the Board of Directors.
It was Mr. Eason's feeling that the Major Street Plan would not be in effect for
a great length of time.
Miss Lighton felt the alley to the North should be officially closed and have just
a 10 foot utility easement.
Mr. White said either that should be done or they could build closer to the property
line along the alley than what is proposed. (Moving the whole building a foot to the
North.)
Mrs. Clack said she was inclined to grant variances on both of the alley setbacks,
but she would prefer that the building be moved back one foot so it would be
5 feet from the street right-of-way.
Mrs. Clack then moved that the side setback (West) be granted as requested (7' 8"
from centerline of the alley) and they should be allowed to build within 5 feet
of the South property line (this would change the request from 10' 4" to 9' 4"
from the centerline of the North alley). This would be a setback of 5 feet from
the street right-of-way of Center Street rather than the 4 feet that was requested
by the applicant.
After some discussion the Board of Adjustment asked Mr. Duggan if he would make
a study of the closing of the alleys in this area and he said that he would.
Mr. Eason said he wanted to do all he could to get the ordinance changed.
Suzanne Lighton seconded the motion.
David Newbern said he would vote in favor of the motion because he felt the
Major Street Plan is a "dead letter" and it would be a real hardship on the prospective
property owner to have to make plans on a plan that is no longer viable. He said
he was..especially:glad.:to hear. Mr.: Eason say he would try to do something to get
the ordinance changed. -
The motion was approved unanimously.
The minutes of the June 23, 1975 meeting were approved as distributed. " MINUTES
14'4
Board of Adjustment -5-
June 30, 1975
FURTHER DISCUSSION
The Board discussed further the need to have property owners present when dealing
with a variance.
As David Newbern pointed out, the property owner is actually the person they needed
to deal with ----for example in Mr. Koviach's case (Appeal No. 75-18).
Mrs. Clack said it might be hard to get property. owners who lived out of town to
attend a meeting.
Miss Lighton moved to adopt a requirement that the property owner attend the hearing
for the application for a variance or give formal written authority for someone to
speak for him.
Daivd Newbern seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
There was no further discussion.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 P. M.
- 115