Loading...
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