Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-11-01 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45 P. M., Monday, November 1, 1976, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Carl Yates, Connie Clack, David Newbern, Dr. James White, Chester House, Mrs. Don Mills, Larry Smith. MEMBERS ABSENT: None, OTHERS PRESENT: Bobbie Jones, Angie Medlock, Attorney Marshall Carlisle, Kyle Shackelford, John R. Locke, Robert D. Schmickle, Bryan Murphy. Chairman Carl Yates called the meeting to order. The public hearing was opened on Appeal No. 76-29 Kyle Shackelford, 227 West Dickson Street on an application to vary setbacks. A 15 foot rear yard setback is required; the applicant requests a 0 foot setback from the rear property line. APPEAL NO. 76-29 KYLE SHACKELFORD 227 West Dickson Street Mr. Kyle Shackelford and Attorney Marshall Carlisle were present to represent this appeal. Mr. Carlisle said that Mr. Shackelford has a five year lease with an option to renew for five years as of August of this year. The City Dance Hall Committee required them to obtain off-street parking, which they have done to the east of this building on a lot that is owned by Frank Sharp (originally part of the College Club Dairy property) and which provides 41 off-street parking spaces which is more than the 25 the City Dance Hall Committee requires them to have. He said Mr. Shackelford wants to be able to serve food in this establishment and the addition to this building is only for the purpose of housing his stoves, sink, and other kitchen things which are required by the Health Department. He said the addition would run along the South side of the building and the property, as he understands it, the building sets on the rear property line so they would merely extend the building west the required amount of feet to house the kitchen equip- ment. He said there is an exit on the West end of the building which would merely be extended from where it presently is to the west and through the kitchen. He said that exit was another requirement that the City imposed on them. The Fire Chief wanted an additional exit and he said this exit would be maintained if the variance is granted. He said that all Kyle Shackelford wants to do is add facilities for food. He mentioned that this building was there long before the Building Ordi- nances were passed and the land owners had no objection to what he was planning to do. He said that the owners were the B. E. House family and Curly Davenport. Mr. White asked Mr. Carlisle what they were planning to construct the building of and they said it would be constructed of concrete block with the same roof that is on the present building. Mr. Yates asked if the liquor store next door was part of his property. Mr. Carlisle said it belonged to the same family. Mr. Carlisle mentioned that the "alley" in the back of the building was part of Mr. Shackelford's lease, and this proposed extension would go down the "alley" 25 or 26 feet and make the "alley" shorter. Chairman Yates asked if this was in the same ownership as the rest of the area and Mr. Carlisle said he assumed that it is, since the same family owns and operates the liquor store. Mr. Carlisle said that the "alley" is privately owned, and that it should probably be called a driveway instead of an "alley". He again said that the "alley" goes with the rest of the lease. 63 • • • Board of Adjustment November 1, 1976 -2- Connie Clack asked what the building north of the proposed extension was and Mr. Carlisle said it was Bill's Dickson Street Liquor Store. Chairman Yates asked where the west end would be in relation to the east side of that building and Mr. Shackelford said it would be butting up against the storage area. Mrs. Mills asked if the retaining wall in the back of the alley was on the property behind the alley and Marshall Carlisle said it was on Kyle Shackelford's property. Mr. Shackelford said they would have to leave a two foot open space for the electrical company to read the meter and Mrs. Mills asked if he was just going to box in a U and Mr. Carlisle said yes. Chairman Yates asked if the exit through the kitchen met with the appvoval of the Fire Department and Mr. Carlisle said that it did. David Newbern asked how this fit the requirements in the Ordinance that the land owner show the Board some sort of hardship. Mr. Carlisle said this is the only way Mr. Shackelford could build a kitchen without using up patron space, of which there was not enough as it is. Mr. Carlisle asked Kyle Shackelford about the plumbing and Mr. Shackelford said there is an existing drain and he would put in whatever addi- tional plumbing was necessary. Mr. Carlisle pointed out that Kyle Shackelford needed every bit of space inside of the building for his customers. He said that the only business in that building which had succeeded financially up until now was Poor Richards. He said Kyle had bought his business from him and completely remodeled. He said the building doesn't provide enough customer space as it is. Additionally, the driveway at the present time is just wasted space, assuming we look at Dickson Street as non -conforming. Mrs. Mills asked if the lease for the parking lot was for the same period of time as the lease for the building and Mr. Carlisle said it is not. Mr. Carlisle said that Frank Sharp didn't want to extend the lease for the same period of time as the lease on the building because he is presently leasing the building the Ozark Smoke House is in and that lease runs out in three years; he doesn't know if he wants to buy that building or build himself a building. He can foresee that the cost would be so high that he might be better off by building his own building so he didn't want to tie the.parking lot up for any longer than his lease, so they couldn't make the two leases coincide. Larry Smith asked Mr. Carlisle if that was a public alley on the east side of his building and Mr. Carlisle said he didn't know. He said it is shown on the City Plat as a public alley. He said he thinks the situation prevents them from working out anything on that. He said they might even have a worse problem from the Fire Department's standpoint because there is no access there. Mrs. Mills asked what he would do about parking if he could no longer use that parking area at the end of three years. Mr. Carlisle said Grover Thomas owns a lot across the street which he wants to rent them, but parking could be a problem in three years. He noted that parking on Dickson Street is a problem anyway. Chairman Yates asked Bobbie Jones if a three-year lease satisfies the parking regu- lations and she said that to construct a building you would have to provide parking spaces that are permanently committed. Mrs. Jones said that parking spaces vary according to the use and asked Mr. Carlisle what the square footage of the proposed building addition is. Mr. Carlisle said it is 27S square feet. Bobbie Jones said that it would probably require one more parking space beyond what is already required. She mentioned that an existing building on Dickson Street, to change the use of a building, the Planning Office does not check parking because they would never be able to approve any changes. Chairman Yates asked if, on an addition, they would not normally check the required number of parking spaces and require what the Ordinance requires for the entire building. Bobbie Jones said that before approving an addition they usually require that they have enough parking for the entire building and if they couldn't meet that they would need a variance. She said only the Planning Commission has the power to approve off-site parking. • 64 • • • Board of Adjustment November 1, 1976 -3- Dr. White asked if he now meets the parking requirements and if he added one more in the alley would he meet the parking requirements. Bobbie Jones said according to the Zoning Ordinance he would need one parking space for each 200 square feet of floor space. She said that the additional parking referred to by Mr. Carlisle was requested from the Dance Hall Committee. Mr. Carlisle told Chairman Yates that there is no requirement from the Planning Commission as far as occupancy is concerned. He said if they required Dickson Street to conform, there would never be a business on Dickson Street. Mr. Yates said that Bobbie Jones was saying that for this zoning classification and building, it would require one parking space for every 200 square feet of building. He said if they came to the Board of Adjustment for a variance they are to look at parking. He said they have about 275 square feet in the addition and about 2600 feet in the other so it appears that they need at least 13-15 parking spaces. Mr. Carlisle said he thought the City should require them to provide the same amount of parking spaces in three years, if they lose the lease, as they do now. He said he thought they had done more than they were asked to do by providing 41 parking spaces instead of 25. Dr. White asked if the Dance Hall license was contingent upon providing 25 parking spaces and Mr. Carlisle said it is. Dr. White asked if they do not have parking requirements for using the building any other way, and Mr Carlisle said they do not. Dr. White asked Bobbie Jones if they didn't build on the addition if they would have to meet any parking requirements and she said they would not from a zoning standpoint. Mr. Carlisle said he understood that if the addition would not create any more customer space, it would not require additional parking space. He said Mr. Lieberenz had interpreted the Ordinance, on another instance, as saying if they did not add customer space, they would not need additional parking space He said there are presently 130 chairs and they would not be increasing customer space. Mr. Yates said he remembered that storage space can be deducted from parking space, but he was not sure if this applied to kitchen space. Bobbie Jones said that the Ordinance just says floor space. Connie Clack asked Kyle Shackelford what he would do if the variance was denied and Mr. Carlisle said they would just continue without serving food, but that he needs the additional income. Mr. House asked him how many chairs they would lose if they built the kitchen into what was already there and Mr. Shackelford said he would have to completely remodel the bar area and could lose up to 50 customer spaces. He said he was already pushed for space, and the alley is just wasted space used only to put the trash can in. He said they could make good use of the alley, and that it is essential to his business to get food service in. David Newbern asked about the property owners to the South and Mr. Carlisle said they had received notice. Chairman Yates asked if they had expressed any objection and Bobbie Jones said she had not heard from any of them. There was no one present to oppose the request. The public hearing was concluded. The public hearing was opened on Appeal No. 76-30, Robert Schmickle, 740 Broadview Drive on an application to vary setbacks. The Zoning Ordinance requires a setback of 25 feet from street right-of-way, plus five feet to meet the Major Street Plan, or a total of 30 feet setback from the Drive. Mr. Robert Schmickle was present to represent. D. APPEAL NO. 76-30 Robert D. Schmickle 740 Broadview Drive right-of-way of Broadview Mr. Schmickle said that the additional width was not pertinent any more since the proposed street would not be going through to the West. Chairman Yates asked 65 Board of Adjustment November 1, 1976 -4- if the lot had been platted to front on Broadview or on Austin Avenue and Mr. Schmickle said he didn't know. He said that he didn't think that five feet was pertinent. His lot is 150 x 150 feet but he has no garage. The people who for- merly owned it made a recreation room out of the garage. He said there was no place he could construct a garage because there is a rock ledge at the back of his property (north of his house) and to dig into this ledge and extend a driveway that far would be a lot more disruptive to the appearance of the property than to extend on to the front of the house and have an all brick wall the same as the house. He said he thought this would be the best solution. Mr. Schmickle said the old garage could be reconverted, but it would mean ripping up an expensive rug and losing a room which they use more than any other room in the house Chairman Yates asked if he was proposing an extended 20 feet and would that be deep enough for a garage. Mr. Schmickle said his car measures 17 feet and some of the roof overhang space of the old garage would be usable. He said it would be a little shorter than he would like to have but it would do the job. Mrs. Clack asked him why he bought the house if it didn't fit his needs and he said he thought he had plenty of room to build a garage because the curb was eight feet from his property line, so he had about 28 feet to the curb. He said he had been negligent in checking. Mrs. Mills asked if he could not add this to the West side of his house and Mr. Schmickle said he understood that he couldn't get closer than 25 feet on the west side of the house. Bobbie Jones said he could come within eight feet of that line. Mr. Schmickle said that would shut off some windows and he would lose two nice maple trees which now shade his patio. Mr. House suggested that he have the trees transplanted. Mr. Schmickle said there was probably a rock ledge a few feet down and to dig into that would be a lot more unsightly and inconvenient for him, and it is an impractical place to put the garage. Chairman Yates said it appears that he might build the garage on the east end of the house and had he considered this possibility and Mr. Schmickle said he had considered it, but on account of the trees he would hate to do this. He said it would be quite expensive because he would have to put it under the deck and par- tially under the house, about five feet. Mrs. Mills asked what the problem would be in building on the north side if he came in from Broadview. Mr. Schmickle said it would involve about 150 feet of driveway and again there he would lose trees. Dr. White asked if he had given any thought to a one -car garage and Mr. Schmickle said a two -car garage would look better. Dr. White said he could make an entry from the east but Mr. Schmickle said he would lose a row of trees and it would take a great deal of driveway. Connie Clack asked if he had considered the possi- bility of taking part of the former garage but Mr. Schmickle said this would be a major catastrophe to the other room. Mrs. Clack asked if there was a wall there or a garage door. Mr. Schmickle said there was a garage door but it was no longer functional --the hardware had been removed and an inside wall built across it. Connie Clack asked if this inner wall had cabinets built in. Mr. Schmickle said there are book cases at either end. Mr. Schmickle said it would help him a lot to have the garage located as he had requested it so he would not have to scrape ice off the windows of his car. There was no one present to oppose the request. The public hearing was concluded. The public hearing was opened on Appeal No. 76-31, APPEAL NO. 76-31 John R. Locke, 823 W. Center Street, on application John R. Locke to vary building setbacks. The Zoning Ordinance re- 823 W. Center Street quires a rear -yard setback of 20 feet; the applicant requests a 9 feet, 9 inch rear yard setback The Zoning Ordinance requires a front yard setback of 25 feet fron street right-of-way, plus 9.7 feet to meet the Major Street Plan, or a total front yard setback of 34.7 feet. The applicant requests a front yard setback of 25 feet from street right-of-way. 64 � Board of Adjustment November 1, 1976 -5- Mr. Locke said that on the Center Street side he would be conforming if Center Street were not going to be widened. He said he is extending the existing wall in the back to the east. He said at present he is 9 feet, 9 inches from the edge of the property. His hardship is that his mother is getting old and he wants to bring her here to live with him so she will be safe and he will be able to care for her. Mrs. Clack asked if he had any problems with the total area Mr. Locke said that if Center Street enlarges he will have parking space on the east side that will make up for what will be lost. Chairman Yates asked Mr. Locke how long he had owned the property and Mr. Locke said just under two years. Chairman Yates commented that there is obviously no alternative. He asked who the owner of the property to the south is. Mr. Locke said that to the south there is a parking lot for an apartment house on Duncan. Chairman Yates asked who the owner of the gravel parking lot is and Mr. Locke said it was Mr. and Mrs. Boyd. Connie Clack asked if it might be feasible to build a second story but Mr. Locke said it was an old house and it would be non -conforming to do this. The building contractor said they had talked about this possibility but one factor in not doing this was so that Mr. Locke's mother wouldn't have to climb the stairs. Chairman Yates asked Mr. Locke how old his mother is and Mr. Locke said 78. Connie Clack asked if he was going to add a porch, would the porch just be an entry, and would that be the only communication between them or will there be a hallway. Mr. Locke said there would be a doorway from his room to the porch and he is going to make a few changes to allow her direct access to the kitchen. There was no one present to oppose the request. The public hearing was concluded. Mrs. Mills said it seems to her that Mr. Locke's APPEAL NO. 76-31 • is a hardship case because he is completely John R. Locke locked from all directions. 823 W. Center Street Mrs. Clack said she appreciated the fact that he was trying to take care of his mother but that the benefit to Mr. Locke would be a rather short term thing, although this doesn't make it any less important to him. Dr. White asked if this land was all R-3 and Bobbie Jones said it was She said there is some R-2 in the area but it is as shown on the map. Connie Clack said all three cases being considered at this meeting seem to be someone trying to do something with the property that it is not suited for. Of course, you can't always tell if it would be feasible to sell the property and buy something that does suit their need more exactly or if they should be allowed to make the changes. David Newbern said he came to the conclusion that it wouldn't hurt anybody, but he tries to measure that against whether there is any particular hardship about the lay of the land. He said that he thought the hardship is that the Ordinance says you can't build anything additional on this land and he believes that is what the Ordinance intends. These non -conforming uses are not suited to the type of plan- ning expressed in the Ordinance which says they should disappear rather than be extended. Mr. Newbern said that is harsh and difficult to accept to the people who own the property, but he has trouble finding anything about the lay of the land which creates a hardship. He said he was especially impressed that nothing will be done here which will affect any other surrounding property to any degree that is substantial. Mr. Yates asked Bobbie Jones if this met with the Old Ordinance, Bobbie Jones said she couldn't recall. The Old Ordinance had a 25 foot set back from street but • • • • Board of Adjustment November 1, 1976 -6- she didn't remember the old Major Street Plan or rear yard setback. One pro- vision of the old ordinance was that where you had buildings on either side that were non -conforming the Planning Office could take the average setback of the two buildings on either side and allow a new building with a setback equal to that average. Chairman Yates quoted Article 5, Section 8 in the Zoning Ordinance Book dealing with expansion of non -conforming residences. Chairman Yates said he read Section 4 where it generally does prohibit the use and Section 8 as pertaining to the same thing. Bobbie Jones said Section 8 re- quires meeting the R-1 building setbacks. She said that the intent of Section 8 was where there was a residence which is a non -conforming use, because in nearly all commercial and industrial zones residences are non -conforming uses. Chairman Yates said as he looks at that situation there, you do have the houses on either side that have about the same setbacks from the street and a parking lot south. If the required setbacks were ever subtracted from the lot depth, he would have 3/10 of a foot to build on and since Mr. Locke bought that property two years ago after this ordinance was passed I can't believe the Planning Commission meant that nothing could be built there. The only thing that could be done is that the building can be torn down and nothing built back. Bobbie Jones said she thought the Ordinance in Section 2 was acknowledging that there will be situations such as this. This is a non -conforming lot of record and the Ordinance would allow the Planning Office to issue a permit for a single-family dwelling, providing they meet the necessary setbacks. Variance of setbacks can be made only by the Board of Adjust- ment. She noted that the lot is not large enough for them to build without a variance; but if they could meet the setbacks she can vary the lot size. Dr. White asked if there is a screening requirement for the parking lot and Bobbie Jones said probably not if it was built more than 6 years ago. Chairman Yates asked Mr. Locke if he had checked with his neighbors and if they had any quarrel with what he is planning to do. He said he had talked to Mrs. Boyd to the south but the Fetters had been away. Mrs. Clack said she hated to see anything else built on that property. Chester House said he agreed and he thought to allow an addition on a lot of this size would be defeating the Board's purpose. The building contractor said since this is already high density living, with 2 apartment buildings straight behind him, it really wouldn't change the shape of the neighborhood. Connie Clack asked if there would be a chance of obtaining more land but Mr. Locke said no. Chairman Yates said that he couldn't believe the intent of the Ordinance is to pre- vent any improvement of the property. He said the only option is to tear the house down sometime in the future, then the lot must remain vacant. He didn't believe the Ordinance intended this. Larry Smith brought up two points (1) on existing structures he thinks there should be provisions for being able to improve the structure, and (2) he can't see that we are adding to the already existing problem. He said if part of the house had to be torn down, the whole thing would have to go including the addition. Connie Clack said the only answer she could think of is the availability of buying additional property. Mr. Newbern agreed that there should be some provision for extending or remodeling or doing whatever needs to be done on property where the provisions are so strong but he said it helps him to look back and see what the Board is charged with doing (he quoted from the Code of Ordinances the powers and duties of the Board of Adjustment and the considerations they are charged with making). He said that the only thing that he sees peculiar other than the Ordinance itself is the fact that the lot is too small to accommodate what Mr. Locke wants to do. He said it doesn't seem to satisfy any part of what they have the power to do. Board of Adjustment November 1, 1976 -7- Dr. White asked David Newbern if the physical features were what he is thinking of and David Newbern said yes. Bobbie Jones offered some comparative information: the lot is 4,125 square feet in size and this is below the 6,000 square feet required. In R-1 you are allowed to build on 40% of the lot. The proposed total building area would be 1,262 square feet, approximately 33 1/3% including the proposed addition. This building also sits between two other buildings which are on corner lots. Those two dwellings have a setback of 8 feet from their two interior lot lines as opposed to Mr. Locke's 20 foot requirement from his South line. The only possible use for this property other than a single family dwelling and that would require a variance, is to com- bine it with adjacent property. Bobbie Jones said those other two houses probably were allowed 15 feet setbacks from side streets when they were built. David Newbern moved to grant the variance. Dr. White seconded the motion. Yates, Clack, Mills, and Smith voted "Aye"; Newbern, White and House voted "Nay". The variance was granted as requested. Dr. White asked which addition this lot was platted APPEAL NO. 76-30 in and Bobbie Jones said it was platted in the Jug ROBERT D. SCHMICKLE Wheeler Addition. Dr. White said he thought what Bobbie 740 Broadview Drive Jones had said earlier about the side yard setbacks would apply to this situation. Mrs. Jones said that along both streets the present ordinance has a full setback regardless of which way the house faces. Mr. Yates said the ordinance would require 25 feet from Broadview. David Newbern moved to grant Mr. Schmickle a variance because he felt that he had demonstrated some substantial hardship having to do with the physical charac- teristics of the land that would prevent him from using it for a garage which is not an unreasonable use under these circumstances. He also said he felt he came very close to meeting the requirements. Mr. Newbern added, however, that he thought Mr. Schmickle had brought this on himself by buying the house knowing full well he was going to want a garage and being unwilling to give up that part of the house originally constructed as a garage. Dr. White seconded the motion. Chester House asked how we could be sure that whoever the house was eventually sold to would have a small car and Mrs. Clack said she thought that would be their problem. She also said that the problem was there when Mr. Schmickle bought the house and he could see it, so he brought it on himself. Chairman Yates questioned whether the trees were sufficient reason not to build on that side of the house. David Newbern said he thought Mr. Schmickle could construct without a variance. Mr. Smith asked why he couldn't convert the present garage back to a garage and add on a den. Dr. White and Chairman Yates voted "Aye"; Newbern, Smith, Clack, Mills voted "Nay"; and House abstained. The appeal was denied. Mr. Newbern said he didn't see anything in APPEAL NO. 76-29 Mr. Shackelford's request except the request for KYLE SHACKELFORD him to make more money. He said he couldn't find 227 West Dickson Street any place in the ordinance that authorizes the Board to grant a variance for that purpose. What he is asking us to do is to exacerbate that problem. Mrs. Mills stated that she didn't see any undue hardship here. Larry Smith said Mr. Shackelford might try to get the paint shop back to use for a kitchen and build his neighbor a storage room. Chairman Yates said the property to the west is owned by the same man and we need to hear from him. He said we are looking at a 5 -year use but with a 3 -year lease on parking. 69__A • • Board of Adjustment November 1, 1976 -8- Dr. White moved to deny the request. David Newbern seconded the motion. The vote to deny the appeal was unanimous. Director Russell Purdy complimented the Board on the close consideration they gave appeals for variances. The Board acknowledged the letter from Ron Sherwood requesting to withdraw Appeal 76-28. On a motion by David Newbern and second by Chester House the minutes of October 4, 1976, and October 11, 1976, were approved as mailed. The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 P. M.