Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-04-03 Minutes• • • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, April 3, 1978, at 3:45 P. M., in the Chamber Of Commerce building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman Carl Yates, Dr James White, David Newbern, Larry Smith, Richard Osborne, Mrs. Don Mills, Chester House. None. Angie Medlock, Harold Lieberenz, John Purtle, Arthur Cearley, Oscar D. Titus, James S. Jackson, Norman E. Gabbard, Wanda Birch, Thelma Gibson, Madeline Skelton. Chairman Carl Yates called the meeting to order. The first item was the public hearing on Appeal No. 78-3, John Purtle and Arthur C. Cearley, 241 North College, on an application to vary setbacks, or more specifically, the applicants are requesting a setback from the street right of way of Dickson Street of 51 feet and the required is 621 feet; also, a setback from the street right of -way of College Avenue of 39 feet and the required is 60 feet. Arthur Cearley and John Purtle were present to represent the petition. This item was tabled at the March 20, 1978 meeting so that the full:Board would be present to :hear the request. Mr. Cearley explained that their proposal is to extend the present existing service station building 3 feet on the North College side. He said the service station has 3 bays and they would like to jet out from these bays with three bay windows and add a three foot shed over these windows. He said there is a three foot canopy already attached to the building which they plan to remove and replace with a mansard type roof. He also stated that they plan to eliminate the existing canopy and pump island on North College and the existing pump island on Dickson Street. He said there is an entrance and exit on Dickson Street and North College which will be eliminated so it may help to eliminate the traffic hazard which is there now. He said there would be six parking places fronting on Dickson Street and nine parking places on North College. David Newbern questioned the dimensions of the lot and Mr. Cearley said it is 137 feet on College and 100 feet on Dickson Street. Mr. Cearley said the bay windows would have booths under them and they feel this will help disassociate them with the "service station" look. Mr. Newbern said the Board is being asked to waive 111 feet on Dickson Street and 21 feet on North College. He said the building apparently could be used in accordance with the Ordinance without the variance. Mr. Newbern asked Mr. Lieberenz if the owners could rennovate a non -conforming building and Mr..Lieberenz explained that they could rennovate the building, but would not be allowed to change the roof line. He said there has not been a building permit issued yet on the Dixie Pig, but they have given them permission to go ahead and start construction on the inside only. Mrs. Mills asked if the petititoner is asking for a 6 foot variance on the North College side and Mr. Lieberenz explained that they are asking for three additional feet from what is existing, which they will be removing. Larry Smith questioned if the wood is allowed on the outer portion of the building since it is located in the fire zone and Mr Lieberenz stated that they could put up to 1" wood board as long as ite.is backed up by a masonry wall. No one was present in opposition. The public hearing was concluded. APPEAL No. 78-3 241 N. College DIXIE PIG • • • Board of Adjustment Meeting April 3, 1978 The second item was the public hearing on Appeal APPEAL NO. 78-4 No. 78-5, Oscar D. Titus, 2910 South School, on 2910 S. School an application to vary setbacks, or more specifically, OSCAR D. TITUS he is asking for a setback from Lester Street of 14 feet and the required is 25 feet. Oscar Titus was present to represent. Mr. Titus explained that he would like to remove the existing bathroom, which is six feet from the right of way of Lester and build a new bathroom which would be 14 feet from the street right of way. He said someone had built on to the back of the house earlier and extended the roof, which is less than six feet high at the back door. He said they later built a bathroom to the north with only a six foot roof on this. He said he had checked and there were no permits issued for this construction. He stated that the workmanship is less than good and there are termites, and it would not be feasible to try to salvage what is there. He said he is proposing to square the roof up and give the City back the eight feet which the bathroom occupies and then extend to the back on the east side and put a conventional roof line on the house. He said this would make the house more appealing. No one was present in opposition. Mr. Lieberenz questioned if the 14 feet would be the roof overhang..or the building wall and Mr. Titus said it would be the building --the roof overhang would be an additional 12-18". Mr. Yates said the variance would then need to be 121 feet. No one was present in opposition. The public hearing was concluded. The third item was the public hearing on Appeal No. 78-6, James S. Jackson, 1770 North College Avenue, on an application to waive the requirement that a "lot" have frontage on, and access to an improved public street. APPEAL NO. 78-5 1770 N. College JAMES S. JACKSON Mr. Jackson's lot would have no street frontage, but would have an easement through Harding Glass property to North College. The Zoning Ordinance requires that a lot shall have frontage on an improved public street. James S. Jackson was present representing the petition. He said he is planning to put a sheet metal 'shop.in the building. He stated that he needs the variance for access into the building. He stated that he has a signed easement from the owner of the Harding Glass property, who he is purchasing the property from, to use the north portion of their lot for access. Dr. White questioned if Harding Glass owned the property where Taco Bell is and Mr. Jackson said he did not know. He said they do not own it at this time. Mrs. Mills questioned what would happen if Harding Glass sold the building and the land. She was concerned that Mr. Jackson would not have any access if the property was sold. Richard Osborne stated that the easement would need to be filed for record and it would go with the land. David Newbern questioned if Mr. Jackson planned to expand the building and Mr. Jackson said he did not feel he would need to expand the building at this time. Dr. White questioned who owns the property to the back of this property and Mr. Jackson said it is owned by Mr. Younkin. Chairman Yates questioned if Mr. Jackson has investigated the possibility of having an access to the east and Mr Jackson explained that he would have to build a bridge across the creek and buy enough property to get back to Walnut Street. Chester House said he did not feel any of the property owners on Walnut would be willing to sell any property to Mr. Jackson for access. Mrs. Mills pointed out that the property on Walnut Street is residential and that there is a big slope going out to Walnut. No one was present in opposition. The public hearing was concluded. low • • • Board of Adjustment Meeting April 3, 1978 -3- The last item was the public hearing on Appeal No. 78-7, APPEAL NO. 78-7 Norman E. Gabbard, 714 West Sixth Street (Hwy. 62 West), 714 W. 6th St. on an application to vary setbacks and minimum lot width, Norman Gabbard or more specifically, he is asking for a rear yard setback of 7 feet and the required is 20 feet; and a variance on the minimum lot width to allow a triplex to be built on a lot which is 82.5 feet wide and the required is 90 feet. Norman Gabbard was present to represent. Mr. Gabbard said he could build a duplex with the same square footage as this proposed triplex without a variance. He said he feels, however, it would be more feasible to try to build a triplex on the lot. He noted that there is the railroad track on the rear yard line and the highway is proposed to be widened to 80 feet. Chairman Yates questioned how wide the lot would need to be for a duplex and Mr. Lieberenz said it would need to be 60 feet wide for a duplex, and 90 feet for three or more units. Dr. White questioned if there is ample square footage available for the lot and Mr. Lieberenz said "yes". Wanda Birch, who owns property to the west, was present in opposition. She questioned how much the highway will be widened and Mr. Lieberenz said it is proposed for 80 feet, and there is presently 40 feet right of way. Mr. Gabbard said he is proposing to set the building back about 62 feet so if they do take an additional 20 feet for the street, he will still be setting back 42 feet from the right of way. Mrs. Birch questioned where the applicant got the information submitted on his appeal that the property to the west (which she owns) was not for sale for what he would consider a reasonable price. She also questioned if there could be a fence built between his property and the garage which she owns to the west. She said she is afraid she would be liable for children coming over to her property and playing near the garage. Mr. Gabbard indicated he would be willing:to split the cost of :a.; fence with Mrs. Birch if she wanted to have one built.: Richard Osborne questioned if Mrs. Birch does object to the variance and she said she does object since this is commercial property. Mr. Osborne pointed out that Mr. Gabbard's property is zoned R-3, which does allow multi -family, and Mrs. Birch's property is zoned I-1. Thelma Gibson and Madeline Skelton were present. Mrs: Gibson, who owns the property across the street from Mr. Gabbard said she has no objections at all to the variance. The public hearing was concluded. David Newbern stated that he feels this is a very minor variance if it is true that he could use the non -conforming structure without a variance. Mr. Yates read Article 4, Section 4, of the Zoning Ordinance which states Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this ordinance that could not be built under the .terms of this ordinance by reason of restrictions on areas, lot coverage, height, yards, its location on the lot, or other requirements concerning the structure, such structure may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions: (a) No such non -conforming structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its non -conformity but any structure of portion thereof may be altered to decrease its non -conformity. APPEAL NO. 78-3 241 N. College DIXIE PIG • • • Board of Adjustment Meeting April 3; 1978 -4- Richard Osborne felt they would comply with Article 4, Section 4 (a) since they are removing the pump islands, and decreasing the non -conformity. David Newbern said his idea of zoning is where a non -conforming building will eventually die away. He said he understood that you couldn't improve a non -conforming building because that would be contrary to the intent of the ordinance which is to permit the non -conforming building to exist as long as it will exist but not to allow improvements so that it can continue as a non -conforming building. He said he feels there is still a strong question of interpretation, but he does not find the Planning Office's interpretation particularly offensive. Mr. Lieberenz explained that what makes it hard is that buildings were built years ago in conformance with the zoning ordinance in effect at that time, but when the zoning ordinance changes, that makes those structures non -conforming. He noted that in 1964, the Inspection Office could issue a building permit within 2 feet of Dickson Street and 2 feet of College Avenue. Dr. White made a motion to grant the variance as requested. Larry Smith seconded the motion, which passed 7-0. Next was consideration of Appeal No. 78-4, Oscar Titus. Chester House said he feels Mr. Titus would be improving the neighborhood and the structure. Mr. House made a motion to grant the variance as requested. Larry Smith seconded the motion. Richard Osborne questioned if they should amend the motion to allow a 122 The members agreed that it should be a 122 foot variance to allow for the Mr. House and Mr. Smith agreed to amend their motions. The motion passed Next was consideration of Appeal No. 78-5, James S. Jackson. Mr. House said he knows this property was previously used by Bell Telephone and they used the same entrance as Mr. Jackson has an easement for, and he feels the variance should be granted. Chester House made a motion to approve the variance. Richard Osborne seconded the motion. Dr. White asked if the easement access would also serve for fire and emergency vehicles and Mr. Lieberenz said he felt that could be made a condition of the easement. Mr. Lieberenz stated that the Zoning Ordinance states that "Every building hereafter erected or moved shall be on a lot adjacent to a public street, and all structures shall be so located on lots so as to provide safe and convenient access for servicing, fire protection, and required off-street parking". He said as far as he knows, the Zoning Ordinance does not accept an easement as being lot frontage. Mr. Yates questioned how the City would insure that the easement will remain open so it could be utilized by emergency vehicles. Mr. Newbern said he felt that would be Mr. Jackson's problem. Mr. Newbern said he is not sure he regards this as a pure Board of Adjustment problem. He said he felt access by virtue of a legal easement is no less effective than other kinds of access (street frontage). Mr. Yates noted that some of the access is not from the north side of the property. He said it seems if the Ordinance had intended for them to consider such things as that, it would have been covered. He said it seems that they are altering the definition of a lot as set out in the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Yates said the only reason he can find for granting this variance is so Mr. Jackson can put his business there. He said he fails to see that there is a hardship in this appeal. Mr. Lieberenz stated that the sheet metal shop is a conditional use in the C-2 District, so Mr. Jackson will need Planning Commission approval for the use. Richard Osborne said he would be inclined to table this until after he goes to the Planning Commission. Chairman Yates said he would be inclined to turn this down and let Mr. Jackson go on to the Planning Commission. Mr. Lieberenz stated that this is completely out of line with the general planning of the Zoning Ordinance. APPEAL NO. 78-4 2910 S. School OSCAR D. TITUS foot variance. roof overhang. 7-0. APPEAL NO. 78-5 1770 N. College JAMES S. JACKSON Board of Adjustment Meeting April 3,1978 Richard Osborne said he is leaning toward Mr. Jackson, but he feels it is a little early for the variance. Larry Smith was concerned whether or not the Board of Adjustment actually has the authority to grant this variance. David Newbern made a motion to table this appeal. Dr. White seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Last was consideration on Appeal 78-7, Norman Gabbard. APPEAL NO. 78-7 Mr. Yates said the only reason he sees for granting 714 W. 6th St. the variance would be that it would be more profitable NORMAN GABBARD for Mr. Gabbard to build the triplex than the duplex. Richard Osborne said he hates to deny the variance just because it may be more profitable to Mr. Gabbard. Mr. Osborne said he doesn't think it makes that much difference between a duplex and a triplex. He said it appears that the property just happens to be shaped wrong to have 90 feet of frontage. David Newbern said he does: see Mr. Gabbard's point that it would be hard to make that lot economically useful. He stated, however, that he cannot find the hardship in this situation. David Newbern questioned if this has already been rezoned and Mr. Gabbard said it was rezoned from I-1, Industrial District to R-3, Medium Density Residential. Mr. Gabbard said it seems odd that he would be allowed to build a duplex with the same square footage as the proposed triplex. Mr. Yates said if he could buy 71/2 feet from the adjoining property, he could build the triplex. David Newbern made a motion to grant the variance as requested for the rear yard setback, and deny the lot width variance requested. Mrs. Mills seconded the motion, which passed 7-0. Dr.: White made a motion to approve the minutes as mailed. David Newbern MINUTES seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 5:35 P. M. 13