Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-02-05 Minutes• MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, February 5, 1979, at 3:45 o'clock P.M. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Carl Yates, Mrs. Don Mills, Chester House, Larry Smith, Steve Nickles, David Newbern and James White. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: None. Bobbie Jones, Gail Biswell, Darrell Wagoner, Morton Gitelman, Marcia Mclvor, George Faucette, Jr., David Cole, and other unidentified members of the audience. Chairman Carl Yates called the meeting to order. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Chairman Yates stated that the first hearing would be on Appeal No. 79-3, Fayetteville Glass Company, Inc., 1725 N. College, application to vary setbacks. Mr. Darrell Wagoner, Vice -President of the company, was present to represent. Mr. Yates explained that the applicants were requesting to be allowed a 40 ft. setback from College Avenue right-of-way instead of the 50 ft. required. Mr. Wagoner explained that they were requesting the variance in order to renovate the front of the existing building by adding a mansard -type roof. He stated that the roof would serve as acanopy over the entrance and was also desirable in order to alleviate a leakage problem they have had. He stated that the roof would extend only to the edge of the existing sidewalk and would not interfere with traffic or obstruct vision. Mr. Wagoner stated that he had been told by the City Building Inspector that, although he would not be allowed to add the roof without a variance, he could put a canopy or awning out in front of the building. Bobbie Jones noted that the difference between this wooden roof and a canvas or sheet metal type awning would be that the wooden roof would be a structural part of the building and not temporary in nature. Mrs. Mills questioned Mr. Wagoner about his plans should the Board refuse the variance. Mr. Wagoner stated that he would then "put a flat facia on the front to cover up the existing concrete block." Mrs. Mills questioned whether this flat front would take care of his leakage problem and Mr. Wagoner replied, "No, not entirely." Mr. White questioned Mrs. Jones concerning the setbacks required. She re- plied that some of the property in the area is zoned C-2 and some R-0. She ex- plained that in the C-2 zones 50' plus 5' Major Street Plan allowance is required. She said that if there is no parking between the building and the street, 30' plus 5' would be required in R-0. She stated that 25' plus 5' would be required if landscaping is done on 10 to 20% of the area between the building and street ., and if no parking is provided. PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL NO. 79-3 Fayetteville Glass Co. 1725 N. College �a � Board of Adjustment Meeting . February 5, 1979 Page 2 Mr. White questioned whether there sponded affirmatively. Chairman Yates then asked if there by anyone present, and there being -none, is parking there now and Mr. Wagoner re - were any further comments or questions the public hearing was declared closed. Chairman Yates stated that the next hearing would be on Appeal No. 79-4, Morton Gitelman and Marcia McIver, 1229 W. Lakeridge Drive, application to vary setbacks. Mr. Gitelman and Ms. Mclvor were present to represent. Chairman Yates explained that the applicants were requesting to be allowed a 16 ft. 4 in. setback instead of the 20 ft. required by ordinance. Mr. Gitelman presented the petition, stating that he and his wife had been studying the possibility of building a greenhouse for several months. He said they had researched the possible types and sizes available and that the one proposed was the best possible type and size for their needs, as well as for the topography of their lot. He stated that the greenhouse needed proper orientation in order to receive proper lighting, and that they also desired to be able to enter the green- house without leaving their dwelling house He explained that entry to the green- house would be through sliding glass doors from the family room; that the house would be set on a simple concrete foundation; that it would be attached to the main house; and that it would have a door;at its west end leading outside. He also stated that the steep grade of the lot precluded building the greenhouse on other possible sites on the lot. Mr. Gitelman stated that he and his wife had contacted all neighbors whose property adjoins them at the rear and that none of those neighbors had any objec- tions. He also stated that, according to the lay of the land, there were such great distances between the houses (up to 60 ft. in some cases) that there would not be any interference with uses of the neighbors' yards. Ms. Mclvor added that the greenhouse would not have any commercial aspects and would be for hobby only.. After a very short discussion, Chairman Yates asked if there were any further comments or questions by anyone present, and there being none, the public hearing was declared closed on this appeal. PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL NO. 79-4 Gitelman and Mclvor 1129 W. Lakeridge Drive Chairman Yates stated that the last hear- ing would be on Appeal No. 79-5, Robert E. Cole by George Faucette, Jr., 49 N. Razorback Road, application to vary required land area per child for nursery school facility. David Cole, brother and partner of petitioner Robert Cole, was pres- ent to represent. Also present was realtor George Faucette, Jr. Mr. Faucette introduced Mr. David Cole, brother of applicant Robert E. Cole, and a partner in the prospective purchase of the property. Mr. Faucette explained PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL NO. 79-5 Robert E. Cole (Kindercare Nursery School) 49 N. Razorback Rd. 73 • • • • Board of Adjustment Meeting February 5, 1979 Page 3 that State and Local agencies have three major requirements for nursery schools, to -wit: 1. School area required by State and City being 35 sq. ft. per child. (Mr. Faucette noted that the applicants propose 4,700 sq. ft. for 100 children, and are therefore well in excess of this requirement.) 2. Play area required per child by the State being 75 sq. ft.; City requires 80 sq. ft. (The proposed plan provides 100 sq. ft. per child --again exceeding the requirements, stated Mr. Faucette.) 3. Parking spaces per total land area (proposed plan exceeds the re- quired spaces by a 4-1 ratio). Mr. Faucette noted that, although the State has no total land area require- ments, the City requires 250 sq. ft. per child. He stated that the applicants wish to provide for 100 children and that doing so would only allow 239.4 sq. ft. per child. He stated that this was the variance requested --to be allowed to have only 239.4 sq..ft. per child in lieu of the required 250 sq. ft. per child. Mr. Faucette noted that the cities of Fort Smith and Little Rock do not have total land area per child requirements and that the City of Springdale requires only 200 sq. ft. per child. He stated that he did not feel the request was unfair or out of line considering requirements of area cities. He stated that he did not understand what the local ordinance intended for the schools to do with the land area not required for school area, play area, or parking. He said that he felt the applicants had more than adequately met the most important requirements. Chairman Yates questioned the necessity of the nursery school to have 100 children when they could operate just as well with 95 children. David Cole re- sponded that the operative company (Kindercare, Inc.) had set up national stand- ardized operations with set formulas and ratios for children, teachers, overhead, etc. "that work for them." He noted that they operate in over 300 locations nation-wide. He stated that since the daycare business "is essentially a low - profit, marginal operation" he feared that the company might turn down this loca- tion if they could not be assured of the 100 -child capacity. David Newbern commented that "this obviously looks like a problem of stand- ardized operation vs. the ordinance designed to create spacious facilities." Mr. Cole responded that these facilities are very spacious, first-class operations that include good educational programs and exceptional playground facilities. Mr. Faucette noted that the aplicants had requested a conditional use from the Planning Commission two weeks ago and had been granted approval unanimously. Mr. White questioned whether there was any possibility that more land might be acquired and Mr. Faucette responded that the adjoining property was not available. After further discussion, the Chairman asked if there were any further com- ments or questions by anyone present, and there being none, the public hearing was declared closed on this appeal. 71/ Board of Adjustment Meeting • February 5, 1979 Page 4 • CONSIDERATIONS: Mr. House stated that he was "happy to see a business wanting to make a pleasing, aesthetic appearance" and that he agreed the mansard roof could help take care of their water problem. Chairman Yates stated that he approved of the request for the reasons that the building more than met the setbacks required at the time it was built in 1963 and since the new roof would not exceed the sidewalks which were constructed within the ordinance limitations of 1963. Mr. Newbern stated: "I would like to be convinced that this is what lawyer's call a diminimous-type situation where we shouldn't worry about it because it is such a small request --because that's the only basis I can see for granting it. It is an encroachment without the demonstration of any physical hardship which would result if the request is not granted. However, I agree with Chester that I like to see improvement of business' appearances (especially on College Ave.) but I am bothered by not seeing how the granting of this request fits the requirements of the ordinance." He stated that he would like someone to convince him that this was either such a small request "that we shouldn't hold back" or that there was some good reason for granting it according to the terms of the ordinance. Mr. Yates questioned whether Mr. Newbern was not influenced, as he was, that when the building was built in 1963 that it more than exceeded'the ordinance re- quirements. Mr. Yates stated that this definitely influenced himself, as well as the fact that it was such a small request. Mr. White added that he agreed with Mr. Yates and that he also felt that "the existing landing there already" (the sidewalk) was a definite factor for considering approval of the request. Mrs. Mills noted that, although she "ordinarily opposed variances on College," it seemed unfair to her that temporary -type canopies would be allowed and a nice - looking mansard roof would have to have a variance. Mr. Newbern responded that he felt the reasoning behind that might be that if the City should ever require widening of the street and the front of the build- ing needed removal, a temporary canopy would be much easier to remove than a structural roof. Larry Smith noted, however, that there is not much difference in the proposed roof than in a canopy since there is very little difficulty in re- moving a mansard roof. He stated that removal of such an addition would in no way effect the structural parts of the existing building. In response to Mr. Nickles' question to Mrs. Jones concerning why she had felt the proposed roof would need a variance when it might be considered a type of canopy, Mrs. Jones stated that she felt the manner in which the addition would be constructed differed from a canopy since you could not "just put it up with a few bolts." She said that erecting the mansard roof would take much more effort. Mr. White moved to approve the request and Mr. House seconded the motion. Mrs. Jones then noted that she would like the motion clarified to allow that the roof -line could only come to the outside edge of the sidewalk. Mr. White stated that that had been his intention and agreed to amend the motion thusly. After further discussion, a vote was taken and the Chairman announced that the motion to approve the variance had passed unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL NO. 79-3 Fayetteville Glass Co. 1725 N. College 75 Board of Adjustment Meeting • February 5, 1979 Page 5 Mr. Newbern and Mr. Nickles both stated that they would abstain on this voting since they were close associates of Mr. Gitelman at the University School of Law. Mrs. Mills stated that she had driven to the property and, after having done so, she understood the problems they had with topography. She stated that "if they are going to have a greenhouse, this is the most logical place to put it." Mr. House moved to approve the request and Mr. White seconded the motion. After a very short discussion, the Chairman announced that the motion to approve 'had passed unanimously (5-0) with the abstentions of Newbern and Nickles. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL NO. 79-4 Gitelman and Mclvor 1129 W. Lakeridge Drive Chester House stated that since the appli- cants had conformed, and even exceeded, all the other State and Local agency regulations, he was in favor of granting the waiver. He also stated that he believed this type of center "would be an asset to the neighborhood and to the town." Mr. Nickles stated that he "had a problem" with the request under the terms of the ordinance as he understood that there must be some hardship involved be- fore a variance could be approved. He said that he did not see the hardship here. He stated that "there must besome good reason behind the 250' requirement --maybe for the benefit of the neighbors, or something else." He stated that he felt the Board must assume that the rule made was a reasonable one. Mr. Yates stated that the Board had in times past felt that certain requests were reasonable and that the ordinance requirements might not have been reasonable. In those instances, he stated, the Board had turned down the request, but had recommended that the applicant go back to the Planning Commission and ask for a change in the ordinance. He stated that perhaps this would be the best solution in this case. He questioned whether the applicants would have "a time problem" with trying that route. Mr. Faucette inquired the length of time needed to get an ordinance amended and Mrs. Jones responded "at least two months." Mr. Faucette replied that the purchase contract had only about 45 more days to run. Mr. Yates then stated that, under Mr. Newbern's definition of "diminimous interest" perhaps this slight variance (only about 4%) might be granted. Mr. New- bern responded that he didn't feel a consistency could be reflected "by comparing 42 inches with 5 children." Mr. Nickles agreed. After further discussion concerning whether the operators of the school might agree to a 95 -child limitation, Mr. White moved to deny the request. Hestated that he felt the ordinance might need changing to reflect a lesser sq. ft. per child requirement and that the applicants might want to take the matter up with the Planning Commission and City Board. He included in his motion a comment made by Mr. Yates concerning the fact that the applicants could come back again to this Board with its request without the need of re -advertising the appeal if the school operators felt they could not operate without a 100 -child possible capacity. He noted, however, that this did not mean that the Board would change its mind and vote to approve any second request. David Newbern seconded the motion to deny, which passed unanimously. The minutes of the previous meeting of January 15, 1979, were approved as mailed. There being no further business to be conducted, the meeting adjourned at 5:00 o'clock P.M. CONSIDERATION -OF APPEAL NO. 79-5 Robert E. Cole (Kindercare Nursery School) 49 N. Razorback Rd. 76