Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-06-04 MinutesMINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, June 4, 1979, at 3:45 o'clock P.M. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Carl Yates, Vice -Chairman James White, Mrs. Don Mills, Chester House, Larry Smith, David Newbern and Steve Nickles. MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OTHERS PRESENT: Bobbie Jones, City Manager Don Grimes, Gail Biswell, Demaris Hart, Becky Mathias, Jim Herrin, George Shelton, John Lewis, Dwain Goodwin, Ray Adams, Terry Keen, and unidentified members of the audience. Chairman Yates called the meeting to order. PUBLIC HEARINGS: The first appeal for public hearing was Appeal No. 79-15, Mathias Morningside Apart- ments, 741 S. Morningside Drive, application to vary setbacks; property zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. Attorney Demaris Hart and owner Becky Mathias were present to represent. Chairman Yates noted that this appeal was heard at the previous meeting but no action was taken thereon as the members present at that meeting desired to bring the appeal to the full board. Chair- man Yates asked Ms. Hart to once again present the request. Ms. Hart stated that the request was for a 5.7 ft. variance and that peti- tioners felt such request was justified according to the definition of a "variance" as defined in Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Hart stated that she had three reasons for basing her petition on the definition, to -wit: 1. She stated that a variance request could not be contrary to the public interest and referred to copies of the survey of the property as it now stands. She said that a variance would not create a hazardous or unsafe condition either to property owners in the area, to people traveling down Fairlane Street, or to people traveling on the sidewalks along the street. She added that it would not be damaging to the orderly growth of the City. 2. Ms. Hart stated that the definition of a variance provides that one may be granted where conditions peculiar to the property result in unnecessary hard- ship to the owners of the property. She stated that "the offending corner of the building" lies within the curvature of Fairlane Street and that only one corner of the building violates the City Code. "The property in this particular situ- ation is triangular," she stated, "and we believe that were the building not in violation that the existence of the apartment as it stands would probably be the best use of the property. 3. Ms. Hart stated that the definition of a variance provides that one may be granted when the condition is not the result of the actions of the applicants themselves and where a literal enforcement would cause unnecessary and undue hardship to the applicants. Ms. Hart added: PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL NO. 79-15 Mathias Morningside Apts. 741 S. Morningside Drive (Tabled at Previous Meeting) 9? Board of Adjustment Meeting June 4, 1979 Page 2 "To require this corner to be removed would damage two supporting walls of this apartment unit. It would require massive reconstruc- tion of the roof line and might make this last unit of this 4 -unit complex unusable for the purpose for which it was constructed --to rent. It would create for this one apartment unit economic disaster." Finally, Ms. Hart stated that the conditions bringing about the appeal could not be conditions caused by actions of the applicants themselves. She stated that the Mathias' had caused a set of correct plans to be drawn and submitted to the contractor, Gary Combs, who was to build the apartments accordingly. She stated that the plans contained notations stating that all setbacks were to be measured from the roof overhang of the building and that such overhang is normally 30 inches therefrom. She stated that the Mathias' had assumed the apartments would be built according to the plans and acknowledged that the mistake was discovered only after final construction of the apartments at the time the engineers were pre- paring the as -built plot plans. Ms. Hart concluded, stating that the applicants had never negligently or willfully tried to circumvent the ordinance or purposes therefor. Discussion ensued concerning possible problems the contractor might have faced during construction, such as drainage conditions and unimproved streets, which could have been reasons for his changing the distances between the buildings, etc. Mr. Nickles stated that he had made close examinations of the property since the last hearing and had not found the drainage problems which had been brought up at that first hearing. Chester House rebutted the statement that sidewalks had not been constructed at the time the apartments were being built and stated that Mrs. Jones had con- firmed this fact with him after reviewing a 1965 aerial photograph in her office which reflected sidewalks along the street. After further discussion, there being no further comments or questions regard- ing the request, Chairman Yates declared the public hearing closed. The next appeal for public hearing was Appeal No. 79-17, First National Bank of Fay- etteville, application to vary number of parking spaces and to permit backing of cars into a public alley at the new bank site. Present to represent were Jim Herrin, George Shelton and John Lewis. Jim Herrin presented the application, requesting: 1. That the number of parking spaces required be based on floor area (175 cars) rather than on 82,197 sq. ft. (274 cars). the first area computation had been made using gross floor area computation had been made using net floor area arrived at after habited areas within the proposed structure. 2. That the eight parking spaces on the plan approved to allow cars parked therein to back into 3. That the total number of required parking PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL NO. 79-17 First National Bank East Side Square 52,368 sq. ft. of He noted that and the second subtracting unin- located behind the building be the public alley. spaces be waived. 114 Board of Adjustment Meeting June 4, 1979 Page 3 Mr. Herrin asked that the above requests be considered in reverse order. If the number of parking spaces could be waived in full, there would be no need to ask for the first request. He explained that the engineer had computed unin- habited areas as being elevator shafts, area -ways, stairwells and other such areas. He stated that a precedent for using this type of computation had been set when this Board allowed the Medical Center on North College to subtract such areas from their gross area before computing such requirements. George Shelton reviewed the minutes of the Octber 8, 1973, Board of Adjust- ment meeting at which the Medical Center had requested computation for their parking requirements be made on such a basis. Mr. Shelton read statements of Attorney Hugh Kincaid (attorney for the Medical Center) as recorded in the min- utes of that meeting as follows: "Mr. Kincaid asked the Board of Adjustment what the parking require- ment of one per 300 sq. feet of floor area means. He said that since the ordinance does not define floor area the applicant feels a reason- able computation is appropriate which would use the traffic generating space. He suggested using the net leasable floor space and would elimi- nate such things as stairwells, elevator shafts, restrooms, corridors, and mechanical rooms that would not be traffic -generating space." Mr. Shelton stated that there was a great deal of discussion concerning those points. He read a statement of Mr. Paul Mattke, the then City Engineer, record- ed in the minutes of that meeting, as follows: "On computation of building area for parking, . . . it would take an awful lot to compute a building of this size and knowing the Planning Administrator's work load it would be almost a necessity to keep it simple and then allow the Board of Adjustment to waive the requirement if necessary." Mr. Shelton stated that Mr. Mattke had stated that the variance request was "certainly a legitimate request." Another quotation from the minutes, as read by Mr. Shelton, was: "Mr. Kincaid summed up his request for variances and interpretation by stating that: 1) With respect to the computation of the floor area, the use of the net leasable area, he could see that it would make it harder for the Planning Administrator's office but thought that this would place the burden on the proponent to come in and figure the floor space." Mr. Shelton stated that the variance requested for the Medical Center had been approved in light of computation of the usable floor space as outlined above. Mr. Herrin continued, stating that the applicant also requested that cars using the eight parking spaces located behind the proposed building be allowed to back into the public alley. He noted that there is a distance of 24 ft. from the back line of the building to the property line and that the parking spaces are slanted in 28 ft. stalls. He stated that the 28 ft. distances combined with the 10 ft. in the alley should be sufficient for backing without needing full use of the alley for maneuvering. He stated that he foresaw no traffic hazard. Mr. Herrin stated that the bank had several reasons why it would like the total parking requirements waived. These reasons, as stated by him, were: too • • • Board of Adjustment Meeting June 4, 1979 Page 4 1. The bank is already downtown and occupies about as many parking spaces now as it will when the new bank is utilized. He stated that the bank would not hire any new employees after moving into the new building, or as a result of moving, and therefore would not be any need created for additional parking. Mr. Herrin noted that the downtown main bank employes 110 people. 2. Arrangements have been made with the Downtown Motor Lodge (now Bassett's Mountain Inn) to lease 45 spaces in its parking garage, if necessary. 3. Arrangements have been made with Al Eason to use 60 spaces in the First Federal Parking Lot. 4. The Bank owns the old Ward Hotel building on Center Street and could pro- vide about 37 parking spaces if that building were razed and a parking lot con- structed. John Lewis stated that the bank did not want to raze the building since it had been found to be structurally sound and a better use would be to rennovate it for use as an office building or other similar use. He stated that destruction of the building would be considered only as a last resort. 5. First National Bank has contributed heavily to Downtown Fayetteville Un' limited...Over the past 21 years, Mr. Herrin stated, the Bank has contributed in excess of $33,000.00 toward off-street parking and administrative dues. He stated that the new parking district will cost the bank approximately $900.00 per month for the next 20 years and that the Bank would like some consideration given for its past and future contributions to off-street parking within the City. 6. Mr. Herrin stated that he felt many of the present parking lots around the square are not fully utilized. He related an experiment check he had made on two city lots (one behind the old J. C. Penney's building and one near the Federal Building) at 11:00 a.m. on the past Friday (June 1) and again on the following Monday (June 4). He stated that he found the 54 -space Penney's parking lot had only 4 automobiles on Friday and 8 on Monday; the 22 -space Federal Bldg. lot had 9 automobiles on Friday and 11 on Monday. He noted finding a few available spaces in other parking lots also. Mr. Herrin stated that he felt if the new Bank build- ing were required to provide 175 additional parking spaces around the square that the surplus of parking would "kill the new parking deck" to be built next to the new Continuing Education Center. Discussion ensued concerning the possibility of asking the Planning Commis- sion to amend the ordinance to allow waiver of parking. After further discussion, the public hearing was closed on this appeal. The next appeal for public hearing was Appeal No. 79-18, Ray's Flowers E Gifts; 800 S. School Avenue; Zoning District C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District; application to vary setbacks Dwain Goodwin, Ray Adams and Terry Keen were present to represent. Mr. Keen stated that the variance was being requested in order to "dress up and remodel the front of the building." He stated that they also wanted to "square off the two corners of the building opposite the show window." It was noted that the requested setback of 20.3 inches rather than the required 30 feet would take up only 40-50 square feet in area. After a short discussion, there being no further comments or questions regarding the request, Chairman Yates declared the public hearing closed. PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL NO. 79-18 RAY'S FLOWERS $ GIFTS 800 S. School 101 • • • Board of Adjustment Meeting June 4, 1979 Page 5 The last appeal for public hearing was Appeal No. 79-19, City of Fayetteville, applicant; location 217 E. Dickson; Zoning District R-0, Residential -Office District; Application to vary setbacks of parking. Mr. Don Grimes, City Manager, was present to represent. Mr. Grimes stated that he was presenting the request for the Fayetteville Library Board and that the request was for a zero foot setback when ordinance would require a 15 feet setback in order to construct a one -stall parking space which would permit a handicapped person to exit from a vehicle onto the sidewalk. Mr. Grimes stated that this might inconvenience pedestrians on the sidewalk but that he felt it would be a greater convenience for handicapped persons to be able to exit from their automobiles onto the sidewalk. Mr. Grimes noted that the Lib- rary Board was presently considering rerouting the traffic through the driveway and felt that such rerouting would be beneficial. Mr. Grimes stated that access onto the sidewalk would allowed handicapped persons access to the Library without encountering any changes in elevation. Steve Nickles questioned whether the plans being made to accommodate the handicapped had been prompted by any federal regulations or simply initiated by the Library Board. George Shelton stated that the Library Board was "cognizant of Federal regulations" but mainly had its handicapped patrons in mind. Bobbie Jones noted that Building Code regulations require any parking area containing 25 or more parking spaces to have one handicapped -person parking space. She states that a SO -space lot was required to provide 2 such spaces, etc. Discussion ensued concerning possible alternative plans, possible traffic hazards, etc. After such discussion, the public hearing on this appeal was closed PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL NO. 79-19 City of Fayetteville 217 E. Dickson CONSIDERATIONS: Mrs. Mills stated that she would not have voted for this request if it had come to the Board before being built She stated that she was in sympathy with the owners, "but builders should be aware of codes they have to abide by." Mr. Newbern and Mr. Nickles agreed. Mr. Newbern stated that he had tried to justify the request based on the curvature of the street and on possible drainage problems but that these possibilities had been negated during the discussion and that he could not find any hardship caused by the shape or size of the land. He stated that the only hardship he could see was a contractor's error and that such hardship was not covered in the requirements for approving such a variance request. Mr. Nickles stated that he had spent considerable time walking around and looking at the land and could not find any particular circumstances peculiar to the land. He stated that "if the unit had been moved back according to the plan there would not be a need for this request at all." Mr. Nickles continued, stating: "There's no reason that I could see for having that much space between buildings since the drainage problems seem to be down between 1 and 2 (units). It appears to me that the problemA causedby the applicant, although it's true it was not the literal owner, but someone hired by the owner who stands in the place of the owner. • CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL NO. 79-1S MATHIAS MORNINGSIDE APTS. 741 S. Morningside Drive lot • • Board of Adjustment Meeting June 4, 1979 Page 6 The "beef", if any, does not lie with the ordinance ,or this Board, but with some other party." Mr. Smith noted that he had learned since the Board's last meeting that "this is not the first time this contractor has made this mistake." Mr. Nickles moved to deny the request. Dr. White seconded the motion, which passed 6-0-1 with the abstention of Chester House. Mr. Newbern and Mr. Nickles each disqualified themselves from participating in the consideration of this appeal and from voting thereon. Dr. White commented that the Bank would not be increasing its number of employees or effectively changing the number of parking spaces it now uses. In light of those facts, Dr. White stated that he did not see the move to be detrimental to the City and moved to waive the parking re- quirements in full (request #3). Chester House seconded the motion. Discussion ensued. Mr. Grimes commented that the City Board of Directors had requested that the administrative staff study the reasonableness of the number of parking spaces required for developments in the downtown area. Larry Smith stated that it was his opinion that removing existing buildings in downtown areas in order to provide space for parking is detrimental to downtown areas He stated that he felt the Bank and other such enterprises would be "looking to take care of its own" and it would be to its advantage to provide sufficient parking for its customers. He stated that he felt providing additional parking was not completely justifiable. A vote was taken on the motion to approve request #3 and same passed unanimously 5-0-2 with Board Members Newbern and Nickles disqualified from voting. Discussion ensued concerning request #2 regarding the 8 parking spaces behind the building. Dr. White moved to grant the request. Chester House seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The granting of request #3 negated the need for considering request #1. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL NO. 79-17 FIRST NATIONAL BANK East Side Square Chester House moved to grant the request. Dr. White seconded the motion. Mr. Newbern stated that he was in favor of the request since it was "a fine, practical request" and referred to his standard "deminimis" argument stating that the request was so small as to be justifiable since granting same would not bring the building any closer to the street. Mr. Nickles distinguished this request from the Treffinger request which was denied on May 7, stating that on this request "the structure was already out that far, which was not the case with the gentleman on Lafayette." He also cited the "deminimis" request characteristic of this appeal. A vote was had on the motion to approve and same passed unanimously (7-0). CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL NO. 79-18 RAY'S FLOWERS $ GIFTS 800 S. School 103 • • Board of Adjustment Meeting June 4, 1979 Page 7 Dr. White moved to grant the request contingent upon "provisions being made for exiting of handicapped persons from both sides of the automobile." Mr. House seconded the motion. Discussion again ensued concerning traffic problems along Dickson Street and possibly using a different parking space or traffic arrangement than that out- lined in the request. Considerable discussion ensued. Mr. Nickles stated that "from looking on the surface and trying to find some condition or circumstance peculiar to the land or building, one doesn't appear; but if you stop and think, the traffic itself may be something that's peculiar to the land in this case." Mr. Newbern added that "an existing structure and a very uneven lot " also should be considered. A vote was taken on the motion to approve and same passed 6-1-0 with Mrs. Mills casting the nay vote. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL NO. 79-19 City of Fayetteville 217 E. Dickson Dr. White noted a typographical error in the minutes of the previous meeting of May 21, 1979. He noted that on Page 2, second line of the next to last paragraph of the public hearing on Appeal No. 79-15, the word "should" should read "showed". With that correction, the minutes of said meeting were approved. The meeting adjourned at 5:18 o'clock P.M.