Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-11-15 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, November 15, 1982 at 3:45 P.M. in Room 107 of the Continuing Education Center, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Waldren, Larry Tompkins, Dennis Becker, Don Mills, David Crittenden, Butch Robertson, Chester House MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: None Cliff Walker, Bobbie Jones, Ivan Hill, Irwin Davis, Morton Carnes, Suzanne Kennedy, others Chairman House called the meeting to order. In regards to the item brought up OTHER BUSINESS at the last meeting where concern was expressed over the granting of variances with no regulation over whether or not the construction actually takes place, Bobbie Jones reported she had taken this to the City City Attorney, Jim McCord, and it was his opinion that the only way to regulate this would be for each motion to include some time limit on applying for a building permit or completing construction. The first item of business was to consider MINUTES approval of the minutes of the October 4, 1982 Board of Adjustment meeting. It was moved by Larry Tompkins, seconded by Don Mills and passed, to approve the minutes as circulated. The second item of business was public hearing on Appeal No. 82-16, Robert Hernreich, 15 North Church Avenue, application to vary setbacks. The request is to be allowed a setback of ten feet from the street right-of-way. Cliff Walker, representing Channel 29, spoke on behalf of the property owner, Robert Hernreich. He stated the plan was to remodel an old building for studios and offices for Channel 29. He said they wish to improve the appearance of the building with an exterior finish on the south side of the building to provide a shake roof overhang for window and entry areas. He stated they were in the process of obtaining building permits when they discovered their remodeling plans would place the building in violation of setbacks, specifically because of the overhang over the windows and doors. He stated, in addition to the zoning setbacks, they must comply with an additional setback for the Master Street Plan, as the Planning Administrator considers the remodeling work to be in the category of an addition to the building. He said they do not plan to increase the building space. He stated the building faces a common alleyway to the south, and does not face Church Avenue. He said they had originally planned to build an overhang onto the 7-0, APPEAL NO. 82-16 ROBERT HERNREICH 15 NORTH CHURCH APPLICATION TO VARY SETBACKS Ivq • • Board of Adjustment November 15, 1982 Page Two front of the building, but will not be'doing'that now. They plan for a 36" overhang in four or five places down the side of the building. Dennis Becker noted that there was a 3'6" overhang indicated on the plans. Bobbie Jones said on the south side they are adding a 3'6" colonnaded porch effect over the doors and windows and this will right-of-way of Church Avenue. Although the addition of the building, it extends almost all the way to the building. Larry Tompkins asked how much the building would setback requirement. Bobbie Jones stated there are three setback requirements in the R-0 district: 1) fifty feet with parking between the building and the street; 2) thirty feet, without parking; or 3) twenty-five feet, without parking and with landscaping. David Crittenden asked, since there is only one portico in violation, how much of a variance does the owner need. Bobbie Jones said they need practically a complete variance on the east portico. She stated the building is about five feet from the street right of way now. She said there is a ten foot Master Street Plan requirement which goes into the building where it is presently located. She said they could do their remodeling on the west two sides without being in violation. She said the building faces on a closed ten foot alleyway which puts the property line in the center of this alley. In addition to that, there is an access agreement for this property, the property to the south and Moore's Chapel, which reserves the entire ten foot vacated alleyway plus ten feet south of the alleyway for access purposes. Chester House asked about the parking situation. Cliff Walker stated they had not designed a parking plan, and said they plan to parallel park. Chairman House asked if anyone present wished to speak in favor of the appeal. No one present spoke in favor of the appeal. Chairman House asked if anyone present wished to speak in opposition to the appeal. Ivan Hill, owner of property to the south of the building, stated his concern about parking in the alleyway to the rear of the building. Chairman House asked to see a plot plan showing the ownership of the property and the designated parking spaces in existence there. Bobbie Jones stated she did not bring a drawing showing this information. Ivan Hill stated he did not want additional parking for the building to infringe on his parking rights in the alleyway. Cliff Walker stated that there has been considerable parking by his company, by Ivan Hill's building and by others. He stated he did not plan anything different other than parallel parking which would make fewer cars with better access. He stated he does plan for some employees to park in spaces which were formerly open to anyone and everyone. In answer to a question by Don Mills, Bobbie Jones stated it was her opinion that, since this building has previously been used for commercial purposes, the parking question was not looked at by the Planning Office. David Crittenden asked if the porches would impinge on the present parking. Cliff Walker stated, where the bay windows will be, it would affect angle parking but not parallel parking. Crittenden stated he thought you could only fit 4 or S cars parallel parked. Cliff Walker stated some of their employees will have to park in city lots or elsewhere. The studio area will have a garage door and they do not plan to come too close to the is on the south side southeast corner of the be in violation of the der • Board of Adjustment November 15, 1982 Page Three block that drive. Crittenden asked if this building would be the entire production facility for the television station. Walker said that it would and they would occupy most of the building, which is about 6,000 square feet. Chester House suggested dropping the parking question since he thought the Board of Directors or the Planning Commission will make a determination on that. Bobbie Jones stated the owner would go before the Board of Directors only because of an ordinance which states when you make an addition to a structure, if the street does not meet the Master Street Plan, and is not up to full standards, they have to give a right-of-way to meet the Master Street Plan. They have an appeal in process on that question before the Board of Directors. Irwin Davis, attorney speaking for Moore's Chapel, stated they had appeared before two Boards in the past and, on May 12, 1981, the applicant requested a parking variance, which was denied. He said at that time the parking spaces required for residential units was 17. It was stated that they only had 14 spaces. At that hearing, it was determined there were only seven parallel parking spaces. He said there was 41 feet immediately north of the old Carlos Hill building and the south 20 feet of that space is taken up in what has been used as alley and driveway since 1947 by Moore's Chapel. He said there are concrete wall boundaries on the other side, leaving a total of 21 feet from the south face of the building in question to the south. The proposed plan takes up the first six feet of that, leaving only 15 feet. Even if there were, theoretically, 6 or 7 spaces, there would be no way to get out of the parking space without backing out for 100 feet the same way the car' came in. Their contention is that this is completely unworkable. Their primary objection is lack of space. They agree something needs to be done with the old building, but the remodeling should not completely obliterate the already cramped spaces that are there. They object to any further permits or variances being granted. Morton Carnes, speaking from the audience, stated that the alleyway was closed years ago and there is an easement written into the deeds that it can never be blocked. Mr. Walker stated they do not plan to block the alleyway in any way. Crittenden asked, if the Board of Directors does not act favorably on the waiving of the Master Street Plan, does that make moot any action the Board of Adjustment takes. Bobbie stated she thinks the colonnaded facade will be outside of that right of way requirement, but they would have to sign an easement for the right-of-way and it might be made up subject to the life of the building. Walker stated he did not think there had been any complaint from the persons present in the past about the inability to park. He stated he cannot see the problems described developing to the manner in which they have been described. The public hearing was closed. Chairman House asked the members APPEAL NO. 82-16 of the Board of Adjustment for discussion on the Appeal. Butch Robertson stated he felt parking should not be part of the appeal and would like to see the building modernized and updated. i oq Board of Adjustment November 15, 1982 Page Four Dennis Becker asked Bobbie if they had not designed a portico to be on the east side of the building, would they not have had to come before this Board. Bobbie Jones stated that was correct. Becker said he felt we were addressing the business of the extension into the setback, not the parking, and he was in favor of approval Larry Tompkins stated he did not see any hardship on the owner's part and he did not feel right about increasing the longevity of a non -conforming structure. He thinks an adjustment can be made for the 36 inches; he feels if the street were ever to be widened, the increased costs would go to the taxpayers, and he is inclined to disapprove the request. Don Mills said she agreed that there is no hardship, and other than for a pleasing facade, she sees no point in the proposed overhang. She agrees that parking is not a problem for the Board of Adjustment today. Irwin Davis said he understood that parking had to be approved before the building permit is issued. He said he understood a building permit has been issued. He said if the parking does not come up today and is not to come up before the Board of Directors, when will the parking question come up? Bobbie Jones said without an increase in floor space, the Planning Office does not look at the parking when the use is changed. Davis said the building has been a garage with parking on the inside and now they will make offices out of it, with highly intense parking needs on the outside and no space for it. He asked what policy there is that allows that to happen? Jones stated that part of the building has had some garage uses, but there have been some commercial uses. She said there was a photographer there at one time. Davis agreed there was a photography studio, but said it was an extremely modest use, with one or two employees' cars. Davis said the problem in downtown Fayetteville, in his opinion, is that construction starts up and then the Boards just approve everything since so much money has been invested. He feels, in the future, when the proposed building is completed, people won't park parallel but will park perpendicular and the cars will protrude into the alleyway and the problem will have to go to court again. He said he can't believe that all the parking questions are just being waived. He said the City Code requires one parking space for every 300 square feet and there are 6,000 square feet in that building, which is over 20 spaces required. Crittenden stated Davis had an excellent point, but does not think the relief lies with the Board of Adjustment. He said they can't rule on a situation which they have not been asked to rule on. He said Davis should talk to someone else. Walker pointed out the building permit which had been issued did not include the porticoes or bay windows, and they will not be constructed unless the Board approves them. Crittenden said whether or not the Board of Adjustment approves the variance does not affect what is done with the interior of the building, so the parking problem will still be there. Davis raised the point that at the last Board meeting there was talk about the surrounding property being acquired to meet the parking requirements. He stated he felt that Hernreich had an opportunity to buy the property to the north and did not. Walker stated that Hernreich had indeed tried to negotiate a purchase of this property but could not come to terms with the owner. I/O Board of Adjustment November 15, 1982 Page Five Chairman House stated he liked to see improvements on any structure, but there are some situations surrounding the appeal that will not be settled here. He asked if there was an easement that would enter into the expansion of the building, such as a sewer or water line. Bobbie Jones stated there were none in the three foot area. The only restriction is on the access which ties up five feet of this property and 15 feet of the property south of it for mutual driveway and access. Walker stated it appears that, although their property is zoned R-0, they are almost entirely surrounded by commercially zoned areas; he stated there is a building to the south that has projections almost to the sidewalk and another which extends over the sidewalk. Dennis Becker moved to accept the application for variance. The motion was seconded by Robert Waldren, and passed, 4-3, with Robert Waldren, Dennis Becker, David Crittenden, and Butch Robertson voting "aye" and Larry Tompkins, Don Mills and Chester House voting "nay". Dennis Becker commented that, if the zoning and the Master Street Plan regulations supercede former regulations and put the property into a situation such as has arisen, then he would expect the parking requirements would do the same thing so, in a sense, we perpetuate our own problem. The Board of Adjustment is only asked to address one thing and that's what he based his motion on. He does have empathy for the counter -position and feels the City might be responsible and at least suggest some avenue to pursue in cases such as this which come up again. Butch Robertson agreed. Robert Waldren stated whether or not the variance were approved, the problem is still there. Larry Tompkins asked what the policy of the Building Inspector is on use. Bobbie Jones stated he leaves it up to her, that he only checks on building codes. She stated there is room for more than one interpretation in the Code. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:35 P.M.