Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-05-07 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING The Fayetteville Board of Adjustment met at 3:55 P.M., on Monday, May 7, 1984, in the Conference Room 111 of the City Administrative Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chester House, Robert Waldren, Dennis Becker, Larry Tompkins, Don Mills, "Butch" Robertson, and Dr. David Crittenden. None Jim Hatfield, Bill Greenhaw, Bobbie Jones and Paula Brandeis The meeting was called to order by Chairman House. MINUTES Minutes of the April 16, 1984 meeting were approved as distributed. APPEAL 84-5 The first item on the agenda was Public Hearing on Appeal 84-5, Jim Hatfield. A variance was requested on the setback requirement of 20' from the back property line, 650 W. Center. Jim Hatfield was present to speak for this appeal. He explained that he would like to add a laundry/storage room with an apartment unit above it to the existing apartment complex. He requested approval of a 6 ft. setback. Mrs. Jones explained to Dr. Crittenden that the property line in question was on the North side. Bill Greenhaw, attorney and representative of the Board of Trustees of the adjoining cemetery, wished to speak in a fiduciary position against the petition. He said that the trustees are against any variance which would bring any commercial operation any closer to the property line and grave sites than the law will allow. Robert Waldren wished to know if the cemetery is still being used as a burial site to which Greenhaw responded affirmative. Larry Tompkins inquired as to Hatfield's interest in just the laundry -mat and Hatfield explained that the apartment complex is primarily for students and the laundrymat would be purely for their convenience. Tompkins argued that there was already a laundrymat within walking • • Board of Adjustment May 7, 1984 Page 2 distance to which Hatfield replied that it was not the same as having it directly on the property. He added that many of the students do not have transportation. Crittenden inquired as to the age of the apartment complex. Hatfield replied that it is about 10 or 11 years old and that he purchased it as opposed to having built it. Tompkins asked if Hatfield was satisfied with the proposed parking arrangement which would result if variance were granted. Hatfield replied that he was giving up three parking spaces to provide more room. In answer to Tompkins next question, Hatfield replied that the laundry -mat would be strictly for the tenants' use and not be open to the public. Tompkins asked the reason for Hatfield's building another apartment unit above the proposed laundrymat and Hatfield responded that it would not be much additional trouble. Tompkins wished to know if Hatfield could eliminate one apartment unit to achieve his desire of adding a laundrymat and Hatfield explained that to do this would involve adding plumbing and sound insulation. Crittenden stated that he had looked at the property and that it appears to him that the building is right on the set -back line and that the post (indicating property line) is more than 20 feet from the building. Hatfield replied that the post is in error and although it looks as though the natural property line should be where the post is, it is in actuality only 20 feet behind the building. Waldren clarified that Hatfield believes it to be about 80 feet between the property line and the nearest gravestone. Tompkins wished to know how many other apartment complexes in the area have laundrymats and Hatfield responded that most complexes of similar size do have them. Mr. House asked if there was anything else Mr. Hatfield wished to add and Hatfield replied negatively. There was a discussion as to where the first grave site might be. • Tompkins verified that, if variance were not granted, there would be 10 non -conforming parking spaces. 78 • Board of Adjustment May 7, 1984 Page 3 Aside from Mr. Greenhaw, there was no one else to speak in opposition to the petition and House closed the public hearing portion of this appeal for discussion between Board members. Tompkins stated that if this variance were granted, if would "run with the land" and secondly he said he felt that this particular lot was being used very intensely. Tompkins was disturbed that some of the green space would be lost, giving an imbalance to the property. In light of these three reasons, Tompkins said he would not be in favor of granting the variance. Don Mills expressed that there didn't appear to be a hardship involved in this case and, although she could see the convenience for the tenants, she would not be in favor of the variance. Waldren stated that he was not swayed one way or the other and both Crittenden and Robinson said they had nothing more to add. Becker stated that he agreed with Tompkins as far as the intense use involved here and he also could not see any hardship. MOTION Mills moved to deny the variance, seconded by Tompkins, the motion passed 6-0-1 with Waldren abstaining. APPEAL 84-6 The second item on the agenda was a public hearing on Appeal 84-6, a request to waiver the minimum set -back on a currently non -conforming canopy cover. Jim Hatfield, 22 E. Meadow. The required setback is 20 ft. from street right-of-way. Mr. Hatfield requested a 3" setback. Jim Hatfield stated that he would like to replace the existing canopy with a larger one which would be within 3 inches of the right-of-way. He said the present canopy is 10 X 20 and he would replace it with one that is 18 X 36. He also stated that there are 8 buildings in this block and that seven of them are built to the sidewalk. Hatfield said that this block is zoned C-3 and the block across the street is zoned C-4. He cited that the Hilton Hotel, across the street, has an awning that comes out over the sidewalk and that the City's multi-level parking structure is built right up to the sidewalk. Crittenden requested to know why a larger canopy is desirable to which Hatfield replied that the present one is just not big enough. 71 J • Board of Adjustment May 7, 1984 Page 4 Larry Tompkins wished to know if Hatfield had investigated a C-4 zoning to which Jones replied that she didn't think there was a chance of approval for this rezoning because at the time the C-4 district was set up it was specifically one block off the square in all directions. Waldren asked what the heighth of the canopy is and Hatfield replied about 16 feet. Robertson wished to know which other buildings on the same street were built right to the sidewalk and Hatfield listed them as the former bus station building, the telephone company, a body shop and several others. Crittenden asked how far back the canopy edge currently is from the sidewalk to which Hatfield responded about 4 feet. Tompkins stated that every one of the structures in this block is non -conforming. Jones stated that there is a special section of the code that pertains to gasoline pump islands and the canopies over them. She said that the setbacks for these areas are 25 feet from street right-of-way for gasoline pump island and 20 for the canopies. It was determined, by examining the diagrams, that the gasoline pumps are currently about 10 feet from right-of-way and as such are non- conforming Jones explained that the C-4 zoning ordinance was more restrictive than the C-3 zoning. She said that in a C-3 zone multi -family dwellings and service stations are allowed by right while they were a conditional use in a C-4 zone. Crittenden inquired whether this was once a commercial gas station and was told that it had been. Mills asked what the criteria was for removing one non -conforming structure and replacing it with another non -conforming structure. Jones stated that if the non -conforming structure is destroyed by any means then it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of the ordinance. She said the structure may not be enlarged or altered in any way except to decrease its non- conformity. Eo Board of Adjustment May 7, 1984 Page 5 Hatfield stated that the people representing the Hilton Hotel were in favor of his gaining a variance in this case. Waldren inquired as to whether Hatfield intended to re -open the property as a full-service station to which Hatfield replied that he did. There was no one present to speak in opposition of this appeal and Mr. House closed the public hearing in favor of Board discussion. Becker stated that he was in favor of keeping "downtown cooking" but he was opposed to this appeal because of the safety factor involved in having the canopy reach to within three inches of the street. Robertson said he did not see the safety factor and he stated that, appearance wise, a new canopy would be a big improvement. Crittenden stated that he thought the C-3 verses the C-4 zoning carried very little meaning in this particular area because everything else on the block goes against the ordinance. He said that he did not have any objection to the appeal although he didn't think it represented a hardship. Waldren stated that he had no objections. Mills stated that she was opposed to the variance because it is non- conforming and that because other buildings in the immediate area were also non -conforming was not a good reason to grant a variance. She also stated that she could not see any hardship, only a matter of convenience. Crittenden stated that he thought that the aesthetic value of a new canopy was an issue to be considered in granting approval of this variance and Mills answered that she thought economic hardship was valued higher than convenience or aesthetics and since hardship did not exist, she would remain opposed to the appeal. Tompkins stated that all of the reasons on either side were good ones. He congratulated the applicant on his efforts to improve the aesthetics of the property. He also stated that intensity of the downtown area is increasing continually with the result of a loss of green space and open space and he sees continuance of this trend as being contrary to his understanding of urban renewal. Secondly, he stated that the safety issue is very critical. He stated that he thought that the property could be used just the way it is and he would not be in favor of this appeal. S/ A Board of Adjustment May 7, 1984 Page 6 Hatfield stated that the use is only temporary until some time in the near future when the property can be used for some higher and better purpose but that he would like for the property to look nice and blend in with the area until that time. Waldren stated that, in his opinion, everything that has been done in the last 10 years downtown has represented an improvement resulting in a viable, growing area. Mills stated that she was even more concerned now that she had been informed that the use was only temporary. Hatfield explained that he would use it as long as this was the best and highest use for this property and as soon as it could be changed to offices, or perhaps a civic auditorium, he would change it. He stated that, in the meantime, there was a need for a service station in the downtown area. NOTION Robertson moved to approve the variance, seconded by Waldren. The motion passed 4-3-0. Mills, Tompkins and Becker voted in opposition. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45.