Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-11-05 Minutes• • • MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment vas held on Monday November 5, 1984 at 3:45 P.M. in the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, AR. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chester House, David Crittenden, Don Mills, "Butch" Robertson, Robert Waldren, Larry Tompkins and Dennis Becker None Bradley Morris, George Faucette Jr., Gabrielle Schafer, Bobbie Jones and Paula Brandeis The regularly scheduled meeting was called to order by Chairman House at 4:05 P.M. with one Board member absent. MINUTES The first item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of the October 15th meeting. Several Board members commented that those minutes reflect members being present who were, factually, absent. With this correction, the minutes stood approved by a motion from Becker and a second by Crittenden. APPEAL 84-25 BRADLEY MORRIS 3223 NORTH COLLEGE - C-2 REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE The second item of the agenda was Public Hearing 1184-25, a request by Bradley Morris for Heckathorn Inc. to vary the setback requirement on property located at 3223 N. College and zoned C-2. The required setback is 50' from street right of way and the request is to allow 47'2" from street right-of-way. Mr. Morris was present to speak for this appeal. He stated that he was representing Leo Heckathorn, construction contractor, and that they desire to build an additional bay on a service station at subject address. He said that the building was burned out about one year ago and is in the process of being rebuilt. Chairman House noted that this ,request stems from the building being located on a curve. Morris added that the setback requirements have been altered since the original structure was built. isµ • • • Board of Adjustment November 5, 1984 Page 2 Mills asked what the problem is in meeting the setback requirement and Morris said that the fascia would have to be offset and would not look very good from the highway. He said the building will be flush if the variance is granted and if not, it would be offset creating difficulty in accessing the proposed bay from the existing bays. There was no one else present in the audience to speak either for or against this proposal and the Public Hearing was closed. Dr. Crittenden said he was in favor of the variance being granted. Becker agreed and noted that the building just to the north of this one appears to have the same setback. He said he didn't think it would serve a good purpose to adhere to the letter of the law in this circumstance. Robertson noted that he would abstain because of possible conflict of interests. Waldren said he saw no problem with this request and Mills agreed. NOTION Mills moved to approve the variance as requested. Crittenden seconded and the motion to approve the variance as requested passed 5-0-2; Robertson abstained as did Tomkins who had arrived as this vote was in progress. APPEAL 84-26 GEORGE FAUCETTE JR. SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GARLAND & NORTH VARIANCE OF SOUTH AND EAST SIDE SETBACKS The third item on the agenda was a Public Hearing on Appeal 84-26 by George Faucette Jr. for property located at the southeast corner of Garland Ave. and North Street. Requested is a variance in setback requirements on both the south and east property lines. On the east, required is a 15' building setback and 10' is being requested. On the south side, required is a 25' building setback and 20' is requested. Faucette was present to speak for this appeal. He stated that he would like to amend his original request on the east property line from a setback of 10 ft. to 13 ft. and he requested that the two variances be addressed separately. Faucette said he is making these requests because of the uniqueness of the lot which is located on three street frontages. He said that although the lot consists of 21,000+ sq.ft., the building (of 3,700 sq.ft.) covers nearly 15-18%, of the lot. He explained that the City purchased a great deal of land adjoining this parcel to accomplish street in 1977 and this acquisition has contributed to the problem of maximizing the use of this space. 135` • • • Board of Adjustment November 5, 1984 Page 3 Faucette noted that, with regards to the east line setback, the party most adversely effected would be the adjoining apartment owners, Dr. & Mrs. Lothar Schafer. He added that he has spoken with the Schafers and they are concerned about the potential noise from the proposed air conditioner compressors; he said he has agreed to construct a solid six-foot privacy fence on the property line, as well as baffle type fences around the air conditioners themselves. Faucette said that the Schafer's other major concern was that of the height of the building which will be about 13 ft. on the south end and 10-11 ft. on the north end. He said that because of the possibility of this height creating a "closed -in" feeling, he has agreed to amend his request for variance from 15' to 13'. Faucette stated that he has requested a re -zoning for this property which will be considered by the Board of Directors on November 6 and that these variances are contingent upon approval of the re -zoning. Planning Administrator, Jones, advised that the setback request for the south side should read "...with 10%, plants between the street and building with no parking". Faucette demonstrated on his plot plan, the location of the proposed landscaping, including that on Hughes Street (south side). Crittenden inquired as to number of access points and Faucette said there was only one. Tompkins asked if any site distance studies have been made on Garland to insure that landscaping would not impede vision. Faucette said there was no problem because he plans on using low, ground -cover type plantings. Tompkins asked why plantings were not being planned between the street and parking on the Garland (west) property line and Faucette replied that his space was limited because of the need for adequate parking and vehicle turning spaces but that he does have an agreement with the State Highway Department which will allow him to install a sidewalk and landscaping in the State right-of-way. In answer to Tompkins question and concern, Faucette said there would probably be a "down -light" installed on the east side for security purposes but he did not anticipate this effecting the apartment building because of the proposed privacy fence. Ms. Schafer, owner of the adjoining apartment building, asked to have reflection made as to Faucette's intention to install noise baffling equipment around the air conditioners. She advised that Faucette's proposed building will be the only commercial property on the south side of North Street. Faucette stated that he has agreed contractually with Dr. Schafer to install said baffles and that he was also willing to have this condition be made a part of the approval of the variance. 134 • • • Board of Adjustment November 5, 1984 Page 4 Schafer said she was concerned that ownership of subject property may change and she wanted assurance that conditions as agreed upon would remain in effect. Faucette commented that he thought the noise level would be somewhat lower with his proposed building coming between the traffic and Schafer's apartments. Tompkins said he was concerned about the "finger" of land bordering on North Street, adjacent to residential property and the interpretation that could be made for same. He said many things could be done with this parcel including placement of a sign as well as other uses. Waldren suggested that the approval of the south side setback could be made conditional to it's application on Hughes Street only. Faucette said he was willing to accept that contingency. He added that the only potential he could foresee for the "finger" parcel was the City allowing a one-way exit onto North Street which he didn't anticipate. Waldren asked if the building could be altered so that setbacks could be met without variance and Faucette replied that it would not be economically feasible. Jones advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval of this rezoning (with a Bill of Assurance prohibiting certain uses) on October 22 and the Board of Directors will consider this recommendation Tuesday, November 6. Faucette read the restrictions in the proposed Bill of Assurance as requested by the Schafers and Vernon Wilson, another nearby property owner. He then read a list of non-offensive uses that are allowed in C-2 zoning but not permissible under C-1. Jones stated that a difference between C-1 and C-2 is that setbacks in C-1 which abutts residential property allows a 10 ft. side property line setback which is to be increased to the height of the building as the building exceeds 10 ft. and in C-2 abutting residential property it allows 15 ft. setback which must be increased as the building exceeds a 20 ft. height. She added that the only other difference is the maximum buildable area which is 40% in C-1 and 60% in C-2. Chairman House closed the Public Hearing to Board discussion. Crittenden said he had no objections because the adjoining property owner seemed not to have. Robertson also had no objections. Waldren said he felt with some minor adjustments, the proposed building could be constructed at this site without any variances. He said his desire is to vote consistently against variances where the end goal is a small financial gain and he added that he did not see the hardship as far as the land is concerned. Waldren said he might be in favor of the variance on the east side with the provision that the sound barriers are installed as per Faucette's agreement, but he would not be in favor of the south side variance request. /,37 • • Board of Adjustment November 5, 1984 Page 5 Tompkins said he hated to see this primary residential area broken into a commercial land use strip (potentially) and that in addressing this issue in terms of land -use -hardship, he agreed with Waldren in that this parcel could be used the way it is presently laid out. He said he did not feel the denying of a 2' or 5' variance would hinder the use of the property and he was inclined to deny the petition. Becker inquired as to number of parking spaces and Faucette replied that, based on a combination of retail and office spaces, he will have several in excess (18 required; 23 proposed). Becker said he agreed with Waldren in regards to granting the east side variance and denying the south side variance. After much discussion and measurements taken on Faucette's plot plan, Board members decided that there was a possibility that a south side variance was not necessary. MOTION Waldren moved to approve the variance request on the east side with the condition that Faucette enter into an agreement stating that he will construct a six foot privacy fence as well as baffles around the air conditioning compressors as he has contractually agreed with Dr. and Mrs. Schafer and also contingent upon the rezoning being approved by the City Board. Robertson seconded and the motion to approve the east side variance with said condition passed 5-1-1 with Tompkins voting "nay" and Mills abstaining. MOTION Waldren moved to table the request for variance on the south side until the correct measurements are ascertained. Robertson seconded and the motion to table passed 6-0-1, Mills abstaining. OTHER BUSINESS Upon Jones' request, the board considered the proposed schedule for Board of Adjustment meetings in 1985. Chairman House suggested conducting regular meetings as proposed by the Planning Office, unless their is a legal holiday at which time that meeting would be omitted. Mills agreed with this suggestion and added that if the business schedule was large on a legal holiday, that a meeting would convene. Other Board members were in agreement. MOTION • Upon a motion by Crittenden and second by Mills, the meeting adjourned at 4:50 P.M. 136