Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-01-07 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, January 7, 1991, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Dennis Becker, Gerald Boyd, Robert Davis, Dee Wright, Larry Tompkins and Robert Waldren OTHERS PRESENT: Becky Bryant, Richard Palmer, George Faucette and Richard Shewmaker MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of the December 3, 1990 Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals were approved as distributed. APPEAL NO. BA90-26 - REQUEST FOR AN VARIANCE OF THE BUILDING SETBACKS RICHARD PALMER - 818 POLLARD AVENUE The second item on the agenda was Appeal No. BA90-26 for a request for a variance of the building setbacks for property located at 818 Pollard Avenue. The property is zoned R -O, Residential -Office. Richard Palmer explained that he is revising his request. He no longer wishes to have a full basement but rather a larger one-story house. He passed around a drawing of the proposed building. In answer to questions from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Palmer stated that the existing foundation would be eliminated and a new one constructed. He added that he intends to still have the three mixed uses in the building: the archery mail order business, the single-family residence, and the hypnotherapy business. Mr. Tompkins stated that he is concerned about the impact in the sense of off- site parking and the impact on the character of the neighborhood particularly with increased traffic. Mr. Palmer stated that increased traffic would be very minimal because the hypnotherapy practice is somewhat limited and the archery business is mail order. He noted that the parking on the lower property is far more adequate that he would ever need. He only has one or two customers at his current location at any particular time. He advised that he works at the hospital nights to supplement his income because he doesn't make much in his business. In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Palmer stated that he would be increasing the square footage of the structure from about 24' x 30' to 24' x 58'. Mr. Palmer stated that adjoining property owners are in favor of this because it will enhance the neighborhood and improve the value of the properties. He noted that the chiropractor, Kirk Johnson, near here has inquired about his customers parking in the parking lot at this location. In answer to a question from Chair Mills, Mr. Palmer stated that he would anticipate blacktopping most of the lower area of the property. In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Palmer stated that the surveyor had shown a 17' building setback on the north side rather than the required 10'to allow for more back yard room for landscaping. In answer to inspector had of 2' x 2'. clinic. a question from Mr. told him he would be Also a professional Tompkins, Mr. Palmer advised that the sign allowed a four-square foot sign or two signs sign would be allowed facing Pollard for his In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Becky Bryant clarified that Mr. Palmer's request on the west side is a variance of 18' and on the east side a variance of 16' which is substantially more than the original request. p38 • • • Board of Adjustment January 7, 199.1 Page 2 Mr. Boyd stated that it doesn't look like it would be very economical to tear down a structure that is in relatively good shape. Mr. Palmer stated that it wouldn't be torn down, but sold and wheeled away. Glen Wing, who resides just across the street at 801 Pollard, stated that he is interested in some of the details. He advised that this is the first he knew about Mr. Palmer amending his proposal. Mr. Wing stated that his greatest concern is the use of Pollard Street which is only 40' wide. He advised that the hospital traffic comes down Pollard to avoid the North College Avenue traffic. Also, the traffic from North Street to Maple Street has no left turn signal. He explained that the existing foundation was at one time Tankersly Brothers Frozen Foods. They were blocking Pollard Street with trucks until after that case went to the Supreme Court of Arkansas and they were told to quit using the street as an unloading zone. A fence was also required to be constructed between Pollard and the building. Also, if this is granted, this would be the only property in this block that does not have off-street parking. Chair Mills advised that there shouldn't be any parking on Pollard for this building since Mr. Palmer is planning to blacktop an area on the property for parking. Mr. Wing stated that it would make common sense if they condition this granting of a variance on "No parking" signs be placed on both sides of Pollard Street. He was also concerned about the uses of the property. Selling archery equipment isn't allowed in an office zoning. Becky Bryant, Associate Planner, advised that Mr. Palmer's archery business is mail order. She noted that retail sales would not be allowed in an R -O zoning district, but a mail order business is. A mail order business doesn't create any extra traffic so it is considered a residential use. She added that Mr. Palmer hadn't mentioned any retail sales of archery equipment. Mr. Wing stated that he had bought a bow and arrow at the present location himself. Mr. Tompkins advised that the primary purpose for an R -O district is to provide areas for offices without limitations to the nature or the size of the office. Mr. Boyd advised that Mr. Wing was an attorney in the Tankersly case. Dr. Sabra Hassel, a clinical psychologist, stated that she occupies the building just north of this property. She stated that her first concern is with parking because she has had chronic problems with rental patrons parking in her parking lot. She added that it is hard for her to be in favor of a situation where she is anticipating even more congested parking on Pollard. She noted that when she had her office renovated, she was required to have so certain number of parking spaces. Also, she noted that she is concerned about the retaining wall on the west side of North College Avenue because it is leaning forward. The State Highway Department has said it will be repaired in the near future. Therefore, some land will possibly be lost when that retaining wall is repaired. Also, if a 58' building is placed there, the south end of it to be level with Pollard will be about 8' off the ground so the paved parking would be awfully steep. She stated that it is a difficult piece of property and she doesn't see how it can be developed in this way with the drainage problems. There being no one else wanting to speak, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Wright stated that it could pose a problem if they require an additional 2 or 3' of property when they redo the retaining wall. Mr. Palmer stated that he was told by the State Highway Department that the retaining wall would be placed in the same location as it is now. X39 • • • Board of Adjustment January 7, 1991 Page 3 In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Ms. Bryant stated that she thinks the Master Street Plan designates North College as 80' to 100' feet wide. She added that there are no plans to widen it that she knows of. Mr. Tompkins stated that he is concerned about what is going to happen in that area and feels they should work towards the Master Street Plan designation. Mr. Becker stated that Mr. Wing is right that there isn't a turn lane traveling south of North Street. Mr. Tompkins stated that if this area continues to develop as with the present Land Use Plan and with the R -O zoning, it seems that not having a turn lane would become more significant. In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Bryant stated that the application wasn't amended to reflect this new plan. Chair Mills asked if she is the only one concerned with the part of the ordinance which states that when a building is removed, any new structure will need to meet building setback requirements. Mr. Tompkins stated that he is also concerned about that because the intent of the ordinance is to permit non -conforming structures to continue until they are removed but not to encourage their survival. He noted that he feels that when a non -conforming structure is destroyed or at least replaced more than 50%, it has to meet the provision of the ordinance. Given that, the Master Street Plan designation of North College, and the idea that a new structure is really in the character of the neighborhood and will improve the single-family characteristics, he still feels that it is contrary to what they want to do. He feels that Mr. Palmer can use his structure the way it is right now. It could be improved aesthetically and he is opposed to granting the request. Me. Bryant advised that Mr. Palmer did apply for a rezoning in 1988 and on his petition he stated that he intended to move his archery sales shop from 923 North College Avenue. She added that he had told the staff that this would be a mail order business and not a archery retail sales so that issue concerns her. Another thing is that the minimum setback for parking in an R district is 15' where it is an accessory to another use if less than 5 spaces. Therefore, the parking would be set back 15' from College, Pollard, and Prospect. That circumscribes the usable area on the south part of the property. In answer to a question from Chair Mills, Mr. Tompkins stated that the parking requirement would be determined by the square footage for the ratio of parking for a therapy professional office. Ms. Bryant stated that the mail order business wouldn't require any parking. Mr. Palmer stated that the hypnotherapy office would only be about 9' x 12'. Mr. Becker clarified that the building setback requirement in R -O is 30' from the right-of-ways and 10' from the sides. Ms. Bryant stated that the staff felt comfortable with the original application, but they don't recommend it with the modifications. Mr. Becker stated that the rear of the structure will be oriented toward North College which will make the back of the structure visible from North College. Mr. Boyd stated that he would go along with the original request and along with the building being set 7' closer to the north boundary which would give some additional area. Me. Wright stated that they could look at the idea of a two-story building ve. a one-story. a va • • Board of Adjustment January 7, 1991 Page 4 Mr. Davis stated that he doesn't get the point of Mr. Becker's argument as to whether the front or the back of the building faces College because it won't be visible traveling from the north and not very visible from the south. Mr. Becker stated that this site at best cries for a special design. In answer to a question from Me. Wright, Chair Mills stated that the Board of Adjustment can alter the application and allow for conditions. She added that one of the things they need to keep in mind is the parking problem. Mr. Tompkins stated that the intent of the ordinance is not to permit redevelopment once a non -conforming structure is moved except in conformance with existing standards. MOTION Mr. Tompkins moved to deny the request and followed by discussion. In answer structure variance. to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Tompkins stated that the existing could be improved and it could be used just as it is now without a If it was torn down, he doesn't see any use for that property. The motion was seconded by Waldren. The motion passed 5-1-0 with Tompkins, Davis, Boyd, Waldren, & Becker voting "yes" and Wright voting "no". APPEAL NO. BA90-27 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE BULK & AREA REQUIREMENTS GEORGE FAUCETTE - W OF GREGG AVE, S OF DOUGLAS ST The third item on the agenda was Appeal No. BA90-27 for a request for a variance from the bulk and area requirements (lot width requirement) submitted by George Faucette on property located on the west side of Gregg Avenue and the south side of Douglas Street. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential. George Faucette stated that he would like to emphasize that the three structures functioned by themselves with their own parking and entries since their inception. When the apartments were first occupied in September of 1969, which was prior to the inaction of the current ordinance, they did conform. They have all functioned since that time as separate properties with a fence that separates most of them. What he would like to do is to delineate those into three separate properties, all of which conform to every part of the zoning ordinance with the exception of the lot frontage on the six -unit apartment building. In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Faucette stated that he wanted to give a little extra room beside the parking lot. The reason for the little diagonal line is provide for the required setback for the corner house. In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Ms. Bryant stated that a property line being altered without creating a new lot is considered a property line adjustment so it doesn't have to be approved by the Planning Commission. She noted that this isn't technically a lot split because no new lots are created. Mr. Tompkins stated that it seems to him that this is a replatting of property. What they are doing is adjoining residential areas and long-term development which involves adjustments of rights-of-way and easements. It seems that the Plat Review Committee could look at the technical aspects of it and have the power to grant a replatting. This is getting into an area of land use planning. Ms. Bryant stated that she would be glad to address the question of whether or not this is a replatting to John Merrell. Even so, before it could be � yl • • Board of Adjustment January 7, 1991 Page 5 replatted, Mr. Faucette would still have to have a variance of the frontage on lot 6. She added, that if this variance was granted, they could make it conditioned on John Merrell's reviewing that question. Mr. Tompkins stated that it seems to him that the Planning Commission would have the power to grant all of these lots under the ordinance and the Board of Adjustment wouldn't have to be involved in the variance. They are really developing a new subdivision. Ms. Bryant noted that this is a convoluted issue, but the staff has discussed it and determined that the City Planning Commission wouldn't have the authority to grant a substandard frontage. Mr. Tompkins stated that Article IV, Section A on page 938 of the Code and Section D under Enforcement on page 947 state that no land shall be accepted by the County Recorder for filing unless approved by the Planning Commission. Therefore, the Board of Adjustment approval of this would still not make it acceptable by the County. Article IV says that, if the subdivision standards causes undue hardship to a proposed subdivision, the Planning Commission may grant a variance so that justice may be done and the public interest secured. This was platted prior to 1970 so the Planning Commission has the authority to do anything they want under these conditions. Ms. Bryant stated that the property line adjustment procedure has been intact for a long while and there have been no problems with the County Recorder. She also stated that the lot width on lot 6 is all that the Board of Adjustment is concerned with. Mr. Faucette is just asking for them to grant a variance on the lot width or frontage requirement so that he can go on through the appropriate channels. Mr. Boyd stated that he is in favor of granting the variance, but he feels there should be a condition attached to it that no additional construction would be allowed. Mr. Faucette stated that he wouldn't have any problem with that condition. Mr. Tompkins stated that the City's variance sign was placed on the wrong lot. Mr. Faucette stated that it shouldn't make any difference because the property owner to the immediate south which would have been closest to the sign had it been put in the right place has personally been contacted and also received a letter of notification. There being no one else wanting to speak, the public hearing was closed. MOTION Ms. Wright moved to grant the variance on the frontage at 545 North Gregg provided that no additional construction be allowed, seconded by Boyd. Mr. Boyd explained that they needed to make it conditioned on no additional construction because they are making it a legal lot by granting this variance and a buyer could have the idea of doubling the size of it on a minimum sized lot. He added that he thinks it is o.k. to solve a problem but not to create another problem. The motion passed 5-1-0 with Wright, Becker, Waldren, Boyd, & Davis voting "yes" and Tompkins voting "no". INFORMAL PRESENTATION BY RICHARD SHEWMAKER ABOUT POLR BUILDING ON DICKSON ST The fourth item on the agenda was an informal presentation by Richard Shewmaker • • • Board of Adjustment January 7, 1991 Page 6 about the Polk Furniture Building on Dickson Street. It is zoned C-3, Central Business Commercial. Mr. Shewmaker advised that he has purchased the two-story building on Dickson Street and intends to live on the top floor. He noted that he has spoken to John Merrell, Planning Management Director, about this. He also wanted to talk to the Board of Adjustment about the outside appearance of the front of the building and his plans for it. He explained that the metal mesh and sign on the front of the building would be removed. He presented a diagram showing the layout of the home which is approximately 3800 square feet. There plan is to bring an awning out right above the transit windows. Above the awning there would be a balcony across the front. Two of the eight windows would be made into two separate doors. He noted that he doesn't know the distance that the existing sign sticks out from the building. Mr. Boyd asked if the marquee would be removed. Mr. Shewmaker stated that they had originally planned to but have now changed their minds. In answer to a question from Ms. Bryant, Mr. Shewmaker stated that they don't plan to use the structural integrity of the marquee to support the balcony. In answer to a question from Chair Mills, he noted that he wanted to get this Board's input on this. In answer to a question from Me. Wright, Mr. Shewmaker stated that they don't know what they are going to do with the downstairs at this time. Mr. Boyd stated that the balcony might be going into the street right-of-way. The Board of Adjustment couldn't authorize that. He advised that they have the authority to amend the setback, but not the right-of-way. Chair Mills stated that her personal feeling is that until he brings in something concrete, they can't do anything. She explained that they only grant variances and he isn't asking for a variance at this time. Mr. Shewmaker explained that Mr. Merrell felt that their was some benefit to an informal presentation on this. Mr. Becker stated that he had been advised that no one can live in a commercial zone. Ms. Bryant stated that the ordinance provides for residential uses in commercial zones as an accessory use, but she doesn't think it specifies C-3. However, Mr. Merrell may have interpreted it to be allowed in C-3. Ms. Bryant stated that, as she understands it, the balcony would be built above the windows and extend out beyond the marquee in some areas. Mr. Shewmaker stated that he isn't sure about that but it would be his assumption that it would not protrude any farther than what is already there. Ms. Bryant stated that Mr. Merrell's question to the Board of Adjustment may have been that, if the balcony were constructed so that it doesn't extend any farther into the setback area and right-of-way than this already does, would it need to come before the Board of Adjustment for a variance. In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Bryant stated that it makes no difference whether the balcony does or doesn't have a roof; it still would need to be considered. In answer to a question from Chair Mills, Ms. Bryant stated that they haven't established the right-of-way line. Q '13 • Board of Adjustment January 7, 1991 Page 7 Mr. Shewmaker stated that since this was different, they thought the best thing to do would be to informally come before this Board to get their input. Ms. Wright stated that she thinks it would be an aesthetic improvement to the building. Mr. Tompkins stated that he looked at the buildings on the street all the way from Kinko's to Collier's Drug and he found 24 stores with overhangs and awnings. Therefore, what they would be doing is perpetuating that particular aesthetic character of it. He advised that when they start looking at the idea of creating a continuance and encouraging the survivors of nonconforming uses, they have to be very careful about the parking aspect, emergency vehicle access, etc. Mr. Shewmaker stated that the only parking is in the back of the building. Ms. Bryant stated John Merrell's interpretation of the parking on an existing building downtown is that they can't require that parking be provided. However, if the building were expanded or a new building was built, they would have to come into compliance. Mr. Tompkins noted that a policy needs to be established on this since there will most likely be a lot of renovations going on in this area. He suggested it be considered by the Planning Commission. Ms. Bryant stated that they might want to talk to the Historic District Commission about it before the Planning Commission. Me. Bryant stated that there are two issues here: 1) whether or not Dickson Street will be a local historic district, and 2) the fact that Mr. Shewmaker wants to renovate this soon. Ms. Bryant advised that it will be the good part of a year before they have a historic district ordinance in Fayetteville and Mr. Shewmaker is wanting to do the renovation before that. Chair Mills stated that this is a time of transition with the new ordinances being developed, etc. Therefore, it seems to her that this would be a good time to start forming some planning for this. Mr. Tompkins stated that an air rights question should be presented to Jerry Rose, City Attorney. Ms. Bryant stated that there are some rules on awnings that are different than on a permanent structure such as a balcony. Mr. Boyd stated that they will need to see a plot plan to know what he is asking. His opinion is that the fact that a sign sticks out that far doesn't give him the automatic right to construct a balcony out that far. Mr. Tompkins stated that they also have the question of whether this is a nonconforming structure. The consensus was that they would need to see a plot plan of his proposed renovation before they could give it much consideration. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. PAGE SUBJECT DATE 125 128 A1132 37 145 150 159 161 165 171 175 179 182 183 187 188 190 194 197 198 201 206 208 211 215 219 212 .24 27 228 230 233 238 BA89-2, Wade Bishop, 1537 Thornhill BA89-1, First Assembly of God, 550 E. 15th BA89-2, Wade Bishop, 1537 Thornhill BA89-2 Rehearing, 1537 Thornhill BA89-4, Karl Thiel $ John Lewis BA89-6, Packaging Specialties, 1663 Armstrong BA89-8, Don Ward, 20150 Huntsville Rd. BA89-9, Dave Letsch, 313 W. Dickson BA89-9, Scott Lunsford, 513 N..Washington BA90-1, John Watkins, 669 Cliffside Dr. BA90-2, ERC Properties, 4052 Cambray Dr. BA90-2, ERC Properties, 4053 Cambray Dr. BA90-3, Leslie Goodman, Discussion of 2010 BA90-4, Clyde Iglinsky, 931 Shrewsbury ERC Violation Discussion Discussion of 2010 BA90-6, Mildred Gracian, 221 E. Lafayette BA90-8, Jeff Roberts, 2000 N. Crossover BA90-9, George Faucette, 3208 Wroxton BA90-7. Kern Jackson, 235 Baxter Ln. BA90-7, Kern Jackson, 235 Baxter Ln. BA90-10, Floyd Harris BA90-11 Through BA90-14, BMP Development, Fiesta Park Ph. I BA90-15, Patricia O'Leary, 352 Rollston BA90-12- DENNIS CAUDLE - 4559 WEDINGTON BA90-18- GEORGR'S MAGESTIC LOUNGE - 519 WEST DICKSON ST. BA90-20- DAVID KERWIN - 1000 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE. BA90-21- Katherine Gay - 324 Sutton ST. BA90-22 -JOE PAUL -668 GRAY AVE. BA90-23- DENNIS HARPER - 1645 SOUTH SCHOOL AVE. BA90-25- DAVE $ JUDY STEVENS - S OF CATO SPS, W OF 71 BYPASS BA90-26- RICHARD PAKMER - 818 POLLARD AVE. 241 BA90-27- GEORGE FAUCETTE - W OF GREGG AVE, S OF DOUGLAS ST. 242 INFORMAL PRESENTATION BY RICHARD SHEWMAKER ABOUTPOLK BUILLDING ON DICKSON ST. • 2-20-89 2-20-89 4-3-89 4-17-89 7-3-89 8-7-89 11-6-89 11-6-89 12-18-89 1-15-90 1-15-90 2-5-90 2-19-90 2-19-90 3-5-90 3-5-90 3-5-90 4-2-90 5-7-90 5-7-90 5-21-90 6-4-90 6-4-90 6-18-90 7-16-90 8-20-90 10-1-90 10-15-90 11-19-90 11-19-90 11-19-90 12-3-90 1-7-91 1-7-9] 1-7-91.