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.