HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-03-18 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, March 18,
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 and Larry Tompkins
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Waldren
OTHERS PRESENT: Sharon Langley, Bert Rakes, and David Randle
MINUTES
The minutes of the last meeting were approved as distributed.
APPEAL NO. BA91-5 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR BUILDING SETBACKS
DAVID RANDLE - 701 WEST NORTH STREET
The second item was Appeal No. BA91-5 for a request for a variance from the bulk
and area requirements (building setbacks) submitted by David Randle for property
located at 701 West North Street. The property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial,
Heavy Commercial.
Mr. David Randle explained that at present the Ranco building cannot be renovated
to utilize the north portion of the building so that it will have an identity
from the street. The city is now proposing to widen the street and provide
access to the Burge property immediately to the east of subject property. He
further explained that he had purchased land from the railroad which extends the
right-of-way along the east side of his property to the North Street right-of-
way.
Bert Rakes, City Land Agent, stated he was present in order to answer any
questions they might have regarding the right-of-way as it now is and as it has
been proposed.
Mr. Randle explained that, as a result of the condemnation, in 1982 the right-of-
way was 18 inches immediately north of the Ranco Building. He further explained
there was no access to the Burge property without crossing Randle property. Mr.
Randle now proposes to deed to the City of Fayetteville a piece of land 20 feet
by 40 feet wide, on the east side of his property (giving access to the Burge
property) in return for 12 feet more of right-of-way in front of his building.
He stated he wanted to use this area for a concrete porch so he could reestablish
the entrance to the front of the building and have identity from the highway.
Mr. Rakes explained the city acquired a large amount of right-of-way through a
condemnation a number of years ago which placed the right-of-way at the edge of
the building. He further explained the city did not widen the right-of-way past
the Randle property. In widening North Street it was going to be necessary to
cut and fill in order to get sight distance. Mr. Rakes stated, if they were to
put a driveway to the Burge property, it would eliminate several parking spaces.
In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Rakes explained the crossing would
remain the same; however, one side of it would be dug out and the other side
filled in. This is a federal project and the city is only acquiring right-of-
way, which is cost-sharing. He explained Mr. Randle had offered to trade
property to provide an entrance to the Burge property in return for 12 feet of
right-of-way in front of his building. This would keep the Burge property from
being landlocked after the road is widened.
After discussion by the Board members, Mr. Rakes showed the proposed right-of-
•
•
Board of Adjustments
March 18, 1991
Page 2
way, curbing and driveway to the Burge property on a map. Mr. Rakes explained
that where Mr. Randle was asking for setbacks was more than 20 feet from the edge
of the asphalt.
It was further discussed that ownership of the land could be given back to Mr.
Randle with the condition that he give an easement to the Burge estate for a
driveway, thereby eliminating the need for the City to maintain a driveway for
the Burge property and providing approximately an additional 30 feet to Mr.
Randle. However, it was unknown what liabilities the City might have with this
proposal. It was also pointed out that any proposal would have to be agreed to
by both the federal government and the State of Arkansas.
Mr. Rakes stated the project would be a 5 -lane street, 4 traffic lanes and one
turn lane, which would require 80 to 100 feet of right-of-way.
At Ms. Mills suggestion of having the entrance to the Ranco Building on the east
side, thereby removing the need for the variance, Mr. Randle explained he would
then not have the necessary number of parking spaces.
Ms. Mills pointed out that the driveway and easement was not for Mr. Randle but
for access to the Burge property. She asked Mr. Rakes for assurance that the
proposed right-of-way would not be changed. She expressed concern that, if the
variance were granted, the right-of-way might be changed and then the variance
would interfere with the new right-of-way.
According to Mr. Rakes, the state located the proposed right-of-way. He
explained that the word "proposed" often remained on the plans until the "as -
built" drawings were completed. He further stated the Burge Estate was in favor
of Mr. Randle's proposal.
Mr. Becker stated a portion of the staff recommendation stated "Should you decide
to grant the variance, we recommend that you make it contingent upon a successful
out-of-court settlement over the right-of-way issue." Mr. Rakes explained that,
until the final right-of-way had been defined and appraised, they could not
legally make an offer to the property owner; therefore, he didn't think they
could make the variance contingent upon an out-of-court settlement.
Ms. Mills reminded the Board their only concern was whether or not to grant a
variance from 25 feet to zero feet for the front entrance on the north side of
the Randle building.
•
It was pointed out the master land use plan had indicated a phase out of
commercial and industrial uses in this area. It was not the intent to perpetuate
a non -conforming use; however, it was an opportunity to clean up a bad situation.
Some of the members of the Board acknowledged they had a problem approving a
variance from 25 feet to zero feet but would be comfortable in cutting it down
to 10 from 12 feet to develop the front of the building. It was suggested the
City cede a 10 foot variance from the new right-of-way line which would give Mr.
Randle two feet for the front of the building. It was further suggested they
look into the idea of giving Mr. Randle all of the right-of-way out to the middle
of Skull Creek.
MOTION
Mr. Boyd moved that zero setback be denied and that a 10 foot variance be granted
from the proposed right-of-way line (which allows 2 feet of work to be done in
front of the building).
Mr. Davis seconded the motion
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
March 18, 1991
Page 3
The motion passed 4-2-0
voting in favor and Mrs.
with Mr. Becker, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Davis and Ms. Wright
Mills and Mr. Thompkins opposed.
SIGN APPEALS BY-LAWS
Mr. Davis stated he had reviewed the Sign Appeals By -Laws (No. 158) the duties
of the Board. He explained that in talking to staff he had found that the new
section was really the old ordinance as approved by the Board of Directors except
in different order. Each paragraph is a verbatim from the original ordinance.
He explained there were many deletions he felt should be made. He stated that
the Board's duties listed policing, checking and revoking duties. He further
mentioned a penalty clause which he had been unaware of. He explained these
items were just oversights. Mr. Davis further explained to the Board that since
the clean up of this section was a low priority for the Planning Commission, he
would continue to work on it to present to the Board.
Mr. Boyd asked about the changes.
Mr. Davis stated nothing had to be changed in Articles 3 through 11. He explained
that staff had recommended separate by-laws for the Board of Zoning Appeals and
the Board of Sign Appeals because the Board of Zoning Appeals came under the
Board of Directors and the Board of Sign Appeals came under court jurisdiction.
Mrs. Mills asked Mr. Davis to continue working on the by-laws.
The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
elm
1
•
r*VEtWCVILL
VENDOR NO
A:RCN
Item No. Qty. Unit
of
Issue
SHIP TO:
1. Send itemized invoice in duplicate to:
Accounts Payable
City of Fayetteville
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
2. Mark all packages with P.O number
as shown above. All orders must be
accompanied by a packing slip,
quantity shipped and P.O. number.
Each Package Must Be Marked
Exactly As Shown Here
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
PURCHASE ORDER #
DATE
TERMS
Description and
Account Number
CONDITIONS
3. No substitutions without prior approval.
4. Discounts effective to 10th of following month.
Orders must be shipped in full unless
otherwise notified.
VENDOR COPY
Unit Price TOTALS
6 F 0 B Fayetteville unless otherwise agreed
upon. No extra for packing and delivery will
be allowed
7. No C.O.D. ORDERS.
Pre -pay freight and add to invoice Ship
to 113 W. Mountain St , Rear Entrance,
unless otherwise specified.
PURCHASING AGENT