HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-11-18 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, November
18, 1991, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 West
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
PROTOCOL
Dennis Becker, Gerald Boyd, Don Mills, Robert Davis, larry
Tompkins, Lonnie Meadows, and Marion Orton
Freeman Wood, Becky Bryant, Sharon Langley, Randall Harkson,
Dave Fulton, Pat Sutton, and Shae Crain ;
Mr. Larry Tompkins called the meeting to order. Mr. Tompkins explained it was
the function of the Board to apply the discretion of its members to requests
where interpretation and strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would cause
undue physical development hardship to the individual property owner and to grant
only minimum variances when it was demonstrated that such action would be in
keeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance.
AGENDA
Mr. Tompkins asked if there were any additions or deletions recommended to the
agenda. He explained that under Old Business he wanted to clarify they would be
discussing the Board of Sign Appeals By -Laws.
APPEAL NO. BA91-18 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS
RANDALL BARKSON - 2381 CREEKWOOD
Ms. Bryant explained Mr. Harkson had an "after -the -fact" variance request. She
further explained the house had been constructed in 1981 and, at that time,
apparently encroached over the setback line 6.25 feet. She stated Mr. Harkson
did not know about the encroachment at the time he purchased the house and had
only recently found out about it when the title insurance company refused to
issue title insurance. She pointed out Mr. Harkson was trying to get the issue
resolved so the property could be sold without resorting to other financing
approaches.
Ms. Bryant stated staff had reviewed the matter with the statutory requirements
in mind and felt it did not meet all statutory requirements. However, she
pointed out the situation could be classified as undue hardship since the
encroachment was caused by a former owner and Mr. Harkson had inherited the
situation without any cause of his own. She further pointed out that the
Township right-of-way was 30 feet wider here than just down the street. She
stated that staff recommended, because of these considerations, the variance be
granted.
In response to a question from Mr. Becker, Ms. Bryant explained the City did not
have the original building permit application with the site plan. She stated
there was a Certificate of Occupancy. She further stated that there had been no
acquisition of right-of-way along this portion of the street that would indicate
the City had caused the non-conformance. She explained either the contractor or
previous owner had caused the encroachment.
Mr. Fulton explained that, according to the abstract, Gordon Wilkins had
constructed the house.
Mr. Tompkins questioned where the 100 year flood plain was in relation to the
house.
Ms. Bryant pointed out the area on a map.
•
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 18, 1991
Page 2
There was also discussion regarding the fact the house had been built over a
utility easement. It was pointed out the utility companies had agreed to a
vacation of the easement and the matter would be going before the Board of
Directors.
•
In response to a question from Mr. Davis, Mr. Fulton explained he believed the
utility easement in use ran along the edge of Mud Creek. He stated he understood
the need for bulk and area regulations but in this particular instance there was
no way for Mr. Harkson to know he was in violation of the ordinance. He
explained the site plan had apparently been approved and the a Certificate of
Occupancy had been granted. He pointed out Mr. Harkson was not responsible for
the problem. He asked for approval of the variance.
Mr. Davis expressed concern for future owners of the house regarding the utility
easements. He suggested that it be a condition of the sale for the new owners
to be aware of where the utility easement was located.
It was explained Mr. Harkson had letters from the utility companies agreeing to
the vacation of the utility easement.
Mr. Becker further pointed out that the city did not measure the setbacks on new
construction, they took the owner and builder's word. He stated it was more
explicit now than in 1981 when the subject house was built.
In response to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Ms. Bryant explained this tract had
two front setbacks and two side setbacks since it was a "quasi -corner".
MOTION
Mr. Boyd moved to grant the variance.
Ms. Mills seconded the motion.
Mr. Boyd explained it was his intent in making the motion to waive the present
encroachment which would not allow any further encroachment of the subject tract.
Ms. Mills agreed.
Mr. Becker stated he would like it a
presented his stately contracting self
believed Mr. Wilkins was the reason for
matter of record that Gordon Wilkins
in this affair. He further stated he
the encroachment.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Fulton complimented staff of both the Planning and Engineering Divisions and
stated they had acted professionally and had been of great assistance to him.
APPEAL NO. BA91-20 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE - 226 N. SCHOOL
Ms. Orton stated she had been involved with the property when it was purchased
by the City. She suggested she might need to abstain. After discussion, it was
determined there was not a conflict of interest for Ms. Orton. Mr. Davis pointed
out that under Roberts Rules of Order Ms. Orton was eligible to participate and
vote.
Ms. Bryant stated the City of Fayetteville had purchase the entire tract of
property to be used as a Public Educational Government Access (cable) facility.
She pointed out the area where the parking lot was located in relation to the
building. She explained the City had found another location for P.E.G., desired
admi
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 18, 1991
Page 3
to split the property, and sell the portion of the tract that contained the
building. She further explained they did not have a buyer, and therefore, did
not know how the property would be used. She stated it could be up to 43 parking
spaces they were being asked to waive. She further stated that, on one hand they
had the Arts Center Council needing adequate parking button the other
hand,individuals were coming before the Board asking to use that parking for
their businesses. She stated that at some point those two interests would
conflict. Since it was a policy matter, she recommended that it be referred to
the Board of Directors so they could resolve the conflict in a consistent manner
for all future applicants.
There was discussion regarding off-site parking. Ms. Bryant explained there were
different parking regulations depending upon the type of zoning involved.
Ms. Mills stated it was her understanding the city had pledged 500 parking spaces
to the Arts Council and now had in excess of the 500 spaces. She further stated
it was inconceivable to her that the city could ask that a conforming structure
be turned into a non -conforming structure, sell the structure, and then have the
person who purchased the structure go through the hassle of getting off-site
parking permission. She asked if this would not increase the property
assessment.
Ms. Bryant explained the properties were taxed because they were in an
improvement district. She doubted that removing parking would increase the
assessment.
Ms. Crain explained the subject building had been purchased in March 1990. She
further explained David Cox and other staff had felt the building would be
suitable for the Public Educational and Government Access facility. She stated
the city was obligated to construct such a facility through a grant they had
received in the amount of $230,000 which had to be used on the construction of
the access facility. She explained $83,500 had been spent to purchase the
subject tract of land. She further explained that in June 1991 they had received
the architect's report that it would cost approximately $70,000 more for
constrution. She stated at that time they started looking around for another
building that would be suitable and more economically feasible. She explained
they would need to recoup those funds spent on the subject building because those
funds had to be spent on the P.E.G. facility.
Ms. Crain stated the parking was included in the 500 spaces committed for the
Arts Council. She also explained that Mr. Cox related he had only 500 spaces and
he did not want to give up the parking lot.
Ms. Mills stated it was her understanding that the merchants of the Dickson
Street area realized, admitted and acknowledged that, if the total number of
parking places were not secured, that they would have to secure those places for
the Center.
Me. Crain stated she did not know how much parking had been secured. She
explained Mr. Cox was in charge of that project.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Crain explained the property had
cost $83,500. She further explained the building itself had been assessed at
$32,000, the immediate property containing the building had been assessed at
$60,000. She stated she believed the parking area would be worth approximately
$45,000. She explained there would have to be a transfer of funds from the Arts
Center Parking Project to the P.E.G. Access Project in whatever amount the
property was assessed.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 18, 1991
Page 4
Mr. Wood explained that, when the property was purchased, there had been a
suggestion regarding using it as a parking lot for the Arts Center.
Ms. Orton expressed her belief this was an example of the owner creating the
problem. She stated she was appalled the City would ask for a variance. She
further stated, if they wanted to use part of the tract for a parking lot, they
should use the entire tract for a parking lot.
Ms. Mills agreed with Ms. Orton.
Ms. Orton stated she had been under the impression that, when the Board reviewed
the Dream Merchant property, they had asked staff to come up with a solution to
the merchants' parking problems in the Arts Center area.
Ms. Mills stated she would like to have a policy established on the Dickson
Street area to guide the Board of Appeals. She stated she believed this item
needed to go to the City Board of Directors because they were the ones who
establish policy for the Dickson Street area.
Mr. Tompkins reminded the Board the issue at hand was a variance for 43 parking
spaces.
Mr. Boyd stated they were being asked to convert a property that might have
enough parking into a property without any parking.
Mr. Wood explained that another property in the area had been credited with 50
parking spaces even though the parking would be used by the Arts Council. He
further explained the theory was that they could not stop people from parking
there. He stated he agreed with Ms. Bryant that the matter needed to go before
the Board of Directors for establishment of a policy.
Mr. Becker stated their normal function was to review a citizen's request and
should that request be denied, the citizen had recourse through the Courts. He
explained that, should they deny this request, the city would have to sue itself
in order to get recourse.
Ms. Bryant stated they had discussed taking the matter directly to the Board of
Directors but believed the Board of Directors would refer it to the Board of
Adjustment.
Ms. Crain explained that personally she was interested in getting the project
completed. She asked that they make a decision - either yes or no. She further
explained, if the request were denied, she would just have to find other
alternatives.
MOTION
Ms. Mills moved to table the request until they received more information on a
policy direction from the City Board of Directors.
The motion died for lack of a second.
MOTION
Mr. Meadows moved to deny the request.
Ms. Orton seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
November 18, 1991
Page 5
MINUTES
Me. Mill moved to accept the minutes of the November 4, 1991 meeting as
presented.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
Continued Discussion of Board of Sign Appeals Bylaws
The Board reviewed the first draft of the Bylaws and discussed suggested changes.
Two items that were discussed in depth were how an abstaining vote would be
deemed and the inclusion of the intent section of the ordinance which established
the Board.
It was agreed that Ms. Bryant would contact the city attorney for an opinion
regarding an abstaining vote.
NEW BUSINESS
Ms. Mills stated she would like the City Manager and Board of Directors to know
of the comments made by Dave Fulton regarding the assistance he had received from
the Planning Office.
Mr. Becker stated he had received notification from a representative of the
Washington County Historical Society that they were unable to purchase adjoining
property from the Mcllroy Bank. Mr. Becker stated he had informed Mr. Newhouse
that the Society could sue the city in order to overturn the Board of
Adjustment's ruling.
It was also discussed that, rather
meetings, they could receive minutes
members with the exception of Gerald
minutes.
than going to the Planning Commission
of the meeting. It was agreed that all
Boyd would like to receive a copy of the
The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
7