Loading...
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