Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-12-02 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, December 2, 1991, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326'of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Becker, Gerald Boyd, Don Mills, Robert Davis, Larry Tompkins, Lonnie Meadows, and Marion Orton OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Sharon Langley, Laleh Amirmoez, and Bill Mitchell PROTOCOL Mr. Larry Tompkins called the meeting to order and noted they had a quorum. 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 stated he preferred to move the introduction of the new Planning Management Director, Alett Little, to follow Appeal No. BA91-19. He also added an item c under Old Business for a point of clarification regarding material brought up at the last meeting. He asked if there were any other additions or deletions to be recommended to the agenda. The Board approved the agenda as modified. APPEAL NO. BA91-19 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS LALEH AMIRMOEZ FOR WALTON ARTS CENTER ANNEX The request, presented by Laleh Amirmoez, on behalf of the Walton Arts Center Annex was for property located at the northeast corner of West Avenue and Spring Street. The property is zoned C-2, Central Business Commercial. Ms. Little explained the appeal was for a variance of the setbacks. She stated the property was owned by the Walton Arts Center and fronted on West Avenue. She pointed out the areas to the south and west where variances were requested. She informed the Board the building was the old John Porter Produce/Riverside Antique building. Mr. Tompkins asked if there was a planned unit development for the entire site or a large scale development for the site. Ms. Little stated there was not a planned unit development nor had anything been submitted for a large scale development. Mr. Tompkins explained he was interested in the design of the entire site as a comprehensive site plan. Ms. Little explained Mr. Mitchell did have a landscape plan and would be reviewing it during the applicant's presentation. Ms. Little pointed out the area on the west side of the building that was currently a loading dock and encroached approximately four feet into the required setback. She explained the applicant was proposing to remove the loading dock and install a handicap access ramp, balcony areas and steps. She further explained this was necessary in order to comply with the building codes, particularly for fire exits and handicap access. Ms. Little pointed out the proposed plans would use the entire five foot setback. • • • Board of Adjustment December 2, 1991 Page 2 Ms. Little also pointed out that the south side of the building did encroach into the setbacks. She explained the building was constructed prior to the current zoning ordinance. The Arts Center was proposing to install steps in order to access the middle door which was approximately 1.5 feet above ground level. She stated it would be too large of an area to safely exit without steps. Ms. Little stated the request met all of the provisions for the granting of a variance. She explained the variance on the west had been requested to make the building comply with the City's building and fire codes. She further explained the variance request for the south side was to meet safety requirements since the area was too high to be safely executed without steps. She recommended the variances be approved as requested. In response to a question from Mr. Boyd regarding encroachment of the sidewalk by the proposed steps, Ms. Little stated there would be an encroachment. Ms. Mills asked if the intent was to tear down the loading dock and take in the full five foot encroachment with the balconies and the handicap access. She further asked if the intent was to run the five foot strip from one end of the building to the other. Ms. Little stated that was her understanding. She pointed out that the entryway on West Avenue would already be taking up the five foot area. Mr. Becker stated the plan on the south side showed the setback was five feet from the property line and the stairs were inside the property line but Ms. Little had stated the stairs would encroach on the sidewalk. He asked if the sidewalk was on private property. Ms. Little explained that part of the sidewalk was on private property. Ms. Amirmoez explained the total width of the sidewalk was ten feet and the stairs were four feet wide, leaving a six foot sidewalk. Mr. Mitchell showed the Board a drawing of the full site of the Arts Center including the landscaping and parking. He explained the use of each building. Ms. Amirmoez explained the main use of the Educational Complex (the building under consideration) was to provide classrooms for the community and public schools. She stated there would be art enrichment classes for area children and continuing education for area teachers. She listed all of the classes that would be available. Mr. Tompkins stated he was interested in the off-street loading requirements for the building. Mr. Mitchell pointed out the loading dock and the drive to the loading dock. He explained there was an existing overhead door in the building. Mr. Tompkins asked about entry into the building. Ms. Amirmoez pointed out that people would either be entering from the parking lot on the west side or from the drop off area at the back of the building. She stated the only people that might stop on West Avenue to unload passengers would be those people unloading the handicapped. She further stated they would also be putting another handicap access ramp on the north side of the building. Mr. Tompkins asked if there were any alternative plans that would not encroach into the setback. • • • Board of Adjustment December 2, 1991 Page 3 Mr. Mitchell pointed out the front section of the building would have to be removed if they were not going to encroach into the setback. Ms. Amirmoez pointed out the front wall was also a load bearing wall, making it very difficult and expensive to remove. She also informed the Board they were already cutting the inside of the building to provide for a landing at the entry. Mr. Tompkins asked if the building could not be used without the balconies. Ms. Amirmoez stated they were using the existing dock area for egress because fire code required direct access to the outside. She also pointed out the area was above grade, necessitating the balcony -type of platform leading down to the street. Mr. Becker reviewed the fire code and explained this design would look attractive, meet the code and stay within the budget. He further pointed out they had discussed relaxing the requirements in the downtown area for the purpose of renovation since it was very difficult to work within the new code requirements in the central business district. Mr. Becker stated he was definitely in favor of granting a variance on the west side. Mr. Boyd agreed with Mr. Becker's comments. Mr. Becker further pointed out that, if the it was by code considered to be foundation a setback requirement. He explained that became part of the structure. Ms. Amirmoez stated she had not measured the height difference. MOTION Mr. Becker moved to accept the variance as presented both on the west and south sides of the building. Ms. Orton seconded the motion. Mr. Tompkins reminded the Board they were dealing with the longevity of a non- conforming structure and that the variances would run with the land. area on the south was only 18 inches, and did not need to be considered as at the height of 24 inches the steps AMENDED MOTION Ms. Orton amended the motion to stipulate the variances went with the life of the building rather than the land. Mr. Becker agreed to the amendment. The motion passed 6-1-0 with Ms. Orton, Mr. Becker, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Mills, Mr. Davis and Mr. Meadows voting "yes" and Mr. Tompkins voting "no". INTRODUCTION OF THE PLANNING MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR Mr. Tompkins introduced Alett Little, the new Planning Management Director. Ms. Little provided the Board with her professional background. She explained she had three major goals for the Department - the Comprehensive Land Use Plan • • • Board of Adjustment December 2, 1991 Page 4 (which was currently being worked on), the Dickson Street Project, and updating the zoning ordinance. She then responded to questions by the Board members. MINUTES Mr. Tompkins presented the minutes of the November 18, 1991 Board of Adjustment meeting. He asked if there were any additions or corrections. Ms. Mills moved they be accepted as distributed. Mr. Davis seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. COMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Tompkins stated there were no committee reports outstanding. OLD BUSINESS Discussion of Board of Sign Appeals Bylaws Mr. Boyd reminded the Board of their request for an opinion from the City Attorney regarding an abstaining vote. He stated that, considering the opinion received from the City Attorney, he would suggest that the Board agree that an abstention did not count as a vote. He also recommended they request the Board of Directors change the ordinance to read that a concurring vote required a majority of the members present rather than a majority of the full Board of the Sign Appeals. He explained that would make the ordinance read the same as the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Tompkins stated he presumed Mr. Boyd wanted the change under Article VI. He stated that under "A" it read: "The granting of any appeal or variance by the Board shall require an affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the full Board." He stated that would be replaced by "require an affirmative vote of a majority of those present". Mr. Boyd agreed that was one of the changes. He stated the section regarding an abstaining vote it should read "Shall not be construed as a vote in favor of or against a motion." He suggested the proposed bylaws remain pending until the Board of Directors changed the ordinance. Mr. Tompkins requested Ms. Little present their request to the Board of Directors. She stated she would be able to get the request on the first Board meeting in January. The Board made other suggested changes to the proposed bylaws. Ms. Orton stated she would be able to attend the Board of Directors meeting when they considered amending the Board of Sign Appeals ordinance. Clarification from Previous Meeting Mr. Becker stated at the last meeting he had asked if the City could sue the City. He explained he had reviewed the Fayetteville code and, under the zoning code, discovered in Article 10, page 884, the City could sue the City. Ms. Mills moved to adjourn. Mr. Davis unanimously. The meeting adjourned at seconded the motion. The motion passed 5:00 p.m.