HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-07-20 Minutes•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AND BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment and Board of Sign Appeals was
held on MondayliNly 0, 1992, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration
�Bu1i ng, "113 -West Mo tain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas
Gerald Boyd, Don Mills, Marion Orton, Lonnie Meadows,
tt
Larry Perkins and Thad Hanna
an 161MEMBERS PRESENT:
•
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Davis
OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Sharon Langley, Richard Shewmaker, David
Waters, Dennis Flemming, Ronnie Bumpass, Ann Henry,
and others
PROTOCOL
Ms. Don Mills called the meeting to order.
APPEAL NO. BA92-15 - VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS
THOMAS PEARSON, JR. - 426-428-430 W. DICKSON
The first item to be heard was a combined request to vary building setbacks for
property located at 426-428-430 W. Dickson, presented by Richard Shewmaker on
behalf of Thomas Pearson, Jr. The property is zoned C-3, Central Business
Commercial.
Ms Little explained the petitioner had presented a combined request for several
adjustments and approvals required by a proposed development plan. She noted the
required approvals would involve the Board of Adjustment, the Planning Commission
and the City Board of Directors.
She advised the property consisted of three lots developed as a part of the County
Court Addition to the City of Fayetteville. She pointed out that combined the area
represented by the three lots totalled one-fourth acre. She explained the petitioner
had arranged the joint request by goal so that each of the involved entities would
have equal information from which to make decisions. She stated her report would
address the requests from the Board of Adjustment's perspective and in the same
order as requested by the petitioner.
Ms. Little stated the first request involved a variance from the five-foot setback on
Dickson Street, if necessary. She explained the current face of the three buildings
was located 7.6 feet from the existing Dickson Street right-of-way. She further
explained there was in existence a six-foot box culvert which ran under the sidewalk
at the subject location. She noted the box culvert ran the length of the 400 block,
passing at times under other buildings. She advised the Board there was no
easement of record for the box culvert; therefore, no variance was required for the
buildings facing Dickson Street to meet the front setback requirement.
• Ms Little explained the petitioner wished to add a balcony 9.5 feet in width to the
front face of the building with supporting poles. She noted the balcony would
require a variance of the full five feet of required front setback from the Board of
167
Board of Adjustments
July 20, 1992
Page 2
Adjustment and would further require approval from the Board of Directors to
construct the support poles for the overhead balcony two feet within the public
right-of-way.
She stated the next request concerned the building located at 430 W. Dickson. She
explained the building was located on the property line along West Street and was
therefore non -conforming. She advised the petitioner requested a variance of five
feet (this is a corner lot and therefore the property must meet two front setbacks)
to bring the current building into conformance. She noted the petitioner was also
requesting a variance from the parking requirements but that would be heard by the
Planning Commission rather than the Board of Adjustment.
Ms. Little advised the last request which concerned the Board of Adjustment related
to the rear (or north) property line where there was an eight -inch sanitary sewer
line installed within a 14.5 foot easement. She explained that approximately five feet
of the easement was located on the subject property. She advised the Board the
bulk and area regulations of the zoning code for C-3 properties require a ten foot
setback from the centerline of a public easement or alley. She explained the
petitioner was requesting a five foot variance to allow siting of the building at the
edge of the existing easement. Ms. Little noted the petitioner had consulted with the
city staff responsible for maintenance of the sewer line and had been assured that
five feet would be adequate to provide such maintenance, particularly since the
sewer line already had been placed and there was no danger of it not being located
precisely within the easement. She also noted the area to the north was an open
parking lot area which would provide an adequate service area for vehicles.
Ms. Little recommended approval of the full requested variance; however, suggested
if the Board had additional concerns regarding the maintenance of the sewer line or
other concerns, a compromise position of an eight foot setback (two foot variance)
might be considered.
Ms. Little also mentioned the petitioner had requested an alley and a sewer line which
had been abandoned be vacated by the City. She noted that review of files and in-
house documents did not show the existence of an easement for either of those uses;
therefore, unless further documentation was found, no action was required.
Other action requested by the petitioner but not requiring action by the Board of
Adjustments was removal of five parking spaces and a conditional use for the
brewing of beer in a commercial zone.
Ms. Orton noted that, should the Board of Adjustment grant the variance to expand
the building to the north along West Street, there would still be the question
regarding the parking.
Ms. Little explained the variance would not become effective unless the Planning
Commission also granted a variance regarding the five parking spaces. She
recommended that, should they grant the variance, they do so subject to the
Planning Commission variance.
Mr. Boyd asked if they would not need that area for unloading trucks.
Iba
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
July 20, 1992
Page 3
Ms. Little stated the petitioner would have to answer that question.
Ms. Mills asked how many parking spaces they would be able to get if the variance
on West Street were not granted.
Ms. Little explained it would take 10 feet to accommodate the width of a car. She
further explained they could build to within 5 feet of the property line which would
not leave adequate room for a parking space. She also noted the West Street and
Dickson intersection was quite busy, mainly because of the Walton Arts Center
location. She advised the Board West Street was the only avenue the City had if
they considered the extension of Gregg Street to Highway 62. She stated they did
not know what right-of-way would be required.
Mr. Shewmaker introduced David Waters, a relative of the buyer, and Dennis
Flemming, from Lindsey & Associates. He explained they had tried to prepare a
narrative so the Board would understand what the buyer was planning to do. He
stated there had been an offer made and accepted on the three buildings. He
advised the Board there had been no contingency other than approval of the
requests for variances, etc. He pointed out the City had been desiring restoration
in the Dickson Street area and he believed this would be the first large restoration.
He stated they did not plan on demolishing the buildings, but rehabilitating them and
enhancing the buildings. He advised the Board the rear of the buildings were
becoming entrances due to the parking lots for the Walton Arts Center. He further
advised the buildings needed to be expanded in order to be economically feasible.
Mr. Shewmaker noted they would have at least two and possibility three frontages -
- one on Dickson, one on the back, and one on West Street.
Ms. Mills asked what they planned to have in the building.
Mr. Shewmaker stated it would be a brew pub. He explained they would brew their
own beer on the premises, including grinding the grain. He noted only
approximately 10$ of the space would be used for the brew pub. He advised the
Board the owner was involved in a high level retail business. He pointed out it was
difficult to attract retail trade to the Dickson Street area. He further advised there
was no plan for the remainder of the building other than retail establishments.
Ms. Orton asked if a loading and unloading area would not be needed if there were
to be a number of retail establishments.
Mr. Shewmaker stated retailers did not warehouse a lot of product because it cost too
much money to pay rent on the space. He explained they fine-tuned the ordering
process. He stated that, from personal experience, some of the retail came in
through the front door and some through the back door. He explained it took very
little time to unload the trucks. He stated the purchaser did not want to adversely
affect any of the businesses in the area by having trucks interfering with the traffic
flow.
Ms. Orton asked if there was not going to be an overall plan for Dickson Street. She
expressed concern that approval of the requested variances would be counter to the
overall plan.
X61
Board of Adjustments
July 20, 1992
Page, 4
Mr. Shewmaker stated Mr. David Waters was a graduate architect and had just moved
to Fayetteville on behalf of his family's business. He explained they had studied the
subject property for quite some time because they did not want to get involved in
constructing something that would have to come down or have to have the traffic
pattern altered. He pointed out they had looked at the radius around the curb and
the posts would be in line with the parking meters, quite some distance from the
curb.
Ms. Orton again stated the Board did not know how this project would tie in with any
Dickson Street overall improvement plan.
Mr. Fleming stated that in all the meetings he had attended regarding Dickson Street
there had been no discussion regarding any design standards. He expressed his
opinion that the subject properties were important to the renovation of the rest of
the street. He pointed out the growth cities of the country were made up of
diversity -- old spaces next to new ones. He gave the City of New Orleans as an
example. He again stated there were no plans for aesthetic standards for Dickson
Street. He also pointed out most large cities, especially in Europe, desired balconies
because they provided shade and protection from the rain.
Mr. Waters stated there had originally been balconies on some of the buildings on
Dickson Street. He further stated they were trying to bring back historic value to
the buildings and the balcony would add historical value.
Mr. Bumpass stated he had been active in the plans for the improvement of Dickson
Street for quite some time, trying to figure out what would make the area rejuvenate.
He explained that, when they planned the parking lot, they had hoped all the
buildings on the 400 block would extend to the north to the parking lot line to allow
store fronts on the back of the building (which made a successful downtown area)
and additional investment in the buildings. He pointed out that the buildings would
have to be brought up to current city code. He stated that would be an additional
benefit of the restoration of the subject buildings. He stated that conceptually it
would be a good thing to let the buildings extend north to the parking lot line.
Ms. Orton noted a large concrete area on the subject property and asked its use.
Mr. Bumpass stated it had been a parking lot. He explained the subject building had
once housed 10 or 12 apartments on the second floor and that area had been the
parking.
Mr. Hanna asked if they planned on using the second floor and balcony as an eating
establishment.
Mr. Shewmaker stated the upstairs was to be utilized but they did not know exactly
how it would be utilized. He stated they had completed an engineering analysis to
see if it would be load bearing. He also explained that, in order to get to the
balcony, the stairway would be on the inside of the building.
In response to a question from Ms. Mills, Mr. Shewmaker stated the posts to set the
balcony would be no further out than the parking meters. He stated the balcony
00
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
July 20, 1992
Page 5
itself would hang out slightly over the posts. He explained the posts would have to
go out in order to avoid the drainage ditch immediately adjacent to the building.
Mr. Hanna noted that, if the building were extended, there would be no parking
spaces. He asked if the Planning Commission would have to approve a parking
variance and, if they did not do so, how that would affect any variance granted by
the Board.
Ms. Mills explained any variance approved would be subject to the Planning
Commission approving the parking variance. She also pointed out Ms. Little had
suggested the Board of Adjustment make recommendation to the Planning
Commission.
She recommended the Board review the items step by step. She stated the first item
would be discussion of the variance for the balcony.
Mr. Perkins stated there was already a six foot canopy on the building and the
petitioner was requesting an additional 3 1/2 feet. He pointed it would not come out
as far as the planters even with the additional 3 1/2 feet. He stated he saw no
problem with granting the variance and it would have some aesthetic value.
Mr. Boyd stated he did not believe they had the authority to grant the variance
under the four criteria they used for granting variances. He explained that, if this
was part of an overall plan for Dickson Street approved by the Planning Commission
and the Board of Directors, they would have authority but he did not believe they
had that authority at the present time.
Mr. Meadows asked if the balcony was not considered an addition to the building.
Mr. Boyd stated the petitioner was asking the Board to give up all of the front
setback on Dickson Street and the code required a five foot setback. He pointed out
this was something the petitioners had created and other people did not have the
right to do it. He stated he believed the balcony on the Polk Building looked nice
but expressed concern regarding the posts in the right-of-way. He asked what
would happen when the city wanted to widen the street or use a backhoe to work on
the liox culvert. He explained that, should they grant this request for a variance
for the balcony, the owner could build on that property unless they stated the
variance was for a balcony only.
Ms. Orton stated if they approved the request they needed to specify that it was for
a balcony. She asked if they could also specify that should the street be widened,
the balcony would have to be removed at the owner's expense.
Ms. Mills stated those items could be specified in a motion.
Mr. Meadows stated he would also want to include that public use of the balcony
would be prohibited -- that it could just be ornamental in nature. He explained he
was requesting that condition for safety purposes.
111
Board of Adjustments
July 20, 1992
Page 6
Mr. Boyd also noted that, with the building situated on the corner, it was difficult
to see what was going on West Street when driving down Dickson Street. He pointed
out the building came out quite a distance. He further stated they needed to
consider whether a balcony would cause further sight problems at the subject
intersection.
Ms. Mills stated if they got the variance and put the balcony in, they would have to
remember it was not the posts but was the edge of the balcony (the overhang).
Mr. Boyd stated the right-of-way was not their concern.
MOTION
Mr. Perkins moved to allow a variance of five feet to have a balcony built.
Ms. Orton asked if they wanted to have any conditions to the approval.
Mr. Perkins withdrew his motion in order to allow Ms. Orton to make the motion.
Ms. Orton moved to grant the variance with the following conditions: the area can
be used only for a balcony; the balcony must not obstruct the vision at the corner
of the intersection; if the City widened Dickson Street and found it necessary to
remove the balcony, it would be removed at the expense of the owner and not the
city; and the balcony must be structurally sound.
Mr. Meadows suggested restricting the use of the balcony.
Ms. Orton asked if the balcony was intended to be load bearing or lust ornamental
Mr. Shewmaker stated it would be for both. He explained the balcony would be
structurally sound, not just decorative.
Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.
The motion failed 3-3-0 with Ms. Orton, Mr. Perkins, and Mr. Hanna voting "yes"
and Ms. Mills, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Meadows voting "no".
Ms. Mills stated the next item requested was a five foot variance along the property
line on West Street so the proposed remodeling would be in a straight line with the
existing building.
Mr. Boyd stated this was not a remodeling -- it was more part remodeling and a major
enlargement of the building. He pointed out if they did not grant the requested
variance, it would only change the size of the building by 5$ which should not kill
the project. He explained there was the possibility that West Street would be
widened. He stated if they granted the variance, the City would have to pay should
the street be widened.
Ms. Orton pointed out the building could still be enlarged without the five feet.
X1z
•
Board of Adjustments
July 20, 1992
Page 7
In response to a question from Mr. Perkins, Ms. Little stated it had not been
determined which side the width would be taken from should West Street be widened.
Mr. Perkins pointed out that, from a construction standpoint, they would probably
take from the west side. He stated he saw no reason to have a "dog leg" in the
building if they looked at the west side of West Street. He also noted he was sure
the City would want to go with the cheaper of the two routes should West Street be
widened.
Mr. Boyd asked what the right-of-way of West Street was.
Ms. Little stated she did not know but it would need to be 50 feet.
Ms. Mills reminded the Board this was the variance that had to be conditioned upon
the Planning Commission waiving the parking requirements should they decide to
grant the variance.
In response to a comment from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Little explained that most of the
customers using the building would be doing so during the day and the majority of
the patrons of the Walton Arts Center would be using the parking lot at night. She
stated they had envisioned combined uses of the parking lot.
• Mr. Meadows stated there was already not enough parking spaces in the area and the
buildings had not been renovated.
•
MOTION
Mr. Perkins moved the request for a five foot variance be approved conditioned upon
Planning Commission's granting a waiver for the parking.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion failed 3-3-0 with Ms. Orton, Ms. Mills, and Mr. Boyd voting "no" and Mr.
Perkins, Mr. Hanna and Mr. Meadows voting "yes".
Ms. Mills stated the next item was a request for a five foot variance from the sewer
easement. She noted Ms Little had informed them if they had concerns about the
granting of the five foot variance, a compromise of a two foot variance would be
considered.
Ms . Little explained the requirement was a ten foot setback from the centerline of the
easement. She pointed out the width of the easement was 14.5 feet. She stated the
request from the petitioner was for a variance to enable them to build to the edge of
the easement, which would give a five foot clearance to the sewer line.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Little stated the sewer was at a depth
of 9 1/2 to 10 feet at Jose's and believed it would be at approximately the same depth
in this location. She further advised the purpose of setbacks was for the circulation
of light and air. She pointed out that, with the parking lot behind the building, she
did not believe this variance would be out of line.
113
•
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
July 20, 1992
Page 8
MOTION
Mr. Perkins moved that the variance be approved as requested for five feet subject
to any conditions the Planning Commission might propose.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
MINUTES
Ms Mills asked if there were any corrections or additions to the minutes of the
regular Board of Adjustment and Board of Sign Appeals Minutes of June 15, 1992.
The minutes were accepted as distributed.
The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
174