HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-07-20 Minutes (2)MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AND BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS
A meeting of tle Fayetteville Board of Adjustment and Board of Sign Appeals was held on
Monday, Julys 1992, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113
West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gerald Boyd, Don Mills, Marion Orton, Lonnie Meadows,
Larry Perkins and Thad Hanna
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Davis
OTHERS PRESENT:
PROTOCOL
Alett Little, Sharon Langley, Richard Shewmaker, David
Waters, Dennis Flemming, Ronnie Bumpass, Ann Henry, and
others
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
62
• LSoard o/J4ustmsnG
4 20, 1992
y,
/�a9. 2
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 petidoner 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 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 concemed 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 petidoner requested a variance of five feet (this is a comer 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
rad
goad otAdiu.31manta
• egu4 20, 1992
pias
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.
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 8i 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
• &a� M/raiment,
o 4y 20, 1992
pay.o
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.
• 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
6s
• Beard a/J fju4tnanla
jty20, 1992
Par s
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 Targe 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 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.
cob
•
Road o/Jdd'uatmenti
duty 20, 1992
No 6
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 box 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.
•
•
•
•
/load O`_N�WI/IK.ICf
694 20, /992
Par 7
Mr. Boyd also noted that, with the building situated on the comer, 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 just 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
�8
•
•
i?p..,daf 4usL,anz
Page20, 1992
Paye 8
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.
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".
e9
•
&ad 0/.,A4saimant,
JJ4 20, 7992
P,. 9
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 locauon.
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.
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.
10