HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-11-01 Minutes•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AND THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, November 1,
1993, at 3:45 p m in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas
Members Present: Marion Orton, Gerald Boyd, Larry Perkins, Lonnie
Meadows, Bob Blackston, and Thad Hanna
Members Absent:
Others Present:
Craig Rivaldo
Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, and Richard
Shewmaker
PROTOCOL
Mr. Perkins called the meeting to order and explained the format of the meeting.
Mayor Fred Hanna appeared before the Board to thank them for their service to the
community and express his appreciation for such services.
APPEAL NO. BA93-31 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURE REGULATIONS
RICHARD SHEWMAKER - 603 W. DICKSON ST.
The next item was a request from Richard Shewmaker for a variance from the
nonconforming structure regulations on property located at 603 West Dickson Street.
Ms. Little explained Mr. Shewmaker was requesting the removal of a provision
established by the Board of Adjustment on September 16, 1991 which granted a
variance that would run only with the current building.
She advised the required setback was five feet in the front and 15 feet in the rear.
She pointed out the existing setback was 2.5 feet in the front (with the balcony
encroaching) and none in the rear.
Ms. Little reminded the Board two separate variances had been granted Mr.
Shewmaker for the above referenced building. She stated the Board of Adjustment
had granted a conditional variance of 15 feet to the rear of the building on September
16, 1991, but denied the requested front variance. She went on to say the specific
condition of the variance was that it was granted only for the life of the building (ie.
if the building were ever destroyed by 50% or more, then it could be rebuilt only in
conformance with the zoning setbacks in effect at that time).
She stated that, subsequent to the Board of Adjustment meeting, Mr. Shewmaker
appeared before the Board of Directors and requested consideration of his requested
variance to the front of the building in a settlement offer. She noted the Board of
Directors granted that variance with no conditions. She pointed out minutes of the
Board of Adjustment meeting held on September 16, 1991, and the Board of Directors
meeting held on October 15, 1991, were included as a part of their agenda packet.
• Ms. Little stated Mr. Shewmaker had made extensive renovations to the building,
including a residential unit on the second floor and a commercial business on the first
•
Board of Adjustment
November 1, 1993
Page 2
floor. She further stated that, at this time, Mr. Shewmaker desired to complete the
project by renovating the basement; however, a number of prospective tenants and
their lending institutions had expressed reservations about committing funds to the
project when the condition of the variance was explained.
Ms Little recommended removing the condition imposed by the Board of Adjustment
limiting the granted variance to the life of the building. She explained the staff
recommendation of September 10, 1991 (recommending the granting of the variance
without conditions) and in consideration of the proposed general plan
recommendation of infill and revitalization of the Square/Dickson Street had played
a part in staff's recommendation.
Mr. Shewmaker advised that, should the building be destroyed more than 50%, he did
not want to tear it all down and start over with a smaller building.
Mr. Boyd pointed out that, should they remove the condition and the building was
totally destroyed, Mr. Shewmaker could construct another nonconforming building.
He also asked about parking for additional tenants.
Ms . Orton asked, if they approved the request, would they not be granting a special
condition.
• Mr. Perkins noted staff had recommended approval of the request. He asked the
reason for the recommendation.
Ms. Little advised the previous Planning staff had recommended the variance and she
had concurred with that recommendation. She pointed out there were two ways to
look at the property and she had chosen to look at it in the way the previous staff
had looked at it. She advised Gregg Street formed a corner which meant the
building had two fronts, requiring two front setbacks. She stated the other two
sides would then have a zero setback. She explained either way the building was a
nonconforming building and did not meet the required setbacks. She advised there
was room for interpretation.
She further explained the previous Board had conditioned the variance so that it
would run with the building only, rather than with the land. She stated the request
was to do away with the condition. She informed the Board the reason for the
request was the investors for the needed renovations had reservations with the
condition of the variance.
Ms. Little stated the kitchen was planned for the area to be renovated and a kitchen
was usually the most expensive part of a restaurant. She explained the investors
were concerned that, should the kitchen be destroyed, they would not be able to
rebuild it and the restaurant would not be viable.
Mr. Perkins pointed out most of the buildings in the subject area were nonconforming
because of their age.
• Ms. Orton asked if cases such as this one would be taken care of under the new
zoning regulations.
0700
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment
November 1, 1993
Page 3
Ms. Little advised staff did believe such areas (Dickson Street, Historic District,
etc.) should be allowed to rebuild if destroyed. She pointed out the General Plan
also proposed smaller setbacks.
Mr. Blackston stated the problem he saw with the 50% limitation was that the value
of the building could be destroyed by 50% but there would be enough of the basic
structure intact that it would be logical, from an insurance standpoint, to rebuild..
He further stated he would agree with the previous decision if the building would be
completely destroyed, but at 50% it still could be viable to re -build with existing
encroachments not disturbed.
Mr. Shewmaker pointed out that, should a building on Dickson Street burn down and
be re built complying with the zoning code, it would look very strange in comparison
with the remaining buildings.
Ms. Little asked if it would help to change the restriction to 100% destroyed rather
than 50% destroyed.
Mr. Boyd stated he did not think a building could be destroyed 100%, since the
foundation would still be standing.
Mr. Hanna pointed out other structures along Dickson Street had received setback
variances. He further stated he believed the subject area was different from other
commercial areas within the city.
Mr. Conklin stated that granting a variance allowed them to maintain the historic.
character of the street. He advised the design guidelines for cities in Arkansas
which had established ordinances for historic districts suggested buildings not be
set back five feet, that they be brought up to the street as they were historically
constructed.
Mr. Boyd stated they were discussing the rear property line.
Ms. Little pointed out it could be considered a side rather than a rear property line;
that it was a matter of interpretation.
Mr. Blackston stated he had some reservations about one part of the request but not
the other. He stated he would favor removing the restriction. He advised he
believed it was unlikely that the building would be destroyed by 50% but, if it did
happen, he did not see the city being able to enforce the current setbacks. He
further stated he had no problem in granting Mr. Shewmaker's request since he did
not believe it was taking anything from the city nor creating a hardship.
Mr. Boyd stated he believed there should be special conditions for historic areas so
they could give variances that could not be given to anyone else. He advised he did
not believe an investment was justification to give different treatment to one area
over another. He also pointed out that, should the building burn down, any type
of new building could be constructed on the site.
dol
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment
November 1, 1993
Page 4
Mr. Meadows stated the 50% restriction had been a common amendment to the granting
of variances. He further stated however, that this was a special case and a building
meeting the setbacks would look strange in this specific area.
Ms. Orton stated she did not see a problem with the variances but she wondered
about the one in the rear. She advised she believed they would be granting a special
privilege in the back.
MOTION
Mr. Hanna moved to approve the request.
Mr. Blackston seconded the motion.
The motion carried 5-1-0 with Mr. Perkins, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Blackston, Mr. Hanna.
and Ms. Orton voting "yes" and Mr. Boyd voting no.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the September 20, 1993 meeting were approved as distributed.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Conklin advised the proposed sign ordinance was being reviewed by the
Inspection Department.