Loading...
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.