HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-04-04 Minutes•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AND THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals was held on Monday, April 4,
1994, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Marion Orton, Larry Perkins, Craig Rivaldo, Bob Blackston, Lonnie
Meadows, and Thad Hanna
MEMBERS ABSENT: Gerald Boyd
OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, and others
PROTOCOL
Mr. Perkins called the meeting to order and explained the format of the meeting.
APPEAL NO. BA94-10 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS(BUILDING SETBACKS)
CROSSOVER ASSOCIATES - NE CORNER OF HUNTSVILLE RD & CROSSOVER RD
The first item was a request submitted by Crossover Associates for a variance from the bulk and area
requirements(building setbacks) for property located on the northeast corner of Huntsville Road and Crossover
Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Tim Conklin advised that, at the March 28th Planning Commission meeting, a lot split was approved for this
location. He stated the site contained .59 acres. He explained the lot split had been approved with two
conditions: 1) additional right-of-way along Highways 16E and 265 be dedicated, and 2) the Board of
Adjustment approve the variance being requested. He further stated the City had required additional right-of-
way of 50 feet from the center of each of the streets. He noted the applicant or the buyer of the property did
propose to build a service station on the site. He explained that, prior to being informed that additional right-
of-way was required, owner designed a service station based on the existing right-of-way and then realized
that, with the additional right-of-way requirement, the setback would be in violation. He noted the area
included in the lot split had been determined by following the 100 -year flood plain at the tall bank of the creek,
providing few options of adding more land into the parcel to enlarge the site. He explained the only two
options available were: 1) a variance of the setback requirements, or 2) enclosing the creek in some manner.
He advised the latter choice was not cost effective for the subject project. He recommended approval to the
Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Perkins clarified there were plans in the future to widen Highways 265 and 16. He asked in which
direction the roadways would be widened.
• Ms. Little commented 100 feet minimum right-of-way was required, but no one knew the alignment of the new
roadway.
.23�'
•
•
Board of Adjustment/
Board of Sign Appeals
Apnl4, 1994
Page 2
Mr. Blackston stated there was a lot of room to the west of Highway 265, but that did not leave too many
options on the east.
Granville Harper, the petitioner, advised the requested variance was exactly the amount of additional right-of-
way requested by the City. He noted a variance would not have been necessary if additional right-of-way had
not been requested.
In response to a comment by Mr. Perkins, Mr. Harper provided the Board with a topographical map showing
the exact location of the creek and why the building could not be moved any farther to the east.
In response to a question from Mr. Hanna, Mr. Harper advised the proposed bridge would join the two split
parts and the other lot would be a separate entity.
Ms. Harper explained they had a potential buyer for the piece of property being split off which was contingent
on the variance being approved.
Mr. Harper added the potential buyer planned to develop a convenience store on the property.
In answer to a question from Mr. Perkins, Ms. Little stated that she did not expect a visibility problem because
of the sharp angle of the drive.. She noted there was a stoplight located at the intersection and there could
possibly be a stacking problem because of backed up traffic but visibility should be adequate.
M.s. Orton expressed concern that the State Highway Department often changed their requirements on the
amount of right-of-way required. She explained that, because of those changes, she was hesitant regarding
the variance. She recalled several instances when the Board of Adjustment had given a variance that caused
the City an expense later because the state had determined more right-of-way was necessary..
Ms Harper stated she had contacted Charlie Treadway of the State Highway Department who sent a map with
an outline of the necessary right-of-way. She advised the map showed the right-of-way within the 50 foot area.
Mr. Harper pointed out they were discussing a dedication of right-of-way and not a taking or condemnation
or payment. He pointed out that, if they could not develop the property as requested, obviously no one could
develop it without some setback relieve.
Ms. Little pointed out the right-of-way did not always indicate the edge of the pavement; that there was
additional space between the pavement and the edge of right-of-way. In response to further questions, Ms.
Little referred to the map and noted that she would estimate the edge of the pavement would be located
approximately where the existing right-of-way line was now located.
• In response to a question from Mr. Meadows, Mr. Harper stated there would be approximately 20 feet from
the canopy to the pavement and 50 feet to the building.
a39
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment/
Board of Sign Appeals
April 4, 1994
Page 3
In answer to a question from Mr. Meadows, Mr. Harper stated there would be a curb and probably a sidewalk
between the pavement and the canopy, but he did not know if a barricade was planned.
Mr. Blackston stated that, in defense of the applicant's proposal, he was somewhat in favor of the variance
because the tract was a difficult piece of property on which to build and the applicant had made an effort to
develop and make the property useful. He added he did have ecological concerns about the installation of
gasoline tanks so close to a creek.
Mr. Hanna expressed concern that the Board did not have all the information the Planning Commission had
when they approved the lot split in regard to the setback.
Ms. Orton explained the Planning Commission did not look at the use of the property other than a general
category. She noted there were a number of uses not requiring as much room as the applicant's proposed use
that could be placed on the subject tract. She further stated she believed the applicant was trying to put too
much on a very small piece of property which could cause the City some problems.
In response to Mr. Hanna's concern, Ms. Little advised that 50 feet was the minimum required right-of-way
needed to develop the corridor of Highway 265. She explained the Planning Commission, as a condition of
the lot split, required the dedication of the stated the Planning Commission decision had nothing to do with
the setbacks but with the preservation of the corridor so it could be developed for transportation purposes.
She noted this tract would not be brought through as a large scale development because the property contained
less than one acre.
Mr. Perkins stated the applicant was proposing an 84 -foot canopy and questioned whether a canopy that large
was needed. He added they might be able to compromise in the area of the building which was included in the
variance without approving the canopy.
Mr. Harper noted the canopy was proposed as 84 feet because the designer was told there was a 20 -foot
setback from the existing right-of-way.
Mr. Perkins reiterated his concern there was a possibility that the minimum right-of-way might not be enough
which could cause a big problem if they approved the variance.
Ms Little advised the State was in preliminary design at the present time so there would be several other
design phases. She agreed the exact alignment of the right-of-way might change.
Mr Blackston stated he was concerned that, by approving the variance request, they might be doing the City
and the property owner an injustice if the minimum right-of-way was not adequate. He further stated,
however, that he would like to see the property develop.
•Board of Adjustment/
Board of Sign Appeals
April 4, 1994
Page 4
•
•
MOTION
Ms. Orton moved to deny the appeal as requested. The motion died for the lack of a second.
Mr. Blackston noted he would not object to consideration of the variance if the building could be re -designed
to come closer to meeting the requirements.
MOTION
Mr. Blackston moved to table the request to give the applicant time to modify the design.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion carried 5-0-1 with Mr. Rivaldo abstaining.
•
Board of Adjustment/
Board of Sign Appeals
April 4, 1994
Page 5
APPEAL NO. BA94-7 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS (BUILDING SETBACKS)
KEVIN URBAN - 907 EAGLE STREET
The next item was Appeal No. BA94-7, a request for a variance from the bulk and area requirements (building
setbacks) submitted by Kevin Urban for property located at 907 Eagle Street. The property is zoned R-3, High
Density Residential.
Mr. Conklin advised the structure already existed with a non -conforming setback. He explained the house was
being renovated under a Community Development Home Grant administered by the City. He further stated,
that, as a request by the homeowner, part of the existing covered porch was enclosed to develop a living space.
He noted the house was owner occupied and had approximately 800 square feet of living space with two
bedrooms.
He explained the Building Inspection Department discovered the Zoning Code violation and brought it to the
attention of the Planning Department. He recommended the Board approve the variance request in order to
• provide additional living space and a higher quality of life.
Mr. Jim Miller, Community Development, advised he was originally under the impression that an alteration
to a structure, even though it existed in violation of the Code, would still be within the guidelines. He
explained part of the reason they needed to enclose the porch was to eliminate getting access to the only
bathroom by going through a bedroom.
Mr. Blackston clarified they had taken an existing structure, enclosed the existing porch and improved it.
MOTION
Mr. Hanna moved to approve the variance as requested.
Ms. Orton seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
2v
•
•
Board of Adjustment/
Board of Sign Appeals
April 4, 1994
Page 6
APPEAL NO. BA94-8 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENT (BUILDING SETBACKS)
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - 365 E MEADOW STREET
The next item was Appeal No. BA94-8, a request for a variance from the bulk and area requirements (building
setbacks) submitted by Habitat for Humanity and represented by Cal Canfield for property located at 365 E.
Meadow Street. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential.
Mr. Conklin advised access to the site was from the gravel alley known as Meadow Alley. He pointed out
many of the existing houses adjacent to the alley appeared to have similar type of setback problems. He stated
the site had a limited buildable area due to the lot configuration and the required setbacks from the access
easement. He further stated granting the variance would allow the applicant to increase the livable space of
the proposed house. He recommended approval of the variance to allow Habitat for Humanity to design a
house that would be more livable for future occupants.
Cal Canfield advised Habitat was planning a house approximately 1,000 square feet in size. He explained the
problem was the road existed completely within their boundaries. He further noted the site had been made
available to Habitat at a very low cost and they were not aware of the problem until after a survey was
completed.
In answer to Ms. Orton's request for clarification, Mr Canfield stated the brush line was the approximate
boundary between Jesse Bryant's property on Walnut and the subject property. He added the lot was 83' x 94',
but the 83' did include the alley.
In answer to a question from Mr. Perkins, Mr. Canfield advised they were not aware of any objections from
the people in the area.
MOTION
Mr. Rivaldo moved to approve the variance.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Blackston.
The motion carried unanimously.
040 3
•
Board of Adjustment/
Board of Sign Appeals
April 4, 1994
Page 7
APPEAL NO. BA94-9 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS (BUILDING SETBACKS)
B. W. DYKES - 3263 N. COLLEGE AVENUE
The next item was Appeal No. BA94-9, a request for a variance from the bulk and area requirements (building
setbacks) submitted by B.W. Dykes for property located at 3263 N. College Avenue. The property is zoned
C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Mr. Perkins advised since the petitioner for this variance request was not present, this item would be tabled
until the next meeting.
MINUTES:
Ms. Orton asked for clarification on a comment made by Mr. Conklin in the minutes of the last meeting in
regard to there not being any standards for minimum lot width and lot area under R-2 and R-3 zomng.
• Mr. Conklin advised that he was referring to the townhouse development or zero lot line regulations and noted
when land was developed in that manner, there was no requirement for minimum lot width or area.
It was determined that "for townhouse development" would be added to that statement to make it clear.
The minutes of the regular Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals of March 7, 1994 were approved as written with
the one addition.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Mit