Loading...
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