Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-05-02 Minutes• e 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, May 2, 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, Lonnie Meadows, Gerald Boyd, and Thad Hanna MEMBERS ABSENT: Bob Blackston 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. BA94-9 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS B W DYKES - 3263 N COLLEGE AVENUE The first item was a request submitted by B.W. Dykes for a variance from the required building setbacks for property located at 3263 N. College Avenue. The property was zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Tim Conklin reminded the Board this item had been tabled at the last meeting. He explained the applicant had requested a variance in order to allow expansion to an existing office space. He stated the addition would be 27 feet wide which would extend within 10 feet of the western property line. He further stated the encroachment would occupy 270 square feet or 15% of the 1800 square foot setback area located on the west boundary. He noted the applicant would be able to provide the additional required off-street parking. He further stated the applicant would have to meet setbacks for the wood shed as shown on the site plan. He recommended approval the requested variance. He advised Mickey Jackson, Fire Chief, did not have a problem with the location of the proposed structure. After determining the petitioner was not present, this item was put on hold until later in the meeting and the meeting proceeded with the next item. ��S • • • Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals May 2, 1994 Page 2 APPEAL BA94-10 - REQUEST WAS FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS CROSSOVER ASSOCIATES - NE CORNER OF HUNTSVILLE RD & CROSSOVER RD The next item was Appeal BA94-10 submitted by Crossover Associates for a variance from the required building setbacks on property located on the northeast corner of Huntsville Road and Crossover Road. The property was zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Conklin advised this item had been tabled at the last meeting in order to give the applicant a chance to look at redesigning the proposed service station on the site. He stated he met with Granville Harper, the petitioner, and an architect, Tom Butts, and it had been determined it would be feasible to redesign the service station to reduce the setbacks for the canopy and the structure. He went on to explain the reason for the variance request was that the service station was originally designed without regard for the possible additional right- of-way requirement as part of the Master Street Plan. Mr. Conklin advised he had just discovered Highway 265 was not designated as a Principal Arterial (requiring 50 feet of right-of-way from the center line) but was designated as a Collector Street. He pointed out the Transportation Subcommittee of the Planning Commission had been looking into revising the Master Street Plan which would redesignate that portion of Highway 265 as a Principal Arterial. Mr. Conklin explained that, because of the right-of-way difference between the street designations, the proposed structure on the site would meet the setback requirements but, the canopy would still require some setbacks relief. He referred to a color -coded drawing included in the agenda packet and advised the yellow line closest to the street represented the new property line with the 40 feet of right-of-way to be dedicated. He clarified the middle yellow line represented a 20 -foot setback for the canopy, and the third yellow line represented the 50 -foot building setback from the new 40 -foot right-of-way. He stated, based on the drawing, it was clear the structure would be outside of the required setbacks except for the canopy portion which would extend approximately 5 feet within the setback, based on a 40 -foot right-of-way width from the center line of the road and the current street classification. Mr. Conklin advised the project was started because the applicant intended to subdivide or split the property which was approved by the Planning Commission subject to the right-of-way dedication. He explained the configuration of the lot split was determined by the line following the top of the creek bank; therefore, adding additional land to provide more setback would not be feasible without closing the creek or physically relocating the creek. Mr. Conklin further stated the applicant had been advised the current FEMA maps reflected the site was located completely within the 100 -year flood plain. He noted an elevation certificate would be required prior to the issuance of a building permit, and if the applicant intended to change the flood plain boundary, a "Letter of Map Revision Based On Fill (LOMR-F)" would have to be requested from FEMA and submitted to the City. He advised this information was being forwarded to the Board of Adjustment for their consideration and decision. He pointed out the State Highway Department had plans for widening Highway 265 and a representative had stated the City would be receiving plans for the amount of right-of-way required and the alignment of the roadway. He requesting the applicant meet with the City to discuss a possible purchase of the additional right-of-way required on-site. He advised there was definitely a plan to improve the roadway at the location, but it was a2yb • • • Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals May 2, 1994 Page 3 impossible to currently establish where the widening of the roadway line would be. Ms. Orton contended there had been no adjustment made to the initial plan which the Board had reviewed at the previous meeting. Mr. Conklin agreed and pointed out the only difference was the right-of-way requirement along 265 was not currently 50 feet. He added there were persons present who would address why relocating the building at a different angle would not be feasible on the site. In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Conklin advised the pink areas on the color -coded map designated the portion where the proposed building would extend into the required setback. In response to further questions from Mr. Boyd, Mrs. Harper advised the map had shown the corner cut off on the west side because those were the setbacks required before the 50 -foot right-of-way requirement. Mr. Harper explained he had divided the property so it could be sold for a convenience store. He advised they had attempted to sell the property to a number of oil companies however, all but Northwest Oil had refused to purchase the property because it was too small. He went on to say Northwest Oil hired an expert designer to layout the store. He contended their options were to obtain the variance from the setback requirement (5 feet instead of the original 15 feet) or to move the creek. He stated the cost of moving the creek would make that option impractical, and, as far as redesigning the store to make it fit properly on the site, they had been told it would not work. Mr. Boyd asked why the lot line was not at the center line of the creek. Mr. Harper stated there was not any particular reason except that was what the buyer wanted. He added the flood plain was slightly within the creek and the plan was to have the lot line outside the flood plain. Mr. Boyd advised if the creek were channelized, they could build right up next to the building. Mr. Conklin advised structures could not be built in a floodway. He reiterated the FEMA maps in the Planning Office showed the flood plain encompassing the entire lot. He further noted the elevation drawings had shown the elevation on the top bank indicating the flood plain would be confined within the channel. He reiterated the City Planning Office would require the elevation certificate for any building on the site or a 'Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill" from FEMA. Mr. Boyd pointed out the creek would count as part of the land in regard to being allowed to built on 40% of the entire land and would also count as part of the setback. Mr. Conklin advised the building would have to physically be moved back into the creek to offer any relieve. He emphasized the area along Highway 265 would be widened in the near future and the 20 -foot of additional right-of-way would probably be required on the site, compromising the setbacks as they were shown. 024 • • • Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals May 2, 1994 Page 4 In answer to a question from Mr. Perkins, Mr. Conklin explained Highway 265 currently curved back to the west at that location. He advised he was not sure what the plans would be for straightening the curve. He added it was the City's responsibility to acquire the right-of-way as part of the Highway 265 project. Ms. Orton expressed concern the proposed use would not be a proper use of land in the flood plain because of underground storage tanks being buried next to a creek. She noted there also was a possibility of this costing the city a lot of money if it was determined more right-of-way was required. In answer to a question from Mr. Perkins, Mr. Conklin stated it was his understanding the City would be required to buy right-of-way back from property owners if the State should decide to straighten the road at that location. Mr. Perkins contended there were too many unknowns on the highway improvements. Mr. Harper stated he felt they were being held hostage because they had been working on this project for two months with the City. He added that being granted a 5 -foot variance would not stop development of the road. Mr. Conklin requested the applicant meet with the City to look at available options in regard to acquiring the right-of-way needed. In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Conklin advised the applicant, Mr. Harper, had stated a Highway Department official had visited the site and determined the right-of-way requirements on the property would be 45 to 55 feet from the center of the highway. He noted the staff had been unable to obtain the exact information. Mr. Hanna expressed his belief the proposed use was a suitable use for the tract. He added he was concerned that, if the Board granted a variance, the building would constructed and then the state determined that the center line was farther to the east than shown, the highway could be placed right up against the awning. He added they could built the highway a little farther to the west to give less space between the curve on the west side and the west right-of-way versus the east curb and the east right-of-way. Mr. Meadows stated it would be hard to make a decision since they are uncertain where the boundary would be located. Mr. Conklin pointed out that, if they were able to obtain a 50 -foot right-of-way, the applicant would possibly have to go into the state right-of-way with a drive or parking lot area. He added, according to Mr. Harper, the Highway Department did not have any problem with people driving across their right-of-way. In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Conklin advised curb -to -curb width on the new construction on 6th Street (5 lanes) was approximately 55 to 60 feet. In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Conklin advised a variance granted would only be for the canopy. He added the problem would be if the City negotiated additional right-of-way with the applicant, beyond the additional 10 feet, the applicant would be back requesting the variance initially requested when the 50 -foot right-of-way was considered. Mr. Harper stated the pump island setback requirement was 25 feet and the canopy setback requirement was 20 feet. ays Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals May 2, 1994 Page 5 Mr. Boyd expressed concern for granting a variance with the potential that 10 years from now a building could be constructed where the canopy was currently located. MOTION Mr. Boyd made a motion to grant the variance as requested for the canopy. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hanna. The motion carried with a 3-2-1 vote of Boyd, Perkins, and Hanna voting "yes", Orton and Meadows voting "no", and Rivaldo "abstaining". Mr. Perkins explained the variance passed because there was a majority of the members present and, according to the Bylaws, the majority of those present and voting voted in favor of the variance. Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals May 2, 1994 Page 6 APPEAL NO. BA94-9 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS B W DYKES - 3263 N COLLEGE AVENUE The next item was the request submitted by B.W. Dykes for a variance from the required building setbacks for property located at 3263 N. College Avenue. The property was zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mary Bassett explained the request was for a variance to be allowed to place their proposed building extension within 10 feet of the rear property line. Mr. Perkins advised the staff had mentioned earlier the Fire Department had no problems with the structure being that close to the property line and that the staff recommended approval of it. Ms. Langley of the Planning Department staff advised she would be sitting in for Mr. Conklin who had to leave the meeting. She stated the woodshed shown on the drawing submitted with the appeal would be encroaching into the setback as well. She explained any structure over 30 inches in height must meet the setbacks. Mr. Hanna asked if they would have a place for the wood shed and still have the off-street parking requirements. Me. Langley advised possibly the woodshed could be moved to the side of the building. Mr. Boyd stated he did not see any reason for granting the appeal because the lot seemed large enough to expand the structure without encroaching into the required setbacks. Me. Bassett advised that, if they made the building wider instead of longer, it would take up all of the parking. In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Bassett advised they would have to provide more parking in the front in order to meet the parking requirement if the back parking were eliminated. She noted there be a total of 5 new parking spaces required. Ms. Langley advised the parking requirement was one space for every 300 square feet of floor space. Mr. Perkins stated 12 total parking spaces would be required for the structure including the proposed addition. Mr. Boyd pointed out the survey drawing reflected the total parking in the front would exceed the total required. Ms. Bassett stated they would have to redesign the building with two hallways if they could not build as proposed. Mr. Boyd explained there were reasons for the setback requirements and, as he understood it, the Board was supposed to look for a hardship which prevented the applicant from being able to meet the required setback. He added giving extra parking beyond the required amount was not a good reason for a variance. Mr. Perkins explained Mr. Boyd was proposing the building be extended to the north instead of as shown. Ms. Bassett explained that, if it was extended north, it would cut down on the turning radius for the rear parking. She contended their architect had advised aso Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals May 2, 1994 Page 7 them that extending the building to the north would require a vehicle going behind the building to back out. She added the architect looked at 4 different plans, and the one proposed was chosen as the most feasible to get the offices and conference room needed for the building. She added it would be cost prohibitive to expand the building upward. In answer to a question, Ms. Bassett noted they had not had any negative feedback from the neighboring properties. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to grant a variance as requested. The motion was seconded by Mr. Meadows. The motion carried 4-1-1 with Orton, Meadows, Perkins, and Hanna voting "yes", Boyd voting "no", and Rivaldo "abstaining". Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals May 2, 1994 Page 8 APPEAL SA94-4 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE NINA KAPLIN - 2143 GREEN ACRES ROAD The next item was Appeal SA94-4 submitted by Nina Kaplin for property located at 2143 Green Acres Road and zoned R-0, Residential -Office. The request was for a variance from the sign ordinance. Don Fitzgerald, of the City Sign Inspections Department, noted the City had allowed the sign to be erected since the previous meeting had been canceled and because it was a new business and there was a hardship for trying to get recognition for the business. He contended whether the current location of the sign would be permanent was subject to the decision of the Board at this meeting. He noted the request was for the square footage of the free-standing sign to be increased from the required 4 square feet maximum to 10 square feet. He stated the staff did a historical check on the sign variances granted in the subject area in the recent pass and determined that two were done by appeal and the rest complied with the sign ordinance. He reiterated the sign was subject to being removed if the Board wished to deny the variance. In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Fitzgerald advised the dimensions of the sign were 4 feet by 2.5 feet which met the criteria of the ordinance in every way except the display surface area. In response to a comment from Mr. Perkins, Mr. Fitzgerald advised there was a possibility the R -O district requirements in the sign ordinance would be changed. He pointed out, however, until a new ordinance was adopted, the current sign ordinance would be followed. In answer to a question from Mr. Rivaldo, Mr. Fitzgerald advised there were two signs in the neighborhood which were not in compliance. MOTION Mr. Rivaldo moved to grant the variance as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hanna. The motion carried 5-1-0 with Rivaldo, Orton, Meadows, Perkins and Hanna voting "yes" and Boyd voting "no". Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals May 2, 1994 Page 9 APPEAL BA94-12 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF THE BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS MIKE GILBRAITB - 156 E MEADOW STREET The next item was Appeal BA94-12 submitted by Mike Gilbraith for property located at 156 E. Meadow Street and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. The request was for a variance of the building setback requirements. There being no one present to representative the petitioner, this item was tabled. In answer to a question from Ms. Orton, Ms. Langley advised the required lot width for R-2 was 60 feet for a single-family home, 70 feet for a duplex, and there was a total area requirement of 6,000 square feet. 3 Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals May 2, 1994 Page 10 APPEAL BA94-13 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF THE BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS JIM LINDSEY - 2496 VICTORIA LANE The next item was Appeal BA94-13 submitted by Jim Lindsey for property located at 2496 Victoria Lane and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request was for a variance from the building setback requirements. Ms. Langley advised the site was currently developed with a single-family home. She explained that, when the applicant placed the structure on the lot, the setback was taken to the center line of the right-of-way and not the property line because the plat did not clearly indicate the property line to the south. She advised the individual who drew the plat had not readjusted the property line and lot dimensions clearly to reflect the 50 -foot right-of-way requested by the City and therefore, the applicant was under the impression the 25 -foot dashed line shown on the plat was for emergency access easement and not for a future street connection. She further explained that, at the time the building permit was issued, the applicant did not have a site plan and staff drew one for the applicant which showed the required setbacks from the property lines; however, the applicant might not have realized which line represented the property line because it was not clearly marked. Ms. Langley advised the staff forwarded this information to the Board for their consideration and decision. She noted the other option available to the applicant would be a street right-of-way vacation which would vacate the right- of-way eliminating the need for the setback variance. She noted the property owner on the south side of the right-of-way in Boardwalk Subdivision had plans to petition for the right-of-way to be vacated on his property. She pointed out vacating this right-of-way would eliminate any future possibility of connecting a street through the two subdivisions. In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Langley advised the vacation of another street in Park Place Subdivision was before the City Council. She explained the subject petition came up when Park Place Property Owners Association petitioned for a street vacation in order to sell a lot. She went on to say people started looking at the plat of Park Place and discovered the street easement and the fact that the house was built within the setback. Ms. Langley advised the plat did not reflect the moving of the property line. She noted the property line went through the center of the easement rather than along the edge of the right-of-way. Ms. Orton asked whose responsibility it was to check the boundaries within a plat. Ms. Langley advised it was the developer's and the staff's responsibility. In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Langley explained it was a right-of- way with an emergency access easement. She further stated it was shown as a right-of-way, but the property line ran through the center of the right-of-way. She advised the applicant had built 25 feet back from the property line, but not back from the right-of-way. In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Langley advised the requirement was for a 25 foot setback from the emergency access. • • • Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals May 2, 1994 Page 11 Mr. Fuller, representing the applicant, stated the emergency access fell within the 25 -foot setback on the south side. He added the driveway was 8 feet off of the property line. Ms. Orton contended that, without the street, there would not be any way of exiting Park Place without going back out the entrance. Mr. Rivaldo advised it was his understanding that was the intention of the Park Place residents. He noted when he looked into buying a lot just east of the site, he had been told there would never be a street there, but strictly an emergency access. Ms. Langley advised the agreement had been made that, if the access ever started being used by the residents of Park Place or Boardwalk, it would be turned into a street. She noted the residents of Park Place had assured the Planning Commission they would put up signs to keep people from using the right-of-way as an access. She added the Fire Chief and 911 Coordinator did want the emergency access available. In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Fulfer stated the driveway was on the 25 -foot easement but not on the 16 -foot emergency access. Mr. Boyd expressed concern that, if cars were parked on the driveway, there would not be room for emergency vehicles to go through. Mr. Fulfur advised the utility easement was 25 feet and of that only 8 feet of the emergency access was on his side. He noted there was not anything at all encroaching on the 8 feet. Ms. Langley clarified only 8 feet of the 16 -foot emergency access was on the subject property with the other 8 feet being on the lot on the other side. In response to discrepancies shown on the copy of the plat attached to the agenda, Ms. Langley advised the Planning Commission minutes on record reflect there was a 16 -foot emergency vehicle access agreed upon. Mr. Fulfur advised when they obtained the building permit, according to the plat, a 25 -foot setback was shown. He stated that 25 -foot area had not been encroached upon. In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Fulfur advised he did not believe there were any utilities within the easement. Ms. Orton stated she did not feel the access should be closed off and, since the easement would be sodded, she did not see a problem. She stated she believed the variance should be granted. Mr. Boyd contended the applicant had a strong argument that he had done what had been required of him and the problem came up because of vagueness on the plat. MOTION Mr. Boyd moved to grant the variance as requested. The motion was seconded Ms. Orton. The motion passed unanimously. -275 • • Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals May 2, 1994 Page 12 APPEAL BA94-14 - VARIANCE FROM THE NON -CONFORMING USE REGULATIONS MARY DENHAM - 2113 N SHILOH DRIVE The next item was Appeal BA94-14 submitted by Mary Denham for property located at 2113 N. Shiloh Drive and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request was for a variance from the non -conforming use regulations. Ms. Langley advised the site was currently developed with a single-family home and one two-bedroom mobile home. She explained the applicant was petitioning for a variance to allow the removal of the existing mobile home in order to replace it with a new mobile home farther north on the site. She noted there was an existing mobile home park on the east side of site. Ms. Langley quoted Section 160.139(A) of the ordinance which stated "No existing structure devoted to a use not permitted by this chapter in the district in which it is located shall be enlarged, extended, constructed, reconstructed, moved, or structurally altered except in changing the use of the structure to a use permitted in the district in which it is located or as required by other ordinances." She advised currently mobile homes were allowed within mobile home parks as a conditional use under R-2 and R-3 zoning and as a use by right under A-1 zoning on parcels which contained 3 acres or more. She stated the staff forwarded the information to the Board of Adjustment for their consideration and decision. Ms. Denham, the applicant, advised the property was surrounded by industrial zoning. She advised her son and his family would be living in the mobile home. She pointed out their current residence was only about 1,000 square feet, so they needed this as a guest house type use. In answer to a question from one of the Board members, Ms. Denham advised they owned a 1S -foot access right-of-way from Mt. Comfort Road, but they did not want to bother the residents adjacent to that access so they planned to access from a strip of land off of Shiloh Drive. She advised she and her husband wanted to supply their son and his family with a place to live for a few years to get established. She contended she was not trying to get in the rental business. She added the existing mobile home was not energy efficient or large enough for a family. Ms. Orton pointed out there were only three R-1 lots in the middle of an industrial area at this location. In answer to a question from Ms. Orton, Ms. Denham advised they did not intend to build a house at that location and the mobile home would only be temporary. In response to a question, Ms. Denham advised the mobile home would be on city sewer and water. She contended none of the neighbors would be adversely affected by the replacement of the mobile home. In answer to Mr. Boyd's question why this matter could not be handled as a variance of the 3 -acre requirement for a mobile home, Ms. Langley advised the property would have to be zoned A-1. Mr. Boyd stated there was a policy for mobile homes located within the City and one way of getting rid of mobile homes in the City was not to replace them. Ms. Orton made a reference to "granny houses" to which Ms. Langley responded that a second house would not be allowed on this lot because it was a tandem lot. 025-6 • • Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals May 2, 1994 Page 13 In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Denham advised the property did not have frontage on any street. She stated that, by moving the mobile home north, they would be able to go around the trees and to build a carport. Ms. Orton contended the request seemed to be the logical thing to do except it would not fit any of the ordinances. She questioned whether there could be a 5 - year limitation attached to the variance. Mr. Boyd advised if the property were zoned A-1, the mobile home could be approved on a year-to-year basis with the restriction that it not be used by anyone else. Ms. Langley advised a certificate of occupancy was required for all mobile homes within the City (except for those in mobile home parks) which was renewable on a year-to-year basis and included even those on A-1 property that were conforming. Mr. Perkins advised they could grant an approval of the request with the restriction that the mobile home could not be used for rental property. MOTION Mr. Hanna made a motion to grant a variance as requested with the condition that the variance be in affect as long as the Denham's own the property and that the mobile home would not be used for rental purposes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Meadows. The motion carried 5-1-0 with Rivaldo, Orton, Meadows, Perkins, and Hanna voting "yes" and Boyd voting "no". �S7