Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-06-20 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, June 20, 1994, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Rivaldo, Gerald Boyd, Larry Perkins, and Thad Hanna MEMBERS ABSENT: Marion Orton and Lonnie Meadows OTHERS PRESENT: Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, and others PROTOCOL Mr. Perkins called the meeting to order and explained the format of the meeting. APPEAL NO. BA94-16 - REQUEST FORA VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS BILL FIELDS - 118 S COLLEGE AVE The only item was Appeal No. BA94-16 - a request for a variance from the required building setbacks submitted by Bill Fields for property located at 118 S. College Avenue and zoned C-3, Central Business Commercial. Mr. Tim Conklin advised the request was to allow the structure to have a zero setback along the west lot line. He noted the applicant wanted to build a two- story structure with approximately 1,500 square feet. He added the structure would be utilized for offices and dwelling units. Mr. Conklin advised there was a terrain difference on the site so there would be a basement on the ground floor level. He further advised the applicant had stated that, if the variance was granted, he planned to extensively landscape the front of the building between the edge of the curb and the property line. Mr. Conklin referred to drawings which indicated 18 feet from the edge of the curb to the new building. He added an adjacent building, a chiropractor office, was approximately 5 feet 8 inches back from the property line. He advised the applicant's reason for the variance request was that he proposed two additional new buildings and would need the additional space. Mr. Conklin advised the staff's recommendation was to deny the variance request on the grounds that the applicant would have room to relocate the building farther back on the site and still meet setbacks with the same amount of buildable area or square footage for the additional buildings. He noted, also, the staff was concerned about how the building would adversely affect the structure directly to the north, the chiropractor office currently owned by Dash Goff. In response to a question from one of the Board members, Mr. Conklin reiterated the drawings indicated the building could be relocated back 5 feet and still have sufficient buildable area. In response to further questions, Mr. placed next to the existing chiropractor claim was that he needed the additional buildings. Conklin advised the building could be building. He reiterated the applicant's room in order to construct the two new Mr. Fields stated he wanted to construct the other buildings and pointed out an area where he proposed to locate a garage with a proposal for approximately 18 feet of space. He added he already had to pay taxes up to the middle of the highway and there was plenty of existing greenspace. He stated he was sure there were reasons for the city to deny variances, but it appeared with his 026 • • • • Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals June 20, 1994 Page 2 variance there would still be plenty of room for utilities and any expansion of the highway. He pointed out the highway had not been widened since the 1950's. Mr. Fields contended the highway would probably never be widened any further. He stated he saw no purpose being served in his giving up 5 feet which he readily needed. He advised he would be living upstairs on the premises and the other units would either be offices or efficiency type luxury apartments. He pointed out he needed all the parking he could get and there would be the possibility for parking located there in the future. He expressed his belief it would make a very attractive addition to the City. In answer to questions about a different location, Mr. Fields cited the fact that the land sloped severely and the existing retaining wall would put limitations on the location. He contended, economically for space and money, the proposed location was the best, most logical choice. He noted he was just a small business man trying to secure his retirement. Mr. Goff stated he did not have a problem with Mr. Fields proposal. He noted his building was currently 23 feet from the curb and Mr. Fields was proposing to locate his building 17 feet from the curb. In answer to a question from a Board member, Mr. Fields advised the old county jail set off the street 4 feet which gave room for a sidewalk. He noted his building would be considerably farther back than that. In answer to a question from a Board member, Mr. Fields stated his reason for the proposed location for his building and the variance request was the fact that he was very limited on space since his personal parking would be located underneath. He explained there would be three levels to the project with the main office level being on the same level as the highway. He stated because of the 5 1/2 foot drop of the terrain, he proposed a basement on the back and possibly another office. In answer to further questions, Mr. Fields stated that, because of the severe drop off, he would have to make a choice as to where the main ground level would be. He noted the biggest problem was the limitation as to what additional building he could build. He added there would be more than adequate parking at this point for rental unite, but an additional building might require more. In answer to a question from Mr. Perkins, Mr. Fields stated the objection to the building being placed 5 feet closer the opposite direction was the location of existing retaining wall. In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Fields stated he would not be able to put more parking in the front because of the 50 -foot setback requirement for parking. Mr. Boyd agreed that, if the parking was in front, the building would have to set back 50 feet. Mr. Goff stated as far as his building was concerned, there was a zero lot line between his property and the adjoining property. He further stated Mr. Fields could build up next to him. He added if a building was built, it would obscure his building regardless of which way it was built. In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Goff stated he had a greenspace between the sidewalk and the building of 20 feet. One of the Board members pointed out the issue was whether or not there was a '2602 • • • Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals June 20, 1994 Page 3 logical reason for the variance. He stated he could not really see granting a variance would be reasonable. Mr. Fields expressed concern as to why the City would not want to allow him to use that space for tax productivity and beautification. He stated he could not see anything the City would gain by not allowing the variance and pointed out the tax revenue and beautification would be lost if the variance was not approved. Mr. Conklin advised that setbacks were normally set to provide adequate light and air circulation and the possibility for future street widening. He stated he did not know exactly where the 5 feet came from in the C-3 zoning district other than to provide additional space between the edge of the curb of the right-of-way for the sidewalks. He noted most of the downtown area was composed of historical buildings which did have narrow lot line setbacks and were built up to the curb. He pointed out, however, there was an existing building directly to the north which complied with the setback requirements with a 5 -foot 8 -inch setback. He stated he did not know what benefit the City might gain by requiring the 5 -foot setback. He also pointed out there was a hill at the subject location on College but having the building 17 feet back from the edge of the curb to the property line should not affect visibility on that hill. Mr. Conklin stated he had included the findings which had to be made in order to grant a variance. He pointed out one of the criteria was that the applicant could not create a condition which would cause him to request a variance. He noted, in this case, the site plan indicated because of Mr. Fields proposed building location, he needed the variance. He pointed out he could understand some considerations as to how the applicant wanted to design his building to allow for parking, but he was not sure the fact that the applicant wanted to design it one particular way was grounds to grant a variance. Mr. Boyd advised that, at some point in the future, there might be diagonal parking located along College Avenue and, if this structure were built as proposed, the applicant would have completely used up all the right-of-way. He contended one of the conditions under which the Code would allow a variance was if the literal interpretation of the zoning code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district. He stated he could not see by enforcing the ordinance how they would be depriving Mr. Fields of something that everybody else had. There was further discussion regarding differences in right-of-way along College Avenue. Mr. Fields pointed out a further limitation for him was the fact that he was not allowed to move his entrance from its present location. Mr. Conklin advised the property was developed with an existing single-family home on the east end with an access through the parking lot. Mr. Hanna pointed out everything in the downtown area was built up to the sidewalk with the right-of-way obviously at the curb. Mr. Conklin advised historically there were smaller streets in the downtown area and the widening of the street had brought the buildings closer to the street. R63 Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals June 20, 1994 Page 4 Mr. Perkins pointed out those were cases of existing buildings which the street had encroached on rather than the buildings encroaching on the street. Mr. Boyd stated he was sure the applicant had good and valid reasons for wanting a variance, but he felt with a lot this size, a 1,500 square foot building could be placed on it without a variance. He noted they had to go by the criteria set forth in the Code and look for a hardship. MOTION Mr. Hanna made a motion to accept the variance as requested. The motion died for the lack of a second. Mr. Perkins pointed out they had reached an impasse on this appeal which in affect was a denial of the request. He asked if there was a counter motion. MOTION Mr. Boyd made a motion to deny the variance request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rivaldo. The motion to deny passed 3-1-0 with Mr. Boyd, Mr. Rivaldo, and Mr. Perkins voting "yes" and Mr. Hanna voting "no". Mr. Perkins advised the applicant his request had been denied and that he had other avenues to appeal. MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of June 6, 1994 were approved as written. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m. ,269