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