Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-03-16 Minutes• • • BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND SIGN APPEALS MINUTES A meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Board of Sign Appeals was held Monday, March 16, 1998, at 3:45 p.m., Room 1 1 1 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Perkins, Marion Orton, Michael Andrews, Gerald Boyd, Thad Hanna and Paul Wilhelms STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin and Debra Humphrey APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approval of the March 2, 1998, minutes was moved to the regularly scheduled meeting. BA 98-6.00: VARIANCE (THE PARNELL GROUP. INC.1 2301 WEST 6TH STREET Submitted by Don Watson on behalf of the applicant for property located immediately east of 2301 West 6th Street at Lot 2, Block 1, Fayetteville Center Subdivision. The property is zone C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 800 square feet. The request is for 100% lot coverage and for a reduction of the required rear setback from 20 feet to 0 feet. Staff Recommendation: Mr. Conklin stated the lot was 20 feet wide and 40 feet long and 800 square feet. It was platted in 1980. At that time the Planning Commission granted a waiver for the frontage requirement along the street. The applicant had requested they be allowed to build a structure upon the entire lot, which necessitated the two variances (1) the 20 - foot bare setback; (2) under C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial Zoning there would only be 60% of the lot covered by the building and applicant had requested 100% of the building on the lot, making the wall of the structure the lot lines for this lot. Another requirement was commercial design standards require 15% of the lot be kept in an open area, and require the applicant provide 120 feet of landscaping on the site. The applicant does own the property where Westlake is located. The two variances identified are for the 20 foot setback and 60% building area. Mr. Conklin referred to page 1.6 which identifies the lot shown on the plan for the board's review. Mr. House noted that it was originally going to be a photo lab when the subdivision was developed. ❑ Mr. Boyd inquired to the purpose of separating of the ownership. Mr. House stated that originally it was to be set aside as a separate business and they had sold lot, and stated that they do not own the parking lot that the ex -K -mart store occupied, but do have a right of common usage. He also stated Waffle House actually owns the entrance and was part of a deeded declaration for common usage entrance and exits. Mr. Conklin stated when the property was created they filed their restrictive covenants stating that driveways, underground utilities, and access to parking was to be shared among all the owners and this had been provided to staff and was in the file. ❑ Mr. Perkins inquired about the front of the building going beyond the opening of the driveway onto 6th Street. • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes March 16, 1998 Page 2 Mr. House replied that it is right on the property line. Mr. House in response to the greenspace requirement stated the recommendation was to provide greenspace in another area in the entire subdivision, which would probably be located in front of Westlake. 0 Mr. Hanna inquired about any concern about the traffic pulling off of 6th Street, if it has a drive -up window on the west side. Mr. Conklin replied in a new commercial development the drive would need to be protected. In this situation we would have to ensure that when the structure was built, the parking aisles and drive-thru works there, and it did appear that the lot is far enough to the east that it would not obstruct the traffic. In response to Mr. Boyd's question, Mr. House replied the drive-thru would be on the east side, which was only 40 feet from the Waffle House. In response to a question about putting the building back on the Westlake parking lot without any variance, Mr. Conklin replied the parking would have to be reviewed in order to know that, and further stated staff did amend parking standards to require less parking, and should be sufficient room to place the parking there. However, the applicant was requesting Lot 2 be allowed to be developed in this manner. We would have to look at the parking required for that use. Theoretically they had amended their parking standards to require less parking. Probably sufficient room to place it back there, however, they are requesting Lot 2 be allowed to develop in this manner. Ms. Little noted older commercial developments required landscaping to be installed removed additional parking spaces. ❑ Ms. Little responded to a question about rules goveming building businesses on a parking lot. She stated if they met the setback and parking requirements, it would be allowed. At the time this subdivision went through, this lot was allowed to be developed. Different scenarios were discussed prior to this meeting and this was the only solution compatible for the greenspace. She further commented at the time it this property came through as a subdivision, greenspace was not required and location had not been determined. ❑ Staff recommendation was made with regard to 120 square feet on-site. This lot would need to be kept in proportion. Mr. Watson responded to an inquiry concerning the direction of the drive-thru and stated it would be to the south side. O Mr. Boyd mentioned since there would be two-way traffic coming in and out of the driveway from ACE Hardware and approximately 20 feet on the north edge of the building to the entrance of the property. His concem was if there were any safety considerations for people heading north out of the parking lot. Ms. Little responded if someone was attempting to go through the driveway on the east side of this building will not be able to exit to the north if anyone was trying to get north of this parking lot because 20 feet is the length of one car. Therefore, the location would mean if anyone was going to exit, they would not be able to get out. The next concern was the location of the doors. The owner responded the activity would mostly occur on the southeast or the north. According to the site plans it reflected the door opened into someone else's property. It was also noted the building codes would require the doors to open outwards. • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes March 16, 1998 Page 3 Mr. Wilhelms noted the letter from staff and their recommendation was to build the structure as shown on building elevations and floor plans and whether staff had the plans. O In response to Mr. Perry's question concerning the east side being the drive -up window, but the south side would be the only side they could use, the south is the drive to get to the window. It was noted that the neighbors had been notified adjacent to this property. Ms. Little mentioned that a consideration was made concerning the opening of the doors into other property, and asked this be addressed, and the other concern is the entrance on the west side. Since this was the main drive the motion should stipulate some safety concerns for the pedestrians, and motion should reflect entrance from the west side. There is plenty room from the east and to the south which would meet the requirements. ❑ Mr. Wilhelms stated when this project was originally conceived it was for a different purpose. It was for a 6 foot building photo mart, and inquired whether this project is appropriate. In reviewing the ordinances as to adequate setbacks, opening doors, etc., is it reasonable to waive any setbacks for that purpose. Mr. Watson stated they own all of the subdivision except in the middle, the waffle hut, and where K -mart was located, and they do own the property on the west side. Mr. Hanna inquired if the applicant owned the parking lot or if the applicant had the right to use the whole parking lot. Mr. Watson responded they do have ownership and do have the right use of the whole parking lot. He further stated that the Westlake Hardware building was originally under lease to Food -4 -Less, which was purchased by Wal-Mart, who now leases to Westlake and to K -mart. O Mr. Perkins asked the applicant could put this business at another location on this lot since he owned it. Mr. Watson responded they are allowed to use any and all of the parking area, but cannot build on it until the lease is expired and indicated that Wal-Mart had a 50 year lease. ❑ Mr. Boyd stated that he would like to see this project tabled until the issues raised here were addressed. There were no public comments. ❑ Mr. Boyd further commented the board was to address the 20' cutback, and further stated that he had a lot of reservations concerning this project. Ms. Little asked the board to detail to Mr. Watson what recommendations and information the board needed in order to make a determination. Staff would then work with the developer prior to bringing it back before the board at the next meeting. Ms. Little further commented the board was charged with the issue of the variance, bulk, and lot coverage. She noted the board had identified some very good concerns, and maybe with some better information for the board, a determination could be made at the next meeting. i • • Board of Adjustment Minutes March 16, 1998 Page 4 ❑ Mr. Boyd mentioned his concern for no entrance or exit on the west and north sides. ❑ Mr. Hanna also indicated the question was about the greenspace and in reviewing the structure, the building walls are dimensioned and by the time you add the overhangs, awnings, canopies, etc. ❑ Mr. Perkins stated that since there were several concems and not enough information sufficient to make a decision. Mr. Boyd moved that the project be tabled until the next meeting. Ms. Orton seconded the motion The roll was called and said motion carried with a vote 6-0. • • Board of Adjustment Minutes March 16, 1998 Page 5 BA98-7.00: VARIANCE (COMMUNITY BANK - WEDINGTON DRIVE) 3189 WEDINGTON DRIVE Submitted by Shell Spivey on behalf of applicant for property located at 3189 Wedington Drive (Spot -Not Car Wash). The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1.38 acres. The request is to reduce the setback requirement along Wedington Drive in order to place an ATM on-site. Staff Recommendation: Mr. Conklin stated the request is for no setback for a 50' variance based on our master street plan right-of-way requirement where the current right-of-way decided it be 13.5 feet setback. City of Fayetteville is working the Highway Department of widening the roadway and would require 50' from centerline. On page 2.8 the survey reflected the left-hand corner showed how the ATM would set on the property and with the additional 10' right-of- way needed for the project and 3.5' that would total 53.5' back from centerline of Highway 16. Staff is recommending approval for the variance. ❑ Mr. Perkins inquired about the condition to move it at the owner's expense in the event the road is widened. Mr. Conklin affirmed that there was a signed agreement the ATM will be moved in order to widen the highway and possible relocation would be borne by the developer. Mr. Conklin also stated if additional land is needed and City of Fayetteville was required to acquire this right-of-way for needed improvements, the owner would be responsible for the relocation of the ATM out of the right-of-way if needed. Mr. Conklin responded to a question as to why the owner was not present, and stated the owner had given permission to Community Bank, via a letter, authorizing Mr. Spivey to be the owner's authorized agent, and therefore, would be binding upon the landowner and the bank. O Mr. Wilhelms inquired about the blueprint and noted the pay phone is a drive -up pay phone, and would no longer be a drive -up pay phone. Mr. Spivey responded the pay phones would be moved to the other side of the property, which he had already discussed with the necessary people. There was some discussion concerning Mr. Spivey's request to reverse the ATM which would put the drive on the opposite side, which would be the canopied side. Ms. Little indicated this would not be a problem, but noted the electrical meter shown on page 2 8 were not considered prior to this time, and reiterated if the pay phones were moved, installation of the ATM reversed would be allowable. There was some discussion concerning the granting of a variance right now knowing the road may be widened in the future and the costs involved, readjustment of grading, and the possibility of granting a 40' variance. There were no more comments in this regard. ❑ Mr. Wilhelms indicated there be a contingency noted in the motion regarding the pay phone. • Mr. Spivey noted the electrical service would stay at its present location. • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes March 16, 1998 Page 6 Mr. Andrews moved to grant the variance as submitted with a stipulation the pay phone be moved to the east side of the property. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The roll call was given and said motion carried with a vote of 6-0-0. MOTION AMENDED Mr. Andrews moved to grant the variance as submitted for installation f(anyArTM only, with a stipulation the pay phone be moved to the east side of the property. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The roll call was given and said motion carried with a vote of 6-0. • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes March 16, 1998 Page 7 BA -98-8.00: VARIANCE (COMMUNITY BANK - CROSSOVER ROAM 1831 CROSSOVER ROAD Submitted by Shell Spivey on behalf of the applicant for property located at 1831 Crossover Road (Spot -not -Car Wash). The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.07 acres. The request is to reduce the setback requirement along Crossover Road in order to place an ATM on-site. Staff Recommendation: Mr. Conklin stated there was a recommendation for an aisle, and staff does have preliminary right-of-way plans showing the area the highway department would need for road widening project. Recommendation of variance of 45' or a 5' setback, or 50' from centerline, and there is a 55' centerline requirement. Staff does make recommendation for a variance for the ATM machine. Ms. Little stated the difference between this request and the previous request was preliminary plans were being made to widen the road, and they are beginning to acquire the right-of-way. It was questionable about installation of the ATM now knowing the bank may need to relocate. Mr. Spivey informed the board that if the ATM was reversed which would allow more accessibility for the cars, and further stated there was an entrance and exit onto the location. Ms. Little stated moving it further to the east would allow them more queuing room which is important because with it being located close the entrance, you would not want people backing up into the street. ❑ Mr. Boyd indicated per the plat the ATM would be moved to the west 10'. ❑ Mr. Boyd stated the variance has been recommended by staff and applicant has agreed to said variance. Ms. Little responded to applicant's request to utilize part of the 5' from the drive, and indicated there would be no problem with this request. Mr. Hanna moved a variance be granted 60' from centerline of the highway. Ms. Orton seconded motion. The roll call was given and said motion carried with a vote of 6-0-0. • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes March 16, 1998 Page 8 BA 98-9.00: VARIANCE (JOE FENNEL 310 WEST DICKSON STREET Submitted by Roger Boskus of Heigel-Miller Architects on behalf of the applicant for property located at 310 West Dickson Street. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial and contains approximately 0.17 acres. The request is to waive the required 5' setback along Dickson Street. Staff Recommendation: Mr. Conklin stated Campbell Avenue currently has 23' of right-of-way and staff is recommending an additional 2.5' right-of-way be dedicated off Campbell Avenue to the west which would place the balcony approximately 3'1" setback or a 1111" variance on Campbell Avenue for the proposed balcony. Also staff recommends 5' setback variance along Dickson Street. Said recommendations are conditional to work beginning within one year or setback variances shall be void. ❑ Mr. Perkins inquired if the plat reflected the Campbell Street consideration. Mr. Boskus responded no it did not, it came up at the Subdivision Committee meeting that 2.5' would be taken which would essentially move the setback. Mr. Boskus further stated at the present time they were at a minimum 3.5' width. Mr. Boskus responded to a question concerning the height of the balcony and stated there would be a minimum of 1 1' clearance. Mr. Conklin responded to the question if there was room for semi -trucks, and stated this was discussed at Subdivision Committee, the balcony comes out to the right-of-way as currently platted. Mr. Conklin responded to Mr. Perkins' question about the existing parking and whether this was part of this project, and stated it was not. Mr. Boskus informed the board when the site improvements were done, curb and gutter would be installed and turned off Dickson Street, and then parallel park between the building and street. This would provide a certain amount of protection upon Dickson Street. Mr. Boskus added at the next meeting of the Planning Commission the right-of-way issue will be addressed. Ms. Little responded to a question about parking on public right-of-way and on public property. This would be addressed at the Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Little further stated the Planning Commission may prefer they create the parking spaces. With the right-of-way being 2.5', they would want the other 7.5' that would make up the 10' width to become public, and this would put them underneath the balcony and the structure is going to be on the property line. 0 Mr. Boyd noted the existing parking which was already established. He further stated if it was widened, the parking lot would have to be pulled back also, if anything was done to the street. So, if the street was widened and you didn't take in the parking lot, the curb would come down and jump out. Mr. Conklin responded the Subdivision Committee discussed street improvements and whether it functioned as a driveway into a parking lot, or does it function as a street. Mr. Conklin stated another concern was when Dickson Street further develops the street will become more important regarding access. • • • Board of Adjustment Minutes March 16, 1998 Page 9 Ms. Little inquired if the Board of Adjustment would be willing to address the request and if the Planning Commission required the dedication of the area to contain the parking spaces, whether the board could go on record supporting the variance which would be 0' for the building and an encroachment of the balcony into the right-of- way 2.5, due to the fact this project will have to go before other committees as well. ❑ Mr. Boyd stated the face of the building could be affected if parking became an issue Ms. Little responded if the Planning Commission wanted the parking spaces to be public, she noted she has never known a case where one was half public and half private. Another concern is requesting additional parking in this area. ❑ Ms. Orton stated would we prefer it to say if it were given to the public would they put a curb along where the parking spaces are. ❑ Mr. Boyd stated it would channel the traffic better. Ms. Little stated the developer has created a walkway which goes from Dickson Street to the parking area, and if you keep going across Watson Street to the north, a person could then get to the University Baptist Church parking area. Ms. Little commented a request could be made requesting walkway be dedicated as an easement. There was some discussion concerning the necessity of having balconies. ❑ Mr. Boyd pointed out to the board if Deluxe wanted to build right up to their property line and install balconies, then this would limit access for traffic, and addressed the need for consideration of the neighbors. Mr. Boskus stated if the 2.5' feet right-of-way is taken away, this was the amount of allowable openings. The closer the property line gets to the exterior wall, the less openings you would be allowed, and this would require the pedestrian path to be smaller or the building smaller. This would make the pedestrian path smaller which would not be an option due to certain concerns about the width required for a pedestrian walkway. ❑ Mr. Wilhelms stated it would be better if the spaces were deeded and not change the property line. ❑ Mr. Boyd also stated with the parking spaces and no curb or gutter, then the developer would have more width of the street. Mr. Conklin informed the board that Mr. Forney on the Subdivision Committee addressed the nature of the street was different, and if we treat Campbell Street the same as West Street, the expanding of the right-of-way would not be applicable in this situation. Ms. Little recommended that a request be made to the Planning Commission for the property line to remain as it is, the 2.5' feet Subdivision Committee requested become public right-of-way, be deeded for public use but not become public property which would be an easement for public use. Therefore, a variance would not be needed for a setback for the building, and the board would only deal with the Dickson Street variance. If the Planning Commission requires it to become public, then this project may be back before the board. Mr. Hanna moved to grant the variance of 5' on Dickson Street. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. The roll call was given and said motion carried with a vote of 6-0-0. Board of Adjustment Minutes March 16, 1998 Page 10 BA 98-10.00: VARIANCE (JOHN VERNON WILSON't 1120 LINDELL STREET Submitted by the applicant for property located at 1120 Lindell Street (Elenita's Restaurant). The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.34 acres. The request is a variance of the front setback. Staff Recommendation: Ms. Little stated this is the current Elenita's Restaurant located across from Mr. Burger. As per the plat on page 5.5 identifies the project property boundaries as opposed to the right-of-way. Right-of-way for North Street was granted by the previous owner for widening of North Street. Request as reflected on page 5.6 for a wood deck coming off the south side of the building and their request is to enclose the wood deck. They may or may not extend it in the east/west direction. The staff's recommendation was to grant a variance to the front setback which would give them a setback of 10' along with the following conditions: valid for one year; granted only for the length of the present building which is estimated to be 49'; and in the remaining 10' there be at least 3' trees installed, as well as, a continuous line of shrubbery. 0 Mr. Wilson stated two trees were presently on the property. Ms. Little responded to Mr. Wilson's inquiry that the setback will not be from the curb but from the property line. Ms. Little spoke with Mr. Wilson outlining the staff's recommendations as outlined above and addressed his concems. ❑ Mr. Wilson requested more than 10' and Ms. Little responded he could not have anything more than 10' from the property line. After reviewing the plat and the proposed variance, the board requested the owner obtain a survey on the property to establish where the property boundary lines were located. Mr. Hanna moved that any building on the owner's property not encroach 10' of the property line. Said motion was seconded by Mr. Boyd. The roll call was made and the vote was unanimous 3-0-0. • • • -o �� BA98-6.00 BA98-11.0 BA98-12.0yy''' vv ' 1e MOTION n/ C i/lCl �'�ti fir.* ai 77';� ill SECOND Ge/1/ticla+Sli evigh Thad Hanna / / ✓ / / Gerald Boyd / / / / / Michael Andrews Marion Orton S.50 / Robert Nickle / /V / / / Larry Perkins I/ / / / ✓ Paul Wilhelms ti:ee) V V Sharon Langley / Debra Humphrey -o ��