HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-02-04 Minutes•
MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45 P.M.,
Monday, February 4, 1980, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration
Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
14EMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Acting Chairman Chester House, Don Mills, Larry Smith, Steve
Nickles, and Larry Tompkins.
Chairman Carl Yates,and Bob Waldren.
Bobbie Jones, Michelle Hale, Dr. Richard Ezell, and David Carter.
In the absence of Chairman Yates, Chester House, Member having the longest
tenure, called the meeting to order and presided.
The first item for discussion APPEAL NO. 80-2
was the public hearing on the Appeal Fayetteville Skating Center
No. 80-2, Fayetteville Skating Center, 661 W. Ash
661 W. Ash, on an application to vary
number of parking spaces required.
Mrs. Jones asked the Board to go on to the next item because there was no one
present to represent this variance.application.
The next item for discussion APPEAL NO. 80-3
was the public hearing on Appeal Dr. Richard Ezell F, Dr. Bill Dill
No. 80-3, Dr. Richard Ezell g Dr. 2017 Green Acres Rd.
;Bill Dill, 2017 Green Acres Rd.,
on an application to waive requirement for screening of off-street parking area.
Dr. Ezell was present to represent.
Dr. Ezell stated the building was built at a time when screening was required
on the North and South sides of the parking lot. He said they had a hedge on the
North side at that time but it was removed when Qr. Singleton built his office to
the North. He pointed out that they also owned the lot on the South side. Dr.
Ezell said Dr. Singleton doesn't want a fence up between their offices.
Dr. Ezell stated they feel like, at this time, to erect a fence will make
their lot look unsightly.
Acting Chairman House asked what size the South lot is. Dr. Ezell said it is
about the same size as the lot on which the variance has been requested. Mrs. Jones
said it has only 10 or 12 feet of frontage on Green Acres Road
Acting Chairman House said the situation boils down to the fact that the build-
ing was built and the Building Permit was taken out before the Ordinance was changed.
He said the applicant simply wants to get in under the new regulations. Mr. House
asked what their reason was for bringing it up at this late date Dr. Ezell said
Sondra Wright, from the Planning Office, had brought it up to him several times and
in her last letter she had gotten pretty firm about it.
Mrs. Jones stated she had with her the regulations as they were before the amend-
ment and the regulations asthey are now. She said before, when there was parking
within 20 ft. of other property zoned residential, screening was required. Mrs.
Jones said when they changed the Ordinance it was because they felt screening bet-
ween the parking lots for 2 offices was unnecessary. Mrs. Jones said if Dr. Ezell
were building under the present Ordinance he would be required to screen the West
property line. She said the Ordinance now requires screening of any non-residential
use from any residential zone regardless of the distance df the building and parking
from the property line.
Board of Adjustment Meeting
February 4, 1980
Page 2
Dr. Ezell pointed out there was a pasture with horses on the property to the
West. He added there was a fence already there.
Mr. Tompkins asked if the intent to screen the North and South sides of the
parking lot was still there, Mrs. Jones pointed out that when the Ordinance was
passed which changed the screening requirements it contained a clause which stated,
"This Ordinance shall not apply where screening has heretofore been required under
zoning provisions amended or repealed by the Ordinance". Mr. Tompkins stated when
an R.0 abuts an R-0 it is somewhat restrictive, but when it abuts another zone it
does make sense.
Mr. House asked if they came in to get a Building Permit and the building was
not there would they have to screen the West side. Mrs. Jones said "yes", they
would. Dr. Ezell stated he could see the need for screening next to a residential
area but the lot on the West side is not a residential use
Dr. Ezell apologized for waiting so long to clear up the problem.
Mr. Tompkins stated he would like to see the intent carried out. He added the
buffer strip is to be view -obscuring. Mrs. Jones said the only way that screening
of the West property line could be a factor, if that the Ordinance does say that
in granting a variance the Board of Adjustment may prescribe certain conditions and
safeguards in conformity with this (zoning) Ordinance.
There was no one present to oppose the variance request. The public hearing on
the Appeal No. 80-3 was closed.
Acting Chairman House asked the feelings of the Board.
Mrs. Milts stated she would like to see the intent carried out the way the new
Ordinance states. She agreed' the North and South screening is unreasonable, but she
would like to see the West part screened. At this point, she added, the screen on
the West property line is unnecessary, but she would like it to be left open for
later.
Mrs. Mills moved to grant the variance as requested, with the stipulation that
the screening to the West be left to the discretion of the Planning Commission. Mr.
Tompkins seconded it.
Mr. Nickles said he doesn't have any trouble in terms of granting the variance
request or with the condition attached to it.
The motion to grant the variance request with the stipulation passed 3-0-2.
With Mills, Nickles, and Tompkins voting "Aye" and House and Smith abstaining from
voting.
There still being no one present to represent Appeal No. 80-2, Fayetteville
Skating Center, the Board went on with the approval of the minutes.
Mrs. Mills moved to approve the MINUTES
minutes of the December 3, 1979 meeting.
Mr. Tompkins seconded it, which passed 5-0.
The next item for discussion was APPEAL NO. 80-2
the public hearing on the Appeal No. Fayetteville Skating Center
80-2, Fayetteville Skating Center, 661 661 W. Ash
W. Ash, on an application to vary the
number of parking spaces required. Present to represent was David Carter, owner of
the skating center. (He arrived at 4:25).
Mr. Carter stated he would like the parking area of a skating rink to be based
on 1 parking space per 200 sq. ft. of skating floor area instead of 1 parking space
per 200 sq. ft. of total floor area. Mr. Carter said there were several factors
to be considered:
1. Parking spaces for bowling alleys and indoor theaters, for instance, are
135 I
Board of Adjustment Meeting
February 4, 1980
Page 3
based on recreational area (bowling lanes and theatre seats) rather than
total building area. It would seem that skating rink requirements should
be based on the skating surface area rather than the total building area.
The skating surface in his building is 11,200 sq. ft. and requires 56
spaces, whereas the total floor area is 18,000 sq. ft. and would require
90 spaces.
2. Seventy-five percent of his customers are under driving age and are left
by parents who do not attend the skating sessions.
Mr. Carter said his present paved parking lot has room for 30 cars and he is extend-
ing the parking lot to the South so that he will have another 24 spaces. He asked
to be required to provide the total of 56 paved parking spaces.
Mrs. Mills asked Mr. Carter how many people were at the rink at 10:00 P.M. on
Saturday the 29th. Mr Carter said around 200. Mrs. Mills asked how much busier
Friday night is than Saturday night. Mr. Carter said Friday night is their busiest
night and they have between 300-500 people. He said it is usually 2 to 3 times
busier.
Mr Carter said he didn't want to mislead the Board He said once or twice in
the 2 years the rink has been open, the parking lot did overflow. But, he reminded
the Board, these were unusual cases. He added he has one night a week when he caters
to adults only.
There was no one present to oppose the variance request. The public hearing on
Appeal No. 80-2, Fayetteville Skating Center.was closed.
Acting Chairman House asked for comments from the Board.
Mrs. Mills stated she agreed that he didn't need as many parking spaces as the
Ordinance required. She said it would be difficult for him to put that many park-
ing spaces in. Mr. Nickles agreed with Mrs. Mills. He said the number of people
inside the building is immaterial. The only thing the Board of Adjustment can do,
he pointed out, is grant variances upon structures or peculiaritiesof the land.
Mr. Nickles said there were 2 things they could do: (1) grant a variance due to
the land, with which there is not a peculiarity or (2) to appeal and interpret "floor
space", and he added the only way to give Mr. Carter some relief is to interpret
floor space
Mrs. Mills asked if it would be simplier to grant the variance or to ask the
Planning Commission to change the Ordinance.
Mr. Smith said to him a skating rink is like a bowling alley. Mr. Nickles said
he would agree with Mr. Smith if it was sq. ft. per bowling lane, but, it requires
so many spaces per bowling lane.
Mrs. Mills asked what would be the best and most logicalway to go with this
request because she didn't think he needed this many spaces.
Mr. Tompkins stated he couldn't look at this like a hardship. He suggested
having the Planning Commission update the Ordinance.
Mrs. Mills stated there were only 2 skating rinks in town and nothing else of
similar usage, she said, is based on total sq. footage of the entire building. Mrs.
Jones pointed out a dance hall is based on total square footage. In one use unit,
a dance hall requires 1 parking space per 200 sq. ft. of total floor area and in
another one it requires 1 parking space per 100 sq. ft. of floor area.
Mr. Nickles stated he would go along with interpreting the sq. footage if the
Ordinance didn't specifically say "skating rink".
Mr. Carter stated he was willing to go before the Board of Directors if the
Board of Adjustment couldn't grant this variance.
Mrs. Jones pointed out the Ordinance they are working under is almost 10 years
old and the style of a skating rink may have changed some in those 10 years.
Mr. Smith said a lot of these items have come before the Board of Adjustment.
He said obviously this is an excessive amount of parking spaces for a skating rink.
36_4
Board of Adjustment Meeting
February 4, 1980
Page 4
Mr. Smith added that maybe the Ordinance should be changed.
Mr. Nickles moved to deny this particular variance request, but for the Board
of Adjustment to recommend to the Board of Directors that the Ordinance in question
be changed to define floor space as total sq. footage of skating space, and that
the parking spaces be based on that instead of the total floor space Mrs. Mills
seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-0-2, with Mills, Nickles, and Tompkins
voting "Aye" and House and Smith abstaining from voting.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:05 P.M.
/37 A