HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-01-16 MinutesMINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45 P.M. on
Monday, January 16, 1984 in Room 209 of the Continuing Education
Center, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Members Present:
Chester House, David Crittenden,
Larry Tompkins, Robert Waldren,Dennis
Becker & Butch Robertson.
Members Absent: Don Mills.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Chester House.
With no additions or corrections, MINUTES
the minutes of the December 5, 1983
meeting were approved, 5-0-1 with Don Mills being absent and
Bruce Robertson abstaining from vote.
The second item on the agenda APPEAL NO. 83-24
was Public Hearing on Appeal SCOTT EBBETS
No. 83-24, Scott Ebbets, 1616 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE
1616 North College Avenue,
application to vary setback. Mr. Guy Bingham was present to
represent the petitioners. Mr. Bingham stated he is an employee of
MAPCO Petroleum, Inc.; that:MAPCO Petroleum is the
lese-e of the land in question. Mr. & Mrs. Brooks are the
property owners and were present also.
Chairman House asked Mr. Bingham to state what is intended
in this project. Mr. Bingham advised that they had recently
acquired the existing service station located on North College,
and it is their desire to improve the setup; i.e., improving
the building, remodelling, etc. He advised that the present
gasoline islands are existing and will remain existing in the
same location. He stated that MAPCO Petroleum would like to
place a canopy over both islands, which is a freestanding canopy
to replace the existing canopy that only covers one island. This
will allow the customers to fill their cars in the shade as well
as stay dry Bingham advised that the island is not in violation.
The only adjustment that is being requested is that the canopy
be allowed to extend 10' over the island so that a car can be
sheltered. This would bring the canopy within 5' of the property
line rather than the required 20'. Jones advised that this was
in non-conformance as the pump island should be 25' from the property
line. David Crittenden asked how much of the island is currently
sheltered. Bingham advised that only the 1st island was sheltered,
and that he wished to replace the entire canopy as one of their
intended extensive improvements. Crittenden questioned the height
of the new canopy, Bingham advising that it would be the same, i.e.,
15i' to the deck, 141' to the lights. Waldren asked what was the
57
J
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
PAGE TWO
JANUARY 16, 1984
distance from the street of the island being closest to the
street. Bingham advised it was 15' from the right-of-way.
Tompkins then questioned the Master Street Plan requesting
knowledge of upcoming plans for College Avenue. Jones advised
it has been widened and currently has an 80' right-of-way as
required by the Master Street Plan, in existence with five lanes
being present.
Larry Tompkins questioned relocation of the present sign.
Bingham advised that the sign would have to be relocated
and planned to move it down to ground pole location which will be
15' off the right-of-way and will be the same sign, but they
will have to obtain a permit for this. Bingham advised that
at that time, they will ask to change the face of the sign from
a white face with red numbers to a yellow face with black numbers,
but it will be the same sign. Tompkins asked if this sign would require
a variance. Jones advised she did not think it would, but Mr.
Bingham had the details with him and read the requirements, those
being; a permit will be required to relocate the existing sign to
a different location on the property. A ground sign must be 1'
from the side property line. Only one freestanding sign is
allowed on a parcel of property. With a 15' setback from the
street right-of-way, the sign cannot exceed 10 square feet and
cannot have a height of more than 17' above the street grade.
Bingham advised that his sign did comply with the requirements.
Chairman House asked if there was anyone else to speak in favor of,
or against this proposal. At that time, Mrs. Brooks stated that
they felt that this would be quite an improvement to everyone
concerned for this variance to be granted because the station
is 19 or so years old. Mrs. Brooks stated that the lease was
acquired about a year or so ago. House stated that
this was quite a large variance. Waldren advised that variances
had been granted on this type of thing before, but they
have never been this large, 2-3 feet maybe. Chairman House asked
Waldren if he had a motion. Waldren stated that he did not have a
motion, but would be inclined to look favorably upon something
which would extend to the island and no further, that being the
outside edge of the outside island which would change this from
a 15' variance to a non -conforming structure thus granting an
approximate 5' variance. This would allow MAPCO to put up a new
canopy and also shelter one side from weather on the additional
island.
Dennis Becker stated that he felt this may be the largest canopy
variance, but felt the Board should go ahead and approve it.
Becker stated he has been there many times, and he could see no
curtailment of the site lines as far as canopy extension
affecting any safety factor whatsoever. Becker could not see
what another 10' would be except a bigger variance, not curtailing
vision, not impeding the comprehensive street plan, etc. Therefore,
5$
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
PAGE THREE
JANUARY 16, 1984
the only thing that would be given away would be a number.
Becker stated he felt each project should be taken by its
individual recommendation and situation. If a variance
o f 5-10' is going to be granted, why not go ahead and cover
the other side of the pump island as well.
Butch Robertson stated he felt if you go to the outside of the
existing island, that would be as far as you would need to go.
That would afford 3/4ths coverage and very few customers use
the outside of the closest island anyway, thus cutting the
variance down to 5'.
Larry Tompkins stated he did understand why they wanted the
variance in terms of property use, etc., but was inclined to
disagree with the variance request simply due to the fact that
it continues to perpetuate a non -conforming structure on the
property, stating that the intent of the required setback is
still the valid reason all along College Avenue to deny the
variance, as well as not wishing to perpetuate the non -conforming
structure.
Bob Waldren then moved MOTION
to grant a variance to permit a canopy to come to the outside edge
of the outside island. Motion was seconded by David Crittenden.
Motioned failed to pass due to a tie vote, 3-3 with Dennis Becker,
David Crittenden and Robert Waldren voting in favor, and Chester
House, Larry Tompkins and Butch Robertson voting "nay".
Crittenden asked what should be done due to the fact of the tie.
House advised this would need to be brought back when Don Mills,
the absent committee member is present. Jones advised that
this could be put on the next Agenda, but all members present at
this meeting would need to be present at that meeting as well.
The third item on the agenda APPEAL NO. 83-25
was Appeal No. 83-25, R. J. R. J. KEATING
Keating, 522 South Locust 522 South Locust & Sixth Street
& Sixth Street. At that point,
David Crittenden asked to declare a conflict of interest on
this particular matter and asked to be excused from the de-
liberations. House stated that he should disqualify himself
as well. Mr. Dick Keating was present to represent this
appeal.
Mr. Keating stated that he is the property owner and is
asking for variances. He stated he was basically:asking for
a variance to a setback. This was being requested:fdr two
✓ easons; 1) To safeguard two oak trees. Mr. Keating then
✓ eferred the Board to the pictures. 2) The second reason is
to safeguard what is considered to be optimum traffic flow
59 _A
•
•
•
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
PAGE FOUR
JANUARY 16, 1984
through the property which he is currently trying to develop.
Keating stated he would first like to address the matter of the
trees. He stated they are red oaks, one of which is 4' in
diameter at the base. The other is over 3' at the base. He
stated he has visited with a nurseryman about this and it
seems as though they are over 100 years old. They have not
topped out yet and are still growing. The second reason,
as stated, would be to preserve the traffic flow. Mr. Keating
referred the Board t� attachment 6 which showed how he could
fit the 8-plex which he has in mind on the property in con-
formance with all City Ordinances and Codes, but losing both
of the trees and hampering the good traffic flow pattern that
is presently there. Keating advised that this traffic flow
pattern was very convenient for the Sanitation Department.
Keating stated that there would also be a variance from the
setback from the north property line, of the requirement that
there would be only one major dwelling on a lot and a 3rd
variance for the square footage. Keating stated that whether or
not the two oaks were present, to build within the City Ordinances
would create a bottleneck in the traffic. Tompkins asked if
there was still a variance which needed to be computed. Jones
advised that the computation had been figured and if the variance
to allow more than one principal building were allowed, 16,200
square feet would be needed. Jones advised that the way she would
normally compute it, would require 20,200 square feet. Jones
said Mr. Keating has 17,500 square feet. Tompkins then requested
to know what type of density was being referred to. Keating
advised there would be 18 dwelling units on 34,500 square feet
and all computes in terms of number of bedrooms per square footage
if the 8-plex were to be connected to the house. Tompkins
stated he was interested in the ratio of dwelling units to the
amount of' land area stating that it looks high. Keating
stated that it does meet the square footage requirements for an
R-2. Tompkins questioned the lack of setbacks from the north
property line. Keating advised this would be to the lot lines of
Lot 2 and 3.
Keating stated he was committed to this project financially as
well as otherwise, and he is extremely bothered about having to
take down the two trees and also upsetting the good traffic
flow, and thought it was worthwhile to bring it before the Board.
Dennis Becker questioned the surrounding zoning. Jones advised
that to the west, it was C-2 and to the east and south, it would
be R-2. Jones stated that the property density would be correct
if the house were figured as a two-bedroom apartment instead of
a single-family house. Becker asked if Keating would be willing
to render a Bill of Assurance that this property would be sold
as one piece of property. Becker stated he would tend to look
at this in a different light if he felt this was one piece of
60
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
PAGE FIVE
JANUARY 16, 1984
property in lieu of individual lots. Then, he could see where
the 8-plex is located, looking at it as one piece of property,
the traffic flow, letter from Wally Brt, etc. would all make
sense. However, if it were to sell off individually, then
Becker stated he could see some potential problems developing.
Becker stated he could be in favor of a committment from Keating
that this would stay under one ownership. Jones advised that the
Planning Commission and Board of Directors have occasionally
accepted Bills of Assurance from property owners that the
property would be held or used in a certain manner. Jones
stated she would have to check with the City Attorney, but would
think that if this could be done for other purposes, it could
be done for this purpose as well. Jones stated this would be
a permanent instrument which would be recorded at the Courthouse
and anyone proposing to purchase the property would be fore-
warned and would pick up this with the property. Keating stated
he did not intend to sell it and would do this if approval was
contingent upon this Bill of Assurance.
Dennis Becker made a motion MOTION
to accept the variances with the provision
of a Bill of Assurance being offered by the applicant that the
property would be sold as one integral property and not as individual
lots. Motion seconded by Larry Tompkins.
Chairman House asked if all Board members had received the
Sanitation Superintendent's recommendations. Waldren stated
that his problem with the Motion is that he did not believe
this would hold up in Court. Waldren stated he felt the
City Attorney should research this before approving this.
Waldren stated he did not feel like this Board should tie
Keating up as to what he can do with his property.
Tompkins stated he was extremely impressed with the manner in
which this property had been developed, in what appeared to be a
planned unit development and wondered why this had not been taken
before the Planning Commission in lieu of the Board of
Adjustment. Jones advised that the units in this development could
be sold individually under the Horizontal Property Regime. Jones
advised that the property is not large enough to be sent to the
Planning Commission as a Large Scale Development. She advised
it is 79/100ths of an acre.
Waldren requested to ask Mr. Keating a question, that being with
regard to his financing. Keating advised that his financing
was based on an 8-plex and that a 6-piex does not work in terms
of cost per unit. Waldren then asked about a 7-plex with Keating
advising that he could not make it work. Keating advised that the
entire development was being refinanced to do this, and it has
•
•
•
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
PAGE SIX
JANUARY 16, 1984
gotten very complicated and is pretty well committed to this.
Tompkins then asked what would happen if units were added in
the area of the trash bin at the location of the existing six
unit complex. Keating advised he would then have a problem
with parking in the 6-plex. Tompkins stated he thought Keating
could then pick up two more parking spaces between the space where
the units had been eliminated off of the 8-plex. Keating stated
then there would be a problem with the square footage ratio on
Lot 5 between the apartmentszand the lot as they are all figured
out. Tompkins advised he thought this was being figured as a
whole unit, and is referring to a single Large Scale Development.
Robertson advised he would like to see the trees saved as well,
but stated he could not vote for a motion that would put
restrictions on what he can do with his own property. Robertson
stated he did not see how this could legally be done. Tompkins
stated in reference to the existing oak tree on the north, if this
tree system is covered for parking, the root system would be killed
anyway. Tompkins said the limb spread of the tree indicates the
spread �f the root system. Keating advised that the parking was
not necessarily representative of exactly the way it would be, but
simply to show that there was plenty of parking area. Motion
failed 1-4 with Dennis Becker Voting in favor of the motion.
Keating asked if the only problem with the motion was the matter
o f tying it to the Bill of Assurance, stating that if the Bill
of Assurance were to be removed from the motion, would there be a
better chance? Jones then asked if the Board would like an
o pinion with regard to the validity of the Bill of Assurance, and
advised that Bills of Assurance had been accepted on the quesiton
o f rezoning; that the Bill of Assurance could not be required,
but may be accepted if it is offered by the petitioner and if
accepted, is binding. Waldren advised that he felt, with
a Bill of Assurance, someplace, somewhere, it would be overturned
in court. Waldren stated he did not believe that Keating
could be restricted from doing anything he wished as far as the
sale of property goes. Waldren advised that there is an alternate
plan which will conform to City Codes and he felt the Bill of
Assurance would not be necessary. House advised that with this
traffic flow, the development would almost have to continue as
one entity. Otherwise, if a parcel were ever sold, new turn-
arounds for sanitation, etc. would have to be undertaken.
Tompkins stated that he was in a quandary with regard to the
trees as he really did like trees also. However, another
thing which needed to be considered was the fact of the
parking spaces which would have to be given up with the
anticipated improvement of Sixt Street in conformance with
the Master Street Plan. Keating reiterated that this was not
his final parking plan and could relocate parking for the easement.
Tompkins stated he would definitely hate to see the trees go,
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
PAGE SEVEN
JANUARY 16, 1984
but given the anticipated setback, coupled with the future
problems, he would have to agree with Mr. Robertson.
Tompkins stated he would like to have OTHER BUSINESS
the question answered of what is to
be done in the event of a tie. He stated he did not like to
feel that people present matters before the Board and then there
is a tie, feeling like this was not fair. House advisedhe
thought that when there was a tie vote, that the vote carried
with the motion regardless of what the motion was. Jones advised
that was when there was an abstention, with the abstention
always going with the majority or the Motion, before the Board
adopted Rules of Procedure to the contrary. Waldren advised
that the only solution he could see would be ifesomeone had
another motion they wanted to make. Tompkins advised that an
alternative which he has seen has been where the Chair does not
vote unless there is a tie, thus in the case of a tie, the Chair
would break the tie. In the vote today, the Chair's vote
put this into a tie. Tompkins stated he did not feel it was
fair to the peopleewho.idame if they could not make a decision for
them.
Meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
63�
PAGE • SUBJECT e • DATE
AmiA4
$5
7
8
9
11
11
12
15
18
21
21
23
26
28
31
34
34
38
39
40
43
44
47
48
50
4953
57
59
64
66t175
67$70
69
73
77
79
83.•
85
91
92
94
97
99
100
103
104
106
107
107
108
112
13
17
118
John H. Stout (Appeal #84-20 - 102 Nolan Ave.)
New Life Chapel (Appeal #83-1 - 5255 Wedington Dr.)
Wacker Park North; Community Development Dept. (Appeal #83-2)
Amendment to Rules of Procedure
Danny Glisson (Appeal #83-3 - 1233 South Duncan Ave.)
William Sherman Horne (Appeal #83-4 - 108 East South Street)
Nancy S. Partos (Appeal #83-5 - 322 West Meadow Street)
Robert Womack (Appeal #83-5 - 2518 Elizabeth Ave.)
Clyde Hayre (Appeal #83-7 - 1187 County Rd. 877)
James D. Wilson (Appeal #83-3 - 906 West Douglas Street)
Philip J. Colwell (Appeal #83-9 - 601 N. Walnut Ave.)
Gaston F. Fernandez (Appeal #83-10 - 1132 Eastwood Ave.)
Proposed Amendment to Rules of Procedure
St. James Baptist Church (Appeal #83-11 - 101 S. Willow)
Frank Jansma (Appeal #83-12 - 808 N. Highland Ave.)
Helen M. Fields (Appeal #83-13 - 2033 Cleveland Ave.)
Jerry L. Wilson (Appeal #83-14 - 1660 N. College Ave.)
Election of Chairman (Chester House)
Helen Fields (Appeal #83-13 - 2033 Cleveland Ave.)
Jim Wilson (Appeal #83-15 - 1350 Van Buren Ave.)
C.Ray Asfahl (Appeal #83-16 - 778 W. Center St.)
Daniel McCormick (Appeal #83-17 - 301 W. Spring St.)
John M. Walker (Appeal #83-18 - 1657 Sunrise Mountain Rd.)
Mitchell Oil Company (Appeal #83-19 - 5675 E. Huntsville Rd.)
Non -Conforming Uses
Lenwyn L. $ Kathy Edens (Appeal #83-20 - 646 W. Sycamore)
Danny Larson (Appeal #83-21 - 104 W. -Boles St.)
Richard C. $ Shirley J. Johanson (Appeal #83-22 - 632 N. Whitham Ave.)
Scott Ebbets (Appeal #83-24 - 1616 N. College Ave.)
R.J. Keating (Appeal #83-25 - 522 S. Locust $ 6th St.)
Scott Ebbets (Appeal #83-24 - 1616 N. College Ave.)
Eric Lloyd (Appeal #84-1 - 352 N. West)
Randy Ingle (Appeal #84-2 - 906 W. North St.)
John G. Banks $ David R. Banks (Appeal #84-3 - N. West Ave.)
Jerry Brannon (Appeal #84-4 - 50 E. Seventh St.)
Jim Hatfield (Appeal #84-5 - 650 W. Center)
Jim Hatfield (Appeal #84-6 - 22 E. Meadow)
Don R. Courtright (Appeal 84-7 - 101 Nolan)
Dr. Larry Woodruff (Appeal 84-8 - 1917 Green Acres Rd.)
Washington County Historical Society (Appeal 84-9 - 118 E. Dickson St.)
Gregory House (Appeal 84-10 - 301 west Dickson)
Dr. Ben Israel (Appeal 84-11 - 908 F Rolling Hills Dr.)
Dr. Larry Woodruff (Appeal 84-8 - 1917 Green Acres Rd. - Vary side Setbks)
Greg House (Appeal #84-10 - 301 West Dickson St.)
Dr. Ben Israel (Appeal 84-11 - 908-F Rolling Hills Dr.)
David Behl (Appeal 84-12 - 946 N. 46th St.)
Joan P, Bruce Johnson (Appeal 84-13 - 1150 S. Happy Hollow Rd.)
Special Request (RE: The Update Committee)
Election of New Chairman (Chester House)
Greg House (Appeal 84-10 - 301 W. Dickson)
Jeffrey Dowers (Appeal 84-14 - Int. of use and status of Bill of Assurance)
Larry Woodruff (Appeal 84-15 - 1917 Green Acres Rd.)
Firstsouth Federal Savings & Loan (Appeal 84-16 - Variance in setback $ Pkg)
Jack $ Martha Audrain (Appeal 84-17 - 433 N. Willow Ave.)
Ozark Electric Co-op (Appeal 84-18 - 3461 Wedington Dr. - Public Hearing)
01-03-83
03-07-83
03-07-83
03-21-83
03-21-83
03-21-83
03-21-83
03-21-83
03-21-83
04-04-83
04-18-83
04-18-83
04-18-83
05-16-83
05-16-83
06-06-83
06-06-83
06-20-83
06-20-83
07-18-83
07-18-83
07-18-83
10-03-83
10-03-83
10-03-83
11-21-83
11-21-83
12-05-83
01-16-84
01-16-84
02-06-84
04-02-84
04-02-84
04-02-84
04-16-84
05-07-84
05-07-84
05-21-84
06-04-84
06-18-84
06-18-84
06-18-84
07-02-84
07-02-84
07-02-84
07-02-84
07-02-84
07-02-84
07-16-84
07-16-84
07-16-84
07-16-84
08-06-84
09-04-84
09-04-84
PAGE
• SUBJECT
•
DATE
119 Dwain Mitchell (Appeal 84-19 - 1130 North Garland) 09-04-84
-121 Mrs. Jerry McDaris (Appeal 84-20 - 1923 Arrowhead) 09-17-84
23 Thad R. Kelly, Jr. (Appeal 84-21 - E. of Ark. Ave. G N. of Lafayette St.) 10-01-84
129 Mrs. Gilbert Baker (Appeal 84-22 - 1393 East Farmers Dr.) 10-15-84
131 Timothy & Christine Klinger (Appeal 84-23- 515 E. Rebecca) 10-15-84
134 Bradley Morris (Appeal 84-25 - 3223 N. College - C-2) 11-05-84
135 George Faucette Jr. (Appeal 84-26 - SE Corner of Garland $ North) 11-05-84
139 Don McGuire(Appeal 84-27 - 2031 Green Acres Rd.) 12-17-84
•
•
•
January 16, 1984
ATTENDANCE RECORD
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
1984
Dennis David -Chester Don Butch Larry Bob
Becker Crittenden House Mills Robertson Tompkins Waldren
February 6, 1984
April 2, 1984
April 16, 1984
May 7, 1984
/ /
May 21, 1984 p..../..
� 4,../'
� 1.,...�I-- v
✓i ✓� '�1
June 4, 1984 i
X i a; ✓ (i✓ X x
June 18, 1984 —
!
July 2, 1984
•— ----- — – I
July 16, 1984 i 4ZR ✓ 1 i X
August 6, 1984 I ✓ 1 ✓ I X ✓ f ✓
V- ! ✓ ! ✓ 1 ✓1 X 1 X
September 4, 1984 i `/
September 17, 1984 pee"- . t/ v -----j 4/--J� X j
I
11
October 1, 1984
October 15, 1984
sH
December 17, 1984
•
•
1
i