The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1985-10-21 MinutesMUTING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, October 21, 1985 at 3:45 P.M. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chester House, Jerry Allred, Robert Waldren, Larry Tompkins, Dennis Becker, Gerald Boyd and Don Mills MEMBERS ABSENT: None The meeting was called to order by Chairman House and the minutes of the October 7th meeting were considered. Upon a motion from Tompkins and a second by Mills, the minutes were unanimously approved as distributed. 1 OXFORD -K TABLED AT/US .T", • The next item of consideration was that which was listed under 'Other Business" on an addendum to the Board's agenda. An appeal to vary setbacks for property located at 1310 and 1312 Oxford Place had been submitted by Bob Nickle and tabled for further research at the meeting of Oct. 7th. Nickle represented his appeal and stated that he had received a refusal from Arkansas Western Gas company to reduce a utility easement on the west side of the property. He said he also received notice of refusal from Don Bunn, City Engineer stating that the City of Fayetteville would not agree to the reduction of the drainage or utility easements subject Lot 34, Nickle said he and his architect, Tom Pugh, have re -designed the plans for the proposed duplex which will require a reduction in setback on Masonic of 4" and no reduction on Oxford keeping the house in line with the other dwellings on Oxford. He said that this design will allow a full garage for both halves of the duplex. He indicated that all of the lots adjacent and across the street on Masonic have are planned for multi -family. He said when townhouses on Masonic have built, a 10' variance was granted by this Board to accomodate parking. Waldren clarified that granting the variance would reduce the setback on Masonic from the required 25' to 21'. • IM • Board of Adjustment October 21, 1985 Page 2 House asked for clarification of the variance granted to the townhouses and Allred verified that the Planning Commission had approved the situation. House then opened the Public Hearing. Jim Veasey, 1375 Oxford Place, stated that he was still opposed to the variance as it would result in the construction of a duplex at subject location. In reply to Becker'a inquiry, he said that he had purchased his home in February this year and added that the townhouses are some distance away from his lot. In response to Tompkins' question, Veasey said the restrictive covenants of the subdivision were written about one year after the Planning Commission approved the PUD. Waldren stated that the Board has no control over covenants or Planning Commission action but can only address variances. MOTION Becker moved approval of the 4' variance, applicable only to the portion of land necessary for building the garage (approximately 19') and not for the length of the lot. Allred seconded followed by discussion. Tompkins stated that these types of lots with double frontage create problems and requested that they be examined more thoroughly by the • Planning Commission and the Planning Office. The question was called and the motion to approve the variance passed 6-1-0, Boyd voting "nay". The third item of consideration (Item #2 on the agenda) was a request for waiver of the 25' south side building setback for Bargo Engineering submitted by Bill and Charlie Goforth, owners. Property is located at 1755 Armstrong and is zoned I-2; Dave Jorgensen representing. Jorgensen stated that Bargo is requesting a waiver of the 25' building setback along the south side of their property in order to construct a second building parallel to the existing building and still leave enough space between the buildings for adequate parking and large delivery trucks. He said the property borders Town Branch which is in the flood plain and cannot be developed, which he felt makes the property unique. Jorgensen stated that some years ago, Bargo had attempted to purchase the land adjacent to them on the south, anticipating expansion, but were refused by the City (owner). • Waldren commented that the City also had planned on building a road on Bargo's north border, forcing them to place their building further south than they would have, but the road was not built there. Goforth 19 • Board of Adjustment October 21, 1985 Page 3 noted that his property was, at one time,in the flood plain but has been reclaimed. In response to Tompkins' request, Carlisle brought in the flood plain map for examination. Goforth said the elevation of the building will be 1,395" which is above the 100 year flood way. In reply to Waldren's inquiry, Jorgensen said that the existing building is "Type A" which is not restricted expect for sprinkling. Don Mills asked how much space is required between buildings and House replied that if the building is metal or masonry, the required footage would be very small. Mills asked why the owner could not build the proposed building further north and provide parking on the south and Goforth replied that the parking area is already paved to serve both the old and proposed buildings. He added that Bargo also tried to purchase the property to the east from the City and were refused. Tompkins asked about the vacating of easements and Jorgensen explained that a new easement was granted on the new west border when additional property was purchased immediately adjacent on the west. Tompkins noted that the parking is labeled 'one-way" but the arrows in the diagram indicate two ways. Jorgensen said that the drawing will be revised, eliminating the southern most row of parking spaces. Tompkins • asked if the proposed building could be moved north when that parking is eliminated and Jorgensen said that the dimension of space shown between the buildings is not 55-60' as indicated on the map but more like 47'. Jorgensen said there is no problem with the setback from the corner of the building to the r/w of Armstrong Road. Tompkins asked if the present building could be expanded and Goforth replied that the building is for a customer that needs to build next to Bargo because of the convenient tooling. He said they need a building a minimum of 100' wide for their business. Becker asked if the building could be placed 5' away from the south property line and Goforth said there is quite a drop-off there. Waldren said he felt that the developer had explored every avenue available and added that, although the concern will be helping itself, it will also benefit the City in providing more employment. He pointed out that the Parks and Recreation Department have no objections to the proposed building being so close to their adjoining land (reference letter to City Manager from Parks Department). Goforth verified that the business concern anticipating the proposed building will not locate in Fayetteville if they cannot be adjacent to Bargo. • Carlisle, Community Development Director, said that C.D. has explored possibilities for Combs Park (adjacent) and decided to leave it natural with no plans for anything formal on this particular parcel. r 1 U • • Board of Adjustment October 21, 1985 Page 4 Mills said she thought there was enough area to move the building north as all of the indicated parking spaces will not be used. Goforth explained that there is a possibility of Bargo expanding with another 38,000 sq.ft, building in the future for which additional parking will be required. Mills noted that there are many differences than originally drawn being presented to Board members to review. Becker said he felt that vehicle access was necessary but that if that was planned for on the south side, it would create problems with the building layout. Tompkins asked if a joint wall would work and added that he would ` like to see an Industrial Planned Unit Development. Goforth said that trucks would not be able to access both buildings if they shared a wall and noted that Bargo was required to pave an excess of driveway footage because of the City's aborted decision to place a road on their north border. MOTION Waldren moved to approve the variance as requested. Allred seconded and the motion to approve passed 5-2-0. Tompkins and Mills voting nnay n 0 Waldren moved to approve the schedule of meetings prepared by Jones for 1986 which includes the elimination of meetings on holidays or the day following a holiday. Mills seconded and the motion to approve the 1986 schedule of meetings passed 7-0-0. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:50 P.M. 9 r