Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-07-07 Minutes0 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, July 7, 1986 at 3:45 P.K. in Room 327 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas, MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Larry Tompkins, Jerry Allred, Gerald Boyd and Dennis Moore MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Waldren Chairman Mills called the meeting to order and the minutes of the April 7, 1986 meeting were considered. MINUTES The minutes were unanimously approved as distributed upon a motion by Tompkins and a second by Becker. APPEAL 86-7 - VARIANCE`ON THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY - 1001 SHIN STREET The first item on the agenda was a request submitted by Southwestern Energy to vary the landscaping requirement from 10% landscaping of • 18" high to "0" landscaping. This property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and was represented by Steve Adams. Adams stated Southwestern Energy Company wants to construct a two story office building for the headquarters Company which is currently located on the third floor of the McIlroy Bank Building and a few other places. SWE would like to consolidate everything near the existing Arkansas Western Gas Company building and what they proposed to do is construct a two story building more or less behind the existing structure located on Front Street and Sain Avenue, the problem that has occured with respect to the zoning requirements are they must provide screening in the form of a view obscuring fence or view obscuring vegetation with respect to the property owners in R-0 and R-1 zoning classifications which abut the C-2 and I-1 districts in question. Immediately South of the property is the Northwest Arkansas Development Company which has property zoned R-0, Mrs. Millsap has property zoned R-1 and Christian Life Center owns property zoned R-1 to the South and East, Adams then stated if Southwestern Energy were to construct a view obscuring fence or vegetation those people would loose a very nice view of the valley that they presently have. Southwestern Engery has determined most of the property owners would rather retain the view rather than loose it. Adams then stated the location of this building and the fact that Southwestern Energy traditionaly maintain • I p ri • Board of Adjustment July 7, 1986 Page 2 there grounds very well as to mowing and raking the area it's not economically justifiable to landscape 10% of the area and provide for the continued maintenance. Southwestern Energy would like for the Board of Adjustment to grant them a waiver of the landscaping requirement based primarily on the natural terrain drop from those areas abutting the C-2 and I-1 District. Tompkins questioned Article 8, Section 10(d)(3) in Southwestern's statement of appeal which reads," the Planning Commission shall have authority to waive or grant a variance from the screening requirements, any such waiver would appear to automatically require planting of vegetation having a minimum height of one foot six inches and occupying a minimum of 10 percent of the open area in, or adjacent to R-zones" Tompkins then stated to Adams he did not understand why that point was in the appeal and Adams stated their alternatives without a variance would be to construct a view obscuring fence or plant view obscuring vegetation or to landscape 10% of this area behind the lot which is unclear as to how much of the entire area they would have to cover with 10% vege- tation and if they landscape they have to make provisions for watering and maintenance therfore it amounts to a very expensive proposition just to do the back half of the lot. • Mills asked Adams if they planted a shield around the parking lot how many square feet would that be and Adams answered the parking lot will be located about 15 feet below to a level area and it's really an undefined area. Tompkins stated the intent of the ordinance states for Industrial-1 the concept was for a buffer to enhance the quality of life and to buffer the residential area from the industrial district. Becker asked if the engineers have proposed anything for retaining the potential errosion problem along the bank itself and Adams stated his understanding was the engineers were planning for some errosion problems. Mills asked if they were going to relocate the gas pumps and Carlisle stated they were going to move the tanks to the South of the proposed building, Mills also asked where the new location for the compressed natural gas building was going to be and Adams answered the building will be on the East corner of the South service truck parking area. Chairman Mills asked for comments from the Audience. Maria Eoff, representing Northwest Development Corporation asked if this proposed building was going to be an industrial looking warehouse • or brick building, Adams stated it will be as good looking as the current Arkansas Western Gas building. )Dl • Board of Adjustment July 7, 1986 Page 3 The public hearing was closed and discussion returned to Board members. Tompkins stated he understood the interest and idea they have to keep the proposed building a compatible use between industrial and residential however Tompkins does not see a hardship in this case and would have to vote disapproval. Boyd stated he gave consideration to all three neighbors not wanting the view to be blocked and that the terrain and situation makes the purpose of the law unnecessary in this particular case. Mills stated she would personally like some landscaping around the the top part of the slope, she felt if they dig down 15 feet there is going to be a water problem, she also felt that asking for a waiver of nothing and to grant a waiver for nothing turns them loose to do nothing. Allred stated there existing building is landscaped and if they were under the opinion to do nothing they would not have done anything with there existing building. • Moore asked if the property was built on a C-2 zone and it was bordered on all sides by C-2, what would be the landscape requirements and Carlisle stated the requirement would be landscaping or vegetation of 10% in any parking lot containing 6 or more cars. Moore then stated they probably already have 1800 sq. ft. of landscaped area right now with the existing building. MOTION Allred moved to grant the variance as requested. Becker seconded and the motion to approve passed 3-2-0, Mills and Tompkins voting "nay #PPEAL 86-8 REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH JERRY ::D The second item on the agenda was public hearing appeal 86-8 submitted by Jerry Allred and represented by Lamar Pettus for property located at 473 6 477 N. Gregg for a request to vary the minimum lot width from 100 ft. to 58 ft. Allred and Mills advised that they would abstain from voting on this appeal. This property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential District. Pettus advised that Mr. Allred had gone before the Planning Commission and was granted a Conditional Use to allow Professional Offices instead • of Apartments in the R-3 District. Pettus stated it was pointed out by the Planning Commission that the property did not meet the required 100 ft. of required frontage or the acre of land for Professional i09 • Board of Adjustment July 7, 1986 Page 4 Offices in an R-3 District, Pettus also pointed out that the adjacent property owners would rather see professional offices rather than another fraternity in this area. Boyd questioned if all six units would be offices and Pettus answered yes they proposed to use all six units for office purposes. Boyd asked what were the parking requirements were and Carlisle answered 1 per 200 sq. ft. for a total of 13 required parking spaces, Tompkins asked if they could meet this requirement and Allred stated yes. Tompkins asked if there were any variances required along the driveway to the adjoing property and Carlisle stated 5 ft. would be required between the property line and the driveway. Allred stated there is natural screening around the property in question. Tompkins asked what the total acreage was and Pettus answered between .5 and .6 of an acre Tompkins then stated that this would be a 40% reduction on the frontage. Becker asked what the minimum width for an R-3 District would be and Carlisle stated for 3 or more families 90 ft. would be required, Becker then stated there would only be a difference of 10 ft, Paul Marioni owns property to the South of the property in question and would like to go on record as being in favor of this variance. The public hearing was closed and discussion returned to Board members. Tompkins asked if the Conditional Use permit is discontinued, does this property revert back to R-3, High Density Residential and Carlisle stated yes. Becker stated he had no problem with granting the variance as requested. Tompkins stated he was concerned about the intentity of this area with cars parked bumper to bumper, the safety factor alone is a problem for him. Boyd stated he did not feel comfortable with this variance one reason being there is no way to turn around in the parking lot and there is no parking permitted on the street. Becker made a motion to grant the variance as requested. Moore seconded and the motion to approve passed on a tie vote; 2-2-2; Moore and Becker voting yes, Boyd and Tompkins voting "nay" and Mills and Allred abstaining \� O Board of Adjustment • July 7, 1986 Page 5 Grimes stated The City Hospital was granted a variance from the Board of Adjustment on April 7, 1986 for a variance on the required setback of 30' to 0' to install a canopy over a clinic entrance. Grimes then stated the variance that was granted to the ROW still puts them at the middle of the driveway, Grimes stated he is trying to find some way to help them and what he is proposing to do before he takes it to the City Board is to take the 10' temporary easement and set poles just behind the stonewall to support the canopy. Boyd stated after the Board approves this the City Hospital will have to come back to the Board of Adjustment for another variance. Tompkins stated Grimes is asking for an additional variance and Boyd stated we granted the variance to allow the canopy to go out far enough to be sheltered on one side and now they are asking for the canopy to extend over the entire driveway. 01 Tompkins then stated we would need to know what the additional dimensions • would be and felt he would have to look at it again and that this would be another variance and Mills stated this was her feeling also. Allred asked what the Board of Adjustment granted and Carlisle stated they granted the canopy to the ROW. Mills asked Grimes if he would like to take this to the City Board and then come back to the Board of Adjustment for another variance and Grimes stated if the City Board approved this they would then come back and request another variance. • 1\�