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\�