HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-10-20 MinutesMINUTES OF THE :1::1 1' ADJUSTMENT MEETING
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday,
October 20, 1986 at 3:45 p.m. in Room III of the City Administration
Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Robert Waldren, Larry Tompkins, Gerald
Boyd, Dennis Becker and Jerry Allred
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Moore
OTHERS PRESENT: George Williams, Don Hunnicutt, Rick Osborne,
Sandra Carlisle and Tessi Franzmeier
The
meeting
was
called to order and
the minutes of the October 6,
1986
meeting
were
considered.
MINUTES
The minutes were unanimously approved as distributed upon a motion
by Tompkins and a second by Boyd.
APPEAL 86-18 - SETBACK VARIANCE
GEORGE T. WILLIAMS - 1240 N. GARLAND (7-ELEVEN STORE)
• The second item of consideration was a request submitted by George
Williams to vary the rear setback from the required 20to the requested
5.8% This property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial,
Don Hunnicutt stated the property was 120' deep and when they add
9' on to the south end of the building they get into the 120' depth
of the lot which would not meet the requirements for the rear setback
of 20' in C-1. He said they were asking for a variance for approximately
7' of the building on the end of the property that was 120' deep.
Hunnicutt said they had obtained a permit for the gas pumps because
there were no setback problems there.
In
answer to
a
question from Boyd, Hunnicutt
replied the canopy was
22'
back and
the
pump island was 27-1/2'.
Tompkins said the present building was now non -conforming on that
corner. Hunnicut replied the existing building was conforming until
they acquired the extra property that made it non -conforming.
Tompkins asked what would happen if they met the 20' requirement.
Hunnicutt said they were adding the addition to install a cooler and
freezer for soft drinks. Hunnicut said the cooler itself was the
full width of that depth of the existing building.
•
•
rAL
•
Board of Adjustment
October 20, 1986
Page 2
Mills asked if the building had to conform because of a franchise.
Hunnicutt replied yes because 7-eleven has their own standard floor
plan. Hunnicutt said they did a lot of designs for traffic flow inside
the store and for security purposes.
In answer to a question from Tompkins, Hunnitcut said the rest of
the property would be an open drive area and parking.
The public hearing was closed and discussion returned to Board members.
Boyd said it seemed to him as long as the addition was not substantially
more than what they were asking for and it did not get close to the
Taco Place he would be in favor of granting the variance.
Tompkins said he was concerned about property developments later on
and in that particularly with the idea that adjustments could be made
to the addition that would promote the intent of the zoning ordin-
ance. He felt to promote a non -conforming use was not the intent
of the policy and he would be inclined to vote against the variance.
Becker asked if there had been any opposition against the variance.
Carlisle stated there had been none. Becker said he did not have
a problem with the variance.
NOTION
Waldren moved to grant the variance as submitted with the provision
that the variance granted was for 9.2', seconded by Boyd. The motion
to approve passed 4-1-0. with Tompkins voting "nay".
APPEAL 86-19 - SETBACK VARIANCE
WINTON 6 DOROTHY FOX - 3303 FAT GALLEY RD.
The third item of condiseration was a request submitted by Winton
and Dorothy Fox to vary the setback requirement from the required
100' from all property lines to the requested 79' from the east property
line for a mobile home.
It was decided this property was
the Planning Office or the Board
over the zoning in the Growth Area
fee would be refunded.
not in the City Limits therefore
of Adjustment had no jurisdiction
Carlisle said the $25.00 filing
13q
• Board of Adjustment
October 20, 1986
Page 3
REQUIRENENT
00 No COLLEGE
The fourth item of consideration was a request submitted by J.B. Hays
and represented by Richard Osborne for a variance on the parking require-
ment from the required 181 spaces to the requested 157, This property
is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial,
Richard Osborne, Attorney for J.B. Hays said the property to the east
was a big bluff and all other adjoining property owners had no objection
to the requested variance. Mr. Osborne stated by the City's count
there were 157 parking spaces and the required number of spaces should
be 181. Osborne said they would stripe and put parking spaces everywhere
they could put them on the pavement but if they pave back where the
bluff was it would be covered in mud all the time. He said the spaces
that were there now were adequate to service the businesses that were
there. He said there was not really any more places to put any more
spaces except right under the bluff which would mean they would be
covered in mud and not used. The only place that may be did not have
enough parking was the Western Sizzlin Restraurant but they felt the
• parking was adequate. Osborne said they would be willing to sign
a Bill of Assurance that the parking would be put in if the need arises
for them to be put in.
In answer to a question from Waldren, Carlisle stated a Certificate
of Occupancy was never issued on the property and as far as she could
tell the first violation was sent in July of 1983. She said some
of the businesses were operating without a C of 0 and it needed to
be cleared up.
Allred asked if any future building or expansions went in would more
parking be required and Carlisle replied "yes". Osborne said they
could not put anything on that land except more parking without permission
from the City.
Allred asked if the variance was not granted what would the relief
be at that point. Osborne said they would pave more dirt and stripe
more spaces.
In answer to a
question
from Tompkins,
Carlisle said all requirements
were met except
for the
parking.
The public hearing was closed and discussion returned to Board members.
Waldren saw no
problem with granting
the variance and
felt the 157
• parking spaces
was sufficient. He said he patronized
those places
and never had a problem with finding
a place to park.
Waldren said
his problem was
that it had drug on
for to long and
that the City
140
Board of Adjustment
October 20, 1986
Page 4
had been wooled and the request that the City made had not been honored.
Mr. Osborne said it was not Mr. Hays intention to wool the City and
it was the intention of a previous Attorney to wool the City in hopes
the problem would go away.
Allred said this problem needed to be resolved and could not see making
a developer needlessly put in asphalt and striping that would not
be utilized and within a year be destroyed by erosion. Allred said
he had no problem with the variance.
Boyd said his problem was they required all kinds of people to put
in the required amount of parking. Boyd said he drove by there and
it was a mess and a mud hole, they cut the hole back there and it
was not this Boards fault it was a mud hole and something should be
done about it.
Tompkins said the intent of the ordinance was to guarantee over a
long period of time the health, safety, prosperity and general welfare.
He said the hardship was created in the beginning and thought efforts
had to be made on a continuing basis to continue to improve the quality
• of the environment. His concern was not with the number of spaces
right now since the original plan was adequate in determining what
was required. He said he was interested in the hardship and perhaps
the off-street loading. He assumed off-street loading would still
occur in the front because they cannot get in the back with a truck.
Tompkins stated another concern was the safety condition of parking
spaces 123-158 as to the sight distance onto a major highway.
Waldren said one solution would be to build a retaining wall in tiers
next to the bluff.
MOTION
Tompkins moved the request be denied as submitted, seconded by Boyd.
The motion to deny passed 3-0-3. Tompkins, Boyd and Mills voting "nay"
and Becker, Waldren and Allred "abstained".
APPEAL 86-21 - SETBACK VARIANCE
FAYETTEVILLE CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP - 1600 MISSION BLVD.
The fifth item of consideration was a requested submitted by the
Fayetteville Christian Fellowship church and represented by Roger
Staub to vary the required setback requirement from 100' from all
property lines for a non-residential use in a Residential District
to the requested 92' from the north property line. This property
• is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District.
Roger Staub stated the architect had over looked the 100' requirement
14(1
Board of Adjustment
October 20, 1986
Page 5
from all property for non-residential uses in a R-1 District. Staub
said the original location was west of Hwy 45 and when they attended
the Plat Review Committee it was pointed out that the facility would
have to be moved 100' from the east property line. He said that created
a problem for them in that the existing farm house had been remodeled
and made into a parsonage. Staub said they moved the facility to
the back of the land which was adjacent to the Memorial Park and came
within 92' of the property line. Staub stated they were requesting
a variance on the 8'. Staub stated it would be a hardship for them
to redraw all the plans and they did not want to destroy the home
sight that exists.
Boyd asked if there was any objection from the Memorial Park and Carlisle
said they had not received any objections from the Memorial Park.
In answer to a question from Mills, Staub said they had spent a lot
of money for architectural drawings for that particular structure
and they felt that was the building that would meet their needs.
Becker asked if there would be a problem with moving the building
closer to notch and having the 8' variance there. He said there
• would be less physical problems than they would with the rear line
of the building parallel to the rear lot line.
Staub said
that
would
not be a
problem
for them
and
basically the
location by
the
Memorial
Park was
what the
architect
had
proposed.
Carlisle stated if something developed on that 3/4 of an acre (she
said there had been people looking at that property) that would throw
the building into a non-conformance and they would be back again.
Boyd said they might be granting a variance that would annoy a person
that might use that property and it would not annoy anyone by the
Memorial Park.
Tompkins stated if they begin to develop that property outside of
the notch then it would become very critical particularly the parking
in terms of residential development.
In answer to a question from Mills, Becker said if the architect made
a mistake normally the client would either be gracious as to "we all
make mistakes" or depending on the size of the mistake they may come
after the architect.
Jim Crouch stated he was representing John Tyson who lived across
Hwy 45 south of the property in question. He said his client wanted
• to preserve as much as possible the residential character of the neighbor-
hood, knowing that it was being eroded a little bit by a school and
now another use other than a residential use. Crouch stated his clients
,4
Board of Adjustment
October 20, 1986
Page 6
concern was to not have the character of the neighborhood changed
any more than possible. Crouch said his client would prefer to have
the church back where it was originally planned rather than up front
but by the same token his client would prefer to not have any variance
granted because it was asking for something they are not supposed
to do in a residential neighborhood. Crouch said the requirements
for the setbacks were there for a purpose and his client would prefer
the variance not be granted and the church try to conform to the require-
ments that the City had. Crouch said another way of avoiding the
variance problem would be to cut the size of the church down.
Tompkins asked how large the congregation was and what were the general
activities. Staub answered their activities would be on Wednesday
night, Sunday morning and Sunday night and the size of the congregation
was approximately 300 people. He said they meet now at the day care
center at the Grandview apartment complex on Country Club Drive and
they had out grown the complex.
In answer to a question from Boyd, Staub said there would not be a
school. Mr. Crouch stated the church and Mr. Tyson entered into a
restrictive covenant that they would not have a school other than
• a Sunday school or church related activities.
Waldren asked what would the church loose if they cut K off the building.
Staub said to the west it would cut off part of a office complex and
to the east side would cut off a large portion of 4 to 5 classrooms.
Staub said it was conceivable to scale the building down but they
had planned very carefully as to what would be adequate for their
needs both present and projected in the next 2 years of growth and
the sanctuary would seat approximately 600 people.
MOTION
Becker moved to grant the variance as presented, seconded by Boyd.
The motion to approve passed 3-2-0. Tompkins and Aaldren voting
"nay" and Mills voting only on a tie vote.
There being no further business , the meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
•
1 q3