Loading...
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