Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-12-20 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board ofi'Cdjustment was held at 3:45 P. M., Monday, December 20, 1976, in the Board of Directors Room, Chamber of Commerce Building, 123 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chairman Carl Yates, Chester House, Mrs. Don Mills, Larry Smith, Dr. James White, Connie Clack. David Newbern, Herbert Hatfield, Dr. J. B. Hays, John Box, Ken Lazenby, Leon Cox, James Baker, Bobbie Jones, Angie Medlock. Chairman Carl Yates called the meeting to order. The first item for discussion was the 76-38, Ken Lazenby, 1298, 1350, 1362, Farmers Drive on an application to quirements for duplexes in the R-1 specifically he is requesting 78.4 requires 80 feet per duplex. public hearing on Appeal No. 1374, and 1384 East vary street frontage re- zoning district; or more feet street frontage per duplex APPEAL NO. 76-38 Ken Lazenby E. Farmers Drive and the Ordinance Ken Lazenby said when this first came to the Board (Planning Commission), this particular land was all zoned A-1; this included Farmers Lane. A request was made to rezone this to allow duplexes when it was zoned A-1. One of the reasons for rejecting the idea at that time was that either the sewer or water was not adequate to accomodate them. This has been corrected and can now serve this area. He said he resubmitted this for the following reasons: (1) At this time there has been quite a demand for rental housing and in this particular area it seems to be especially suitable because the location is close to high -employment areas and schools; (2) There are adequate facilities there for this type of dwelling. If you take it on a square footage basis it will more than exceed the required footage. The frontage is about 1 foot, 8 inches less than what is allowed. He said they have provided in the planning to allow off-street parking. Mr. Lazenby apologized for missing the Planning Commission Meeting on December 13, 1976, but said he had been confused about the time He said the need is there for apartments and the property is ideally suited. Dr. White asked Mr. Lazenby how long he has owned this property and Mr. Lazenby said since about 1970 or 1971. He said at the time he purchased it, it was not divided into lots and he has since divided it into lots. Chairman Yates said if this was just a tract of land when he bought it and then had he divided it into the 5 lots? Bobbie Jones said this was right. Chairman Yates asked Bobbie Jones if the street will have to be paved and curb and gutter installed and Mr. Lazenby said Community Development is going to try to pave the road. He said they are making a survey to see how many people will contri- bute to paving it. He said if you own a home and live in it, you will not have to pay to have the street paved. However, if you have rental property on the street, you will be charged an assessment for the paving of the street. Dr. White asked Bobbie Jones if Farmers Drive is a city street and Bobbie Jones said "yes". Bobbie Jones said they are just "metes and bounds" lots of record; it has never been broken up as lot numbers.or proposed as a subdivision. Mr. Lazenby mentioned that the trailer park directly behind his property is zoned R-2. Bobbie Jones said the area was predominantly A-1 at the time the Ordinance was passed in 1970. All of the rezonings done in that area since 1970, were done at the request of the people who own the property. Connie Clack asked what the minimum lot width is for single family and Bobbie Jones said it is 70 feet. She asked if he had thought about dividing this into four 80 -foot • • • Board of Adjustment Meeting December 20, 1976 lots and Mr. Lazenby said at thing to do. Connie Clack asked if he had divided it and he said "no". the time he divided the lots, it seemed to be the best questioned what the minimum width was for lots when he He repeated that since that time water and sewer have been corrected and they have revised plans showing that for each lot there is adequate room to have four off-site parking places so the traffic problem would not be hazardous. The parking would be off the street not out on the street. He added that they feel this is a good place to build the duplexes. There is a demand and a shortage, it is near a school and they can put a better looking duplex at a greater savings than if we would put in a small house. Chairman Yates asked if this is a subdivision and Bobbie Jones said it was Lot Splits approved by the Planning Commission. Ken Lazenby said they chose to ask for rezoning and lot splits; that is how they wound up with the 5 lots. Chairman Yates asked if they decided to put 4 duplexes and one single family house what would be involved. Mr. Lazenby said it would involve resurveying and replatting of the land and preparation of a new abstract. He said it would be quite a bit of expense. Connie Clack stated that he would still have four lots on which to build duplexes and one lot for a single family house. Ken Lazenby said he only lacks 1 foot, 8 inches of meeting the minimum frontage requirements. Connie Clack asked how deep the lots are and Mr. Lazenby said they vary from 165 feet on the south to 192 feet on the north. Leon Cox, 1400 Farmers Lane was present to oppose the request and said that if they do widen the road it will be too close to his house and the other people's -houses. He said they just don't have room for it. They will have trouble if they have 24 more cars on the street. Chairman Yates asked what the width of the street is and Mr. Cox said it is about 20-25 feet and if they widen the road all the houses will be too close to the road. He said most of the utilities are on the east side. James -Baker, 1399 East Farmers Lane said he thought Mr. Lazenby had said they improved the water or sewer but Mr. Baker said they haven't done anything in 13 or 14 years. He said there isn't room enough on the road and children play in the street. He questioned whether Mr. Lazenby would be taking in the creek on the east side of his lot. Chairman Yates asked if Mr. Baker had talked to Mr. Hoffman in Community Development about the paving of the street and Mr. Baker said all of the people on the street are against paving it. Ken Lazenby stated that he doesn't want to cause a lot of trouble but widening the street would probably affect two or three houses right off of Highway 62; the thing that would affect Mr. Baker and Mr. Cox is that there is a cul de sac at the end of the street and there would not be room to make a good cul de sac. He said the street adequately improved the price of the property. He said he had been told that if the street is paved by Community Development funds the only ones who will have to pay are those who own the property for rental. He said if you own the property and live in it you will not be affected. There will be adequate room to park without parking on the street. If they do park on the street it would be their choice. He said he could set the houses back further and allow for more parking if the Board wants him to. He said the ditch is in back of Mr. Cox's property and runs along the west side of Western Hills Trailer Park and the east side of his property, and all of the 165 feet is usable space He told Mr. Walter Grimes, the owner of the trailer park, that he could use that land if he wished to because Mr. Lazenby has no plans to use it. Mr. Lazenby said he is willing to help pave the street but he doesn't want to get into the contingency thing because there is no possible way the street will be paved by Community Development funds until about 1978. Mr. Cox said he still doesn't know where the land is coming from to build the street. He said they would need to study that to see if they have room for it. Bobbie Jones said at the hearing before the Planning Commission they denied the request for duplexes but he is going to ask for a rehearing so whatever the Board of Adjustment decides will be contingent on the Planning Commission. Mr. Lazenby said there are quite sizable ditches on each side of the street which will help make the street wider. There seems to be adequate room. Dr. White asked if it is already rezoned R-1 and Ken Lazenby said "yes". The public hearing was concluded. • • • Board of Adjustment Meeting December 20, 1976 The public hearing was opened on Appeal No. 76-39, Herbert APPEAL NO. 76=39 Hatfield, 117 and 123 North College Avenue, on an application Herbert Hatfield to vary setbacks, or more specifically he is requesting a 20 117 $ 123 N. College foot setback for a pump island and the Ordinance requires 25 feet from the street right-of-way and he is asking for a 9.5 feet setback for a canopy and the required is 20 feet from the street right-of-way. Mr. Hatfield stated that he thought he was all right as he was but Mr. Lieberenz came out and measured it and he was short of the required setback. Mr. Hatfield said he had measured from the street (curb) and Mr. Lieberenz was measuring from the sidewalk. He said from the inside of the sidewalk it makes quite a difference in the measure- ment. He said he is still about 10 feet closer than any other canopy on College in that area. Connie Clack asked if this was the same location he originally requested and Mr. Hatfield said "yes". He said they are going to make considerable improvements to that area. Chairman Yates asked Mr. Hatfield if a 24 foot canopy would be the narrowest he could get by with. Mr. Hatfield said if it was any smaller it wouldn't even cover a car. He said he needs the 12 feet to cover a car in rain or sun. He said it would be high enough to not cause any obstruction of view. Dr. White asked if the proposed pump island is in line with the existing one and Mr. Hatfield said it is. He said it would be a considerable improvement to what was there previously. He stated that everything else up and down the street is much closer to the street than the canopy would be. Chairman Yates asked if this is zoned C-3 and Bobbie Jones said "yes". Bobbie Jones said you would have 5 feet setback requirement in the C-3 without parking between the building and the right-of-way and if you propose parking between the building and the right-of-way it would be 50 feet for a building other than a service station. This request is for a waiver from the service station regulations themselves. Chairman Yates asked if there would be a building behind this island and Mr. Hatfield said "No". The public hearing was concluded. The public hearing was opened on submitted by Dr. J. B. Hays, for Acres Road, on an application to the request for rehearing Appeal No. 76-36, 1915 Green vary setbacks; more specifically APPEAL NO. 76-36 Dr. J. B. Hays 1915 Green Acres Rd. he is requesting a 5 foot, 6 inch side yard setback and the Ordinance requires 15 feet when adjoining an R-0 zone. Chairman Yates asked the Board if they would like to have a rehearing on Dr. Hays' appeal and there was no objection. Dr. White moved to grant him a rehearing. Connie Clack seconded the motion, which was passed unanimously, by a vote of 6-0. Dr. Hays said his building was constructed six years ago and at that time the land was zoned commercial and it did not require a side setback. After he got a permit the City rezoned his property to R-0 without his request. He stated that he worked very well with the adjacent owner to the South. They would like to continue their building on the same line it is because they have plumbing tunnels underneath and hallways in line and a parking plan with Dr. Albright. He said Dr. 'Albright and all of the immediate owners and lease participants agree that this would be the best parking arrangement. The roof lines would be on a parallel basis and probably this would help with the cost. He thinks it would be reasonable to continue this in its present plan. A variance of a similar nature was granted to the property owner to the immediate north. He said he has a common driveway and parking area with Dr. Albright. If they shift the building 15 feet it would cut out 4 or 5 parking spaces. He stated that he had talked with the people having the leases to the south and they agree with what he is proposing to do. Chairman Yates asked if the building is approximately 39 feet in width and Dr. Hays said "yes". The variance would be 91/2 feet. He stated that at the time he built the building he could have built directly on the property line but he set back for a side- walk and to cooperate with Dr. Albright on the parking. John Box, Dr. Hays' builder, said it would be a lot more practical if it was built straight on and the parking situation would be a lot better. Q5 • • • Board of Adjustment Meeting December 20, 1976 Connie Clack asked if there is a question about how much setback is actually required and Bobbie Jones said the Ordinance says side setback is 10 feet and then it says the side setback next to residentially zoned property is 15 feet and they do consider R-0 to be residential. The empty lot to the South of the adjoining lot is commercial. Connie Clack asked if he had thought about narrowing his building 41 feet and Dr. Hays said it would be wasted space and impractical. Chairman Yates acknowledged the following letter from Dr. Albright: Members, Board of Adjustment Office of City Planning P. 0. Drawer F Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Dear Members, Board of Adjustment. December 16, 1976 Re: Appeal by J. B. Hays, D.D.S. for re -hearing on Appeal #76-36 This letter is written to you requesting that you grant Dr. J. B. Hays the nece- ssary variance so that he can construct an addition to his current building with the requested south side yard set -back of 5'6". I write this letter as an interested party in that I am President and Chief Stockholder of the Fayetteville Dermatology Clinic, P. A. which is located immediately north of the property owned by Dr. Hays. I have practiced in this location for over 6 years and our Dermatology Clinic has a long-term lease agreement with the Albright Trust which owns the property on which our Dermatology Clinic is located and which is immediately to the north of Dr. Hays' property. Our original clinic building was built prior to Dr. Hays current clinic building. When he planned that clinic building this land area was zoned C-2 Commercial and Dr. Hays placed his clinic building at a location which was not only best for him, but also for all adjacent property owners. The current placement of his building allowed the most functional development of parking for his patients to the north of his build- ing and for my patients to the south of the Fayetteville Dermatology Clinic building. This allowed parking lot construction on both properties to be tied together for maxi- mum efficiency and land utilization. When I was confronted with the problem of planning a westward expansion of the current Dermatology Clinic building to accommodate space for my partner, Dr. J. D. Ginger, I found that the land on which the Dermatology Clinic building rested had been re -zoned to R-0 and I faced the same problem which Dr. Hays currently faces. For our clinic to have had to comply with the new R-0 10' set -backs would have made satis- factory extension of the clinic building, satisfactory parking, and best land utili- zation impossible. Therefore, the Board of Adjustments granted us a variance for our new west addition in early 1974. I believe if you will look at our current total clinic building and land usage, you will see how functional and architecturally pleas- ing the total clinic building now is. Dr. Hays' request for above stated variance appears to me to be completely reas- onable and in the best interest of the development of not only his property, but also that of our Fayetteville Dermatology Clinic leased property. It would certainly be best for the westward extension of his building to be set as far south as his current building is set so that the space on the north side of his property can continue to be used as best as possible for parking. To force him to comply with the literal require- ments of the current R-0 Zoning Requirements would force him to build a jagged building 8% • • • Board of Adjustment Meeting December 20, 1976 -5- which would not be architecturally pleasing to this area Also, as a practitioner of medicine, I understand the importance of designing professional practice space that will be maximally efficient for the performance of professional services. Dr. Hays in his current plans for his westward addition has done just this. Therefore, in addition to the previously stated reasons for requesting the zoning variance for him, I would point out to you that failure to approve a variance would work a severe hardship on him and his partner, Dr. Frank C. Grammar in their efficient and high-quality practice of oral surgery. Your consideration of my request will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, Spencer D. Albright, III, M.D. President, Fayetteville Dermatology Clinic, P.A. SDA:csb The public hearing was concluded Bobbie Jones stated that this was C-2 at the time his original building permit was issued. This was already developing as an area for medical clinics and it was put into R-0 because medical clinics fit into the R-0, usewise. She said the Planning Commission probably wasn't even aware that there would be a different setback. Chairman Yates said Dr. Hays may want to bring this difference to the attention of the Planning Commission. Larry Smith said it is too costly for someone to move when they need to expand, because they can't meet new zoning setbacks. Dr. White made a motion to grant the variance for side setbacks from 15 feet to S feet, 6 inches, as requested. Chester House seconded the motion which was passed 5-0-1, with Larry Smith abstaining. Connie Clack said it seems to her that there is still APPEAL NO. 76-39 nothing about Mr. Hatfield's land that makes it unique. Herbert Hatfield Mr. Hatfield said it will make it off -set if you make 117 $ 123 N. College the canopy run along the side of the building rather than the side of the street. Chairman Yates said it doesn't make any sense to allow them to build a pump island and then not a canopy. Bobbie Jones said the Planning Commission said the canopy can go 5 feet past the pump island. Mr. Hatfield said this canopy is not attached to the building; it will be self -standing. Dr. White asked to separate this into two requests. From the standpoint of traffic he can see a pump island but from the standpoint of comfort when he has another pump island they could pull the car under he can't see that. Mr. Hatfield said this would be a separate operation from that because this would be self-service and the other one is full-service. Dr. White said he is not convinced that every pump island requires a canopy. Chairman Yates said he does not agree with David Newbern's idea about hardship. He feels the Board would have to have some leeway in this. It seems with the situation as it has developed that we are placing an undue hardship upon Mr. Hatfield in not allowing him to build. He said he would be in favor of granting the pump island. Connie Clack said she feels the same way as Chairman Yates. She said she doesn't look on this as a permanent installation. She said it would be possible to change it if it would have to be changed at some point. Mr. Hatfield said he has progressed with the building and it will create a considerable hardship not to complete it as it is being built. He thought it was o.k. as it was but 77 • • • Board of Adjustment Meeting December 20, 1976 -6- Mr. Lieberenz came out and remeasured it and he did not meet the setback. Mr. Hatfield said he had already obtained a permit thinking he was in line of where he should be. Dr. White asked if the building permit specified the distance from the property line and Bobbie Jones said "yes". It shows 20 feet on the canopy and 25 feet on the gas pumps Larry Smith asked if, when the Board of Directors amended the Major Street Plan, they were approving dimensions or if they were approving the gas pumps to be in line. Dr. White moved to grant the pump island variance as requested. Larry Smith seconded the motion, which was passed 4-2, with White, Smith, Yates, and Clack voting "Aye" and House and Mills voting "Nay". Connie Clack said she would be in favor of granting the variance for the canopy. It would be desirable to have the cover over the entire car and it should be the same as the one that is already there. Connie Clack made a motion to approve the variance on the canopy as requested. Larry Smith seconded the motion which was passed 4-2, with White, Smith, Yates and Clack foting "aye" and House and Mills voting "Nay". Connie Clack said she thinks Mr. Lazenby should have made his lot APPEAL No. 76-38 sizes for four duplexes and a single-family dwelling. Dr. White Ken Lazenby agreed. He said the thing that worries him is all of the spot- E. Farmers Drive zoning. Bobbie Jones said Mr. Grimes who owns the mobile home park went to court and got a 30 foot right -of -access across the property South of Mr. Lazenby. Chairman Yates stated that if they turn down the request for a variance he can still build four duplexes and one house. Chester House mentioned that he would have to have the property resurveyed and replatted. Dr. White asked Bobbie Jones how this land gets rezoned and she said it was left A-1 on the 1970 map and she thought it was because there was no sewer there. Sewer has been put in since 1970. Mr. Lazenby requested R-2 but the Planning Commission rezoned it to R-1 because he could still build the duplexes on appeal, but he wouldn't be able to build apartments. Dr. White mentioned that this is a dirt road. Larry Smith said he feels the street will be paved by Community Development so he doesn't feel that it will make any difference. Connie Clack stated that he can still build four duplexes if they don't grant the variances. Chairman Yates said they are looking at minimum lot width and Mr. Lazenby knew this, or should have known this, when he bought the tract of land and divided it up. Connie Clack moved to deny the request for the variance. Dr. White seconded the motion which was passed unanimously, by a vote of 6-0. Chairman Yates acknowledged a letter from the Inspection Superintendent on the Fayette- ville Waste Paper Company. Connie Clack stated she agreed with Mr. Lieberenz' decision. The minutes of the December 6 Board of Adjustment meeting MINUTES were approved as mailed with the provision that if David Newbern needs to have something changed we will allow him to change it at the next meeting. Chairman Yates talked about the time limit for obtaining RULES AND PROCEDURES a building permit proposed in Item 12. He said Larry Smith said it takes a lot of time to work on big projects. Larry Smith said he could not even start working on the project for Dr. Hays until he found out if the variance would be granted or denied. He feels that 60 days is too short of a time limit. Chairman Yates said on most things 60 or 90 days would be plenty of time for the construction to begin unless at the time the variance was made they requested the time be extended. He said they should make whoever is asking for the variance be aware that this is a problem. Larry Smith said this may be o.k. as long as at the time they are granted the variance they are told that they are expected to obtain their building permit by a certain time. Dr. White stated that some people have come for a n • • • Board of Adjustment Meeting December 20, 1976 second variance before they do anything on the first variance and you have a variance on top of a variance. Bobbie Jones stated that the alternative to that would be to recommend to the City Attorney and Planning Commission that they write a provision into the Zoning Ordinance with a time limit. Chairman Yates said he is inclined to thinkthat::the time limit would have to be taken care of in the Ordinance. He doesn't feel the Board of Adjustment has any authority to do this. Connie Clack said she thinks it should be done in each case individually. Dr. White said there is probably room for another rule. He said there is no provision for a rule to alter the rules. He suggested that there should be a specific provision to alter the rules by a 2/3 majority of the Board. Dr. White asked if we would be transmitting these on up to the Board and Bobbie Jones said she wasn't sure. He said if it is just an in-house rule it would be different. Chairman Yates said he thinks it is just internally. Mrs. Clack suggested that the Board might include a condition requiring the appellant to obtain a building permit within a specified time period with each variance granted. Bobbie Jones stated that it is possible to get a renewal of a building permit, if at the end of 180 days they have not started construction. Chairman Yates said the City Attorney had no comment on Rule 9. The Board decided to eliminate the last sentence on Rule 9 and add the following wording at the end of Rule 9: By majority vote, the Board may delay public hearing and/or deliberation and decision of any application or appeal until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board. Any further delay must also be by a majority vote of the Board and must be based upon the request of the appellant or applicant, either in writing or by oral statement before the Board. In no case will decision of an appeal or application be delayed beyond the second regular meeting after the original meeting at which the appeal or application was considered. They also decided to eliminate all of Rule 12 as written. The new Rule 12 would read, Rules vie Procedures and Regulations of the Board of Adjustment, Fayetteville, Arkansas, may be amended only after the members of the Board have been notified in writing and by a 2/3 majority vote of the members. Connie Clack suggested we change Rule 1 to read: It is the purpose of these rules to set forth the procedure to be followed at all Board of Adjustment meetings, including both the public hearings and the deliberative sessions of the Board, and to regulate enforcement of condi- tional variances. These rules do not govern the procedure to be followed by applicants for variances prior to Board meetings or in appealing from decisions of the Board. Rules governing pre- and post -Board meeting procedure are set forth in Article 10 of Appendix A to the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances, as amended, hereafter referred to as "the Zoning Appendix." Chester House made a motion that the Rules of Procedure and Regulations be:approved with the three:.deviations listed above. Dr. White seconded the motion which was passed unanimously, by a vote of 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 P. M. 89'