Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-06-04 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING The Fayetteville Board of Adjustment met at 3:45 P.M., on Monday, June 4, 1984 in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Chester House, Robert Waldren, Crittenden, "Butch" Robertson, and Dennis Becker None Don Mills, David Larry Tompkins, Dr. J.B. Hays, Dr. Larry Woodruff, Collins Haynes, Bobbie Jones, and Paula Brandeis The meeting was called to order by Chairman House. MINUTES Larry Tompkins moved to approve the minutes of the May 21, 1984 meeting as distributed. David Crittenden seconded and the motion passed 5-0-1; Waldren abstained as he had not received a copy of the minutes. Robertson arrived after the approval of the minutes. APPEAL 84-8 The second item on the agenda was a Public Hearing on Appeal 84-8, property located at 1917 Green Acres Road for Dr. Larry Woodruff. A request for a 4 ft. side setback with a brick planter wall on the property line. A 10 ft. side setback is required in this R-0 zone. Dr. Larry Woodruff and Collins Haynes, Architect, were present to speak for this appeal. Woodruff stated that his plan was to add on to Dr. Hays' existing dental clinic on the west side. He said in order to gain a building of the size that is needed and in order to keep traffic free-flowing in the parking area, he needs to move the building south. Woodruff said the building will be 4 ft. from the south property line and the planter wall will be directly on the property line. He added that approval of this project has been gained in letter form from the neighboring property owner to the south, Dr. Broyles. Jones handed out copies of the letter from Carole Broyles to all Board members. Tompkins inquired as to what will happen to the sidewalks and was told that it would remain where it is. Hays stated that there will be communication between the two buildings in order to share some of the facilities and equipment. He advised Board members that this property had undergone an unsolicited re -zoning to R-0 in June, 1970 and if this had not taken place, they would have been able to go ahead with these plans without coming before the Board. 85 1 Board of Adjustment June 4, 1984 Page 2 Crittenden asked how close the building would come to the property line if the planter was not involved and Woodruff replied that the wall would be 4 ft. Crittenden stated that this was not within the Ordinance and Woodruff said that it would keep it within (less than) the 10 ft. setback requirement. Crittenden stated that even without a planter, the applicants would need a 6 ft. variance; Woodruff agreed. Crittenden asked for clarification of the parking situation as part of the reason for this request. Woodruff said that if they moved the building to the north to meet the 10 ft. setback requirement they would congest the parking area. Hays stated that he and Woodruff intend for this project to be a condo - minimum -type office suite in which the doctors will share some of the facilities as well as the X-ray equipment. Robertson asked if the new building would be the same size as the existing one and Woodruff said it would be 400 sq. ft. larger and that the outside will look the same. Mills asked if the X-ray equipment would be moved back and forth between the buildings and Hays replied that after moving it to its new location it would remain in place (with access to both doctors). Woodruff explained that each building will have two hallways and he would like the hallways in the proposed building to align with the hallways in the existing building. Waldren asked if the buildings could be lined up and was answered that, if they were, then the hallways wouldn't line up. Crittenden asked how high the planter would be and was told it would be approximately four feet high. Becker inquired as to the care of the planter and Haynes replied that the planter would be accessible from the inside. He explained that the purpose of the planter was to offer an attractive view for both the patients and for those passing by on the outside. Haynes added that another major purpose of this design was to allow a more equitable parking arrangement for Woodruff. Tompkins commented that the parking area was very large and asked if this was a common parking area. Hays replied that he and Dr. Albright had agreed to share the parking lot. Becker stated he had a problem view before making a decision. plan which showed the internal for Board members to see). with not being presented a plan to Hays replied that he had a working layout. (He placed it on the table 9' • • • • Board of Adjustment June 4, 1984 Page 3 Tompkins asked if there was a hardship in getting the requested 2400 sq. ft. by taking Dr. Hays' original building and staying within the framework. He then inquired of Jones of the action taken at the time this property was rezoned. Tompkins asked how many lots are now non- conforming and how many buildings are non -conforming. Jones responded that the feeling at the time of the rezoning was that Green Acres Road was developing as primarily a medical office area and so much of it was rezoned R-0 (residential -office). She said that at one time the zoning was "...so many feet parallel to College Avenue.." and it was changed to place the C-2 boundary one property north of Dr. Stanton's Veterinary Clinic. Mills asked why the new building could not be placed at an angle, connect the hallways and meet the requirements. Haynes stated that it could have been done but the architectural plans called for the design as presented which keeps the building looking as though it is one instead of two buildings. He added that the parking would have become a problem if it had been handled in the fashion Mills suggested. Haynes explained that a medical suite must meet certain conditions for such things as sterile hallways. He stated that the criteria in these plans were: 1. to make the building functional 2. to match Dr. Hays' building and 3. to make it accessible for parking Haynes said he did not think that approving this request would adversely affect any property owner. Waldren inquired if the planter could be eliminated and the hallways still be aligned. Woodruff stated, that, for the welfare of his patients, he would prefer to retain the planter. He said that this is aesthetically preferable to viewing the parking lot. Tompkins inquired as to how many acres in this immediate area are zoned R-0. He said he was thinking in terms of this being put together as a Planned Unit Development. Jones said there are less than 5 acres. When Tompkins suggested a PUD as a possibility, Jones advised that everyone presently located in this area would have to be involved. Woodruff said that he is presently awaiting a written approval from Dr. Albright for use of the north side parking area, which will facilitate a measure of cooperation. Jones said that when the original submittal was presented to her, the request was for a lot split off of Dr. Hays' property. She said when she realized it would not meet the R-0 code requirement (because 87 Board of Adjustment June 4, 1984 Page 4 of the 25 ft. rear yard setback for Dr. Hays' existing building) she advised Woodruff of this and told him he would have to submit the building permit application based on the total property as one parcel, including a full legal description; a plot plan showing the existing improvements (building, parking, driveways, etc.)and a proposed plan. Jones stated that she had also advised the applicant that the original drawing did not show enough parking for this building size and that the plan should show parking equivalent of one parking space for every 300 sq. ft. of total floor space for the combined buildings. She added that she had also inquired as to how the parking on the north side would be accessed. Jones indicated that they have been to the Board of Directors and have approval to execute a Bill of Assurance agreeing to share the cost of widening Green Acres Road at a future date (at the call of the City). She added that the original drawing did show Woodruff meeting the 10 ft. setback on the south from the wall and not the overhang. Jones said when she pointed out to Woodruff that there was no access to the north side parking, they redrafted the plan as presented to the Board of Adjustment today. Tompkins asked if this plan were approved and parking were accessible from the North, that backing into Green Acres Road would cease. Jones added that the present code would not allow that for new development. Hays stated that there is enough room between the sidewalk in front of his building to back a car into a position to exit east or west without backing into Green Acres. Tompkins suggested allowing a variance conditional upon written agreement from Dr. Albright as to access to the parking. Becker reminded Board members that the building as it exists does not meet the 10 ft. setback. Hays responded that when plans were begun for this project, he would have been allowed to place the building directly on the property line. Haynes added that the original plan did call for an eventual addition. Jones advised that re -zoning this property alone would not solve the problem because when a property changes from an R-0 to a C-2 the setback requirement becomes even greater (15 ft.)if the property abutts an R-0 property. There being no one present in the audience to oppose this appeal, the Public Hearing was closed to discussion among Board members. Crittenden declared a conflict and said he would not vote. House said that he would also abstain. 88� Board of Adjustment June 4, 1984 Page 5 Tompkins said he was concerned about several issues, two of which were parking and circulation. He also said that in terms of the kind of hardship that is created with the City having re -zoned this property (with the intent of developing medical facilities) he felt it was a unique situation because the applicants had acted in good faith. Tompkins said he would be in favor of granting the request. Becker said he would vote in favor of the request and he added that he would advise leaving the planter. Mills stated that she thought the planter could be eliminated and also, that the setbacks could be met with further work on the plans. She said that she did not think a hardship was involved. Mills said she felt that the applicant was working around the setbacks instead of working with them. Robertson said that in view of the history involved with this building he didn't have any problem with this request. He added that he would rather not see the planter placed on the property line but he could understand the reasoning behind this idea. Waldren stated that he had no objections to the plan of matching the buildings but he said he thought that a four feet of planter may not be high enough to block the view of cars and he added that he was concerned that people might back into the wall. Hays asked if the planter wall itself needed a variance or a building permit and Jones replied that if it were constructed as a fence it would not, but if it were structually part of the building it probably would. He said he could construct the planter as a fence if necessary. Jones advised that the overhang would bring the building closer than 4 feet to the property line. Woodruff said that the property directly south of the proposed addition is totally open and only one half (east side) is being used. Waldren expressed concern about property owners who become trapped in zoning changes. Woodruff said that moving the building six feet would keep him within the bounds of Dr. Hays' building and so if a six foot variance were granted along with permission to build a brick fence -type planter, he could accomplish what he needed. Tompkins suggested that if this proposal were approved for the north side, the neighbor to the south might wish to have the same consideration of sharing the parking lot. Woodruff replied that that would be unlikely as there would be no connection from the neighbor's building to his. 89 I Q0 J • Board of Adjustment June 4, 1984 Page 6 Chairman House clarified that the doctor to the south of this property had sent a letter saying that she had no objections to the building being one foot or less from her property line. MOTION Waldren moved to grant the variance to align the south wall of this building with the southern most wall of Hays' building and to allow the construction of a brick fence within one foot or less of the property line. Robertson seconded, followed by discussion. Collins Haynes acknowledged that the roof overhang would be one and one-half to two feet. Tompkins stated that approving this appeal would be perpetuating non- conforming structures. Mills asked for the motion to be amended to include a condition of written approval from Dr. Albright for ingress/egress to the property. Waldren and Robertson agreed to amend the motion as Mrs. Mills requested. The motion passed as amended 5-0-2, Crittenden and House abstaining. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:38 P.M.