Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-07-02 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING The Fayetteville Board of Adjustment met at 3:45 P.M. on Monday, July 2, 1984 in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chester House, Robert Waldren, Don Mills, Larry Tompkins, Dr. David Crittenden, Dennis Becker and "Butch" Robertson MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: None Dr. Spencer Albright III, Greg House, Dr. Ben Israel, Gary Carnahan, John Carter, David Behl, 0.E. Luttrell, Joan & Bruce Johnson, Tim Bole, Lynn Wade, Jim Hall, Wade & Peggy Bishop, Bobbie Jones, Paula Brandeis, members of the press & others Chairman House called the meeting to order at 3:50 P.M. MINUTES The first item on the agenda was the approval of the minutes of the June 18, 1984 meeting. Upon a motion from Larry Tompkins and a second from Don Mills, the minutes were approved as distributed. APPEAL 84-8 DR. LARRY WOODRUFF 1917 GREEN ACRES ROAD REQUEST TO VARY SIDE SETBACKS The second item on the agenda was Appeal 84-8, a request to vary the side setbacks on property at 1917 Green Acres Road by Dr. Larry Woodruff. This appeal had been approved at the meeting of June 18, 1984, contingent upon the property owner to the north, Dr. Spencer Albright III, granting access to the parking area through his property. Dr. Albright would not agree and a new plat has been submitted with parking revisions that contains all parking on this property. Larry Tompkins wished to clarify two paints. First, he questioned the applicants statement within his application that says "With strict enforcement of the side yard requirement for this project the owner would be deprived of equitable access to his site from Green Acres Road. The variance is requested to better facilitate parking." Tompkins said that this action may influence the use of Woodruff's site but it does not deprive him of access from Green Acres Road. Secondly, the he questioned the abstract easement. 97 • • • Board of Adjustment July 2, 1984 Page 2 Jones replied that the drawing submitted was originally intended for a lot split. She said she is considering this submittal as one parcel. Becker questioned the 45 degree parking data. Jones said that her figures were taken from a recent Architectural Standards publications. Becker also said he felt the point was being stretched in this case because of the extreme parking situation. He added that he would change his vote of the previous meeting from yes to no. No no one was present to represent this appeal and Jones said it would be more appropriate to consider this issue with the petitioner here. MOTION "Butch" Robertson made a motion to table this item until a time when someone could be present to represent this appeal. Crittenden asked to hear from Dr. Albright and Tompkins called for the motion. The motion died for lack of a second and Dr. Albright adjoining property owner to the north, read the following statement: "This is a very sensitive matter with me, which I have agonized about since Dr. Woodruff first approached me on May 21, 1984 with a request for a written easement so that he could utilize some of the property at 1925 Green Acres Road for the access and egress of patients and staff of the dental offices located at 1915 Green Acres Road. It was my understanding at that time that the granting of this requested easement in writing to the Fayetteville City Planning Administration was necessary in order for Dr. Woodruff to build a proposed dental office building. In this situation I find myself between the proverbial 'rock and a hard place'. I do not want to say or do anything that will hurt my friends Larry Woodruff and J.B. Hays. I do want to be a good neighbor to them. I started not to come to this meeting in an effort to be sure that I do not say anything negative concerning this matter. However, when I read the minutes of the June 4 meeting of the Board of Adjustment, I was surprised to read the statement "Hays replied that he and Dr. Albright had agreed to share the parking lot." I have racked my brain, but I cannot recall ever making that agreement. I built the original part of the professional building in 1970 and the western addition to the professional building in 1974. Since I have great concern that the size and location of the proposed dental clinic and the proposed parking along the northern border of the 1915 Green Acres Road property may adversely affect the future utilization of the western portion of the 1925 Green Acres Road property, I decided that I should attend this meeting so as to be sure that my concept of the situation was clearly presented to the Board of Adjustment. 98 • • • Board of Adjustment July 2, 1984 Page 3 I would like to make it clear that I am not speaking in opposition to the requested variance, because I think that such variance will help to obtain the maximal utilization of the western portion of 1915 Green Acres Road. But I want to make it crystal clear for all concerned in this matter and at this meeting that the property at 1925 Green Acres Road is now (and I hope will continue to be in the future) being utilized to maximum capacity as far as parking spaces and traffic flow are concerned; and therefore I cannot and will not be able to allow traffic flow to and from the proposed new dental clinic building to utilize the 1925 Green Acres Road property at all. Dr. Janis Ashley, who conducts her professional practice of Pediatrics in 'The Children's Clinic' at 1925 Green Acres Road in space which is currently being leased to her by my corporation, has expressed her concern as to great traffic congestion -- even now -- outside of the front door of her Clinic. Therefore, in order to try to protect the parents and children, who are going to and from The Children's Clinic, from adverse and potentially dangerous traffic flow, I am going to place concrete bumper guards along the southern and western line of the 1925 Green Acres Road property before construction starts. As I stated earlier, this is a very sensitive matter with me, and I do want to be a good neighbor. Nevertheless, I am concerned about the possible adverse impact of traffic congestion as it relates to the future utilization of the western portion of the 1925 Green Acres Road property." Respectfully Submitted, - Spencer D. Albright, III, M.D. - President, Fayetteville Dermatology & Skin Surgery Clinic, P.A. Chairman House stated that because the petitioner was not present to represent the appeal at this re -hearing, he felt the appeal needed to submitted again as a new appeal following procedure with a new application. NOTION Robert Waldren moved that the petitioner re -apply for this variance. Motion was seconded by Don Mills and passed 7-0-0. APPEAL 84-10 REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF PARKING AND INGRESS/EGRESS REGULATIONS GREG HOUSE — 301 WEST DICKSON ST. The third item on the agenda was a Public Hearing for Greg House, 301 West Dickson St., a request for variance on the number of parking places allowed and a request to vary ingress and egress regulations. Property zoned C-3, Central Commercial. 99 Board of Adjustment July 2, 1984 Page 4 Greg House was present to represent this appeal. He requested the Board to table this appeal as he said he had recently gained some additional information that needed to be taken into consideration and which he had not had time to properly prepare. Tompkins said after glancing at the information thus far provided, he would be in favor of tabling this appeal. NOTION Robert Waldren moved to table this item. "Butch" Robertson seconded the motion and it passed 7-0-0. APPEAL 84-11 REQUEST TO VARY PARKING REQUIREMENTS DR. BEN ISRAEL - 908-F ROLLING BILIS DRIVE The fourth item on the agenda was a Public Hearing for Dr. Ben Israel, to vary the parking requirements for property located at 908-F Rolling Hills Drive, Zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. At the June 18, 1984 meeting of the Board of Adjustment, this item was tabled because there were not enough Board members present to make an equitable decision. The site plan shows 2 parcels of property. The Planning Office assumed 484 theatre seats (requiring 121 spaces) and a balance of 28,200 sq. ft. of building at 1 per 200 sq. ft.; a total of 263 parking is required. 201 spaces are shown on the combined properties. Tompkins asked for clarity of presentation by any representative. Gary Carnahan, representing Dr. Ben Israel, spoke for this appeal. He said the Malco Theatre on Rolling Hills Drive has 6800 sq. ft. and that there is paved parking spaces for 210 cars. Carnahan said in the proposed building plans, they will lose 12 parking spaces but 12 new parking spaces have been added in to the plans. He said he is thinking of the two separate properties as one parcel. Jones said that the properties are, indeed, two separate parcels which have been developed independently of each other. Carnahan said the problem is that he forgot to figure the theatre parking into his plans. He said that including the two new structures there will be a total of 26,000 sq.ft. of building space and based on the requirement of 1 space per 200 sq.ft. they would need 251 parking spaces. He stated that the basis of their appeal is that they feel that theatre parking is usually not required at the same time as retail store parking (the theatre is surrounded by retail/office concerns). Ivo Board of Adjustment July 2, 1984 Page 5 Jones explained that at the time the first agenda regarding this item was put together, the Planning Office did not have the square footage for the theatre. She added that she is satisfied with the computation of the parking and square footage figures at this time. Mills asked if the Board could deal with this project as one unit even though it has never been described that way previously. Jones replied that the request has been advertised as being for the Malco Theatre property. She said that the adjoining property (which Israel also owns) has been shown as part of this. Tompkins varified that the variance being requested is for 41 cars. Chairman House stated that two weeks ago Tuesday,at 11:00 P.M. there were 7 cars parked at the fabric shop and last Tuesday night were fewer than 11 cars in the entire parking lot at 11 P.M. Waldren agreed that there always seems to be enough parking the daytime when he has driven through this area. Mills inquired as to the use of the proposed new buildings and responded that 50% would be retail and 50% professional. during Israel Tompkins, Jones and Carnahan recalculated the new proposed parking and agreed on the figure of 135. Becker asked if anything had been done by the Update Committee about the mass parking situations on a proportionate reduction basis and Jones replied that the Update Committee has not meet in several months. There was no one else present to speak for this appeal; Mr. John Carter, owner of Hancock Fabric Shop, was present to speak in opposition. Carter stated that he has always had a good relationship with Israel. He added that if the proposed structures are built, they will block his loading dock at the back of the shop as well as take 7 parking spaces from him. Carter said that his shipments are usually made by 18 -wheel trucks and their access would become difficult and at times may block Rolling Hills Drive. He said that last night at 5:30 there were 5 cars parked in front of his shop. He questioned an additional 9 parking spaces that Carnahan has spoken of on the west side of the property because 4 of the spaces will be in the fire lane. Carter said his busiest time of day is 7:30 P.M. when the fathers are home to watch the children and the women can get to the shop without them. Tompkins asked if Carter objected to both proposed buildings and Carter responded that he did. 101 Board of Adjustment July 2, 1984 Page 6 Jones interjected that when the plat for College Market addition had been approved, it was done so with the stipulation that the two lots on Rolling Hills Drive would not have direct access to the highway from Rolling Hills Drive. Dr. Israel said that Hancock Fabric patrons have been utilizing Malco Theatre's driveway and although he has never minded this, he would like to get the maximum use out of this prime commercial rental property. In response to Tompkins question, Jones said that Malco Theatre was developed as a separate property as shown on the map. Then several other adjoining properties were developed, also as separate pieces. Carter said that he had been told at the time he purchased his property that there was an easement for access from Rolling Hills Drive. After some discussion, it was thought that the Hancock's loading dock was probably built on the easement and that the delivery trucks arrive for unloading sometime between 11 A.M. and 4 P.M. Carter said that if Israel is granted a reduction in the number of required parking places by constructing another building then theatre customers will probably park on Hancock's lot, interfering with his parking. Israel agreed that people will park as close to their destination as possible. Israel pointed out that all of the current businesses in the Malco Theatre Building close by 5 or 5:30 P.M. except for Dr. Hess who plans to be opened until 7 P.M.. Tompkins reminded Israel that the use of these stores/offices could change, thus changing the times of closing. House said he found it hard to believe that four people would arrive in a single car to see a movie (which is the calculation upon which the number of required parking places is based). There was no one else present to speak either for or against this appeal and Chairman House closed the Public Hearing to Board discussion. House announced that he would abstain as he had done at the previous meeting when this appeal was tabled. Crittenden said he didn't have any strong feelings one way or the other. He said that both parties involved had made good points. He also said he thought Hancock's might have a problem whether or not the proposed buildings are constructed. Crittenden said he would be in favor of the proposal. Mills agreed, as did Robertson and Waldren. Tompkins said he understood the problem but he felt that the intent of the proposal would result in an intense development. Because he didn't see any reduction in the use or size of automobiles, he felt • • Board of Adjustment July 2, 1984 Page 7 the present ordinance was acceptable with regard to number of parking spaces required. Tompkins said he was not in favor of this request. Becker said that he recognized the difference in time reference to the parking situation and he would be in favor of the request. MOTION Waldren moved to grant the request for variance in parking spaces. Robertson seconded and the motion passed 5-1-1 with Tompkins voting "nay" and House abstaining. APPEAL 84-12 DAVID BEHL — 946 N. 46TH STREET REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF SIDE SETBACK The fifth item on the agenda was a Public Hearing on Appeal 84-12, a request by David Behl of 946 N. 46th Street to vary the side setbacks from the required 20 feet to 9'9" (8'8" shown on drawing). Behl was present to represent this appeal. He stated he wants to add on a 20 X 20 ft. room to an existing block building. Behl stated that the existing building has been there for 12 years and since his property has been annexed into the City the side property line setback has become a problem. Behl said he could not build onto the side of his house because there is a sewer system there and he could not utilize the back part of his lot because it is inaccessible for several months of the year when the ground is wet. Jones explained that when the property was annexed into the City, it was zoned A-1 (Agricultural) and will remain such until it is rezoned. She added that, because of the lack of drainage facilities and the lack of sewer systems in this area, it seems that the Planning Commission prefers to wait until someone wants something done before they address any changes in this area. Crittenden inquired if this property met residential side property line setbacks and Jones affirmed this. Behl introduced his south side neighbor, 0.E. Luttrell, who he said has no objections to the granting of this request. Jones stated that there is no indication of what has happened to an adjoining parcel that has been involved in a lot split and Luttrell said that he is the owner of most of the property in this area and he was unaware that there was any problem of a missing piece. Tompkins determined that the actual setback requested is 8'8". 103 • • • Board of Adjustment July 2, 1984 Page 8 Waldren inquired of Behl as to whether he could build his addition on the north side of the property if he were on the City sewer system. Behl confirmed this. Crittenden asked what the existing building is used for and Behl replied that the block building is being used commercially. Jones said she has informed Behl that she cannot approve expansion of the commercial use to the new building. She said if Behl's request is granted, he may use the building for personal storage only, and not for any purpose connected with the current silk screening business. Behl agreed that he would use the building for personal storage only. There being no one else present to speak for or against this request, House closed the Public Hearing to Board discussion. Becker said he saw no problem was granting this variance, as did Waldren, Robertson and Crittenden. Tompkins said he felt that granting this variance would be perpetuating a non -conforming structure. He said he thought there was plenty of space to build a storage structure somewhere else on the lot and he didn't see any hardship in this case. MOTION Becker moved to grant the request for setback variance; Robertson seconded and the motion passed 5-1-1 with Tompkins voting "nay" and Don Mills abstaining. APPEAL 84-13 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DETERMINATION ON APPROPRIATE USE PREVIOUSLY APPLIED WHITE RIVER HARDWOODS 1150 S. HAPPY HOLLOW RD. JOAN AND BRUCE JOHNSON The fifth item on the agenda was a request from the Planning Commission for an opinion from the Board of Adjustment as to whether White River Hardwoods is an "authorized" use at 1159 S. Happy Hollow Road. Mrs. Jones, Planning Administrator, explained to Board Members that when an error or ambiguity is thought to exist, an interpretation of how the zoning ordinance has been administered rests with this body. Jones read a section of the code pertaining to this require- ment. She said the issue is to determine whether the Planning Office was in error in approving the present use administratively with the previous Conditional Uses being granted and without sending it back to the Planning Commission to consider a new Conditional Use request. loll • • • Board of Adjustment July 2, 1984 Page 9 In answer to Tompkins' question, Jones replied that her office had issued the Certificate of Occupancy with the feeling that this business did fall into the appropriate Use Unit 21 (April 1982). Bruce Johnson, owner of White River Hardwoods passed out a letter to Board members explaining the operations of his company. In this letter Johnson stated that his operation is not a sawmill and he does not manufacture a product. He also said he operates less equipment than the average cabinet shop. Johnson added that White River Hardwoods is located in an area of Fayetteville that is primarily of warehouse -type businesses and that he feels his business is an asset to this part of town. In answer to Tompkins' question, Jones repeated that her office had issued the Certificate of Occupancy with the feeling that this business was in the correct Use Unit (April 1982). Jim Hall, Attorney representing Wade and Peggy Bishop, spoke on their behalf in opposition to a request for Conditional Use. He asked for clarification of the purpose of today's meeting. Jones repeated that the purpose was to determine whether the Planning Office has erred in its decision to issue a Certificate of Occupancy administratively. Hall passed around pictures of the property in question along with a petition from all the land owners to the west stating the main objection to White River Hardwoods is the processing of rough oak. He also stated that this business is more than a retail/wholesale outlet. Hall said the three basic problems are 1)the noise generated by the planer and the blower system 2)the sawdust pollution and 3)the clutter in the yard. Hall added that one of the requirements of this Conditional Use had been to erect a view -obscuring fence, which has never been done by the owner (or leasee) of the property. He said that Bishop may not be able to sell four lots directly behind the hardwoods operation because of their proximity to the problems being created there. In answer to Hall's question, Jones said she has placed the use for this business in Use Unit 21 based on the information supplied by the applicant. Hall said that his client feels it should be in Use Unit 23 (which would be I-2 zoning) because of the loud noise created by the planer. He said that the decibel readings taken recently that show compliance were taken when the wind was northwesterly and about 20 feet over the Bishop property line instead of on the property line which is the condition the noise ordinance requires. He added that the readings were taken at a time when the planer was not in operation. Bishop stated he has no objections to this business operating in the method in which the applicants represented on their original application which was a retail/wholesale lumber company. He said after the building was occupied, it became a manufacturing company. Bishop said he felt 105 Board of Adjustment July 2, 1984 Page 10 Mrs. Jones would not have given her approval to this use if she thought the applicants would use the premises for another use not stated. Becker said that, because Bishop is satisfied that Jones gave her approval based on the applicants information, the Board's obligation was ended. He said he felt that the Board's purpose was not to judge land use and that this issue should go back to the Planning Commission. Tompkins said he wished to hear the remainder of the dialogue and Becker said he felt that these details need to be brought out with the Planning Commission and not the Board of Adjustment. Hall requested that if the Board of Adjustment agrees that the property is being currently used within the Use requirement to make that fact clear to the Planning Commission. He said he felt that the Planning Commission had requested of the Board of Adjustment to decide whether the use of the property was appropriate and not whether the Planning Office had been in error by making the decision in the first place. Becker replied that he thought the Board of Adjustment purpose was not to determine the use of property at this time but to approve or disapprove the administrative decision that Jones has made. Becker said that Jones had made the decision that White River Hardwoods fell within Use Unit 21 at the time it was approved and he agreed with that decision. He added that it was up to the Planning Commission to determine whether the current use is still within Use Unit 21. MOTION Becker moved to accept the decision that Jones made in 1982 as to White River Hardwoods being within Use Unit 21 as being correct. Don Mills seconded the motion and discussion followed. Crittenden asked to hear from the adjacent property owner in the audience. The property owner stated that he did not care if this business expands but he said he felt they should take care of the various problems that have been stated at today's meeting before expansion is allowed. The motion to accept Jones decision passed 7-0-0. SPECIAL REQUEST Mills asked Chairman House to request for the Board of Adjustment that the Update Committee take action or resign. She said this committee has been in recess for too long. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:45 P.M. 106