Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-11-02 Minutes• MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, November 2, 1987 at 3:45 p.m. in Room Ill of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas, MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Robert Waldren, Jerry Allred, Gerald Boyd, Dennis Becker and Larry Tompkins MEMBERS ABSENT: NONE MINUTES The minutes of the October 5, 1987 meeting were approved as distributed. APPEAL 87-24 - FAYETTEVILLE CITY HOSPITAL 221 S. SCHOOL - STEVE DYER The first item of consideration was a request for a variance in the required setbacks. Application submitted by Fayetteville City Hospital located at 221 S. School. Requesting a variance from the required 30' on the west to 0' and from the required 30' on the south to 0'. Property zoned P-1, Institutional. Mr. Dyer stated that housing and health care for the elderly :is a growing problem in our nation. As the elderly population in Fayetteville increases, the need for quality health care via' nursing home beds is great, as is evidenced by the near is 100% occupancy rate of our geriatric center and waiting -list of -persons -requiring admission to their facility. Should they fail to expand the facility to accomodate this need, many individuals may have no choice but to seek health care in other communities. The Fayetteville City Hospital would like to propose a 24 bed addition to the south geriactric wing and to expand the dining & day rooms to correct a deficiency from the office of long term care. The only available space large enough for this size addition is on the south side of the block. But to build in this area they must have a variance from the setback requirements along South Street and West Street. Since the right-of-ways on both these streets extend several feet beyond the sidewalks, visibility at the intersection of the two streets would not be impaired, and the grass spaces remaining between the new structure and the sidewalks would be attractively landscaped to provide a pleasing appearance to their neighbors and any passing vehicles. Mr. Dyer pointed out that the drawings that had been submitted were preliminary and had not been to an architect. He added if the variance was granted a new plat would be submitted to the Planning Office. Mr. Dyer also noted that several members from the City Hospital Board were present at this meeting. Tompkins advised he was interested in the parking in the preliminary plan. Mr. is �3 • Board of Adjustment November 2, 1987 Page 2 Dyer noted that after the moritorium was lifted patients would be added at that time and the plan at this point in time was for the additional parking to be added a block north of the City Hospital which they owned. Waldren noted that the Master Street Plan and the actual street had the required 60' of ROW with an extra 5' on West Street and extra 7-1/2' on South street. Mr. Dyer advised the proposed addition would add approximately 12-15 jobs at the City Hospital once completed and fully staffed. Waldren asked if the variance was granted would the Hospital have a problem with the motion being contingent upon the required amount of parking spaces. Tompkins said in that this was a preliminary plat asked if they had looked at any alternatives to the proposed plan. Mr. Dyer said he did not see any options to any great difference than what had been proposed to the Board. Mills asked what would be the problem if they took the addition and moved it towards the hospital some and then back towards South Street. Mr. Dyer said they might be able to take the two end rooms on West Street and place them further back. • In answer to a question from Tompkins, Mr. Dyer advised the building was in conformance on west and south side. Waldren asked if the Hospital would have an objection to cutting the slopes down on the corners and Mr. Dyer said he would have no objection. He also said if the Board wanted to make stipulations as to what would improve visibily or help the aesthetics of it the Hospital would be open to any suggestions. In answer to a question from Tompkins, Mr. Fink said the basement area would be used for storage and there would be 2 exits from the basement. Mr. Fink also noted the rock wall on the south would be removed completely and the ground would be leveled from the building down. Allred asked if the wall on West Street would be removed. Mr. Fink said they had not intended to, but that could be one of the things they would be willing to do. In answer to a question from Tompkins, Carlisle advised there were no maximum height limits in a P-1 zone. David Druding said he lived across the street from the Hospital and was concerned about the incinerator and felt. if the addition was approved that meant more contagious materials to burn. He was concerned about the health and welfare of his family. Waldren asked if Mr. Druding had spoke with the department of polution control and Mr. Druding replied "yes" and they said they were real busy right now and yes that would be something that they would be concerned about and that probably the EPA would be of more assistance than the polution control • department. Mr. Dyer stated the Hospital did hold an EPA permit for the incinerator and that they had spent several thousand dollars on the after burner /)4 • Board of Adjustment November 2, 1987 Page 3 this summer to improve the operation of the incinerator. Ann Littell stated she also lived across the street from the Hospital and her main concern was the green belt that existed there on the west side now. She said it was a buffer from an institution. Becker said that someone mentioned this was the alternative in cost effective and asked Mr. Dyer if they looked at going up. Mr. Dyer advised that the existing structure could not withstand a second story. Becker asked about going up over the parking lot and Mr. Dyer said they had not considered that idea. Becker noted this was not a unique problem for hospitals in that they normally build up rather than out. Becker felt the preliminary plan would have went down a little smoother had they at least had some thought about the cost effectiveness or dollar per dollar relationship by going up versus going out. Chairman Mills closed the public hearing and returned discussion to the Board of Adjustment members. Becker said he had some real problems with the variance. He said he had the feeling that he would go for tableing until some of the areas could be answered. • Tompkins agreed with Becker and personally he did not see a hardship at this point and he felt there were other ways of handling the. Hospitals problems. Tompkins felt consideration had to be given to the surrounding area as well. Waldren said he really did not have a problem with the variance because of the Master Street plan, which indicated there was more ROW than actually needed. He also felt the Hospital was not asking for a total 0' setback variance. Waldren noted if the Hospital was willing to address the parking with that being conditional upon granting the variance. Allred agreed with Waldren and felt the visibility would be improved greatly on both of the existing corners. Boyd also agreed with Waldren and felt the parking would be addressed in the motion. Mills said she had a problem granting a variance when the Board really did not know what they were planning to do and what options there might be. She felt an architect could come in and maybe work with what they have. She would also like -to see more of a concrete plan rather than the preliminary plan. I.(1iY_01J Waldren moved to grant the variance on the condition that the parking requirements were met and the visibility on the corners is addressed such as the • retaining walls are to be removed and the gradual slope maintained, seconded by Boyd. The motion to grant the variance as stated passed 3-2-0, Boyd, Waldren and Allred voting "yes" and Becker and Tompkins voting "nay". 44 • Board of Adjustment November 2, 1987 Page 4 1 1 :1' 1 1 1,1 1' 1: 1• The second item of consideration was an appeal submitted by Greg House to appeal the zoning Administrators decision. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District. The appeal was because a permit had been denied to build a house on the lot in question. The lot is a tandem lot situation and the lot has no street frontage. Mr. House said when he purchased this lot he had planned on improving Sequoyah Drive as an access to the lot in question. He said that plan was presented to Don Bunn the City Engineer and he said he did not want a City Street there because of the steepness of the grade, so that idea was dropped. Later he petition to close Sequoyah with the City Board and that was also denied because they wanted to keep that ROW open for some possible future development. Then he went on to petition to close a portion of the alley between lots 5 and 6 to make it one contiguous lot and that also was denied by the City Board of Directors. Mr. House said Jim McCord suggested to him that he petition the Board of Adjustment to appeal Sandra Carlisle's decision to not issue a permit for a tandem lot with the driveway going over the public ROW. He said the neighbors in . the area were concerned over the potential development in the area and how his building there may not be in conformity to the original plan for the subdivision. Mr. House said his intention was to place the home on the south portion of the lot within the normal setback requirements of the alley. He said the home would be a modern structure and when viewed from Sequoyah or from Skyline or from Lorrain it would be aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. Chairman Mills advised the Board of Adjustment that they were here today either to agree with the Planning Administrator or with Mr. House. She said it was not a question of what they could do for him and that his request was only for this Board to hear him and then possibly decide to overrule or to uphold the Planning Administrators decision. Boyd asked if Mr. House was going to throw lots 5 and 6 together and whoever bought that house would get both lots. Mr. House replied "yes". Carlisle advised that the lots were separated by public ROW. Boyd said then the issue was whether or not the driveway could cross the alley. David Randle stated he owned the property immediately west of Sequoyah Drive and immediately east of Assembly and north of Skyline. Mr. Randle advised the Breezy addition had been platted for a long time and that it was his contention that in discussing the future development of this property whether by them jointly or by realtors or whoever that the addition needed to maintain the prospective that they originally planned for it to be. He said lot 6 was contiguous to Lorraine and was not supposed to be developed with the relationship of Skyline. He said if the house faced towards Skyline and the back towards Lorraine then the whole • apple cart had been upset. Mr. House said it was not an issue for anyone but himself as to which way he could place the house on the lot. He said if he Z • Board of Adjustment November 2, 1987 Page 5 wanted to turn the house sideways that would be his choice. Bill Bracey owner of lot 4 in Breezy Heights said he was contacted on the back end of this thing after Mr. House started tearing down trees and moving dirt. Mr. Bracey said he agreed with Mr. House that he would not oppose the closing or vacation of the alley way if Mr. House would execute a Bill of Assurance that lot number 5 would not be developed and would be soley for access and Mr. House said he would execute the Bill of Assurance, but then the City Board denied the vacation. Mr. Bracey felt that Mr. House promised him that he would not build on lot 5 and so he would ask whatever the Boards decision was that it clearly preserve that promise to him. Mr. Fred Hunt property owner in Breezy Heights stated he offered to pay Mr. House what he had put into the lots to get him out, and he would not loose anything. Carlisle said her reason for denying the building permit was because it was a tandem lot and that meant Mr. House would have to appear before the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use for a Tandem lot and that was the reason Mr. House was appealing to this Board. Chairman Mills closed the public hearing and returned discussion to the Board of • Adjustment members. Waldren felt Carlisle's decision was right because what the Board was looking at was one lot behind another. MOTION Becker moved to uphold the Planning Administrators decision, seconded by Boyd. The motion to uphold the Planning Administrators decision passed 4-1-0, Tompkins voting "nay". OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Mills announced with the agenda there was a supplement with the Board of Adjustment rules and procedures and regulations. Carlisle advised the new rules that had been added were Roberts Rule and the Attendance. She advised the attendance was adopted in 1976 when the Board of Directors adopted them. She noted that those rules had never been added to the Board of Adjustments By -Laws so the Planning Office had updated the new rules and procedures for the Board of Adjsutment. MOTION Allred moved to accept item 14 of the By -Laws with the insertion of regularly scheduled meeting, seconded by Tompkins. The motion to accept item 14 as stated • passed unanimously. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m. nn