HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-10-20 Minutes•
MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held Monday, October 20, 1980,
at 3:45, P.M. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Chester House, Larry Thompkins, Don Mills, Wayne
Ball, Dr. David Crittenden, Robert Waldren.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Larry Smith.
James Wilson, George Faucette, Jr., Mildred and Bill Graue,
D. L. Vaughan, Herbert Hatfield, Bobbie Jones, Cynthia
Stewart.
The first item for consideration
was the public hearing on the Appeal
No. 80-20, James D. Wilson, 906 West
Douglas Street, application to vary minimum lot
width, to vary number of parking spaces required
to vary setbacks.
James Wilson was present to represent. Mr.
stated that he was the owner of the property. He said he had contacted the
private property owners bordering his property, and that they had no major
problems with his plans to add density to his lot. Wilson said he is asking
for three variances in order to construct additional units on the lot.
Wilson stated that his application for variances consist of the following:
APPEAL NO. 80-20
JAMES D. WILSON
906 WEST DOUGLAS STREET
and
Wilson addressed the Board and
1. There is an 18" intrusion into the rear yard setback requirements shown.
This could be eliminated by removing an existing porch, but Mr. Wilson
was requesting the variance as it would be least expensive to obtain a
variance rather than remove the porch.
2. 7-1/2 parking spaces will be required for the number of units he is
proposing for the lot. He is requesting that the 1/2 parking space be
waived.
3. His lot is 75 ft. in width, for the density he is planning, a 90 ft.
wide lot is required and he is requesting a waiver from this requirement.
He stated that on the East property line, the setback will be 14 ft. The
driveway will lie on the West side of the property and will be abutting
a University of Arkansas parking lot.
Larry Thompkins asked if the new units would consist of a separate, detached
structure Mr. Wilson said the existing structure and the new structure .will
be connected by a small connecting structure between the two buildings.
Wayne Ball asked how many units are in the existing building. Wilson
stated there is one two-bedroom unit downstairs and one one -bedroom unit
upstairs.
Don Mills asked what would be done with the tree that is presently in
the proposed parking.area. Mr. Wilson said that the tree is dead and will
have to be removed.
Board of Adjustment Meeting
• October 20, 1980
Page 2
Mills asked if cars would have to back out into the street. Wilson said
they would not.
Mills asked about the existing shrubs. Mr. Wilson said he would try to
preserve some of them, but that part of the shnrubs would have to be removed.
Mills asked if the existing fence would have to be taken down. Wilson
said that a portion of the fence would have to be removed, but that he would
try to leave it on the back and East sides of the lot.
Crittenden asked if the structure connecting the two buildings would be
a hallway. Wilson said it would be to connect the two structures only.
Robert Waldren asked Bobbie Jones what the zoning around this lot consists
of. Bobbie said that most of the property around the site is R-3, there are some
spots of commercial to the North and some P-1 to the South.
George Faucette addressed the Board in favor of the requested variances.
He stated that he owns property adjacent to this property. Faucette said that
the 75 ft. lot width of this property is consistent with other lots in the
neighborhood, that the lots are generally narrow. The variance for parking
spaces will be geared to students, and hopefully, they will walk to school since
this housing will be convenient to the University. In regard to the 18" -
variance in rear yard setback requirements; if the removal of the porch will
add to the cost of adding the units, then it will also add to the cost of
rents when the project is completed.
Faucette further stated he felt Fayetteville is in critical need of
housing close to the University. He hoped the Board would consider the need
for these units.
The Chairman asked for any further comments either for or against the
requested variances; there were none.
The Chairman closed the public hearing on Appeal No. 80-20.
The next item for consideration APPEAL NO. 80-22
was the public hearing on the MILDRED L. GRAUE
Appeal No. 80-22, Mildred L. Graue, 314 WEST ROCK STREET
314 West Rock Street, application
to vary minimum lot width.
Mildred Graue was present to represent.
She stated that the lot is 81.25 feet wide, and that she is wanting to construct
an eight-plex on the lot, the lot is 8.75 feet short of the required width. She
further stated that the lot has 180 ft. of depth.
Ms. Graue called attention to the fact that the drawing submitted to the
Board is in error in the front yard setback, but that the plans will be adjusted
to reflect the required front yard setback and street right-of-way.
Ms. Graue said there would be plenty of parking spaces.
Mills asked Ms. Graue if she had a preference for which way she would like
to meet the front yard requirements. Ms. Graue said she would prefer to bring
the plans into conformance by subtracting footage off each complex. However, she
could reduce the number of units from eight to seven.
Bill Graue addressed the Board in favor of the requested variance. He
stated that Mrs. Graue would widen the street and pave it. He said the eight-
plex will be convenient to both the Square and the University.
I0
Board of Adjustment Meeting
• October 20, 1980
Page 3
Mrs. Graue said that since the rest of the street will not be improved
at this time, the Board may wish for her to landscape or some other alternative
to widening the street at this time.
Attorney,Phyllis Johnson addressed the Board representing an adjoining
property owner, Margaret Heath. Mrs. Heath's property adjoins Mrs. Graue's
on the East Ms. Heath's property is 90 ft. wide by 312 feet deep.
Ms. Johnson stated that Ms. Heath did not receive notice of the requested
variance until this afternoon. Johnson said that Heath's only concern was
with the 10 ft. side yard setback requirement. Ms Heath is afraid that
will make the eight-plex too close to her property. (10 ft. is the side
setback requirement, and no waiver has been requested for the side yard.)
Bobbie Jones stated that Ms. Heath's property is actually 81.25 feet
wide and not 90 ft.
The Chairman asked for further comments from the audience. D. L. Vaughan
addressed the Board. He stated he owns property on the West of Mrs. Graue's,
and that he has 150 ft. of frontage on Rock Street and 50 ft. on School
Street. He stated he was simply interested in Mrs. Graue's plans and how
they would affect his property. He wondered if the property owners could
be required to build a view obscuring fence.
Bobbie Jones said that Ms. Graue would not be required to construct a fence
between her property and Mr. Vaughan:s. Bobbie said that in order to reduce
setbacks from the street, plantings could be installed, but they are not required
between properties.
The Chairman closed the public hearing on Appeal 80-22.
The next item of business was APPEAL NO. 80-23
the public hearing on Appeal No. 80-23, HERBERT HATFIELD
Herbert Hatfield, 22 East Meadow Street, 22 EAST MEADOW STREET
appeal for interpretation of Zoning
Ordinance or application to vary setbacks.
Herbert Hatfield was present to represent.
He stated that he wants an interpretation of whether the property line in question
is a side property line or a rear property line. He stated the line exists
between his Motor Company building, which faces Meadow Street, and the Southwestern
Bell Telephone Company parking lot which fronts on Spring Street.
Mr. Hatfield said that he is seeking the interpretation in order to
construct a warehouse which would be adjacent to the North side of the Motor
Company building and setback from the alley to the West. The warehouse would
join two other buildings; the back of the body shop and the back of the Motor
Company.
Mr. Hatfield said the problem occurs in the setback from the Telephone
Company parking lot. He said he would like to build right up to the property
line where it adjoins the Telephone Company parking lot. The warehouse would
be a storage building for the new hotel.
House asked if this would be part of the Motor Company. Mr. Hatfield
stated it would not. He said the two structures would have a common wall,
but would have no access between each other. The storage structure would have
Isy
J
•
Board of Adjustment Meeting
October 20, 1980
Page 4
a concrete floor with fire -proof, walk-in doors and fire -proof, overhead doors.
The hotel would have complete control of the building.
Crittenden asked if Mr. Hatfield had already commenced construction of the
structure. Mr. Hatfield stated that he had started construction. He said
he had requested a building permit, but that had had nothing done on it. He
said that Bobbie Jones could not determine whether the property line was a side
property line which would require no setback, or a rear property line which
would require a 15 ft. setback.
Larry Thompkins asked what Mrs. Jones interpretation of the property line
was. Bobbie Jones said that her interpretation was that the property line in
question is a rear property line requiring a 15 ft. setback from the property
line.
Thompkins asked Mr. Hatfield if this lot was a separate platted lot. Mr.
Hatfield replied that it is not, that it was an addition to the back of the
Motor Company property. He stated that the property is presently being used
for a "catch all", and that the construction of the warehouse would do away with
an eye sore.
Robert Waldren asked if Mr. Hatfield could move the warehouse to the
East if he is unable to obtain a variance. Mr. Hatfield said he could not as
the warehouse would then block the back door to the Motor Company which goes
out towards Spring Street.
Mills asked what Mr. Hatfield plans to do with his garbage container. Mr.
Hatfield replied that he had already moved the container.
Chester House asked if there was anyone present in the audience either for
or against the request. There was no one present either for or against the
requested variance.
The Chairman closed the public hearing on Appeal. No. 80-23.
Thompkins stated that he is concerned APPEAL NO. 80-20
about the reduction of parking when the
present two units are being expanded to four
units. That he is concerned about the reduction of the rear yard requirements
as bulk is increased, which will eliminate a rear yard for the two present units.
He said his major concern was the reduction of open space by increasing the bulk
of the property. The variance of the setbacks, in his opinion would be contrary
to the intent of the ordinance. He said he did not feel comfortable waving
the 90 ft. lot width requirement when density is being added to the lot,
even though it would maximize use of the lot.
Mills stated that she was concerned about the parking variance. She said
she had driven back into the lot, and that turning was a problem, she felt
it could be corrected somewhat by the trimming of some of the shrubs and the
removal of the tree in the proposed parking area.
Ball said his problem was in the request for the variance of the width
requirement of the lot, and the parking. He said he could not see where any
hardship had been shown.
House stated that he likes to see property utilized, he felt that Fayetteville
is running out of land. However, he prefers to see units of property with adequate
parking and facilities. He said he likes to see new units but that in this case
there are several points that are being stepped over a little too much.
125
Board of Adjustment Meeting
October 20, 1980
• Page 5
•
Mills asked Bobbie Jones if the Committee formed to study setbacks in
relation to Townhouses had formed any opinions that might be pertinent to
this request. Bobbie Jones said that nothing firm had been determined by
the Committee, but that if some of their proposals were accepted and made
part of the ordinance it could alleviate Mr. Wilson's variance request. However,
Bobbie said she was not sure the proposals the Committee had come up with
would be functional in the ordinance. She stated that the Committee's study
would go before the Planning Commission Monday, October 27, 1980 as a report.
Thompkins moved that the three requests for variances be denied and
Wayne Ball seconded. The motion passed with Thompkins, Mills, Ball, Crittenden
and Waldren voting "Aye", and House abstaining. (5-0-1).
Mills suggested that Mr. Wilson follow the study on Townhouses and the
report to be submitted to the Planning Commission, and perhaps, he could resubmit
his requests depending on what the Planning Commission decides.
Thompkins stated that he is concerned APPEAL NO. 80-22
about the 10 ft. side yard in this
particular case, and what would be going
on with the property to the East. Thompkins said he could not see a hardship
in the variance in lot width, other than economics. However, the applicant
has thought the problem out well and that he sees no problem with Ms. Graue':
developing the property the way she has planned it. He felt it was a reasonable
request.
Bobbie Jones said that in R-0, three or more units is a Conditional Use,
and that Mrs. Graue will have to request the Conditional Use from the Planning
Commission. In R-0, the land area and lot width requirements are based on
the same requirements as R-3.
Crittenden stated that if this lot is going to be developed at all, the
owners are asking for a small variance. Crittenden said that if apartments
are going to be built at all, without the granting of a variance, the owners
will be limited to constructing a duplex. He said he would be inclined to
support the requested variance.
House asked if the owners would have to widen Rock Street 18 ft. Bobbie
Jones said they would have to grant the right-of-way. She went on to cite
the ordinance on improvement requirements for developments adjacent to
substandard streets Section 18-47 (B) (3) "When commercial, industrial or
multi -family development takes place along any street which ismotcconstructed
to existing City standards, the developer shall:
(a) Dedicate sufficient right-of-way to bring the street into conformance
with the right-of-way requirements of the City's Master Street Plans;
(b) Install street paving, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks necessary to bring the
street into conformity with all existing City standards. The developer
shall be required to bear that portion of the cost of said improvements
which bears a rational nexus to the needs created by the development."
House said he was concerned about seeing a wide place in the road. Bobbie
said that how much widening of pavement and installation of curb and gutter
will be required of the Developer will have to be determined by her office and
1t6
Board of Adjustment Meeting
October 20, 1980
Page 6
that requirement could only be waived by the Board of Directors. She said
sidewalks and the 18 ft. right-of-way will definitely be required.
Thompkins moved to approve the requested variance in the required lot
width. Mills seconded, the motion passed (3-0-3) with Crittenden, Mills and
Thompkins voting "Aye" and Waldren, House and Ball abstaining. The abstentions
went with the motion, and the motion was approved.
Thompkins asked if it would be APPEAL NO. 80-23
in order to submit a motion in two parts
on Hatfield's appeal; one, to vote on
the Planning Administrator's determination, and then on the variance. It was
agreed that would be in order. Thompkins moved to consider the property line
in question a rear property line as determined by the Planning Administrator and
Wayne Ball seconded. The motion passed (5-0-1) with Thompkins, Mills,
Crittenden, Waldren and Ball voting "Aye", and House abstaining.
House asked the feeling of the Board on the request for a variance on
the rear yard setback.
Crittenden stated he did not see where a hardship had been shown.
Thompkins said he was inclined to agree, that hardship had not been shown,
and that the building could be modified to fit in with the spirit of the ordinance.
Mr. Hatfield replied that if the building was modified to conform, that the
forklift trucks that would be needed to transport materials to the hotel would
not be able to fit into the building.
Waldren suggested that Mr. Hatfield go to the Planning Commission and get
a waiver of the requirement that a lot have frontage on a public street.
Mills moved to deny the request for variance of rear yard setback requirements
and Thompkins seconded. The motion passed (5-0-1) with Mills, Thompkins, Ball,
Crittenden and Waldren voting "Aye" and House abstaining.
Upon a motion by Mills and a second by
Thompkins, the minutes of the October 6, 1980
Board of Adjustment Meeting were approved as mailed.
MINUTES
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:05, P.M.
)27