Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-07-18 Minutes• • MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FETING A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45 July 18, 1983 in Room 409 of the Continuing Education Street and East Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas. P.M. on Monday, Center, Center MEMBERS PRESENT: Butch Robertson, Don Mills, Chester House, Robert Waldren, Dennis Becker, Larry Tompkins, David Crittenden MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Wilson, Ray Asfahl, Daniel McCormick, Bobbie Jones, Suzanne Kennedy It was moved by Butch Robertson, seconded by MINUTES Larry Tompkins and passed, 6-0, to approve the Minutes of the June 20 meeting. David Crittenden was not yet present. The second item of business was public hearing on Appeal No. 83-15, submitted by Jim Wilson for property located at 1350 Van Buren Avenue, to vary setback of eight feet from side property lines to 51 feet. Mr. APPEAL NO. 83-15 1350 VAN BUREN AVENUE JIM WILSON Wilson was present. Mr. Wilson said his property is located in an R-2 zone, that there are several apartments in the area but he wants to use his lot for a duplex. He added he would be moving an existing duplex onto the lot and wishes to "fix it up" to suit the City Inspector's requirements. He said he feels like the density for a duplex would be more acceptable to the residents in the area than the heavier density of a large apartment complex. Don Mills asked what problem there would be in rotating the building 90 degrees from the way it is shown on the drawing. Mr. Wilson asked if this was allowed, stating he had assumed he could not turn the building sideways. Bobbie Jones said this would be permitted. Wilson explained he is in the process of buying the two lots adjacent to the lot under appeal, but said he has no present plans for the other two lots. Bobbie Jones said, where the driveway exits the street, it must be 121 feet from the side property line and 25 feet from any other driveway. Parking should not be closer than five feet to adjoining property, and must be five feet from the street right-of-way. Jim Wilson said he visualized running his driveway along the front of the building and having parking at both ends. He said, with overhangs, the building is slightly over 49 feet long and slightly over 33 feet wide. It was determined, if Mr. Wilson turned the building sideways, he would have about 19 additional feet for setbacks and a driveway. 38 • • • Board of Adjustment July 18, 1983 Page Two Bobbie Jones explained to Chester House that the side yard would not then become a back yard, that the front and back yards are determined by the lot's orientation to the street. Don Mills said she thought turning the building would allow Mr. Wilson to do more with the adjacent two lots. Mr. Wilson was asked about the street setback and he said, with his original plan to face the street, he would have set back sixty feet to save trees. If he turns the building, he will re -think the street setback. Frances Langham, Mr. Wilson's realtor, asked what action would be taken by the Board of Adjustment, were Mr. Wilson to turn his building sideways. Bobbie Jones said Mr. Wilson may ask to withdraw his request. Wilson requested permission to withdraw Appeal No. 83-15. Robert Waldren moved to accept Mr. Wilson's request to withdraw MOTION his application. The motion was seconded by Don Mills and passed, 7-0, with David Crittenden having arrived during the discussion on this appeal. Public hearing was opened on Appeal No. 83-16, submitted by C. Ray Asfahl for 778 W. Center, to vary setback of 25 feet from the front property line to 15 feet. Mr. Asfahl was present. Ray Asfahl explained he would like to tear down, replace and enlarge the entry porches on both sides of a triplex. He said he had already torn down and replaced one side with the permission of the City. He referred to a letter written to Building Inspector Freeman Wood enclosed with agenda explaining how Mr. Asfahl's builder had already torn down one porch and begun work, thinking a building permit had been issued. Asfahl said the permission to proceed with the first porch was given provided it be torn down if the Board of Adjustment does not grant the variance. Mr. Asfahl said the reason he first overlooked the setback violation is that the dwelling itself violates the setback regulation and the entry porcheswould not have extended that violation. APPEAL NO. 83-16 778 W. CENTER STREET C. RAY ASFAHL Robert Waldren said he had lived in that building many years ago, and had never used the side porches, but came in_the main door. Mr. Asfahl said that door is still there, but is now considered more as an emergency exit. Dr. Crittenden said one of the tenants told him he is concerned that the extension of the entry porch (not torn down yet) would cover up the stone stairs that go down to his apartment. Mr. Asfahl said the stairs going down will be covered up on both sides when the porches are enlarged, stating he thought -it unavoidable to make the porches big enough for the doors to completely open. Asfahl said he never thought this would affect that particular tenant, who can drive to and park in front of his front door. Asfahl said his tenant thinks covering the stone steps cuts off his access to the street, but Asfahl stated the tenant still has a driveway to his front door. 3e1 Board of Adjustment July 18, 1983 Page Three Larry Tompkins asked if the improvements to be made would delete any parking and Asfahl stated it would not. Don Mills asked if a porch and stairs could be built that would meet the tread and riser codes. Asfahl said it could not, without a variance. Mills said she felt the land slopes so sharply that it would be difficult to build a porch that would meet the requirements, without steep steps from the side or back. With no one else who spoke in favor of or against the appeal, the public hearing was closed. David Crittenden said he saw no problem in granting the variance. Agreement was expressed by members Robertson, Mills, Waldren and Becker. Tompkins stated the improvements will perpetuate the non -conforming structure but did not think it is enough to run contrary to the intent of the zoning ordinance. Don Mills moved to grant the variance. The motion was seconded MOTION by Larry Tompkins and passed, 7-0. Public hearing was opened on Appeal No. 83-17, submitted by Daniel McCormick for property located at 301 W. Spring Street, to vary lot APPEAL NO 83-17 301 W. SPRING STREET DANIEL McCORMICK area of 8,000 square feet required for a triplex to 7,735 sq. ft. and to vary the parking requirement of 5 spaces to four spaces (or to permit 3 of 5 spaces to back into the street). Mr. McCormick was present. Daniel McCormick said he wished to convert his duplex into a triplex. He said he lives in the larger side and plans only to close one door, dividing it into two units with separate entrances (one studio apartment and one 1 -bedroom apartment). He said he has already remodeled and redired the kitchen, living room and bathroom for the studio apartment. Mr. McCormick showed on the drawing how the house space would be divided in three. Mr. McCormick explained the drawing showing an arrangement of five parking spaces is an alternative proposal, that he would rather have two spaces side by side on the north and two side by side on the south, just off the street. He said he thought this would be adequate, although he realizes it does not meet the requirement. Bobbie Jones said backing out in the street is allowed only where there are no more than two spaces in a parking area. Don Mills asked if there would be a problem to have a drive off Spring Street going around the house onto Locust Street. Mr. McCormick said this would do away with his yard. Larry Tompkins asked if the garage was located on the property line and McCormick explained that in the past two property owners built a garage and parallel driveway with the property line running through the middle of the garage. It was noted that there is non -metered street parking on both Spring and Locust and that Locust is a one-way street. No Board of Adjustment July 18, 1983 Page Four Bobbie Jones explained to Larry Tompkins that the parking requirement is actually for 4' spaces, which she converted to five. Dennis Becker asked why the parking must not be five feet away from the adjacent property line and Bobbie Jones explained the requirement is not imposed because the parking area is already existing. McCormick said if he is allowed to have four spaces, he would build them to be five feet away from the property line. Bobbie Jones said the house and garage are both non -conforming structures in their setbacks (the house is non -conforming in its setback from both streets). David Crittenden asked for the total of cars owned by those currently living in the house and McCormick said he had two and the tenant owns two. Crittenden said he thought McCormick's argument and George Faucette's argument (in the letter of support) for having only four spaces is logical, but doesn't really bear up in reality in Fayetteville, since most people own at least one car. Don Mills said an area resident told her that many persons working in the Square area park in this neighborhood to avoid metered parking, that this creates a constant problem for the residents in the area. Crittenden pointed out that the design for spaces 1, 2 and 3 would mean cars 2 and 3 would have to move whenever car 1 needed to get out. It was suggested by Don Mills that space 2 be eliminated as shown and moved adjacent to and north of space 1, leaving space 2 open for both cars to back out into the street, and leaving space 3 where it is shown. Bobbie Jones said a waiver would still be needed to back 3 cars into the street. She said space 3 must be surfaced, but space 2 adjacent to the garage could be graveled. Spaces 4 and 5 must also be surfaced. Bobbie Jones also said the driveway width can be a maximum of 24 feet, which would allow spaces 4 and 5 to be side by side, but that a permit must be obtained from the Street Department to widen that dtiveway. Jones said there should be a correction to the amount of lot area existing, that it should be 7712 sq. ft. rather than 7735, making a waiver of 288 sq. ft. With no comments from anyone else in favor of or in opposition to the appeal, the public hearing was closed. David Crittenden said, in light of the fact the lot size variance is for less than 5% of the lot, he would be in favor of granting that variance, but would not be in favor of granting the parking variance, stating the arrangement for five spaces seems to have been worked out. Butch Robertson agreed. Crittenden said he would also be in favor of waiving the backing -out require- ment. Don Mills said she would be in favor of her earlier suggestion as to the parking arrangement. Waldren agreed with granting the lot area variance, stating he thought five parking spaces are needed. Becker concurred. Tompkins said granting the variance would perpetuate a non -conforming structure and a non -conforming lot of record. He said although the amount of variance does not bother him, it bothers him to have a non -conforming structure at a busy intersection. He said he thought the project would be an improvement to the neighborhood, he would go along with the variance for the lot size and agrees five parking spaces are needed. He said backing into the street should be minimized, as it is detrimental to safety. Board of Adjustment July 18, 1983 Page Five David Crittenden moved to grant the lot area variance as requested. MOTION The motion was seconded by Butch Robertson and passed, 7-0. David Crittenden moved to deny the variance requesting four parking spaces, holding the number of parking spaces to five. The motion MOTION was seconded by Butch Robertson and passed, 7-0. The Chairman asked the opinion of the OTHER BUSINESS Board of Adjustment members on the question of meetings which fall on holidays. With some members expressing a willingness to meet on an alternate day, or on the following Monday, and with other members unavailable to meet at alternate times, it was generally agreed not to reschedule any special meetings for those which fall on holidays. Bobbie Jones pointed out that in months such as August, where there are five Mondays, an applicant missing out on the August 22nd meeting would have to wait five weeks before the Board would meet again on the third Monday in September. Don Mills moved the Board of Adjustment skip those meetings which MOTION fall on holidays, and wait until the next regularly scheduled meeting; but that, in a genuine emergency, the Planning Office may poll the membership to schedule an alternate meeting. The motion was seconded by Butch Robertson and carried, 7-0. With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:47 P.M.