Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-10-01 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING The Fayetteville Board of Adjustment met at 3:45 P.M., Monday, October 1, 1984, in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Dennis Becker, David Crittenden, Don Mills, Larry Tompkins and "Butch" Robertson. Chester House and Robert Waldren. Bob Kelly, Phil Colwell, Mrs. Monroe Laner, Paul Marinoni and Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones. In the absence of Chairman House, Larry Tompkins called the meeting to order and declared a quorum present. MINUTES Don Mills moved that the minutes of the Board of Adjustment Meeting of September 17, 1984, be approved as distributed. Dennis Becker seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously, 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL 84-21 THAD R. KELLY, JR. EAST OF ARKANSAS AVENUE & NORTH OF LAFAYETTE STREET Tompkins requested that Jones read A - Zoning, Article 10„ Section duties of the Board of Adjustment, from the Code of Ordinances, Appendix 4.(B), a portion of the powers and which reads as follows: "VARIANCES; CONDITIONS GOVERNING APPLICATIONS; PROCEDURES. To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variances from the bulk and area regulations of this ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, where, owning to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship." Tompkins then opened the public hearing on Appeal No. 84-21, Thad R. Kelly, Jr. for property located on the East side of Arkansas Avenue and on the North side of Lafayette Street, extending from the intersection of those two streets to the alley on the East. The property, described as the South 105 ft. of Lots 6, 7 and 8 and all of Lots 9 and 10, Block 2, Gregg's Addition, is zoned R-3, High Density Residential District. Six variances are requested: 1. A setback from the North property line of 9 ft., 6 in. to the wall of a proposed structure. A 20 ft. rear yard setback is required to the roof overhang. 193 Board of Adjustment October 1, 1984 Page 2 2. To provide 39 parking spaces. 41 parking spaces are required. 3. To have a parking area set back 5 ft. from street right-of-way. A parking area containing 6 or more spaces is required to set back 10 ft. from street right-of-way. 4. To have 33% of the total parking spaces in compact -sized spaces (7-1/2 ft. X 15 ft.). A parking lot must contain at least 25 spaces to use compact -sized spaces and can have no more than 20% of the spaces sized for compact cars. 5. To have 12 of the total parking spaces 8 ft., 9 in. wide. Normal-sized parking spaces are to be 9 ft. wide. 6. To have 12 parking spaces back into a public alley. The ordinance stipulates that no parking or maneuvering incidental to parking shall be on any public street, walk, or alley. Tompkins requested that the applicant explain the total project to the Board, then let the Board consider and act on each variance requested separately. Bob Kelly was present and submitted a letter from his father, Thad R. Kelly, Jr., authorizing him to represent the appeal. He stated his father had purchased this property comprised of parts of 5 lots about 12 years ago. The property contained 3 major buildings with a total of 12 dwelling units, some outbuildings, and about 11 unpaved parking spaces, some of which come up to the property line. Mr. Kelly said that during the winter of 1983-1984 a water line going up the alley had broken causing problems for most of the property owners along the alley; and that the City would not put a water line in. He said it had reached a point where his father must spend a lot of money to replace the water line and improve the existing structures or go to a project to improve all the property and try to bring it up to "high density." He said they could not achieve the full maximum density because of the restrictions on setbacks from the property lines and retain the existing building. He said he felt the existing large structure on the corner, which was built around 1900, was worthy of being restored. He said it was his interpretation that he could maintain this structure, and even do normal maintenance on something not up to code, without having to provide the required parking; therefore, he did not feel that parking for the existing structure should be part of the request. He said it had been included in the request to show the whole picture of what his father has. He said if parking for the existing structure were not included in the requirements, they would have more than the required parking, but the proposed plan would provide a better project for the occupants. He said they propose to remove the other two structures containing 8 units and construct I2y • • • Board of Adjustment October 1, 1984 Page 3 a colonial -type building compatible with the older structure on the corner. He said that at present this property, as well as other properties in the neighborhood are using the alley for access; and that one structure would be landlocked, except for the alley access. Tompkins asked Jones if the Board on one lot. Jones replied that for the 20 ft. rear yard setback There was no one else present to was dealing with 2 principal structures this was true and that was the reason for the proposed structure. represent the appeal. Tompkins asked for comments from other persons present in the audience. Phil Colwell and his mother, Mrs. Monroe Laner, were present. Mr. Colwell stated his mother owns the property East of, and across the alley from, the property under application. He said she owns a 2 -story duplex on Lot 5 (on Lafayette), a 4-plex on Lot 3 and a duplex facing Regan Street on Lot 1, all in Block 1, Gregg's Addition. He said he was not opposed to the request, but did have some concerns. Kelly said that they could not just tear the building down because of the way the property is financed. Becker said he could appreciate their efforts to upgrade the property and their dilemma with ordinances adopted since the property was originally developed. However, he felt there were too many variances involved. He said Springdale still requires parking spaces be 10 ft. X 20 ft., so Fayetteville's 9 ft. X 19 ft. is lenient; also, they are asking for a major increase in the number of compact spaces allowed. He thought it should "go back to the drawing board." He said he thought there was a lack of a real hardship other than the change of the ordi- nances and requirements over the years. Mr. Colwell said that his specific concern was with the 12 parking spaces that would be backing into the alley. He said he was also concerned with drainage problems and sanitation service problems which exist, but are not being considered by the Board of Adjustment. He said the alleyway is of questionable length. The curb cut for the alley is 10 ft. wide, but that did not mean the curb cut is in the alleyway. Based on the location of the curb cut, Mr. Colwell said that the wall of the existing duplex his mother owns is only lft. off the alley. He also said that farther up the alley is a utility pole setting at least 1 ft. into the alley. He said they are concerned with drainage because his mother's 4-plex is 18 inches below grade and the vent openings under her duplex is only 4 inches above grade. Because this is on an incline there would be nothing to prevent cars slipping out of gear and running into the wall of his mother's building. He said that covering this approximately 2/3 acre with building and asphalt would increase the runoff, which flows toward his mother's property, and he feared it would enter the crawl space of the duplex or the lower floor of the 4-plex. He asked that measures be taken to prevent water from crossing the East line of the alley. !25 • • • Board of Adjustment October 1, 1984 Page 4 Mr. Colwell said the property presently has an unlicensed, inoperative car on it and the grass is uncut. He said the one trash container they propose will be 180 ft. from the existing structure which they will be changing to a 6-plex. Also, he questioned how the Sanitation truck would be able to pull straight into the container at that location and pointed out that his mother's 4-plex is directly across the alley from the container site. He and Mrs. Colwell said they did not like either the appearance of or the odors there would be from the container so close to her 4-plex. Crittenden agreed with the comments made earlier by Becker. He stated he thought the 12 parking spaces backing into the alley was a very dangerous situation. He said he had no objection to the variance in the number of parking spaces this close to the University campus nor to the variance in parking setback from Lafayette Street; however, he did not think they could do the project if the variance to allow the parking to back into the alley were denied. He noted that the 15 dwelling units proposed almost doubles the 8 dwelling units they now have. Paul Marinoni, Sr. stated he has owned the property across Lafayette Street next to the "Farm House" Fraternity since 1904 and his daughter lives there. He said anything would be an improvement over what exists on the Kelly property. He asked that a planter be considered along Lafayette to break the transition and said it would be hard for cars to back into the alley. Mills stated there are a lot of variances requested. She said her main concern was the request to decrease the size of parking spaces and said that she thought she might be more in favor of a reduction in the number of parking spaces, rather than in the size. She said there won't be that many compact cars and this close to campus there might be some students who don't have cars. She was also concerned with the cars backing into the alley. Robertson agreed with the comments made by the other Board Members. Colwell pointed out that the proposal does show the 19 ft. deep parking spaces, then another 12 ft. of backing room before the cars would be entering the alley. Jones advised the Board that Street Superintendent Clayton Powell objects to the use of an alley as a driveway to serve private property in addition to the problem with backing into the alley. She stated this is something Mr. Kelly will have to work out with Mr. Powell as she can not overrule Mr. Powell. Crittenden asked how this affected existing situations in which people are using the alleys for access. Becker stated this is one of the rules you play by in upgrading property; you don't just replace, you upgrade to meet current codes. bit Board of Adjustment October 1, 1984 Page 5 Kelly advised that he thought their development would take care of drainage. He said the property falls from Arkansas Avenue down Lafayette Street about 17 ft. and the South end is about 2-1/2 ft. lower than the North end. He said they plan to "cut" the area where the parking would be and he felt the water would drain down the alley to the South. Concerning parking, he said in the past they have had only 11 spaces to serve 12 dwelling units and they have not always been used. They have even been able to rent out parking spaces to non -tenants. He said they could have asked for a variance of 20 parking spaces and that would have been the only variance they would have needed, but they had tried to balance it by asking for what they viewed as several minor variances. He pointed out that there is already parking backing into the alley and asked to be able to continue that; adding that they were providing more than half of the required turn -around area, so they really wouldn't be backing into the alley. He said he had talked briefly to the Street Superintendent and was told the only reason the City maintains the alley is for the Sanitation vehicles. He said other Street Department personnel had recommended that he construct a turn radius where the alley intersects the street. He said the parking off the alley would not be on much of an incline after they have improved it because they plan to change the grade there. There would be a retaining wall on the front with the parking lot grade below the retaining wall and lower than the street grade. They do plan a 5 ft. planting area along Lafayette Street. Colwell stated he and his mother would prefer to have the utility pole in the alley remain where it is as it serves to protect her property. He stated that they have 12 apartment units at Storer and Maple and there are only 10 automobiles between the tenants of those 12 units. Tompkins asked if there was a motion regarding the request for a variance in the 20 ft. rear yard setback. Kelly stated that according to a zoning review furnished him by the Planning Office earlier in the year, this was a corner lot and had 2 "fronts" and 2 "sides." Jones said when that review was prepared she had been informed that they planned to remove all three of the existing structures on the property and replace them with one structure. Becker advised that Mr. Kelly could attach his new construction to the existing structure and it would then be considered a "corner" lot. Crittenden stated he did not back into the alley would be prefer to have that voted on be considered first. MOTION Crittenden back into a unanimously feel the request to allow parking to approved and asked Kelly if he would first. Kelly agreed that this should moved to deny the variance request to allow parking to public alley. Robertson seconded the motion, which passed to deny the request, 5-0. l7 Board of Adjustment October 1, 1984 Page 6 NOTION Mills moved to table the balance of the variance requests to enable Mr. Kelly to redesign his project, and, if needed, come back before the Board without readvertising and without payment of a new fee. Robertson seconded the motion which was approved unanimously, 5-0. Colwell stated that the property is in a sad state of repair, one structure having been unoccupied since January, and a garage building having burned in the middle of the night. When the building burned the Colwell's had a car and an apartment scorched. He said this is nearing the season in which transients will seek anything with a roof over it as a place to spend the night. He asked that the unoccupied buildings be demolished and advised that he has been in contact with Bert Rakes of the City Inspection Department regarding this. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 4:20 P.M. 198