Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-07-01 MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING 1 THE FAYETTEVILLE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, July 1, 1985 in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chester House, Don Mills, Larry Tompkins, Dennis Becker, Jerry Allred and Gerald Boyd MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Waldren The meeting was called to order by Chairman House and the appointment of a chairman was considered. Tompkins nominated Chairman House for another term and he was appointed by acclamation. MINUTES The minutes were considered and approved unanimously upon a motion by Tompkins and a second by Mills. 85-15 MIL.DRED WEBSTER 2050 WINWOOD - REQUEST TO VARY SETBACK • The second item on the agenda was appeal 85-15, a request submitted by Mildred Webster to vary the side yard setback from the required 8' to 4.33' for a proposed carport. Property is located at 2050 Winwood Drive and zoned R-1, low density residential. Mr. Webster, representing his wife, stated that he wishes to build the carport at the requested location because the lay of the land prohibits constructing a more narrow carport closer. to the street. He added that there are utilities in the drive as well. Webster advised that he is totally disabled with heart conditions and his father-in-law (live-in) is 84 and totally disabled with emphysema. He said moving around in and breathing cold air worsens these problems. He said he will construct the carport so as to maintain the continuity' of his house and conformance with the neighborhood. Allred advised that, in checking on this property, he has found that the protective covenants for this subdivision prohibit carports. Jones noted that the City does not have the authority to enforce covenants Webster advised that his present garage is used to store an antique MG and one other vehicle. He said he had planned to keep the carport open but if there is a covenant against that, he would enclose it. • Z!b/ • Board of Adjustment July 1, 1985 Page 2 Jones said there is a section of ordinance which states that an antique unlicensed vehicle must be stored within a garage. Becker advised that this Board has generally shied away from carport variances and noted that this particular one would not give the protection that is being sought. He added that enclosing the carport makes it more solid as opposed to light and airy but that it would not crowd the neighbor's house. Becker said he would be in favor of this request if the architectural board approved of the variance in the covenants. Boyd said he didn't feel that this request qualified under hardships and didn't feel that this project would ease the parking on the street because the paving alongside the house already exists. He said he felt the hardship boiled down to wanting to store the antique car in the garage. Webster pointed out that, even if the antique car were stored elsewhere, there would be three cars to deal with in this household. He expressed his concern over his father-in-law scraping snow and ice off his uncovered car in the winter. Tompkins explained that side yards setbacks were designed to provide • air and light and space around a structure and granting this request would reduce same to only 4 feet. He said he would vote negatively. Mills clarified that there are three cars in addition to the antique. She suggested working with storage for the antique at another location and using the garage to house two of the three family vehicles. Jones advised that the Planning Commission has had, under prolonged consideration, a proposal to reduce side yard setbacks to 5 feet. She said that the Commission's recommendations will need to be approved by the City Board of Directors. Allred stated that he didn't have much of a problem with adding a garage rather that a carport and Webster said he would really prefer adding on to the existing garage. Covenants were discussed and House noted that they would supersede City Ordinances even though they are not enforced by the City. MOTION Allred moved to approve the variance with the stipulation that the structure be built as an architecturally matching 1-car garage. Becker seconded and the motion failed to pass 2-4-0, Allred and Becher voting affirmatively. • Webster volunteered to cut the size of the structure down to meet the proposed 5' setback. 43 Board of Adjustment July 1, 1985 • Page 3 MOTION Becker moved that the proposed 1-car garage structure be built with 5' between the overhang and the property line. Allred seconded and the motion failed to pass on a tie vote; Mills. Tompkins and Boyd voting "nay". Jones noted that the Board of Adjustment "Rules of Procedure" state that the petitioner's request is granted only upon affirmative majority. Becker presented some alternative plans and Webster explained that there were water lines and manholes that would interfere with these plans. He continued that he has spent a lot of money preparing for this expansion by moving air conditioners and also felt that he had eliminated every other feasible possibility. Jones advised that she would inform Webster if the proposed ordinance change is approved by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors. 95-16 MIRE HOPKINS - 742 W. NORTH ST. REQUEST TO VARY SETBACK FOR PUMP ISLAND CANOPY • The third item on the agenda was appeal 85-16, a request submitted by Mike Hopkins for a variance in the front yard setback for a proposed pump island canopy and the addition of �a pump island in line with the existing island. The new island would be 14 ft. from r/w; required is 25'. The canopy would be 5' from r/w; required is 20'. Jack Butt, representing Hopkins, noted that most gas stations around town have canopies. He said that they have them because they either are new and current setback requirements were considered or sometimes because variances have been granted. He added that the pump island had been in place for some years when Hopkins bought the establishment. Butt advised that at night or in inclement weather, these canopies are safer, more attractive and practical. Butt explained that the r/w on North Street has already been bought out nearly to the island and if this variance is granted, the canopy will still be a full 20' from the curb. He said he thought because this road has just be widened, it will not be widened again for 10-20 years. House noted that measurements are taken from the right-of-way and not the curbline and Jones advised that the North Street right-of-way should be 80' according to the Master Street Plan. Tompkins asked if alternatives, such as parelleling the canopies to the store, have been considered. Hopkins advised that this plan would eliminate the parking in front of the convenience store which is part of his establishment. He said he needs to have the canopy high enough • so as to not be hit. M • Board of Adjustment July 1, 1985 Page 4 Jones advised that, in 1977, this Board granted a variance to build a canopy over these gas pumps not to extend in either direction further than the pump island itself. A discussion ensued regarding moving the existing parking from in front of the store to allow more space for the pump islands and Jones noted that parking on the right-of-way is not allowed. Hopkins explained that he could not use the area behind the store for parking because his landlord has leased that area to the neighboring church. He added that the area is crowded and occasionally a car pulling out from his parking area will hit a car at the pumps. He also said that the new pump island would be manifold into the old one and not create a great expense. In reply to House's question, Hopkins said he buys his gas from jobbers and will not be financially assisted in this project. Allred asked if adding another pump island would make conditions even more congested and Hopkins replied that extending the pumps out would eliminate some of the crowding encountered at the existing pump. Mills suggested moving the pumps into the "L" shaped area in front of the laundry and Hopkins replied that at attendant would not be able to watch the pumps from that position. Mills said she felt that • anything more added to this area would compact the traffic problems on North Street and that if Hopkins wished to increase his pump capacity, there was room on this property to work with. Hopkins said he would not change his parking setup and noted that he leased space is limited. space. Butt said he felt that zoning regulations have a purpose and that those for canopies may be for crowding although in this situation, the canopy will not have the affect of visually or aesthetically narrowing the street or creating a traffic or safety problem. Tompkins agreed but felt that the ordinance designating 25' as setback must have been chosen as a legitimate safety factor. He said granting this request would be extending a nonconforming structure. Mills repeated her concern with excessive traffic being carried on North Street when widening is completed. She said she was not in favor of this request. House and Becker each cited requests for variance that were similar in nature as Hopkins' one resulting in favor of and one against. Hopkins said he felt that, not only would he not be creating a problem, but would be making the area safer as he would be adding lights to the area. Butt noted that the lit area of pump island and store would • make the area safer by being making moving vehicles more visible. #7 • Board of Adjustment July 1, 1985 Page 5 Boyd said he felt unsure about expanding one non -conforming structure and creating another. He said he thought this project could be done a lot nearer the code than what is proposed. Allred said he felt that the additional pump would help ease congestion at the pumps and consequently ease the congestion of ingress/egress from North Street. Becker said he was not in favor of this variance as he thought there was a safety problem with the parking in front of the store. He suggested the petitioner check other options. NOTION Mills made a motion to deny this request. Seconded by Tompkins, the motion carried 6-0-0. 85-17 RON SKELTON - 8199 825 S 825.5 N. WILLOW REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF IOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH The fourth item on the agenda was appeal 85-17, a request submitted • by Ron Skelton to waive the minimum lot width and lot area for property located at 819, 825 and 825 1/2 N. Willow. There is a house and a duplex existing on this 100' X 100' lot and the applicant wishes to sell each dwelling to its respective tenants. Skelton explained that each of the tenants has been there for some time and wish to buy these homes from him. Jones explained that these lots were platted and then broken down into three or four small pieces. Skelton noted that the property owner adjacent on the south bought and built on his lot last year and the survey stakes are still in place. He added that Jones has examined the survey for the property to the north and between all of the legal descriptions, there appears to be an extra 20 ft. somewhere. He said there is a strip of land on the back of his property that runs out to College that may have been intended as a street but was never built. He stated and Jones confirmed, that there are two legal descriptions for this property. Boyd asked if the duplex had two bedrooms on each level and inquired about the parking situation. Skelton replied affirmative to the former and explained that there is a driveway and most everyone has parked in the street until the City raised the street level at this site. Allred said that he had no problem with this request as it appeared that the only change would be that of individual ownership. • Jones advised that if these structures were to be removed for any reason, only one single-family home could be reconstructed because the structures on separate lots would be non -conforming. She added m • Board of Adjustment July 1, 1985 Page 6 that if only one structure were destroyed by more than 50%, it could not be replaced. Skelton noted that, if the waiver is granted, both homes would still have more yard space than some homes in East Oaks Addition. He advised that the duplex is 30' X 26' and the single-family home is 24' X 28'. Mills asked if Skelton would lose 5' because of SWEPCO's pole and he replied that the pole is 3' from the curb but the City water meter is 8' and Jones noted that, years ago, only verbal approval was necessary from a property owner and many easements are not officially dedicated. Allred asked if the potential buyers are aware of the possible problem should one or both of the dwellings be destroyed and Skelton replied that they were. t Jones said she had conferred with City Attorney McCord, and advised that, even if ,a variance were granted by this Board, a lot split request would have to be submitted to the Planning Commission. She added that another alternative would be to sell under the Horizontal Property Regime in which the property would not be split but the units could be sold, although they still could not be replaced if destroyed by • more than 50%. Jones said she believed reconstruction of the dwellings would be allowed if a variance is granted. Jones explained that the duplex is non -conforming but the Planning Commission can grant Conditional Use for a duplex in R-1 District which it would require a lot 80' wide containing 12,000 sq.ft. Allred suggested that the two prospective buyers make this a joint purchase and Skelton advised that he has talked to McCord about this and has been told that it would be difficult to write up. Skelton said that the prospective buyers do not want a joint purchase. Mills said she thought the amount of variance being requested was great especially in the light of not being allowed to rebuild if anything should destroy the buildings. She said, until the Planning Commission comes up with something to work with for small lots in these older parts of town, it would be difficult for her to approve of a variance. Becker felt it would take some time before the Planning Commission presented any alternatives to these sort of problems added that "the bull must be taken by the horns". He said he felt that individual ownership of these homes would mean more to the neighborhood than units sold under the Horizontal Property Regime and that if individual properties could be settled upon, he would be in favor of the variance. • Mills thought a survey might be helpful in determining whether there was additional footage to consider but Skelton said that the small amount that might be gained would not change the non -conforming status. LIM • Board of Adjustment July 1, 1985 Page 7 Becker said he saw many non -conforming type problems with this property but still felt that putting it back into single-family ownership was the guiding light. Allred agreed with Becker noting that the non -conforming structure would still exist whether the variance is granted or not. Tompkins acknowledged that private ownership would improve the quality of the neighborhood and that the proportion of yard space is about the same as in East Oaks. He said what bothered him is the long-term affect and what the City has determined is an appropriate living space. He said he was inclined to disapprove this request. Boyd asked if there were any specific parking requirements for this situation and Jones replied that there are but she could not apply them retroactively. MOTION Becker moved approval of the request for waivers as stated. Allred seconded and the motion to approve failed to pass on a tie vote; Hills, Tompkins and Boyd voting "nay". • 85-18 DAVID LEWIS - 360 N. ARKANSAS REQUEST TO VARY LOT AREA AND WIDTH FOR FRATERNITY The fifth item on the agenda was appeal 85-18, a request submitted by David Lewis on behalf of Pat Harris, to vary the minimum lot width and lot area required for a fraternity. Property is located at 360 N. Arkansas Avenue and is zoned R-3, high density residential. As noted in the agenda, the ownership of this property is not a fraternity but an individual who wishes to bring the building up to code but cannot obtain a building permit to refurbish unless a variance is granted. Lewis explained that the owner has a prospective tenant, a group of 10 frat men, but that 90 feet of frontage is necessary to obtain a permit to refurbish the house. Jones advised that there are two additional requirements for a fraternity that must be addressed: land area per occupant and one parking space per occupant. Becker said he thought that the requirement regarding compacts should be revised as 20% of everything over 25 spaces is not realistic. Allred asked if there are fraternity houses to the north and south • of this dwelling and Lewis replied that there are boarding houses and multi -family housing surrounding. So Board of Adjustment July 1, 1985 • Page 8 Tompkins asked about drainage and Lewis explained about the existing brick and earth terraces and agreed that drainage must be considered. Tompkins asked about the access to Reagan Street and Lewis replied that it is not part of this property. Jones advised that the owner would have to clear use of that access with the owner and Tompkins clarified that if the Reagan access is not allowed, the access from Arkansas becomes more important. Allred asked what the present use of the dwelling is and Lewis replied that the frat men are using it as a boarding house on an individual basis. He said that there are currently three separate apartments. Lewis said the remodeling would add a few more rooms. Allred asked how many frat houses meet the City's one acre requirement and it was determined that none do, although many of the frat and sorority houses are under State jurisdiction. Becker indicated that he would like to go on record as breaking this regulation as it is unreasonable. Jones said that, if left as is, the structure could be used as a duplex or sold under the Horizontal Property Regime. Lewis said it would not be worth the investment to renovate the building if only the three existing apartments were allowed. • Tompkins asked if the minimum width in an R-3 District is the major consideration and Jones referred to a note from her on the petitioner's application: Art.5 (IV)(D) Requires that a lot with a fraternity have a minimum of 1 acre; that there be at least 500 sq.ft. of land area per resident in a fraternity; and that a lot containing 3 or more dwelling units have at least 90 ft. of frontage. She said that either one duplex or eight, one or two bedroom condominium apartments could be placed on subject lot at this time. Jones explained the Horizontal Property Regime, noting that proof must be submitted to her that same has been filed. Allred commented that this house will either be used as a rooming house or a fraternity house and Lewis said he would be accepting of a rooming house status. Jones noted that definitions for a rooming house are rather vague. She said under Use Unit 10 there is no specific parking requirement but she would interpret that there be one space per unit and she added that there is no minimum lot size. She explained the differences between rooming, boarding houses and fraternity houses. It was determined that this operation is most like a rooming house because because meals are not provided. Allred asked if Lewis could apply for a boarding house permit if this request is denied. Jones replied that she felt the 90 ft. lot width would need to be met or waived, and if not, this Board would be in opposition to her interpretation. • 5l • Board of Adjustment July 1, 1985 Page 9 In answer to Tompkins question, Jones replied that the use of fraternity is allowed in this district. Boyd asked if there are any single family units abutting this property and Lewis replied that nearly everything is multi -family in this area. Jones added that most complaints regarding violation of more than three unrelated people living together come from single-family areas. MOTION Becker moved approval of this request. Tompkins seconded, followed by discussion. Tompkins asked how many people would be allowed to occupy this building and Jones replied that 18 would be permitted if the parking requirement was met. Lewis advised that he could not provide more than the 13 parking spaces he has indicated, thereby limiting the number of residents. Tompkins said he would like to see access available from Arkansas Avenue and tenants limited to 11. Becker said he wanted to go on record as breaking the one acre minimum land requirement for fraternities and he amended his motion to allow a maximum of 12 parking spaces. The amendment was accepted and the amended motion passed 6-0-0. isThere being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:10 P.M. upon a motion from Boyd and a second from Mills. • 52