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