HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-10-07 MinutesA meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held Monday,
October 7, 1985 at 3:45 P.M. in Room 111 of the City Administration
Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chester House, Don Mills, Jerry Allred, Robert
Waldren, Gerald Boyd, Larry Tompkins and Dennis
Becker
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
The meeting was called to order by Chairman House and the minutes
of the August 30th meeting were considered.
MINUTES
Upon a motion from Tompkins and a second by Mills, the minutes were
unanimously approved as distributed.
:r
1
• The second item on the agenda was a request by Kathy Luther, of Youth
With a Mission, to vary the land area and street frontage required
(one acre and 100 ft.) to operate an office in an R-3 District,
Gary Carnahan, representing Luther, explained that the office would
be used for a counseling type service. He noted that the driveway
on West Ave, is a mutual one for both this house and the one to the
north which are owned by the same person. He said it is too congested
to put in an additional drive and added that parking will take place
in the back yard. Carnahan presented photos depicting views of the
area from all directions. He said that the counseling service expected
only one or two clients per day. He advised that the Planning Commission
has approved an office use in this High Density Residential District
but further explained that one acre of land and 100 feet of street
frontage are required to operate an office in an R-3 District.
Carnahan noted that most lots in this part of town are very small
and there are no one acres parcels available which he felt was an
undue hardship. He said that subject property has over 100 feet of
frontage on Lafayette though the front of the house faces West.
In answer to Waldren's question, Carnahan explained that the Luthers
desire this area because it is a busy area and is close to the University
as well as being low rent and compatible with neighborhood uses.
is
70
• Board of Adjustment
October 7, 1985
Page 2
Carnahan advised that Youth With a Mission counsels women with unwanted
pregnancies and is funded by contributions.
Tompkins inquired as to parking requirements and Jones replied that
it is one per 300 sq.ft. of three spaces. Tompkins expressed concern
that ingress/egress is on West rather than Lafayette. Carnahan said
it would be no problem accessing from Lafayette but felt it was safer
accessing from West and not adding any driveways.
In answer to Allred's question, Carnahan explained that the Luthers
have be a two year lease with intent to extend. He advised that there
will be two staff members on the premises.
The Public Hearing was closed and discussion returned to Board members.
Becker said he would be in favor of granting a variance if it would
revert with the expiration of the lease. Tompkins said he would be
in favor if the property could be accessed from Lafayette. Waldren
agreed with Becker as did Allred and Mills. Boyd said he felt access
was more detrimental from Lafayette than West.
NOTION
• Waldren moved approval of the variance conditioned upon the applicants
lease (when Youth With a Mission vacates, the property reverts to
R-3 requirements). Becker seconded and the motion passed 5-2-0, Tompkins
and Boyd voting "nay".
The third item on the agenda was a request submitted by David Lewis
on behalf of Pat Harris to vary the front setback from the required
25' to 15' 6" and the side setback from 8' to 5' for property located
at 360 N. Arkansas Ave., zoned R-3, High Density Residential.
Lewis explained that he would like to add bays onto the existing porch
at this location. He said he is fixing the porch that was there and
he exhibited photos of the porch, before construction, with an addition
above it. He advised that the desired bays would extend into the
setbacks. Lewis said he felt this property had a hardship in that
this building is situated on a very tiny lot which does not allow
for any outdoor living space.
Tompkins noted that this property had been previously granted a 'variance
based upon its historical preservation. Lewis explained that the
• planned bays fit into the era of the house better that its previous
design with the upper addition to the porch. Tompkins asked if it
would be possible to remain within the setbacks if it were not for
71
Board of Adjustment
October 7, 1985
• Page 3
aesthetics. Lewis replied that he thought the residents of the house
would tend to gather in the front or side yards if the porch is left
as small as it is. Tompkins expressed concern that the planned porch
woulut in
of the existing building
linedon hePut sstreet activities In answeroto Tompkinstnext question, Lewis replied
that the rear pavement area will be used for parking alone.
Bob Kelly, adjacent property owner to the south, said he felt the
design plan would definitely be more in keeping with the 1900's era
than the previous design but added concerns, on behalf of his wife,
regarding a porch full of people at close proximity to his property.
Lewis explained to Mills that the depth of the porch would be about
8' without including the proposed bays.
Allred asked about the possibility of installing screening or a privacy
fence between this property and Kelly's. Lewis replied that it was
a reasonable suggestion which presented no problem. Allred advised
that there would be social gatherings in the front yard despite any
decision of this Board and he recommended year around screening or
privacy fence between the two lots to reduce some of the noise.
Mills said she felt that Lewis could still have a front porch and
remain within the setbacks. She added that the traffic and density
• of the area required same. Tompkins agreed and noted that, if proportion
and values were considered, adding a gazebo type roof would give the
appearance of over -utilization of the narrow lot.
Boyd said he felt that the developer may have created some of the
hardship being presented and that he had the imagination to come up
with an alternate plan not necessitating a waiver of the requirements.
Becker said he felt the interpretation of hardship was ...something
that other "
people have that the applicant has been denied through
some reason or other..." and not that a person lacks space that they
would like to have.
MOTION
Becker moved to deny the request above and beyond a point further
than the previously existing porch. Boyd seconded and to deny passed 7-the notion
0-O.
Jones asked Lewis where the 25' setback would be and Lewis replied
that there would be no porch because the setback reached the front
of the house.
Boyd asked if the existing porch could be remodeled and Jones replied
that one a non -conforming structure is destroyed by more than 50%,
• as in this case, the code says that it may not be replaced.
71
Board of Adjustment
October 7, 1985
Page 4
IsWaldren expressed concern that the current ordinances do not address
certain areas of town that represent a special, situation (in terms
of preservation, small lots, etc.). Lewis was referred to the Historical
District for possible solution to the problem of restoration. Mills
noted that the Planning Commission might be approached with suggestions
as they are in the process of re -considering setbacks.
APPEAL 85-29 ROBRRT NICKLE - 1310 6 1312 OXFORD PLACE
REQUEST TO VARY SETBACKS ON Ty[f crQvET
---- -- ravnlJ
The fourth item on the agenda was a request submitted by and on Oxford
to vary two front setbacks; on Masonic from 25' to 22' 6" Robert Nickle
Place from 25' to 22' 6119 Property is located at 1310-12 Oxford Place
and is in a Planned Unit Development with an R-1 Zoning classification.
Nickle explained that the lot in question as well as the lot adjacent
to it are five -sided with some good sized utility easements. He said
the lots front on two non -adjacent streets and, after taking the front
setbacks into consideration, these lots are a little difficult to
work with. He said his plan is for a duplex that looks like a single-
family home and can be accessed from either Oxford or Masonic. Nickle
said it will difficult to put a garage on it because of the setbacks
and easements and added that the addition of a garage would be more
• desirable in this neighborhood. He said he could build a one -car
garage and remain within the setbacks but didn't think it would look
right. He said he could build the duplex with both entrances on either
Masonic or Oxford but it would mean all of the cars parked in front
which he didn't think would look good.
In answer to Tompkins question, Jones replied that the Planning Commission
had approved this PUD with the double -frontage lots. Tompkins asked
if Masonic will be paved out to Highway 471 and Jones replied that
it will be paved from 471 to the east property line of Mathias' Discount
Store which will be located at the intersection of Masonic and 471
but not beyond that point unless the City or abutting property owners
improve it.
Allred advised that this Board only has jurisdiction over the required
setbacks and none over how many units may be built.
Waldren asked if Nickle has approached the City and the utility companies
to see if the easements can be reduced and suggested that this was
a possibility.
Nickle noted that one property owner in this PUD built a garage that
will not accomodate a full size car and the door always remained open.
Jones advised that 10' between structures is required in a PUD and
• that 5' is usually taken from each side of a property line.
13
• Board of Adjustment
October 7, 1985
Page 5
Tompkins commented that if Nickle pursued the reduction of easements,
he may not need a variance.
Jim Veasey, property owner opposite Nickle's site, said that he is
opposed to any change in the setback requirements and added that he
did not want rental properties near his property.
The Public Hearing was closed and discussion ensued between Board
members. Becker said he felt the double frontage situation was unique
and Nickle's request was reasonable but that setbacks should be met
because of the R-1 District adding that he was opposed to granting
the variance. Tompkins said he was inclined to disapprove the request
and Boyd agreed with Becker and Tompkins.
Allred said he had mixed feelings in that he didn't think the quality
of life would be affected by the outcome of this Board but that Nickle
could reduce the quality of construction to meet the setbacks and
that he would rather see the structure built as a townhouse than a
spec duplex.
Mills said she would like Nickle to pursue the reduction of easements
and if they could not be secured, he could return to this Board.
• MOTION
Waldren moved to table this appeal until Nickle has the opportunity
to pursue the reduction of the easements. Allred seconded and the
motion to table passed 5-2-0. Tompkins and Boyd voting "nay".
The fifth item on the agenda was a request submitted by C. J. O'Donnell
to vary the front yard setback from a required 25' to 17'. Property
is located at 1973 Austin Drive and is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential.
O'Donnell explained that he is in the process of enclosing his carport
and wishes to add a two car garage adjacent to it. He said when he
planned the garage, he thought he was within the setbacks and subsequently
found that he was not. O'Donnell advised that there is a drainage
path that runs mainly through the street but added that the hill behind
the house is on a steep angle and absorbs a lot of the run-off. He
said he felt that placing the garage at an angle, as shown in the
application, would result in a minimum amount of ground being covered
by the concrete driveway. He said he also felt that adding the garage
straight on would create an "added on" look, detracting from the aesthetic
• value of the house. O'Donnell advised that to add the garage in a
straight line, he would have to cut down a very large, beautiful persimmon
tree in his backyard.
q
Board of Adjustment
• October 7, 1985
Page 6
Tompkins asked whether the drainage problem could be handled if the
proposed garage were built in conformance with front yard setbacks
and O'Donnell said he felt that the more water that is put under the
concrete, the less would seep into the ground.
Boyd asked if the existing drive will be taken up and O'Donnell replied
that he hadn't planned on it.
Waldren asked for the name of the owner of property at the end of
the cul-de-sac and whether or not Winbaugh would ever be opened up
at that location. Several members thought that it would.
In answer to Tompkins' question, O'Donnell replied that there is a
home on both Lot 4 and 5 adjacent to his property. Tompkins then
suggested that the garage could be built without the angle. O'Donnell
explained that the distance between the garage and the west property
line is about 17'. He repeated that the drainage runs through his
back yard.
Becker said he felt that leaving the existing drive abutting the new
studio was more detrimental to the looks of the property then whether
or not there was an angle at the other end. He added that the water
problem will exist either way and suggested removing the existing
• driveway and adding landscaping to add improve the aesthetics.
Discussion
ensued
regarding
the Persimmon tree and
Tompkins noted
that trees
often die
when their
roots are paved over.
House suggested that a survey may be needed to determine the exact
property lines for planning the placement of the garage and Allred
commented that the aesthetic value of the structure will depend on
the carpenter regardless of whether it conforms with setbacks.
Marilyn Johnson, a neighbor residing at 1916 Austin Drive, said she
had no problem with O'Donnell's request for variance and advised that
O'Donnell has visited with all the neighbors explaining his plan.
Chairman House closed the Public Hearing returning discussion to Board
members. Boyd said he felt there was no real hardship of the nature
of which this Board is called upon to solve. He advised that the
garage could be straightened out and meet the setback guidelines.
Tompkins said he felt the property could be used as it is and he was
inclined to disapprove the request. Becker agreed, adding that when
the exact location of the tree is determined there could is a possibility
of a jog taking place, reducing the requested variance.
Waldren agreed with Becker expressing his concern regarding the roof -line
even if it includes a jog, although he said he would be in favor of
• granting a much smaller variance than that requested.
�5
•
•
Board of Adjustment
October 7, 1985
Page 7
Allred agreed with Becker noting that he felt it would be more aesthetic
to maintain the existing 90 degree angle of the house. Mills agreed
that the garage should be squared off and meet the setbacks.
Mills moved to deny this appeal. Seconded by Tompkins, the motion
to deny passed 7-0-0.
The sixth item on the agenda was a request submitted by Don Nelms
of Nelms Honda to vary the front setback from the required 50' with
parking allowed between the building and street or 25' without parking
and the addition of 10% landscaping between building and street to
41' with parking between building and street.
Dennis Moore, representing Nelms, stated that subject structure was
built before this area was annexed into the City and that it is now
non -conforming because it does not meet setbacks. He said that Nelms
is trying to move the building somewhat away from the Highway and
extend the fascia all the way around so that it appears that the building
was built all at one time rather than being added on to.
Moore advised that the architect's report shows the building constructed
with bar -joist beams running east 6 west with a natural division occurring
where the column splits at the 25' mark and to make alterations in
this area the entire 25' showroom must be removed. He said the plan
includes the reconstruction of two small wings on either side, maintaining
the same building line all the way around the building which necessitates
the request for a 9variance from setback requirements.
Allred asked if there will be any green space between the building
and the street and Moore replied that the existing driveway needs
to be maintained because of poor access to the rear of the building.
He added that only new cars will parked in front of the building.
Tompkins confirmed that the green space shown is in the right-of-way
and inquired whether there are any other non -conforming buildings
in this area. Moore clarified that the hardship involved is in the
manner in which the building is constructed because the only division
point is as presented in the application. Tompkins asked if Moore
had considered a second story and Moore replied that it was not a
viable alternative.
• Waldren said he thought this proposal was an improvement to the situation
and added that he had no problem with granting the variance which
will make the structure less non -conforming than it currently is.
ILL
• Board of Adjustment
October 7, 1985
Page 8
Allred noted that an alternative would be for Nelms to relocate in
Springdale with a loss of revenue to Fayetteville. He added that
he thought this plan would be more aesthetically pleasing if it had
included some green space.
MOTION
Waldren made a motion to approve the request for variance. Allred
seconded, followed by discussion.
Tompkins expressed his feeling that landscaping was a very important
item as the City is attempting to improve College Avenue with this
property being a part of that effort. He also advised that this variance,
if granted, would run with the land and the rest of the building could
be added on to out as far as the point approved today. Tompkins added
that he understood the topographical hardship (the west portion of
the property drops down about 30' and is unaccessible although he
felt that the property could be used as is.
Waldren noted that if a topographical hardship did not exist, the
building would probably have been built further back from the highway
than it is.
• Boyd said he felt that gaining a 20' improvement over the existing
situation was sufficient enough to grant the variance.
The question was called and the motion to approve the request failed
to passed 3-3-1, Allred, Waldren and Boyd voting in favor of, Tompkins,
House and Mills voting against and Becker abstaining,
MOTION
Waldren made a substitute motion that the variance be granted only
for the "wings" proposed in the building plan and will not affect
the entire length of the lot. Allred seconded and the motion as stated
passed 6-0-1, Becker abstaining,
There being no further business,
the
meeting
adjourned at 6:00 upon
a motion from
Waldren and a second
from
Mills.
11
1�