HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-10-06 Minutes• MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday,
October 6, 1986 at 3:45 P.K. in Room III of the City Administration
Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Larry Tompkins, Robert Waldren, Jerry
Allred, Gerald Boyd and Dennis Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Becker
OTHERS PRESENT: Les Goodman, Bob Kelly and Tommi Perkins
The meeting
was called to order and the minutes of
the September
15,1986
meeting were
considered.
The minutes were unanimously approved as distributed upon a motion
by Tompkins and a second by Waldren.
APPEAL 86-12 - VARIANCE ON BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENT
BOB KELLY - 358 ARKANSAS AVE.
The first item of consideration was a request submitted by Bob Kelly
• and represented by Steve Adams for a variance on the Bulk and Area
Requirements. Requested .36 of an acre for a fraternity located at
358 Arkansas Ave, and the required is 1 acre. This property is zoned
R-3, High Density Residential District.
Steve Adams stated that Mr. Kelly had sent a letter dated September
22, 1986 in regards to his appeal that set forth the factual basis
and additionally there was more information that should be called
to this Boards attention. He said they had received a letter from
Mr. Eugene Patterson Harris, who had no objection to the use of this
property as a fraternity. Additionally they had passed out a map
that indicates the properties on Arkansas Ave. He said the one in
question was number 3 on the map and in association with that map
there was also a listing of fraternity houses that was keyed to the
map. He said there were 7 different fraternity houses on Arkansas
Ave. including the ends of Arkansas Ave. Mr. Adams said the overall
listing that was keyed to the map would tell which house was located
where and the number of members in each fraternity. Mr. Adams said
there was another part that was added to the map that showed the esti-
mated number of square feet on each of those lots. He said no fraternity
house on Arkansas Ave. had one full acre. The closes fraternity to
one full acre was the Sigma Nu which was about a thousand square feet
short of an acre. Mr. Adams stated the map should give the Board
•
IZI
• Board of Adjustment
October 6, 1986
Page 2
a good idea of what was going on in that area. The last thing Mr. Adams
wanted to call to their attention was a letter from Mr. McCord that
mentioned some of the legal principals that were involved.
Mr. Kelly asked for a building permit to convert his residence into
4 apartments, a permit was issued. He then had an opportunity to
change the renovation plans to allow this to become a boarding house
rather than 4 separate residential units. He went back to the City
and asked if he needed a new building permit and the inspection department
advised he did not need a new permit and they .would inspect under
the original permit. Mr. Kelly then checked with the Planning Office
and was told it was R-3 zoning and everything seemed to be alright.
Mr. Adams then said after a substantial sum of money had been expended
to turn the original 4 units into a rooming house with one set of
kitchen facilities rather than four. Mr. Kelly was then notified
that the lot did not meet the bulk and area requirements. Mr. Adams
stated they were not asking for any special conditions that adjacent
property owners do not enjoy currently or that his actions actually
caused the problem. Mr. Adams pointed out that the lease with the
fraternity restricts the actual number of people who could live in
the house to 21 people and there is adequate parking of 21 spaces
• on site.
Larry Tompkins said he did not understand rooming house". Mr. Adams
said that's what a fraternity house was called, they have a common
kitchen rather than separate kitchen facilities for each of the rooms.
Tompkins asked if this was a use by right. Mr. Adams said it was
his understanding that a fraternity house was a use by right in an
R-3 zone. Tompkins said a rooming house was not a fraternity house.
Mr. Adams stated he was just using the word rooming house because
they had a communal kitchen and was not actually trying to say it
was being commercially leased.
Tompkins then asked Mr. Kelly if he was going to have 21 people living
in the house. Mr. Kelly said that was limited by a lease and right
now there were 16 people living in the house. Tompkins then said
that lease could change with each new leasee. Mr. Kelly said he did
not see how they could get 21 people in there now with 8 bedrooms.
Mr. Kelly said renovation would have to be done and a new building
permit would have to be applied for. Tompkins asked what would the
maximum amount be for that lot. Mr. Kelly replied 21 spaces and Tompkins
said they could get 31 because the requirement was 500 square feet
per resident in a fraternity and the total square feet for this house
was 15,000 square feet. Mr. Adams stated the on -site parking requirements
would allow 21 spaces. Tompkins then said they could without parking
legally get 31 in the fraternity under present regulations.
• Mills asked if they had a parking plan for the 21 parking spaces.
Mr. Kelly said the parking lot and driveway were existing for the
Ize
• Board of Adjustment
October 6, 1986
Page 3
4 apartment units and actually 22 spaces could be made but they would
have to cut down a 60' Maple tree. Mills asked if there would be
a house mother living in the fraternity. Mr. Kelly replied yes there
would be a house mother but at present there was not one. Mills said
she would like to see a parking plan.
Tompkins said the intent of the ordinance was to provide appropriate
off street loading and had they accounted for that. Mr. Kelly said
the supplies that had been delivered to the property now were in a
regular size pickup truck. He said the Farm House delivers in a tractor
rig and they stop in the street, but their fraternity was not generating
that kind of service from the food service people.
Gerald Boyd asked if any
of the other fraternities on the street were
owned by the
University.
Mr. Kelly said the
Sigma Nu property was
owned by the
University
and that was why they
reflected such a large
area because
there was an
off campus parking lot
adjacent to it.
Tompkins said under the 1 acre requirement it said regardless of the
number of residence in that particular structure it must be 1 acre.
What Mr. Kelly had done was adjusted the 1 acre to .36 acres. In
• other words they are balancing the parking lot and number of persons
purposed to use that .36 acres.
Boyd asked if there were any enforcement of the 500 square feet per
person or 1 parking place per resident of the existing fraternities.
Boyd said for example, Sigma Chi has 140 members on 3/4 of an acre
of land and they do not have much parking. He said there was no reason-
able way for it to be enforced anyway. Carlisle replied the require-
ments are normally addressed at the issuance of a building permit
for parking, bulk and area and the 500 square feet per resident.
Tompkins asked if that happened in this particular application and
Carlisle replied "no". The building permit was issued for apartments.
Mills asked what the normal procedure would be when you start something
and then change as Mr. Kelly had done. Carlisle stated another building
permit would be issued. Mr. Kelly said that was his question to the
inspection department when he changed his plan. Mr. Adams said apparently
if Mr. Kelly would have applied for the permit a little later than
he did he would have had to reapply because he was changing the plan
but since he applied for the permit when he did he did not need to
apply for another permit. Mills said she did not read the ordinance
that way.
Dennis Moore asked how many of the fraternities in the area meet the
bulk and area requirement. Waldren replied none of them meet the
• bulk and area requirement. Moore then said all they were asking for
was an exemption from the bulk and area requirement and he meets all
other requirements. Carlisle stated most of the fraternities were
179
• Board of Adjustment
October 6, 1986
Page 4
in existanee before the ordinane6s were in effect. Moore asked if
any contact had been made with the person who no longer worked in
the Planning Office and gave Mr. Kelly the okay on the fraternity.
Carlisle replied "yes" and the girl said she did not remember.
The public hearing was closed and discussion returned to Board members.
Boyd said for all practical purposes there are no 1 aere sights available
right next to the University. He said since there are large fraternities
and small fraternities he thought it would be reasonable for the Board
to make an adjustment provided it be limited to the number of approved
parking spaces.
Mills said she did not see how they could get that many ears in that
lot. Boyd said there were 16 boys there and 8 bedrooms they could
probably limit it to 16 spaces. Mills asked if Mr. Kelly had met
the requirements for inspections from the inspection department.
Carlisle stated there had been 3 inspections made on the fraternity
to date. However since the inspection department did not have plans
for the central kitchen she thought it would be a good idea to have
Freeman Wood cheek it out as the inspection department has building
• codes for fraternities and sororities. Carlisle stated the original
permit was issued for air conditioning, heating, paint and cleanup.
Tompkins said he was inclined to go along with Boyds' comment as to
conditions. Tompkins said if the purpose of the zoning ordinance
and the zoning was to promote land use, to protect existing density
and encourage existing high density where reasonable. If the purpose
of the multi -family district was one of those then he saw if the eondi-
tion was not to exceed the requirements of off street parking, area
use, and promoted the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance that
being health, safety and general welfare. If there was a way of enforcing
that, not to exceed, then he could see it being in conformance and
compatible with the uses and development in that particular area.
If they provided the off street parking and were not blocking Police
or Fire on Lafayette which would depend on the appropriate design
of the parking lot for off street loading then he did not have a problem
with it.
Mills stated they needed to include a place for garbage pickup.
Moore stated it was important to know that Mr. Kelly made some good
faith effort and felt Mr. Kelly was not trying to do this behind the
City"s back and from reading the report from the City attorney it
sounded like the fraternity would fit in with the uses around the
existing area. Moore stated he thought the application should be
• approved.
Mills disagreed on a couple of points; she said with the profession
150
Board of Adjustment
• October 6, 1986
Page 5
Mr. Kelly was in, he reads the nodes probably with every job he did
and when you look at the requirements for fraternity houses 1 acre
jumps at you. Regardless of whether or not the other fraternities
met the requirement was not the point in that each case was done separ-
ately. She said Mr. Kelly should have been knowlegeable about permits
in the ease where a person changes their plan.
Moore said Mr. Kelly might be more accustomed to the code but as for
an architect they rarely handled any building permits. they are handled
by the contractor.
Mills said she would not be comfortable with granting a variance of
any type until she had seen a parking plan and the other inspection
had been made. She said this appeal was new for this Board. She
said they had never had one where the City had been questioned as
to whether or not they had been right or wrong.
Waldren said the inspection they lacked was to the commercial kitchen.
He felt this area should have special zoning and special requirements.
It was the historical district so to speak, part of the old town and
layed out according to regulations years and years ago. He said if
• they went in and tried to enforce all the bulk and area requirements
they would destroy part of that district. Waldren said if they met
all the requirements other than bulk and area, then he saw nothing
wrong with it. Waldrea said if this Board denied the variance and
if the City Attorney was right, they would be beat anyway. Waldren
said Mr. Kelly needed to meet the parking requirements and there should
be some limitation on the number of people allowed there.
NOTION
Waldren moved to table this issue until Mr. Kelly could provided the
Board of Adjustment with a parking plan. Tompkins seconded followed
by further discussion.
r u r
Moore offered an amendment to the motion as to granting the variance
contingent upon Mr. Kelly providing a parking plan with the required
21 parking spaces to the Planning Office and if the Director approved
the plan they would not have to come back to this Board. Tompkins
withdrew his second to the motion. Waldren seconded the amended motion.
The amendment was aseepted and the amended motion passed 6-0-1, with
Allred "abstaining".
APPEAL 86-16 - SETBACK VARIANCE
• LARRY 6 T01QII PERKINS - 2840 STRAWBERRY
The second item of consideration was a request submitted by Larry
(3I
• Board of Adjustment
October 6, 1986
Page 6
and Tommi Perkins to vary the front yard setback from the required
25' to 19.8% This property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential
District.
Tommi Perkins stated she was refinancing her home and needed title
insurance. The front of her garage hung over 5-1/2' into the required
setback. She said if she was not granted this variance they could
not get title insurance, building permit or financing. She said the
home was about 10 years old.
Jerry Allred asked who the builder was and Mrs. Perkins replied Gordon
Wilkins.
Mills asked if
this was
the first
time title insurance was required
and Mrs. Perkins
replied
yes.
Tompkins asked as R-1 developed to the south would the Master Street
plan continue to show Strawberry as a Residential Street in which
the ROW was adequate and Carlisle replied yes.
The public hearing was closed and discussion returned to Board members.
• Tompkins said they were requesting a variance of 5.4'.
f.(fla Ulm
Allred moved to grant the variance as submitted. Boyd seconded and
the motion to approve passed 6-0-0.
APPEAL 86-17 - VARIANCE ON PARKING REQUIREMENT
N.W.A. BUILDING AND RESTORATION - 130 E. SPRING
The third item of consideration was a request submitted by N.W.A. Building
and Restoration and represented by Leslie Goodman to vary the parking
requirement for additional units at 130 E. Spring. This property
is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential District,
Leslie Goodman said they were trying to buy the property in question
and they have an offer with First National Bank contingent upon the
additional parking. Mr. Goodman stated the previous owner had started
monstrumtion on the house without a building permit. Once the City
was aware of the situation they stopped all construction until he
mould clear up the parking situation. Mr. Goodman referred to the
minutes from the Board of Adjusment meeting on November 2, 1981.
He said there were suggestions made by the committee to supply off
street parking on the proposed property. Mr. Goodman said the back
• yard was large enough to add the additional parking but the previous
owner did not want to take the gate down therefore the appeal was
denied. Mr. Goodman said a permit could be issued if the previous
13Z
• Board of Adjustment
October 6, 1986
Page 7
owner could comply with the City's requirements for parking. Mr. Goodman
said the City wanted the previous owner to supply 2 parking spaces
in the back yard accessible from Conners street. Mr. Goodman was
proposing to move the gate entirely and add 3 parking spaces in a
27' X 22' gravel lot which would easily aecomodate 3 ears with room
to turn around and back out.
Boyd asked where do the people park now who live there. Mr. Goodman
replied on Spring street. Mr. Goodman said there, were 3 units in
the front that exists now. Boyd asked if they wanted enough parking
for the way it was right now. Mr. Goodman replied the way it was
right now there was already enough parking on Spring street. Mr. Goodman
said what they wanted to do was complete the unit in the back yard
and supply 3 additional parking spaces for that unit on the property.
Mills asked how many units would be in the structure they plan to
complete. Mr. Goodman replied 1 unit. Mills then asked how many
total .units would they have. Mr. Goodman said currently there are
3 units in the house. The upstairs was originally designed as 2 units
but appearently when the previous owner ran into trouble with the
parking requirements he kept the upstairs unit as one. Mr. Goodman
• said they would like to have as many as 5 units which would mean they
would split the upstairs into 2 units, which was part of the reason
for the extra parking space that was not requested by the committee.
Boyd said the existing people park on Spring street. Boyd said they
wanted to split an existing 2 bedroom apartment into two, 1 bedroom
studios and those apartments now have on street parking. So they
are actually changing the on street parking requirement. Boyd asked
how big was the unit in the back. Mr. Goodman replied it was a 1
bedroom structure and independent of the existing house.
Allred said then it was actually 2 separate residence with one in
the back separated from the existing structure.
Mills asked if they could put 2 separate structures on one lot. Carlisle
stated they had to be tied together with a breeze way.
Boyd asked if they could add more than 3 parking spaces in the back
yard and Mr. Goodman replied yes they could.
Mr. Goodman said they had been in contact with Mr. Freeman Wood of
the inspection department. He had gone out to the site with them
and talked about what Mr. Wood would like to see in terms of bringing
the unit in the bank and the existing structure up to code. Boyd
asked where are the 5 units they spoke of. Mr. Goodman said 2 downstairs,
2 upstairs and one in the back yard.
is
Boyd asked what would be the normal off street parking requirement
13
• Board of Adjustment
October 6, 1986
Page 8
for 5 units. Carlisle stated 1.5 spaces per apartment. Boyd said
they could actually provide enough parking in the back for everybody
that was parking on Spring street now.
Tompkins asked if this was in the Historical District. Allred replied
"no" the Historical District was a block south. Tompkins said Conner
street bothered him and wanted to know if there was a guaranteed access
to the rear property. Mr. Goodman said the access would come from
Conners and the extension of Washington. Tompkins asked if Conners.
and Washington were dedicated for a street. Carlisle said to the
north of Washington was a platted alley.
Waldren said the normal access would be off of Washington. Mills
said the most logical way to go would be off the exteation of Washington.
Allred said if the Board granted this variance and they provided the
parking in the back for the residents in the front, in all likely -
hood would they walk around the building when it was raining or would
those residents go and park on the street.
Tompkins asked if this was a non -conforming use and Carlisle replied
• yes, but a variance was granted on the lot width. Tompkins then said
it was a aon-conforming lot of record and also a non -conforming use.
Carlisle stated the Board of Adjustment granted the variance on the
lot width therefore made it comply. Tompkins said the Board made
legal a non -conforming lot of record.
Boyd asked if the petitioner needed 3 parking spaces why did they
have to come before the Board of Adjustment. The clerk said the minutes
from November 2, 1981 stated they would have to provide additional
off street parking for the additional units.
Mr. Goodman said if they had to provide more than 3 spaces they would
have to bulldoze because there was a big jump in the elevation. He
said on the east side of the lot there was 27' available without any
major land changes otherwise they would have to get bulldozers to
slope up the west side.
Carlisle asked the Board to look at a letter from Bobbie Jones. It
stated "The Board of Adjustment granted the variance in lot width
with the garage to be tied to the house with a covered walkway, but
did not vary the parking requirements. A permit could have been issued
if the parking was furnished on the property". One of Jones' suggestions
was to appeal to the Board of Adjustment to furnish only 1 parking
space per unit. Carlisle stated the rest was getting with the inspection
department on the building codes.
• Mr. Goodman also said on the previous page of the minutes it said
" Crittenden said Mr. Sehader is not required to provide parking for
134
• Board of Adjustment
October 6, 1986
Page 9
the
units already in existence but he was
required
to provide
parking
for
the proposed units".
The public hearing was closed and discussion returned to the Board.
Allred said it appeared that the petitioners were planning or attempting
to improve an already existing problem and by the Boards past actions
already granted some sort of flexibility. He said this had been an
on going can of worms for the past few years. He said the neighborhood
would be improved if the petitioners did the necessary renovations
and provided the parking in the bank. Allred said although Washington
and Conners were rather narrow it would not be a problem. He said
on Sunday there were usually 250 in attendance at the Christian Church
and there was no traffic problem getting in or out. Allred said at
this point he would be in favor of granting the variance.
Tompkins stated he had a problem with granting the variance because
they would be approving a non -conforming use and that it was zoned
R-2, Medium Density Residential. Tompkins felt the off street parking
should be met regardless of how many dwelling units are in there and
in terms of the non -conforming structure and use. Tompkins was still
• not sure what point of access would be guaranteed by the petitioner.
He said he was in support of the restoration but saw it as being counter
productive to the intent of the zoning ordinance.
Allred asked what kind of renovation they planned on doing to the
main building. Mr. Goodman said they were going to paint, and install
storm windows and the interior was in good shape. He said the building
needed a lot of exterior work.
Boyd said they were not necessarily bound by the decision of what
the Board had told the previous petitioner before. He said it seemed
to him if there was a mistake in the past there would be no reason
to eontinue it unless there was a variance granted. Boyd said if
they had the opportunity to apply compliance with parking then they
should take advantage of it. He said it might be a little difficult
but it was not impossible.
Waldren said he was not sure what the original parking variance was
or what they requested. But the motion was made back in 1981 to grant
the variance and as he read the minutes the motion was 3-3-1 and as
he understood a tie goes with the motion.
Carlisle said this was something she wanted to discuss with this Board.
She said Mr. Grimes had questioned a vote that was a tie vote that
went with the motion. She said the City Attorney rendered an opinion
• that was not proper. She said it should be a majority vote of a quorum.
Waldren said he was the Chairman on that particular meeting and it
was his interpretation that the motion failed and was told it went
135
• Board of Adjustment
October 6, 1986
Page 10
with the motion and now they are getting another interpretation.
He said if that was true then the variance on this ease had already
been granted.
Allred asked when the non -conforming structure in the back of the
main structure was built. Carlisle stated construction was started
without a permit. Allred said one of two things needed to be accomplished
either grant a variance and let someone finish the building or deny
the variance and tear the thing down. He said this would be an on
going situation and if these folks do not buy it, the Board would
have it back in 6 months with new petitioners.
Mills said she was concerned about the parking and that a lot of people
from downtown used this area to park. She said the off street parking
interested her as to how many parking spaces they could get in the
back yard. She also had not realized that. Conners street did not
go through and Allred said there was a street sign there that lead
people to believe it goes through.
Allred asked how many tenants were in the front building now and Mr.
Goodman replied 4 people. Allred said then there were 4 cars currently
• parking on Spring street. Mr. Goodman said they were going to add
3 parking spaces in the rear and open 1 unit so hopefully that would
take away some of the parking on Spring street. Allred said if they
denied this variance then they would not decrease the parking on Spring
street and if they granted the variance then they would not get all
the parking the City requires.
MOTION
Waldren moved to grant the variance as requested. Allred seconded
and the motion to approve passed 3-3-0, Allred, Waldres and Moore
voting "yes" and Mill, Boyd and Tompkins voting "say".
Waldren said according to Roberts Rules on votes less than a quorum
the motion failed. Waldren said as long as he had been with the Board
anybody that abstained their vote went with the majority. Mills said
she believed that they had always said that a tie goes with the motion.
Tompkins suggested they go ahead and operate as they had done tradi-
tionaly and then discuss how to they would do it in the future.
Mills said ever since she could remember an abstention or a tie has
gone with the motion. Carlisle said then they needed to find where
that was stated in writing.
• Mills stated the tie went with the motion to grant the variance.
NO
• Board of Adjustment
October 6, 1986
Page 11
MOTION
Waldren moved that the rules of this committee be conducted under
the Roberts Rules of Order. Tompkins seconded and the motion to Doaduet
the Board of Adjustmeats meetiags aesordiag to Roberts Rule of Order
passed 6-0-0.
Mills stated the Board of Adjustment had asked and was accepted that
Bob Waldren be there new Parliamentarian.
SETBACK VARIANCE REQUESTED
George Williams and Don Hunnicut stated they had missed the filing
date for a variance for a setback requirement and asked if the Board
of Adjustment could hear their appeal at this time.
Chairman Mills stated she would prefer not to hear the appeal until
all the requirements had been met with the Planning Office. Carlisle
• stated the appeal had to be published in the newpaper 7 days before
the Board of Adjustment could hear the appeal.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
•
157