HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-07-16 Minutes• MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on
Monday, July 16, 1990, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City
Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Larry Tompkins, Dennis Becker,
Robert Waldren, Gerald Boyd,
and Dee Wright
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robert Davis
Becky Bryant, Elaine Cattaneo and Patricia
O'Leary
APPEAL NO. BA90-15 - VARIANCE FROM BUILDING SETBACKS
PATRICIA O'LEARY - 352 ROLLSTON AVENUE
The only item on the agenda was Appeal No. BA90-15 for a variance
from the building setbacks submitted by Patricia O'Leary for
property located at 352 Rollston Avenue and zoned R-O, Residential -
Office.
Ms. O'Leary advised that she is representing her daughter and son-
• in-law who want to build a triplex at 352 Rollston. After looking
at the existing house, they decided that it was too far gone to
warrant improvements. After weighing the alternatives, they
decided to do the triplex for which a conditional use was needed.
They prepared plans for the triplex and got the conditional use
approved. After surveying, they discovered that there was three
feet missing on the width of the lot. After preparing new plans,
she came in to apply for a building permit and realized that the
required side setbacks in R-O are 10' instead of the 8' she had
proposed. She was told that she would need a setback variance.
In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Ms. O'Leary stated that
she selected a three -dwelling -unit structure after doing some
preliminary planning to see what would physically fit and how the
parking could be arranged. Mr. Tompkins clarified that, according
to Ms. O'Leary, she couldn't economically raze the structure and
build a new single-family residence. Ms. O'Leary agreed and
stated that she didn't believe they would be able to get financing
for a single-family structure. She noted that they would like to
proceed with the triplex, because they have already gone to the
expense of preparing the plans, acquiring the bids, and financing
and scheduling the workers. She advised that they have used 25% of
the available funds already. They want to be able to afford to
pave the parking, add the landscaping, and do the fencing. Also,
the existing house is so close to the other buildings that it has
• to be torn down by hand and there are changes in grade that have to
shored up. She advised that, given the whole financial picture
and their resources, they are hoping to develop the triplex.
ZjS
• Board of Adjustment
July 16, 1990
Page 2
In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Ms. O'Leary stated that
she believes the area is conducive to multi -family type structures.
However, since her daughter and family will live here, they want to
attract a more permanent type of people. In answer to a question
from Chairman Mills, Ms. O'Leary stated that they plan two -bedroom
units and not efficiency units.
Mr. Tompkins stated that the parking design doesn't seem to work.
Ms. O'Leary stated that the dimensions are supported by
documentation from the City. There will be room (approximately
15' of space) for cars to turn around before they pull out into
Thompson Avenue. She advised that the properties to the north
are all backyards and the property to the south has a house on it.
Because of the grade from Rollston, there will always be parking
located off Thompson for this property.
In answer to a question from Mr. Becker, Ms. O'Leary stated that
the 30' shown on the front is the required setback and the 25'
setback shown is what would be allowed if landscaping is provided
between the building and the street as she intends to do.
In answer to question from Mr. Boyd, Ms. O'Leary stated that the
• parking requirement ratio is 1.5 spaces per unit for a total of
five spaces. Becky Bryant advised that is the correct ratio as
shown in Use Unit 9, Section 3 of the zoning ordinance. Ms.
O'Leary stated that parking is also available on Lafayette.
In answer to a question from Chairman Mills, Ms. O'Leary stated
that the porch shown on the plan is just a concrete terrace.
Mr. Tompkins asked for some information about the height and square
footage of the present structure. He noted that it was a single-
family residence originally, and then it was cut up into four
units. Ms. O'Leary stated that the existing house is approximately
2,200 square feet with two stories.
There being no further questions, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Waldren stated that he has no problems with this variance
request. He stated that there should be a separate zoning
district and ordinances for areas which were platted preceding the
current ordinances. It is hard for these property owners to do
anything with their property without being in violation or
obtaining a variance. Consequently, they have very little
opportunity to do anything with the property and it tends to
deteriorate. In instances like this where someone is doing
something to improve the neighborhood, he has no problem with it.
• Mrs. Wright stated that she agrees that, if the structure can be
V (P
• Board of Adjustment
July 16, 1990
Page 3
redone to add to the value of the neighborhood, it would be in the
best interest of the City. Mr. Becker stated that this area is one
of our finer neighborhoods, but it is economically depressed with
a lot of vacant houses. As much as they have discussed leniency
and keeping the downtown area viable, this is a prime example of
that very thing. Whether or not it can be argued that the multi-
family is slightly different than an R-O situation, this area needs
a shot in the arm to get it going. He stated that he would be in
favor of anything that would put some kind of life into that area.
He further stated that, if the area was revitalized, Rollston
would probably end up being a one-way street, alleviating the two-
way traffic problem. He noted that Ms. O'Leary is attempting to
put some new life in a neighborhood that needs it.
Mr. Tompkins stated that he thinks they have some good points.
However, he has questions about the intensity. He stated that, in
the two blocks bordered by Campbell, Thompson, Lafayette and
Watson, he found 15 structures. Of those 15 structures, ten are
one -family structures, three are two-family structures and two are
four -family structures. This means that 66% of the area is single-
family. He added that he sees problems, because what is being
proposed is nineteen dwelling units per acre on this particular
• lot. That is on the high end of medium density. He further
stated that he has a problem with the whole idea in regard to both
the health and safety aspects particularly in case of a fire. He
noted that the intent of the ordinance is to permit non -conforming
structures until they are moved, but not to encourage survival.
He stated that he assumes that the staff has looked into the other
aspects such as whether the percentage and height of the existing
structure would be increased. He stated that, if the density was
reduced, some of the problems with parking and traffic circulation
will be reduced. Although the design is well thought out, giving
a variance on the side setbacks could cause some problems and
against the intensity of the ordinance. He doesn't see this as a
hardship situation.
Mr. Waldren stated that the property owners in this area are
trapped by a set of ordinances that came into affect after this
property was platted. The streets in this area aren't conducive
to two-lane traffic but were probably sufficient when this was
platted. Areas like this need to be reviewed under a special
microscope. He noted that in case of fire, there is the
possibility that more than one house would be lost because of the
close vicinity.
In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Becky Bryant advised
that the Planning Commission approved this as a conditional use,
• but she doesn't recall any special conditions put on it by the
Planning Commission. Ms. O'Leary stated that the Planning
Commission saw the same plans they are looking at.
2\1
• Board of Adjustment
July 16, 1990
Page 4
MOTION
Mr. Waldren moved to grant the variance to allow a 7' building
setback on both the north and south sides, seconded by Becker. The
motion passed 3-2-0 with Becker, Waldren & Wright voting "yes" and
Boyd & Tompkins voting "no".
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
•
7y%