Loading...
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%