HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-02-04 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, February
4, 1991, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Dennis Becker, Gerald Boyd, Robert Davis, Dee
Wright, and Larry Tompkins
OTHERS PRESENT: Becky Bryant, Richard Palmer, James Wray, and Dave Jorgensen
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the January 7, 1991 Board of Adjustment/Sign
Appeals were approved as distributed.
APPEAL NO. BA91-1 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF THE BUILDING SETBACKS
RICHARD PALMER - 818 POLLARD AVENUE
The second item on the agenda was Appeal No. BA91-1 for a variance request of the
building setbacks for property located at 818 Pollard Avenue. The property is
zoned R -O, Residential -Office.
James Wray, representing Mr. Palmer, stated that the Board of Adjustment seemed
to indicate at the last meeting that they think Mr. Palmer's house is in great
shape and should be fixed up. But others have told him that the foundation is
falling apart and the beams under the floor are wider than they should be which
makes all the windows unworkable and the doors having to be shaved to work.
Therefore, they feel it would be a lot easier to move the house out and replace
it with one the same size(except for the roof eaves being about 8" wider and an
8' x 12' storage room on one end) than to replace it piece by piece. The new
application is to replace a building that is in deteriorating condition to make
the property look better, make it safer, and probably bring in more taxes for the
city. He noted that before Mr. Palmer bought this property, he contacted the
Planning Office and was told that this property was 90' by 40'. Then after a
survey(which was done after he bought it), he found out it was only 78' x 34'.
There is no insulation in the house, and he wants to insulate the house to make
it more environmentally useful. Also, all new electrical and plumbing will be
put in. He advised that one side of the current house is about 3" below the
ground level contributing to the deterioration. One of his businesses is mail
order and requires almost no parking or traffic. The hypnotherapy business only
has two or three clients per week. His full-time job is a night guard at the
hospital. If he isn't allowed to add the 8' x 12' utility room, he can build
it the same size it is now except for a 6" overhang. If Mr. Palmer is required
to go literally by the.laws, he could never use that property for anything once
this house is torn down. The building setbacks requirements are 30' from each
street on three sides.
Chair Mills stated that there is a discrepancy between the 20' setback shown on
the survey and Mr. Palmer's proposed 19' from the overhang. Mr. Wray stated
that he was told it would only be 6" different. In answer to a question from
Chair Mills, Ms. Bryant advised that the required setback on the north side is
10' and the proposed setback is 8'. Mr. Wray stated that they would like to
have the alternative to rebuild exactly where it is now if they aren't allowed
the addition.
Mr. Tompkins asked about the impact on parking. Mr. Wray stated that he only
has two or three hypnotherapy clients per week.
Mr. Davis stated that he understood from the previous meeting that a greater part
of the lower property would be paved to keep the parking off the street. Mr.
Wray stated that they might do that but it isn't required.
Mr. Tompkins asked if they are aware of the ultimate widening of College Avenue
•
•
•
Ra44.
Board of Bxgn Apppepe
als-
February 4, 1991
Page 2
in the Master Street Plan. He explained that the Master Plan projects a width
of 80' to 100' and it is currently only 60' wide. The minimum right-of-way
dedication would be another 10' off of this property. Mr. Wray stated that the
house would be facing away from College. Therefore, the widening of College
wouldn't affect his use of the property.
In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Wray stated that the utility room
would be added to the north end of the building. Mr. Tompkins stated that he
is sorry about the dimensions of the property that Mr. Palmer was given, but he
doesn't think the staff is in the business of verifying that. Mr. Wray stated
that he understands that but is just saying that it was misleading. Ms. Bryant
advised that Mr. Palmer was told to get a survey.
Kim Johnson, wife of Dr. Kirk Johnson, stated that they have the property across
Prospect Street from this. She noted that they have had interest in the subject
property themselves because of a need for more parking for his practice, a
chiropractic office. She advised that they are in favor of the upgrading of the
property and think it would help the appearance of the neighborhood
substantially. They understand that the zoning is suitable for Mr. Palmer's
business and feel it would make some consistency in the area. She noted that
they have spoken to Mr. Palmer about using part of this property as parking for
their business. She noted that this property is overgrown and that may
contribute to automobile accidents at this location. In some seasons, it is
difficult to turn into Prospect and if that were a paved area, it would be
easier.
There being no one else wanting to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Chair Mills asked what the parking requirements would be for this property. Ms.
Bryant advised they would be very minimal, most likely one additional space to
what is provided now.
Mr. Boyd stated that his view is that the existing building is almost the same
as what Mr. Palmer wants and it could be remodeled.
Ms. Wright stated that the foundation has termite problems. Therefore,
rebuilding it would make it a more solid structure.
In answer to a question from Mr. Becker regarding the discrepancy between the
first survey and the second drawing, Ms. Bryant stated that the second one is
accurate (19'). Mr. Becker stated that because of the way the dimension is
taken(parallel to the wall), he will need more than 19' variance along College,
if it is measured at 90° angles to the property line.
Mr. Davis stated that Mr. Palmer's situation can neither be improved a whole lot
nor can it be made much worst.
Mr. Becker stated that, by granting this variance they would be improving a non-
conforming use but what else could be done with the property. He noted that
the house could be built to comply with the 10' setback on the north side
although it would create a need for a bigger variance on the sides.
Mr. Tompkins stated that he thinks they would be destroying a piece of property
that could be used in some manner. Once it is demolished by 50%, it has to
follow the other regulations as set forth by the zoning ordinance. He added
that simply by closing a street, a real good piece of property could be assembled
that would eliminate the traffic hazard. Mr. Tompkins stated that he thinks it
is more than a building question, it is a whole assembly question concerning
problems of traffic, the widening of College, and looking ahead to the future.
1
Adust«*
Board of Sign Appe
February 4, 1991
Page 3
Me. Wright stated that, if it was rebuilt, it would be more eye appealing to the
neighborhood, and the possibility of providing more parking would help
neighboring properties. She added that she doesn't see a problem if the road
is widened and this isn't being used for residential purposes. Ms Wright
stated that it wouldn't eliminate a safety problem until the road is closed, and
the Board of Adjustment has no jurisdiction over that. She would like to see
him be able to do what he wants to his property as long as it doesn't affect the
neighboring residences.
MOTION
Mr. Boyd moved to grant the variances
motion passed 4-2-0 with Boyd, Becker,
Tompkins voting "no".
as requested, seconded by Wright. The
Davis, & Wright voting "yes" and Mills &
APPEAL NO. BA91-2 FOR A VARIANCE OF THE REQUIRED WIDTH OF TANDEM LOT ACCESS
JERRY SWEETSER - BROOKHOLLOW SUBDIVISION - PHASE III LOTS 10 & 11
The third item on the agenda was Appeal No. BA91-2 for a variance of the required
width of tandem lot access submitted by Jerry Sweetser and represented by Dave
Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates for lots 10 & 11 of Brookhollow Subdivision -
Phase III. Property is located west of Frazier Terrace & north of Stearns
Street and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential.
Dave Jorgensen, the applicant's representative, stated that he appreciates the
staff's time in considering this variance request. As the plat indicates, lots
12 & 13 originally extended all the way to the north property line of the
subdivision. The developers decided that lots 12 & 13 were too deep in
comparison to the other lots in this subdivision. Therefore, they are looking
into how to better use the property. The suggestion was made to put in a tandem
drive leading back to two lots in the back. They feel that there isn't really
a need for 50' of driveway leading back to two lots. The request is to reduce
the driveway width from 25' to 15' for a combined total of 30'.
Mr. Jorgensen read the following paragraph from the staff's memo to the Board of
Adjustment; "As for the technical question of adequacy, however, we feel that
a common driveway 25 feet wide will be ample for the needs of each single-family
household to be located on lots 10 & 11. We have discussed this matter with the
Fire Chief, Traffic superintendent and City Engineer none of whom have expressed
serious reservations about the variance. We believe that the subdivision
ordinance and, perhaps, the tandem lot ordinances are overly conservative in the
matter of required street and drive widths. We intend to downscale these
requirements as ordinances are updated in order to reduce development costs."
As far as the questions from the application whether special conditions and
circumstances exist that are peculiar to the land, structure or building involved
and which are not applicable to other land, structures or buildings in the same
district. They feel that this is true in their case because of the terrain, the
creek bordering the north side, an Ozarks Electric easement bordering on the
north side, an existing subdivision to the east, and the street (Frazier
Terrace), on the south. Therefore, they are confined and are asking for this
variance because tandem lots are an important tool for achieving infill. The
second question is whether literal interpretation of the provisions of this
ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by the
properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance. They feel
that this is true because the topography causes an unusual situation which causes
this occurrence. The applicant came up with this idea, but it is debatable
whether he caused special conditions or whether the terrain is the cause. The
fourth question was whether granting this variance would confer on the applicant
any special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other land, structures
or buildings in the same district. He stated that they don't feel that it is
•
•
•
Board of •S gf-A peals
February 4, 1991
Page 4
giving them any special privilege. It could be done with a 25' wide driveway off
of both lots 12 & 13. He noted that they are trying to make a difficult
situation better by requesting this variance.
In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Jorgensen stated that the lot width
will still be 77' for lot 13 and 66.03' for lot 12. The ownership of the
driveway will be retained by the owners of lot 12 & 13. The access easement
would run with the property forever and forever and be maintained by the owners
of lots 10 & 11. He added that they would state in the covenants and on the plat
that the owners of lots 10 & 11 share the 30' easement. He advised that the same
questions regarding who will maintain it, etc., will arise whether this variance
is granted or not.
Chair Mills stated that, if the Subdivision Committee has control over the plat
of a subdivision, why can they not determine this. Ms. Bryant advised that the
tandem lot ordinance is in the zoning code and not in the subdivision
regulations.
Mr. Tompkins stated that the Planning Commission gave the adjustment based on the
approval or disapproval of their power to do so. He stated that he is
interested in why the Board of Adjustment is hearing this.
Ms. Bryant advised that the Planning Commission had stated that, if it was
determined by the staff that they had the authority to grant it, then they wished
to grant it. However, it has been determined by the staff that they do not have
that authority.
Chair Mille stated that according to the staff report, the City Attorney has
stated that it is up to the Board of Adjustment to grant a variance of this kind.
In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Bryant stated that the Planning
Commission did not recommend that the Board of Adjustment approve this. They
would have approved had it been within their authority.
Mr. Davis asked what is to stop the developer from building houses on these four
lots, putting up a fence, and paving a 12.5' driveway as part of the development.
There would be no easement involved and everyone would have access. Ms. Bryant
stated that the owners of lots 10 & 11 couldn't drive over the property on lots
12 & 13 without some sort of right-of-way easement.
Chair Mills stated that the only issue they are dealing with is the tandem lot
width. Ms. Bryant clarified that her staff report should have stated that the
City Attorney stated that issues of the "tandem lot access width" fell within the
bulk and area requirements.
Ma. Wright stated that if they look at this visually with the driveways side by
side it would look like a normal driveway.
Mr. Jorgensen stated that he doesn't have a problem with the legalities of this
as much as the aesthetics and the marketability of these lots. Ms. Wright stated
that she doesn't think marketability should come into play in their decision.
Ms. Wright asked if they had looked into replatting this area. Mr. Jorgensen
stated that they had looked at it.
Mr. Boyd stated that if they were to grant this he thinks there should be a
provision that the entire 30' be shared by both lots.
In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Jorgensen stated that the
floodplain didn't come into play with this particular piece of property.
•
•
uS{1^rIeNt
Board of Sigri\-Appea-lst
February 4, 1991
Page 5
Chair Mills stated that any motion should be worded so that it ties to this plat
not being changed.
MOTION
Ms. Wright moved to grant the variance on the condition that lots 10 & 11 share
the 30 foot driveway and that it only applies to this particular plat. The
motion was seconded by Boyd and followed by discussion.
Mr. Tompkins stated that he doesn't see a hardship here.
Mr. Boyd stated that the hardship is that there is an additional 10' of area of
lots that could not be built upon which makes it more difficult to place the
house.
Mr. Tompkins stated that the purpose of the sideyard regulations is for light,
air, and access. There is a buildable area width of 44' in lot 13 so they have
plenty of room.
Mr. Becker stated that at one time there was one lot proposed where lots 10 & 13
are and one lot where lots 11 & 12 are. This is the only solution they have
proposed for their problem, and he isn't sure this is the best thing for the
community.
Mo. Wright stated that she agrees that there could be other possible solutions
to their design layout problems. However, all they are asking for is a little
bit narrower driveway that is going to be tandem regardless. Granting this
variance would make it more aesthetically pleasing, because the paved area
wouldn't be as wide.
Chair Mills stated that to her the hardship is financial and not topographic.
Mr. Becker stated that he doesn't think the designer started by putting in the
tandem lots and designing the rest of the subdivision around them. They need to
consider the character of the neighborhood.
Chair Mills stated that the tandem lot ordinance was developed to be able to
access landlocked property and didn't have to do with a subdivision.
Chair Mills advised that they have a motion and a second to grant the variance
for a 30' shared access with the variance to be null and void if this plan is
changed.
The motion was denied 2-4-40 with Boyd & Wright voting "yes" and Becker, Mills,
Tompkins, & Davis voting "no".
OTHER BUSINESS
Item #1: Chair Mills advised that Bob Waldren has resigned his position on the
Board which leaves a vacancy to be filled. If they know of anyone interested,
have them apply through the City Clerk.
Item #2: Chair Mills advised that they have been given a copy of the
recodification of the zoning ordinance. It reads exactly like the old one but
is put together better.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.