Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-04-15 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, April 15, 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, Larry Tompkins and Lonnie Meadows OTHERS PRESENT: Sharon Langley, Dottie Woods and Don Ward MINUTES Upon motion of Larry Tompkins and second of Gerald Boyd, the minutes of the April 1, 1991 were approved as distributed. APPEAL NO. BA91-6 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF CERTAIN ZONING REQUIREMENTS DOTTIE WOOD FOR ALPHA BETA CHAPTER OF PHI MU, 10 ARKANSAS AVENUE The second item was Appeal No. BA91-6 for a request for a variance of certain zoning requirements (parking) submitted by Dottie Wood on behalf of Alpha Beta Chapter of Phi Mu for property located at 10 Arkansas Avenue. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential. Ms. Dottie Wood, President of the Alpha Beta Chapter of Phi Mu appeared before the Board and explained the sorority had purchased two pieces of property on Arkansas Avenue and Reagan Avenue for a house. She further explained the house was being remodeled to accommodate 45 girls. She stated the plans reflect 24 parking spaces instead of the 46 required by existing ordinances. She presented a letter from the University of Arkansas offering use of off -campus parking lots. Ms. Wood explained there were only three parking spaces at the current sorority house and the girls parked by Leverett School. She stated the adjoining property owners, with the exception of the property directly behind the house (there was no response from this property owner), had no objection to the variances. She explained a realtor was searching for property along Reagan for a parking area. Mr. Tompkins asked if the girls were concerned their personal safety, having to walk from the Leverett school area. Me. Wood stated the area was well lighted and there was a telephone so they could call to get an escort. She explained the parking at the Grad Ed Building would be much closer and safer. The university has given permission to park at the corner of Arkansas and Maple. Mr. Tompkins asked where they were looking to purchase additional property. Me. Woods explained it would be on Reagan. Mr. Tompkins stated he was interested in the parking ratio of all fraternities and sororities. He asked staff if the other fraternities and sororities had adequate parking. Ms. Langley, Planning Departmetn, stated she did not know, but none had applied for a variance. It was pointed out that the properties owned by the university were exempt from zoning regulations and other Greek houses were in existence before the regulations were enacted. Mr. Boyd explained the sorority was asking for a substantial reduction. He stated part of the problem was the proposed 10 double rooms. He asked if those rooms could be single rooms at this time and converted at a later date when extra parking was available. He further explained that would cut down the requirements • • • Board of Adjustments April 15, 1991 Page 2 to 36 instead of 46 parking spaces. He stated it might not be economically feasible, however, to have those rooms be single instead of double rooms. Ms. Mills asked how many of the girls parked at Leverett School at this time. Ms. Wood explained not all of the girls owned cars, only perhaps 35 owned cars and parked there. Mr. Tompkins stated there would also be girls coming to the house for meetings, etc. that would require parking. Mr. Becker stated it was difficult to make a judgment without viewing comparable properties. He requested the applicant provide examples by getting data from other fraternities and sororities regarding the number of parking spaces per residents of the houses. He gave front setbacks as an analogy by explaining if an established neighborhood had houses closer to the right-of-way than the front set back, the new home builder was allowed to take the average for the house setback in order not to be penalized. Mr. Tompkins stated he had reviewed the area and found parking was a major problem - no one appeared to have adequate parking. Mr. Boyd pointed out there was a shortage of parking on campus, and people living next to the campus were taking spaces legitimately belonging to people who lived on the other side of town and had to drive. He explained that allowing the sorority to use university lots did not solve the problem. Mr. Tompkins stated he felt the 22 spaces overall was a plus. He explained the university was currently considering destruction of some campus buildings in order to build parking lots. Ms. Mills asked if the plan presented by Ms. Woods was the final plan. She explained if it was not the final plan, they were looking at spaces on a proposed plan. Ms. Wood explained it was not a definite plan, because the parking situation needed to be settled first. She stated they might be forced to make the house smaller, allowing for more parking spaces. Mr. Davis asked if there were enough pledges to fill all of the rooms proposed. Ms. Wood stated there was, that the sorority was well established. Mr. Becker stated the spaces were absolute minimum, 9' x 19'. He once again suggested she look at precedent in the area. Me. Wood explained it was difficult to obtain figures from the university, and the university owned the majority of the houses. She further explained the university did not care where the residents parked. Mr. Tompkins explained the university was regulations. He stated he believed this was eliminating the congestion problem in the area while he had no objection to this variance, he comments. exempt from the city zoning a reasonable contribution to . Mr. Tompkins explained that was interested in Mr. Becker's There was discussion regarding re -designing the house, allowing for more parking space. It was determined that few parking spaces would be gained. • • • Board of Adjustments April 15, 1991 Page 3 Mr. Boyd stated he would again offer his plan of changing the double rooms to single rooms, reducing parking requirements by 12 spaces, and allowing the sorority to proceed with the project. Ms. Mills pointed out that would create a problem of the Board policing the sorority to make sure they were not using the rooms designated as single rooms as double rooms. Mr. Tompkins asked what would happen to the other 12 girls -- where they would live and park their cars. He stated overall the proposed plan presented by Phi Mu was a contribution to bettering the parking situation. Mr. Boyd stated they needed to face the fact that it was almost impossible to get enough land in the area. Me. Wood explained this was the perimeter of the university. Ms. Mills stated this area was railroad, away from campus. Mr. Becker suggested tabling this item until they had further information. He explained they needed examples in the area in order to make comparisons. He stated he believed they should take an average from the other houses in the area. last piece of privately owned property on the difficult since the land backed up against the MOTION Mr. Becker moved to table this item and ask staff to gather background information on comparable facilities, occupant versus parking relationships. Mr. Davis seconded the motion. The motion passed with Mr. Becker, Mr. Boyd, Ms. Mills, Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Davis voting "yes" and Mr. Meadows voting "no". Ms. Mills informed the applicant that they would hear this on May 6. Mr. Becker stated Ms. Wood could also do so research on the matter determining the number of parking spaces versus occupants of the house. The Board explained she would not need to get the figures from every fraternity and sorority, but a random sampling. BA91-7 - APPEAL FOR A VARIANCE FROM ZONING REGULATIONS (LOT SIZE) DON WARD - 2015 E. HUNTSVILLE The third item on the agenda was appeal BA91-7, an appeal for a variance from zoning regulations regarding lot size. The property is owned by Don Ward, located at 2015 E. Huntsville and is zoned R-1. Mr. Ward appeared before the Board, explaining the reason for his request was due to the placement of the house on the property. He stated he had planned to split the property into three tracts, but the width of the property would not meet the zoning regulations. Mr. Tompkins questioned the size of the backyard. Mr. Ward stated that, by adjusting the lot size the back yard would be diminished in size. He explained his proposal would allow for oversize back yards on each lot. • • • Board of Adjustments April 15, 1991 Page 4 Mr. Tompkins asked if the two existing structures (two barns) would be conforming if the proposed split took place. He further asked if they were in conformance at the present time. Mr. Ward stated he could remove them, that the back one was rotting. He explained the other structure was a metal storage shed. He stated he presumed it was in conformance since it had a concrete floor. Mr. Tompkins stated the garage was not in compliance. Mr. Ward stated he also planned on removing it to build a house. Mr. Tompkins asked if all three lots were made 69.88 feet wide, would the existing house be in conformance. Mr. Ward stated it would still be in conformance. He explained there was 18 feet from the concrete porch to the garage. He further explained that if the lots were each 70 feet in width, that would add another 16 feet of yard on the west side of the existing house He stated the west side was the off side of the house -- the entrance was on the east side -- and would not gain the property anything. Mr. Tompkins asked what would happen to lot 3, which was proposed to be 62 feet wide. Mr. Ward stated tract 3 was only 62 feet by deed but was, in actuality, 70 feet. He explained the fence was 8 feet over into the adjoining property but had been used as his property. Mr. Meadows asked if the property had been surveyed. Mr. Ward stated it had been surveyed and it showed the fence was 8 feet over. He explained the owner of the property would have to go to the expense of moving the fence, but did not believe she would do so since it was a rental property. He further pointed out there was also a tree line by the fence. Ms. Mills asked if Mr. Ward had talked with the owner regarding this matter. Mr. Ward stated he had not. He explained the owner was not losing anything since the fence had been there before the current owner had purchased the property. He again stated it would just be an expense on her part to move the fence. Mr. Boyd stated people got upset about property lines. He pointed out Mr. Ward could not build on that property. Mr. Ward explained he did not want to build on that property -- it would be a side yard. Mr. Boyd pointed out that, if Mr. Ward had a claim to that property, he could get it legally and then nothing would have to be done to that lot. The middle lot would have to go over 8 feet instead of 16 feet, leaving the third lot 78 feet. He explained Mr. Ward would have to spend some money getting legal title to the additional land. Mr. Ward stated there had never been any controversy over the strip of land. Mr. Boyd explained there would be no controversy until Mr. Ward tried using it as his own land and the owner did not want him to. • • • Board of Adjustments April 15, 1991 Page 5 Mr. Ward stated it had been used as his property for the last 40 years. He further explained that some of the out buildings were located on the property. Mr. Boyd explained that, should the current owner wish to sell the property, get it surveyed, try to get title insurance, and then discover Mr. Ward was using 8 feet of the land, there could be problems. Mr. Ward stated he had a brokers license and, unless the law had been changed, the fence was the property line for the lots due to the length of time it had been used as the property line. Mr. Boyd stated if it could be proved in a court of law, he would agree with Mr. Ward. He explained Mr. Ward was asking the Board to change the laws of the city and was not doing everything he could do before making that request. He stated Mr. Ward could probably gain the 8 feet legally in court. Mr. Tompkins stated he was concerned about the non -conforming structures. He pointed out the structure was not 25 feet from the right-of-way in the front. He stated he did not understand why they were getting a lot split, he thought the planning commission approved lot splits. Ms. Mills stated the staff had recommended, rather than a lot split, a property line adjustment. She explained a lot split would not come before the Board but a property line adjustment would. Mr. Tompkins pointed out that as a property line adjustment, it would become a variance that would run with the land forever. Ms. Mills stated it bothered her that the applicant had asked for a lot split but staff was presenting it as a property line adjustment. There was discussion regarding tabling the item until the next meeting for further information. There was further discussion regarding the creation of a tandem lot with access from 16th Street. Ms. Langley stated the proposed lots did not have sufficient frontage to meet the lot split requirements and believed staff was presenting this item as a property line adjustment due to insufficient footage on the front. She stated in Becky Bryant's recommendations that Ms. Bryant felt it should be a property line adjustment rather than a lot split since it did not meet the qualifications for a lot split. Mr. Tompkins stated he believed it was still a lot split and he would treat it that way. Ms. Mills asked if the Board members were comfortable in hearing a variance on a lot split. Mr. Tompkins stated he was the only one uncomfortable with it. He stated he believed it was a planning matter. Me. Mills stated the Board had heard other proposed lot splits depending on the owner obtaining a variance. Mr. Tompkins explained he was uncomfortable in creating a non -conforming structure on a non -conforming lot of record. Mr. Meadows asked what would happen if they approved the variance and directed the applicant to go before the Planning Commission for the lot split. • • • Board of Adjustments April 15, 1991 Page 6 Mr. Tompkins explained the garage was in non -conformity and they could not assume it would be torn down. He further explained he did not want to create a non- conforming structure on the lot. He stated there were three non -conforming structures on the property. Ms. Mills stated the setback on the front of the house, from the right of way, would be non -conforming, the garage would be non -conforming. There was discussion that the only non-conformance created by the split would be the garage. Mr. Ward stated the two barns were closer than 8 feet to the fence, that they straddle the property line. Ms. Mills stated she also was uncomfortable with this item. She explained she would not mind hearing the appeal then directing the applicant to go to the Planning Commission for the split. She further stated she was not sure that was the proper way to handle this matter; however, since the majority of the Board was comfortable with hearing this item, she would suggest they go ahead and hear it Mr. Boyd stated he felt the Board had the authority to grant the variance but believed Mr. Ward was creating his own problem. He stated he believed it should be denied as submitted. He explained that, if it were presented after gaining the 8 additional feet, the first lot would be 70 feet, the next lot 70 feet, and taking only 8 feet out of the wide lot. He further suggested if the 8 feet could not be obtained, the lots be split so that there would only be a fraction of a foot shortage. Ms. Mills agreed with Mr. Boyd. She stated Mr. Ward could not figure the 8 feet in just assuming it had always been there. She explained the lines would have to be moved to the west to get them as close to conformity has possible. Mr. Boyd stated the code set forth a variance could not be granted if there was adjacent land with which to cure the problem. He further stated that if Mr. Ward had not owned the other property, then it would be a different set of equities. He stated the city had a reason to set frontage width at 70 feet and it should not be treated lightly. MOTION Mr. Boyd moved to deny this variance as submitted. Mr. Tompkins seconded the motion. The motion passed with Mr. Boyd, Mr. Becker, Ms. Mills, Mr. Tompkins, and Mr. Davis voting "yes" and Mr. Meadows voting "no". The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.