HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-05-17 MinutesMINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45 P.M.,
Monday, May 17, 1976, in the Directors Room, City Administration
Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Chairman
Carl Yates, James White, David Newbern.
Connie Clack (one position vacant).
Bobbie Jones, Bogddy Arias, Rudy Moore, Warren D. Segraves,
Truman Yancey, Ernest Jacks-, Delbert Allen, Dr. J. B. Hays,
Gerard Halpern, Ralph Downs, Gene Sauls, Laquita Cannon,
Carol Hart,Director Russell Purdy, Hugh R. Kincaid, Nelda
Richter, Dr. Hall Logan, and many other unidentified persons.
Chairman Carl Yates called the meeting to order.
Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal No. 76-12, Bogddy APPEAL NO. 76-12
Arias, on an application to vary setbacks at 113 West Skyline. BOGDDY ARIAS
Chairman Yates advised those present that a request for a variance 113 West Skyline
on this property had previously been filed and a hearing previously held
by the Board of Adjustment. That previous request had been denied. It was noted
that this was a new request and had been publicly advertised as such.
Ms. Arias was present to represent the request.
Ms. Arias said she was asking for a different variance at this time; the first one
had been for a rear yard setback; this one was requesting a 10 ft. front yard setback.
The required front yard setback is 25 ft. for zoning plus 10 ft. to meet the Major
Street Plan requirement, or a total setback of 35 ft.
Ms. Arias stated that she was willing to listen to objections and, if this request
was also denied, asked for the Board to recommend a solution. She emphasized that
she wanted to build on this lot. She said it was a lot of record, even though it
is a small lot, and that the minimum lot size requirements did not apply to this
lot. She asked for a variance because of the odd shape of the lot and because of
the access "road" on the back of the lot. She stated she did not want to close the
"road", that she wanted to continue to provide access to the other houses South of
this lot. She proposed to have the "road" on the West side of the lot and put the
house closer to the front of the lot. She said most of the houses there are closer
to the street than the ordinance permits.
Chairman Yates asked Ms. Arias about a statement contained in her letter of April 22
to the Planning Administrator in which she stated that "Both Mr. Segraves and
Mr. Faucette were offered Lot #38, and both of them declined to purchase it."
Chairman Yates asked if this had been since the previous Board of Adjustment meeting.
Ms. Arias said the lot was offered to them before it was offered to her, but that she
had not offered it to either of them since the previous Board meeting.
In answer to David Newbern's question, Ms. Arias said she wanted to put a house on
the lot similar to one built on Sycamore Street by Randall Webb ----two stories,
with a half floor upstairs, with. high beams about 28 ft. by 30 ft, containing
approximately 1200 sq. ft. of contemporary construction having rock, wood and glass.
Mr. Newbern then asked her if it would be possible for her to build a house on the
lot that would be satisfactory to her without the Board of Adjustment granting her
a variance. Ms. Arias stated that she thought she could do so. She said she had
about 3 alternate sets of plans.that would meet those requirements.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment -2-
May 17, 1976
In answer to a question by James White, Ms. Arias said that (Dale) Holland had
built a house about 15 ft, deep which_she thought had 2.bedrooms, and also which
she thought could be built on the lot without requiring a variance.
Chairman Yates.read into the record,of the minutes two letters received by the
Planning Administrator concerning this appeal.. 'Both. letters follow in their
entirety.
"May 13, 1976
"Bobbie Jones, Planning Administrator
Board of Adjustment
City Administration Building
Fayetteville, AR. 72701
"Dear Ms. Jones,
"I am writing this letter in regard to Appeal No. 76-12----Bogddy Arias ---
113 West Skyline. I would like to request the Board of Adjustment
deny the variance for reasons I will list below.
1. I believe the lot varies too much from the 8000 square feet
required by zoning.
2. I noticed in the requested variance that there was a set back
of only ten feet from the present street ROW. If the City should require
the ten feet set forth in the master street plans this would mean a zero
foot set back.
3. There is at present a serious problem with runoff water from
this property. Any construction or disturbance of the natural ground
cover would greatly increase this problem resulting in damage to my
property joining below.
4. An access drive to the houses to the south now crosses this lot.
I was informed a few months ago, when considering the purchase of this
property, that the drive had been in existence for approximately 20 years
and could not be closed. This fact would make the lot unusable for any
type of building purpose.
5. The intent of the R-1 District, low density residential area
is to create pleasant neighborhoods. This particular area of Skyline
Drive has little if no parking and another dwelling located in this area
would further congest traffic and parking problems.
"For these reasonslisted above and due to the fact that the requested variances
are so far from the requirements of the R-1 District, I request the Board of
Adjustment deny the variance..
"Sincerely yours,
S/ Warren D. Segraves, L.A,"
Board of Adjustment -3-
May 17, 1976
"May 15? 1976..
"Fayetteville Board of Adjustment
c
/oMs. Bobbie Jones
Planning Administrator
Administration Building
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
"Gentlemen"
"We are writing to you in regard to Public Appeal No. 76-12 Ms. B. Aries,
113 West Skyline, Lot 38, Methodist Assembly Addition - Application to
way (sic) setbacks.
"We respectfully request the Board to deny the subject appeal for the following
reasons:
"1) The proposed location of the house would push the access alley way (to
other properties to the south) to the very brow of the hill, if not
actually a few feet over- Doing so would require removing existing trees,
grass, and brush; an action undesirable from the standpoint of making use
of the drive hazardous for trailors (sic) or boats, and also from the
drainage aspect because the currents of water after rains would not only
erode the road, but make an*unpleasant.. mess in Mr. Seagraves property to
the West.
"2) Existing
8,000 ft.
contains
"3)
zoning limitations as to required square footage, I believe
for lots to be built on would not be met. The lot at best
not more than 3,700 ft.2.
Parking on this part of Skyline Drive is a severe problem, and additional
housing would only complicate an already bad situation.
"4) Similar appeal by Ms. Aries for zoning variance on this lot was just recently
denied by the Board for essentially the above reasons.
"We
hope the Board concurs with our views, and acts to deny the request.
Sincerely yours,
S/ Dr. and Mrs. Helmut Wolf
120 Skyline Drive"
Attorney Rudy Moore was present to represent Mr. George Faucette, adjoining
property owner. He said the lot had not been offered for sale since the last
public hearing; and in fact at the time the offer was made, the price was so
excessive, there was a for sale sign on the property by Big Red Real Estate,
and the price was in the neighborhood of several thousand dollars He pointed
out that when Ms. Arias had previously built in the area, she had built on 2 or
21 lots when she obtained the necessary variances to build her present home.
Mr. Moore said the applicant is not in the position of one who has held this land
at the time the ordinances were passed or perhaps of one who had had the lot passed
down to them through their family. He argued that the nature of zoning, although
it sometimes works a hardship, is designed to accomodate the better good for the
larger number, for the whole, for the City and its residents. He said Ms. Arias
should be aware of the regulations, not only because she is a licensed real estate
broker, but also because she hadtto obtain a variance to build her present home.
I8-
•
•
•
L
Board of Adjustment -4-
May 17, 1976
He said the lot is simply not large enough. forwhatis proposed on it.
Mr. Moore also said .that the access 'road" as Ms, Arias proposes it would carve
up even more the lotto the North_ownedbr.Western Methodist Assembly; to push
the road to the back. of the Faucette propertywould require takingout a number
of trees-, and would put the "road" in a precarious position and worsen the runoff
problem. He said the proposal still leaves -problems with parking.
Warren Segraves, property owner to the West, objected to the granting of the
variance and stated that he had been offered the lot by the former owner, Mrs. Carol,
and was planning to buy it to protect his property. He said that during the
preparation of the abstract, Richard Greer, Abstractor, had called him and told him
the lady who owned property down the street was interested in buying the lot and was
concerned that he might try to alter the access road. He said he told Mr. Greer to
tell Mrs. Carol he hadnoobjection if she wished to sell the lot to the lady.
Attorney Truman Yancey.objected to the granting of the variance on behalf of the
Superintendent of Methodist Assembly. The Assembly owns the lot immediately to the
North of the subject lot. Mr. Yancey pointed out the zoning regulations which
apply to non -conformities in general and to non -conforming lots. Mr. Yancey pointed
out that the lot is question is only 50 ft. wide and has less than 4,000 sq. ft.
whereas the R-3 zoning district requires a 60 ft. wide lot and 6,000 sq. ft. for
a single family dwelling. He called this an extreme variation from what is desired
in the code, and emphasized that the intent of the zoning ordinance is not to
encourage the survival of non -conformities. He alsoepointed out that the driveway,
which is of an obvious benefit to a number of property owners, comes off the paved
Skyline Drive at the Northeast corner of the Assembly lot, cuts across it at an angle
to bisect the lot in question about at the center of the lot, and then proceeds
across the rear portion of the third lot. He said to relocate the driveway to the
rear of the subject lot would necessitate putting a lengthwise curve on the Assembly
lot, which would be objectionable to the owner of the Assembly lot.
Mr. Yancey submitted a copy of a letter written to Lee Cates, Superintendent of
Western Methodist Assembly. Chairman Yates read the letter, which follows in its
entirety, into the minutes:
"May 14, 1976
"Dear Lee,
"This is just a note to reaffirm in writing that Joe and I are in agreement
with you, the Western Methodist Assembly, Warren Seagraves, and George
Faucette in that we do not feel the lot is large enough to build a house
on at 113 Skyline Drive. Also , we are in agreement that the access road
should stay located as is, for it is usable in all kinds of weather as it
is now.
"Our very best regards to you always.
"Sincerely,
S/ Mary Carolyn Pendleton (Mrs. Joseph T.)"
The public hearing on Appeal No. 7642 was closed.
Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal No, 76-434
Housing Authority of the City of Fayetteville, 10 South. Willow
on an application to vary setback.. of a screening wall., The
Zoning Ordinance prohibits.the placing of anything over 30 10 South Willow
inches tall in the required front yard setback. if it materially impedes vision.
APPEAL NO, 76-13
HOUSING AUTHORITY
CITY -OF FAYETTEVILLE
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment -5-
May 17, 1976
The required front yard setback. is 25 ft, zoning plus an additional 5 ft. to meet
the Major Street Plan requirement for future widening of Willow Avenue. The applicant
proposes to construct two 4 ft, tall screening walls..
Present to represent the request were Ernest Jacks, Architect; Warren Segraves,
Architect; and Delbert Allen, with. the Housing Authority,
Mr. Jacks explained that the Housing Authority is adding to its existing community
building at Willow Heights, a low -rent housing site. He said the addition would
be for a day care center and the head start people plan to move into it. He explained
that one of the screening walls would be around the play yard for the day care center
and would come within 29 ft. of the present street right-of-way requiring a 1 ft.
variance. The other screening wall would be around the master gas meters for the
complex and also they would keep some garbage cans inside it. This wall would
extend to within 16 ft. of the existing street right-of-way. He said the block
walls would be eight to ten feet above the street line and could in no way impede
motorists' vision. He pointed out that the gas meters had originally had a wooden
fence around them, which had been knocked down by the children living in the complex.
There was no one present to oppose the request. The public hearing was closed.
Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal No. 76-14, APPEAL NO. 76-14
Dr. J. B. Hays, for property at 1140 North College Avenue, DR. J. B. HAYS
on an application to vary the setback required from an R District 1140 North College
for the proposed use. The building, the old Vet View Motel, already exists and
appears to be built right on the alley to its rear. The Zoning Ordinance requires
a 200 ft. separation of the structure for use of the building as a hospital,
sanitarium, or convalescent home for alcoholic, mental, nervous, narcotic, or contagious
patients. A live-in, group facility for mentally retarded adults is proposed.
Among those present to represent the request were Dr. Hays, Gerard Halpern, Ralph
Downs, Laquita Cannon, Gene Sauls, and Carol Hart.
Mr. Halpern, the Treasurer of Life -Styles, Inc., stated they were a group organized
in order to facilitate those persons that are developmentally retarded, but can
still function up to 70%, 80%, or 90% of normal.to perform useful tasks rather than
filling our institutions. He said the group had negotiated with Dr. Hays to lease
a number of rooms at the motel which would be occupied by nine or ten carefully
chosen developmentally retarded persons. Mr. Halpern explained that these individuals
would be supervised by house parents living on the premises 24 hours a day, and that
they would also have alternate house parents during the absence of the house parents.
He said a similar group in Fort Smith had been imminently successful. He said this
would be supported by the State which provides 90% matching funds.
David Newbern asked if they would object if a variance were granted which contained
a limitation that this be for functionally retarded persons and which limited the
number of individuals. Mr. Halpern said they would not object and stated they would
like approval for a maximum of ten young adults. He further explained that these
persons would not be driving themselves, but would all be transported to and from
their jobs. He pointed out that they would all be employed and that he considered
the location ideal because it is near two shopping centers which would have the
type of jobs that are not very muchdesired by other persons available. He also
said there would be no vocational type of activities carried on on the premises.
The individuals would dine together, their leisure time would be controlled, and
the house parents would be accountable to where they were at all times.
In answer to Dr. White's question, Mr. Halpern said the only structural changes
planned were that Dr. Hays was filling in the swimming pool under the Karate building
and this would be made into the main dining area.
David Newbern asked Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones to explain the "separation"
requirement. She read the ordinance section and pointed out that the separation
required is from the building housing the use to the nearest other property in an
R zone.
20
•
•
Board of Adjustment -6-
May 17, 1976
Mr. Newbern and Dr, White explained that they were troubled because this sounded
more like a use variance request, During further discussion; Mrs. Jones explained
that in her opinion?.this was a use permitted in this C-2 zone and -Which she could
approve herself had they met the requirement for the building to be 200 ft.. from
R Zoned property, Mr. Newbern explained he was trying to ascertain (1) whether
this was in fact a kind of use request, which he thought it was in a sense but he
could understand why it had been referred to the Board; (2) what the 200 ft. was
from; and (3) what the intent of the ordinance was. He then asked Mr. Halpern
if Life -Styles had looked at property which would meet the requirements. Mr. Halpern
said they had looked at at least two or three other locations from several points of
view: (1) type of use they would like to have for the young people, (2) location;
and (3) employability. He said they were prohibited bylaw from purchasing a
building and of the places they had looked at, this would be the most suitable
because Dr. Hays would furnish them and it would be within easy distance of places
to work. He said they had no alternate locations in mind should the variance be denied.
Ralph Downs, Regional Representative for Region I, Arkansas Mental Retardation
Developmental Disabilities Service, under the Arkansas Social and Rehabilative
Services Department, was present also. He explained again that this would be a
residential facility that would be for clients who have the capability of being
employed and living in a community. He referred to this as a "continuum of services"
in which they start with pre-school, developmentally retarded persons, go into
school age children and sheltered workshops up to a point, if the client is capable
of developing to a point of independent living, where they can function under
conditions as near to the norm of society as possible. In answer to some questions
from the audience, Mr. Downs said that it has been determined that there is a need
for this kind of service in this particular area. He gave the expected age group
as being from 18 years of age through the early thirties. He explained that the
goal would be to eventually have the clients reach the point where they would be
self-sufficient.
It was explained that the State would purchase these services from Life -Styles, Inc.
on a premium basis.
Mr. Halpern explained that initially these clients would come from Washington County,
but might eventually have others from throughout the State.
Chairman Yates stated that the Board has the prerogative to grant variances and
attach conditions to them. He asked if it would be acceptable to Life -Styles if a
temporary variance were to be granted for from 6 to 9 months in order to see how
it would operate. Mr. Halpern indicated this might be acceptable, but stated that
their lease with Dr. Hays was for one year, with subsequent one year options; therefore,
he thought a one year period would be best.
Gene Sauls, President of Life -Styles, Inc., said that one of the admissions requirements
was that no one could;be accepted who had been diagnosed as mentally ill.
Laquita Cannon also said that the individuals must be employed in order to live there.
Carol Hart, also with Life -Styles, said the group wanted to work with the community
and had reserved a place on the Board of Directors for a resident of that neighborhood.
Director Russell Purdy asked if the Board approved the variance with limitations,
and then Life -Styles discontinued its use of the property, would it then be open
for just anything that falls within those uses listed requiring the 200 ft. separation.
David Newbern said his opinion was that if the variance was granted to the property
owner for any use that falls in that category+ it could be used for any of those uses;
but if the Board of Adjustment attached the limitation that it be for this particular
use only, then he thought it could not be used for the other uses.,
Chairman Yates said he also believed the Board could condition a variance on just
this one particular uae
Attorney Hugh Kincaid was: present to represent persons in the neighborhood in
opposition to the request, He presented a petition bearing the names and addresses
of 50 persons opposing the request.. He said they are concerned because of problems
2l 4
•
Board of Adjustment -7-
May 17, 1976
whichthey forsee fortheneighborhood, one of .which. would be diminished property
values. He said the applicantshould have been aware o£.the limitations on the
property since he had acquired it after the adoption of the ordinance. He said there
is only a 10—ft, alley between this property and the residential property to the East
and he thought the building might actually overlap into the alley a foot or more.
He said the residential area is a very well -kept neighborhoodwith some quite expensive
homes in it; one property owner has just completed an addition to his home and is
in the process of constructing a swimming pool. He listed among those in the
neighborhood a realtor, persons who had worked in medical and hospital services who
had under their jurisdiction people with substantially these same limitations as
being discussed. here, a hospital administrator who had worked with such individuals
in a hospital in the State of Texas. He said that this should not be done to the
economic disadvantage of the people of the neighborhood. He argued that the granting
of the variance did not meet the conditions outlined in the ordinance for granting
a variance. He said also that there are 24 units there available potentially for
this use. He said he disagreed on the matter of the Board imposing conditions on
a variance; he said he had talked to City Attorney Jim McCord, and was told that
if the Board waived the 200 ft. setback requirement, it would apply to all the uses
in that category. Apart from that, he questioned the suitability of the location
because there is no exercise area, no walk around area, and it has a very steep
slope.
David Newbern said the property values argument is notorious in cases like this,
and that he was sympathetic to a degree where it could be demonstrated. He asked
if they could cite specific instances. Mr. Kincaid said that among those present
were Mrs. Richter who has worked at the V. A. Hospital and Dr. Hall Logan who is
a former hospital administrator, both of which have worked with individuals with
developmental limitations; also a realtor who is also a property owner in the
neighborhood; they all feel the property values would be seriously affected.
Mr. Newbern asked for examples.
Dr. Hall Logan, past Chairman of Board of Control in a Texas institution, said he
had had 22,000 people under his jurisdiction with around 2,000 mentally retarded.
He said mental retardness is a matter of degree and there are many associated
situations of which it is only a part He said they had tried to place the ones
they worked with, but it was a constant worry and not too successful, particularly
with women whom they could almost not let out of their sight. He questioned where
it could be stopped once the door was opened.
Chairman Yates asked Mr. Halpern if they could not own the property, could they have
someone build a facility for them to lease or rent. Mr. Halpern said they had been
organized for almost 2 years and had been trying to find a location and this is the
most suitable they have found for their needs. He said the State limits them to
10 clients because it has determined this is the most desirable number for a "so-
called family."
Mr. Downs said the actual funding is 75% Title 20 (Federal) funds, 10% local funds,
and the State makes up the difference. Mr. Halpern said they hoped to open July 1, 1976.
Nelda Richter said they had owned their home their 27 years and they objected to
varying the 200 ft. separation,
Dr. J. B. Hays said the building is U-shaped and ispresently being rented as living
units. He said the alley could not be opened up with. a bulldozer. He also said
the people they want to put in there may be more intelligent than some of the present
occupants he has there, Dr.. Hays said he planned to continue the motel at this site
for another 2 or 3 years only and planned to continue renting out the other units to
other people as he has done in the past.
David Newbern said the Board has been operating for a long time on the assumption
that it could put limitations on variances, usually they are varied for the purpose
of construction, but he did not see how that would differ in this case if they have
the power to do that. He said perhaps the City. Attorney would tell them they did
not have this power.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment
May 17, 1976
-8-
Mr. Newbern said he could not see how
limitation. they wereconsidering here
the Board.decided to grant a variance
with the City Attorney on this.,
Carol Hart with.Life-Styles said this-
that
his
that differs with the kind of use
Chairman.Yates said in his opinion if
with. a condition, they would want to consult
isnot a hospital= sanitarium, or convalescent
home.. She questioned whether the requirement should apply..
There was a large show of hands of individuals'present in opposition to the appeal.
The public hearing was closed.
Concerning Appeal 76-12, Ms. Bogddy Arias, Mr. Newbern said he was
impressed by her remark that she could use the lot and build a house
satisfactory to her without a variance being granted and, therefore,
he did not think there was much point in granting -a variance.
David Newbern then moved to deny Appeal No. 76-12. James White seconded the motion
which was approved unanimously.
APPEAL 76-12
James White moved to grant Appeal 76-13, Housing Authority of the
City of Fayetteville, since the property is above street level anyway.
David Newbern seconded the motion and said he could not see how it would impede
vision and he thought this was what the ordinance intended. The motion was
approved unanimously.
APPEAL 76-13
Concerning Appeal 76-14, Dr. J. B. Hays, David Newbern moved to APPEAL 76-14
table this request until such time as the, Board could communicate with
City Attorney Jim McCord on whether or not the Board has the power to impose
conditions as they have discussed. Mr. Newbern added that he would certainly want
to vote to impose conditions and since there were only three members present, he
felt it was essential that they get this cleared up.
James White asked Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones if the rooms could be
rented to individuals without any kind of variance regardless of what the mental
state or conditions of the individuals were. In other words, is there any way
of limiting the use of this if it were used as a motel? Is there any limitation on
who pays the rent?
Bobbie Jones said that there were no such limitations contained within the zoning
ordinance. She added that motels are a permitted use in this C-2 Zone; apartments
are not a permitted use in the C-2 Zone; however the difference is based on whether
or not the units have kitchen facilities, in particular kitchen sinks. (Dr. Hays
said there are no kitchen sinks in the individual units).
Mr. White then seconded the motion to table the request. The motion was approved
unanimously.
The three Board members mutually agreed to meet again on Friday, May.'._ 28, 1976,
at 3:45 P.M. in order to take action on this appeal. They requested that the
Planning Administrator schedule a meeting for all three of them to meet personally
with the City Attorney to discuss the questions they had concerning this appeal.
Gene Sauls invited those interested to meet with Life -Styles, Inc. at Richardson
Center at 5:30, Wednesday.
The minutes of the April 19, 1976, minutes were not approved at this meeting.
Chairman Yates said he had talked to Mrs. Clack about two corrections MINUTES
she thought might be made. Onedealt with a statement she had made in which
her intent was to say she was glad there was an attorney on the Board and she was
interested in seeing that there would continue to be one in the future, Bobbie Jones
said this correction had already been made,, Mr.. Yates was unsure of the other correction,
so the approval of the minutes was:.deferred,
The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 P.M.
23