Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-02-18 MinutesMINUTES1' THE :1::1 1' ADJUSTMENT The Fayetteville Board of Adjustment met on Monday, February 18, 1985 at 3:55 P.K. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chester House, Don Mills, Dennis Becker, David Crittenden and Larry Tompkins MEMBERS ABSENT: "Butch" Robertson and Robert Waldren The regularly scheduled meeting was called to order by Chairman House and the minutes of the meeting of January 21 were considered. MINUTES Upon a motion from Tompkins and a second from Mills, the minutes were approved as distributed. PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL 85-4 LIFESTYLES REQUEST FOR PARKING VARIANCE • The second item of consideration was a Public Hearing on Appeal 85-4, a request for a variance in the number of parking spaces required submitted by Lifestyles (which will be located on Sycamore at Porter Road) and represented today by Carol Hart, Directress. Required are 18 parking spaces; permission for 12 is being requested. Ms. Hart stated that Lifestyles needs a waiver of the parking requirement because of financing by HUD who will only authorize 12 spaces due to their cost containment program. Tompkins said he was interested in the ownership of the surrounding property. Hart replied that the entire four acres shown is owned by Lifestyles but due to HUD regulations, only the western most portion can be developed. She answered Tompkins next question by stating that the request for a variance is due only to HUD restrictions and not because of orientation of the building. Hart stated that in ten years of operation, there has been only one Lifestyles resident (of a total of 67) who has had access to a vehicle. She said the residents work during the day and have occassional visitors on weekends. Hart said the programing takes place in the evenings and weekends and that visitors do not occur all at one time. She said most residents go home on holidays. • • Board of Adjustment February 18, 1985 Page 2 Tompkins inquired about the impact of the future commons building and Hart replied that that building will not be covered in the HUD project and will house recreation facilities, classrooms and office space. She said this is not included in the present plans. Hart said the commons building will primarily serve as office space for her and her staff which will not require any additional parking space. She noted that transportation is provided to Lifestyles residents by a van operated by staff. Mills asked how many were included as staff and Hart replied that there are houseparents that live-in during the week and another set who live-in on the week -ends, one program coordinator, and part-time clerical help. Hart noted that transportation to and from work is provided by Lifestyles or arranged as part of a car-pool with other workers. She said shopping is sometimes handled as a small group but usually residents are encouraged to assume responsibility for shopping themselves. She said Lifestyles tries to avoid outside activities that include everyone because of possible stigmatism while the aim of Lifestyles is to help residents blend into the community. Crittenden asked if there were any classes being conducted at this time and Hart replied that classes are currently held at the University. • Mills asked if the houseparents have two cars and Hart replied that they have only one car and added that Lifestyles owns a van and a station wagon. Becker noted that he had looked into HUD requirements and they are exactly as Hart has reported although he said that it is recommended that additional parking be available for future development. Crittenden asked if the apartments were designed for handicapped persons and Hart replied that most units will be built for non -elderly handicapped and two units will be designed for physically handicapped. Mills asked what the cost would be to add the required six additional parking spaces and Becker calculated it to be around $2,500 - $3,500. There being no one else to speak either for or against this appeal, the Public Hearing was closed to Board discussion. Becker said he found no problems with this request. He cited that this case is within the HUD requirements and there is plenty of room to add future parking when it becomes necessary. Tompkins said he felt the code should be adhered to as far as number of parking spaces required. He said he saw no hardship in this case. • Mills said she agreed with Tompkins in that the area would expand, and there are currently staff cars to account for. She said more spaces, although not necessarily the full 18, should be provided. • Board of Adjustment February 18, 1985 Page 3 Crittenden said he would be more in favor of this appeal if there were something in writing guaranteeing that, if an additional building were constructed, more parking spaces would be provided. He also noted that if this project were sold as a regular commercial concern, the parking would not be adequate. And thirdly, he noted that there were no off -site parking available to accomodate any overflow from the parking lot. He said he would go along with an affirmative vote if these three concerns were addressed as part of the motion. Crittenden said he was opposed to Federal agencies specifying what the City should do or not do. During the discussion, it was clarified that HUD will be financing 100% of this project except for off -site improvements such as streets, sidewalks, fire hydrants, water lines, etc. Becker wished to remind the Board that Butterfield Trail Village was granted a variance in number of parking spaces and, although these cases must be handled on a one by one basis with no set formula to rely upon, he felt that time was of the essence. He noted that a project he is currently working on will require more parking spaces than the University with a much smaller sized building. • Crittenden said if the volume of one -by -ones were great then it would be onerous, but, he felt that this is what the Board is for. Hart advised that HUD will hold the title to this project and Lifestyles will not have the option of selling the property. Crittenden noted that HUD may not exist in the future. Crittenden inquired about the future commons building parking requirements and Jones replied that unless there is a stipulation made at this time, a variance granted today would probably include that building. Crittenden noted that more buildings could be added as well, with no new parking provided. Jones said accessory buildings do not require additional parking. She explained that accessory buildings include storage buildings as well as others. MOTION Becker moved to accept the variance as submitted for Building A and Building B only; that any future building would have to be addressed in terms of additional parking requirements. Crittenden seconded. Mills asked if Becker would be willing to add that if this project changes from Lifestyles to another organization that the variance would cease. Becker and Crittenden accepted this amendment and the motion to approve passed 3-2-0, House and Tompkins voting "nay". House noted that variances had been granted to Lifestyles at their • previous location. 15 • Board of Adjustment February 18, 1985 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL 85-5 C. E. YE MN - 3345 S. SCHOOL BEQUEST POR SETBACK VARIANCE The third item on the agenda was a request submitted by C. E. Yerton to vary the building setback from the required 20 ft. to 14 ft. for a shop which is within 30% of being completed on property located at 3345 S. School. Gordon Wilkins spoke for the petitioner. He stated that Yerton had asked him to construct the shop. He said he gave the job to his crew and then went out of town. Wilkins said he assumed that Yerton knew he had to have a building permit and Yerton had assumed that Wilkins would take care of getting the permit. He said he is requesting a variance at this time so as to complete the shop. Yerton noted that the shop is about the same distance from the property line as his house which was built in 1946. Wilkins advised that if this property were in any district except agricultural the shop setback would be acceptable. Jones clarified that agricultural district requires 20 ft. side setbacks. • Tompkins inquired as to the possibility of rezoning this property to residential district. Chairman House stated that, having been in the building business himself, he could understand that no matter who it is that is asked to perform a construction task, sometimes things get confusing and something may be overlooked that one person thought another person was to take care of. He said he would be in favor of granting this request so that the shop might be completed. Tompkins said that, according to the last opinion given by the City Attorney, a variance can be tied to a structure rather than the land. Jones advised that McCord has said it could be tied to the specific request and Tompkins noted that in this case it would be tied to the structure and not run with the land. Jones said if the building suffered damage, it could be repaired and restored but would not allow enlargement or be allowed to run the length of the property. She added that these thoughts could be stipulated in a motion. Tompkins indicated that the present structure is non -conforming. Becker said he had expected to find a six foot problem and when he noted that the house was non -conforming to the front setback he changed his mind and said he did not think the shop would extend the life of the property by much and that a motion could be tied to the shop • building. Iy • Board of Adjustment February 18, 1985 Page 5 Mills agreed and Crittenden said that this situation, of assuming that another person has taken care of the permit, happens several times a year and he is tiring of it. Jones explained that when a building permit is issued, the Inspection Department secretary supplies a "site card" that should be on display. She said a construction worker should look for this site card before beginning the work. Crittenden noted that it is not always the lack of a permit that is the problem but sometimes includes things such as poor measurements. He said if the Board does not start refusing approval of these cases, they will continue to happen although he said he thought this was an honest mistake. Yerton said he had obtained a building permit seven or eight years ago for an addition on the same side of the house with nothing being said in the City Planning or Inspection offices. Becker said he agreed with Crittenden, but he felt it should be done initially with a case that was less complicated than this. He noted another case or two where the building stakes had been moved for the • inspection and then moved back to the correct place. He said he was in favor of granting this request. Mills said she felt this Board was trying to help people out of their dilemmas by granting variances when needed, but that the Board was not getting cooperation from developers and builders. Becker moved approval of this variance request as submitted, to apply only to the shop building as shown. House seconded and the notion to approve failed to pass 2-3-0, Becker and House being in favor. Yerton said that there is no way he can move the building even three feet without having it wind up being placed over the septic tank or the lateral lines. He said that 23 years ago when his property was annexed, the City promised to install sewer in this area and it still has not been put in. Wilkins commented that he thought the best use for this property was commercial and he felt the property was being penalized. Jones advised that Yerton could request a rezoning of a portion of his property. She wondered if the fact that the septic field problem not being mentioned earlier was enough reason for re -consideration. • She said that a building may not be placed over a septic tank or lateral lines without removing it all and replacing with fresh fill. 1$ • Board of Adjustment February 18, 1985 Page 6 Jones asked if the building could be turned and Mills noted that it has a concrete foundation and is 70% complete. Jones said Yerton could ask for a rezoning of part of the property. Wilkins stated that Yerton could not do anything more with the property if it had a different zoning classification and Tompkins replied that it would at least then be conforming instead of non -conforming. Jones noted that a re -zoning petition cost $60 and would take from four to six weeks to resolve. She agreed that R-1 would put the building in conformance. Jones advised that, according to a new ordinance amendment, she could (in commercial districts) allow a permit for accessory buildings for single family residences that are owner occupied, if the accessory building meets the R-1 setbacks and if it does not exceed 25% of the square footage of the owner -occupied residence. Wilkins said that the shop building would meet those qualifications. In answer to Tompkins question, Yerton stated that if he had to reduce the shop size to meet setbacks, he would rather not have it at all. Jones advised that a request which has been denied by the Board of Adjustment may be appealed to the Circuit Court of Washington County. PUBLIC40 HEARING X1KTHITH LEE r REQUEST TO WAIVE DRIVEWAY PAVING The fourth item on the agenda was a request to waive the requirement of paving the driveway entrance with 4" of concrete submitted by Kiethith Lee for property located at 956 Boone Street. Ms. Lee requested that the paving of her driveway from the property line to the street (approximately 21 ft.) be waived. She stated that she took special care to purchase a house that matched this particular neighborhood and moved it onto its present location. She noted that the other drives in this area are not paved either and that she would like to have the paving waived only until the 18' ft. asphalt street is resurfaced and widened at which time she will know for certain where to locate her drive entrance and what materials to use. Lee said, because the water table is so high, she is planning on installing concrete expansion joints to keep the drive from breaking up and needs to know exact location of placement. Tompkins asked when this street was scheduled to be resurfaced and Jones replied that she knew of no plans to do so and that she assumed that the City would maintain it as -is. • Lee said if she paved her drive it would be longer than the current street is wide and that it would need to be torn up when the street is improved. • Board of Adjustment February 18, 1985 Page 7 Mills asked what Lee will use as a driveway surface at this time and Lee replied that there is ten ton of gravel which she will have pressed to which she plans to add another ten tons of pressed gravel plus a drainage ditch on either side. Becker asked if a 20 ft. street in a 60 ft. right-of-way was normal and Jones replied that it would normally be a 31 ft. street and she added that if a developer were to propose apartments in this R-2 area, they would be required to widen the street adding curb and gutter across their frontage. Becker said he would be in favor of the variance with a Bill of Assurance to pave the driveway when the street is improved. Tompkins said he agreed and would support the request until such time as the street is widened. Mills and Crittenden agreed. MOTION Mills moved that Lee be allowed to delay the paving of the driveway until the street is widened. Tompkins seconded and the motion to approve passed 5-0-0. • Jones inquired whether this motion was intended to carry a Bill of Assurance for the paving and the Mills said that was her intent. REQUEST FOR RE -HEARING TOM JONES - 588 ASSEMBLY The fifth item on the agenda was discussion of a request for a re -hearing submitted by Tom Jones for property located at 588 Assembly Drive. At the Board of Adjustment meeting of January 7, 1985 Jones was denied a petition to extend a carport to the street right-of-way. Administrator Jones advised that Mr. and Mrs. Jones have stated that they never received an agenda in the mail notifying them of the meeting, consequently, they felt unprepared, as they were unaware that their porch was non -conforming. It was pointed out that written notice was posted on their property and Jones noted that the non -conforming porch was mentioned in the agenda which was mailed from the Planning Office. She added that she thought the Jones' were willing to modify their original request. Board members took exception to some issues mentioned in a letter from the Jones' to the Planning Office but Crittenden agreed that their reference to a variance being allowed which would apply only • to a specific portion of the land (or structure) was correct. /7 • Board of Adjustment February 18, 1985 Page 8 Becker noted that this Board had advised Jones at the end of their discussion on January 7, that the Jones' had not demonstrated any hardship; a fact which has been omitted in their letter. Crittenden said he felt that, given the circumstance, he would be willing to address this as a new, modified request but not as a rehearing. He said he thought there was nothing that was overlooked the first time this appeal was brought before the Board. Other Board members agreed and requested Administrator Jones to notify Tom Jones of this decision. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:30 P.M. • • 75