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