HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-11-05 Minutes•
MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45 P.M.,
Monday, November 5, 1979, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration
Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Chairman Carl Yates, Chester House, Don Mills, Larry Tompkins,
Steve Nickles, and Bob Waldren.
Larry Smith.
Bobbie Jones, Michelle Hale, Gordon Cummings, C. E. Grubbs,
Cecil Chapell, Francis Langham, and other unidentified members
of the audience.
Chairman Yates called the meeting to order.
The first item for discussion was the APPEAL NO. R79-31
public hearing on the Appeal No. 79-31, V.F.W.
Veterans of Foreign Wars, Jack Tidball, 520 South Locust
Post No. 2722, S20 S. Locust, on an application
for a ruling on Planning Administrator's interpretation of Article 7, Section 14
of the Zoning Ordinance, and/or to vary setbacks contained in said Art. 7, Sec. 14.
Present to represent was Gordon Cummings, Attorney and member of the Post.
Chairman Yates pointed out this request is the same one heard at the October 1
meeting.
Mr. Cummings said the Planning Administrator interprets the church building as
being an auditorium He said these setback distances have been in exista,nce for
at least SO years. In the Ordinance they do not refer to membership lodges or
churches. He asked that the Board refer to the V.F.W. as a membership lodge and
require only a SO ft. setback. He added that they were a non-profit charitable
organization.
Mr. Tompkins said he wasn't clear why Mr. Cummings was making a distinction
between a membership lodge and an auditorium He asked Mr. Cummings what a membership
lodge was. Mr. Cummings said it would be a smaller type organization. An auditorium,
he said, would be for a large group of people whereas, a membership lodge would be
for small groups of people and private organizations.
Chairman Yates asked what the capacity of the church auditorium was. Cecil
Chapell (523 S. Church) said 150 to 200 people could be seated.
Mr. Tompkins said he was wondering whether the use concept was the question
here. Mrs. Jones said for new construction of churches she has applied the 50 ft.
setback, if fully air-conditioned, which falls under "all other indoor facilities" in
the Ordinance. Chairman Yates asked Bobbie Jones to explain how she considered the
proposed use for the church. Mrs. Jones said it was not specifically included in
the list of uses requiring a setback of 100 ft. if fully air-conditioned, but is
similar to some of those uses specifically listed.
Mr. Nic}}les asked Mr. Cummings why he was arguing that this was not a meeting
room. Mrs. Jones said Mr. Cummings thinks churches should be in the 1200 sq. ft.
category unless the auditorium is smaller than 1200 sq. ft. Mr. Cummings said a
meeting room should involve a public meeting place. He said an auditorium implies
public whereas membership lodge is a private use
Francis Langham (realtor handling the church property) said it would be easy
enough to classify the meeting room as being small or large. She added a meeting
place is broad termed. Mr. Cummings stated it wasn't the intent of the Ordinance
to have to tear down structures, (Article 4, Section 1). He said their request is
in harmony with the existing use. Mrs. Langham said the use for that being nothing
but a church is very limited.
123
Board of Adjustment Meeting
November 5, 1979
Page 2
Chairman Yates asked Bobbie Jones if at the time the Ordinance was passed,
would the structure have met the setbacks at that time. Mrs. Jones said the lot
area wouldn't have met the requirements. Mrs. Jones left the meeting to obtain a
copy of the previous Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Tompkins said he could only speculate, but it was a neighborhood activity
and most of the people probably walked to church because they were probably from
the neighborhood. He said he sees the church as a cultural activity. Mr. Tompkins
was concerned with the parking area. Mr. Chapell said there was plenty of parking
spaces, enough for 200 or 300 cars.
Mr. Cummings pointed out that all of the property owners had received their
notices and there was no one present to oppose the request.
Mr. Nickles asked how long the church had been vacated. Mr. Chapell said it
had been vacated for about 3 months.
Mrs. Jones returned to the meeting and read the requirements from Ordinance 1239.
Prior to June 29, 1970, the property was zoned P -1A, Special Church District. There
was no minimum land area requirement. The setbacks were as required by the most
restrictive zoning district abutting church property. The abutting R-3 District
required buildings for public assembly have a front setback of 35 ft. and side and
rear setbacks of 50 ft. She added that the main building would have met the side
setback requirements but not the front yard setback requirements.
Mrs. Langham said she couldn't imagine the church only being able to sell the
property to another church. She added that there were probably hundreds of other
properties that 'don't meet the setbacks. She said if they don't have some options
besides a church it will probably have to be torn down.
Mr. Tompkins asked if the single family house can be used. Mr. Cummings said
it can be used for residential purposes. Mrs. Jones said there could be a problem
if a duplex was made out of it, but as it is, it can be used as a single-family
residence.
Chairman Yates asked why this request was before the Board. He asked if the
V.F.W. had requested a Certificate of Occupancy and been refused. Mrs. Jones said
yes, they have already been before the Planning Commission for a conditional use
request which was approved, but the Planning Commisssion could not waive the set-
backs because the property is less than one acre.
Chairman Yates asked if any major modifications will be done to the buildings.
Mr. Cummings said a few doors may be fixed but that was about all. Mr..Chapell
pointed out that there were no bathrooms but there was water to a bapistry.
Mr. Nickles stated as he understands. the Ordinance if something is "grand:.
fathered in" and the use is continued there would be no changes but if there is a
change in use it must meet the requirements. Mr. Nickles said there were 2 issues:
(1) to argue that regardless of the size it is not one of those listed under "in-
door facilities";or (2) if it is less thana1200 sq. ft. Mrs. Jones stated one
point to be considered is she hasn't considered a church to be in an "indoor facility"
but the church has been considered under the other category.
Mr. Cummings said they were not encouraging continued use of this building. Mr.
Tompkins said he saw several non -conformities; a non -conforming use of the activities
and a non -conforming setback. Mrs. Jones said the uses are conforming but the
structure is not. The Ordinance does state that a conditional use is not a non-
conforming use. Where a use is not listed as permitted, but it is there legally,
then another use that is equally compatible with the neighborhood can be allowed as
a conditional use on appeal to the Planning Commission. In the latter case it
would be considered a non -conforming use However, since both a church and a private
club or lodge are listed as conditional uses in the R-2 Zoning District, the use is
not considered to be non -conforming.
Mr. Nickles told Mr. Cummings that when the Board talked about this at the
last meeting, in his view, what should have been argued was a circumstance peculiar
2q A
•
•
tA51A
•
Board of Adjustment Meeting
November 5, 1979
Page 3
to the structure wherein most of the appeals before the Board deal with a
peculiarity of the land. Mr. Nickles said he wasn't swayed by the other non-
conforming properties. He said the use Mrs. Jones ruled on doesn't apply to this
request. Mr. Cummings said he has tried to find a way for the V.F.W. to buy and
use the building. Mr. Cummings said the variance could be granted and not do
violence to the Ordinance.
Mr. Nickles moved to affirm the decisions of the Planning Administrator
on the appeal for interpretation. Mrs. Mills seconded it. Chairman Yates stated
that he had suggested to Mr. Cummings that he should reapply and request an
interpretation. Mrs. Jones told the Board that she had also encouraged Mr. Cummings
to ask for an interpretation. The motion passed 6-0.
Mr. C. E. Grubbs (533 S. Church) pointed out that the reason there was so
much opposition from neighboring property owners previously was because they had
the V.F.W. confused with the Ainvet's Club.
Mr. Cummings was questioned about alcohol being served or sold on the premises.
Mr. Cummings said he saw no harm in having a champagne toast on VJ Day. He said
he felt like they were being treated like children where the alcohol was concerned.
Chairman Yates reminded him that the building was in a residential district and
that's why there was so much concern over drinking. Mrs. Longhorn pointed out that
there was a church nearby and the Ordinance prohibits the serving of alcohol close
to a church. Mr. Cummings said if a prohibition was placed on this it would be
enforced. Mrs. Jones said the Planning Commission stipulated that no liquor was
to be sold or served on the premises. Mr. Waldren pointed out that Margie Combs
(adjoining property owner present at the October 1 meeting of the-:.Board.of Adjust-
ment) said she wasn't against the V.F.W. being there as long as no liquor was
involved. He also pointed out that at the meeting of October 1, Mr. Cummings said
he wouldn't be against the condition that no alcoholic beverages would be"consumed"
on the premises.
Chairman Yates stated it didn't make any sense to him for a structure to not be
able to be used.
Mrs. Mills asked if the variance was granted and if they decided to sell the
building would the variance go with it. Mrs. Jones said the use would have to go
back to the Planning Commission for approval. She said the variance would go with
the land unless the Board placed some stipulation on it. Mrs. Mills said if the
variance goes with the land then you could run into problems if the ownership was
to change because the variance that is requested is a very large one land wise.
Mrs. Jones asked Mrs. Mills if she'd be more comfortable if the variance was granted
to run with the existing structure. Mr. Waldren pointed out that in a few years
they could tear it down and build anything else. Mr. Cummings pointed out that
the conditional use approval they received from the Planning Commission stated they
must come back before the Commission in one year for renewal of the approval.
Mr. Waldren moved that the variance be granted on the basis that (1) the
variance go with the existing structure, (2) the variance be for the V.F.W. only;
and (3) that no alcoholic beverages be consumed on or about the property. Mr. Nickles
requested the motion be amended to read that the variance be permitted if the City
Attorney says the Board can impose these conditions. Mr. Tompkins seconded it,
with the motion failing to pass by a vote of 2-3-1, with Yates and Waldren voting
"Aye", Mills, Tompkins, and Nickles voting "Nay" and House abstaining from voting.
The minutes of the October 1, 1979 MINUTES
• meeting were approved as mailed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:15 P.M.