HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-07-07 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
A meeting was held of the Board of Adjustment at 3:45 P.M., Monday, July 7,
1980, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Chairman Chester House, Larry Thompkins, Dr. David Crittenden,
Wayne Ball, Larry Smith.
Don Mills, Robert Waldren.
OTHERS PRESENT: Cynthia Stewart, Bobbie Jones, George Faucette, Jr., Buel Curtis,
Ronald Woodruff, Jeremy Hess.
The meeting was called to order at 3:55 P.M. CALL TO ORDER
The first item for consideration was the ELECTION
election of a Chairperson for the term of July 1980 CHAIRPERSON
until July 1981.
Dr. David Crittenden moved that Chester House
serve this term. Larry Thompkins seconded the motion. Crittenden moved that the
nomination close; Thompkins seconded,the motion was approved (4-0-1) with House
abstaining.
The next item was a Public Hearing on the APPEAL NO. 80=14
Appeal No. 80-14, Jeremy Hess, 137 Graham Avenue, JEREMY HESS
application to vary minimum lot size. 137 GRAHAM AVENUE
Jeremy Hess was present to represent.
Mr. Hess stated that he was planning to build an
apartment complex consisting of 10 units, five on the ground floor and five on the second
floor. He stated that in order to comply with density requirements for two bedroom
dwelling units, he needed 2000 square feet per unit. He stated that his total square
footage was 1400 square feet shy of the minimum requirement. He said he planned to
build 10 units one.Unit up and onei.unit down. According to the ordinance, he would
only be able to build 9 units and he would have a "hole" in his building. He said
that he would have more than adequate parking. He felt that a variance would allow
him to best utilize the area, by putting in the largest amount of units possible on this
parcel of land.
The Chairman asked how large the lot was. Mr. Hess replied that the parcel
consisted of two lots, each 62 ft. wide by 100 ft. deep.
Larry Thompkins asked what the scale was on the site development plan. Mr. Hess
replied that it was 1" = 20!: Thompkins asked if the front yard of the proposed
apartment complex would face Graham Avenue. Hess said the front doors of the units would
face Nettleship Street. Thompkins asked what the heighth of the structure was Hess
said the structure would be 22 ft. high. He said that by altering the pitch of the roof
he could bring the heighth down to 20 ft. Hess stated that the portion of the structure
will be set back 24 ft. from the rear property line when it reaches the 22 ft. heighth.
Thompkins inquired as to the size of the parking spaces. Hess said each would be 9 ft.
wide by 19 ft. deep. Hess stated that 137 Graham is the address of an existing old house
on the property.
'62
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Meeting
July 7, 1980
Page 2
Thompkins asked what Mr. Hess's rear yard setback is. Bobbie Jones stated that
this lot is a corner lot and would have two front yard setbacks of 25 ft. (from each
street right-of-way) and side yard setbacks of 8 ft., that there is no rear yard
setback on a corner lot.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone else present in favor of this Appeal. There
was no one else present in favor.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone present in opposition to this Appeal. Ron
Woodruff, Attorney, addressed the Board of Adjustment in opposition to Mr. Hess's
Appeal. Mr. Woodruff stated that he was representing Mrs. Jordan who lives at 123
Graham, which adjoins the North side of the proposed apartments. He stated that Mrs.
Jordan has lived in this house since 1955. He said the property had always been
zoned R-1. He said that if the apartments were built, Mrs. Jordan would be cut off from
air flow from the South as the lot is only 62 ft. wide. There would be a solid 22 ft.
wall on the South side of her house. Mrs. Jordan felt that her landscaping would suffer,
and that the appearance of her lot would also suffer.
Mr. Woodruff said that according to the ordinance, 2000 square ft. per unit was
required, and he felt the 1400 ft. shortage was quite substantial. He stated that he
felt the density requirement was reasonable and that the ordinance should be adhered
to.
Mr. Woodruff also stated that he could not determine any hardship and asked that
the variance not be granted for those reasons.
In response to Mr. Woodruff, Mr. Hess said that every care would be taken to see
that no vegetation was harmed, and that he was planning to do a substantial amount
of landscaping around the project. He said the hardship would be in that a consistent
and uniform structure could not be built if they had to delete one unit. As far as
blockage, Mr. Hess stated that regardless of whether the variance was granted, Ms.
Jordan would still have apartments next door which would be 117 ft. long East-West,
up and down.
Dr. Crittenden asked if he was correct in understanding that regardless of whether
9 or 10 units were put in, Mr. Hess planned on building the apartments. Mr. Hess stated
that was correct. He said the outer size of the structure would not change, but they
might put in a laundry room. Crittenden asked if a laundry room would count as a unit.
Bobbie Jones stated that the laundry could not create any outside trade.
Graham'.Treet, a member of the audience, addressed the Board. He stated that it was
his understanding that a two story building could not be built as the property was
zoned now. Bobbie Jones replied that the property had been zoned R-2 since June of
1970. Bobbie stated that if there was an existing subdivision covenant which stated
that no two-story buildings could be built, that it could be enforced by property
owners in the area
Larry Thompkins asked if any restrictions were in the abstract. Mr. Hess replied
that as far as he knew, the property was zoned R-2 with no restrictions as far as
two-story structures.
Mr. Baker, 109 Graham, addressed the Board. He stated that he had tried to build
a two-story building and that the City would not let him. Bobbie Jones stated that
restrictions usually start after two stories.
Mr. Baker stated that it was his understanding that two story buildings could
not be erected in the area because it happened to be an air tunnel for the airport.
Bobbie Jones stated that Mr. Baker could very well be correct, but that the Office of
City Planning does not enforce those restrictions. Ms. Jones suggested consulting
either Ed Connell in the City Engineer's Office, or Ede Hogue, the Airport Manager.
Chairman House stated that to the North of the tract, about 6 to 700 ft., the
163
Board of Adjustment Meeting
July 7, 1980
Page 3
elevation would be 20 ft. or more, and that South of the site an airplane would
come onto the Maintenance Shops of the University and the furniture factory.
Hess stated that the Nettleship Apartments are just to the Southwest,
and that they are two stories high, and are at a higher elevation.
Baker stated that he was in opposition because he felt apartments would cause
traffic congestion, noise and pollution.
Thompkins stated that he would like to get Mr. Connell's opinion on the question
of a heighth restriction due to airport zoning. Hess stated that if the area was in
fact in an Airport Zone, that he would not be able to build anyway. He stated that he
had not been aware of this before he asked for permission to build. He stated that
however, that should not affect the Board's decision.
Chairman House asked Mr. Hess if he would like to withdraw his request until
such time as a consultation could be held with Mr. Connell or Ms. Hogue. Mr. Hess
stated that if the Board of Adjustment was of the opinion that his request should not
be considered he would gladly withdraw. He said that if this does not affect the
Board's decision, he would rather they consider the request now.
The Chairman stated that actually, the request was in regard to square
footage only, and the Airport zoning would have.:no relation to that question.
The Chairman closed the Public Hearing on Appeal No. 80-14.
The next item for consideration was the APPEAL NO. 80-15
Public Hearing on the Appeal No. 80-15, FIRST PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OF GOD
First Pentecostal Church of God, 1351 South 1351 MORNINGSIDE DRIVE
Morningside Drive, application to vary number of
required parking spaces and to postpone sealing
parking area with durable and dustless surface.
George Faucette, Jr. and Buel Curtis were present to represent.
Mr. Faucette distributed a plot plan to the members of the Board, and asked
that they refer to it during his presentation. Mr. Faucette stated that the parking
requirement is based on one parking space for every 40 square ft. of auditorium
space, and that according to the Zoning Ordinance, the Church requires 74 parking
spaces.
Mr. Faucette stated that the Church was building at the new site in order to
expand. He stated that at this time, their attendance was approximately 125 to 130
persons, and that 40 to 42 cars attend services. He stated that at this time,
financially, providing 74 parking spaces would be a hardship for the Church. He
stated that the Church fully intended to meet parking requirements, but that they
would like to be able to expand parking areas as the need arises with new members.
He stated that the durable and dustless surfacing of the parking area would also
pose economic hardship.
Bobbie Jones stated that the requirements as far as surfacing of the parking
could be delayed by her office by the Church signing an Agreement with the City. She
said she would not extend the time within which the parking must be sealed more than
12 months without action of the Board of Adjustment. She said this was designed to
provide time to raise some money without creating undue hardship.
Mr. Faucette stated that the Church was proposing 48 spaces initially as that
would provide for their present attendance plus 20 percent. He stated that the
parking would lie in an even width along the back of the Church when it was installed
and they did not wish to put an additional area only part way across the width.
telt-
4
Board of Adjustment Meeting
• July 7, 1980
Page 4
The Chairman asked if the Church was planning to buy the property in back of
the project all the way to Wood Avenue. Faucette replied that they were not. He
stated that a five acre tract was more land than the Church needed or could afford.
House asked if the traffic flow would be two way in and out. Faucette said
traffic will be entering and exiting off Morningside Drive.
Crittenden asked if the Church would seal the parking area with double chip and
seal. Faucette said that a durable and dustless surface is required by ordinance, and
that the Church would probably go with an SB -2 surface at first if the Board grants
the waiver.
Crittenden asked Faucette when the Church planned to fulfill the parking
requirements. Faucette stated that the Church was interested in expanding, and that
the Church would agree to build the remainder of the required spaces within a time
limit imposed by the Board. Crittenden asked why the Church bought this particular
piece of land in this particular shape. Faucette stated that the rest of the area
was under separate ownership.
Wayne Ball asked Mr. Faucette if he expected membership in the Congregation to
increase with the move. Mr. Faucette replied that it would with the new attractive
building. Mr. Ball asked if he was correct in understanding the request for
parking was based on current membership plus 20 percent. Faucette replied that was
correct.
Larry Smith asked if it would be possible for the Board to require that all
parking be provided and paved by the end of an eighteen month period. Mr. Faucette
stated that would be economically unfeasible. He said that the Church would be better
able to cope financially if the Board would require that the 48 spaces be paved,
and the balance of parking provided in gravel within an 18 month period, with another
18 months to pave the balance.
Buel Curtis, Pastor, stated that the Church had every intention of providing
adequate parking and also had the intention of paving it.
Larry Smith asked if by setting up a time table in this manner, it would be
against the code. Bobbie Jones replied that it would not if the Board specified a
time limit
Thompkins stated that the request is only for the reduction of the number of spaces
and asked about screening. Bobbie Jones said the Planning Commission had waived the
screening.
The Chairman asked the audience if there was anyone present either in favor
of the request or in opposition to it. There being no one in favor or opposition, the
Public Hearing on Appeal No. 80-15 was closed.
At this time, the Board considered Appeal APPEAL NO. 80-14
No. 80-14.
Mr. Hess stated that right across the street from his proposed apartments, on
Nettleship,the University was planning to build an indoor swimming and tennis
complex that would almost certainly be two stories high.
The Chairman asked for the feeling of the Board on this request to vary minimum
lot size.
Larry Smith advised the people in the audience who were opposed to the
apartments that regardless of the decision of the Board, the apartments could still be
built According to the ordinance, it was just a matter of whether the complex would
consist of 9 or 10 units. He stated that the tract of land was in a part of town
165
Board of Adjustment Meeting
July 7, 1980
• Page 5
where development was towards medium density.
Thompkins felt that apartments were needed as there is a housing problem in town.
He said he felt the building of these apartments would contribute to the improvement
of the neighborhood as the building on the proposed lots was a poor one.
Thompkins stated that the problem lay in setback and the impact on the adjoining
property owners. He said with only an 8 ft. side yard setback, there would be a loss
of southern exposure from the shadows cast by the proposed apartments. He said that
the structure immediately to the North sits close to the side yard and the apartments
would be detrimental to that particular house.
Mr. Thompkins stated that he understood the economics involved; the developer
wanting to put in as many units as possible, but could not see any reason the developer
could not put in less units. Thompkins felt that another design could do the same job.
Dr. Crittenden stated that whatever the Board decides, a building will be erected
on the site. He stated that he was sympathetic with the property owners in the area;
but, if the University was in fact going to build a complex across the street, the
traffic generated by the apartments would be dwarfed in comparison. He stated that he
did not see the difference in having 9 or 10 units since the building will still be
the same size.
Smith stated that if the Board was considering making the 10th unit a laundry
or a living unit, either way, there would be no relief.
House asked if it was true that the size of the building would not be altered by
the Board's decision.
Bobbie Jones stated that as long as the building met setback requirements, it
• could be the same size. She stated that according to code, there must be 2000 square
feet total land area per each unit, and that was the only criteria.
Smith said that the Developer could submit plans based on 9 units and a storage
unit, build the structure, then come back later and ask the Board for permission to make
the empty space a dwelling unit.
Wayne Ball said that he felt the Board's hands were tied as far as the use the
square footage could be put to.
Thompkins stated that Hess could meet the requirements by putting in one bedroom
units
•
Hess stated that he did not believe the apartments would block the sun light. Mr.
Hess stated that the drawing shows the minimum setback required. He said that if
moving the structure another 5 ft. from Mrs. Jordan's house would help, he would do it.
He stated that he had developed this so that there would be adequate parking.
Ron Woodruff stated that he appreciated the practical aspect of 10 units as
opposed to 9, but he feat that no hardship had been shown.
Larry Smith suggested tabling this request so that the City Attorney could attend
the next meeting and tell the Board exactly what it can and cannot do. He said he would
like to know what a hardship is. He said if that is all there is to granting a
variance, there is really not much use for the Board of Adjustment.
Larry Smith made a motion to table the request until the next meeting and ask
City Attorney, Jim McCord to be present to explain or interpret what the Board's
responsibilities actually are. The motion died for lack of second.
Dr. David Crittenden moved to grant the variance. Larry Thompkins seconded. The
request was denied with Crittenden voting "Aye", Thompkins and Ball voting "Nay",
and House and Smith abstaining. (1-2-2).
1. S
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Meeting
July 7, 1980
Page 6
The Board considered Appeal No. 80-15. APPEAL NO. 80-15
Larry Thompkins said he had no problem with
delaying the covering of the parking area with
dustless material in 12 to 18 months. However, he was concerned that the Church
would move to the new location and not have adequate parking for the membership
which was sure to increase Mr. Thompkins felt that 74 spaces was a reasonable -
requirement, and should be provided
House asked what the zoning was in the area Faucette replied that the zoning
was R-2 all around the site.
Faucette said he understood the need for paving the parking area and was not
trying to get that waived. He said the problem was financial, and that the cost of
grading for all 74 spaces would be substantial.
Smith asked if the Church had investigated what the cost of having all the grading
and base done at one time versus doing it in stages. He indicated there might be
a substantial difference in cost.
Wayne Ball said that he felt sufficient hardship had been shown to allow the
Church to delay the final stages of parking for a period of time, but not permanently.
Larry Smith moved 1) To.allow the:Variance for the number of parking:spaces as
requested at this time, and also, the sealing of the area with a dustless surface;
2) The original 48 parking spaces would be paved within aneighteen monthperiod
and at that time the balance of required parking spaces would be provided; 3) All the
required spaces would be paved within eighteen months after that. Smith also moved to
grant the above stated variance upon the signing of an agreement with the City with
that time table in mind.
Crittenden seconded Mr. Smith's motion to approve the variance with the time
table outlined, and the motion passed (4-1) with House, Crittenden, Smith and Ball
voting "Aye", and Thompkins voting "Nay".
Crittenden moved to approve the minutes
with correction to the vote on Michael Davis'
request to show Crittenden voting "Aye".
MINUTES
At this time the Board took up the OTHER BUSINESS
suggestion made by Larry Smith that the Board
get an interpretation by the City Attorney as to what its responsibilities
are in regards to determining hardship.
The Chairman stated that actually, very few petitioners can prove hardship.
Bobbie Jones stated that she thought the Board could also consider "practical
difficulty". She said she would check her files for a letter of opinion from the
City Attorney.
Smith stated he felt it was impossible to write an ordinance to cover every
situation.
Thompkins felt that a meeting with the City Attorney and the Planning Commission w
was in order to delineate the powers and duties of the Board of Adjustment so that the
intent of the ordinance is followed.
The meeting adjourned at 5:20 P.M.
167