Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-05-16 MinutesMINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, May 16, 1983 at 3:45 P.M. in Room 209 of the Continuing Education Center, Center Street and East Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Don Mills, David Crittenden, Butch Robertson, Chester House, Robert Waldren, Larry Tompkins, Dennis Becker None Jake Perry, Rev. J. L. Thompson, Frank Jansma, Bobbie Jones, Suzanne Kennedy and others It was moved by Larry Tompkins, seconded by Don Mills and passed, 7-0, to approve the Minutes of the April 18 meeting as distributed. The next item on the agenda was public hearing on Appeal No. 83-11,.St. James Baptist Church, 101 S. Willow Avenue, on application to vary building setbacks, parking setbacks and number of parking spaces. Jake Perry and Rev. J. L. Thompson were the church. MINUTES APPEAL NO. 83-11 101 S. WILLOW ST. JAMES BAPTIST CHURCH present to represent Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones listed those waivers being requested: 1) 8 foot building setback from south and west property lines (50 feet required) 2) 0 feet from parking to streets (25 feet with 1O% landscaping or 15 feet with 20% landscaping required) 3) 3 feet from parking to west property line (5 feet required) 4) 20 parking spaces (29 required) Mr. Perry explained the church is unable to remodel the existing building because it is built with concrete blocks and that they have not been able to find another location for a church so they wish to build a new church on their present lot. Bobbie Jones explained the building setback of 50 feet from abutting R -zoned property is required (rather than 8 feet) because the church is a non-residential use in an R-2 zone. She said there are letters on file from adjoining property owners Dart and Blackburn stating no objection. Jake Perry said the proposed building would face Mountain Street, that it is to be frame construction with brick, on a concrete slab, that there will be a full underground basement and one other story. The building should be about 22 feet high from the ground, but because of the difference in ground elevations, it would only be 16 feet high on the west and south sides. 23 A Board of Adjustment Meeting May 16, 1983 Page Two Larry Tompkins asked about a notation, "apparent property line", shown.on;.the survey. Rev. Thompson explained about five or six years ago a survey showed the church's property to be ten or twelve feet into Mr. Blackburn's yard, so they declared a tree line along the south end of the property to be the "apparent property line". Bobbie Jones said Willow Avenue has 40 feet of right-of-way but the Master Street Plan designates 50 feet and that Mountain Street has 30 feet of right-of-way but should also have 50 feet. She said this information was known when the site plan was drawn up. She said, because of this, the church must give an additional five feet of property for Willow and an additional ten feet off the property for Mountain. The required building setbacks are then measured from the increased right-of-way. In answer to Crittenden, Mr. Perry said the church would not be built down in the lower level of the property. It was confirmed that Ms. Dart (who wrote a letter stating no objection) is the property owner to the south. Jake Perry stated the church owns the white house adjoining the church and plans to tear that house down. Larry Tompkins asked if other designs had been considered for building the church which would be more in conformance with the fifty foot setback from the south and west sides. Jake Perry said it was impossible to place the building on the lot any other way because of the way the terrain drops off. Mr. Perry said Sunday attendance was 75 to 80 persons, that most of these walk to church. He said they are able to park 40-45 cars now. With no one else present to speak in favor of or in opposition to the petition, the public hearing was closed and the Chairman asked the Board of Adjustment to deliberate on this appeal. Chester House said he realizes the effort that was made to try to additional property. He said he feels if Willow or Mountain were the church would still be able to give the additional feet needed way with the way the building is designed to be placed on the lot. with the variances requested, he would approve their petition. purchase ever widened, for the right -of - He said, even Don Mills asked Bobbie Jones what the purpose of the landscaping requirement is and Bobbie Jones said the ordinance was originally written to screen property from the street because it called for the landscaping to be more view -obscuring. She said that was found to be a hazard to traffic safety and it was re -drafted to require landscaping only. She said it is required in this case because it is a church in a residential zone. The requirement is for the parking to be 25 feet back from the street with 10% landscaping between the parking and the street, or for it to be 15 feet back with 20% landscaping. She said the landscaping along the street should be at least 18 inches high or no more than 30 inches where there would be a visibility problem. The church is also required to have screening on their south and west property lines, with either vegetation or fencing. ani Board of Adjustment Meeting May 16, 1983 Page Three David Crittenden said he met Mrs. Dart when he visited the church site and noted in conversation with her that the structure would be within eight feet of her property line. She said when she agreed with the church's building plans she did not realize it would be within eight feet. She also owns property to the west, where her nephew lives. Crittenden said she had told him she would not be in favor of the church building being within eight feet of her property on either side. Crittenden said he was not convinced the building couldn't be moved more toward the middle of the lot and thus satisfy Ms. Dart's objections. He said this would eliminate some parking and he did not object to that. He stated he would not vote in favor of the appeal because of Ms. Dart's objection. Jake Perry said the building plans were explained to Ms. Dart and she had given her approval. Bobbie Jones also said an agenda for this meeting was mailed to Ms. Dart. Jake Perry said the property they have been trying to purchase is owned by Ms. Claypool and lies between Ms. Dart's property and Mountain Street. Rev. Thompson explained to Robert Waldren if they were able to purchase the Claypool property it could only be used for parking, but that this would then allow them to move the church building to the middle of the lot. Rev. Thompson asked about the possibility of parking between Ms. Dart's fence line and the building. Waldren suggested the possibility of moving the building ten or 15 feet north and east. Jake Perry said this was possible but would eliminate some parking. Bobbie Jones suggested cars could park right up to the building, that angle parking might be used and the same number of spaces retained. David Crittenden asked how often the building would be used during the week. Rev. Thompson said they would use the building every night but not often during the day. Larry Tompkins said he thought the new church building will be a service to the neighborhood, but is concerned about it being as close as eight feet on Ms. Dart's side. He asked about trucks coming in or out of the church parking area and about potential problems with neighbors as to noise. Mr. Perry said there would not be trucks and he did not think there would be a noise problem. Tompkins said landscaping should not be planted in the right-of-way property, as it would be destroyed if the street were ever widened. Tompkins said he assumed the parking lot setback of five feet from adjoining property is meant to be a buffer from noise. Bobbie Jones said this ordinance is to insure there is no encroachment of cars onto the other property, and it does give room for screening when required. Tompkins said he was inclined to disapprove some of the request, but agrees with the building being moved twenty feet north. Dennis Becker said the safety factor should be taken into consideration. He said he would be in favor of the variance if the building were set back twenty feet from the south, thus moving it twelve feet to the north. He does not propose moving the building east as this takes away from the potential space between the walk and the building and this space (where stairs are) is needed as a break between all the parking and the building. He said he thought the 20 foot setback would be a reasonable compromise between the 8 feet requested and the fifty feet required. Mr. Perry told David Crittenden he did not know how deep the Claypool lot is. 25 • • • Board of Adjustment Meeting May 16, 1983 Page Four After discussion, it was decided that moving the building twelve feet farther to the north would still give some leeway on parking and the request for parking variance would not change. Dennis Becker moved to accept all variances as submitted, with the proviso that there be a twenty foot setback on the south. The motion was seconded by Robert Waldren and passed, 6-1, with Larry Tompkins voting "nay". Public hearing was opened on APPEAL NO. 83-12 Appeal No. 83-12, Frank Jansma, 808 N. HIGHLAND AVENUE 808 N. Highland Avenue, application FRANK JANSMA to vary setbacks. Mr. Jansma was present. He explained he wished to build a 12 foot by 16 foot sunroom onto the south side of his home, placing the room within three feet of the never -built west end of Crest Lane, between Pollard and Highland. He said, where the Crest Lane right-of-way is, there presently is a stone wall about five feet high and fifty feet long. He said he has written to and received replies from Warner Cable, SWEPCO, Arkansas Western Gas, City Water and Sewer and Sanitation Depart- ments who have all given unrestricted approval. He said Clayton Powell, Street Superintendent, thought he should take a different approach and try to close Crest Lane. He said Southwestern Bell Telephone Company never replied. Jansma said he talked with his neighbor, Eugene Glover, who would see the sunroom from his home, and Glover stated he is in favor of the addition. He said his other neighbors would have difficulty seeing the sunroom from their homes. Robert Waldren asked Mr. Jansma why he chose to ask for a variance as opposed to petitioning to close Crest Lane. Mr. Jansma said by the time he received Mr. Powell's letter, he had already petitioned the Board of Adjustment. Waldren explained to Jansma that, if the street were closed, the right-of-way would revert, half and half, to the property owners on either side. Bobbie Jones said one reason he chose this route was because it takes three months to receive a reply from Southwestern Bell. Waldren asked Bobbie Jones about the possibility of the Board of Adjustment granting a temporary variance. Jones pointed out the Board of Directors would still have to approve a petition to close Crest Lane, if the variance were only temporary. Jansma also stated Clayton Powell has said the right-of-way for Crest Lane should be fifty feet, the requirement for a minor street, rather than the twenty feet actually existing; Jansma said there is only about 43 feet between the two houses on either side of the Lane. He also said his neighbor uses most of the right-of- way for a driveway to his house. Jansma said both SWEPCO and Warner Cable have told him they have no underground facilities in the Lane. He said the area is maintained as part of his and his neighbor's yards. Jansma said he was willing to pursue the closing of the Lane, but he did wish to build his addition this summer. Larry Tompkins brought up the idea of retaining the public right-of-way for pedestrian traffic. Jansma pointed out the five foot high stone wall lies about in the middle of the right-of-way and that his property is six feet above Highland Avenue, making it almost impossible for someone to walk. 24 Board of Adjustment Meeting May 16, 1983 Page Five Dennis Becker said he would be in favor of granting the variance but hopes the Board of Directors would recommend retaining ten feet of right-of-way for future footpaths, rather than closing the entire twenty feet. Larry Tompkins asked about sidewalk requirements and Bobbie Jones explained sidewalks are only required for construction of new single family residences, for some subdivision plats and for additions to multi -family, commercial or industrial structures (if shown on the Master Sidewalk Plan). Robert Waldren pointed out no one ever walks through what is Crest Lane now and he has a hard time agreeing to tying it up for a footpath now. David Crittenden moved to approve the variance, with the stipulation that Mr. Jansma pursue a street closing petition. The motion was seconded by Waldren., The motion passed, 5-2, with Larry Tompkins and Chester House voting "nay". David Crittenden moved the Board of Adjustment ask the Board of Directors to maintain a ten -foot right-of-way for possible future pedestrian traffic if they do close the street. That motion was seconded by Dennis Becker. Larry Tompkins asked if this would be a policy or is the motion only to apply for this individual street. Crittenden said his motion only refers to Crest Lane. Don Mills said, if the street is closed, we have to take into account how much the City has to maintain - she said the motion would allow for the City to keep ten feet, and for each neighbor to get five feet. Robert Waldren suggested the City maintain a ten -foot easement for footpath purposes. Crittenden said he would agree to that. After further discussion, Crittenden requested to withdraw his motion. Becker said he would not withdraw his second. Mills asked if anyone knew exactly where in the right-of-way of Crest Lane the stone fence is located, suggesting the possibility of the fence being removed. Jansma said he thought it was close to the center, and added that it supports his neighbor's driveway. Crittenden changed his motion to read the Board of Adjustment asks the Board of Directors to retain a ten -foot easement for possible future pedestrian traffic. Butch Robertson seconded the amended motion. Chester House said he would abstain as he did not understand what they were voting for. The motion passed, 6-0-1, with House abstaining. With n& furtherobusiness, the meeting adjourned at 5:00 P.M. 27 J