Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-03 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustments was held on Monday, April 3, 2000 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN Approval of the Minutes Approved BA00-1: Lake Hills Church Approved with conditions MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Michael Andrews Thad Hanna Marion Orton Larry Perkins Michael Green STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Janet Strain None • • • Board of Adjustments Minutes April 3, 2000 Page 2 Approval of Minutes Perkins: The April 3 meeting of the Board of Adjustments is now in session. The first item of business is approval of the minutes for the meeting of February 7, 1999. Are there any changes or deletions to those? None being heard, please enter those in the record. Marion Orton: Made motion to accept minutes. Mike Andrews: Second. Motion was approved with a vote of 4-0-0. • Board of Adjustments Minutes April 3, 2000 Page 3 BA00-1: VARIANCE LAKE HILLS CHURCH, PP255 This item was submitted by Joseph Rogers of The Benham Group on behalf of Lake Hills Church for property located on Highway 265 south of Williams Dance Studio. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 3.58 acres. The requirement is for a 22'6" side setback on the north, the request is for a 0 side setback (a 22'6" variance). The requirement is for a 20' side setback on the south, the request is for a 15' setback (a 5' variance). Mr. Charles Sloan, and Mr. Jon Allen were present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommended denial of the request based on the findings stated in the staff report. Public Discussion Conklin: At the last meeting of February 7, we ended the meeting with the applicant • planning on getting with the neighbors to discuss the placement of building on the lot. Since that meeting they have met with the neighbors and have revised their variance request for the north and south. The requirement is for a 22'6" side setback on the north. The request is for a 0 setback. The north setback is adjacent to the Williams Dance Center. The requirement is for 20' setback on the south and the request is for a 15' side setback. We did include in our report the information that is new as underlined and staff is still recommending denial. We do have to make findings according to our ordinance to approve a variance. Regardless of what agreements have been made with the neighbors that is not one of the criteria by city code that we can use to make recommendations. That pretty much addresses the changes that have been made at this time. • Perkins: There is quite a lengthy set of minutes from the Planning Commission meeting and did anything come out of that meeting that would have bearing on the appeal today? Conklin: With regard to Planning Commission, the applicant applied P-1 zoning. P-1 zoning also requires a 20' side setback. That P-1 zoning was denied by Planning Commission. The applicant has appealed to the city council, it is scheduled to go before the Council on April 18. Regarding the zoning the setback would be the same and they still would need variances with their proposal. Orton: What is the advantage of P-1 over... Board of Adjustments Minutes April 3, 2000 Page 4 Hanna: That is irrelevant. No offence. Orton: That's right. It doesn't matter. Perkins: OK. Is Mr. Rogers present? Is there someone here to speak on his behalf in reference to this appeal? Allen: Sir we have two witnesses here who want to speak, they're neighbors and we also have a letter which I gave you from Mr. Meinecke, he owns the Williams Center property. He was going to be here but at the last minute he couldn't so he sent this letter on. He did say that he could support the 0 setback. The thing is he bought a little strip of land between us and we have an agreement with him that we are going to pave that as part of our LSD as a access for his property and ours. So with 0 setback at the edge of this strip rather than edge of the building. And that little strip is where we are going to put our driveway. It is not really 0 setback from Williams Center itself but from the 50' strip. Perkins: You say there is another gentlemen who wants to speak. James Renby, an adjoining property owner addressed the Board. Renby: Yes I would like to speak for the church. I have a couple of questions for clarification. Do I understand that this is coming up again for rezoning for P-1, at the April 18'" meeting? Conklin: The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission decision. That appeal has been tabled by the applicant. To get it on the 18`h agenda the staff had to have it ready by March 31, 2000 and we sent it up to City Council. My understanding is that if the variances are granted. The appeal will be withdrawn. I don't want to speak for anybody at the church or property owners so correct me if I wrong. Allen: We just said that, they had raised some objections about the setback, we talked to these people ourselves and to my understanding they are ok with the findings in which case we will drop our appeal to City Council. Renby: Second point of clarification is that 0 setback a variance of 22'6". Just for the record I would like that clarified. The way we received this in the mail with 0 side setback. I don't believe that is correct. Sloan: We are not asking for the whole side just for the part of side where the building is. The vestibule only. • Board of Adjustments Minutes April 3, 2000 Page 5 Perkins: Renby: Perkins: Warrick: Conklin: Renby: Allen: • Renby: Orton: Sloan: Allen: Sloan: • It was discussed up here but for the people in the audience are you clear on what he described up here? Is it a 10' setback to the canopy? Is that correct? My understanding is a 0 setback on the north side. It goes right to the property line. We wrote the report based on a letter from the applicant's representative shown on page 2.8 of the agenda. To Dawn Warrick from Joseph Rogers, the letter states proposed setback on north property line is now 0 feet, with the building sitting right on the property line omitting the 20' setback. Again for clarification that is the canopy, the building is 20 feet back. The building is 20 feet back. I have no objections if the building is 20 feet back. Is the canopy made from canvas? Does it have a roof? It might have a roof like the rest of the building. It is a drive through. For pickup and drop off. We have a few handicapped people in our church and that is what it is for. Handicapped parking is in the back and this is the drive through. Mr. Matthew Slusarek, representing the adjoining property owners addressed the Board. Slusarek: Perkins: Warrick: I am with the property owners on the south. Is the canopy considered part of the building? It is roofed. You can build a slab right to the property line but the minute you put an enclosure... Anything over 30 inches in height is required to meet building setbacks by code. • • • Board of Adjustments Minutes April 3, 2000 Page 6 Slusarek: Perkins: Matthew: Renby: Conklin: Renby: Perkins: Conklin: Allen: Perkins: Sloan: Perkins: Renby: On the south side, I just wanted to clarifiy that the setback is for the building only. The request as I understand it is a 5 foot variance for the foot print of the building. It does not run the length of the property. We don't have a problem with that. So on the north side the variance is for the canopy not for the building itself. The canopy is part of the structure. 0 setback means you can build right up to the property line. As it is worded here it talks about proposed setback, it does not clarify that it is just the canopy. It talks about the footprint of the building. If you do approve this, for staff, so we will know what we can permit or not permit with regard to setbacks I think we need to be clear as to what we are talking about; a canopy with open walls underneath 20 feet in length and 30 feet wide. The 15 foot setback on south side according to this site plan would apply to the 120' length of the building itself. I think that is right. We are asking for a 5 foot variance on south side. And on the north side we are asking for a variance for the canopy area. You don't have a problem if we put in our motion we grant a setback variance with a stipulation that with in this variance only a canopy structure can be constructed. Sure. I think that will satisfy some concerns. Our concerns have be satisfied with the new drawings and the discussions that we have had. This drawing is part of the package. Perkins: So having the building moved to the west is sufficient for you? Renby: Yes. • • • Board of Adjustments Minutes April 3, 2000 Page 7 Perkins: OK. Did these new discussions have any bearing on staff position. Conklin: Once again we had to make specific findings that they could not develop this property without the variances. Looking at a vacant piece of property 185 feet wide, staff could not support that variance or those findings. Perkins: I do not have last months layout but basically all that has changed is the building is moved closer to Highway 265. Orton: That takes care of all the immediate property owners. Conkin: I just wanted to say that the site plan you are looking at today has not been reviewed to my knowledge by other city divisions. It still has to be reviewed by the Landscape Administrator, Sidewalk & Trails Coordinator, Fire Chief, and Engineering (they have been working with engineering on drainage and retaining walls). My concern is if it is approved that this building may have to be adjusted 5 or 10 feet east or west depending on the landscape requirements for the parking lot. It is hard to say this foot print will end up exactly right here, I making this statement, so the property owners know that it is difficult to say this building can be built in this exact location without going through the site plan process. Perkins: So even to this day we don't have everything in front of us to make a variance. Conklin: Well, I think you can make one. Hanna: This is aggravating, we couldn't tell if it was off 5 feet or not. Conklin: It is going to be difficult for staff to guarantee that exact location. Hanna: If we allow the variance, the footprint of the building will not change, so if we allow the variance for the footprint only, if it's one foot to the west we wouldn't even know it. Sloan: If there are any problems with the Large Scale Development we will go back to the neighbors. We visited with Bert Rakes and he stated we need a fire wall between the building and the canopy. That is the only thing he saw as necessary with the structure being so close to the property line. Perkins: Now at the close of the last meeting it was encouraged that you consider locating that building on the property so that the set backs were a mute point. Where are you on that? Board of Adjustments Minutes April 3, 2000 Page 8 Allen: Actually what we tried to figure the maximum size building we could service on the lot given the requirements for parking and green spaces. So we came up with a figure of about 14,000 square feet. You are aware that there are little churches all over the city with tiny buildings and now they can't afford to build new. We want to build one building, if we try to configure the building skinny and long we have major excavation on the hill, like the Williams Center where they dynamited the hill. We don't want to do that. The building this way is as compact as we can make it in order to do the least amount of damage to the land and green space. Perkins: I trust this is very close to scale. If this building was tumed 90 degrees there is no setback issue at all. Sloan. Well, we are trying to keep our people and traffic flow away from what is residential. We want to bring our people in between Williams Center and us. Keep our activities on that side of the building. Allen: If we tum the building the other way we will have one way in and a drive around one way out on the other side. It would be next to the property on the south. As it is now on the south side all we are going to have is a wall. There is a pretty good slope to the land and if we tum it the other way they will have to take a considerable bite out of the mountain. Another thing to consider is we don't have a single step in the building, so the whole building is handicapped accessible. If we build it in layers you're dealing with ramps and rails, so it would need to be built on one layer. Perkins: Since there is some doubt where this may be, if we can so word the motion as any variance if approved, be right where it is shown right now. Conklin: I'm sure we can always bring it back. Orton: That sounds like a good idea. Allen: The drawing that you saw before shows the building moved to the east about forty feet or so. So if this is where it ends up, within one foot or two, I think it will be exactly what we are proposing. Hanna: If you do that you could probably put in the motion that if it is closer to the east we will have to come back. I think the issue is to have it further from the east property line. • • • Board of Adjustments Minutes April 3, 2000 Page 9 Perkins: Hanna: Andrews: Motion Hanna: Perkins: Hanna: Andrews: Perkins: Andrews: Perkins: It is partially addressed then, the unknowns we have before us today. Okay any other discussion? Do we hear a motion. I did not explain how these meeting work. After open discussion we close to the public and discuss among the members. Last meeting the property owners were very concerned, they have met with the church and have come to a resolution. I think if we word the motion as we discussed I have no problem with it. I feel that by reading the minutes from February every thing has been addressed. The property owners have been satisfied and I agree if we can word the motion properly, I can recommend approval. I make a motion that we accept the variances requested with the condition that the north setback variance applies to canopy only. Then the south side variance is just for the footprint of the building as shown in the plans submitted with the packet. Did you want to add anything about location? As the drawing shown on our packet. Can I clarify that. It looks like it is 308 feet from west property line, 188 feet and 120 feet added together we get 308 feet. I recommend we give them a couple of feet and say the building cannot be more than 310 from west property line. Gives you two feet to fudge, it to ensure that it does not go any further to the east. I might as well get this right, since the engineer is not here. If I say the numbers are right, we say 310 feet, and we have had clerical error before and that number is not good. I'm doing this for your protection too. So we don't have to do this again. Ok, We wanted to make sure it can't be more than 310 feet from Highway 265 on the south side it gives 2 feet of fudge and protects the property owners. And also we want to make sure it is an open canopy on the north side. With that stated I will second the motion. Did you get the motion down correctly? Do we have any other questions? Ok, Board of Adjustments Minutes April 3, 2000 Page 10 we have motion and a second, would you call the roll please. The motion was approved on a unanimous vote of 4-0-0. Perkins: Thank you ladies and gentlemen for your time. Ok, do we have any old business, new business? Then we stand adjourned.