Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-01 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45 p.m. on Monday, August 1, 2005 in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville Arkansas. Item Considered Action Taken BOA 05-1498 (MASSEY WATERS, LLC, 446) Page 2 BOA 05-1658 (BOX, 366) Page 6 BOA 05-1659 (ARVEST BANK ATM, 521) Page 9 Approved Approved Approved BOA 05-1660 (ST. JAMES UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, 485) Approved Page 16 Members Present Members Absent Robert Kohler Johnson Michael Andrews Robert Nickle Sherree Alt Karen McSpadden Michael Green Staff Present Staff Absent Andrew Garner Suzanne Morgan Jesse Fulcher David Whitaker Board of Adjustment August 1, 2005 Page 2 BOA 05-1498 (MASSEY WATERS, LLC, 446): Submitted by EARL WATERS for property located at 249 E CLEBURN STREET. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.45 acres. The request is for a lot width of 66' (a 4' variance.) Andrews: We will proceed with hearing staff's comments, we will ask staff some questions, and then we will ask the applicant for comment and may have some questions for them. After that, we will open it up for public comment and at the end of public comment we will close that and bring it back to the board for a decision and a vote if necessary. The first item submitted is BOA 05-1498 submitted by Geomatic Consultants for property located at 249 Cleburn. The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family and contains approximately .45 acres. The requirement is for a 70' lot width. The request is to allow a 63.42' lot width, is a 6 1/2 foot variance to accommodate a non -conforming lot as a result of a proposed Lot Split. Also, to allow a 6' side setback, a 2' variance, on the existing non -conforming single family dwelling and to allow a 0' side setback, an 8' variance, on the existing non -conforming accessory structure. Garner: As mentioned, this property is located on Cleburn Street in central Fayetteville. The applicant is proposing a Lot Split of a''/2 acre parcel into two parcels, one of which does not have the required lot width right now. As an administrative item, there is an existing single family dwelling and accessory structure that does not meet setback requirements. You can see the diagram on page 1.8 in your packets that kind of shows a survey of the site and where they are proposing to split the lot and the existing building and accessory structure. Staff finds that special conditions to exist for this property that are not applicable to other land in the same district. The property is a relative lot in this neighborhood and the RSF-4 district. It is almost 'h acre in size. This lot was created and developed prior to the adoption of the current zoning regulations. Additionally, staff finds that literal interpretation of the zoning regulations would not allow creation of a new proposed Lot A. However, the width of Lot A, which is approximately 63' is consistent with the size of most lots in the neighborhood and with the existing street. The adjacent lot to the east is approximately 50' wide, the adjacent lot to the west is approximately 90' wide and to the south there is a lot that is approximately 58' wide and three lots immediately north of this site on the other side of Cleburn Street are all approximately 60' in width. We feel that creating a new 63' single family lot would not result in the adverse change of the community character of this neighborhood. Granting the variance for the non- conforming side setback for the single family home and accessory structure are administrative items to get this lot into conformance. Staff is recommending approval of these variance requests with four conditions that are listed in your report. Condition one is that one additional single Board of Adjustment August 1, 2005 Page 3 family home may be permitted on the new lot. Condition two is that a building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of any construction. All existing structures, easements and utilities be located on the site plan submitted with the building permit and condition number four requires that the Lot Split to create the tract shall be approved by the City of Fayetteville and recorded at the County prior to issuance of building permit. I will be happy to answer any questions. Nickle: Andrew, was this property formerly used as a business, the old Fish place? Garner: Yes. Kohler: I couldn't find the accessory structure, is that on the site? I drove by there, I didn't walk back into the site, I was relying on the survey for the actual location of that. ??: There is a little shed way in the back corner of the lot that has been removed. ??: I own property just behind that, it is a very small lot right now. Kohler: I was just curious about the accessory structure. Andrews: If the applicant would state your name and if you have anything that you would like to add to staff comments. Waters: My name is Earl Waters. The lot itself is a little smaller than what you would normally get but there wasn't really a choice in it without splitting the lot because where the house is already existing. Andrews: The accessory structure that is listed on the survey that we have, you are saying that that accessory structure has been removed? Waters: Yes, the one that is shown right behind the house is gone. Andrews: There is another one on the lot? Waters: There is an old shed down on the corner of what would be the vacant lot. It is kind of hard to tell. It is overgrown down in there. It is just a portable shed. Nickle: That would eliminate the need for the 0' variance? Morgan: Yes it would. If they did get approval here and did get approval to subdivide this property we would have to make sure that all accessory structures on the new lot would be removed because we could not allow Board of Adjustment August 1, 2005 Page 4 the creation of a new lot with an accessory structure prior to the principal so if there is a portable shed, it would need to be removed. Andrews: That being the case, the 0' side setback variance for the existing non- conforming accessory structure is not going to be needed. Is that correct? Waters: Yes. Nickle: The 2' side setback, would that be at the northeast corner of the house? Morgan: Yes. Nickle: I just wanted to make sure where that was. Andrews: Is there anybody from the audience who would like to address this issue? Reed: I own the property at 823 N. Willow, that lot backs into my property. I don't mind them having a single family home there but we are a single family neighborhood and we are here to object to any apartments, it is a single family established neighborhood. Andrews: Is it possible to put more than a single family residence? Garner: No, it is RSF-4. As a Conditional Use you could put a two family dwelling, a duplex, if they applied for that, but it would have to go through Planning Commission for that. Andrews: According to city regulations right now, that is not allowable, a duplex is not allowed, they could apply for that in the future but they would have to go before the Planning Commission and that is not something that is before us right now. Morgan: They would also have to come back here because in a RSF-4 zoning district to have a two family dwelling on one lot you have to have 80' of frontage. Andrews: Are there any other questions? Linerstrom: My name is David Linerstrom, this application for a setback is just to allow houses to be set closer together, is that correct? Andrews: This variance is to allow a lot width of 63' instead of 70' that is required, and the other thing is to bring the current structure that is built into compliance with city regulations by giving it a 2' variance closer to the side on the east lot line. Does anybody else have comment? Hearing none, I will bring it back before the Board. Board of Adjustment August 1, 2005 Page 5 Kohler: It seems to me it is completely in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. We have heard about the other lots that are smaller even than this. The one to the east is 50' width on a corner. Usually corner lots are wider than interior lots so I keep it is completely in keeping with the neighborhood and see no problem with not allowing it. Andrews: I will entertain a motion. MOTION: Kohler: I move that we approve the request as stated with the conditions that staff has stated with the addition of the removal of the request of the 0' side setback for the accessory structure which doesn't exist. Nickle: I will second. Garner: Could you also add a condition that the existing accessory structure shall be removed on the vacant lot? Morgan: We can do that here or we can do that with the Lot Split. Kohler: I will add that condition to it. Roll Call: Alt, Kohler, Nickle, Johnson, McSpadden, Andrews Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the Variance was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Morgan: The motion carries. Board of Adjustment August 1, 2005 Page 6 BOA 05-1658 (BOX, 366): Submitted by BEN LESTER for property located at 934 PEACHTREE DRIVE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.03 acres. The request is to approve a reduced front setback to accommodate an existing non -conforming structure. Andrews: The second item before us is BOA05-1658 submitted by Ben Laster for property located at 934 Peachtree Drive. The property is zoned RMF -40 and the request is to allow a reduced front and rear setback for a town home that was constructed within the required setbacks. Fulcher: The subject property was built in 2001 and is located at 934 Peachtree Drive, which is west of Leverett Avenue and zoned RMF -40. This town home was permitted with a 25' front setback and a 20' rear setback. It appears it was built over the setback lines. The current applicant is requesting these two variances so that they can sell the home. It appears that the circumstances are not the actions of the applicant, rather of the original home builder. Staff is recommending approval of these two Variance requests with two standard conditions of approval. Page 2.7 shows the minimal distance on front and rear that this encroaches, although on the rear that is also a 20' utility easement as well as the setback line. I spoke to the surveyor and he said that the distance of the encroachment was the bricks on the back of the structure so a Vacation request may or may not be necessary but at this time they are requesting the Variance for that front and rear. Andrews: How much is the requested Variance? Fulcher: 2' on the front setback and 1' on the rear setback. Andrews: Is the applicant present? Lester: I'm Ben Lester, I represent the owner of the townhouse, I'm the real estate agent. I don't have anything further. Andrews: Do we know who the builder of this house was originally? Lester: The builder was David Chance. Kohler: I guess this is not a question of not sitting the building correctly because if that was the case it would be over one or the other setback. This is the case of a footprint somehow being different than what was permitted because the city never would've permitted this footprint. It is not a question of citing it improperly, it is a question of this is a different building than what was permitted. Do you have any insight on that? Board of Adjustment August 1, 2005 Page 7 Lester: The person I represent bought it from someone else. It was built by David Chance and they were not privy to this information. They didn't have a survey. Alt: When was this home built? Lester: 2001. Kohler: The fact that there was no survey could explain it. Fulcher: The survey is from this year. Lester: It was done for the sale of the property. Andrews: Is there anybody from the audience that would like to address this issue? Hearing none, I will bring it back to the Board. Have we had any of Mr. Chance's buildings before us before? Morgan: Not that I recall but I can check on that. To my knowledge, we approved the plan to make sure it was in conformance with our setbacks but we do not require an actual survey when they are starting the footing and foundations. Unfortunately, this is the case where like Mr. Kohler said, they must have expanded the footprint somewhat. Kohler: Morgan: If there would've been stakes that they could've run a string and gone off of that this probably would not have happened. As Mr. Fulcher mentioned, it is encroaching in the utility easement slightly in the rear so in order to clear all clouds of title we would recommend that they proceed with the Vacation process. That is up to the applicant to do. Andrews: Are there any further questions? Does anybody want to entertain a motion? MOTION: Alt: I will make a motion that we approve the recommendation of the staff for the variance with their conditions. Nickle: Second. Andrews: Is there any further discussion? Will you call the roll please? Board of Adjustment August 1, 2005 Page 8 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the Variance was approved by a vote of 5-1. Alt, Kohler, Nickle, Johnson, McSpadden voting yes and Mr. Andrews voting no. Board of Adjustment August 1, 2005 Page 9 BOA 05-1659 (ARVEST BANK ATM, 521): Submitted by ATTORNEYS AT LAW STOCKLAND & TRANTHAM, P.A. for property located at 1369 W 6TH STREET, the Spot -Not Carwash lot. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 1.33 acres. The requirement is for a 50' setback. The request is for a 0' setback (a 50' variance) to accommodate moving the existing ATM box to another location within the property. Andrews: The next item on the agenda is BOA05-1659 submitted by Charles Trantham for property located at 1369 W. 6th Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 1 1/3 acre. The requirement is for a 50' front setback and the request is for a 0' setback, a 50' variance. Garner: This lot is located on 6th Street where the Spot Not Car Wash is at the corner of Razorback Road and 6th Street. There is an existing ATM machine on Razorback Road and Razorback Road is planned to be widened in the next couple of months so the actual street will be where the ATM machine is right now and therefore, they are removing the ATM machine. The diagram on page 3.7 shows the proposal is to move the ATM to another location on the same property. The applicant has pointed out a couple of alternative spots they would like to move this ATM to. The new proposed positions, or alternatives that they are looking at are within the Master Street Plan right of way for 6th Street and so the request is to waive the front setback variance totally for a 0' setback from the Master Street Plan, it would be in the right of way is what they are proposing. As more background, the University of Arkansas is immediately north across 6th Street. Sonic is to the east. There is some undeveloped wooded land to the south and then the EZ Mart, Shell Gas Station is to the west of this site. The UDC §166.18 prohibits locating a structure within the Master Street Plan right of way as requested by the applicant. Further, the UDC states that existing non -conformities, which is the existing ATM machine in this case, shouldn't be used as grounds for continuing or encouraging a non -conforming use. Per these requirements, we don't feel that we can recommend locating the structure within the Master Street Plan right of way. Staff finds the conditions on the site do not justify granting the Variance as proposed by the applicant. However, staff would recommend approval of a Variance for locating the structure outside of the Master Street Plan right of way and within the building setback as a reduction of an existing non -conforming condition. I noted in the report that this board does not have the authority to grant a variance to locate a structure in the Master Street Plan right of way, that requires City Council approval. As mentioned, we recommend denial of the 50' front setback variance as described and proposed. However, we would recommend approval to relocate the ATM structure outside of that right of way. Board of Adjustment August 1, 2005 Page 10 Kohler: I have a question. Staff, where do you differentiate between an ATM verses a bank, Federal Express or US Mailbox drive up units and then maybe a drive up telephone, which does exist on this site. Why is an ATM an accessory structure and why is a bank, a UPS, FedEx, whatnot, all of those things together, they are all drive up, how do you distinguish between them? Morgan: The Unified Development Code describes a structure as anything above 30" in height, which would include all of those things that you mentioned. We have dealt before with video return boxes that are located up against the street within the Master Street Plan right of way and that had to be relocated. As for the city's jurisdiction on post office boxes, I don't know if we can regulate where those are placed. I haven't encountered a situation where they are in the Master Street Plan right of way but we would look at each of those as a structure. Unfortunately, a lot of times they go up on sites without a building permit requested or a site plan. A lot of times we catch them with new developments that want to put in an ATM and we make sure that they are located appropriately. A lot of times they go up on sites and we don't know about it. Kohler: What about the drive up telephone thing? Morgan: Those would also be structures. Nickle: On page 3.7 it indicates a 55' Master Street Plan right of way, everywhere else I see 50', what is the real deal? Garner: It is called out on the drawing where the Master Street Plan right of way is. An additional 50' is required beyond that for a setback. Nickle: If you have got a 55' right of way and then you add 50', this structure was built before this deal was this wide anyway. Razorback Road was not too long ago just a two lane street right there. Sixth Street has been four lane for a while, it has obviously been widened since then. That is at least five lanes now I believe. I think we have to be real careful. I know that we can't grant a variance in the actual right of way but we've got to be somewhat cognizant in some form or fashion that maybe this needs to go to the City Council for their consideration. This structure has been an operating business in the city for years and years and we are taking away property, or an effective use thereof, for setbacks and increasing right of ways, I understand that we can't grant, it is in accordance with the UDC, what they are seeking here today, I don't know what the proper venue is but somehow we have to allow them to operate a business or at least buy the property for what it should be valued at. Kohler: Either of these two alternatives we can't vote on? Board of Adjustment August 1, 2005 Page 11 Morgan: Yes, after reviewing the request and then getting the maps and figuring out where the Master Street Plan right of way was we realized that their alternative locations were in that Master Street Plan right of way. Obviously, when this structure was built and this site was developed either the Master Street Plan right of way was most likely different at that time and therefore, the setbacks would be different. I don't know when the ATM was established on the site, whether it was before or after the 55' from centerline and then the additional 50' building setback was required. Nickle: Again, the city is widening the road and that is causing things like that to happen. I don't see what remedy this board can give but I don't know how fair it is to the applicant and right now, I would like them to understand that we can't give them what they want. Maybe they should go to the City Council and we shouldn't even do anything today because what could we do? Morgan: From what we could see and from what Andrew put in the staff report, the proposed alternative locations from the applicant are in the Master Street Plan right of way so that would require City Council approval. A 50' building setback variance would put them pretty much inside their drive aisles. We did state that we would be in favor of a setback Variance, maybe they could put it against the structure on the west side for instance. That might be a possibility that would require a variance from this board. Kohler: Could we allow them to place it right inside the existing Master Street Plan right of way? Morgan: Yes. Kohler: That would be a 49' variance. Morgan: That is something that you could do if they could find a place to put it. We feel that it is appropriate to at least get this relocated outside of the Master Street Plan right of way. Of course, that is City Council's determination and we would feel comfortable recommending a variance to relocate that ATM. Kohler: Giving a 0' setback would make it more conforming than it is now? Morgan: That is correct. Andrews: Is the applicant here? Trantham: My name is Chuck Trantham here on behalf of Arvest Bank. The reason that we are requesting this location is because the road is not going to be Board of Adjustment August 1, 2005 Page 12 there. What the Highway Department has told me is the city is requesting a 10' sidewalk. That is causing us to move our ATM machine. That is a sidewalk issue, not a street issue. Kohler: It is still within the right of way. Trantham: Yes, that is correct, if we do what they recommend, the ATM machine is separate from the carwash. We rent that property. The closer we get to that building the more congested it makes the use of that carwash. That particular ATM machine receives anywhere from 4,000 to 6,000 transactions a month so it is heavily used. That is why we need it out away from the building so that there is no conflict with the carwash. If we aren't able to relocate it where it is feasible we will have to do away with it. That is going to be more money for the city because they are going to have to buy that lease back as far as cost to the city. If this Committee is unable to make that decision we will go to the City Council. We need to stay away from that building. If you put us up closer into it that kind of defeats the purpose of that ATM machine on that particular street corner. Alt: Trantham: Have you looked at the alternative one and two? Yes Ma'am, that just moves us to the front in the drive. We can't be in the back, no one is going to drive through the car wash into the vacuum slots to use the ATM. The second option is right by the phone there. Alt: The second option is still in the Master Street Plan area? Trantham: Yes. Kohler: Would a 0' setback help you at all? Trantham: That puts us too close to the building, it puts us in the middle of the parking lot. Nickle: He makes a good point. In effect, the city is creating the situation, as best I understand it, by wanting a sidewalk there. Previously this was not within the Master Street Plan right of way. Whitaker: Not before the adoption of this version of the Master Street Plan. Nickle: By widening the right of way effectively whoever owns this property is receiving rent from this ATM on a monthly basis. I guess they would have to compute some kind of economical value to that lease hold because you are going to deny the landlord the income from that property, they would have to be compensated in some in a similar amount. Board of Adjustment August 1, 2005 Page 13 Whitaker: There could be such an argument. McSpadden: Nickle: McSpadden: Trantham: There is also the argument that the city is improving the road to the point that it brings so many more people to the business. If the road wasn't as good and there wasn't as much traffic they wouldn't have 4,000 to 6,000 transactions. That is the other side of that. I would say that the traffic has increased and the road is built to handle the increased traffic. The traffic in that area has just grown enormously. That is a benefit to the business, not a detriment. It is not a benefit to my bank if we lose the ATM. McSpadden: Where the ATM is now, it has to be moved. Nickle: Morgan: Kohler: Whitaker: Andrews: Trantham: Kohler: Trantham: Kohler: Trantham: My feeling is with expansion of that street right of way, the tenants could not build on the landlord's property in that location. Whereas, he was allowed to initially. I am not sure if that ATM was permitted or not. In order to have been permitted without approval from this board it would have had to meet the building setbacks, which are 50' on this zoning district. I think we can either table it or give them a 0' setback. Are there any other options? If they want to site it in the two alternatives that they proposed they need to go to the City Council to get their approval to modify the Master Street Plan in this location. My understanding is a 0' setback would do you no good. It puts us in the middle of the parking lot. I don't want to be your designer, but what if you put it more towards the east so you are not obstructing the general flow in and around that. Technically that would be like putting the front part of your store on the side. That is not very convenient for a person to pull in and go all the way around the side of the carwash and then swing back around it. It is going to be on 6th Street, just closer to the carwash towards the east. There is nothing on the east side except for people driving back around through. The convenience of pulling through from Hwy. 62 is important. Board of Adjustment August 1, 2005 Page 14 Nickle: Andrews: Alt: Andrews: Kohler: Andrews: Nickle: Andrews: McSpadden: Trantham: Nickle: I don't think that we are capable of solving the problem. We can go ahead and grant, for the purposes of moving this ATM somewhere along 6th Street there with a 0' setback and that is the best we can do for them and they can either take that or go to the City Council. I would move that we give them a 0' setback, a 50' variance, from the 6th Street right of way in order to accommodate a similar ATM structure. Is there anybody here from the public that would like to address this issue? Hearing none, I will bring it back to the board. I will second. Is there any further discussion? My feeling is if this were an accessory structure it probably wouldn't even get a second thought for a variance on this. We have had other ATMs in the past ask for a Variance close to the road and my feeling is it doesn't meet the requirements for a Variance because it creates an eye sore. I don't think we would allow this if it was before us as an accessory structure. We are thinking of saying yes because it is a business related item. A residential accessory structure you mean? If they wanted a storage shed. Of course, it is a business related item and so we may say it is ok. To me, I don't see the difference between the two so I have a hard time supporting it and therefore, I will vote no for this. If you look at the structure as it exists today, the carwash wouldn't be built where it is today. With the constantly expanding rights of way and 50' setback. I don't remember when this was built, I suspect it was in the 70's and met all of the requirements at the time. Is there any further discussion? I just wonder about trying to pass something that is not even proposed. They haven't even, their two proposals we are not able to approve. I understand that you want to issue a gesture of goodwill but it may be an issue of goodwill that they don't even want or need. We have an idea of what we need to work with. If it is reasonable that would save us one step from coming back. We have done things like that in the past when we see a solution that was not put forward and agreed to upon the initial request. Board of Adjustment August 1, 2005 Page 15 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to grant a 50' variance was approved by a vote of 4-2 with Mr. Andrews and Ms. McSpadden voting no. Board of Adjustment August 1, 2005 Page 16 BOA 05-1660 (ST. JAMES UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, 485): Submitted by REV. GARY LUNSFORD ST JAMES METHODIST CHURCH for property located at 5 N WILLOW AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.56 acres. The request is to allow a reduced a side setback and front setbacks on Willow Avenue and Center Street to accommodate existing non -conforming structures. Andrews: The next item on the agenda is BOA05-1660 for St. James United Methodist Church submitted by Reverend Lunsford for property located at 507 N. Willow. The property is zoned RMF -24 and contains approximately .56 acres. The request is to allow a reduced side setback and front setback on Roland Avenue and Center Street to accommodate the existing non -conforming structure. Morgan: The subject property is located at 507 N. Willow on the corner of Willow Avenue and Center Street. The property is zoned RMF -24 and there are two existing structures on this property and they were constructed in the 1860's before some of the streets were established adjacent to the property. Since the structure was built the city has obtained right of way and increased right of way to build streets. Some time ago in the early part of the 20th Century a tornado destroyed the bell tower on the main structure and although the structure was repaired the tower was never rebuilt. The applicant is currently trying to restore the structure to the original condition which includes extending that structure to add a steeple as well as significant repairs to the building. The applicant has submitted a Conditional Use Permit request to request approval of this use within the RMF -24 zoning district. Also in discussion with the applicant it was stated that in order to extend this structure and to repair it they would need a Variance to bring the structure into compliance. If you look on page 4.9 you can see that the structures are outside of the Master Street Plan right of way. Page 4.10 is from our GIS system and not as accurate as a survey, it appears that the structure is within the right of way, we were concerned about that for a while as this would have to go for City Council approval, but they did submit a survey and you can see it is approximately 5.08' from Willow Street Avenue right of way with a 3.91' setback from the north, which is a side setback. To the south the main building is 22.54' from the right of way. Center Street and Willow Street in this area are unclassified per the Master Street Plan requirements. Center Street has a total 30' right of way, 20' from centerline based on this survey. Willow Street has an existing 40' right of way, 20' from centerline. Staff has discussed the possibility of these streets ever being widened to a 25' right of way from centerline, which is our local street standards. In light of that possibility, on page 4.3 I've listed the side setback to the north as well as the front setback to the east adjacent to Willow Avenue and the south adjacent to Center Street from the existing right of way and from what the right of way would be if the city ever felt it needed to expand it to 25' Board of Adjustment August 1, 2005 Page 17 from centerline, 50' overall. The rectory would be the closest to that future right of way with a 0.8' setback so it would be outside of that potential right of way. Staff finds that there are special conditions or circumstances that exist which are peculiar to this structure, as well as many of the surrounding structures which were constructed well before the rights of way and the zoning districts were established. We find that the existing structures, although they do not meet the current setback regulations are appropriate in this zoning district and near the historic district. We, therefore, recommend approval of the requested front and side setback variances in order for this applicant to make improvements to the existing structures. We do have three conditions of approval. First, that future alterations or additions to the existing structures shall meet required building setback regulations from the Master Street Plan right of way unless otherwise approved by the Board of Adjustment. This is not specifically stated, but it means that this Variance is only for those existing structures and all additions would have to meet the 25' from the Master Street Plan right of way requirements or 8' side setback requirements. Condition two, all required permits shall be granted prior to any construction or repair of the existing structures. Condition three, that a Conditional Use Permit and Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be issued for the use on the subject property prior to issuance of any building permit. The Conditional Use request is scheduled to go before the Planning Commission on August 8th. That will be resolved hopefully soon. Andrews: Are there any questions for staff? Nickle: Which of these under table one, I don't see any specific recommendations or requests. Morgan: As to which variances we would be granting? Nickle: Yes. Morgan: The applicant's request, typically we see Variance requests from the Master Street Plan right of way. In looking at Center and Willow, a lot of times in the downtown area we have streets that have 40' width right of way. Normally we see those widths and we say our local street with 28' width and 50' right of way is our standard and so we normally utilize that for measuring setbacks. In the downtown area we have encountered building permit requests on streets that are 40' right of way. In a grid pattern a 40' right of way is appropriate and allows for more street connection and you can utilize a smaller street section in those areas because traffic is able to flow in many different directions. From what I saw on the surrounding streets, Willow has been widened somewhat to the north of this property so it is about 47.5' right of way to the north, Board of Adjustment August 1, 2005 Page 18 adjacent to this property it is 40'. I guess to be safe you may want to grant the Variance request from the potential future right of way but I wanted to give you both of those options. Nickle: So we get to pick. Morgan: Or choose one with the realization that that right of way in the future may increase. McSpadden: And then they would just have to come back, correct? Morgan: Correct. If you feel it is appropriate for this structure as it is currently existing on the property to remain whether that right of way is widened so at it's closest point, .08' from the right of way, and you feel that is an appropriate thing at this point you may wish to grant it so that that right of way may be widened. Nickle: It still wouldn't be allowing them any expansion on that. Morgan: That is correct. Alt: They would have to come back if they wanted to expand, this is just to get the bell tower. Morgan: If they wanted to expand further north than the current rectory is or further south or east, yes, they would have to come back. If they wanted to do an expansion to the west on either of those structures they wouldn't need to come back to this Board. Cochran: My name is Tamara Cochran, I'm an attorney from Rogers. Reverend Lunsford has gone out of town and I am here representing the church. My understanding is they simply want to renovate the existing structure and are really not looking for any extension above and beyond where they are at right now and to put the bell tower back over the steeple the way it was before the tornado blew it off several years ago. They are not making any expansion on the property. Childers: The church has been there for a long time, a lot of the streets were not there, at least Center Street wasn't there. We are just asking to restore it. Andrews: Are there any questions for Mr. Childers? Kohler: If there was ever an example of a non -conformity this would be it. Just for the respect of the church and the history of it I would be very supportive of their request. Board of Adjustment August 1, 2005 Page 19 Andrews: Is there anybody from the audience that would like to address this issue? Smith: My name is Caroline Smith, I've been a resident of Washington County since 1959, originally from Little Rock. We have been going to this church with our daughter and son. This church was built before we were even thought of. I have a lot of respect for Reverend Lunsford who is now on a mission trip. He is a local boy and they are trying to do this in the right way. If you can help this church, it goes along with the restoration of the Washington County Courthouse. We have got a lot of history in this town. We've come a long way Baby and let's keep up the good work. Thank you. Andrews: Is there anybody else? Hearing none, I will bring it back to the Board. I think we all know the importance of this structure and I applaud the church for the effort of wanting to restore it and spending time and money in doing that and the least we can do is to try to help them out with the legal aspects of this. I will entertain a motion. MOTION: Alt: Nickle: McSpadden: Andrew: Morgan: Andrews: I motion that we approve the requested front and side setback variances with staff's recommendations. Second. Do we need to define which setback it is? Is that with the potential right of way variance? You could certainly approve it with the existing right of way and being in favor of if it ever expanded having to come back and get a smaller variance. I will second the amended motion. Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve the request was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. The motion carries. Is there any further business? Meeting adjourned. Morgan: Andrews: Meeting adjourned: 4:43 p.m. variance