HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-12-18 Minutesill 11,111111
I. : 1 1 i' 1 1
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday December
18, 1989, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas,
MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis
Becker, Larry
Tompkins,
Gerald Boyd, Robert Waldren
Robert
Davis and Dee
Wright
OTHERS PRESENT: Freeman Wood, John Merrell and Elaine Cattaneo
ICIINIYY:L9
The minutes of the regular meeting on November 6, 1989 were approved with one
correction on page 5. It should read "Becker, Wright, Boyd & Waldren voting
yes and Tompkins voting "no".
In the absence of Chairman Don Mills, Larry Tompkins chaired the meeting.
BA89-9 - Request to Vary Bulk & Area Requirements - Building Setbacks
Scott Lunsford - 513 North Washington
• The only item was a request to vary bulk and area requirements - building
setbacks submitted by Scott Lunsford for property located at 513 North Washington
and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential.
Scott Lunsford stated that as the letter he submitted explains, the shed which
stood by his house next to the alley was destroyed in the high -wind storm in May.
The building that replaces it is made of the same material and is the same design
and it sets back further than the original building was.
Mr. Boyd asked if the original building was of pole construction with a tin roof.
Mr. Lunsford answered, yes.
In answer to a question from Mr. Becker, Mr. Lunsford noted that the new
structure is just a few feet longer, a few feet wider and a few feet taller than
the original building to facilitate storage. He noted that the original building
was in fairly poor repair when it was destroyed and he believes the new building
is in keeping with the Historic District,
Mr. Lunsford commented that they were told by the staff that they could put the
new building where it is. Shortly afterwards, he left town and assumed that his
brother was getting the building permit and his brother thought he was getting
it. Construction was started while he was out of town and a stop work order was
placed on the building when he came back. At that time, he came to get the
permit and was told that he was in violation of the setback requirements from
the platted alley. The older building was setting right on the alley and the
new one is set back a few feet so they feel that the new one is in a better
• location and is better looking than the old building. Unfortunately, the new
building is about 80% complete and if this is denied, they will have to suffer
• Board of Adjustment
December 18, 1989
Page 2
the consequences. He thanked the staff for their help and understanding.
Vice -Chairman Tompkins stated that Mrs. Stanberry, an adjoining property owner,
who could not be here today called the staff and stated that she had no problems
with what he is going to do.
Mr. Becker asked what the distance was between the shed and the main structure.
Gary Lunsford, Scott's brother, stated that there was 31' from corner to corner
not including the overhang. In answer to a question from Mr. Becker, the
Inspections Superintendent, Freeman Wood, stated that they can be as close as
8' in some cases.
Vice -Chairman Tompkins noted that
Anne
Thomas of
521 N. Washington and Carolyn
Newbern, adjoining
property owner,
sent
letters
of opposition to the staff.
Mr. Becker asked what the aesthetic controls are of the Washington Historic
District and if there is any relationship between their controls and the Planning
Office. Mr. Merrell advised that the Arkansas state law on historic preservation
does appear to give the power to the city to come up with a means for its local
Historic District Commission to review things like proposed exterior
architectural changes to a structure within the historic district, proposed
• demolition of a structure within the historic district or new construction within
the historic district. There appears to be language in the Arkansas state law
that allows a city to do that if they so choose. For what ever reason,
Fayetteville historically has not chosen to do that. The Historic District
Commission has had a couple of discussions earlier this year on the desirability
of doing that. He added that he had submitted a copy of an ordinance from the
city in Virginia that he came from that established the procedures to do this
to the Historic District Commission and had asked them to have a look at it and
get back with him.
Mr. Merrell further stated that the staff has recommended to the Historic
District that they not exercise that power yet. The reason being, if they are
going to adopt regulations to start enforcing that provision in the state law,
it should be done as part of the new development regulations for the City that
Al Raby is doing.
He added that he wasn't sure what their reaction will be, but he has also
discussed it with the City Attorney.
Mr. Davis asked if this building is to be stained or dyed. Mr. Lunsford noted
that the original building was cedar and unpainted, but he would prefer a gray -
colored stain and would like to put a rock apron around the base. Gary Lunsford
stated that it is cedar so it would silver naturally after a couple of years.
Mr. Davis noted that the original building was not as tall and on a different
grade so it looks very large. The new one looks like it is up on stilts.
isMr.
Becker
stated
that
stilts
are
not unfamiliar
to that neighborhood. There
are
stilts
on the
back
of some
of
those houses.
1�o
Board of Adjustment
December 18, 1989
Page 3
Mr. Lunsford commented that he has tried to make this building aesthetically
pleasing to the neighborhood. He stated that he would welcome some kind of
authority by the Historic District as to how improvements are made in the
district. He advised that he has been before the Historic Commission to talk
with them about his building and they led him to believe that they didn't know
what to do or what to recommend. He invited every member of the Historic
Commission to come by and look at this building, but he hasn't heard back from
them. Gary Lunsford advised that one of the purposes of moving the building
a little bit to the east was to keep people from turning around in the yard.
In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Freeman Wood - Inspections Superintendent
stated that other than the location of the building, there aren't any problems
with the building. They occasionally have pole buildings in town and which are
permitted.
Mr. Merrell made the point that had it not been for a staff error, the staff
would have made a negative recommendation on this. However, as the staff report
states, a former staff member, Becky Schmidt, did give the Lunsfords some
erroneous information and from that they proceeded in good faith. He advised
that the Board is not necessarily bound by his recommendation. The real
question here is the sideyard setback which is deficient by about 5.5'. He
• advised that Becky Schmidt did not get fired over this, she resigned for other
reasons. The staff has a lot of people coming in and calling the Planning
Office and the staff is occasionally going to make a mistake. Sometimes they
feel hurried and this is something that is going to occasionally happen.
Mr. Becker stated that the plat map submitted with the agenda indicates the shed
is right on the alleyway and the neighbor's shed to the north is shown quite a
ways from the alley. However, that is not how it actually is so there is an
error somewhere. Mr. Merrell stated that it visually looks like the shed is
sitting next to the alley, so the plat book map must be in error.
Mrs. Wright commented that it wasn't really fair for the Lunsfords to have to
move their building if the neighbor's didn't have to move their building that
is too close to the alley.
Mr. Boyd stated that he thought there
should be a big sign
in the Planning
Office
stating that all
verbal opinions
are subject to the
final approval
of an
application for a
building permit.
This happens a lot
because people
phrase
their questions in
a way where they hear what they want to
hear and it isn't
fair
to the staff when
they are harassed
and busy.
Vice -Chairman Tompkins advised that there are some concerns voiced by Mrs.
Newbern and by Mrs. Thomas in their letters.
Mrs. Wright asked if there was anyone else contacted on that street. Mr.
• Merrell advised that it was advertised in the newspaper, a sign was posted in
the yard and notices were sent to the adjoining property owners. He added that
there were two people who sent in letters of opposition out of the nine people
notified.
10
• Board of Adjustment
December 18, 1989
Page 4
Vice -Chairman Tompkins noted that the two persons in opposition are quite
concerned with the placement, location, size and the appearance of the structure.
They are raising the question of the architectural harmony of the structure to
the historic district. He asked if there was any one present who wanted to
speak in opposition of this. There being no response, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Boyd noted that he agrees with the objections raised in both letters of
opposition. However, Mr. Lunsford could do exactly what he is doing already
without a variance if he moves the structure four more feet inward.
Mr. Waldren stated
that
since
the
staff
did
make
an
error
and it
could be done
without a variance
just
a few
feet
over,
he
tends
to
be in
favor
of it.
Mr. Becker stated that he is a little concerned about the problem with not
getting a building permit. He stated that the first thing you do is get the
permit and display the permit card so there is no second guessing as to who took
out the permit. He noted that he doesn't see that as a valid part of the
argument. He further stated that regarding the aesthetic concern in the
neighborhood, this is not that easy to find even when you are looking for it so
• he isn't sure that as one letter stated "the entire neighborhood is undermined".
He pointed out that the building existed before the storm and they are just
replacing it.
Mrs. Wright asked if they could put a condition on approval that the structure
would have to be stained to make it more aesthetically pleasing for the
neighbors. Mr. Becker noted that if you look at all of these houses from the
rear, it doesn't look like there is anything much there that is worth preserving.
He added that it will weather on its own and he didn't feel they should put
conditions on it.
Vice -Chairman Tompkins stated that this would be continuing a nonconforming
structure. The intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance is health, safety and
welfare. He added that they presently have a nonconforming policy that states
that the longevity of a nonconforming structure should not be increased. He
noted that he is concerned about the safety of that alley and there is the
possibility of closing it. This is an opportunity to really begin to look at
the idea of neighborhood and the idea of getting back the land form the way it
was. Perhaps an investigation of closing the alley would be quite appropriate
and would make this structure conforming as well as the one on the other
property. As far as the historic district considerations, that is in the future
so it isn't a legitimate argument. He noted that he'would like to call their
attention to the idea of whether or not there is a hardship here and whether or
not there is enough land to be able to meet the setback. A pole barn structure
with no concrete floor can be moved. Will this then contribute to the health,
safety and welfare of the neighborhood.
•
I'
• Board of Adjustment
December 18, 1989
Page 5
MOTION
Boyd moved to grant the variance, seconded by Davis. The motion passed 5-0-0.
Tompkins didn't vote.
Item 1: Resolution by the Staff.
John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that Ray Jones, owner of both
the McDonald's franchises in town, applied for a variance from the sign ordinance
to install an off -premises free-standing sign in the vicinity of the Bypass &
62 W. This appeal was turned down by the Board of Sign Appeals. Discussion then
took place regarding the program that the Arkansas Highway Department has with
its information and logo signs at interchanges. It seemed to be the consensus
at that time that the Board of Sign Appeals all agreed that these signs might
be a good idea for Fayetteville. He stated that what has happened in the interim
time is that Mr. Jones did write a letter to Bobby Hopper who is one of the
highway commissioners. He received a very curt response saying that because
the 71 Bypass is not part of the interstate highway system, the Highway
• Department could not support this. Mr. Merrell advised that he has met with Ray
Jones a couple of times since then and has come up with a resolution expressing
his perception of where they stand on this issue. He recommended that the Board
of Sign Appeals consider this resolution. Then if they are in agreement with
it, they can take action just by a simple vote. He noted that he plans to bring
this to the attention of the City Planning Commission and the City Board of
Directors and place it on their agendas so that when all is said and done, the
City, itself, can officially approach the Highway Department in support of this.
Mrs. Wright moved to approve the resolution, seconded by Becker. The motion
passed 5-1-0 with Becker, Wright, Boyd, Waldren & Davis voting "yes" and Tompkins
voting "no".
Mr. Tompkins stated that he is a little concerned about this idea although it
sounds good. There are other ways into the City besides the 71 Bypass and this
resolution needs to be greater in scope. They are dealing with city appearance
and this would be the first thrust into the concept of urban design. It should
be considered in terms of all of the city's major Master Street Plan functions
including highways, expressways, major streets, etc., instead of just one.
Mr. Becker stated that he thinks this would be a foot in the door. This would
be just a start of a signage policy.
Mr. Waldren stated that, in his opinion, they have a special case with the Bypass
• because it is the only limited access thoroughfare that Fayetteville has.
0
• Board of Adjustment
December 18, 1989
Page 6
Freeman Wood stated that the Bypass does meet interstate requirements even though
it is not designated as an interstate highway.
Mr. Boyd stated that they should avoid a little ambiguity by being more specific
in the resolution and narrowing it down to the type of signs that are currently
being used on the interstates.
Mr.
Merrell noted
that he is
proposing
to put
this
resolution
on the agenda for
the
City Planning
Commission
at their
January
8th
meeting.
Item II: Administrative Comment,
Mr. Boyd stated that he feels that there should be a sign posted in the Planning
Office or somehow it should be advertised that oral opinions are not to be relied
upon which would help get rid of the problems like they had today with Mr.
Lunsford's variance.
Mr. Merrell advised that the Planning Office is pretty hectic at times with a
lot of people in there and the phones ringing and the staff does a good job in
making as few mistakes as they do. Becky Schmidt, who was the former Planning
isClerk, gave some erroneous information to Mr. Lunsford. The staff will consider
any suggestions that this Board has and will bring this up at the next staff
meeting and ask for some input on this.
Item III: Real Estate Signs,
Mr. Davis advised that there are some real estate signs in his neighborhood that
are right up next to the street and there doesn't seem to be any of the city
staff doing anything about it. Freeman Wood advised that they are doing
something about it. The staff writes a letter which is usually ignored and then
it is turned over to the prosecutor's office and that is as far as it gets. They
have so many cases in court that they don't get around to these minor details.
The staff has done all they can.
Mr. Merrell noted that several of these did go to court and to trial and the City
lost. Mr. Wood advised that the judge had stated that they had to have proof
that the real estate person put the sign up too close to the street instead of
someone else moving it there which is impossible without seeing them do it.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
•
I10