Loading...
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