HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-02-19 MinutesA meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday February
19, 1990, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Dennis Becker, Larry Tompkins, Robert Davis
Robert Waldren and Dee Wright
MEMBERS ABSENT: Gerald Boyd OTHERS PRESENT: Becky Bryant and Elaine Cattaneo , aQ YAOt4-ot r�voL4:4
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting on February �4, 1990 were approved as
distributed.
APPEAL NO. BA90-3 - VARIANCE FROM BUILDING SETBACKS
LESLIE GOODMAN - N OF LIGHTON TRAIL & S OF TEXAS WAY
The second item on the agenda was Appeal No. BA90-3 for a Variance from the
Building Setbacks submitted by Leslie Goodman for property located on the north
isside of Lighton Trail, the south side of Texas Way and east of Oklahoma Way (Lots
31 thru 36 of Western Methodist Assembly Grounds) and.. zoned .Rcl, Low Density
Residential. Application is to vary building setback on the -north side of the
property from the required 25' to 15' for a deficiency of 10''
Leslie Goodman stated that he feels that if he was granted a variance on this
lot, it wouldn't be establishing a precedent on any other lot in the area. They
have two problems which have both been determined by the City and that puts undue
hardship on this property. The first item and the greatest hindrance in the
development of this lot, is the fact that a city sewer main which was never
granted an easement runs across this property and cuts the lot in half. If the
proposed construction is allowed to continue, it will require movement of this
sewer line which has already been verified by the City. Also, because of the
nature of this lot (a triangle), both sides are required to be considered the
front of the lot. Because of this, there is a 25' setback requirement which
coupled with the bisection of the lot by the sewer line makes this rather large
lot almost totally useless. He noted that what they would like to do is ask
for a variance on the 25' setback from the north line to enable them more room
to put a house there. The other element of the City's decisions that causes
encroachment on this lot is the orientation of the right-of-way easement that
they have taken for Texas Way. It is dramatically offset to the side that this
property is on from the actual roadway. At the time that street right-of-way
was taken by the City, 3' was taken off the property to the north and 18' was
taken off of this property. If current conditions are maintained, they would
have to come from the roadway (Texas Way) the full 18' plus 25' for a total of
43' away from the physical street and it would crowd the house closer to the
• sewer line so that even by moving the sewer line, they still wouldn't have enough
room to put the house that they would like to build. They are asking for a 10'
variance on the 25' setback requirement which would still leave the nearest point
1g2
• Board of Adjustment
February 19, 1990
Page 2
of the structure 33' away from roadway. He advised that he had spot checked some
of the other structures in this area and none of them are any farther away than
this. He commented that these factors are really unique to this lot. It is
a big, nice lot but because of the sewer line and the fact that it is a triangle
and the askew orientation of the right-of-way easement relative to the actual
roadway, an undue hindrance is put on the development of this lot.
Chairman
Mills advised
that the Planning
Commission has granted a
lot split here
and all
this Board is
looking at is the
setback variance.
In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Goodman stated that the survey
doesn't show that there is a developed barbecue and patio area which had
something to do with how the property was split. Mr. Tompkins stated that the
ratio of the size of the proposed house to the size of the lot looks out of
proportion. Mr. Goodman stated that this lot is approximately 13,000 square feet
and the approximate square footage of the house will be 2,300 square feet.
Mr. Goodman stated that he had contacted all the neighbors of this property and
he has a copy of a letter from one of them stating that they approve of this
development and having no problems with a setback variance.
• The public hearing was closed.
Becky Bryant, Associate Planner, advised that the sta£f's recommendation is to
approve the variance and they did receive letters from two different neighbors
who said that they had no problem with this request. She noted that this is
one of the few situations where a request for a setback variance actually appears
to meet all the conditions required.
Mr. Tompkins stated that he agrees with the staff's recommendations. However,
he would like to comment that over the years, he has heard of letters backing
support for a variance. He stated that neighborhoods change and people change
over time so he doesn't use the neighborhood support as a criteria. He advised
that no one in this neighborhood now has a problem with it, but if everyone in
the neighborhood moves what happens to the resale value, etc.
In answer to a question from Don Mills, Ms. Bryant stated that if this variance
is granted, they will still have to meet all the other bulk and area requirements
as far as percentage of lot they can build on.
is(i100)11
Ms. Wright moved to grant the variance as requested, seconded by Waldren. The
motion passed 5-0-0.
DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSED 2010 UNIFIED DEVELORUNT
VERSIONDATED is :+nu
Becky Bryant, Associate Planner, stated that the staff would like to have the
• Board of Adjustment
February 19, 1990
Page 3
Board of Adjustment's comments about this proposed ordinance which will be
transcribed into one master copy. She noted that where there is conflict on it,
they will get a general consensus.
Mr. Tompkins stated that as he went through the sign ordinance and board of
adjustment aspects of the plan, it states that they are dealing with all aspects
of this. He noted that he has a problem with the purpose. Page 3, 1.3 states
that this ordinance will "be maintained, administered and enforced in order to
implement the goals and policies of the 1989 Fayetteville General Plan..." .
He advised that he looked at the General Plan and it is extremely difficult to
find the "goals and policies". He further stated that he had a hard time
interpreting the physical land use plan xerox copy. He added that he was also
concerned about the emphasis put on the maintenance and growth of the University
of Arkansas.
In answer to a question from Ms. Bryant, Mr. Tompkins stated that he isn't
suggesting that the phrase to do with the "goals and policies" be deleted because
he likes the idea, but he doesn't know what they are. He commented that it is
a nice tie because the development ordinance implements the plan.
Chairman Mills noted that they see a profile, but not a focus.
• Mr. Davis stated that their purposes are already established and the purpose
shouldn't be in there at all because it has no meaning.' Mr. Becker stated that
he thinks it has meaning, but he doesn't agree with the meaning. It is saying
that there is a definite commitment of maintenance to the University. He asked
what the City has to do with the maintenance of the University. Signs on the
University can't be controled.
There was a consensus that the clause "to provide for the maintenance and growth
of the University of Arkansas" should be deleted and the purpose should be
redefined.
Mr. Tompkins stated under 1.4, Page 3, it states that "this ordinance applies
to all lands within the approved planning area of the City of Fayetteville".
His concern is that this may conflict with the State Zoning Enabling Legislation.
They haven't had jurisdiction in the past in the planning area and this is
implying that they will have now. He asked for clarification on the conflict
of territorial jurisdiction.
The consensus was that the entire definitions section, pages 7- 22, needs to be
revised. He noted that there are definitions of such things as "retail liquor
store and gas station", but not of any of the other items listed in the zoning.
Their approach on the definitions is very hit and miss with far too much detail
on irrelevant terms and not enough of some of the more important things. Mr.
Becker noted that perhaps some of the items in the definitions could be
referenced to the Engineering or Street Department.
• Mr. Tompkins noted that "hardship" isn't defined. Ms. Wright stated that she
didn't like the way "variance" was defined. She noted that she felt they should
1,4
• Board of Adjustment
February 19, 1990
Page 4
just leave out "a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in
unnecessary and undue hardship" because that is up to the Board of Adjustment
to determine. They should tell what a variance is and not get into the "why"
of it. Mr. Tompkins stated that is in the Enabling Legislature so he thinks it
should be in there. The general consensus was that the "variance" definition
needs to be worded better.
Chairman Mills stated that in Article 3, 3-12, on page 52 it states that
"Application for a sign permit shall be made upon blanks....." and she
feels that "blanks" should be changed to "forms". Also, Mr. Becker noted that
on this page they refer to "ink drawings" and no one uses those anymore. It
should be changed to just "drawings".
Chairman Mills noted that on page 53, it states that the "Board of Directors
shall constitute a Board of Sign Appeals". Ms. Bryant stated that it should
read "Board of Adjustment". Mr. Tompkins stated that as it reads now, all this
Board would do is to make recommendations to the Board of Directors on variances
and the Board would make the decision. Chairman Mills stated that as this is
written, the Board of Adjustment can hear a variance for a sign appeal and then
the appeal from the Board of Adjustment on the sign is to the City Directors.
Chairman Mills noted that as the current ordinance is written, applicants can
appeal their decision
to the Board
of Directors
on signs, but the only recourse
on Board of Adjustment
•
appeals is
to a Court of
Law. , The consensus was that
the ordinance be left
the way it
is currently.
Chairman Mills noted that the
section which explains
the appeal
from the Board
of Adjustment has been omitted
in this new ordinance.
Mr. Becker stated there is a whole different section on "Board of Adjustment"
so why not one for "Board of Sign Appeals". Chairman Mills stated that they
each need to be in separate sections with the procedures included in that
section. Mr. Tompkins agreed and noted that the way this is written, Article
3 has the procedures for everything. He added that the Board of Adjustment is
in a separate section because of the State Enabling Legislation.
Mr. Davis noted that on page 54, (3)(a), there should be an addition referring
to "compatibility with the surrounding area". Chairman Mills stated that there
isn't anything in the Code mentioning appearance. Mr. Tompkins agreed that he
would like to see "appearance" or "aesthetics" added into the purpose to be
considered as an important part of the decision making process.
Mr. Davis noted that on page 58 in (1)(b), the statement "without prior referral
to the Planning Commission" can be read in a very broad sense. They should be
able to have some input. Mr. Tompkins stated that they need to check the
Enabling Legislation to see how it conflicts.
Mr. Davis noted that on page 59, 1-14 (B), the statement "the permit shall issue
if all other requirements are met" is very awkward. It is a grammatical error.
• Chairman Mills noted that there are two pages 59. She stated that at the top
of page 69, there is an I-1 and an I-2, but it isn't shown on page 59. It is
1L6
• Board of Adjustment
February 19, 1990
Page 5
shown as L-1 and G-1. Ms. Bryant advised that there has been a lot of comment
on whether or not there should be this many zoning districts. She asked for
their opinion on it. Chairman Mills noted that there isn't an R-0 zoning.
The general consensus was that they stay with the current zoning districts and
possibly add one for historical districts, for a mobile home park district and
zero lot line development. There consensus was that with this many residential
districts, it encourages a separation in regard to income groups.
Chairman Mills noted that Article 4, 4-5(A)(3) (Parking) sets the requirement
for one parking space "per dormitory sleeping room" and one of the sorority
houses that she knows of doesn't have all the occupants in sleeping rooms so
maybe that should be per occupant.
Mr. Becker noted that they need a system that recognizes the parking requirements
in regard to the number of customers. It would give some leeway so that the
number of required spaces wouldn't be so big that there would be so much unused
parking especially with the concern about landscaping in parking lots and
irrigation to the landscaping.
Mr. Becker noted that under the handicapped parking requirements, it says to
refer to the Building Code. He stated that there could be a page included that
isto
the handicapped parking requirements so that the Building Code won't have
to be referenced every time that comes up. He suggested that the 9' x 19'
standard parking space size be enlarged to a 10' wide --requirement so that cars
doors are not banged.
Chairman Mills noted that there needs to be clarification in Article IV, Section
4-7 (8)(e) (Conditions). It states that "No person may be employed other than
a member of the immediate family residing on the premises." She noted that
a member of the family not living on the premises may be helping with the home
occupation. Ms. Wright noted that she agrees that is too restrictive, because
it doesn't even allow for a part-time secretary to come in. Mr. Tompkins noted
that they need to clarify the intent.
Chairman Mills noted that in Article IV, Section 4-9 (D)(2) it states that a
garage can't be converted into an accessory housing for elderly. She stated
that the conversion of a garage is the ideal thing for an elderly relative.
Mr. Tompkins commented that it would then be considered two units on a single-
family lot. Ms. Bryant stated that they are probably concerned about this space
being rented out to a student after the elderly person dies. Chairman Mills
noted that this could be listed as a conditional use because a garage is such
a practical way to provide a space for an elderly relative. The consensus was
that this be included in the conditional use section rather than as an accessory
use.
At this point, the meeting was adjourned with discussion at the next regular
meeting picking up again at Section 4-8.
•
1� 9