Loading...
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