HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-10-21 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, October 21,
1991, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gerald Boyd, Don Mills, Robert Davis, Larry Tompkins, and
Marion Orton
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Becker and Lonnie Meadows
OTHERS PRESENT: Freeman Wood, Becky Bryant and Sharon Langley
Mr. Larry Tompkins called the meeting to order. He explained it was the function
of the Board to apply the discretion of citizen experts to the exceptional
instances where interpretation of strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance
would cause undue physical development hardship to the individual property and
to grant such minimum variances only when it was demonstrated that such action
would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance.
AGENDA
Ms. Mills moved to approve the agenda.
Ms. Orton seconded the motion.
The Board proceeded with the agenda as distributed.
APPEAL NO. BA91-16 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS
LESLIE GOODMAN - NE CORNER OF LIGHTON TRIAL & OKLAHOMA
Ms. Bryant explained Mr. Goodman was requesting a variance along Lighton Trail
of five feet from the 25 feet setback requirement. She stated the subject tract
of land had been split off from a larger tract of land, leaving a residual of
one-quarter acre. She explained Mr. Goodman proposed to site the house 13 feet
from the north property line in order to preserve an Ash tree, leaving him five
feet short of the required 25 foot setback on the south side of the lot.
Ms. Bryant stated that, in looking at the statutory requirements, she had found
special circumstances did apply because the property was sloped, Mr. Goodman had
to give 9.2 feet of right-of-way along Lighton Trail, and they desired to save
the tree. She further stated she believed the main issue was the tree and the
Board needed to evaluate whether it was a special circumstance. She recommended
that, should the variance be granted to save the tree, it be contingent upon Mr.
Goodman taking certain steps to preserve the tree.
In response to a question from Ms. Orton, Ms. Bryant stated it was debatable
whether the five feet would be enough to save the tree. She explained she had
spoken with the City Horticulturist regarding the tree and had found that Ash
trees were more resilient than other varieties. Ms. Bryant stated Ms. Erwin had
believed that despite the loss of 25% of the root system, the tree stood a better
than average chance to survive. She stated they could make it a condition that,
should the tree die, Mr. Goodman had to replace it with something of a reasonable
size.
In response to a question from Mr. Tompkins regarding the nine -foot right-of-way,
Mr. Goodman explained the city had asked for the dedication only from him and the
adjoining property owner. He further explained there were no plans by the city
to widen Lighton Trail.
Mr. Tompkins asked if ultimately Lighton Trail would be a cul-de-sac.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
October 21, 1991
Page 2
Ms. Bryant stated that at some time in the future, the street would be improved
to some degree.
Mr. Tompkins stated there was a lot of post oak, mimosa, etc. on the subject lot.
Ms. Bryant agreed. She stated the City Horticulturist had pointed out the great
variety of trees and shrubs on the property.
Mr. Goodman stated there was only the one Ash tree. He explained that, in
constructing the house, he was also trying to work around a sandstone ledge
running diagonally across the lot, through the middle of the proposed house. He
stated that, because of the drastic slope and rock ledge, should he move the
house east, the driveway would be so steep as to be dangerous. He further stated
that to shift the house to the west would spoil the view. He explained the house
would enhance the natural view.
Mr. Goodman stated he had submitted a letter to the Planning Department from all
of the neighbors expressing their approval of his plans. He explained the Ash
tree was the only barrier between the proposed house and an adjoining house, that
without the tree, they would be looking right into the bedroom of the adjoining
house.
Mr. Goodman further stated that, because of the location of the rock ledge and
because of the orientation of the tree canopy, he did not think they would lose
25% of the tree roots. He explained the roots do not grow to the south because
of the rock ledge.
Mr. Goodman also pointed out that none of the adjoining properties met the
setbacks because of the topography of the lots.
In response to a question from Ms. Mills, Mr. Goodman assured her none of the
trees would be cut for the driveway. He further explained he did not plan on
cutting any trees that he did not have to cut except a few small trees to the
south to enhance the view.
Mr. Goodman pointed out that in the overall five foot variance requested, four
feet of it would be a walk bridge or deck to the south. He further pointed out
that, because of a dramatic drop between the elevation of the house and the
roadway, the encroachment on the setback would be minimum. He explained that in
a straight line it would be a lot more than 25 feet because they gained land
going up the hill.
In response to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Goodman explained he had
designed the house to the lot. He stated he could fit the house onto the lot
without the variance; however, it would eliminate the natural barrier and
eliminate some of the notable trees on the lot.
Mr. Tompkins asked what would happen if the tree died.
Mr. Goodman explained he would have to plant new trees.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Goodman would be living in the house or if he was building
it for sale.
Mr. Goodman stated he would be selling it.
NOTION
Mr. Boyd moved the variance be granted.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
October 21, 1991
Page 4
their bylaws that, prior to going to Chancery Court, the aggrieved party had the
option to request an arbitration with a mutually agreed upon third party.
Mr. Boyd reminded the Board any action taken by the Board of Sign Appeals
required a majority of the entire Board, not just those present.
Mr. Wood explained he would like the Board's input on a some matters relating to
the Board of Sign Appeals. He stated the term "controlled access highway" needed
to be defined in the ordinance. He further stated they needed to determine where
to place the large signs when there was a service road and a controlled access
highway - on the far side of the service road or in between the highway and the
service road. He stated the last item he would like to discuss was the size of
sign to be placed on the service road. He explained the ordinance set the size
of 200 square feet but members had expressed opinions that 200 square feet was
too large.
Mr. Boyd stated he believed 200 square feet was too large. He expressed concern
that there would be a "wall" of signs along the service roads.
Mr. Tompkins pointed out the highway department had the definition of a
controlled access highway defined. He asked why their definition was not
adequate.
Mr. Wood explained the ordinance set out a controlled access highway asany road
designated by ordinance by the Board of Directors. He further explained the
Board of Directors had not designated any area as a controlled access highway.
In response to a question from Ms. Mills, Mr. Wood explained he was asking for
their input regarding which roads should be designated as controlled access
highways. He stated he believed that, when the Board of Directors approved the
sign ordinance, they intended the bypass to be a controlled access highway. He
stated the choices were to accept the State Highway's definition and include it
in the ordinance or have the Board of Directors designate the controlled access
highways, if any, by ordinance.
Ms. Bryant pointed out that the property between the highway and the "service
road" between Milsap and Joyce was privately owned property. She explained that,
for a controlled access highway, the property between the highway and the service
road was usually owned by the state.
Ms. Orton stated she believed they should recommend to the Board of Directors
that the bypass be designated as controlled access.
Mr. Boyd pointed out that, should the
owners/tenants were allowed to put up
if they did not declare it controlled
feet.
area be designated controlled access, the
200 square feet signs. He explained that,
access, the signs could only be 75 square
Ms. Mills suggested recommending to the Board of Directors to designate whatever
roadways they wanted to reflect their opinion of the sign ordinance.
Mr. Tompkins stated he would like to see a transportation plan for the entire
city rather than piecemeal.
Ms. Bryant pointed out the Board studied the issues on the signs much closer than
the Board of Directors and, therefore, should be able to make a good
recommendation to the Board of Directors.
Mr. Boyd stated his recommendation would be to eliminate all access controlled
highways and the 200 -square foot signs.
Board of Adjustments
October 21, 1991
Page 3
Ms. Orton seconded the motion. She asked if the motion included the precautions
recommended by the staff.
Mr. Boyd stated he did not include the precautions since he believed that, if Mr.
Goodman was going to this much trouble to get the variance to save the tree, Mr.
Goodman would take care of the tree.
AMENDED MOTION
Ms. Orton amended the motion to include requiring Mr. Goodman to take the
precautions recommended by staff.
Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
The amendment to the motion passed 4-1-0 with Me. Mills, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Davis, and
Ms. Orton voting "aye" and Mr. Tompkins voting "no".
The motion passed 4-1-0 with Ms. Mills, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Davis, and Ms. Orton voting
"aye" and Mr. Tompkins voting "no".
MINUTES
Ms. Mills moved to accept the minutes
of October 7, 1991 and the minutes of
Adjustment and Board of Directors of
Mr. Davis seconded the motion.
The motion passed 5-0-0.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
of the regular Board of Adjustment meeting
the Special Joint Meeting of the Board of
October 7, 1991 as distributed.
Mr. Boyd stated he had been working on the bylaws of the Board of Sign Appeals
and wanted some clarification. He explained that, if they used the Board of
Adjustment bylaws as a draft, all references to the officers and number of
meetings missed could be eliminated. He further explained that in the Board of
Adjustment there was a provision that no application could be entertained unless
the property owner was present. He stated that did not apply to sign appeals
because often the sign was not the product of the owner of the property but the
tenant.
Mr. Wood stated he believed a representative of the owner would be adequate.
Mr. Boyd stated in the bylaws it sets the Board of Sign Appeals as an Appellate
Board but also goes into a provision that an appeal stays all proceedings unless
the Board granted a restraining order. He pointed out they did not have the
authority to issue a restraining order.
In response to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Boyd agreed they had the
authority to swear in witnesses but could do nothing should the witness lie.
Mr. Wood explained that, when the sign appeals powers were transferred from the
Board of Directors to the Board of Sign Appeals, someone failed to change the
bylaws in certain areas to reflect the change in boards.
There was discussion regarding methods of appealing the decisions made by the
Planning Commission, the Board of Adjustment and the Board of Sign Appeals.
Ms. Bryant stated that state law often requires appeals to go to the Chancery
Court. She explained that the Historic District Commission had put a step in
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
October 21, 1991
Page 4
their bylaws that, prior to going to Chancery Court, the aggrieved party had the
option to request an arbitration with a mutually agreed upon third party.
Mr. Boyd reminded the Board any action taken by the Board of Sign Appeals
required a majority of the entire Board, not just those present.
Mr. Wood explained he would like the Board's input on a some matters relating to
the Board of Sign Appeals. He stated the term "controlled access highway" needed
to be defined in the ordinance. He further stated they needed to determine where
to place the large signs when there was a service road and a controlled access
highway - on the far side of the service road or in between the highway and the
service road. He stated the last item he would like to discuss was the size of
sign to be placed on the service road. He explained the ordinance set the size
of 200 square feet but members had expressed opinions that 200 square feet was
too large.
Mr. Boyd stated he believed 200 square feet was too large. He expressed concern
that there would be a "wall" of signs along the service roads.
Mr. Tompkins pointed out the highway department had the definition of a
controlled access highway defined. He asked why their definition was not
adequate.
Mr. Wood explained the ordinance set out a controlled access highway asany road
designated by ordinance by the Board of Directors. He further explained the
Board of Directors had not designated any area as a controlled access highway.
In response to a question from Ms. Mills, Mr. Wood explained he was asking for
their input regarding which roads should be designated as controlled access
highways. He stated he believed that, when the Board of Directors approved the
sign ordinance, they intended the bypass to be a controlled access highway. He
stated the choices were to accept the State Highway's definition and include it
in the ordinance or have the Board of Directors designate the controlled access
highways, if any, by ordinance.
Ms. Bryant pointed out that the property between the highway and the "service
road" between Milsap and Joyce was privately owned property. She explained that,
for a controlled access highway, the property between the highway and the service
road was usually owned by the state.
Ms. Orton stated she believed they should recommend to the Board of Directors
that the bypass be designated as controlled access.
Mr. Boyd pointed out that, should the
owners/tenants were allowed to put up
if they did not declare it controlled
feet.
area be designated controlled access, the
200 square feet signs. He explained that,
access, the signs could only be 75 square
Ms. Mills suggested recommending to the Board of Directors to designate whatever
roadways they wanted to reflect their opinion of the sign ordinance.
Mr. Tompkins stated he would like to see a transportation plan for the entire
city rather than piecemeal.
Ms. Bryant pointed out the Board studied the issues on the signs much closer than
the Board of Directors and, therefore, should be able to make a good
recommendation to the Board of Directors.
Mr. Boyd stated his recommendation would be to eliminate all access controlled
highways and the 200 -square foot signs.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
October 21, 1991
Page 5
Ms. Bryant suggested combining the monument signs in R -O districts with the
recommendation on controlled access highways.
Mr. Davis stated he would rather take each item separately.
After discussion it was agreed the Board did not want 200 -square foot signs
except upon appeal to the Board of Sign Appeals.
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Tompkins reminded the Board he had attended the Board of Directors meeting
when they discussed the Shewmaker settlement offer. He stated the Board of
Directors had settled the case with the payment by Shewmaker of $200.00.
He stated he believed there should be a member of the Board of Adjustment at each
Board of Directors' agenda meeting in order to answer any questions the Board
members might have.
The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.