HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-04-20 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, April 20,
1992, 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, Marion Orton, Lonnie
Meadows, Larry Perkins and Thad Hanna
OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Sharon Langley, Daryl Rantis, Andy Gibson, Larry
Wheaton, and others
PROTOCOL
Ms. Don Mills called the meeting to order. She explained the format of the
meeting.
INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBERS
Ms. Mills then introduced and welcomed the two new Board of Adjustment members -
Larry Perkins and Thad Hanna.
APPEAL NO. BA92-10 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIRffiNTS
DARYL RANTIS - NE CORNER OF ROCK & SCHOOL
The first item to be heard was a request for a setback variance on property
located at the northeast corner of Rock and School presented by Daryl Rantis.
The property is zoned R -O, Residential -Office.
Mr. Rantis explained that, if he met current setback regulations, the building
pad would only be five feet in width. He stated he was asking for the variance
in order to construct a duplex on the subject property. He further explained
that, due to the width of the property, it had less value and he would be able
to pass that savings over to the buyer, allowing affordable housing.
Ms. Mills explained this request had first been for rezoning and had gone to the
Planning Commission. She further explained the Planning Commission had requested
the applicant present his request to the Board of Adjustment for their ideas.
Ms. Little explained the property was a corner lot located in an older,
essentially fully developed, portion of the city. She further explained the lot
had an unusual size - approximately 50 foot by 163 feet. She stated that, under
the current zoning regulations, the lot could support development of a three
family dwelling. She also explained that due to the setback regulations in R -O
zoning, the building pad would only be 5' by 117'.
Ms. Little explained Mr. Rantis had worked with the City Block Grant program with
the particular idea that he would like to develop affordable housing in the area.
She stated the subject property had been a homesite in the 1950's. She explained
Mr. Rantis had applied to the Planning Commission for a rezoning to C-3 in order
to get relief from some of the setback requirements. She stated that, even if
the rezoning had been granted, Mr. Rantis would have still had to come before the
Board of Adjustment for additional setback variances. She further stated Mr.
Rantis did have a model showing what he proposed to construct on the site.
Ms. Little stated the variances being requested by Mr. Rantis were not set
because they wanted to hear from the Board of Adjustment. She cautioned that any
setback variances which might be granted would need to be contingent upon the
development plans submitted by Mr. Rantis since he was not the current owner of
the property.
In response to a question from Ms. Mills, Mr. Rantis stated the property owner
concurred with the request. He explained the out-of-state owner desired to sell
the property.
3'1
Board of Adjustments
April 20, 1992
Page 2
Ms. Little pointed out the surrounding zoning of the area, which included C-1,
C-2 and R -O. She explained the property was surrounded by residential use except
to the west which was the City Hospital Annex. She also pointed out the location
of an apartment complex in the area. She noted the area residents were for the
most part long-term residents.
She explained the Planning Commission did support development of affordable
housing and wanted to see what variances would be granted before they took any
action. She further explained that it would not be necessary for Mr. Rantis to
go back to the Planning Commission if all of the variances were granted by the
Board of Adjustment. She stated the reason Mr. Rantis had requested rezoning
before the Planning Commission was that by rezoning the property it would grant
some setback relief.
In response to a question from Ms. Orton, Ms. Little explained that, as long as
the two houses were connected in some way, they would be considered a duplex.
Mr. Michael Thurman, a resident of the subject neighborhood, stated he was
speaking for himself and also Ms. Maryetta Carroll, an adjacent property owner.
He explained they were opposed to any variances. He stated the lot was not wide
enough. He further stated Ms. Carroll was the adjacent neighbor directly to the
north. He pointed out her house only sat seven feet from the property line and
it would be an invasion of her privacy to have another structure only seven feet
from her house. He explained Mr. Rantis had tried to get the property rezoned
so he could build the structures five feet from the property line.
Mr. Thurman stated the plan was to construct two buildings. He explained he did
not know how Mr. Rantis could sell the two buildings - whether it would have one
owner and that person would lease the second building or if there were two
separate buyers. He further stated that any money Mr. Rantis intended to save
the buyers by buying a cheap lot would immediately be swallowed and passed on to
future buyers. He noted the units would be quasi -affordable at $40,000 to
$50,000 apiece so it would be a $100,000 real estate transaction on an unsuitable
lot. He also pointed out that at the northeast corner of the same block ground
had been broken for a five-plex. He expressed concern at the density of the area
should Mr. Rantis construct a duplex. He once again noted his opposition to the
granting of the variances in order to save a developer money.
Ms. Little informed the Board they had a letter in opposition to the granting of
the variances from Ms. Carroll in their agenda packets.
Mr. Rantis showed the Board a model of the proposed project.
to construct 8 feet from the back of the property, 12 feet
feet from Rock Street and standard setback on the west side.
houses would be connected by a breezeway.
In response to a question from Mr. Davis, Ms. Mills explained that, according to
the city code, the connection by the breezeway made the houses a duplex.
Mr. Rantis pointed out he would be 15 feet from the adjoining property to the
north. He also noted he had designed the mass of the building to be considerate
to the daylight needs of the property owner to the north.
There was discussion regarding the amount of land area to the east. It was
agreed that a variance was not required to the east.
He noted he wanted
from the front, 30
He pointed out the
There was also discussion regarding the parking area and access on to the street.
25
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
April 20, 1992
Page 3
Mr. Rantis answered questions regarding his model. He agreed that the plan was
fixed to the model. He stated he would sign a Bill of Assurance should the Board
so desire.
In response to a question from Ms. Mills, Ms. Little stated the lot could be
split at a future date if the owner so desired.
Ms. Orton asked about the installation of a sidewalk.
Mr. Rantis stated he would be putting a sidewalk in as part of his costs. He
pointed out the area where the sidewalk would be placed.
Mr. Thurman protested the possibility of the lot being split.
Ms. Mille explained the Board was still deliberating what was available to Mr.
Rantis and to the neighborhood.
Mr. Thurman pointed out the lot had not been built on since the 1950's because
it was undersized but now it was being considered to split the lot in half and
sold as two separate units.
Ms. Mills stated they were looking at the property as one single unit. She asked
if the lot would be split equally.
Mr. Rantis stated it would not be exactly equal.
In response to a question from Mr. Davis, Mr. Rantis stated the length of the
trellis connecting the two units was 16 feet from eave to eave.
Ms. Orton expressed her belief that the concept of a duplex as presented by Mr.
Rantis had a lot of problems. She explained she could not imagine any type of
privacy with the placement of the patio. She further stated she realized that
should not be a concern (of the Board of Adjustment).
In response to a question, Mr. Rantis stated there was a door on the west side
of the east unit because he had envisioned the scenario that one person might own
both houses, living in one and their parent living in the other. He explained
he was not targeting a "three-bedroom" family but alternative purchasers.
Mr. Davis asked if the definition of duplex should be corrected. He explained
he had never seen a structure, connected by a trellis, considered as a duplex.
Ms. Little pointed out the Adams Street Townhouses had been developed similarly.
She noted Mr. Rantis could have applied for zero lot line but he desired some
separation. She expressed her opinion that Mr. Rantis' concept was preferable
to zero lot lines.
In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Little explained that, in order to do
a lot split (which would enable Mr. Rantis to sell the houses separately), he
would have to go back before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Boyd noted that, if the property could not be split, it might be developed
as an actual duplex.
Ms. Little stated that could happen only if he made another request. She
explained that any variances they might grant at this meeting should be subject
to exactly what they understood the conditions to be.
Me. Mills asked if Mr. Rantis would be able to redesign the structures should he
not receive the variances.
36;
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
April 20, 1992
Page 4
Mr. Rantis stated he could redesign the buildings. He explained he had not
really been in favor of the rezoning to C-3 since he was constructing residential
property. He further explained he would prefer to have the property remain R -O
but with R -O zoning the building pad was too small to build anything.
Mr. Boyd noted it was the north -south variances they were concerned about; there
was a great deal of room on the east and west. He pointed out the lot was
unbuildable unless they granted a north -south variance.
Ms. Little pointed out it was a corner lot and would have two front setbacks and
two side setbacks.
Mr. Boyd stated there was ample room on the west side of the lot to meet the
variance. He asked where the property line was in respect to the curb.
Mr. Rantis stated it was approximately 6 feet from the curb.
Mr. Thurman pointed out there was more privacy space between the two proposed
buildings than there was between the proposed building and the adjoining property
to the north.
Ms. Orton asked if there were any possibilities that they could grant a lesser
variance than the one proposed.
Ms. Mills stated that would not be a problem.
In response to a question from Mr. Meadows, Ms. Mills explained there was not a
definite requested amount of footage for the variances.
Ms. Little stated the required setbacks would be 30 feet from Rock Street, 30
feet from School Street, and 15 feet from both the north and east sides of the
property.
Ms. Mills stated she would like to have the developer request a specific amount
for the variance rather than asking for whatever they would give.
Mr. Hanna stated that on the plan they had received it showed the existing
building area and was asking for an 8 foot setback rather than a 15 foot setback
on the north and on the south from a 30 foot setback to a 12 foot setback.
Mr. Davis stated he did not believe they could vote on something that they did
not have specifically in the request such as the house plan as it would sit on
the lot.
Ms. Mills noted there was a house plan on another attachment. She explained they
would have to take the house plan and put it on the attachment showing the
building lot with the setbacks.
Mr. Hanna stated Mr. Rantis could have constructed a typical duplex with a common
wall but it would not have the aesthetic visual effects from the street.
Mr. Boyd stated that, as far as the next door neighbor was concerned, the most
restrictive distance for a side setback in an R-1 zone, was 8 feet. He explained
that in older areas it could go down to 5 feet. He further explained that was
usually used when someone wanted to put in a carport or garage. He stated he did
not believe the adjoining property owner had too much reason to object to the
setbacks.
Mr. Boyd also pointed out that on School Street, with R -O zoning, if there was
parking between the building and the street, there was supposed to be a setback
"51
Board of Adjustments
April 20, 1992
Page 5
of 50 feet. He expressed his opinion that could be eliminated since the property
would not be used for office purposes. He stated that, if they were going to
allow Mr. Rantis to build anything on the lot, the setbacks would have to be 12
feet on the south and 8 feet on the north.
Mr. Boyd stated that area was slowly changing to commercial and multi -family
dwellings.
Ms. Mills stated she had wondered if they would be doing a lesser problem if they
had sent it back to Planning to be zoned commercial rather than give the
variances.
Ms. Orton pointed out Mr. Rantis would
was rezoned. She stated she believed
property R-0 since this was more of a
still need variances even if the property
it would be more appropriate to keep the
residential area.
Mr. Hanna stated the objections had been to commercial zoning because there was
no assurance that they wouldn't build a liquor store or car wash, etc. He
expressed his belief that the developer was only trying to make a not a very good
lot into a usable lot.
MOTION
Mr. Boyd moved to grant a variance to allow a 30 foot setback (including parking)
on the west side (School Street), a 25 foot setback on the east side, an 8 foot
setback on the north side and a 12 foot setback on the south (Rock Street).
Ms. Orton stated those would be the setbacks and whatever the differences were
would be the variances.
Mr. Boyd agreed. He stated it would be a variance to allow those setbacks.
Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.
Ms. Orton stated she hoped Mr. Rantis would not come in at a later time because
the setbacks granted were not followed. She explained the Board had real
difficulty when someone asked for a variance, it was allowed, and then the
building was not constructed with those variances.
The motion passed 6-0-1 with Ms. Orton, Mr. Hanna, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Perkins, Ms.
Mills, and Mr. Boyd voting "yes" and Mr. Davis abstaining.
The Board of Adjustment was recessed.
The Board of Adjustment reconvened at 5:00 p.m.
MINUTES
Ms. Mills asked if there were any corrections or additions to the minutes of the
regular Board of Adjustment Minutes of March 16, 1992.
Ms. Orton stated on page three, in the middle of the page "She explained there
had been an error on Mr. Becker's term, he had served one part of an unfilled
term." She explained that it should have read plus one full term.
Ms. Little stated they also needed to add a two year term.
Ms. Mills explained Mr. Becker's first appointment was to fill an unfilled term.
33
•
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
April 20, 1992
Page 6
Ms. Little stated after completing a four year unfilled term, he served a two
year term and then a five year term. She explained that he had served a total
of 11 years. She further explained that he had been appointed for a total of
three times for over 10 years.
Ms. Mills stated the Minutes of the Board of Adjustment meeting were accepted as
corrected.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Mr. Boyd stated they had received the final draft of Bylaws of the Board of Sign
Appeals.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Boyd stated he wanted to discuss the Walmart request. He explained they
needed to decide if they were going to accept jurisdiction to save them
advertising expense if they decided to not hear the request. He stated Walmart
apparently was asking for the exact same thing they had asked for in December.
He explained their Bylaws set out an applicant could not ask for a rehearing
unless there was a change in facts.
Ms. Little read Article X of the Bylaws: "A rehearing shall be for the sole
purpose of calling attention to a factual error, omission or oversight. A
request for a rehearing must be in writing and must state the basis for
requesting a rehearing."
Ms. Mills stated she had spoken with Jerry Rose, City Attorney, who told her the
Bylaws would stand up if this was an adopted procedure.
Mr. Boyd stated he had not found any mention of rehearings in the City Code.
Ms. Mills explained to the new members the action of the Board at the previous
hearing on Walmart's request. She stated she believed that the reason Walmart
was resubmitting the request was because they had failed to appeal the Board's
decision within the specified time limit. She further explained she believed the
managers of Walmart had directed their staff to resubmit the request so if the
variances were once again denied, that would allow Walmart adequate time to
appeal of the Board of Directors. She suggested that, prior to hearing the
request, the Board should take a vote as to whether or not they wanted to rehear
the request.
Ms. Little stated Walmart would need to submit in writing the request and inform
the Board their reasons for believing there should be a rehearing.
Mr. Boyd stated Walmart would not be aware of the Bylaws. He suggested the
Bylaws should be drawn to their attention.
Mr. Perkins asked for clarification of the 20% rule on wall signs.
Ms Little stated that the wall sign could either be 150 square feet or 20%,
whichever was greater.
Mr. Perkins then asked about a grocery store which had signs from wall to wall.
He stated that was a proliferation of signs and, as he read the intent of the
law, it was to avoid such a proliferation.
Ms. Little stated the sign inspector considered the entire area of signage,
including the wall space between the signs, as one sign.
31
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
April 20, 1992
Page 7
Ms. Orton explained they always tried to be consistent in their decisions.
Mr. Perkins stated that was why he was taking pictures to try to be consistent
with what had been done.
Election of Chairperson
Ms. Mills stated Larry Tompkins had been the Chair of the Board of Adjustment and
his term of office had expired. She explained they needed to elect a new
chairperson. She further explained she had served as chair for this meeting only
because she was the senior member of the Board. She stated she had wanted to
elect Gerald Boyd.
Mr. Boyd stated he had declined. He explained this would be only to fill out the
term which expired at the end of June. He stated the chairmanship ran from July
1 to June 30. He stated Ms. Mills had been chairman before and did not mind
doing it.
MOTION
Mr. Perkins moved to appoint Don Mills as Chair of the Board of Adjustment and
Board of Sign Appeals to complete the unexpired term.
Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Mills suggested that whenever the new members had any questions, they could
either ask staff or other members.
Ms. Orton stated they had previously discussed eliminating off-site signs. She
asked how that request would be presented to the Board of Directors.
Ms. Little stated they would need to present the revised code to the Planning
Commission to pass on to the Board of Directors.
Mr. Boyd stated he would like to have someone analyze the wall signs.
Ms. Little stated there were numerous items in the sign code that she believed
should be discussed. She suggested they have a thorough re -work of the sign
ordinance to present rather than presenting it piecemeal to the Planning
Commission.
There was discussion regarding forming a group to work on the amending of the
sign ordinance.
The meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
•
'-lo