Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-10-05 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, October 5, 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, Larry Perkins and Thad Hanna MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: PROTOCOL Lonnie Meadows Alett Little, Sharon Langley, Patti Erwin, Mohsen Ehodabandeh, Howard Sanders, Larry Palmer, and others Ms. Don Mills called the meeting to order. She explained the format of the meeting. DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED TREE ORDINANCE Ms. Patti Erwin, City Horticulturist, explained the Landscape Beautification Committee had drafted the proposed tree ordinance. She stated the proposed ordinance had been presented to the Planning Commission and had received unanimous approval. She explained there was a section under "Tree Protection" that would affect the Board of Adjustment. She then read the pertinent section, as follows: "...Notwithstanding any provision of the Zoning Code to the contrary, saving of a rare or specimen tree or a tree shown to be significant to the site, shall constitute sufficient evidence that Section 160.174 of the Zoning Code has been met in any variance application..." She explained the Committee wanted to provide leeway so a developer could adjust a building or a street in order to save a rare or specimen tree. Mr. Boyd stated he believed the Board had granted such variances in the past without any official authority. In response to a question from Me. Mills, a significant tree, she would look at the and then present the information to this Ms. Erwin stated that, in determining tree for its health, the species, etc. Board. Mr. Boyd stated the ordinance read the Board had to give the variance if the tree(s) met the criteria set forth. He expressed concern that the variance had to be given. Ms. Orton expressed concern that, should the Board grant a variance to save a tree, the property owner would then pour concrete next to the tree, killing it. She stated an area had to be preserved around the tree that would be beneficial to the tree. Ms. Erwin answered requirements. Ms. Mills asked if Fayetteville. further questions by the Board regarding canopies and canopy this ordinance would apply to all lots within the City of Ms. Erwin stated it did. Ms. Little explained many of the concerns would be addressed for new development when the subdivision came through plat review, subdivision committee and planning commission review process. She pointed out they could make lot line adjustments at that time if they were necessary to preserve a tree. She expressed her belief the only time a tree variance request would come before the Board of Adjustment was when someone wanted to change a current structure. • • • Board of Adjustments October 5, 1992 Page 2 Mr. Boyd recommended they change the wording to "may" rather than "shall". MB. Mills agreed with Mr. Boyd. Me. Erwin explained the term "significant tree" had been included in order to protect someone who had a healthy tree which shaded a portion of their house, or a relative planted the tree and it was significant to the property owner, then it would be a significant tree. Ms. Mills and Mr. Boyd agreed those case scenarios would not come under their criteria as significant. Ms. Erwin pointed out that often when developing a lot it was better to not save the largest tree but some of the smaller ones because they would have a better chance of adjusting. She pointed out those trees would be significant trees but not rare or landmark trees. Ms. Mills explained the variance because there was was presenting his appeal, there, it was significant Board's concern was that often people asked for a a tree. She further explained that when the applicant it made no difference what type of tree, or how it got to the applicant. Me. Orton stated she was sure the Board was sympathetic to the ordinance but was concerned that, after a variance was granted, the tree would be cut down or killed. It was agreed the wording would be changed from "shall" to "may". APPEAL NO. BA92-22 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS MOHSEN KHODABANDEH - 1376 HENDRIK The next item to be heard was a request for a setback variance on property located at 1376 Hendrix presented by Moshen Khodabandeh. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Ms. Little explained the request was for a setback of one foot (a variance of 19 feet). She further explained the reason the setback was 20 feet in this case was that the lot was a tandem lot. She advised a tandem lot was one on which there was not 70 feet of required frontage. She noted a tandem lot required a 20 -foot setback on all sides. Ms. Little further advised the Board a 15' x 18' storage building had been started and was presently sitting on top of the property line and extended onto the neighbor's property. She explained the applicant was requesting to remove the three feet of the building which encroached onto the neighbor's property together with an additional foot, requiring a 19 foot variance. She further explained there had been a number of problems with the subject building: it had been started without a building permit and had received a stop work order. Ms. Little recommended the Board grant a 15 foot variance, leaving a five foot setback. Mr. Khodabandeh explained the building was almost complete. He advised the Board the person that started the construction had passed away. He pointed out the building was not close to any other building and would not cause any problems to anyone after he removed that portion that encroached onto the neighbor's property. Ms. Mills asked how much of the building was completed when the stop work order was issued. �7b • • • Board of Adjustments October 5, 1992 Page 3 Mr. Khodabandeh stated it was almost complete. In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Khodabandeh explained the building was sitting on concrete blocks. He further stated it would be difficult to move because it was not on skids. Mr. Boyd pointed out house movers moved full houses. Mr. Khodabandeh stated he would have to set another foundation if he moved the building and it would cost a great deal for a storage building. Mr. Davis explained they would only have to jack up the building, put rollers under it and then place the cinder block at the new location. He further stated he couldn't imagine a building that large for storage of gardening equipment. Mr. Khodabandeh explained his house was only 800 square feet and they needed extra space to store items they were not using. Ms. Mills asked if the applicant had inquired as to the cost of moving the building. Mr. Khodabandeh stated he had not but was sure it would cost more than $500. Ms. Orton expressed concern as to whether the building would be used as storage or additional living space. The applicant assured her it would be used for storage. Ms. Orton further pointed out that a 25 foot driveway was now required for tandem lots but this tract only had a 15 foot drive. Mr. Hanna asked how difficult it would be to cut off part of the building. Mr. Khodabandeh stated it would not cost him as much to cut off the building as to move the building. Mr. Hanna asked if a piece of the building could be removed without altering the structural integrity of the building. Mr. Khodabandeh explained he planned on constructing a wall on the inside first and then cut off the exterior. Mr. Herb Southern, 1540 Stevens, explained the building encroached upon his mother's property. He stated the cosmetic aspects of the building were only one of their problems with the building. He explained they had a survey showing an encroachment of four feet in one place, three and a half feet in another plus another foot for the eaves of the building. Mr. Southern stated no other storage buildings in the area were adjacent to the property line. He presented pictures of other storage buildings in the area showing they were not on the property lines. Mr. Southern stated it would be fairly easy to move the storage building. He explained the building would be acceptable if it were moved back and cosmetically compatible with other structures in the area. Ms. Southern, 1540 Stevens, explained that, when Mr. Khodabandeh first started removal of the trees on her property, she had informed him he was clearing her property. She further noted the stakes designating her property had been removed, requiring her to have another survey to prove Mr. Khodabandeh was constructing the storage building on her property. She presented a survey to the 11? • • • Board of Adjustments October 5, 1992 Page 4 Board showing the structure encroaching onto her property. She stated the building was big and ugly and ruined her back yard. She further pointed out she could not get clear title to her property with the structure encroaching on it. In response to a recollection the they had stopped Mr. Davis stated 15 plus feet. Mr. Boyd stated the problem could be cured even though it might cost a couple of hundred dollars. He further stated he wished they could amend the request to take care of the 10 foot setback on the house and the 15 foot driveway in order to legally clean up the title. Mr. Hanna pointed out that, while Mr. Khodabandeh was concerned the building would look unsightly if it were moved closer to his house, it currently was unsightly for the adjoining property owners. He further stated that Mr. Khodabandeh had said it would be expensive to move the building but Ms. Southern had spent approximately $500 just to prove where her property line was located. Me. Orton agreed that the applicant needed to move the building. Mr. Boyd suggested giving a variance on the house and driveway in order to clean up the title. MOTION question from Mr. Hanna, Ms. Southern stated to the best of her construction started a year ago last spring. She further stated for a while but had apparently completed the building recently. he did not think it would be complicated to move the structure Mr. Boyd moved to deny the variance requested for the storage building but grant a variance to reduce the setback on the house to 10 feet from the east property line and to allow a 15 foot driveway in lieu of the 25 feet required by the code. Ms. Mr. Mr. The Orton asked if the 10 foot would be for the existing house only. Boyd stated it would. Hanna seconded the motion. motion carried unanimously. APPEAL NO. BA92-22 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS HOWARD SANDERS - 2109 ALPINE AVENUE The next item was an appeal for a variance from setback requirements submitted by Al Harris on behalf of Howard Sanders for property located at 2109 Alpine Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Me. Little explained a 25 -foot setback was required on the subject property. She advised that, at the time of construction, the builder had been aware of the building setback requirements and in siting the house, he measured from the front corner pin back 25 feet. She explained that unfortunately, when he pulled the tape, he pulled it at an angle. She stated the resulting 90 degree measurement was 24 feet, 3 inches, resulting in a variance request of 9 inches. Mr. Sanders stated he had constructed all of the houses in the subject subdivision and had been in the business 20 years. He explained he tried to be careful of the setbacks however, he had made an error on this house. NOTION • • • Board of Adjustments October 5, 1992 Page 5 Mr. Hanna stated he believed it was an honest mistake and moved to grant the variance as requested. Ms. Orton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. APPEAL FOR VARIANCE FROM SIGN ORDINANCE - SA92-l1 BABE RUTH BASEBALL LEAGUE - CURTIS AVENUE The next item was an appeal for a variance from the sign ordinance submitted by Jim Hawkins for the Babe Ruth Baseball League for property located on Curtis Avenue. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Me. Little explained the Inspection Division had received a request to allow the placement of signs around the baseball fields located at Walker Park and Legion Park fields. She explained she had been reluctant to allow such advertising to be placed without coming before the Board of Sign Appeals to ascertain the requirements and intent of the sign ordinance. Me. Little stated she was not opposed to this type of signage but there were several conditions she believed would be appropriate. She recommended someone should be in charge of the aesthetics of the signs if they were allowed (the Board of Sign Appeals, the Park Board or the Planning Administrator). She pointed out there were ballparks in other cities with this type of signage and the signs had not been maintained and had become unsightly. She stated she did not want to see that happen in Fayetteville. She suggested limiting the signs to only one or two years, explaining a time limit would allow the fund raisers an opportunity to resell the space and would cause the removal of the sign prior to being weathered by the elements. She further recommended the advertising should be faced in with the backs being all the same color. She further pointed out the selling of advertisement in this area was a way for citizens to become involved in raising funds for youth activities. She stated it would be considered off-site advertising. Mr. Davis stated he would like to know more about how the signs would be put up. Larry Perkins stated he had worked with the Babe Ruth Baseball Program and would exclude himself from this item. Ms. Orton expressed her belief there was something in the zoning code prohibiting advertising in city parks and on public property. She stated this would open up the issue and asked if they would have advertising around the tennis courts, the swimming pool, etc. Ma. Little stated Section 158.37 was the only code she could think of which would address this issue. Mr. Boyd stated he could see logic two ways -- that Section 158.37 stated no sign could be erected on public property. He further stated that the original definition of sign was "every device...intended to be used to attract attention or convey information when the same is placed out of doors in view of the general public". He expressed his belief that, if the signs were facing in, the signs would not be facing the general public. Ms. Orton stated she believed the people attending the ball game were the general public as opposed to a private club such as Summerhill, etc. Mr. Hanna stated he believed a baseball park had a captive audience -- they were 119 •- Board of Adjustments October 5, 1992 Page 6 there to watch a baseball game. Larry Palmer, a member of the Parks Board, stated the chairmen of the Babe Ruth League and the Bambino Leagues were unavailable to attend the meeting so he would be representing them. He pointed out almost all communities had this type of advertising at their sports fields. He explained it was the primary fund raiser for those operations and generated a lot of revenue. He stated this was a very targeted use -- they were not after the general public but only those participating in the baseball programs. Mr. Palmer explained each park had a governing board who would give assurances for upkeep, tasteful appearance and high quality construction. Mr. Davis pointed out other people would come along and paint on the exterior of the signs. He asked who would be responsible for the exterior. Mr. Palmer stated during the appropriate season there were day to day operations on site. He assured the Board they would be the "watch dog". Mr. Davis asked how the 4 -foot by 8 -foot pieces of plywood would be individually supported. Mr. Palmer explained they would be attached to the outfield chain link fences secured by heavy gauge wire. In response to a question from Mr. Hanna, Mr. Palmer further explained there were no scoreboards because, due to the expense, advertisers purchased the scoreboards. He stated that had been deemed to be inappropriate advertising at some point in the past. He stated he had been assured by 4 or 5 major vendors that they would participate in purchasing a scoreboard if they could have their logo on it. Ms. Little stated she believed the request was reasonable but was not sure of the intent of the sign ordinance in this area. She further suggested approving the request but restricting it to the two fields with the funds going to sponsor youth baseball. Mr. Palmer pointed out that baseball fields were unique in that they were the only complexes which would lend themselves to this type of advertising. Mr. Hanna would not sports. Mr. Davis wanted to expressed his belief that any entity placing a sign at a baseball field be doing it to generate revenue but to show their support for athletic stated the advertiser could give their fee to the complex if they support the program. Mr. Palmer stated it was better to have something to give in return for the money. Mr. Hanna agreed with Mr. Palmer. Ms. Mills asked the approximate cost of the sign, the life of the sign, and the materials used in the sign. Mr. Palmer stated they had not researched those questions. He gave as an example the ballpark at Mountain Home as a ballpark that had advertising. He stated he had heard figures from $250 per year to $450 per year per sign. He expressed his belief the agreement should be for more than one year. He further stated he believed the signs would be on 3/4 -inch plywood in order to be sturdy. He ) 30 • Board of Adjustments October 5, 1992 Page 7 explained the area directly behind the pitcher would have to have a consistent, dark background so as not to impair the batter's vision. He stated he believed a painted sign would last three years. Mr. Palmer agreed the leagues would be responsible for any vandalism to the exterior side of the signs. Ms. Mills asked who would be in charge of the signs. She asked if the Parks Board would take charge. Ms. Little stated they would need to take the matter to the Parks Board. She stated Mr. Palmer, as a member of the Parks Board, could present it to them. Mr. Palmer suggested the baseball groups (both Babe Ruth and the Bambino Leagues) present a set of guidelines for the sign advertising to the Parke Board. He guaranteed they would work very hard to meet those standards and, if the Parks Board received complaints, the leagues would bear that responsibility. Ms. Mills asked if both leagues played at the same park. Mr. Palmer explained 12 years old and under (the Bambino League) played at Walker Park and the Babe Ruth League played at the Babe Ruth Park (Industrial Park). Ms. Mills explained that normally on sign appeals, the applicant would present a description of the proposed sign. She stated she would like Mr. Palmer to find out if the Parks Board would administer the program and then get information as to what the signs would look like. Mr. Davie stated they could not add or subtract to an established ordinance. He explained they would have to go through the procedure and make a revision to the ordinance. Mr. Hanna expressed his belief that, if the Board of Directors of the Babe Ruth program were willing to accept responsibility and be answerable to the Planning Administrator, they should be able to sell the advertising. Mr. Boyd suggested that if, it were done in accordance with the criteria, they could deem it not to be prohibited by the sign ordinance. He explained they could then hold the programs to the set criteria. There was discussion regarding who should administer the signage at the ballparks. Ms. Little stated, if they wished to grant a variance, it would be from Section 158.037 to specifically permit advertising signs at baseball fields provided the advertising faced inward. Ms. Mills asked if Mr. Palmer thought there would be any problems with signage at the Walker Park baseball field. Mr. Palmer stated he did not believe there would be any problem. He explained the land ran from high ground on the east to low ground on the west. He pointed out there would not be a direct line of sight fromany of the surrounding residences. Mr. Davis stated he did not believe they could twist the ordinance. In response to a question from Ms. Mills, Mr. Palmer explained the money would be used for operations, equipment, uniforms, insurance, etc. Board of Adjustments October 5, 1992 Page 8 Mr. Perkins advised the Board of the need for equipment and uniforms. MB. Orton stated she believed the Board need something definite from the Parks Board on how the program would be administered. MOTION Mr. Davis moved to table this item until they received more information from the Parks Board. Ms. Orton seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-2-1 with Mr. Davis, Mr. Boyd, and Ms. Orton voting "yes"; Me. Mille and Mr. Hanna voting "no" and Mr. Perkins abstaining. There was further discussion regarding administering the signage, what type of advertising would be displayed, the number of signs, etc. MINUTES The minutes of the September 28, 1992 meeting were accepted as distributed. OTHER BUSINESS: Changes to Sign Ordinance Ms. Little presented some suggested changes to the sign ordinance prepared by Richard Wilson, Sign Inspector. She asked the Board review the suggested changes and take them up at the next meeting. After discussion, Ms. Little recommended the formation of a sign committee from members of the Board of Sign Appeals to address the changes to the sign ordinance. The meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m. 172-