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-