HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-03-01 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AND BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, March 1,
1993, 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, Marion Orton, Larry Perkins, Lonnie
Meadows and Thad Hanna
OTHERS PRESENT: Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, Glenn Sowder and Dale Clark
PROTOCOL
Ms. Don Mills called the meeting to order. She explained the format of the
meeting.
APPEAL NO. BA93-12 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS
GLENN SOMBER - N OF ADAMS ST., W OF GREGG AVE.
The first item to be heard was a request for a setback variance of 15 feet on
property located on the north side of Adams Street, west of Gregg Avenue (part
of Adams Street Townhouses, Phase II), presented by Glenn Sowder. The property
is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential.
Mr. Conklin explained the entire tract of land had been approved as a Large Scale
Development by the Planning Commission on July 7, 1992 with the condition that
the units along Adams Street had to be redesigned to reduce the number of curb
cuts. He further explained the applicant had submitted a redesign of the Large
Scale Development which would have each unit access off the private drive instead
of Adams Street. He noted the redesign had caused the applicant to request the
variance.
He explained that, under R-2 zoning, there was a 25 foot setback from the
property line but the applicant was requesting a 10 foot setback along Adams
Street.
Mr. Conklin stated the applicant had made the requested changes to the project
by redesigning the unite along Adams Street to have access from the private
drive. He noted, however, the applicant had added an additional unit and
enlarged the size of the units within the Structures located on Adams Street.
He explained the additional unit and enlargement of the units had caused the
applicant to request the variance for the new placement of the structures.
He recommended approval the request for the variance for the structure furtherest
west. He advised staff was not making a recommendation regarding the structure
to the east but just forwarding the information to the Board. He explained that,
after writing his report to the Board, he had a meeting with Mr. Sowder and Ms.
Little, Planning Director. He advised after reviewing the plans, Ms. Little had
agreed to support the variance for the westernmost structure.
Mr. Boyd asked why the Planning Commission had required the units to be turned
inward since there was no traffic on Adams Street.
Mr. Conklin stated curb cuts on Adams Street had been a concern of the Planning
Commission. He showed the Board plats of the original design and plats of the
proposed design. He pointed out that originally Mr. Sowder had requested 2 "A"
units and 2 "B" unite but was now requesting 3 "A" units and 1 "B" units. He
advised that the "A" units were larger than the "B" units. He pointed to another
area where originally the plan had been 3 "A" units and the revised plan called
for 3 "A" unite and one "B" unit. He noted the revised plan did provide more
space for parking.
(2-Z
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
March 1, 1993
Page 2
Mr. Sowder explained the units were 3 -bedroom with the "B" units having a 1 -car
garage and the "A" units having a 2 -car garage.
Mr. Boyd asked if the units were similar to the ones immediately south of the
subject site.
Mr. Sowder stated they were. He explained the demand by people renting such
units was for the larger units.
Ms. Mills asked if a variance would have been required if the design had not been
enlarged.
Mr. Conklin stated the structure to the west would have required a 4 -foot
variance and to the east the petitioner was trying to design around a large tree,
which might have caused a variance.
Mr. Sowder stated he agreed with Mr. Boyd that curb cuts would have not caused
any problem on Adams Street but had acquiesced to the Planning Commission's
request. He pointed out he was losing some of his usable space by putting in the
private drive. He noted reasons for needing the variance included avoiding a
drainage ditch and appearance of the complex. He explained the proposed
placement of units also provided better sight distance for the residents and
allowed him to save an old cedar tree.
In response to a question from Mr. Meadows, Mr. Sowder stated he was asking for
a 15 -foot variance but, when it was staked out, he believed he would be further
back. He noted the survey showed he would be back 15 feet from the property line
which was 4 - 5 feet from the curb.
Ms. Mills asked he would be able to meet the setbacks if he removed an "A" unit
from each of the structures.
Mr. Sowder stated he could but the "B" units with one car garages were not as
popular. He further noted he would still need a four foot variance on the
westernmost unit.
Mr. Perkins asked how difficult it would be to move the entire complex back from
Adams Street and move the units closer to the private drive.
Mr. Sowder explained he would lose the parking spaces and patio units. He
expressed his belief it was already maximum utilization of the land.
Ms. Mills stated she did not mind the four foot variance but, since the appliant
had enlarged the structures and due to the traffic in that area, she would like
to see a greater setback than 10 feet. She pointed out the applicant could go
back to 2 "A" units and 2 "B" units.
In response to a question from Mr. Perkins, Mr. Sowder stated there had
originally been 7 "B" units and there were now 3.
Mr. Boyd verified that the original plan would not have required a variance. He
asked how many units were lost by changing the layout as directed by the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Conklin stated they had not lost any units by changing the layout.
Mr. Boyd stated the applicant had just wanted to put in more "A" units and that
was what caused the request for the variance.
I?,
i
Board of Adjustments
March 1, 1993
Page 3
Mr. Sowder explained the structures would be set back far enough for good
visibility at the street intersections.
Mr. Boyd explained that, if the Planning Commission created a hardship, they
needed to take that into consideration. He further stated that, if they were
being requested to grant a variance in order to put larger units on the property,
it was a request that could be made by almost every developer in town.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Sowder explained the major
difference in the two units was the width of the double car garage. He pointed
out the double car garage provided more off-street parking.
Mr. Hanna asked if the request was for a 10 foot variance or a 15 foot variance.
Mr. Sowder stated he could live with the 10 foot variance (15 foot setback) if
that was all he could get but he would prefer a 15 foot variance.
Me. Orton asked staff the justification for recommending a variance. She stated
she did not understand, by using the listed criteria, how a variance could be
recommended. She expressed her belief the hardship had been created by the
petitioner.
Mr. Conklin stated he had taken the conservative approach in the report which was
forwarded to him. He explained he had met with Mr. Sowder and Ms. Little after
the report had been written and Ms. Little had advised staff could support the
request. He further explained justification for the support included the
increased costs of reorienting the buildings.
Mr. Sowder explained that, because he had not insisted on six curb cuts on Adams
Street and had voluntarily reoriented the buildings on a private drive, Me.
Little had agreed to support the variance request.
There was discussion regarding the number of units originally proposed and the
number of units proposed after the reorientation.
Mr. Hanna pointed out the City, thru the Planning Commission, had requested Mr.
Sowder to reorientate the buildings. He stated that, because of the necessity
of a private drive and due to the depth of the lot, he felt a variance was
justified.
Mr. Boyd stated he was going to change his opinion because he could now see it
was caused by the action of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Perkins stated he saw some space on the plat that, with a little creative
shuffling, the applicant could satisfy both the setbacks and the number of units
he wanted to construct.
Ms. Mills expressed her belief that with as much land available as in this
project, the complex could be redesigned to meet the setbacks.
MOTION
Mr. Boyd moved to grant a 10 foot variance (allowing a 15 foot setback) from the
south property line.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion 4-2-0 passed with Mr. Boyd, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Hanna, and Mr. Perkins
voting "yes" and Ms. Orton and Ms. Mills voting "no".
119
•
Board of Adjustments
March 1, 1993
Page 4
DISCUSSION ON SIGNS IN PUBLIC PARKS
Ms. Mills reminded the Board they had asked Dale Clark, Parks Department, to come
back before the Board with a specific proposal for signage in the city parks.
Mr. Clark stated at the last meeting they had several unanswered questions which
needed to be addressed. He presented the Board with a specific proposal
regarding the proposed signage. He explained the proposed change to the
ordinance would be going to the City Council.
Ms. Mills asked how much distance 20 signs would cover.
Mr. Clark explained the outfield fence was approximately 300 feet from one corner
to the other and 20 signs would measure 160 feet.
Mr. Perkins asked if this proposal was for all of the ball fields.
Mr. Clark stated it was for Walker, Babe Ruth and Lake Fayetteville He noted
at the present time only Walker and Babe Ruth had active groups which would be
selling the signs.
In response to a question from Me. Orton, Mr. Clark explained that, if in the
future some other group wanted to sell advertising on signs in a city park, they
would have to go through the same procedure. He further noted he did expect
other groups to eventually request it.
Me. Orton advised that, by limiting the groups at the present time, they could
find out how well it worked.
Mr. Clark explained all of the advertising would be short term except the
scoreboard.
Mr. Boyd recommended the group apply for a general sign permit once a year at no
fee. He explained it would give the City the ability to regulate the signs.
Mr. Conklin suggested one permit which would authorize the signage plan.
Mr. Boyd agreed and stated it would need to be renewable each year.
Ms. Orton requested that the signs be limited to only the fields at Walker, Babe
Ruth and Lake Fayetteville.
It was determined the
Council the amendment
limitation the signs
Walker, Babe Ruth and
by the Sign Inspector
OTHER BUSINESS:
Board of Sign Appeals unanimously recommended to the City
of the ordinance allowing signs in the City Parks, with the
be located only at the baseball and softball fields of
Lake Fayetteville and with a plan to be reviewed annually
at no fee to the Parks Department.
Mr. Perkins asked when the final inspection on a piece of property was done to
determine where the structure actually set.
Ms. Mills explained the City did not make such an inspection, that it was the
responsibility of the owners and developers.
In response to a question from Mr. Perkins, Mr. Boyd explained the property owner
or developer had to get a survey when applying for a mortgage which showed where
the structure was located on the lot. He advised the seller had to get title
12V
•
Board of Adjustments
March 1, 1993
Page 5
insurance and, if there was an exception on the title insurance, no one would
purchase the mortgage.
The Board discussed various methods of notifying the builders/developers so they
would understand how to determine their property lines.
Ms. Mills also notified staff both Mr. Hanna and Mr. Perkins did not have a
current set of by-laws.
The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
116