Loading...
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