HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-07-19 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, July 19,
1993, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gerald Boyd, Lonnie Meadows, Thad Hanna, and Marion Orton
MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Perkins and Bob Blackston
OTHERS PRESENT: Tim Conklin, Freeman Wood, Sharon Langley,
PROTOCOL
Mr. Gerald Boyd called the meeting to order. He explained the format of the
meeting.
REQUEST FOR REHEARING OF APPEAL NO. BA93-10
WILLIAM & BARBARA SPRINGER - 2844 E SETTER ST.
The first item to be heard was a request for a rehearing of Appeal No. BA 93-10
for a variance from the bulk and area regulations (building setbacks) presented
by William and Barbara Springer for property located at 2844 E. Setter Street.
The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential.
Mr. Conklin explained the original request, denied by the Board on February 16,
1993, had been to allow a 20 -foot setback (five foot variance) from the front
property line. He advised the request had been revised and the applicants were
now asking for a 21.5 setback (3.5 foot variance).
He recommended a rehearing of the variance request since there had been a change
in the amount of setback variance requested. He also noted that allowing a
rehearing would provide a means for the applicants to resolve the setback
violation either through the courts or by having a variance granted by the Board.
He explained currently the only option available to the applicants was removal
of that portion of the house which was within the setbacks.
Mr. Conklin further advised that, at this meeting, the Board could only grant the
rehearing request but could not make a decision on the variance.
Me. Springer explained that, by the time she had decided to appeal their first
decision, the appeal time had expired. She noted they had received an offer for
the house but, when the prospective buyer discovered the setback problem, he
withdrew his offer.
Mr. Springer pointed out the same error occurred multiple times on the street
because the pins were off the actual property line. He advised the expense of
changing the house was much larger than the problem warranted.
Mr. Boyd advised that was not material to the hearing. He explained the Board
was concerned about what was different between the first request and the current
request.
Mr. Meadows asked why the original request was for a five foot variance but now
the applicant was asking for only a three and a half foot variance.
Ms. Springer stated when the problem was originally discovered she measured 3 1/2
feet but the city staff had advised her to be sure she had enough of a variance
because the Board would not grant an additional variance. She advised she had
decided to ask for five feet to insure she had adequate room but she really
needed only 3 1/2 feet.
17)
Board of Adjustments
July 19, 1993
Page 2
Mr. Hanna stated it was his understanding they
to give the applicants an option.
Me. Orton stated the Board had made a ruling
Mr. Springer pointed out the previous vote had
to deny.
MOTION
Ms. Orton moved to
Mr. Hanna seconded
The motion carried
rehear the application.
the motion.
unanimously.
had to rehear the request in order
at the last meeting.
been a 2 to 2 tie vote on a motion
17&
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
July 19, 1993
Page 3
APPEAL NO. SA93-10 - VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE
LOWE'S - 1050 E. ZION ROAD
The next item was Appeal No. SA93-10, a request for a variance from the sign
ordinance presented by Harry Gray on behalf of Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. for
property located at 1050 E. Zion Road. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial.
Mr. Conklin informed the Board the applicant had requested a 127 square foot free
standing sign to be located 80 feet from the property line. He advised the
applicant had stated they needed the larger sign due to the distance and size of
the structure from Highway 71B. He also noted the applicant had contended that
reducing the proposed sign from 127 square feet to 75 square feet in order to
meet the sign ordinance requirements would greatly reduce the recognition of.
Lowe's from Highway 713. He reminded the Board the sign ordinance permitted free
standing signs to have a maximum area of 75 square feet for signs placed 40 feet
back from the property line.
He recommended denial of the sign variance request explaining the site was
elevated above Highway 71 and had good visibility. He advised there were no
extraordinary circumstances on the site which would significantly eliminate the
view of the sign from Highway 71B or Zion Road.
Mr. Harry Gray explained there were some conditions which justified a variance
on the subject tract. He pointed out the site was elevated but the building was
set back quite a distance. He stated the south bound traffic on 71B would not
be able to see the store. He also stated they wanted to save the trees but those
trees would block the view. He noted the sign ordinance was based on typical
city streets but this was a major intersection of the highway with a very wide
right-of-way. He advised he did not believe this type of intersection had been
considered when the sign ordinance was adopted.
Mr. Hanna asked the distance of the west property line from the highway.
Mr. Gray stated he did not have the dimensions of the property. He advised that
from the median of the highway the right-of-way would be 170 feet. He stated the
building was back approximately 500 feet, or 670 feet from the median.
There was discussion regarding whether the highway was as a controlled access
highway at the subject site. Mr. Jerry Rose, City Attorney, advised it was not
a controlled access at the subject area. He explained control access ended
immediately north of Millsap and 713. 0
Mr. Boyd stated this same issue arose a few weeks earlier with the Wal-Mart
request.
Mr. Hanna stated he believed there were some differences because he believed the
lay of the land did create a hardship in this request. He also noted the
building was 600 feet from the highway.
Me. Orton recalled other requests when the applicants had wanted their signs to
be seen from the highway when the business faced another street.
Mr. Gray pointed out they were looking at a 20 -acre tract with only one sign.
Mr. Hanna noted this building would be on the corner of Highway 71 and Zion Road.
Me. Orton pointed out the entrance was from Zion Road.
'��
Board of Adjustments
July 19, 1993
Page 4 .
Mr. Hanna stated he was sure, if it had been possible, there would have been an
entrance on Highway 71 but that was not feasible due to the bluff.
Mr. Gray agreed that, if it had been feasible, there would have been an access
onto Highway 71.
In response to a question from Ms. Orton, Mr. Gray advised the sign would be on
the corner of the intersection.
Mr. Boyd recommended moving the sign closer to the road and making it a smaller
sign. He noted they would have to waive the 40 foot setback.
Mr. Gray stated he did not believe the request was out of line due to the terrain
and size of the site. He expressed his belief the intent of the sign ordinance
was to keep the land from being cluttered with signs. He pointed out this tract
had 1,200 feet of frontage. He stated he believed one large sign would be better
than a bunch of small signs.
MOTION
Mr. Hanna moved to approve the request.
Mr. Meadows seconded the motion.
The motion carried 3-1-0 with Mr. Hanna, Mr. Meadows, and Mr. Boyd voting "yes"•
and Me. Orton voting "no".
MINUTES
The minutes of the June 21, 1993 meeting were approved as distributed.
The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
/8 o