HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-08-02 Minutes•
•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, August 2,
1993, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Perkins, Gerald Boyd, Lonnie Meadows, Thad Hanna, Bob
Blackston, Craig Rivaldo and Marion Orton (arrived late)
OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Barbara Springer, William Springer,
Barry Herzog, and Sharon Langley,
PROTOCOL
Mr. Larry Perkins called the meeting to order. He explained the format of the
meeting.
APPEAL NO. BA93-10 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS
WILLIAM & BARBARA SPRINGER - 2844 E SETTER ST.
The first item to be heard was a request for a variance of area and bulk
requirements (building setbacks) on Appeal No. BA 93-10 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 Board of Adjustment had granted a rehearing request on
this case on July 19, 1993. He advised that, since the rehearing request, the
applicant had provided staff with a professional survey of the property which
indicated the house was actually 18.9 feet from the front property line. He
pointed out this additional encroachment into the setback required a greater
variance than what was originally requested on February 16, 1993, and
substantially exceeded what the Board of Adjustment agreed to rehear on July 19,
1993.
He recommended the Board of Adjustment approve a motion to rehear the variance
request based on the new information provided in the professional survey (18.9
setback, 6.1 variance). He explained granting the rehearing request would
provide a means for the applicant to resolve the setback violation either through
the courts or by having a variance granted by the Board. He further explained
that currently the only option available to the applicant was to remove that
portion of the house located within the setbacks.
Mr. Conklin further stated that, in regard to the variance request, staff
recommended the variance be denied. He explained the applicant had created the
circumstances that had caused her to request the variance. He further noted
there were no extraordinary circumstances on the site which would cause the
applicant to build the house in the present location. He explained that denying
the variance request would be consistent with past Board of Adjustment actions
on similar setback violations. He advised the Board of Adjustment could decide
on both the rehearing and variance request at this meeting since this item had
been advertised and a sign posted on the property.
Ms. Springer advised the Board the house was 80% complete when they found it was.
in the setback. She stated there were numerous houses in the subject subdivision
with setback problems -- the Board had denied a request for a house adjoining her
property which had been in the framing stage. She stated that applicant had just
cut off a portion of the house but her house was brick and they were unable just
to cut off a portion. She pointed out there was no opposition to her request
from the adjoining property owners.
She further stated that one of the criteria for granting a variance was to not
cause undue hardship. She advised that, unless she received the variance, it
would be an undue hardship because she could not afford to move the house. She
l8,
Board of Adjustments
August 2, 1993
Page 2
told the Board of an offer they received on the house but, once the prospective
purchaser found there were setback problems, he withdrew his offer.
Ms. Springer advised she had not placed the house in the setback with malicious
intent. She further advised that, according to the surveyors, the pine had been
moved.
Mr. Springer informed the Board the survey crew had indicated it had been a
struggle to find the pins and had found the fence of the adjoining property was
constructed 2 feet onto the subject property because someone pulled from the
wrong pins. He advised they had believed they were well past the setback area
when constructing the house.
Mr. Perkins asked if this was the first house in the subdivision.
Ms. Springer advised this was the third house in the subdivision but the first
on this side of the street.
Mr. Springer told the Board the survey crew had stated the pins were not in the
right spot. He stated they had attempted to tell all of the other builders in
the subdivision so they would not make the same mistake.
Me. Little explained the reasons for setbacks and noted there was a 50 foot
right-of-way on Setter Street. She advised the house did not encroach on any
easements nor the right-of-way.
Mr. Springer explained the only visible pine at the time of construction were
apparently the street pine showing the curb line and not the property line. He
advised they had mistaken those pine for property line pine.
Mr. Boyd asked why Mr. & Mrs. Springer had waited 5 months before doing anything
about this case.
Ms. Springer explained the day after her appeal was denied she had attempted to
contact Ms. Little however that was when the development moratorium had been
placed into effect and Ms. Little was extremely busy. She advised she had.
contacted 4 attorneys but 3 were not interested in taking her case and, by the
time the fourth attorney finally agreed, the statute of limitations had run.
She told the Board she then asked staff how to appeal and was told there had to
be a change in the circumstances of her request. She stated she had the property
remeasured and submitted her request. She advised staff then told her she would
have to present a survey and then had discovered she needed a 6.1 foot variance.
She noted she had been working on this matter since February.
Mr. Rivaldo asked if she had constructed any other houses.
Ms. Springer stated this was the third house she had constructed.
Ms. Little advised that, in order for the applicant to have any recourse, the
matter would have to be re -heard.
MOTION
Mr. Hanna moved to rehear the appeal.
Mr. Blackston seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
�2
•
•
Board of Adjustments
August 2, 1993
Page 3
Mr. Boyd expressed his belief the original decision made by the Board was correct
but, if they heard the appeal, the applicant could use the appeal process. He
advised he believed the problem was caused by the applicants themselves.
Mr. Blackston stated the applicants could go to the City Council should the
request be denied.
Me. Little explained they would have to file suit in Circuit Court and then make
an offer of settlement before it could be heard by the City Council.
Mr. Rivaldo asked what time frame they were talking about.
Ms. Little advised it would be possible the City Council could take the matter
up at their August 17 meeting provided the suit was filed and a settlement offer
was made.
Mr. Hanna stated he believed it was an honest mistake on the part of the
applicants. He advised the first time he believed in leniency but not the second
time.
Mr. Rivaldo pointed out they would be setting a precedent for the rest of the
subdivision.
Mr. Blackston stated it appeared there would be a number of houses in the same
predicament.
MOTION
Mr. Boyd moved to deny the request.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Rivaldo stated he believed it was an honest mistake and that the Springers
had learned from the mistake.
Mr. Blackston pointed out they had not gained anything by placing the house at
its present site, that there had been enough room to set it back, indicating it
was an honest mistake.
Mr. Boyd stated the applicant had presented three different measurements -
originally 5 feet, then 3 1/2 feet, and now 6.1 feet. He stated he believed it
was a disregard of the rules and a lack of concern by the builders. He asked
what they would say to the owner of the house adjoining this property that had
cut off part of the house. He stated that person had taken the Board seriously
and had fixed his problem.
Ms. Springer advised that person had been at a stage that he could do something
about the problem.
MOTION
Mr. Hanna moved to approve the request.
Mr. Blackston seconded the motion. He stated he did not disagree with Mr. Boyd
but felt reasonably certain the Council would approve the settlement offer. He
stated they would just be putting people to more expense to reach the same
conclusion and he was trying to expedite the matter.
Mr. Boyd asked if they felt it was the Board's place to grant a variance each
time there was carelessness. He advised that, if the applicants were going to
Board of Adjustments
August 2, 1993
Page 4
have to tear the house down, he might agree to a variance but there was other
recourse.
Mr. Blackston asked what other options they had.
Mr. Boyd stated the applicants could file suit and then make a settlement offer
to the City Council. He advised the ordinance set forth criteria for granting
a variance and making an honest mistake was not criteria.
Mr. Meadows stated they needed to be consistent.
Mr. Boyd pointed out that, when they ignored the criteria, the decision became
political.
Mr. Hanna pointed out the right-of-way was 50 feet which allowed air flow, etc.
He noted right-of-way varied throughout the town and there were many areas with
much less right-of-way.
The motion carried 4-2-0 with Mr. Blackston, Mr. Hanna, Mr. Perkins and Mr.
Rivaldo voting "yes" and Mr. Boyd and Mr. Meadows voting "no".
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
August 2, 1993
Page 5
APPEAL NO. SA93-11 - APPEAL FOR VARIANCE FROM SIGN ORDINANCE
NORTH HILLS MEDICAL PARK
The next item was an appeal for a variance from the sign ordinance presented by
Barry Herzog on behalf of the North Hills Medical Park for directional signs.
The property is zoned R -O, Residential - Office.
Mr. Conklin explained the applicant wanted to have one 12 square foot free
standing directional and identification sign at the entrance of each parking lot,
where Section 158.08 only allowed a maximum of four square feet per sign.
He explained North Hills Medical Park had requested the sign appeal in order to
better identify tenants and their parking within the medical park. He explained
currently parking at the medical park was not identified for particular tenants
and the existing signs on the buildings were not visible from Futrall, North
Hills Boulevard, or Wimberly Road.
Mr. Conklin advised Section 158.08 allowed one four square foot directional and
identification sign to be installed at the entrance of each parking lot. He
stated the applicant had proposed one free standing sign at the entrance of each
parking area for a total of ten signs; each sign would be 12 square feet and five
feet high.
(Me. Orton arrived at meeting)
He stated the applicant had provided a site plan and rendering of the proposed
signs which would be designed to be compatible with the overall architectural
theme of the medical park.
Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the variance request. He noted the signs
would help direct the public to the appropriate parking lots and buildings that
were currently hard to locate.
In response to a question from Mr. Perkins, Ms. Little explained the signs would
not be four square feet per tenant but a total of 12 square feet per sign, no
matter how many tenants.
Mr. Herzog stated they planned on using 3 1/2 inch lettering on the signs. He
explained it was difficult for people to locate the proper parking areas at the
present time. He further noted they would, if necessary, limit McDonald Eye Care
(a one -tenant sign) to 2 feet by 4 feet.
Me. Little asked why they planned to have the signs 5 feet high.
Mr. Herzog stated it was for better visibility.
Ms. Little informed Mr. Herzog they could not place any signs over 30 inches in
height in the visibility triangle. She stated they could have pedestal signs or
the signs could sit at an angle. She advised they could work out the sign
location.
MOTION
Mr. Boyd moved to approve the request.
Mr. Hanna seconded the' motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
/8s
Board of Adjustments
August 2, 1993
Page 6
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals meeting of
1993 were approved as distributed.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Discussion on Sign Ordinance
Mr. Conklin presented the Board with a proposed revised sign ordinance and
reviewed some of the changes.
The Board requested more time to review the ordinance before voting on it.
The Board expressed concern regarding the length of time someone had to take down
a sign after receiving notice.
Me. Little advised the time had been set at 20 days after notification in case
someone was out of town. She advised she would review the matter with the City.
Attorney.
July 19,
Mr. Boyd stated he believed Section 158.49 regarding the display surface of a
wall sign should read "not exceed 150 square feet or 20% of the area of the wall
on which they are located, whichever is lesser", not "whichever is greater". He
stated if someone had a large building they could always come before the Board
for a variance.
Mr. Conklin advised they had discovered, in
numerous gaps in the current ordinance.
proposed ordinance and provide any changes
re -writing the ordinance, there were
He requested the Board review the
they would like.
Both Mr. Boyd and Ms. Orton requested the criteria for granting a sign
be reviewed.
The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
variance
1%7