HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-08-16 Minutes•
•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AND THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, August 16,
1993, at 3:45 p m in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas
1i.
Members Present: Marion Orton, Gerald Boyd, Craig Rivaldo, Lonnie
Meadows, Bob Blackston, and Thad Hanna
Members Absent: Larry Perkins
Others Present: Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, B. W. Dykes, David Fulfer,
Dub Dunaway, Terry Hunt, Marty Dennis and others
PROTOCOL
Mr. Boyd called the meeting to order in Mr. Perkins absence. He explained the
format of the meeting.
APPEAL NO. BA93-27 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM BULK & AREA
REQUIREMENTS
B. W. DYKES - 2752 PAR COURT
The first item to be heard was a request for a variance of bulk and area requirements
(building setbacks) requested by B. W. Dykes for property located at 2752 Par
Court. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential.
Mr. Conklin explained the request was to allow a 5.5 foot setback (2.5 foot
variance), where Section 160.031(E) required 8 feet from the side property line. He
stated the applicant, by mistake, pulled the lot line string from the wrong pin at the
time the setbacks were determined. He noted the encroachment into the setback had
not been discovered until the house was almost completely finished. He stated the
applicant had believed he had located the house as close to the front property line
as possible outside of all setback and utility easements. He pointed south 38.25
square feet of the house was within the 10 foot utility easement which ran the length
of the property. He also noted a total of 27.5 square feet of the house was within the
required 8 foot setback, leaving less than 1% of the entire structure within the
required setback.
He reminded the Board they had approved similar cases, such as SA93-19 (Kirby
Walker, E. 26th Circle) where only a corner of a structure was within the required
setback.
Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested variance. He noted the angle
of the structure would not allow the applicant to remove that portion of the structure
and maintain the architectural integrity of the house. He also noted the
recommendation was subject to the applicant providing letters from all of the utility
companies indicating no utilities were located within that portion of the utility
easement which the structure encroached. He advised staff had received such
letters from all of the utility companies.
/Sr 81
•
Board of Adjustment/
Board of Sign Appeals
August 16, 1993
Page 2
Mr. Dykes advised the first time the surveyor conducted his survey he had believed
the house had cleared the setback and easement and then found the error on a
second survey. He explained they had tried to place the house on the lot at the best
location.
Mr. David Fulfer advised he was the person that pulled from the wrong pin. He
noted it appeared the pin had been moved.
Mr. Blackston stated this was not the only case they had reviewed with this same
problem. He expressed concern that there were a number of these cases and asked
what could be done to eliminate the errors.
Mr. Fulfer advised he had constructed over 200 houses and this was the first one
that had been in the setbacks.
Mr. Hanna pointed out that in this case the surveyor had even made an error.
In response to a question from Mr. Hanna, Mr. Dykes stated the adjoining property
owner did not object to the variance.
MOTION
• Mr. Rivaldo moved to approve the variance.
Ms. Orton seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
•
• Board of Adjustment/
Board of Sign Appeals
August 16, 1993
Page 3
•
APPEAL NO. BA93-28 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM BULK & AREA
REQUIREMENTS
DUB DUNAWAY - 700 BLOCK CHERRY LANE
The next item was a request for a variance from bulk and area requirements
(minimum lot size in R-1.5) requested by Dub Dunaway for property located on the
east side of Cherry Lane, north of Huntsville Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low
Density Residential (proposed R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential).
Mr. Conklin stated the variance had been requested to allow five lots to be created
with a lot width of 59.6 feet (7.2 inch variance) for each lot, where Section 160.032
required each lot to be 60 feet wide for single family dwellings. He advised the site.
was currently zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and was being petitioned to be
rezoned to R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential. He noted the site currently had an
existing single family home located on the center of the lot. He advised the applicant
would only be able to develop each lot with a single family home because of the
minimum R-1.5 lot width requirements.
Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the variance request subject to the property
being rezoned and approval of the preliminary plat by the Planning Commission. He
noted granting the variance would allow the applicant to create two additional lots
for a total of five lots.
Mr. Rivaldo asked if they could approve this item prior to the plat and rezoning
being approved.
Mr. Conklin advised he had talked with the Assistant City Attorney who had no
problem with the Board of Adjustment approving the request subject to the rezoning
and approval of the plat.
Mr. Blackston stated the city was always looking for affordable housing and he
believed this project would provide that on a small scale.
Ms. Orton pointed out there seemed to be no other way to divide up the property
with the existing house being in the middle.
MOTION
Mr. Blackston moved to approve the variance.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
Ms. Orton asked if the motion was subject to the approval of the rezoning and plat.
Mr. Blackston amended the motion to include Ms. Orton's recommendation.
The motion carried unanimously.
7a
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment/
Board of Sign Appeals
August 16, 1993
Page 4
APPEAL NO. BA93-29 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM BULK & AREA
REQUIREMENTS
TERRY HUNT - 432 N. WASHINGTON
The next item was a request for a variance of bulk and area requirements (building
setbacks) from Terry Hunt for property located at 432 N. Washington. The property
is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential.
Mr. Conklin advised the request was to allow a nonconforming structure to be
enlarged by the addition of a storage area, east of the existing garage, 4 inches from
the property line, where Section 160.138 did not allow a nonconforming structure to
be enlarged or altered to increase its nonconformity.
He advised the Board that in 1991 the applicant had been in the process of building
an addition onto the existing garage which was in nonconformance with the setback
requirements. He stated that on December 3, 1991, a City inspector placed a stop
work order on the project because the applicant did not have a building permit. He
advised the applicant applied for a variance in order to complete the project. He
reminded the Board they had denied the request on January 6, 1992 based on the
evidence that the applicant could not meet the criteria listed in Section 160.174(B)
and that the structure would create a fire safety issue since it was located four
inches from the property line and the adjoining property was of wood frame
construction.
Mr. Conklin noted the applicant had provided letters from the two adjoining
neighbors and the neighbor across the street which stated their support for the
variance to be granted. He further advised the City Fire Department had
recommended if the project was completed, that a two hour separation be provided
and a metal roof be used.
Mr. Conklin stated staff had previously recommended denial of the variance request
because the applicant had created the circumstances that caused him to request the
variance by choosing to build the structure at its location. He pointed out the literal
interpretation of the ordinance would not deprive the applicant rights commonly
enjoyed by other properties in the district. He also pointed out the applicant did
have other alternatives for placement of the storage building.
Mr. Hunt agreed it was a circumstance he had created but stated it was out of
ignorance. He stated he had talked to his neighbor who had no objection. He stated
it was his understanding the reason for setbacks was that it did not deprive the
adjoining property owner of light, air or create a fire hazard. He pointed out this
property was within the historic district. He advised the house was adjacent to an
extensive garden area and to move the structure to any other location would have
meant the removal of trees. He pointed out the structure was 95% complete. He
stated he had talked to the Fire Department to get the structure fire rated.
He went on to say there was an existing wall and wrought iron metal gate at one end
of the yard and a doorway at the other. He stated the structure was to contain
gardening tools, bicycles, etc. He further advised if he had know, at the time he
� 9�
•
•
Board of Adjustment/
Board of Sign Appeals
August 16, 1993
Page 5
started construction, what he knew now he would have never started the
construction. He stated he was ]ust trying to salvage the situation. He further
advised he would construct the building for a 2 -hour fire rating. He stated the
adjoining property owner was very supportive. He also pointed out many of the
residences in the historic district had garages adjacent to or immediately upon the
property lines.
Mrs. Hunt advised they had done a great deal of research in order to have the 2 -
hour fire rating and still keep the structure historically compatible.
There was discussion regarding the 2 -hour fire wall separation. Mr. Hunt advised
he was willing to go to whatever length it took to have that separation.
Mr. Hanna asked why it had taken almost 2 years for the applicant to request the
variance.
Mr. Hunt stated he had been haggling for the entire time with the City. He advised
he did not want to create a fire hazard for his neighbor but did want to create
something that was long lasting and appealing both to the neighbor and to himself.
He further advised Ms. Little had told him she would not require him to tear down
the partially completed structure but also could not allow him to complete it.,He
noted he had not made adequate provisions for fire so he had been doing reserch
for the last two years.
Mr. Blackston asked why Mr. Hunt had not obtained a building permit in the
beginning.
Mr. Hunt stated it was because he was ignorant. He pointed out the structure was
only 20 x 6 feet. He advised he had not been familiar with the process.
Mr. Boyd asked how Mr. Hunt could build and maintain the wall without going on his
neighbor's property. He asked what happened if the neighbor changed and the next
neighbor did not want Mr. Hunt on his property. He explained that was the problem
with getting neighbor's permission. He also pointed out there was a possibility the
Hunt's might move and some awful people might live there instead.
Mr. Hunt advised he had discussed the matter with Freeman Wood, Inspection
Department, and he had approved the plan providing a fire wall.
Mr. Boyd stated the fire rating was not the only problem.
Mr. Rivaldo asked if the improvements would look significantly different from the
existing garage.
Mr. Hunt stated it would be identical other than being 12 inches lower than the
existing building.
• Mr. Meadows stated he did not see any problem with it. He suggested building
materials that could be used.
/12
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment/
Board of Sign Appeals
August 16, 1993
Page 6
Mr. Blackston stated he had not had an opportunity to look at the property and
therefore did not feel he was qualified to comment.
Mr. Rivaldo stated he believed it would be aesthetically pleasing and he would
support the request.
Mr. Hanna stated they had previously taken into consideration the neighbors'
opinions in other cases and Mr. Hunt had received favorable comments from his
neighbors. He pointed out the lots in the subject area of town were much smaller.
He stated he did not have a problem with the request.
MOTION
Mr. Rivaldo moved to approve the variance request.
Mr. Meadows seconded the motion.
The motion carried 4-1-1 with Mr. Hanna, Mr. Meadows, Ms. Orton, and Mr. Rivaldo
voting "yes", Mr. Boyd voting "no", and Mr. Blackston abstaining.
/q3
•
•
Board of Adjustment/
Board of Sign Appeals
August 16, 1993
Page 7
59
APPEAL NO. BA 93-12 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM SIGN ORDINANCE
YOUTH BRIDGE, INC. - 4171 N. CROSSOVER
The next item was a request for a variance from the sign ordinance submitted by
Youth Bridge, Inc. for property located at 4171 N. Crossover Road. The property
is zoned R -O, Residential -Office.
Mr. Conklin stated the request was to allow a 20 square foot free standing sign five
feet from the street right-of-way, where Section 158.47(B) allowed a four square
foot free standing sign with a minimum setback of 15 feet. He explained the sign was
for Youth Bridge and two other tenants. He pointed out the site was located on a
curve where traffic was traveling at high speeds; thus, the larger sign and reduced
setback was requested to better identify the location. He stated the sign would be
centrally located between the two entrance drives.
He recommended approval of the variance request provided the sign was not elevated
but installed flush to the ground. He advised granting the variance for the larger
sign and reduced setback would better identify the building on the busy highway.
Mr. Boyd asked why it would not be an area identification sign.
Mr. Conklin stated area identification signs were allowed only in commercial zoning
districts and this was a residential -office zoning district. He further stated if it had
been in a commercial district, he would have called it an area identification sign.
Mr. Marty Dennis stated Youth Bridge was a private, non-profit youth serving
organization. He advised people could not find the building. He questioned the
recommendation of not having the sign elevated.
Mr. Conklin explained that a non -elevated sign would not impact the area as much
as an elevated sign. He advised staff was recommending a monument type sign.
Ms. Orton stated there were mailboxes directly on the road. She asked if they
served a purpose.
A Youth Bridge representative stated they were left there from a previous tenant.
Ms. Orton stated five feet from the street right-of-way seemed very close.
Mr. Dennis explained they had chosen the subject location for visibility from both
north and south. He further advised it would be a double sided sign but would not
be angled.
In response to a question from Ms. Orton, Mr. Conklin advised R -O zoning required
a 15 foot setback and allowed four square feet of sign area.
Mr. Boyd asked if they knew where the property line was located.
Mr. Dennis stated they had been told the right-of-way was 60 feet wide, or 30 feet
I99
•
Board of Adjustment/
Board of Sign Appeals
August 16, 1993
Page 8
from the center of the road.
There was discussion regarding the exact location of the proposed sign.
Mr. Boyd asked how much land they had.
Mr. Dennis stated he believed it was one to two acres. He explained the
administrative offices and the shelter for a nine county area was located on the
property. He stated the visitors usually came only once and had a hard time locating
the building.
In response to a question from Mr. Hanna, Mr. Dennis stated the emergency shelter
was open 24 hours a day.
Mr. Hanna asked if they planned to light the sign.
Mr. Dennis stated they had not planned to light the sign but planned on painting it
a light color which would reflect car lights.
Mr. Rivaldo asked if there was lighting in the area at night.
• Mr. Dennis stated there was very little lighting.
Ms. Langley stated the Planning Commission had approved a large scale development
on Youth Bridge a few years earlier and there was 1.6 acres. She explained the 9-1-'
1 System had been concerned at the time the Large Scale was approved that they
would not be able to find the shelter in case of an emergency and had requested an
identification sign be placed at the driveway.
Mr. Blackston agreed it was difficult to find the site. He stated he realized 8 feet
was higher than the normal monument sign but the terrain did have a sharp drop off .
Ms. Orton stated she had thought the area they were discussing for the sign was on
more level terrain.
Mr. Blackston stated the area did drop off. He noted he was not sure the difference
in grade from the roadway but there was a considerable drop. He further stated
Youth Bridge was most difficult to find. He further stated he was not suggesting
8 feet was the right height but that the sign would not appear to be that high since
the roadway was higher than the land where the sign was placed. He pointed out the
sign would seem much taller if the road and land were the same height.
Ms. Orton suggested eight feet above the level of the street.
Mr. Boyd pointed out they allowed an area identification sign at a trailer court. He
stated he believed the sign, as proposed, would be acceptable.
• Mr. Meadows agreed and pointed out the slope of the terrain.
tS
Board of Adjustment/
Board of Sign Appeals
August 16, 1993
Page 9
MOTION
Mr. Blackston moved the request for a variance be allowed as stated.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
Ms. Orton stated she would like for Youth Bridge to take down the mail box.
Youth Bridge representatives agreed to take it down.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Blackston requested they consider some type of plantings around the base of the
sign.
196
•
Board of Adjustment/
Board of Sign Appeals
August 16, 1993
Page 10
MINUTES
The minutes of the August 2, 1993 meeting were approved as distributed.
OLD BUSINESS:
Discussion Regarding Revisions to the Sign Ordinance
Mr. Conklin stated both Ms . Orton and Mr. Perkins had submitted proposed changes
to the sign ordinance. He suggested they review the suggestions made by Ms.
Orton. He stated her first comment regarded the meaning of the term "not otherwise
prohibited".
Mr. Boyd asked the legal status of requiring someone to take down a sign.
Mr. Conklin stated he had forwarded a copy of the proposed changes to the
ordinance to Jerry Rose, City Attorney, for research. He stated he believed the
sign owner had seven years after the adoption of the ordinance to remove a non-
conforming sign.
Ms. Orton advised those people putting up signs that did not meet the sign
ordinance, should not have years or even weeks to remove the sign, but, those
people who put up signs which met the sign ordinance at the time they were put up
and then the sign ordinance changed, making the sign non -conforming, should.
receive time to amortize the sign.
Ms. Orton stated she did not believe they had to give the owners seven years after
the passage of the new ordinance, but just seven years from the time the sign was
erected.
Mr. Conklin advised he would review that matter with the City Attorney.
There was then discussion regarding removal of damaged signs. Mr. Conklin
explained the proposed change read: "Any non -conforming sign, damaged by any
means to the extent of more than 50% of its replacement cost at the time of damage,
shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with provisions of this chapter."
Ms. Orton advised she could agree with that.
The next item discussed was permitted illumination of real estate signs. Mr. Conklin
stated he did not believe that, in commercial districts, especially during the winter
months, illuminated (non -flashing) commercial real estate signs would impact the
neighborhood very much. He further noted that currently all signs in residential.
districts could not be illuminated.
Ms. Orton stated she did not want any of the real estate signs to be illuminated.
Mr. Conklin stated Ms. Orton had requested political signs should not exceed four
square feet in areas where other signs were not permitted.
19 7
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment/
Board of Sign Appeals
August 16, 1993
Page 11
Mr. Boyd pointed out there were usually large political signs at the intersection of
Mission and North.
Mr. Rivaldo expressed his belief there would be abuse of that section because people
were used to putting up large political signs in vacant areas.
Mr. Boyd stated he believed Ms. Orton's suggestion was a good one.
Mr. Conklin stated the next change was directional and identification signs should
have permits.
He further stated he was concerned with Ms. Orton's next suggestion that only one
identification sign per street frontage be allowed.
Ms. Orton stated she had thought. that was what the Board agreed to at an earlier
meeting.
Mr. Conklin explained that had been under area identification signs and he did not
consider directional identification or informational signs to be an area identification
sign. He agreed it was confusing and suggested changing the name of the type of
signs. He stated that, under the area identification sign, they had agreed to allow
one per street frontage.
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
/9B