HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-12-06 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, December 6,
1993, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Others Present:
PROTOCOL
Marion Orton, Gerald Boyd, Craig Rivaldo, Lonnie
Meadows, and Bob Blackston
Thad Hanna and Larry Perkins
Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, Mike Galbraith,
Mr. & Mrs. Don Donner, and Curtis Hogue
Mr. Boyd called the meeting to order and explained the format of the meeting.
APPEAL NO. BA93-32 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM BULK AND AREA
REQUIREMENTS
MIKE GALBRAITH - 856 N. SKYLINE DRIVE
The next item was a request from Mike Galbraith for a variance from the bulk and
area requirements (building setbacks) for property located at 856 N. Skyline Drive.
Mr. Conklin explained the request was to allow a 22 foot setback, where Section
160.031(E) requires a 25 foot front setback. He stated the applicant currently had
a house under construction on the subject site. He noted the original plans had not
included a covered porch and the request was to allow the porch to extend three feet
into the front setback.
He explained that, under Section 160.138(A) (4) , existing non -conforming residential
structures were allowed to build covered porches six feet into the required front
yard. He advised the Board he was making them aware of that section because it
supported two of the criteria for granting a variance: first, granting of the
variance would not confer on the applicant any special privilege which was denied
by the ordinance to any other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district;
and secondly, that literal interpretation of the provisions of the chapter would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same,
district under the terms of the ordinance.
Mr. Conklin pointed out many of the older homes within R-1 zoning districts did have
covered porches which were within the setback and many other homes which were
non -conforming today would be allowed to extend a porch six feet into the setback.
He noted granting of a variance would not confer a special privilege to the applicant.
He recommended approval of the requested variance.
Mr. Galbraith concurred with staff comments.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Galbraith stated the subject site had
contained the house which had burned.
X08
• Board of Adjustment/
Board of Sign Appeals
December 6, 1993
Page 2
Mr. Blackston stated they were all familiar with that area and noted there were a
number of structures in the subject area which fit into the same category and pointed
out it was not uncommon for structures in the area to be in the setbacks.
Mr. Rivaldo agreed it was very hard to construct a building and meet the setbacks
on the lots in the subject area.
Mr. Don Donner, an area resident, spoke in opposition to the variance. He further
noted the address given on the property was incorrect. He advised the subject lot
had always been known as 102 Skyline Drive. He contended a notice had not been
given on the subject property since the address of 856 Skyline Drive had been used.
Ms. Little asked how Mr. Donner received notification of the variance request.
Mr. Donner stated his parents, who lived directly across the street from the
property in question, had received notification of a variance request at 856 Skyline
Drive. He requested this item be tabled until proper notice had been given.
Mr. Boyd directed they needed to take a vote to determine if this matter would be
heard.
• Ms. Langley of the Planning Department advised the address 856 was the official 9-1-
1 address.
Mr. Donner advised it might be technically in compliance but notice had not been.
given according to the history of the area.
Mr. Boyd pointed out there was a building permit on the premises which referred to
the property as 856 together with the sign from the Planning Department giving
notice of the variance request.
Mr. Blackston asked if they had given legal notice of the hearing.
Mr. Galbraith explained he had questioned the address when he received the
building permit and had been told the 856 address had been assigned by the 9-1-1
System. He stated the building permit, saying 856, was at the front of the house
together with the house numbers. He also pointed out the variance sign on the
property showed 856 Skyline. He further noted he had sent out notice to all
adjoining properties saying a new house was being constructed on Skyline and they
were asking for a variance of the front setback due to the terrain. He pointed out
this was the only new house being constructed on Skyline.
Ms. Little stated the adjoining property owners had been notified. She also pointed
out how important the signs on the property were in giving notice to the.
neighborhood.
•
0'0 7
Board of Adjustment/
•
Board of Sign Appeals
December 6, 1993
Page 3
•
MOTION
Mr. Rivaldo advised he believed sufficient notice had been given of the variance
request and subject meeting.
Mr. Meadows seconded the motion.
The motion carried 4-1-0 with Mr. Rivaldo, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Meadows and Ms. Orton
voting "yes" and Mr. Blackston voting "no".
Ms. Beverly Donner asked what date the sign had been posted.
Mr. Conklin advised the sign had been placed on the site the Wednesday before
Thanksgiving.
Mr. Donner advised he would not have objected to the variance request a few years
earlier but would do so now. He reminded the Board the subject site was where two
people had died in a fire. He stated the fire hydrant for the neighborhood would be
located directly in front of the porch. He advised the deaths of his two neighbors
had made him much more aware of the location of the hydrant, since access to the
hydrant would be critical in the case of a fire. He contended the porch would be
placed considerably closer to the fire hydrant and would therefore creating a fire
hazard.
Mr. Galbraith stated there were two lots with the house sitting on one lot and the
hydrant being located in the center of the second lot. He advised he did not want
to construct two houses on the two lots, only one with a front porch.
Mr. Donner contended that for the fire hoses to get to his parents house, they would
have to run diagonally across the lot being built on by Mr. Galbraith.
Mr. Blackston asked if the hoses would be obstructed by the porch or if there was
ample room to go in front of the porch.
Mr. Galbraith advised there was ample room for the hoses to go in front of the porch.
Mr. Donner stated under normal circumstances there was ample room but, in times
of fire, things were not normal and reasonable decisions were not made. He pointed
out Mr. Galbraith chose to build the house knowing what the requirements were.
Mr. Galbraith advised he also chose to build the house knowing he could ask for a
variance, especially in the subject area where 75$ of the houses encroached in the,
front setback.
Mr. Rivaldo asked if it was possible for the Board to ask the Fire Department if they
believed the porch would obstruct them in anyway.
• Mr. Meadows stated he believed the hydrant fed the truck and the hose came from
the truck.
aD/0
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment/
Board of Sign Appeals
December 6, 1993
Page 4
Ms Little stated that, if there was adequate pressure from the hydrant, it did not
need to go through the truck.
Ms. Orton stated she believed Mr. Rivaldo had made a very good suggestion.
Mr. Boyd pointed out the property owner could legally build a wall or a fence along
the property line which would be much more than an obstruction than what they were
talking about. He further stated he doubted the three foot encroachment would have
any impact on running hoses to the adjoining property. He reminded the Board they
had heard a number of cases on Skyline Drive and had approved many of them due
to terrain difficulties. He also noted that, if the subject lot had been flat, the house
could have been moved but there was a terrain problem on this lot.
Ms. Little advised the Board they had the authority to make a motion conditioned
upon approval by the Fire Chief.
MOTION
Mr. Rivaldo moved to approve the variance request subject to a letter of assurance
from the Fire Department that there would be adequate access to properties on both
sides of the subject site.
Mr. Blackston seconded the motion.
The motion carried 5-0-0.
tri
•
Board of Adjustment/
Board of Sign Appeals
December 6, 1993
Page 5
APPEAL NO. BA93-33 - REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISION
SHAWN FAKHIMI - 331 ARCHIBALD YELL
The next item was Appeal No. 93-33, a request for an appeal from an administrative
decision of the Planning Administrator submitted by Shawn Fakhimi for property
located at 331 Archibald Yell. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Ms. Little explained the request was an appeal of her interpretation of Section
160.111 which prohibited the placement of fences over 2 1/2 feet high within the
required setback which would materially impede vision between vehicular or
pedestrian traffic. She stated the applicant had requested to place a six foot high
chain link fence along the front of the property adjacent to Archibald Yell. She
pointed out the lot was pie shaped with the curved side along Archibald Yell. She
noted the roadway segment from School Street to College Avenue was steep and
encompassed numerous curves.
She advised fences were permitted within setback areas provided the Planning
Administrator determined that placement of the fence would not materially impede
vision.
• Ms. Little advised she had interpreted that Section 160.111 would exclude the
placement of the proposed chain link fence within the setback since it would
materially impede vision to vehicles and pedestrians. She stated she had denied the
request due to the location of the lot in a curved area of the road with numerous
intersecting streets. She further noted the applicant had stated there was an
existing lot with a chain link fence at 902 S. School. She pointed out that at the
facility located at 902 S. School there was a setback of 12 feet while at 331 Archibald
Yell there was only a separation of five feet at two points. She advised it was her
belief the addition of a fence at 331 Archibald Yell would further exacerbate the
safety concerns at that location by encouraging parking of vehicles adjacent to the
fence.
•
She showed the Board a drawing of the area and pointed out an area shown as
parking which was really road right-of-way. She explained the City encouraged
businesses to not use street right-of-way as parking space.
She informed the Board a motion would be required to affirm or overturn her
interpretation.
Mr. Rivaldo asked if her biggest concern was visibility for a driver going north.
Ms. Little also pointed out a street to the south of the subject property and advised
visibility to the north from that street would be severely impaired.
In response to a question from Mr. Meadows, Ms. Little noted the applicant would
have to cross the right-of-way with his fence in order to attach the fence to the rear
property pin.
ars
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment/
Board of Sign Appeals
December 6, 1993
Page 6
Mr. Rivaldo asked if the fence would run across the entire front of the property.
Ms. Little stated that appeared to be the applicant's intention
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Hogue (the applicant's representative)
stated the fence would go up to the right-of-way.
Mr. Boyd noted there was a canopy going into the right-of-way.
Ms. Little explained the applicant had asked for permission to build a fence. She
advised fences were permitted in the setback area provided the Planning
Administrator gave permission. She stated in this case she did not give her
permission due to visibility problems.
Mr. Hogue explained Mr. Fakhimi had leased the property for five years but had
recently purchased it. He noted there had been a number of modifications to the
structure, improving the area. He stated Mr. Fakhimi wanted to put in a chain link
fence for security, just like the car lot located 2 blocks south of the subject site.
He advised he had difficulty determining that a chain link fence would block a view
any more than parked cars would block the view. He stated the applicant had 10 to.
14 cars on the lot at all times. He further stated the applicant wanted the fence for
security purposes only.
Ms. Little asked if a used car lot would have any more need for security than a new
car lot.
Mr. Hogue explained the need for security had to do with the area the lot was located
in and the clients the applicant dealt with. He stated the cars were not worth as
much as new cars but his client believed he needed this security.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Little advised the fence would have
to set 50 feet back to meet the setbacks.
Mr. Blackston stated he could agree with Mr. Hogue that the fence would not be as
much of a visibility problem as the cars but he was having a problem of visualizing
where the fence would be located. He stated he would like to see where the fence
would actually be located on the property.
Mr. Meadows stated they needed exact measurements.
Ms. Little presented a rough sketch of the location of the right-of-way to the Board.
Mr. Boyd asked if it would be possible to put the fence in between the right-of-way
and the setback.
Ms. Little stated she believed there could be a compromise.
Mr. Hogue asked if it would be possible to table this item until his client could come
up with some exact measurements.
213
Board of Adjustment/
Board of Sign Appeals
December 6, 1993
Page 7
MOTION
Ms. Orton moved to table this item.
Mr. Blackston seconded the motion.
The motion carried 5-0-0.
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals meetings of November
15, 1993 were approved as presented.