Loading...
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.