Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-09-19 MinutesMINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals was held on Monday, September 19, 1994, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Perkins, Marion Orton, Gerald Boyd, Lonnie Meadows, Thad Hanna, Craig Rivaldo, and Robert Nickle OTHERS PRESENT: Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, and others PROTOCOL Mr. Perkins called the meeting to order and explained the format of the meeting. APPEAL NO. BA94-22 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS ROB MERRY -SHIP - 1621 N LEVERETT AVE The first item was Appeal BA94-22 submitted by Rob Merry -Ship for property located at 1621 N. Leverett Avenue and zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. The request was for a variance from the required building setbacks. Mr. Tim Conklin advised the subject property was currently developed with a single-family home which was going to be removed. He explained the applicant proposed to construct 10 dwelling unite (2 structures) on the site with four of the units located west of the existing trees in the middle of the site and the remaining six units east of the trees. He added the applicant had requested the variance in order to save the trees between the proposed two buildings. Mr. Conklin advised the staff recommended approval of the variance since granting the variance would offer an opportunity to preserve three large existing trees on the site. He added that allowing this variance would not adversely affect adjoining properties since a parking lot for existing apartments was located directly west of the site. Mr. Rob Merry -Ship reiterated the purpose of the variance request was to preserve some large trees on the site. In answer to a question from Ms. Orton, Mr. Merry -Ship advised the footings would be within approximately 6 feet of the closest tree unless he was granted the variance which would provide a distance of 10 to 12 feet. He noted there was approximately 90 feet of distance between the proposed unit and the other structures to the west. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve the variance with the condition that the area between the two buildings be maintained as a green area and never built on. The motion was seconded by Mr. Meadows. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. ass Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals September 19, 1994 Page 2 APPEAL NO BA94-23 REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS BRENDA J BLAGG - 838 BIRWIN ST The next item was Appeal No. BA94-23 located at 838 Birwin Street and zoned was for a variance from the required submitted by Brenda J. Blagg for property R-1, Low Density Residential. The request building setbacks. Mr. Conklin advised the site was currently developed with a remodeled single- family home. He noted the variance was to allow construction of a new carport to be located on the side property line (an 8 foot variance) and attached to the house. He stated the adjoining property to the east was developed with a single- family home which was approximately 9 feet from the side property line and added the owner of that house had no objection to the requested variance for the new carport. Mr. Conklin explained the applicant would like to remove the existing metal carport and attach a carport with a deck on top onto the side of the house. He advised the staff recommended approval of the variance request. He added Mickey Jackson, Fire Chief, had approved the location and the construction materials for the carport since it was so close to the adjoining neighbor's structure. In answer to a question from one of the board members, Mr. Conklin advised the lot size was approximately 100 feet by 100 feet. In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Brenda Blagg stated there was approximately 16 feet from the block building to the property line with 22 feet between the two buildings. Mr. Boyd contended the lot seemed to have ample space for a carport other than locating it in the setback. Ms. Blagg advised that due to stones, a rotted out cherry tree, and other terrain problems, the location of the driveway and the carport was limited. In answer to a question, Ms. Blagg explained she did not want to locate the carport in front of the patio doors because that was her entrance. There was further discussion in regard to alternate locations and the possibility of the current structure being improved instead of replaced. In answer to a question, Mr. Conklin advised the non -conforming structure section of the ordinance would allow a carport (open on the sides) to extend within 5 feet of the property line. Ms. Blagg advised it would be 2.5 to 3 feet from the property line. Mr. Conklin advised in that case, the variance requested would be 2.5 to 3 feet. MOTION Mr. Rivaldo made a motion to approve the variance request as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Meadows. Mr. Boyd contended the variance request did not agree with any of their criteria and he did not see a special condition. 276 lb • • • Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals September 19, 1994 Page 3 One of the board members noted removing the old metal carport would visually improve the structure and he pointed out the neighboring property owner had no objection to the variance. The motion passed 6-1-0 with Nickle, Hanna, Meadows, Rivaldo, Perkins, and Orton voting "yes" and Boyd voting "no". 4271 • • • • Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals September 19, 1994 Page 4 APPEAL NO. SA94-7 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE JAMES R STOCKLAND - 157 E COLT SQUARE, SUITE 1 The next item was Appeal No. SA94-7 submitted by James R. Stockland for property located at 157 E Colt Square, Suite 1, and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request was for a variance from the sign ordinance. Mr. Perkins advised the request was to allow the applicant to set their free- standing sign closer (by 9 feet) to the street right-of-way than was allowed by ordinance. Mr. Stockland explained the reason the sign was placed closer to the right-of-way was so that it would be visible after the landscaping of the area between the street and the flood plain was installed. He stated there was a visibility problem. He contended if the sign were moved back 9 feet, it would be sitting in the ditch with one of the legs approximately 9 feet tall. He noted there was also a concern in regard to the electricity line running in the ditch because of water drainage. Ms. Orton contended there seemed to be room for the sign on the other side of the ditch. Mr. Stockland advised there was a visibility problem with his existing sign which was located between the ditch and the structure and that was the reason for putting up another sign. Mr. Perkins advised the sign could set 9 feet closer to the road (where the applicant had already erected it) without a variance if it were cut down in size to 40 feet. In response to a comment in regard to what signage Mr. Stockland would offer his tenants, it was explained to him that two free-standing signs were not allowed. Ms. Orton stated she had received a complain about the size of the Briar Patch sign from a concerned citizen and had been informed there were several people in opposition to the sign. Some of the other board members advised they had also received opposition to the sign from concerned citizens. After further discussion, Mr. Stockland pointed out it would be extremely expensive to move the sign since it had already been placed in that location. He contended he made an honest mistake in that he did not know he was violating the ordinance. MOTION Ms. Orton made a motion to deny the variance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boyd. The motion carried 5-2-0 with Boyd, Nickle, Meadows, Perkins, and Orton voting "yes" and Hanna and Rivaldo voting "no". e2 77 • • • Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals September 19, 1994 Page 5 APPEAL NO. SA94-8 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE PAT GAZZOLA - 4127 W WEDINGTON DR The next item was Appeal No. SA94-8 submitted by Pat Gazzola for property located at 4127 W. Wedington Drive and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request was for a variance from the sign ordinance. Jay Pense, Sign Inspections Department, advised Mr. Gazzola was requesting a variance to construct a free-standing sign at the edge of the Highway 16 right- of-way which was 40 feet from the center line of the street. Albert Skiles, representing the applicant, stated the purpose for the request was to have a visible sign without having to remove some of the large trees on the property. He explained they were requesting to move the sign closer to the right-of-way and out of the way of the trees. He added the other signs at the businesses along that road were of the same nature (close to the road). In answer to a question from a board member, Mr. Skiles advised the Gazzolas did not own the existing pine trees. After further discussion, Mr. Nickle contended he was in favor of the appeal since Mr. Skiles was attempting to preserve the trees and to create an aesthetically pleasing project by doing such things as placing the parking in the rear. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve the variance as requested with the stipulation that every effort be made to preserve the trees in question and that when they died, they be replaced. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rivaldo. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. )79 • Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals September 19, 1994 Page 6 APPEAL NO. SA94-9- REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE STARKEY'S SPORTS CLUB, 2217 N COLLEGE AVE The next item was Appeal No. SA94-9 submitted by Starkey's Sports Club located at 2217 North College Avenue and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request was for a variance from the sign ordinance. Because there was no one present to represent this item, it was not discussed. • • ELECTION OF OFFICERS Mr. Boyd nominated the current chairman, Mr. Perkins, for another term. He was elected chairman by a consensus of the members. MINUTES There 1994, There being no additions or changes to the minutes of the meeting of August 1, they were approved as written. being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 2.g°