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°