Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-19 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND SIGN APPEALS • • A meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Board of Sign Appeals was held Monday, August 19, 1996 at 3:45 p.m., in the City Administration Building, Room 111, 113 W. Mountain St., Fayetteville, AR. MEMBERS PRESENT: Thad Hanna, Marion Orton, Gerald Boyd, Michael Andrews, Bob Nickle, and Paul Wilhelms. MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Perkins. STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Rich Lane, and Heather Woodruff. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 6,1996 The minutes were approved as distributed. BA96-14.00 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY DESSIE AND VERNA SHAKELFORD- FIFTH ST. AND W OF HAPPY HOLLOW The first item on the agenda was submitted by Patsy Brewer for Habitat for Humanity on behalf of Dessie and Verna Shakelford for property located north of Fifth St. and west of Happy Hollow. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential, and contains 11,200 sq. ft. The request was for a 20' variance on the required 70' lot width minimum. Ms. Orton stated she would have to abstain, because she was a member of the Board for Habitat for Humanity. Mr. Lane stated the variance was for the required 70' lot frontage to 50'. He added currently Habitat was in negotiation for purchase of the property and was on the 8/26/96 Planning Commission Agenda for a tandem lot split. He stated as a condition of the tandem lot they would be required to provide a 25' access easement across the property, which would reduce the frontage to 50 feet. Mr. Wilhelm questioned how the buildings would be set on the property. Ms. Brewer stated the architect was working on it, but the building would probably be placed at an angle because of the hillside. Mr. Wilhelm commented that, if the house was sited on an angle, the area would be reduced even more by the diagonal. Ms. Brewer stated it would not be a large house, approximately 24'X44' and 1,100 sq.ft. se/ 34 • Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeal Minutes August 19,1996 Page 2 • • Mr. Wilhelm questioned the ultimate usable width of the lot with the required access way. Ms. Little stated the access way would create a separate property line. Mr. Wilhelm commented a 44' long house on a diagonal it would not fit on a 34' lot. Ms. Brewer replied she would adjust the plan of the house. Mr. Boyd questioned if the access strip would be owned in deed by the back lot or would it be an easement. Ms. Brewer stated it would be an easement, the property would be owned by lot 3. Mr. Boyd stated the provisions required a private easement which would give the property owners access to the back lot, but the front lot would continue to own it. His understanding was they could build up to the 25' line because there would not be a set back. Mr. Boyd read from the code book: "tandem lot will have access to a public street by way of a private drive with a minimum width of 25'. Tthe tandem lot owner shall be responsible for maintaining the drive. The tandem lot owner shall have title to or a perpetual private easement in the private drive." He questioned the meaning of "private", adding a private easement was for the benefit of a private pieceof property, therefore an easement would not effect the setbacks. Ms. Little stated he was correct that the easement would not effect setbacks, but typically they had required ownership in the 25' easement Mr. Boyd questioned if the front lot would have a separate drive. Ms. Brewer stated they were going to use the same one. Mr. Boyd stated the drive would not be private exclusive. He questioned, if the back lot owned the drive, then would the front lot be required to get an easement from the back lot in order to use it. Ms. Little responded that to be totally legal and correct they would have to. Mr. Wilhelm commented they were setting up a flag lot. Ms. Little confirmed that was what a tandem lot was. Mr. Boyd stated it would be easier to have one drive as an easement for them both to use. Adding there would be more room to build on the front lot. f7S • Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeal Minutes August 19,1996 Page 3 • Ms. Little stated the staff typically the recommended the tandem lot own the access so there would not be any question over ownership in the future. Mr. Boyd stated that, with a hard -to -build -on lot like this one, it would work better the other way. Ms. Little added, if the access was an easement it would not reduce the frontage so there would be no need for a variance. Mr. Nickel stated that, if it was an easement situation, there would still be a tax liability for lot 3. He suggested that half the easement be deeded to the back lot and half to the front lot and they have a cross easement. The owners would have mutual tax obligations and mutual right to use the easement. He suggested having a lawyer look into the situation. Ms. Brewer stated tax issues were a big concern for their families. Ms. Little stated their options were: the Board of Adjustments would grant a waiver of 25' provided the entire 25' deeded to the back lot owners or grant a variance of 12.5 feet. Mr. Nickel added they could reconsider and require an entire easement, then there would be no need for a variance and the issue would become a moot point. Ms. Little stated that, if it became a moot point, then there would be no need for a variance. MOTION Mr. Nickel moved to grant seven and one-half foot variance, if the applicant chooses to deed half the necessary easement to lot B behind lot 3, or if the applicant desires to deed the entire twenty- five feet that they would grant a twenty foot variance on the frontage requirement. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0-1. Ms. Orton abstained. • Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeal Minutes August 19,1996 Page 4 • • SA96-1.00: VARIANCE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE SUZIE STEPHENS-3290 NORTH LEE AVE. The last item on the agenda was submitted by Suzie Stephens for property located at 3290 N. Lee Ave. The property is zoned R -O, Residential -Office. The request was for an 8.66 square foot variance to the sign ordinance. Mr. Lane stated the applicant had requested a 24.66 square foot sign in a R -O zone. When R -O provisions grant 16 square feet. Mr. Hanna questioned if Ms. Stephens had considered rezoning. Ms. Little replied Ms. Stephens had considered rezoning, but the staff did not recommend rezoning to change signage requirements. In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Little stated the surrounding areas were zoned R-1 and C-2. Ms. Stephens had requested C-1 zoning, which would allow 20% of wall area or up to 75 square foot. Ms. Susie Stephens stated she owned the lot where the new Nibbles building was being built and the adjacent property where there had been a day care and there had been a large neon sign there when she took possession. Mr. Andrew questioned if she intended to place any more signs around the property. Ms. Stephens answered the sign requested would be the only one. She added it would have brass letters and would read: "NIBBLES". She stated she had done studies to determine the best size for visibility from College. In response to a question by Ms. Orton, she said the sign would go into a panel. Ms. Ortin stated she thought the design of the sign fit into the surrounding area nicely. She questioned if Ms. Stephens had noticed if there were any signs similar in size. Ms. Stephens stated she did not know, but the letters would be 24" tall with seven letters. She added there were a lot of neon letters on the surrounding commercial buildings. Mr. Boyd stated he did not think the sign should be allowd. Mr. Mike McKimmey stated the staff did not have a recommendation. Mr. Boyd commented, if they granted the variance, then everyone who was in a similar situation would expect to be granted a variance. He continued that, if they gave a variance to everyone, the City would not need the ordinances to begin with. 757 • • • Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeal Minutes August 19,1996 Page 5 Mr. McKimmey commented that the staff was looking for some advice, because they had not had any wall sign variance before in R -O. He added there had been a lot of problems with free standing signs. Mr. Burt Rakes added, technically they could have two signs if the building was on the corner of two streets. Mr. Andrew questioned how large the sign could be if they rezoned. Ms. Little stated the staff would not support rezoning. Ms. Orton agreed, "to be seen on College" struck her as it had Mr. Boyd, but when she looked at the property, she changed her mind. She stated she would not vote for the sign so it could be seen from College, but she would vote for it because it seemed to fit into the existing environment. She stated the sign was simple and not distracting for the neighborhood. Mr. Wilhelm stated if a variance was reasonable to grant and it was not a hardship on neighbors or visual environment in general the Board could make the small adjustments. He added he thought the sign was reasonable because of the location. Ms. Stephens commented the 24" letters looked better than the 17" letters on the building. She added the letters were very expensive and she needed to get as much as possible for the money. Mr. Andrew commented she had a high quality sign. MOTION Mr. Nickel moved to approve the sign. Mr. Andrew seconded. The motion carried 5-1-0 with Mr. Boyd voting nay. The meeting adjourned at 4:20. w