Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-02-10 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, February 10, 1997 at 3:45 p.m., Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Perkins, Gerald Boyd, Marion Orton, Robert Nickle, Thad Hanna, and Paul Wilhelms. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Andrews. STAFF PRESENT: Rich Lane and Heather Woodruff. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF Minutes were approved as distributed. NEW BUSINESS BA97-1.00: VARIANCE REQUEST FROM REAR SETBACK • DAVE BEVIS- 670-672 MARTHA DRIVE • The first item on the agenda was submitted by Dave Bevis for property located at 670-672 Martha Drive. The property is zoned R-3 ( High Density Residential) and contains approximately 00.16 acres. The request is for a variance of approximately 1.75 feet from the required 20 foot rear setback The staff recommended approval of the variance as requested believing the variance would not adversely affect adjacent properties and would not be out of character with the surrounding area. Mr. Lane stated the variance was for a duplex which obstructed the 20' rear setback and utility easement by 1.75 feet. The City Council had approved the utility easement vacation at their February 4, 1997 meeting. Mr. Boyd asked if the encroachment was from an eave. Mr. Bevis stated only 5.7 inches of the building was in the setback; the rest was the eave. Mr. Boyd commented the building was too large for the lot. Mr. Bevis stated he had nothing to do with the construction. Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Bevis was the first or the second owner. • Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals February 10, 1997 Page 2 • • Mr. Bevis stated he was representing the present owner. MOTION Mr. Nickle moved to approve the variance as requested. Ms. Orton seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 6-0-0. 7 • Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals February 10 1997 Page 3 • • BA97-2.00: VARIANCE REQUEST FROM REQUIRED SETBACKS CHASE MILLER- 2816 RAINTREE The next item on the agenda was submitted by Chase Miller for property located at 2816 Raintree Drive. The property is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and contains approximately 00.26 acres. The request was for a variance of approximately 2' from one of the required 25' setbacks on a corner lot. The staff recommended approval of the variance, but questioned why the adjustments had been made. Mr. Lane stated the home was completed in January of 1996 by Mr. Miller. The applicant had stated the topography of the site had required him to lower the garage floor. The applicant had felt strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause unsafe access into the garage. Mr. Lane informed the applicant the time to request a variance was before the structure was built. Mr. Miller stated the topography had made the driveway unusable; to compensate he had dropped the garage three feet which increased the length of the garage. Mr. Wilhelms asked Mr. Miller when he made the decision the change the layout noting Mr. Miller would also need a variance for the eaves along Raintree. He advised he believed there had been a willful disregard of the City's requirements. He did not believe the extension was necessary, noting the garage was 25' deep (the average garage was 20') and he had 4-5' in which to build the stairs. Mr. Miller stated he wanted to be sure he was building the stairs to code. He added there had been no other way to get access into the house from the garage. Mr. Wilhelms asked if the footing had been in place before he added the stairs. Mr. Miller stated the footings were there. In response to a question from Mr. Wilhelms, Mr. Miller stated the house had been constructed for a year and half; he did not remember the sequence of events. Mr. Wilhelms commented Mr. Miller's planning seemed very haphazard and that with a reasonable level of planning, there would have been no encroachment. Mr. Miller did not believe it had been foreseeable. Mr. Wilhelms stated it was foreseeable, he dealt with it every day. He did not believe the drive • Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals February 10 1997 Page 4 • • was very steep. Mr. Perkins commented the driveway would have been steep if the garage had not been lowered. Mr. Wilhelms stated Mr. Miller should have planned better before he started pouring concrete. He contended he had engaged in haphazard planning and was now blaming the error on the need for more steps. He advised Mr. Miller should not be in front of them; there were no hardships on this site. Mr. Miller stated the house plan had not called for the stairs. He had a perfect plan and a perfect stake out. Mr. Wilhelms replied that as a builder Mr. Miller had the responsibility to interpret the City's rules and regulations and then determine how to use a plan on a site. He warned the applicant variances were to be requested before the structure was built. MOTION Ms. Orton moved to grant a one foot variance on Raintree and a two foot variance off Sumac. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 6-0-0. • Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals February 10, 1997 Page 5 • DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE Mr. Perkins stated Mr. Andrews had brought up the problem with signs being painted on windows and asked if that qualified as a wall sign. Mr. Lane reminded the Board there had been discussion regarding amending the sign ordinance to include signs painted on windows. Mr. Perkins asked if the City Council had any plans to revisit the sign ordinance. Mr. Lane did not believe they did, unless someone suggested it. Mr. Nickle stated he agreed with the philosophy, but was not in favor of passing another ordinance unless they had the means and the manpower to enforce the ordinances. He pointed out, there were currently violations and the City did not have the time or the manpower to enforce the ordinances. Mr. Boyd presented some of the changes that had been suggested several years ago. Ms. Orton commented they had gone through the ordinance and had made a list of the changes. She asked what had happened to those recommendations and were they in the ordinances. Mr. Rakes stated the changes were not in the ordinance. He explained that after reviewing all the ordinances the Inspection Division was responsible for enforcing, it was felt some of the other ordinances needed to be revised first. Ms. Orton replied some of the recommendations were to clarify the ordinance and make enforcement easier. Mr. Rakes added they were now working on the UDO which included the sign ordinance. He stated he had not seen the final product yet, but hoped most of the issues would be addressed. Mr. Lane stated the UDO was reformatting the existing ordinances; not changing existing ordinances. He explained that after the ordinances had been reformatted, the UDO committee would address changes. Ms Orton commented at one time half of their agenda had been for signs, but now they did not have as many applicants. • Mr. Nickle thought people where becoming more educated about the City's requirements. ID • Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals February 10, 1997 Page 6 Mr. Boyd added the inspectors had no enforcement ability. Mr. Nickle asked if the City Council had any plans to increase Inspection's manpower. Mr. Rakes stated the City Council had approved another employee for five months (in the future) they would get the additional person if the permit load could justify one. Mr. Nickle thought they would be adding to the number of complaints about non -enforcement if they were to add more ordinances. Mr. Wilhelms added there was also a lack of a penalty. The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. • • I