HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-11-06 MinutesiMINUTES OF '1: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTMEETING
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday November
6, 1989, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Hills, Dennis Becker, Larry Tompkins,
Gerald Boyd, Robert Waldren and Dee Wright
The minutes of the regular meeting on August 7, 1989 will be approved at the
next regular meeting.
BA89-8 - Request to Vary Certain Zoning Requirements
Don Ward - 2015 Huntsville Road
The first item on the agenda was a petition submitted by Don Ward for property
located at 2015 Huntsville Road and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Request
was for a variance of certain zoning requirements, Article 7, Section 10(b) to
is
be allowed to have a three square foot sign at his residence in an R-1 zone.
Chairman Mills advised that they have the minutes from the September 25'th
Planning Commission meeting where Mr. Ward was requesting a rezoning. The
Planning Commission made a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment at that time
regarding a sign at this location.
Don Ward stated that all he is asking.is permission to put up a 36" x 12" sign
that says "Visions Real Estate" to satisfy the Real Estate Commission.
Larry Tompkins stated that he would like some background on what is going on with
this whole thing. Are there two variances in front of them, one being a home
occupation? He added that his ordinance shows that a 1' x 3' sign would be
permitted with a home occupation in an R-1 zone. Therefore, it seems to him that
Mr. Ward is asking for a home occupation approval.
Freeman Wood who is sitting in for John Merrell, Planning Management Director,
stated that the background of this application is that Mr. Ward went before the
Planning Commission to ask for a rezoning. The Planning Commission didn't want
to rezone it, they recommended that he instead come to the Board of Adjustment
and get some relief on the sign. He advised that Mr. Merrell's comments are
that this area is converting over to commercial and he is recommending approval
of this.
Mr. Wood advised that there is a conflict in the ordinance. Under the sign
ordinance, Mr. Ward would be allowed to have a sign but in the zoning ordinance,
• a wall sign is not allowed in an R-1 zone.
1S�
Board of Adjustment
November 6, 1989
Page 2
Mr. Tompkins stated that his copy of the ordinance states on pages 856 & 857 that
a sign is permitted for a home occupation in R-1. Mr. Wood advised that it
states "provided no such sign shall be permitted in an R-1 district". Mr.
Tompkins noted that he must have a old version of the ordinance because his
doesn't have this statement.
Mr. Tompkins stated then his question is whether they are being asked to grant
a home occupation and if so, do they have the authority to do that. Mr. Wood
stated that he thinks the Board of Adjustment is really being asked to rule on
an interpretation. The staff's ruling was that a sign would not be allowed in
the R-1 zone and the appeal is of this interpretation. He noted that Mr. Merrell
does feel under the circumstances that Mr. Ward should be allowed to have a sign.
Mr. Tompkins clarified that signs are prohibited by the zoning ordinance in an
R-1 district. Therefore, it is before the Board of Adjustment for a variance
of the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Tompkins asked what size of sign is required by the Real Estate Commission.
Mr. Ward stated that it doesn't specify what size it has to be along as it is
"visible" to the public. Mr. Tompkins stated that he has a problem with the
term "visible" because they could mean visible to a car driving by or to a person
• walking up and seeing the sign on the door.
Mr. Waldren stated that to him it doesn't make a lot of`dfference because if
they grant a variance it will be for the size he requested.
Chairman Mills asked if the sign would be placed on the front wall of the house.
Mr. Ward answered, yes.
Mr. Boyd asked if this would be subject to him meeting the requirements of the
home occupation. Elaine Cattaneo advised that Mr. Ward meets all the criteria
for the home occupation, it is just the matter of getting approval by the
Planning Commission and obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy.
Mrs. Wright
clarified
that the Planning Commission is
wanting the Board of
Adjustment to
go ahead
and approve the sign and then Mr.
Ward will take it back
to them for
approval on the home occupation.
Mr. Waldren stated that what they need to do today is to make a decision on
whether or not they are going to allow the variance for the sign. Then Mr. Ward
can work the rest out.
Chairman Mills stated that they need to keep in mind that if they are going to
approve this, the sign needs to be no larger than what the home occupation
ordinance allows.
Chairman Mills asked if a home occupation would be renewed on an annual basis
. with a review every year. Mr. Wood answered, yes, in the R-1 district it is an
annual renewal. If the neighbors had no complaints, it is more or less routine
to re -issue it each year.
to
• Board of Adjustment
November 6, 1989
Page 3
Mr. Tompkins noted that they are only acting within the zoning ordinance and that
which pertains only to the location of signs in an R-1 district and they are now
deciding whether a variance should be granted because of the unique hardship that
is being placed on this particular address. He clarified that the recommendation
of the staff is for approval. Mr. Wood noted that Mr. Merrell is recommending
approval because of the turn of events with this particular application.
NOTION
Mr. Waldren moved to grant the variance subject to: 1) the sign being no more
than three square feet, 2) the sign being placed on the building, 3) the sign
does not go with the property but is only there as long as Mr. Ward has his real
estate business at this location and to 4) a home occupation being granted at
this address. The motion was seconded by Wright. The motion passed 4-1-0 with
Boyd, Waldren, Wright & Becker voting "yes" and Tompkins voting "no".
APPEAL NO BA89-9 - VARY BULK & AREA REQUIRHNENTS
DAVE LETSCH - 313 W DICKSON STREET
The second item on the agenda was appeal #BA89-9 submitted by Dave Letsch for
isproperty located at 313 West Dickson Street and zoned.C-3, Central Business
Commercial. Application was to vary the bulk and area requirements.
Dave Letsch advised that he is the property owner of 313 West Dickson which is
the location of a Exxon station. He stated that they are remodeling because of
the new Arts Center and they are wanting to tear down a 1950's pump top and put
in a late model pump top that is around 13' high and 20' x 24' which is barely
wide enough for a car to get under. He added that they would be moving their
big free-standing sign and putting the sign on the canopy. What he is asking
for is a variance of the front setback from the street right-of-way from the 20'
required to 15' because there isn't room for a 20' there.
Mr. Letsch commented that their property runs to the center of the street and
that street has been widened so many times there isn't enough left for a 20'
setback. The smallest prefab canopy they can buy is 20' wide with anything
bigger having to be custom built on the lot with a cost of about four times more
than normal.
Chairman Mills asked if he plans for this canopy to come out past the gas pumps.
Mr. Letsch stated that it would be centered over the 4' wide pump island with
10' on each side. He added that all of the gas companies are requiring now to
have the signs underneath it. The new sign regulations in Fayetteville require
the price signs to be on poles underneath the canopy. Chairman Mills asked if
this is approved, how far would the canopy be from the outer edge to the
sidewalk. Mr. Letsch stated that it would be 15' to the edge of the street.
• He noted that he sort of sits in a hole already with Shipley Bakery on one side
sitting out about 10' closer to the street than he does. He advised that Mr.
Shipley has looked at this and approves of it.
1�k
• Board of Adjustment
November 6, 1989
Page 4
Mr. Tompkins asked how much of a variance he is asking for. Mr. Letsch noted
that he is asking for a 5' variance.
Mr. Boyd asked if this were knocked down by an earthquake and he started all over
again, would they measure from the center of the street for the setbacks since
the property line is the middle of the street. Mr. Wood stated that they would
measure from the right-of-way line and they would have to have a surveyor to
actually determine where it is. He added that the curb would be fairly close
to the right-of-way line.
Chairman Mills asked where the outer poles will set that the canopy will be on.
Mr. Letsch stated that they will be right at the end of the pump island with one
of them being the existing sign post. All the new signs will be little signs
on the side of the canopy.
Mr. Wood stated that he is sitting in for John Merrell, Planning Management
Director, and the staff's recommendations are that this doesn't really meet the
criteria for a hardship. He pointed out some options that Mr. Letsch has which
would include offsetting the canopy by 5'. He noted that can be put in there,
it just can't
be
centered
in there
without
the 5' variance. Another alternative
• would be to
move
the pump
island
over but
that would.be quite expensive.
Mr. Letsch stated that if it
was centered, it
would look
funny and from a
design
standpoint, it would be top
heavy with more
drainage on
one side.
Mrs. Wright stated that she feels that aesthetically, it would look a lot better
with a canopy.
Chairman Mills stated that they have requested previously when they were having
problems trying to figure out where things were and so on that drawings be given
to them and included in their agenda. She added that since they don't know where
right-of-ways, etc., maybe it would be better to table this until they can get
some additional information on exactly what they are looking at.
Mr. Wood stated that they only thing they could do would be look on the Street
Map and see how wide the street is and go measure from the center of the street
half that distance and assume that is where the line is.
Mr. Tompkins asked if the Improvement District has looked at this. Mr. Letsch
stated that Curtis Shipley, his neighbor, has approved of it and he is one of
the directors and he thinks Mr. Shipley discussed it with Carl Collier and Mr.
Underwood also. He added that Mr. Shipley would have been here to speak for him
but he is in a conflicting meeting. He advised that he can not renew with his
gas company until he gets a canopy.
• Mr. Wood commented it is his understanding that they have received criteria that
they can base their hardship situations on and making or losing money is not a
criteria for granting a variance. If Mr. Letsch loses his Exxon, he will have
tir
• Board of Adjustment
November 6, 1989
Page 5
to go with someone else and may not make as much money and although that sounds
like a hardship to him, it may not meet the criteria that they base the appeals
on.
Chairman Mills advised that financial hardship has really never been a basis of
the appeals in their written criteria.
Mr. Boyd stated that this seems like a very limited place to him and the cost
to move all the islands seems high for what little they would be gaining.
MOTION
Mrs. Wright moved to grant the variance of 5' for the canopy as requested, Vol
i�
seconded by Boyd. The motion passed 4-1-0 with Becker, Wright, Boyd & Waldren � o U
and Tompkins voting "no. 14J
9,0
The minutes of the meeting of the Board of Adjustment on August 7, 1989 and the
Board of Sign Appeals on September 18th were approved as distributed.
Item Ul: Larry Tompkins stated that he would like to suggest a letter of
commendation to Elaine Cattaneo, City Planning Secretary. He added that he has
been in the Planning Office twice recently and has never seen anyone handle an
office as well as she has. The pressure was unbelieveable. He stated that he,
as a member of this Board, would like to suggest a letter going to the Board of
Directors indicating his pleasure with her particular effort.
f:CI74OI
Mr. Tompkins moved that a letter of commendation be sent to the Board of
Directors stating their pleasure with Elaine Cattaneo, seconded by Mills. The
motion passed 6-0-0. Chairman Mills noted that she will write the letter.
Item #2: Chairman Mills asked if any of them had received a letter from the man
who asked for the sign variance for the McDonald's. Some of the members answered
that they had received letters. Chairman Mills advised that he had sent her a
letter asking if she would go on record recommending the informational signs on
the highway that they had discussed at the meeting of his appeal.
Mr. Becker noted that he had been contacted by phone by this man who asked about
sending a letter and he suggested that he write to the chairman.
Chairman Mills asked what they would like to do in response to this letter from
• him asking that they go on record to the highway commission and the City
supporting his request of the directional signs.
l�s
• Board of Adjustment
November 6, 1989
Page 6
Chairman Mills noted that if the businesses and citizens form a group and ban
together and get something past the Highway Department, then they could vote on
it. She asked if they want to go on record as a committee recommending things
to them.
Mrs. Wright stated that this Board should suggest that the business people should
form their own committee and recommend to them that they follow the normal
channels and contact the State Highway Department.
Mr. Becker noted that what this man wants is this Board to say that they would
recommend that the highway system do the signage and handle it on the highway
and not in the city. Mr. Tompkins stated that they don't have the jurisdiction
here because they don't develop planning policy for the city. He added that they
could recommend that they contact the Planning Commission.
Chairman Mills stated that if anyone wants to individually support this, they
may do so. She added that she will respond to this letter and will get in touch
with each of them as to whether they want to support it individually.
Item U3: Mr. Becker reported on the Planning Commission meetings.
• There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
1w