HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-05-18 MinutesMINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AND BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment and Board of Sign Appeals was
held on Monday, May 18, 1992, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration
Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gerald Boyd, Don Mills, Robert Davis, Marion Orton
(arrived late), Lonnie Meadows, Larry Perkins and Thad
Hanna
OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Sharon Langley, Doyle Shakleford, Gary
Adams, Steve Hartman, Allen Cox, and others
PROTOCOL
Ms. Don Mills called the meeting to order. She asked the Board to hear the Board
of Adjustment and Sign Appeals request first and then consider the other business
they had on the agenda.
The Board members agreed.
Ms. Mills then explained the meeting protocol.
APPEAL NO. BA92-11 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK
REQUIREMENTS
DOYLE SHAKLEFORD - 753 WEST 6TH STREET
The first item to be heard was a request for a setback variance on property located
at 753 West 6th Street presented by Gary Adams on behalf of Doyle Shakleford. The
property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential.
Mr. Gary Adams explained the building had been located on the same spot for
approximately 45 years. He further explained the office portion of the building was
being cut off due to the widening of Highway 62. He stated Mr. Shakleford was
requesting that he be able to add back a portion of the building at the temporary
easement line rather than going back 20 feet. He explained it would be difficult to
build on to the building in any other way due to sewer lines. He also noted there
were other properties in the area that would not meet setback requirements after the
highway was widened.
Mr. Adams explained the Highway Department had asked for an original easement
which would take 12 feet of the property and an additional temporary easement in
order to work on the road.
Ms. Alett Little explained the 12 foot easement was for required right-of-way. She
noted the temporary easement of 5 feet would revert ownership to Mr. Shakleford.
She explained the Highway Department would be taking approximately 14$ of the
building area. She stated that, since the building was advanced in age, replacement
cost might well exceed 50$ of the value of the structure.
Ms Little expressed her belief this was a special case wherein the owner had nothing
to do with the building being taken. She recommended approval of' the requested
variance.
N{
•
•
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
May 18, 1992
Page 2
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Shakleford stated the entrance to the
building would either be at the front or side, whichever would work out better.
Ms. Little noted that there would be an 8 to 10 foot shoulder along the highway with
no parking allowed. She further noted she would want the entrance to be on the side
of the building.
Ms. Mills agreed that it would be much safer to have the entrance on the side.
Mr. & Mrs. Skelton, neighbors to the east, stated they were in favor of the
variance.
Mr. Boyd stated that, as long as the entrance was on the side, he would be in favor
of granting the variance.
MOTION
Mr. Boyd moved to approve the request for a variance with the provision that the
entry to the property not be on the north side and that there be no parking on the
north side.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
APPEAL NO. BA92-12 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK
REQUIREMENTS
GERALD BOYD - 432 BUCHANAN AVENUE
The next appeal was submitted by Gerald Boyd for a variance of area and bulk
requirements for property located on the east side of Buchanan Avenue, just north
of 432 Buchanan Avenue. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential and
the application is to vary minimum lot width requirements.
Mr. Boyd explained he had purchased the property approximately a year ago with
the intent of constructing a duplex. He further explained that during the course of
the survey, they discovered there was a storm sewer and sewer easement going
through the center of the property. He stated he now intended to put a second
house on the lot but under that code he was required to meet all zoning requirements
for the second house. He explained he could meet the setbacks but he only had 50
feet of lot width instead of the required 60 feet.
Ms. Little stated the code did make a provision for more than one structure to be
located on a lot provided that the yard requirements were met. She pointed out Mr.
Boyd could meet the setback requirements but was unable to meet the standard lot
width requirement. She recommended approval of the request since Mr. Boyd could
meet the setback requirements.
Mr. Davis stated this was just one of many small lots to be utilized in the established
part of town.
V?
•
Board of Adjustments
May 18, 1992
Page 3
MOTION
• Mr. Perkins moved to grant the variance as requested.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
•
•
The motion carried 5-0-1 with Mr. Davis, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Hanna, Mr. Meadows and
Ms. Mills voting "yes" and Mr. Boyd abstaining.
APPEAL NO. SA92-4 - APPEAL FOR VARIANCE FROM SIGN ORDINANCE
WALMART - 2999 N. COLLEGE
The next item was an appeal for a variance from the sign ordinance (Chapter 158)
presented by Walmart for their property located at 2999 N. College. The property
is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Ms. Mills explained this was a request for a re -hearing of an appeal they had heard
in January. She further explained the representative for Walmart, Steve Hartman,
had requested the Board re -hear the request because some of their signage was lost
which had not been noted by the Board of Sign Appeals. She stated they first
needed to decide whether the Board would re -hear the appeal. She stated she was
not sure the applicant had been informed the Board would first vote on whether to
re -hear the appeal. She stated it was her belief that the Walmart representatives
had not been aware that the Board did not re -hear a request unless there was an
error or omission.
MOTION
Ms Mills moved to re -hear the Walmart appeal.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion carried 5-1-0 with Mr. Perkins, Mr. Hanna, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Meadows and
Ms. Mills voting "yes" and Mr. Davis voting "no".
Mr. Steve Hartman, representative of Walmart, explained that they had received a
variance for "Tire and Lube Express" as long as it was no larger than 75 square
feet. He stated they put up "Tire and Lube" and did not have room for the word
"Express". He further explained that when they started the remodel, they took
down the words "Discount City" and "Auto Center". He pointed out those two signs
equaled 157.9 square feet of signage which had been removed. He further noted
they had put 75 square feet back on the building, losing 82.9 square feet of signage.
He requested that they be allowed to put the 82.9 square feet of signage back on the
building by adding "Express" to "Tire and Lube". He stated this was an express
service. He also requested they be allowed to put the word "Pharmacy" (16.75
square feet) under the word "Walmart" so it could be considered as one sign. He
noted they would still be under 82.9 square feet.
• Mr. Hartman also noted that on the side of the building, the directional signs over
the bays had been changed from "Oil Change" to "Lube" in order to meet the city's
•
•
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
May 18, 1992
Page 4
requirements. He explained that "Alignment", if having the same size of lettering
as the other signs, was too large to meet the requirement of four square feet. He
stated the sign would be eight square feet. He requested a variance for the sign.
Mr. Davis stated this was an informational sign for the people using the service. He
stated it was not for the passing traffic. He noted they did not need a big sign.
Mr. Hartman noted the sign was not that large, that the letters were only 12 inches
in height. He further noted they were a customer -orientated company and wanted
to be sure their customers knew what services were available.
Mr. Hanna expressed his belief that the point of remodeling was to make the store
look better. He pointed out the Walmart on Highway 62 (which has not been
remodeled) had signs painted above each door that were four square feet in size.
He stated it was informational but did not look good. He stated the store on North
College was looking for an overall effect -- trees planted, nice signs, a nice color of
paint on the building. He expressed his opinion that from an overall visual effect
he believed it would look better to allow the variance for conformity of signs. He
pointed out the purpose of the sign ordinance was to beautify the City of
Fayetteville.
Ms. Mills asked if they added the word "Express" to "Tire and Lube" on the front of
the building, how large the sign would be.
Mr. Hartman stated it would be 132 square feet.
Mr. Allen Cox, a Walmart representative, stated the philosophy at Walmart was
customer service and they wanted to do anything to make the customer's shopping
experience more pleasant, more easily done. He also noted they had repainted the
building, trying to make it more attractive. He stated he believed in keeping
Fayetteville beautiful. He further stated the sign "Pharmacy" was to make the
customer aware they did have a pharmacy. He explained that he understood what
Mr. Davis was talking about but if the customer came through the store and went to
the automotive counter and then went out, the Alignment sign would tell the
customer which bay to use. He further explained a number of people came to the
Automotive Center from the signs, which showed what services were available.
Mr. Davis stated the ordinance limited the number of signs on the side of the
building.
Mr. Perkins noted that in the same shopping center there were two businesses with
repetitive signs. He stated he saw no problem with the request.
Ms. Mills suggested they divided the request into three parts: "Express",
"Pharmacy" and "Alignment". She noted they were allowed to have the Walmart sign
and had a variance for a 75 square foot separate sign.
Mr. Perkins asked if the "Walmart" sign was at the maximum size.
y9
•
•
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
May 18, 1992
Page 5
Ms. Mills stated it was considered as one wall sign. She explained the ordinance
allowed one wall sign.
Ms. Orton arrived at the meeting and Ms Mills updated her on Walmart's request.
There was discussion regarding how the wall signs were to be measured.
Mr. Boyd stated he believed Walmart was showing restraint in their signage.
Mr. Hartman presented the Board with sketches of signage used at other Walmart
stores throughout the country.
Mr. Boyd explained the way the sign inspector interpreted measurement of wall signs
was to draw a box around all of the signage, measure the box, and if it was less than
20% of the frontage of the building, approve the signage.
Mr. Davis pointed out that each city had different ordinances and different
requirements .
Mr. Hanna explained Mr. Hartman was just giving them an example of what Walmart
had in other cities. He noted Walmart was trying to make their stores standardized.
He stated they had upgraded their store on North College. He further stated
"Discount City" did not look as good as what they wanted to put up. He pointed out
the store on Highway 62 (which has not been remodeled and had the old signs) did
not look as good as the proposal for the North College store. He further stated if
Walmart wanted to go by the ordinance, they could build one huge sign and meet the
20% requirement.
Mr. Boyd agreed that they were capable to putting up a lot more signage if the signs
were closer together.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Hartman explained there would be less
square footage on the "Auto Lube Express" sign than the original sign contained.
Mr. Boyd explained they could not grant variances just because the signage was
good for business.
Ms. Mills expressed her opinion that the Walmart sign and the 75 square foot sign
(granted by the Board of Directors) on the front of the building was approximately
the same regulations with which everyone complied.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Hartman explained the original
"Discount City" and "Walmart" signage were on the "duty front vestibule" and were
considered as one sign and the variance was for "Auto Center" at the corner of the
building which accounted for the 75 square foot variance. He further explained they
had taken down "Discount City" and "Auto Center" signage. He further noted there
were stair -steps on the facia board and that was where the "Pharmacy" sign would
be located (under the Walmart sign) . He explained he did not know whether the
letters for "Pharmacy" would be 18 inches tall because he did not know the width of
the facia.
•
•
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
May 18, 1992
Page 6
MOTION
Mr. Hanna moved to accept the resolution for "Walmart" and "Pharmacy" to be
considered one sign and "Tire and Lube Express" to be their second sign.
Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.
The motion passed 5-2-0 with Mr. Perkins, Mr. Hanna, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Meadows, and
Ms. Orton voting "yes" and Mr. Davis and Ms. Mills voting "no".
Ms. Mills stated they now needed to consider the sign "Alignment" on the side of the
building. She stated Walmart was asking for an 8 square foot sign because the word
"alignment" would not fit into the required 4 square foot sign.
Mr. Hanna stated they could conform to the four square foot rule for informational
signs (like the Highway 62 store) but he did not believe it looked as good as using
the same size of lettering.
Ms. Mills agreed with Mr. Hanna.
Mr. Perkins pointed out they had compromised with the city by shortening some of
the words.
Mr. Davis stated the word "Alignment" took up less space than "Oil Change".
Ms. Mills stated they had changed "Oil Change" to "Lube".
MOTION
Mr. Perkins moved to grant a variance to allow 8 square feet for the word
"Alignment".
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion carried 6-1-0 with Mr. Perkins, Mr. Hanna, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Meadows, Ms.
Mills and Ms. Orton voting "yes" and Mr. Davis voting "no".
MINUTES
Ms. Mills asked if there were any corrections or additions to the minutes of the
regular Board of Adjustment and Board of Sign Appeals Minutes of April 20, 1992.
Mr. Boyd moved to approve the minutes as distributed.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
Cl
•
•
Board of Adjustments
May 18, 1992
Page 7
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion Regarding Request to Amend Board of Adjustment Ordinance
Ms. Langley notified the Board members that the City Manager had requested the
Board of Adjustment have a joint meeting with the Board of Directors and the
Planning Commissioners regarding amending the Board of Adjustment ordinance on
June'l, 1992 at 5:00 p.m.
Ms. Mills explained the City of Board Directors had asked for the Board of
Adjustment's opinion regarding an amendment to the appeals process.
Mr. Boyd stated they were aware of problems with the present method but, if it were
easy to appeal the decision of the Board of Adjustment, everyone would just appeal
and the Board of Adjustment would have no function.
Mr. Meadows pointed out that, anytime they denied a case, the petitioner filed a
lawsuit.
Mr. Boyd agreed but stated it still was harder to file the lawsuit than just to appeal
to the Board of Directors. He pointed out that now they had to go to the trouble of
hiring an attorney and paying a settlement. He further stated that, if it just went
before the Board of Directors, the petitioners were going to get away scot free.
In response to a question from Mr. Hanna, Mr. Davis explained the Chancery Court
had never decided a single appeal because the cases were always been settled before
it got to trial.
Ms. Mills explained they had not had many appeals until the last few years. She
further explained the statute was written so if the appellant was denied a variance,
he would have to file suit in the Chancery Court. She stated the applicant filed the
suit and then, if he wanted to settle, he would get in touch with the City Attorney
and say they wanted to settle. She pointed out the City Attorney was obligated to
present the settlement to the Board of Directors.
Mr. Davis stated cases in other cities had gone to trial and none of those
municipalities wanted to change the statute. He pointed out the Board of Directors
wanted to delete the statute when they had not even had a trial.
Mr. Boyd pointed out that every case had different facts and winning one case did
not mean they would win the next one.
Mr. Davis stated they had no experience upon which to make a judgment.
In response to a question from Mr. Meadows, Mr. Boyd explained the Board of
Directors did not hear all of the evidence heard by the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Meadows asked how the Board of Directors based their decision without all of the
facts.
52
Board of Adjustment Excerpt
May 18, 1992
Page 8
Ms. Mills explained the City Manager gave the Board of Directors the background on
the case and they asked questions. She stated they did not have the in-depth
information the Board of Adjustment had. She further stated that once or twice they
had asked for the Board of Adjustment's input.
Mr. Boyd expressed his opinion that builders should not be able to casually ignore
the law.
Ms Mills explained that five or six years earlier they had certain builders that were
knowingly breaking the law in regard to setbacks and then come before the Board
of Adjustment to ask for a variance. She further explained that was why they
became so staunch in the enforcement of setbacks. She expressed her opinion that
the City should have some sort of a penalty for builders who violated the setbacks.
In response to a question from Mr. Perkins, Mr. Boyd explained the process of
receiving a building permit and the city inspections made. It was pointed out the
contractor signed a notarized statement that he would not encroach into the setback
areas.
Mr. Boyd stated he did not think it was in the best interest of the Board of
Adjustment to have all of their decisions appealed to the Board of Directors.
Ms. Orton pointed out the Board of Directors only heard the applicant's side and
rarely heard the Board of Adjustment's side of a case unless they read the minutes
of the meeting.
Ms Mills noted the City Manager was the person presenting the background. She
suggested the Planning Director should present it since the Director would be more
familiar with the case.
Ms. Mills explained that Director Nash had brought these changes up because there
had been so much controversy. She further stated she believed the Board of
Directors was trying to make the situation better, if they could.
Ms. Orton pointed out this was not necessarily agreed upon by all the City Board.
Mr. Perkins stated he agreed with Mr. Boyd and believed an appeal should be filed
in court.
Mr. Boyd stated he did not think it was a very good system -- that it was not perfect
but the main thing they wanted to do was discourage people from violating the law.
He stated he would think twice before casually putting down some footings if he knew
he had to go through a lawsuit.
Ms. Mills stated the other consideration dealt with changing the requirements on
which they granted variances.
Mr. Davis stated it was items 4 and 5. He stated these were the basis for making all
of the decisions by the Board of Adjustment.
53
•
Board of Adjustment Excerpt
May 18, 1992
Page 9
Mr. Boyd pointed out they had not followed item 4.
• Ms. Mills agreed that, any time they granted a variance, they gave special privilege.
•
•
•
Mr. Perkins stated they did not grant a special privilege at the expense of a
neighbor.
Ms. Mills stated that on item 5 they were not supposed to consider anything else in
the neighborhood when considering a variance. She explained that in the past they
had not looked at the neighborhood but she believed they might need to do so. She
gave as an example the older part of town where the lots were small. She stated she
believed the zoning ordinance needed to be re -written.
Ms. Orton stated they did consider the neighborhood and how it would be affected
when deciding whether to grant a variance.
Ms. Mills pointed out item 5 stated they could not look at the neighborhood.
Mr. Davis asked how many houses they had to look at to see if the change conformed
to the neighborhood.
Mr. Boyd stated that, if they deleted 5, there needed to be a provision put in that
they could not grant any variance that would substantially increase the fire or health
risks or create fire or health risks.
Mr. Perkins stated he believed they should leave items 4 and 5 in the code. He
stated this was only his second meeting but he got the impression, whether it was
voiced or not, that the neighbors were considered in the decision.
Ms. Orton suggested the code could be amended for clarification.
Widening of Sixth Street:
Ms. Langley notified the Board that on May 28, 1992 at 5:30 there would be a public
hearing for any property owners that might be affected by the widening of 6th
Street.
Mr. Boyd stated it would be nice to know how much the property owners were paid
when the property was condemned. He pointed out they would need to know if they
had received compensation for the entire house. He stated the City Attorney might
be able to find out the amount of compensation paid.
Ms Langley pointed out that many of those property owners would be requesting
variances from the Board of Adjustment if they wished to remodel or rebuild their
structures.
Resolution Regarding Signage on Facia Board
Mr. Boyd expressed concern on the wording of the resolution. He stated they
needed to determine whether the parapet should be included.
•
•
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Excerpt
May 18, 1992
Page 10
After discussion, the Board determined they wanted to give this matter more
consideration.
The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
I.7