Loading...
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