Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-06-15 Minutes• MINUTES 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, June 15, 1992, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: PROTOCOL Gerald Boyd, Don Mills, Robert Davis, Lonnie Meadows, Larry Perkins and Thad Hanna Marion Orton Sharon Langley, Mel Milholland, Mike Pennington, Mrs. Robert Osburn, Bruce Malcalm, and others Ms. Don Mills called the meeting to order. She then explained the meeting protocol. APPEAL NO. BA92-13 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS ROBERT OSBURN - 612 STORER AVE. The first item to be heard was a request for a setback variance on property located at 612 Storer Avenue presented by Mrs. Robert Osborn. The property is zoned R-3, High Density Residential. • Mrs. Osborn explained there had been a fire in one of the apartments and the Fire Department had noted they needed to upgrade the building to current standards. She stated one of the items required was a fire escape. She explained there was not sufficient room to put in a metal stairway on the north side of the building without a variance. She noted they were asking for a 2 1/2 foot setback. • Ms. Langley noted the report received by the Board was incorrect, that the stairway was 42 inches making an additional encroachment of' 3.5 feet. In response to comments from the applicant, Mr. Boyd explained the request was for a variance of 5.5 feet, so they could build within 2.5 of the property line. Mr. Davis noted the ordinance should include that the fire code took precedence over the setback requirements. The adjoining property owner to the north stated she was in favor of the Board granting the variance. Mr. Boyd pointed out the stairway would be made out of metal so they were not adding to a fire risk and it would be solving a problem. MOTION Mr. Davis moved to grant the variance as requested. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. 0 • • Board of Adjustments June 15, 1992 Page 2 APPEAL NO. BA92-12 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS MIKE PENNINGTON - TIMBERCREST SUBDIVISION The next appeal was submitted by Mel Milholland on behalf of Mike Pennington for a variance of area and bulk requirements for property located in Timbercrest Subdivision. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential and the application is to vary bulk and area requirements. Mr. Milholland presented a photograph showing the subdivision and another photo of a wall similar to the one the applicant proposed to construct. He explained the entrance/exit was to Highway 45 and the owner/developer wanted to define the entrance. He also noted the lots affected by the wall were corner lots. He further explained the wall would reduce the noise from the highway. He stated the wall would not create problems with sight distances. In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Langley explained it was the Planning Department's policy to not allow view obscuring fences in the setback area. Mr. Boyd questioned the distance between the houses and the proposed wall. Mr. Pennington stated theoretically they could be built within 5 feet of the fence. He also pointed out that, should the wall not be constructed, the Highway Department had the right to construct a fence. In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Pennington stated the owner/developer would maintain the wall for the first two years and then the homeowners association would maintain it. Mr. Davis asked if they would not have to do some fill in order to erect the fence. Mr. Pennington stated they might have to do some gradual fill but the wall would be stair -stepped and allow water to run underneath. Ms Mills asked if the fence would be to the north of the utility poles. Mr. Pennington stated only one pole would be affected by the wall and that pole would be on the outside of the wall. Mr. Boyd pointed out that, should they build to the setback line, there would not be room to get around the property for fire purposes. He noted that on the interior lots there was 16 feet (8 feet from each property) between structures but with the wall there would only be 5 feet. He stated he would like to see at least 8 feet between the structure and the wall. Mr. Pennington noted only one house would really be affected by the wall since the wall only went half way to the second house. • Mr. Boyd asked if they could increase the 5 feet between the structure and wall to 8 feet so there would be adequate room for emergency vehicles. 57 • • Board of Adjustments June 15, 1992 Page 3 Mr. Pennington explained they had just wanted to ask for the minimum amount of a variance. He stated they would like to have an additional three feet. After discussion, it was agreed the applicant could move the wall three feet closer to the highway. MOTION Mr. Boyd moved to allow the fence as proposed to be built in the setback 17 feet from the Highway 45 right-of-way and up to zero feet from the Aspen Drive right-of-way. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. APPEAL NO. SA92-9 - APPEAL FOR VARIANCE FROM SIGN ORDINANCE BRUCE MALCOLM - 708 N. COLLEGE The next item was an appeal for a variance from the sign ordinance (Chapter 158) presented by Bruce Malcolm for Zachary's Restaurant, located at 708 N. College. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Malcolm explained the sign company had contacted the City and had received a sign permit. He further explained the problem was that the intersection where the restaurant was located was a dangerous intersection because of the hill and curve. He informed the Board that during construction many people cut through the parking lot to get onto College. He noted they had stopped that by fencing across the front of the parking lot. He also pointed out the problem that customers needed to be able to turn into the parking lot without being rear-ended. He further pointed out that, as far as line of sight when going south on College, the sign was only 9 feet above ground. He stated the entrance to the restaurant was from Prospect, not College, due to the traffic and sight problems. Mr. Malcolm stated the sign also pointed out the entrance to the restaurant. He stated if the sign was to code, the sign would be in the middle of the parking lot. He further pointed out the sign would also be out of view due to the trees. Mr. Malcolm advised the Board he took a corner and a home that had been blighted and had improved it. He stated if it were just a question of moving the sign, the would not have asked for a variance; but he was trying to not get somebody killed. He expressed his opinion that the sign was the least obtrusive and most effective way of directing traffic into the restaurant safely. He further noted he had not received any complaints from the area residents regarding either the sign or the location of the sign. Mr. Davis stated he did not see any better location for the sign. He further stated he was in favor of granting the variance. • In response to a question from Mr. Hanna, Mr. Malcolm stated he did not know whether the sign company which made and installed the sign was aware of the hB Board of Adjustments June 15, 1992 Page 4 setbacks or not. He explained he had hired the company to make and install the sign and the company and shown him a sign permit. He stated he had been surprised when he found the sign did not meet code at final building inspection. Ms. Mills asked staff for a copy of the sign permit and the Sign Inspector, Richard Wilson, to be present. Mr. Boyd pointed out the request was for a variance from the curb. He explained the variance should not be measured from the curb. Mr. Malcolm explained there were no sidewalks which the sign obstructed. Mr. Boyd explained the code provided for setbacks from the property line, not curbs. Mr. Malcolm stated he did not know where the property line was. In response to a question from Ms. Mills, Mr. Wilson explained the applicant had asked for a permit for a free-standing sign, 32 square feet in size. He stated he had informed the sign company the sign would need to be placed 26 feet back from the right-of-way. He stated he had disapproved the sign after he looked at the location. He also explained he had asked Freeman Wood, his supervisor, to talk to the applicant. Mr. Wilson explained that the sign was located 26 feet from the curb of College but that College Street had a 30 foot right-of-way from the centerline. He explained the sign should be 56 feet from the centerline of the roadway. He also noted Prospect had a 25 -foot right-of-way from the centerline so the sign should set 51 feet back from the centerline of Prospect. He acknowledged that, if the sign were in the proper location, the applicant would lose some parking spaces. In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Wilson stated that as long as the Entrance sign was under 4 square feet, there was no problem -- they did not require a permit. Mr. Wilson suggested moving the sign to the south side of the property. Mr. Malcolm stated it would not be possible to direct customers to the entry on Prospect if the sign were on the south side of the property. Mr. Davis suggested repainting the present sign, making the word "Entrance" larger and the restaurant's name in smaller letters under it. He agreed the entrance needed to be from Prospect. Mr. Boyd suggested redeigning the sign to combine the 10 feet allowed for a free standing sign and the 4 feet allowed for a directional sign into a 14 square foot sign. He also agreed the location seemed to be the best for what the applicant wanted to accomplish. He further noted the sign "jumped out at him" as he came over the hill, going south. Mr. Hanna stated he had received the opposition opinion but was also coming from the opposite direction. He also noted the sign did not seem obtrusive to him -- that 59 • Board of Adjustments June 15, 1992 Page 5 he did not even know it was a restaurant. He pointed out Prospect and College was a dangerous intersection. He agreed the sign did not meet the intent of the sign ordinance but, until he saw the actual measurements, he did not realize there was such a drastic difference since the sign sat in a hollow. He stated he did not believe it was taking advantage since it did not say that it was a restaurant. Mr. Boyd agreed he liked the idea of the directional sign because it was not clear where the entrance and where the exit to the parking lot was located without the signs. Mr. Perkins stated he did not see the sign being obtrusive (he had to look for it before seeing it) but noted it was not in compliance with the code. He further stated that, from a safety standpoint, directional signs were needed. Mr. Boyd explained that, should they grant this variance, everyone on College would want the same thing. Mr. Perkins stated that, from a safety standpoint, they could look at each request case by case. He pointed out that north of the subject location the terrain was flatter and the signs more visible. He also noted the applicant had a compelling argument regarding needing directional signs. • Mr. Boyd stated there was a possibility the sign was within the street right-of-way. He pointed out that, should the street be widened or a sidewalk put in, the applicant would have to move the sign. Mr. Malcolm stated he would be willing to move the sign in those circumstances. Mr. Hanna pointed out that, should the sign be moved, the trees on the lot would hide the sign. He also noted the restaurant had upgraded the area. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to accept the variance as requested. Mr. Meadows seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-2-0 with Mr. Meadows, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Hanna, and Mr. Davis voting "yes" and Mr. Boyd and Ms. Mills voting "no". OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Mills stated on June 1, 1992 there had been a special joint meeting with the Board of Directors, Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment regarding amending a portion of the Board of Adjustment ordinances. She asked Ms. Langley if there was a proposed ordinance. Ms. Langley explained they had not received any direction at that meeting. She asked for further direction. Co • Board of Adjustments June 15, 1992 Page 6 Mr. Boyd stated that, since the the ordinances would need to be Ms. Mills pointed out the portion a city one. form of city government was to be changed, all of reviewed. they were discussing to amend was a state law, not Mr. Davis stated the problem was not who handled the appeals but to get a decent ordinance in decent English with decent logic first. Ms. Mills stated that, with the change in the form of government, they could wait until the land use ordinance was in place. She also noted that whatever was going to be changed would have to be changed through the state. She further stated they could let the matter ride until the new aldermen and mayor were in charge. Mr. Davis recommended the Board proceed on the presumption that they would continue operating under the laws of the state. He stated he had a prejudice for it. Ms Mills agreed with Mr. Davis. She further noted the Board of Adjustments did not set nor enforce policy. After discussion by the members, it was determined the present system was working and that the Board of Directors had more flexibility at the present time than they would should the code be changed. 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 meeting of June 1, 1992. There being none, the minutes were approved. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Ms. Mills stated the chairman of the Board of Adjustments/Sign Appeals was, according to their bylaws, to be elected at the last meeting in June. Mr. Boyd nominated Don Mills. Mr. Perkins seconded the nomination. Ms Don Mills was unanimously elected as Chairperson of the Board of Adjustments/Sign Appeals. The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. Col