Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-09-21 Minutes• MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals was held on Tuesday, September 21, 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: Gerald Boyd, Marion Orton, Don Mills, Robert Davis, Larry Perkins, and Lonnie Meadows Thad Hanna Alett Little, Sharon Langley, Joe Bader, Richard Osborne, John Faucette, Bronson Stilwell, and Richard Wilson Ms. Mills called the meeting to order and explained the protocol of the meeting. APPEAL NO. BA92-17 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS JOE BADER - 2050 W. 6T11 The first item to be heard was a request for a setback variance (setback not to be used for parking) on property located at 2050 W. 6th presented by Joe Bader. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. • Ms. Little explained the zoning ordinance section 160.118(D)(6) allowed for reduction in the building setbacks required for a C-2 zone from 50 feet to 25 feet, provided vegetation having a minimum height of 1.5 feet at the time of planting and occupying 10% of the open area was installed and no off-street parking was provided in the remaining front yard. She explained the subject lot was triangular in shape consisting of approximately 1/3 acre, and had frontage on three streets. She stated to the north was Farmington Road, to the west was Sang Avenue, and to the southeast there was frontage on U. S. Highway 62 (6th Street). She advised that, due to the unusual configuration, with frontage on three sides, a setback from each street right-of-way of 50 feet would be required. Ms. Little noted the applicant had revised his original request presented at the September 8, 1992 meeting. She explained that previously the applicant proposed to develop the lot in two phases - phase 1 was a 1,300 square foot restaurant and phase 2 was an additional 1,200 square foot building. She stated the new plan called for one building on the lot and the provision of 11 parking spaces. She noted other changes to the plan included better design for traffic flow including limited access to Highway 62. Ms Little further advised the revised plan reduced the need for variances to the setback requirements however, minimal encroachments would occur. She explained the applicant was requesting a variance to allow use of the setback area for parking in order to accommodate the proposed development of a Little Caesar Pizza drive-in. • She pointed out that, as a condition of the ordinance allowing reduction in the setback area from 50 feet to 25 feet, landscaping was required equal to 10% of the open area. She noted the applicant had showed landscaping on the first set of V2 • Board of Adjustments September 21, 1992 Page 2 plans, however, it had not been shown on the current plan. She stated the applicant had stated he intended to install in excess of the required landscaping. Ms. Little recommended approval of the requested variance conditioned upon the installation of appropriate landscaping. She recommended the applicant coordinate the landscaping plan with the City Horticulturist to assure that location and species were appropriate for the area and that sight distances were not impaired. Mr. Bader reviewed the proposed plan with the Board. He pointed out there would be a consistent traffic flow. He stated he did want to landscape the tract and pointed out the open areas slated for landscaping. He further stated he had talked to the City Traffic Superintendent and had been told there had been 147 accidents in the last 18 months at the intersection. He advised there had not been good sight distance but he believed his plan would improve the visibility at the intersection. Ms. Orton stated there had been a question regarding moving of the underground tanks. Mr. Bader stated the purchase of the property was contingent upon removal of the tanks and approval by the EPA. Mr. Wayne Eckert questioned whether there was a water or sewer line running across • the property. • In response to a question from Ms. Mills, Mr. Bader pointed out the areas to be landscaped. Mr. Richard Osborne stated he was present on behalf of Littlefield Oil Company, the owner of the property. He explained Mr. Littlefield had asked him to speak in favor of the request. He agreed traffic was a problem but expressed his belief the proposed plan would improve traffic flow. He pointed out this area was a commercial area and traffic was usually a problem in commercialized areas. MOTION Ms. Orton moved to approve the request as revised and presented. Mr. Boyd stated the article in Zoning News regarding drive-ins had mentioned the problem of stack -ups. He pointed out that, with the entrance off of Farmington Road, with more than three cars there could be a stack -up. Mr. Bader explained that was why he had moved the lines to the back. He stated customers did follow the lines and arrows. Mr. Boyd agreed that pizzas would not be as slow as picking up hamburgers. Mr. Bader explained the drive-through was just to pick up the pizzas which were to be ready when the customer came to pick them up. g3 • Board of Adjustments September 21, 1992 Page 3 Mr. Boyd pointed out people could come into the establishment in three different areas. Mr. Bader explained he had never had that large of a back up at either the other Fayetteville location or the Springdale location. Mr. Boyd recommended that the variance should only go with this business. He explained there could be a traffic tie-up with any other type of drive-in business. Ms. Orton agreed and included a restriction in her motion that the variance was for Little Caesar Pizza only. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. APPEAL NO. BA92-21 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM ZONING REQUIREMENTS BRONSON STILWELL - 358 ARKANSAS AVENUE The next item was a request for a variance from zoning requirements for property located at 358 Arkansas Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, High Density Residential. She noted the application was for a variance of the 1 acre requirement for Professional Offices. Ms. Little explained the property was an existing building located at the northeast intersection of Lafayette and Arkansas Avenue. She noted the professional office would require a conditional use from the Planning Commission but the applicant first wanted to determine that the variance would be approved. She further explained that usually a variance travelled with the land and was not revocable. She stated that, in this case, the variance was related to the use. She advised the Board the last variance on the property was approved in 1986 for use as a fraternity house She stated the requirement under the zoning code was for an acre lot for a professional office. She pointed out the subject lot contained .36 acre. She noted the square footage of the building totalled approximately 3,600 square feet, requiring 12 parking spaces. She advised the plan showed 15 parking spaces. Ms. Little recommended approval of the requested variance because the proposed use was less intensive than the previous use. Mr. Davis noted Ms. Little had informed them in her report there would be an apartment on the premises for security reasons. He stated there was an ordinance which prohibited an apartment in commercial zoning. Ms. Little explained apartment units were a use by right in an R-3 zone. She further explained the conditional use would be in addition to the use by right. • Mr. Boyd stated he did not believe the parking had been paved. He noted that, even though it would be a Planning Commission action, he wanted to be sure the parking area was paved. 8`/ • Board of Adjustments September 21, 1992 Page 4 In response to a question from Ms. Mills, Ms. Little explained the previous variance was to allow the use of the property as a fraternity house. She further explained that also required a minimum of one acre of' land. Mr. Faucette stated he was present to represent Dr. Bronson Stilwell. He pointed out the Board of Adjustment had previously granted a variance to a fraternity on the lot size. He stated that, while the proposal was for a different use, they too were requesting a variance on the lot size. Mr. Boyd asked what profession would be using the office. Mr. Faucette stated it would be counseling. Dr. Stilwell stated he was a psychiatrist and he would be using a portion of the building and renting other offices to other counselors, insurance agents, etc. He noted the offices would not generate a great deal of traffic. Mr. Faucette stated they had talked to other property owners in the area and they were favorable to the variance. In response to a question from Ms. Orton, Ms. Little explained this variance was by use. ' She advised the variance from one acre to .36 acre had been approved but for a fraternity rather than a professional office use. MOTION Mr. Boyd moved to grant the variance subject to an assurance that the parking as shown be paved. Ms. Orton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes were approved as distributed. OTHER BUSINESS: Amendment to Sign Ordinance Ms. Little stated she had received a request that the Board of Sign Appeals consider amending the sign ordinance to allow for the placement of banners in the city and to allow for a one time (yearly) permit for banners. In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Little stated at the present time an applicant could get a permit for a banner. She explained there were a number of businesses which got a permit every 30 days to allow a banner. She stated she believed the Board would need to put some thought into what was intended by the sign ordinance when they allowed the use of windblown signs. 75 • Board of Adjustments September 21, 1992 Page 5 Ms. Mills asked if the application was automatically approved for banners. Ms. Little stated there were some restriction such as being affixed to the building. She pointed out the banners that were not affixed to the building were not allowable. She further noted the banners were to be for special events such as special sales, promotions, etc. Ms. Little introduced Richard Wilson, the sign inspector for the City of Fayetteville. Mr. Wilson presented pictures of various banners located within the City. He stated the majority of the banners in the pictures did not have permits even though he had notified the owners by registered mail. He explained they were now waiting for time expiration on two of the signs. He further explained that in many instances business owners put up banners without a sign permit. He stated the procedure was to notify the business owner that a permit was required and leave an application with the owner. He further stated that, if the owner did not respond within four or five days, he sent a certified letter to the business owner and then had to wait 20 days. In response to a question, Mr Wilson stated a banner was considered a wall sign and was treated as such He advised the Board that McDonald's and Sonic usually sent in an application on a monthly basis because they had different specials each month. He explained that, if the wording on the banner was changed, a new permit was required. Mr. Wilson requested a change in the ordinance that would allow him to remove a sign five days after notice was given to the business owner if a permit was not obtained. Ms. Little stated the request from the business community was that they be allowed to purchase a permit once a year that would cover all banners at one location. She explained Mr. Wilson was not adverse to that procedure, feeling that it would streamline the process. She stated her concern was that she did not know the intent of the ordinance in reference to banners. She requested the Board put some thought into both the intent of the ordinance and the proposed amendment. There was discussion regarding the definition of a banner. Mr. Wilson explained banners were strictly considered as wall signs and treated as such. Ms. Mills asked if a permit allowed only one banner or a number of banners. Mr. Wilson explained it depended upon the business and the location of the business. He further explained that, if there was one business in one building, the business owner could have four signs; but, if the business was sharing space with other businesses in the same building, the business owner could have a sign per wall, per business, per building (one sign) . Ms. Mills asked Ms Orton (a former Board of Director member) the original intent on this section of the sign ordinance. Ms. Orton stated she did not believe this had been considered. She further stated she believed banners had been included for special, temporary events. $b • Board of Adjustments September 21, 1992 Page 6 Ms. Little stated she believed the business community would like to address this issue also. She explained she wanted to give the Board time to think about it before having a meeting with the business community. There was also discussion regarding "windblown" signs. Mr. Wilson stated many members of the business community would like to have the ability to put up a windblown sign three or four times a year instead of once a year. Mr. Wilson also pointed out a number of businesses had windblown signs they put up on Friday night and took down on Sunday night, knowing there was no inspection over the weekend. Mr. Perkins asked if Mr. Wilson wanted a permit allowing the applicant to apply for a year's supply of banners in advance. Mr. Wilson stated he did not believe that would work -- that it would be impossible for him to keep track of which sign was up. He also gave examples of problems he was having with banner signs. Ms. Little stated they needed to give some serious consideration as to what the original sign ordinance intended, what the business community needed, and what they could reasonably be expected to enforce on a daily basis. Mr. Boyd asked why the violators could not be arrested. Ms. Little explained it would take the City Prosecutor to get a conviction. Mr. Boyd explained that it might discourage violators if they were taken to court on a misdemeanor charge. Mr. Wilson stated he had a violation from 1988 which was still awaiting trial. Mr. Boyd asked if it was the same as a traffic ticket. Mr. Wilson explained it was not the same. He further explained he submitted a violation notice and then waited 20 days prior to doing anything. He recommended shortening the time from 20 days. Ms. Mills recommended the Board re -read the sign ordinance and then get input from the business community. After discussion it was determined the Board would discuss this item further at their next meeting and, after that meeting, have a meeting with the business community. Mr. Davis asked why the ordinance differentiated between different types of signs. • • • Board of Adjustments September 21, 1992 Page 7 Mr Wilson explained that a number of years earlier the realtors' association had approached the Board of Directors to change the ordinance in regard to realty signs. Ms. Little explained they wanted to be consistent with all business owners so they could explain what the City was doing and why. The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. 11