HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-01-18 Minutes•
•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AND BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, January 18,
1993, 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, Marion Orton, Larry Perkins and Lonnie
Meadows
MEMBERS ABSENT: Thad Hanna
OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, Don Denton, David
Moon Tam Ray, Laura Daniels, and Ronnie Cross
PROTOCOL
Me. Don Mills called the meeting to order. She explained the format of the
meeting.
APPEAL NO. BA93-3 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS
McCLINTON - ANCHOR - 357 N. COLLEGE AVENUE
The first item to be heard was a request for a setback variance on property
located at 357 North College requested by McClinton - Anchor on behalf of Road
Runner. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Ms. Little informed the Board the site was at the corner of Lafayette and Highway
71B and was currently developed with a Road Runner gas station. She reminded the
Board it was the gasoline station which had the gas leakage problem. She
explained there was now equipment, located to the west of the existing building,
used to remove the fumes from the ground caused by the leakage. She advised they.
had constructed a wooden fence around the equipment. She further advised the
purpose of constructing a building around the equipment was to protect it from
the weather, so the equipment could continue to function. She pointed out the
building would be temporary but temporary in this case meant 5 years. She
explained that to construct a structure around the equipment would require a
variance in order to allow an 8.5 foot setback.
Me. Little stated that, while this was not an ideal situation, there was a need
to protect the equipment from the weather and a need for the equipment. She
recommended approval of the request.
Mr. Boyd asked if the building would completely enclose the equipment.
Ms. Little explained the stack would extend from the building.
Mr. Don Denton explained the structure would have steel insulated panels and be
a nice, clean looking building. He advised it would be 10 feet tall with the
stack extending above the building.
Mr. David Moon, McClinton - Anchor, introduced Tom Ray, the Road Runner
representative. He explained Mr. Ray was the expert regarding the equipment.
In response to a question from Ms. Mills, Mr. Ray explained the equipment would'
treat the water by striping gasoline out. He pointed out the top of the stack
was not open-ended. He further explained the process of the filtering system and
noted the air was clean air when it dissipated into the atmosphere.
•
Board of Adjustments
January 18, 1993
Page 2
Me. Orton asked if there would be any effect on the adjoining property owners.
Mr. Ray explained the enclosing of the equipment would cut down on the noise.
He further advised the entire system had been approved by the Department of
Pollution Control and public hearings had been held regarding the system.
Mr. Perkins stated he had looked at the equipment, while it was running, and it
was not an excessively loud piece of machinery.
Ms. Sara Horne, an adjoining property owner, stated the original clean-up
proposal had been made in December, 1991, and covered building permits and
winterization. She further stated she believed the location of the equipment
could have been placed elsewhere which would have allowed the applicant to meet
the setbacks. She also expressed concern that construction of a structure could
cause run-off problems onto her property. She pointed out her property was four
feet below the ground level of the Road Runner property.
Me. Horne
building.
Pollution
Ms. Mills
property.
also expressed concern that volatile fumes would build up in the
She stated she had made an earlier request to the Department of
Control that the equipment not be located at its present site.
asked if it would be possible to direct the water away from her
Mr. Denton explained rain water run-off was to the south, rather than toward Ms.
Horne's property. He further explained all of the water going through the
equipment was self-contained and did not run off. He further advised he was able
to fire a torch around the equipment, that it was not a fire hazards.
In response to a question from Ms. Mills, Mr. Moon explained there was eight and
a half feet from the corner of the building to the west property line. He
explained there was, at one time, a car wash at that location with a curbed drive
running through the property; drainage ran down the old car wash drive and exited
out a drain in the retaining wall to the south. He also advised that, in the
original plan, there had been no provision for treatment of the off -gas but, at
the request of ADPCA prompted by Ms. Horne's letter, they had added the carbon
filtration on the off -gas. He explained this meant there were no gasoline vapors
emitted to the atmosphere.
Mr. Meadows asked if the Department of Pollution monitored the equipment.
Mr. Ray stated there were two discharges from the system -- air and treated
water. He advised the treated water was sampled on a weekly basis, analyzed by
a laboratory and the results were reported to ADPCA. He further noted the air
was sampled on a monthly basis, even though there was no requirement to sample
it
Mr. Perkins asked if the current site for the equipment was the best site for it.
Mr. Ray explained it was a question of logistics. He advised the majority of the.
work they were doing on the site was on the west side and to the south. He
stated the site was space that was not being used by Road Runner.
Mr. Boyd explained they were just concerned with the structure, not what happened
on the inside of the structure. He agreed this was a bad situation but he did
not believe a building would make it worse.
MOTION
Mr. Boyd moved to grant the request for a temporary variance.
�'9
•
Board of Adjustments
January 18, 1993
Page 3
Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.
Me. Orton wanted to know if they could make some provision that the applicant
would be responsible should the structure cause run-off to go onto Ms. Horne's
property.
Mr. Boyd explained that Ms. Horne had that right whether they granted the
variance or not. He further explained they were only concerned with the setback.
The motion carried unanimously.
APPEAL NO. 8A93-1 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE
JUSTIN DANIEL - 2571 N. COLLEGE AVE.
The next item was a request for a variance from the sign ordinance submitted by
Justin Daniel on behalf of Justin's Clubhouse. The property is located at 2571
N. College Avenue and is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Ms. Little explained there was a string of businesses in the building which
fronted on North College with an additional building (containing approximately
1200 square feet) which sat back from North College. She stated the building to
the back was where the applicant was located. She further explained the business
was having an identity problem with people being able to see it from North
College.
Ms. Little stated there was one on-site sign which was dedicated to the Shield
of Shelter insurance office. She explained the size of that sign was in excess
of 32 square feet (probably around 48 square feet). She explained the applicant
would like an additional on-site, freestanding sign, one visible from both
directions. She noted the sign ordinance was specific as to there being only one
on-site, freestanding sign. She advised the sign ordinance would allow for the
subject site a maximum of 88.5 square feet of signage. She explained the
applicant was requesting an additional pole on which to put their sign and also
cooperate with the Gold Dollar Pawn Shop to share the square footage of the sign.
Ms. Little pointed out that, should the owner of the property request a lot split
for the rear lot, the applicant would be allowed one freestanding sign.
Ms. Mills asked if the owner had considered taking down the Shield of Shelter
sign and replacing it with signage for the entire property.
Me. Little stated she had spoken personally with both Mr. Daniel and the owner
of the property, Ron Curry. She explained the Shield of Shelter sign had been
on site for a number of years and had been modified at the time of adoption of
the sign ordinance to make it conforming. She stated the insurance agent did own
the sign and did not want to share it.
Me. Orton stated there had been a number of cases similar to the subject one at
the time the sign ordinance was passed. She stated the tenants had to work out
a joint arrangement for signage. She pointed out this was a smaller area than
a large shopping center and they only had one on-site, freestanding sign.
Ms. Laura Daniels, representing the applicant and Mr. Ronnie Cross, the owner of
Gold Dollar Pawn, introduced themselves and stated they had been authorized by
Mr. Curry to represent him.
Ms. Little explained there had been a previous lot split on the subject property
but it did not involve the property rented by Justin's Clubhouse.
/00
•
Board of Adjustments
January 18, 1993
Page 4
In response to a question from Mr. Perkins, Me. Little explained the current sign
contained approximately 48 square feet and the applicant was requesting two 32 -
square foot signs. She stated they would be allowed a total signage of 88.4
square feet.
Mr. Cross advised the Board he had contacted the Shield of Shelter insurance
agent regarding sharing of signage. He stated the agent had been adamant
regarding not sharing the sign nor the pole. He further pointed out their
businesses were approximately 8 feet below street level, making it difficult for
people to find the business.
Ms. Daniels pointed out there were a lot of places where there were signs closer
together than what they were proposing.
Mr. Boyd asked what the other tenants in the center were supposed to do. He
explained the other tenants also needed signage and that was why the Board
recommended one sign with slate for each tenant's name.
Ms. Orton expressed concern about the other businesses also wanting a variance
if they granted the subject variance.
Ma. Daniels expressed her belief this situation was unique because there were so
many businesses on the same lot.
Mr. Perkins agreed the business was difficult to see. He suggested a sign for
the all of the other tenants.
Mr. Boyd asked if they could put another pole next to the existing pole, put the
signs in the other direction from the existing sign and finish up the square
footage requirements.
Ms. Little stated it would require the landlord's approval but it could be done
and considered as one sign.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Little noted the owner had not
signed the application but she had talked with him and he was aware of the
application and supported it. She recommended tabling this matter to allow the
tenants to discuss the matter with the owner.
Ms. Mills asked how much room they would have for signage.
Ms. Little stated they would have 40.4 square feet.
Me. Mills asked if the pawn shop would still be able to have the wall sign.
Ms. Little stated they would.
MOTION
Ms. Mills moved to table this item until the owner of the property could discuss
this matter with the Board.
Me. Orton seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
There was discussion regarding installation of a mansard roof by the tenant of
the Gold Dollar Pawn Shop.
1 0
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
January 18, 1993
Page 5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the January 4, 1993 Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals meeting were
approved as distributed.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Ms. Orton called the Board's attention to a child care center with unacceptable
signage.
The meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m.