HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-02-22 MinutesMINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment and Board of Sign Appeals was
held on Monday, February 22, 1993, at 2:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City
Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gerald Boyd, Don Mills, Marion Orton, and Thad Hanna
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
PROTOCOL
Larry Perkins and Lonnie Meadows
Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Sharon Langley, Kim and Cecily
Brawner, Barbara Springer, Curtis Hogue, Joy Fox, Clifford and
Vance Copher, Dennis Kelly, and Dale Clark
Ms. Don Mills called the meeting to order. She explained the format of the
meeting. She advised the petitioners that, since there were only four members
of the Board present, they could request their item be tabled until the following
meeting when they would have more members present.
APPEAL NO. BA93-9 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS
C.F. & M. ABBE ENGLAND - 601 WEST SIXTH
The first item to be heard was a request for a setback variance on property
located at 601 West Sixth requested by C. F. and M. Anne England, presented by
Kim Brawner. The property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial - Heavy Commercial.
Mr. Conklin explained the site was currently developed with a 1,148 square foot
structure which had been owed by the applicant for over 15 years. He noted the
antique shop had been operating at that location for 11 years. He further
explained the planned highway widening would be eliminating the existing parking
in front of the building and would be creating a 13'4" setback from West Sixth
Street.
He advised the other variance requested was due to the historic placement of the
structure four feet, six inches from the side property line. He noted the
applicant had requested the variance for the nonconforming side setback to
rectify the situation.
Mr. Conklin stated the last variance being requested was to allow for an 8 -foot
backup area for 90° parking. He advised the applicant wanted to develop
additional parking at this location to offset the lose of parking caused by the
widening of the highway.
He reminded the Board they had approved front setback variances for D & C
Electric and C & G Welding along this street caused by the highway widening. He
pointed out the applicant was not creating any of the conditions that had
required them to request the variance. He explained the applicant did want to
continue the operation of the business at the subject location and felt the
additional parking was needed along the side of the building.
Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested variance to allow the existing
structure to have 13 foot, four inch setback from the front property line, a four
foot, six inch setback from the side property line, and an eight foot backup area
from the property line for 90° parking. He further recommended the variance
should be granted for the life of the current structure only.
Mr. Kim Brawner explained he and his wife owned Calico Counter and her father
owned the property. He stated he had tried to work with the State Highway
Department and their engineers had recommended they park on the side of the
112._
•
•
Board of Adjustments
February 22, 1993
Page 2
property. He advised found he needed to apply for a variance in order to do what
the State advised. He stated he would like to get everything concluded before
settling with the State.
In response to a question from Ms. Mills, Mr. Brawner explained the State and
City had recommended the location of the parking area. He advised he would also
be putting additional parking on the other side, which would not require a
variance.
Mr. Brawner explained how they would be able to use parking on both sides of the
building.
Mr. Conklin advised there would be sufficient room for the parking on the side.
Mr. Boyd asked if they were planning to park in the front.
He. Mills stated there was room to parallel park a couple of cars in the front.
Mr. Brawner explained the State was basically leaving the parking lot as it was
but would taking 10 feet off the street, 4 or 5 feet from the sidewalk.
Mr. Boyd stated they had made other petitioners on Sixth Street promise to not
park in the front. He asked how much parking was required.
Ms. Little advised four spaces would be required.
Mr. Boyd pointed out there would be 8 spaces without the parking in the front and
that appeared to be adequate to him.
Mr. Brawner explained there would be approximately 26 feet in front of the
building to the edge of the sidewalk but only 13 feet of it would belong to the
property.
The Board then discussed previous variance requests from D & C Electric and C &
G Welding.
Mr. Hanna asked if it would be possible for them to survive without the parking
in the front.
Mr. Brawner stated they could get by without it but preferred not to do so.
Ms. Brawner explained all parking available was desperately needed at the
Christmas Open House they held annually. She pointed out they were going from
the 13 present parking spaces down to 8.
After further discussion, it was determined they could use the front parking area
as a loading and unloading area only.
MOTION
Mr. Hanna moved to accept the variance as requested for the life of the building
with the parking spaces in the front being deemed as a loading zone.
Ms. Orton seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
<<3
Board of Adjustments
February 22, 1993
Page 3
APPEAL NO. BA93-10 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS
WILLIAM & BARBARA SPRINGER - 2844 E. SETTER ST.
The next item was a request for a variance of area and bulk requirements
(building setbacks) for property located at 2844 E. Setter Street presented by
William and Barbara Springer. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density
Residential.
Mr. Conklin stated the site was currently being developed with a single family
home within the Crossover Heights Subdivision, Phase I. He explained that, when
setbacks were originally measured, the builder had measured from the curb instead
of the property line. He noted the City had not become aware of the setback
violation until it was contacted by the owner/developer. He explained the
applicant brought the nonconforming setback issue to the attention of staff to
find out how to rectify the situation. He noted staff had informed the applicant
that a variance would have to be requested and granted by the Board of Adjustment
to allow for a reduced setback. He further stated staff had also informed the
applicant that, if the variance were to be denied, the portion of the structure
within the setback would have to be removed.
He explained all building permits did state, in bold lettering, that "property
lines can only be accurately determined by a survey. The street is not the front
of the property line."
Mr. Conklin noted an additional two separate "checks" had been developed to
assure the setbacks would be met at the time of construction. He advised that,
at the time the building permit was issued, the owner/developer was required to
sign the setback guarantee now included as part of the building permit process.
He noted that, by mistake, staff had signed off on the building permit without
having the form signed by the applicant.
He further advised that, at the time of
indicate a property line for the building
signed a form verifying all setbacks were
footing inspection, the builder did
inspector to measure the setback and
met.
Mr. Conklin explained staff was forwarding the facts to the Board for their
decision as to whether to allow the applicant to finish constructing the house
20 feet away from the property line.
Ms. Springer stated they had received the realtor's plat showing a 25 -foot
setback but had been unaware the property lines were not adjacent to the curb.
She explained they were to the stage of sheet rocking and bricking of the house.
She further advised they were planting numerous trees along the street to shield
the house from the street. She also pointed out the house next to the subject
property had the same situation and the problem existed throughout the
subdivision. She noted the house was sitting 31 feet back from the curb.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Springer stated this was the third
home she had constructed.
Ms. Mills asked if Me. Springer had read
owner before signing it.
Me. Springer explained the other two
setbacks dictated by the covenants.
Ms. Mills asked if Ms. Springer had
property line.
the building permit and certificate of
houses she built had been in Park Place with
She stated she had read the building permit.
been aware the curb might not have been the
r(v
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
February 22, 1993
Page 4
Mr. Boyd stated there had been lot stakes on the property when he viewed it. He
asked if the stakes had not originally been there.
Me. Springer explained one stake at the corner had been hidden by a pile of brick
so she had been unaware of its location. She advised she had not called for a
survey.
Mr. Boyd noted there were several reasons to grant a variance but he believed
they would be stretching them if they should grant this variance. He advised
there was nothing wrong with the lot such as a swampy area, or a large tree that
needed to be saved, or the property was on the side of a cliff. He further
stated that, as a professional builder, they should have gone by the plat which.
showed how wide the right-of-way was and they could have measured from the middle
of the street.
Mr. Hanna expressed his belief that one of the reasons for granting variances was
that it would create undue hardship on the owner if the variance were not
granted. He stated it appeared this case was caused by human error and an honest
mistake.
Ms. Mills explained the problem was so many builders did not measure. She agreed
with Mr. Hanna that it was difficult to deny some variance requests but it seemed
to be the only way to get their attention. She pointed out there was ample
notification of how to determine the property line.
MOTION
Mr. Boyd moved to deny the variance request.
Me. Mills seconded the motion.
The vote was 2-2-0 with Mr. Boyd and Ma. Mille voting "yes" and Mr. Hanna and Me.
Orton voting "no".
Ms. Mills noted Mr. Copher was not present so they would hear the first sign
ordinance appeal.
APPEAL NO. SA93-2 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE
KEN DEMARIS - 3244 N. COLLEGE
The next item was an appeal from the sign ordinance presented by Curtis Hogue on
behalf of Ken Demaris, Demaris-Walker Motors for property located at 3244 North
College. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Mr. Conklin advised the applicant currently had three wall signs and one free
standing sign. He explained the applicant was proposing to increase the free
standing sign by 96 square feet by placing four foot by four foot letters which
stated "SUBARU". He advised the applicant had stated he felt the sign was
necessary to operate the business. He noted staff did not fully understand why
the applicant believed the sign needed to be enlarged since he already had three
wall signs and one free standing sign. He advised the applicant was allowed to
place one additional wall sign on the building.
Mr. Conklin explained the applicant had chosen to place and advertise certain
products on the existing wall signs and free standing signs. He pointed out a
redesign of the existing signs should be looked at as the primary option for the
applicant if he felt his business could not be advertised successfully with the
four existing signs.
i�r
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
February 22, 1993
Page 5
Mr. Conklin recommended denial of the requested variance since staff believed
there was no reason why the applicant would not be able to operate his business
with the amount of signs and area allowed under the ordinance.
Mr. Hogue explained the appeal had been filed because Subaru International had
requested the sign. He stated their counsel had directed this approach. He
noted he was aware of the sign ordinance and knew this was far exceeding that
ordinance. He advised he did not object to the recommendation from staff.
MOTION
Mr. Hanna moved to deny the request.
Mr. Boyd seconded the request.
The motion carried unanimously.
APPEAL NO. SA93-3 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE
JOY FOX - 147 E. SPRING STREET
The next item was a request for an appeal to the sign ordinance from the Fox
Center, represented by Joy Fox for property located at 147 E. Spring Street. The
property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential.
Mr. Conklin advised the site was currently developed with a single family home
that had been converted into professional offices as a conditional use. He noted
the site was completely surrounded by residential development. He explained four
professionals worked in the building and all used the same name: "The Fox
Center".
He advised that, under the sign ordinance, the maximum display area for free
standing signs could not exceed four square feet and must be setback 15 square
feet from the property line. He pointed out the applicant exceed the display
area requirement by two square feet and stated that the sign company had told her
the sign complied with City regulations.
Mr. Conklin stated staff did not feel the
larger sign just because the sign company
the area was primarily developed as a
installation of a larger free standing
character of the neighborhood.
applicant should be allowed to have a
had made a mistake. He further stated
residential area and to allow the
sign would detract from the overall
Mr. Conklin recommended denial of the requested sign appeal to allow a larger
free standing sign. He explained the sign ordinance was designed to limit the
size of free standing signs within residential districts in order to limit their
impact within the neighborhood and on surrounding development
Ms. Fox stated she was disappointed in staff's recommendation because she
believed it was a very demure sign. She explained she had put thousands of
dollars into renovating the building and grounds, improving the area. She
further stated she did not think her request for a variance was excessive.
Mr. Boyd asked if she had talked to her sign company and asked them to replace
the sign.
Ms. Fox stated she did not ask the company to replace the sign but she could.
Ms. Orton pointed out she should take her request to the sign company, they were
the ones that made the mistake.
Board of Adjustments
February 22, 1993
Page 6
Ms. Fox asked if they believed the sign was obtrusive to the neighborhood.
Ms. Orton explained the City had a sign ordinance which they needed to stand
behind for the benefit of the entire community.
Ms. Fox advised she saw signs all over town that were larger than the one she was
requesting.
Mr. Hanna pointed out a four foot square sign versus a six foot square sign
seemed a very small difference.
Mr. Boyd stated there was a 50% difference.
Ms. Little pointed out it would be possible to remove the bottom portion of the
sign.
Me. Mills stated the sign painter should have been aware of the ordinance.
Mr. Boyd further noted the ordinance did not allow the Board to say whether the
sign was nice or ugly.
MOTION
Mr. Boyd moved to deny the request.
Me. Orton seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION ON SIGNS IN PUBLIC PARRS
Ms. Little reminded the Board that in October they had received a request to
allow signs on ball fields in public parks, which was referred to the Parks
Board. She advised the Parks Board had taken action and were forwarding an
amendment to the City Council. She explained the sign ordinance regulated by
zones and therefore, if the amendment was approved, she did not believe the sign
ordinance would need to be amended.
Dale Clark, Director of Parks, explained it was their interest to allow signs
within the baseball field, specifically on the outfield fence. He further
explained the advertising would raise monies to support the baseball program.
He advised the signs would be there only for the duration of the season and would
be re -sold annually. He stated the Parks Board would regulate the type of
advertising on the signs; not allow the signs to fall into disrepair; nor allow
the signs to be left up forever. He pointed out a number of cities did allow
this type of advertising and it appeared it went fairly well. He explained the
size of the signs would be limited to 4 feet by 8 feet and attached to the fence.
He stated the sign would only be allowed during the duration of baseball season.
He also noted all of the signs would be one color so there would be uniformity.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Clark stated the signs would only
face the playing field. He noted the resolution recommended the Park Board
accept responsibility of supervision of advertising and signage at all
Fayetteville Park facilities.
Mr. Clark explained it was sports facilities.
Mr. Boyd pointed out sports facilities had outside facing streets also. He asked
that the resolution be clarified.
117
•
•
Board of Adjustments
February 22, 1993
Page 7
Mr. Clark advised they were also interested in having advertising signs on
scoreboards which would also face in. He noted the scoreboard would be a year
round sign.
Mr. Boyd asked that they exclude any signage facing away from the sports
facility.
Ms. Orton expressed concern they would be opening up all park facilities for
signs. She asked that the resolution be clarified.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Little advised signage was regulated
by zones.
Mr. Boyd stated he supposed they could grant a variance authorizing the Parks
Board authority to do what they said, not what the resolution said.
Ms. Little advised the Novembera2nd motion was a much more general motion than
the February lst motion. ywi vo-vni
In response to a question from Me. Mills, Mr. Clark stated they had applied to
have this matter on the City Council agenda and it was scheduled for the March
2nd meeting.
Ms. Orton stated they had previously asked for the specifics of the program. She
advised it bothered her and didn't believe she could vote on it when it was so
vague.
Me. Little advised she had several conversations with Connie Edmonston regarding
this matter and some of her questions had been cleared up but she still had
questions.
Me. Mills asked that the Parks Board draft something more specific.
Mr. Hanna suggested making a recommendation that, if the PRAB presented an
ordinance showing they took full responsibility for the supervision and
installation and oversee the signs, which would measuring 4 foot by 8 foot and
be consistent in appearance, facing into the field, this Board could approve the
same.
Ms. Little explained they were amending a parks and recreation ordinance which
the Planning Department could not do. She stated the minutes of this meeting
could be forwarded.
Mr. Hanna pointed out the people had a vested interest as to whether they did a
good job or not. He noted the Board was basically telling the parks board that,
if they did it right, the Board did not have a problem with it.
Ms. Mills also pointed out the variance went with the land and would go forever
and ever. She explained that was why they needed to be specific.
Me. Orton noted there would be different people overseeing the project. She
stated that for now it would be fine, but it might not be in five or ten years.
Mr. Clark explained the Parks and Recreation Board was recommending to the City
Council to approve a sign variance, that the Parks Board staff would be
responsible for overseeing of it. He further explained the baseball board could
continue to do their program but it would fall under the guidelines of the parks
department.
I\2
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
February 22, 1993
Page 8
Dennis Kelley, President of the Youth Baseball League at Walker Park, stated they
had very little contact with the parks board. He advised they were a non-profit
group trying to keep every kid in the city interested in sports that wanted to
be interested. He explained their budget was limited and they were trying to
create some way to raise funding to put in some bathroom facilities at the park.
He stated they wanted to improve the facilities. He pointed out that, if the
baseball league did not do their job, the parks board could require they remove
the signs.
Me. Mills explained the Board was probably in favor of what the baseball league
wanted to do but they needed the specifics of the program spelled out.
There was discussion regarding permitting each sign as opposed to approving a
general plan for signage.
Ms. Little stated she did not believe they would want to issue a sign permit for
each sign.
Me. Orton expressed her belief they needed to be very specific so the agreement
was clear.
Ms. Mills asked for a recommendation from the Parks Board by their next meeting
together with a copy of the ordinance.
Mr. Conklin asked if the Youth League would be the only group utilizing the
facilities.
Mr. Clark explained there were soccer groups, volleyball groups, etc. He stated
they had gotten down to the youth baseball but believed it would also expand to
the Babe Ruth League.
The Board again asked Mr. Clark to provide a specific plan for their review at
the next Board of Sign Appeals meeting.
APPEAL NO. BA93-11 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS
CLIFFORD & VANCE GOPHER - 2862 E. SETTER ST.
The last item was a request for a variance for building setbacks presented by
Clifford and Vance Copher for property located at 2862 E. Setter Street. The
property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential.
Mr. Conklin stated the site was currently being developed with a single family
home within the Crossover Heights Subdivision, Phase I. He explained that, when
setbacks were originally measured, the builder had measured from the curb instead
of the property line. He noted the City had not become aware of the setback
violation until it was contacted by the owner/developer. He explained the
applicant brought the nonconforming setback issue to the attention of staff to
find out how to rectify the situation. He noted staff had informed the applicant
that a variance would have to be requested and granted by the Board of Adjustment
to allow for a reduced setback. He further stated staff had also informed the
applicant that, if the variance were to be denied, the portion of the structure
within the setback would have to be removed.
He explained all building permits did state, in bold lettering, that "property
lines can only be accurately determined by a survey. The street is not the front
of the property line."
Mr. Conklin noted an additional two separate "checks" had been developed to
assure the setbacks would be met at the time of construction. He advised that,
at the time the building permit was issued, the owner/developer was required to
i'9
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
February 22, 1993
Page 9
sign the setback guarantee now included as part of the building permit process.
He noted that, by mistake, staff had signed off on the building permit without
having the form signed by the applicant.
He further advised that, at the time of
indicate a property line for the building
signed a form verifying all setbacks were
footing inspection, the builder did
inspector to measure the setback and
met.
Mr. Conklin explained staff was forwarding the facts to the Board for their
decision as to whether to allow the applicant to finish constructing the house
20 feet away from the property line.
Mr. Cliff Copher explained he had measured his front setback from the curb and
believed he had a correct measurement because it was aligned with the home on the
adjoining property (constructed by Barbara Springer).
Mr. Hanna asked if this was the first house constructed by Mr. Copher in
Fayetteville.
Mr. Gopher replied it was the second house he had constructed; the first house
had been in Walnut Park Subdivision.
Ms. Mills asked if Mr. Copher had been aware it was hie responsibility to check
that the setbacks were met.
Mr. Copher stated he was.
In response to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Copher stated the roof was not on
the structure but the walls were standing. He explained they had stopped
construction when Mr. Keating told them they were in the front setback.
Ms. Little asked what part of the house was in the setback.
Mr. Copher stated it was the garage.
It was determined there was a roof overhang of 16 inches so the actual amount in
the setback was six feet four inches.
Mr. Boyd also noted the house was probably in violation of the subdivision
covenants also.
Mr. Hanna asked Mr. Copher how much it would cost to fix the house so it would
not be in the setback.
Mr. Copher stated it would cost between $5,000 to $10,000.
Mr. Hanna noted it was a dumb mistake but the builder believed he was on the
conservative side. He stated the first time he was lenient but the second time
he was not.
Mr. Boyd stated the lot stakes had been there.
MOTION
Mr. Hanna moved to grant the variance.
Ms. Mills stated it came down to a point of people not reading what they had been
given. She pointed out the building permit even said the curb was not the front
of the property line.
/ZO
•
•
Board of Adjustments
February 22, 1993
Page 10
Ms. Orton seconded the motion.
The motion failed 3-1-0 with Ms. Mille, Me. Orton and Mr. Boyd voting "no" and
Mr. Hanna voting "yes".
MINUTES
The minutes of the February 1 meeting were approved as distributed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Me. Little stated they had talked about requiring surveys from the builders. She
stated Mr. Conklin had suggested revising the building permit to say neither the
curb nor the sidewalk was the property line. She further advised they would give
the builder the option of getting a survey or taking all responsibility for
setbacks.
Ms. Mills stated she liked the idea of not requiring everyone to get a survey.
The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
1 21