HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-06-07 Minutes•
•
•
•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, June 7,
1993, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gerald Boyd, Larry Perkins, Bob Blackaton (arrived late), Thad
Hanna, Lonnie Meadows and Marion Orton
OTHERS PRESENT:
PROTOCOL
Tim Conklin, Freeman Wood, Sharon Langley, Kathryn Laurain,
Carol Meadows, Bob Teague, Gail Teague, Mandy Bunch, and
others
Mr. Larry Perkins called the meeting to order. He explained the format of the
meeting.
APPEAL NO. BA93-23 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS
VILLAGE EPICUREAN - 440 MISSION BLVD.
The first item to be heard was a request for a setback variance on property
located at 440 Mission Blvd., presented by Kathryn Laurain on behalf of Village
Epicurean. The property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial - Heavy Commercial.
Mr. Conklin explained the applicant had requested an 8 foot setback (42 foot
variance) from the property line where Section 160.039(D) required a 50 -foot
setback from the property line due to an R-1 boundary. He stated the applicant
had started to construct a cold storage building behind their restaurant. He
noted the City had received a complaint over the phone that the building was
being constructed without a building permit. He further stated Richard Wilson,
City Inspector, had determined the project did not have a building permit and
placed a atop work order on the structure. He explained the applicant had then
come in to get a building permit at which time the Planning Department determined
the structure under construction was within the required 50 -foot setback. He
noted the applicant had also been advised an electrical permit was required.
He explained the site was a corner lot which required a 50 -foot setback from
Mission Boulevard and Maple Street. He noted the site contained two buildings
with a creek running directly through the middle. He stated the property was 50
feet wide on the north side of the creek where the restaurant was located. He
explained the required 50 foot setback covered the entire area north of the
creek, leaving no area outside of the setback on that side of the lot for the
cold storage building.
Mr. Conklin recommended the Board of Adjustment approve the variance request to
allow a cold storage building 8 feet from the north property line. He explained
the setback created an extraordinary circumstance that resulted in no buildable
area on the north side of the creek. He also pointed out the building was
setback further than the existing structure.
Mr. Ted Laurain explained they had contacted the inspection department regarding.
a permit prior to starting construction and had been told they would not need a
building permit for a walk-in refrigerator. He further stated it would be a
temporary structure, that if they ever moved their business, the refrigeration
unit would also be moved.
Robert Erwin, an adjoining property owner, stated he had no objections to the
construction of the building.
In response to a question from Mr. Hanna, Mr. Laurain explained there was a
concrete slab and they wanted to construct a wooden or plastic structure around
the unit to keep it out of the weather. He further stated he believed the
compressor would be on the bottom of the unit.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
June 7, 1993
Page 2
Mr. Boyd asked who owned the property.
Me. Laurain stated the property was owned by Marie Kilgore, who owned the
majority of the property in the same block. She advised Ms. Kilgore did not
object to the placement of the unit.
MOTION
Mr. Hanna moved to approve the variance as requested.
Ms. Orton seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
l6L
Board of Adjustments
June 7, 1993
Page 3
APPEAL NO. BA93-24 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF ARRA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS
DAVID ROGERS & CAROL MEADOWS - 410 E. MAPLE
The next item was an appeal for a variance of the bulk and area regulations
(minimum lot size) requested by David Rogers and Carol Meadows for property
located at 410 E. Maple. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential.
Mr. Conklin explained the request was to allow a property line adjustment making
one nonconforming lot which was 6,000 square feet conforming by adding 2,500
square feet. He further explained the additional 2,500 square feet would come
from an adjacent conforming lot that was 8,000 square feet. He pointed out
Section 160.032 of the Zoning Ordinance required 8,000 square foot lots
He explained the applicant planed to clean the overgrown vegetation from the lot
and use the additional space for yard area. He pointed out both sites were
developed with single family homes. He stated the house on lot 4 was currently
used as rental property while the house on lots 5 and 6 was owner occupied. He
further stated the proposed lot area for lot 4 would be 5,500 instead of the
required 8,000.
Mr. Conklin recommended the Board of Adjustment approve the variance request to
allow the proposed lot line adjustment which would make lot 4 have a
nonconforming lot area. He explained the lot line adjustment would not increase.
the number of lots that were nonconforming with regard to lot area and
transferring the ownership would allow the owner occupied structure to clear the
transferred portion of the lot of overgrown vegetation. He stated staff had
attempted to find a solution to make the nonconformance no greater than that
which currently existed; however, due to lot widths of 50 feet, there was no
feasible way to reduce the area without leaving an uneconomic remnant.
Ms. Meadows explained the rental property ran east and west behind her property.
She stated one of the reasons she was interested in purchasing the property was
that it was a breeding ground for animals. She pointed out the property was not
being taken care of at the present time.
Pictures of the properties were presented to the Board.
Ms. Katheryn Randall, an adjoining property owner, spoke in favor of granting the
variance.
In response to a question from Mr. Hanna, Ms. Meadows explained Mr. Rogers had
only wanted to sell her the 50 x 50 foot section rather than 60 x 50 feet. She
pointed out that would still leave a back yard with the rental property.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Rogers could add on to the existing house without a
variance.
Mr. Conklin advised the house could be added onto as long as Mr. Rogers met the
setback requirements.
Mr. Boyd suggested that, as a condition for granting the variance, the Roger
house could not be enlarged without an additional variance.
Ms. Meadows stated she did not believe that would be a problem, that Mr. Rogers
was not planning on enlarging the structure.
It was determined there were numerous non -conforming lots in the area; that a
majority of the lots were small.
163
Board of Adjustments
June 7, 1993
Page 4
NOTION
Mr. Boyd moved to grant the variance subject to the condition that the structure
on Lot 4 not be built on additionally without a variance.
Mr. Meadows seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Blackston arrived at the meeting.
/ 9
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
June 7, 1993
Page 5
APPEAL NO. SA93-8 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SIGN ORDINANCE
THE ROLLING PIN RESTAURANT - 2665 E. HUNTSVILLE RD.
The next item was an appeal for a variance from the sign ordinance presented by
Bob Teague for The Rolling Pin Restaurant, located at 2665 E. Huntsville Road.
The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Mr. Conklin explained the request was to allow a second free standing sign that
was 96 square feet, 27 feet high, and over 40 feet from the front property line,
where Section 158.47 only allowed one free standing sign that was 30 feet high,
75 square feet and setback over 40 feet from the property line. He noted the
sign would be constructed out of plastic and would be illuminated from the back
by fluorescent lights. He stated the proposed sign was a joint identification
sign and would be designated to have room for four signs, one for each leasable
area. He advised there were currently two area identification signs located on
the property.
He advised the Board the sign ordinance only allowed one free standing sign per
lot. He stated the City policy had been to count area identification signs as
free standing signs. He further stated the sign ordinance did allow joint
identification signs to be increased one square foot for each 500 feet of
leasable area. He explained the building had 9,000 square feet of leasable area
which allowed an additional 18 square feet of sign area for a total allowable
sign area of 93 square feet. He stated the applicant had proposed a 96 square
foot joint identification sign; however, the variance was required so that an
additional free standing sign could be allowed on the lot.
Mr. Conklin recommended the Board of Sign Appeals deny the variance request to
allow a 96 square foot sign. He advised staff did support granting a variance
to allow an additional 75 square foot free standing sign and saw an additional
free standing sign to be the reasonable way to give exposure to the buildings on
the other side.
Ms. Orton pointed out the request was in violation of the sign ordinance. She
asked why staff was recommending approval of the variance.
Mr. Conklin explained the Planning Management Director, Alett Little, and
Building Inspector, Freeman Wood, had made the recommendation.
Mr. Blackston pointed out that, if they did not grant some type of variance, the
applicants would have no sign at all. He advised he had looked at the property
and they did not have a place for a sign. He stated the shopping center had used
two entrance signs which precluded anyone else from putting up any signs.
Ms. Orton pointed out the Northwest Arkansas Mall was much larger but had only
one sign. She stated she did not see why a smaller shopping center could not
manage signage for the tenants.
Mr. Blackston stated he had met with Mr. Teague at the site and found an
identification sign at each entrance. He stated he understood that was in
violation because they had taken up more space on those signs than was allowed
Mr. Freeman Wood explained the businesses were not visible from the street and
wall signs would not help the businesses. He pointed out that, if they looked
at the definition of area identification signs and the definition of free
standing signs, they would find the identification signs were free standing
signs. He stated they were allowed to have a 32 -square foot sign at each
entrance of the property. He advised the only way he could see providing signage
for the tenants was another free standing sign. He stated he had told Mr. Watson
Ro
•
•
Board of Adjustments
June 7, 1993
Page 6
staff would recommend approval of another free standing sign, containing 75
square feet, with spaces for all four tenants.
Mr. Hanna stated technically there was not a free standing sign on the site.
Mr. Wood stated the existing identification signs were classified as free
standing signs. He explained the entrance/exit signs were classified differently,
that they contained only four square feet.
Ms. Orton asked why they could not have one free standing sign with
identification of all of the tenants similar to the one located at the Mall. She
pointed out the people could not see all of the stores at the Mall from the
street. She stated the Mall was allowed only one free standing sign. She asked
if they were going to start recommending shopping centers be allowed more
signage.
Mr. Wood stated staff was not recommending anything, they were just trying to
work out a particular problem. He further stated this was somewhat different
from the Mall because most people knew what stores were in the Mall and no one
knew there were other businesses at Watson's Shopping Center.
Mr. Conklin agreed with Mr. Wood that there needed to be some way to allow the
public to know the businesses were located at the shopping center. He stated the
one possible way of doing that, was to allow a free standing sign.
Mr. Boyd pointed out both the Food -4 -Less and Evelyn Hills had only one sign.
Mr. Bob Teague stated Mr. Watson had promised him a free standing sign by the
highway. He stated he objected to a 3 x 6 foot sign if it was 250 feet off the
road; that it was too small. He advised he was just asking that his business be
recognized from the roadway.
Mr. Boyd asked what Mr. Watson was doing about the situation.
Ms. Gail Teague advised Mr. Watson had already put up the two identification
signs after Ms. Alett Little had recommended putting up one free standing sign
for all of the tenants. She advised the restaurant did not have any frontage.
In response to a question from Mr. Teague, Mr. Wood advised that only one side
of a sign counted toward the measurement of the sign size. He further advised
the applicant was not required to set the sign back 200 feet, that was the
location pointed out by Mr. Watson.
Mr. Teague pointed out that area was the only place there was for the sign. He
stated he had been concerned that the sign be located where it would represent
all of the tenants but also be seen from the highway.
Me. Orton stated Mr. Watson had knocked out the ability for his tenants to have
signs. She expressed her opinion that was an argument for the tenants against
Mr. Watson, not an argument with the City. She advised the tenants should go to
the owner.
Mr. Hanna asked if Mr. Watson had given them a place to erect a sign.
Ms. Teague stated that apparently Mr. Watson had pointed out an area when talking
to Mr. Wood.
Mr. Wood explained the only place for the applicant to place a sign was the
corner of the building, which, in hie opinion, would look worse that having
another free standing sign.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
June 7, 1993
Page 7
Mr. Hanna advised he had been at the site and had not even noticed
identification signs.
In response to a question from Mr. Hanna, Mr. Teague explained Mr. Watson would
be putting the sign up.
Mr. Boyd expressed his opinion Mr. Watson should have been present and should
have been the applicant.
the
Me. Orton agreed. She stated that,
involved, the problem was solved.
In response to a question from Mr. Blackston, Mr. Teague stated they hoped to
open the restaurant in two to three weeks.
normally when the property owner was
Mr. Perkins advised he believed that,
not have enough information to make a
until Mr. Watson was present.
Mr. Blackston agreed. He
decision at this meeting,
Mr. Teague and the other
believed he would work to
since Mr. Watson was not present, they did
decision. He recommended tabling the item
pointed out it appeared that, if they had to make the
it would be a negative decision. He stated that, if
tenants would put some pressure on Mr. Watson, he
get the issue resolved.
Mrs. Teague asked if they could install a temporary sign if they opened the
restaurant prior to a decision being made on his request.
Mr. Wood advised they could not put up a temporary sign other than on their
building. He stated the area identification sign could be changed to contain all
of the tenants names.
Mr. Blackston pointed out the applicants were requesting a 96 square foot sign
and the recommendation from the City was 75 square foot sign.
Mr. Perkins stated he could only support the staff's recommendation.
Mr. Teague stated he could live with that.
MOTION
Mr. Blackston moved to table the item until the next meeting to give the
applicant and other tenants of the shopping center time to negotiate with the
owner to get the problem resolved.
Ms. Orton seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
•
lb?
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
June 7, 1993
Page 8
APPEAL NO. SA93-9 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SIGN ORDINANCE
WALMART STORES, INC. - 2875 W. 6TH STREET
The next item was a request for a variance from the sign ordinance presented by.
Mandy Bunch, CEI Engineering on behalf of Walmart Stores, Inc. for property
located at 2875 W. 6th Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial, and A-1, Agricultural.
Mr. Conklin advised the request was to allow a 195 square foot sign 30 feet high
and 36 feet from the front property line, where Section 158.47(C)(3)(A) only
allowed a 52 square foot sign with a maximum height of 28 feet at a distance of
36 feet from the front property line. He explained the proposed free standing
sign was for the new Walmart Super Center which had been approved as a large
scale development earlier this year by the Planning Commission. He stated the
display surface of the sign was planned to be aluminum with vinyl lettere and
would be illuminated by indirect lighting.
Mr. Conklin recommended denial of the requested sign appeal to allow a 195 square
foot free standing sign 36 feet from the front property line. He explained the
sign exceeded the allowable area by 143 square feet. He advised the applicant
could relocate the sign 40 feet back from the front property line and decrease
the sign area to 75 square feet He pointed out people driving on West Sixth
Street should have no problem seeing a sign that was 75 square feet and 30 feet
high. He further stated the engineer representative had been advised that
similar sign appeals for the Walmart store on North College had been denied in
the past; however, they had been instructed by their client to pursue the request
through the Board of Sign Appeals process.
Mr. Boyd asked if the applicants had also applied for the rest of the signage at
the Super Center.
Mandy Bunch stated the architect would be handling the rest of the signage.
Mr. Boyd informed her the Board looked at all of the signs together.
Mr. Charles Moorman, a neighboring resident, objected to the variance stating
everyone would know the store was a Walmart store without any sign. He also
pointed out a sign similar to the request would destroy the natural beauty of the
approach into the City.
Mr. David Brooks, a neighboring resident, agreed with Mr. Moorman.
Ms. Bunch pointed out it was her client's prerogative to bring the request to the
Board of Sign Appeals.
Me. Barbara Moorman stated she had reviewed the file and saw no rationale for the
sign. She also stated additional signage would create more of a traffic hazard.
Ms. Bunch advised the Board the size of the sign had been down -sized from signs
located at other Walmart Super Centers. She further asked that, should they deny
the request for the 195 square foot sign, they consider the top portion measuring
108 square feet.
Mr. Perkins explained the sign ordinance was clear regarding the size of the sign
and the setback. He stated they did not negotiate from 195 to 108. He asked if
their client could not live with that.
Ms. Bunch stated her client felt they could not live with the size of sign
provided for by ordinance. She pointed out there were many people coming into
Fayetteville that would not know the location of the store. She also noted the
1b3
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
June 7, 1993
Page 9
store would be setting back quite a distance from the road with a large parking
lot in the front.
Mr. Blackston pointed out they had denied similar requests in the past. He
further noted he had never found it difficult to locate a Walmart store in any
town. He further stated he did not believed the increased size of the sign would
be of any advantage in locating the store.
Mr. Boyd pointed out both McDonalds and KFC had downsized their standard signs.
MOTION
Mr. Boyd moved to deny the request.
Me. Orton seconded the motion.
The motion carried 5-1-0 with Mr. Boyd, Mr. Meadows, Me. Orton, Mr. Perkins, and
Mr. Blackston voting "yes" and Mr. Hanna voting "no".
Mr. Conklin advised the applicant of appeal procedures.
Mr. Boyd left the meeting.
I6q
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
June 7, 1993
Page 10
MINUTES
The minutes of the May 17, 1993 meeting were approved as distributed.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Discussion of Sign Ordinance Revisions
Mr. Perkins suggested changing the definition of area signs and free standing
signs. He stated a free standing sign should promote advertisement solely and
an area sign should be the name of the shopping complex. He pointed out that way
they would not be denying smaller businesses the advertising. He stated he
believed it needed to be clarified that area signs were for geographic purposes
only.
Me. Orton recommended requiring the owner of the property be present at the
meetings.
Mr. Blackston stated they needed to resolve whether an area identification sign
was a free-standing sign or not. He stated he did not believe the identification
signs were advertising signs.
Me. Orton stated a proliferation of signs was one of the problems. She further
stated the owner was responsible for planning the signs and the tenants should
deal with the owner when they rented space. She recommended the owner, or hie
manager or agent, apply for any sign variances rather than the tenants.
Mr. Perkins recommended that roof signs had to be removed within 72 hours after
notification by the City. He reminded the Board of the roof sign put up before
the election which was allowed, by code, to be up 20 days after notification.
Mr. Conklin stated Ms. Little had believed the section reading "150 square feet
or 20%, whichever is greater" should be changed to "whichever is lessor". After
discussion, it was determined to leave the phrase "whichever is greater".
Another item presented for change was the size of signs in R-0 zoning districts.
Ms. Orton suggested the maximum size of the sign would depend on the size of the
lot and the setback. It was determined that a 4 square foot sign would need a
15 foot setback and an 8 square foot sign would need a 25 foot setback.
The next item discussed was the recommendation by Richard Wilson that individuals
be charged 50 cents for each sign removed from a telephone pole, etc. The Board
determined 50 cents a sign was not enough money. There was a suggestion that a
central public bulletin board be placed on Dickson Street for such signs. Mr.
Conklin was directed to check with the City Attorney regarding charging a fine
for removal of the signs from telephone poles, etc. and suggest a reasonable fine
per sign or a blanket fine.
Ms. Orton asked if it would not be difficult to keep track of allowing a business
to have windblown displays quarterly. She was assured it was not difficult.
It was also determined that off-site signs should not be allowed in any zone;
that small directional signs be allowed with a variance.
The Board also requested a listing of the criteria for granting a sign variance
including the reason the variance was being requested.
The meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
170