Loading...
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