HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-06-21 Minutes•
•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, June 21,
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 Blackstone Thad Hanna, and
Marion Orton
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lonnie Meadows
OTHERS PRESENT:
PROTOCOL
Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Freeman Wood, Sharon Langley, Jess
Eoff, Bob and Gail Teague, and Jim Watson
Mr. Larry Perkins called the meeting to order. He explained the format of the
meeting.
APPEAL NO. BA93-25 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF AREA AND BULK REQUIREMENTS
JESS BOPF - #1 MT. NORD
The first item to be heard was a request for a setback variance on property
located at 1 Mt. Nord, presented by Jess Eoff. The property is zoned R-1, Low
Density Residential.
Mr. Conklin explained the applicant had requested a 13 foot setback (12 foot
variance) from the street right-of-way where Section 160.031(E) requires a 25
foot setback. He advised the existing garage had been built on the site in
approximately 1950. He explained the applicant proposed to add a second story
on the existing garage and extend the north side of the structure an additional
four feet. He stated the terrain did allow vehicle access to both stories of the
garage. He also noted the Fayetteville Police and Fire Departments, together
with the Chairperson of the Historic District Commission, had recommended
approval of the variance request.
He reminded the Board Section 160.138(A)(1) allowed nonconforming structures to
be enlarged or altered by increasing their height. He noted the site was
surrounded by three streets, each requiring a 25 foot setback. He pointed out
the wall of the proposed addition would not be encroaching any further into the
setback than the existing structure; only the overhangs (which are approximately
2 feet long) would be encroaching closer to the property line.
Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the variance request to allow a 13 foot
setback (12 foot variance) from the right-of-way. He explained that granting the
variance to allow the proposed overhang and additional square footage would allow
the applicant to incorporate the existing structure into the overall remodel and
renovation plans for the entire historical site.
Mr. Eoff stated it was his understanding he could build straight up on the
existing structure but would not be allowed to put overhangs on it without a
variance. He explained that, because of the historic nature and the architecture
of the existing building, it would not look correct without the overhang. He
further advisedhe had asked for an additional 4 feet to enlarge the garage so
that present-day vehicles would fit into the garage.
Ms. Orton advised she could see no problem with granting the variance. She
reminded the Board there were problems with the smaller lot size in the historic
district. She also noted having 3 street frontages caused further problems for
the remodeler.
171
•
•
Board of Adjustments
June 21, 1993
Page 2
NOTION
Mr. Blackston moved to grant the variance as requested.
Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
7.2
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
June 21, 1993
Page 3
APPEAL NO. SA93-8 - VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE
BOB TEAGUE - 2665 E. HUNTSVILLE ROAD
The next item was Appeal No. SA93-8, a request for a variance from the sign
ordinance presented by Bob Teague, owner of the Rolling Pin Restaurant, for
property located at 2665 E. Huntsville. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare
Commercial.
Mr. Conklin reminded the Board the subject appeal had been heard at the June 7,
1993 Board of Sign Appeals meeting and had been tabled so the property owner, Bob
Watson, could be present. He noted the request was to allow a third free
standing sign that was 96 square feet, 27 feet high, and over 40 feet from the
front property line, when Section 158.47 only allowed one free standing sign that
was 30 feet high, 75 square feet, and setback over 40 feet from the prbperty
line.
He stated the applicant proposed to construct the sign out of plastic which would
be illuminated from the back by fluorescent lights. He explained the proposed
sign was a joint identification sign and would be designed to have room for four
spaces, one for each leasable area. He noted there were currently two area
identification signs located on the property.
Mr. Conklin explained the sign ordinance allowed only one free standing sign per
lot and it was city policy 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 advised
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 reminded the Board 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 denial of the variance request but did support granting
a variance to allow an additional 75 square foot free standing sign. He
explained staff saw an additional free standing sign to be the reasonable way to
give exposure to the buildings on the other side.
Me. Orton pointed out the ordinance on area identification signs read:
...located at the entrance or entrances of the area, and consisting of a fence
or wall or archway with letters or symbols affixed thereto." She stated signs
were to identify sites with a minimum of five acres such as industrial parks,
mobile home parks, shopping centers. She asked if the City staff was calling
that type of sign a free standing sign.
Mr. Freeman Wood stated the city considered area identification signs as free
standing signs.
Ms. Orton asked how that interpretation fit in with the sign ordinance allowing
only one free standing sign per site.
Mr. Wood explained that, because there were two entrances on this site, the owner
was allowed two areaidentification signs of no more than 32 square feet each.
Ms. Orton asked if the identification signs would still be considered free
standing if they were on a fence or wall or archway.
Mr. Wood stated they would still be considered free standing signs. He explained
Jim McCord, former City Attorney, had issued an opinion that they were free
standing signs. He advised that had been staff's policy since the opinion had
been issued.
173
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
June 21, 1993
Page 4
In response to a question from Ms. Orton, Mr. Wood stated the 2 area
identification signs were on poles, just like a free standing sign.
Ms. Orton asked if there was a height limitation on the area identification
signs.
Mr. Wood stated there was not; it just could not be a traffic hazard. He asked
if Me. Orton remembered the intent of an area identification sign when the sign
ordinance was adopted.
Ms. Orton stated the intent was to identify an area, such as a residential area,
with a sign.
Mr. Wood pointed out residential areas were not allowed to have free standing
signs. He expressed his belief there was a loophole in the ordinance.
Ms. Orton agreed there was a problem with the definition.
Mr. Blackston reminded the Board they had discussed this matter at some length
at the last meeting. He stated there were apparently signs all over town that
weren't supposed to be there because they were free standing signs in residential
areas. He suggested re -identifying the area identification signs as opposed to
calling them free standing.
Mr. Wood stated the Hoard could direct staff to do that.
Ms. Orton stated she had never thought of area identification signs as free
standing signs.
Mr. Perkins stated the area identification sign was geographic in nature and a
free standing sign was more of a commercial nature with actual advertising.
Ms. Orton recommended putting a height limit on the area identification signs and
designate a setback.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Me. Orton stated area identification
signs were discussed in 158.50 giving the maximum size of an area identification
sign.
The Board discussed both a setback and maximum height for an area identification
sign. Mr. Wood suggested not allowing area identification signs in C or I zones..
Ms. Orton stated she thought that was a good idea because the free-standing signs
already gave the name of the business. She stated that, on the subject request,
she was inclined to think that, if Mr. Watson would remove the area
identification sign, the Teague° could put up a free standing sign.
Mr.. Hanna stated he had believed they were leaning toward that area
identification signs were okay and not inclusive of a free standing sign. He
pointed out Watson's Grocery would always be at that site but there was an option
the other stores could change. He pointed out there needed to be a free standing
sign showing what businesses were located at that site. He stated he believed
the area identification sign and the free standing sign were two different
things. He further stated he would lean toward the Board not calling the area
identification signs free standing signs.
Mr. Blackston agreed. He stated they had discussed at the last meeting there be
a limit on the number of area identification signs He suggested the number of
signs be based on the amount of area on the site. He further stated he had not
•
•
Board of Adjustments
June 21, 1993
Page 5
thought they were talking about one replacing the other but there be a limit on
the number of the area identification signs.
Mr. Boyd stated if they read both the definition and Section 158.50, it referred
to "the" area identification sign, not signs.
There was further discussion regarding limiting the number of area identification
signs.
Mr. Boyd stated both an area identification sign and a free standing sign were
provided for in C districts. He explained that, if they were only allowing one
and if they called it an area identification sign it could be only 32 square feet
but, if they were calling it a free standing sign, it could be 96 square feet.
He asked Mr. Watson if they had worked out an area for the location of the sign.
Mr. Watson advised he and Freeman Wood had talked about four 4 x 8 signs, set
back approximately 200 feet from the street. He stated they were not asking for
a huge sign on the street. He advised there were four leasable spaces and he
would like to be able to identify the leaseholders. He pointed out that, if the
size of the sign were reduced to 75 square feet, they would have to move it
closer to the highway.
Mr. Blackston stated he liked the staff's recommendation that the 75 square foot
sign sitting closer to the street since it would be much more effective than a
96 square foot sign sitting 200 - 250 feet from the street.
Mr. Watson agreed that a sign closer to the street would be better
identification.
In response to a question from Ms. Orton, Mr. Watson stated all four leaseholders
would have space on the sign.
Mr. Blackston recommended they grant the variance to allow a 75 square foot free
standing sign up to within 40 feet of the street right-of-way.
Mr. Hanna agreed with Mr. Blackston.
Me. Orton stated she believed they needed to clarify the problem between
identification signs and free standing signs.
MOTION •
Mr. Blackston moved to grant the variance to allow a 75 square foot free standing
sign and it be moved to within 40 feet of the right-of-way.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
171
•
•
•
Board of Adjustments
June 21, 1993
Page 6
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Boyd suggested they discuss and vote on the interpretation
identification sign for a project could be provided without a
pointed out that otherwise some shopping centers with numerous
would be entitled to a sign at each entrance.
that one area
variance. He
entrances and
Me. Little pointed out there were some areas (such as Colt Square) that entrances
were from two separate directions.
Mr. Boyd stated they could ask for a variance in those type of cases.
Mr. Conklin suggested it be based on the amount of street frontage the
development had. He pointed out the more street frontage a development had, the
more openings or entrances to the business they would have.
Mr. Wood gave examples of area identification signs throughout the city.
Ms. Little suggesting limiting the height of an area identification sign to 8
feet.
!POTION
After further discussion, Ms. Orton moved that the interpretation be that an
identification sign was a ground sign, not free standing, and that one per street
frontage would be allowed for each area and would be limited to no more than
eight feet in height.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion carried unanimously.
MINUTES
The minutes of the June 7, 1993 meeting were approved as distributed.
The meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
176