Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-02-07 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals was held on Monday, February 7, 1994, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Marion Orton, Gerald Boyd, Larry Perkins, Craig Rivaldo, and Thad Hanna MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT:° PROTOCOL Lonnie Meadows and Bob Blackston Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Bert Rakes, Don Fitzgerald, Dave Jorgensen, Melvin Holmes, Jeff Gibbons, Dr. Marty Nall, Jack Zahniser and others Mr. Perkins called the meeting to order and explained the format of the meeting. APPEAL NO. BA94-5 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE BULK AND AREA REQUIRffiMENTS (BUILDING SETBACKS) MELVIN HOLDS - 585 STONEBRIDGE RD The first item was a request submitted by Melvin Holmes for a variance from the bulk and area requirements (building setbacks) on property located at 585 Stonebridge Road. The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. Mr. Conklin explained the applicant had proposed a ten -lot subdivision which created a non -conforming setback for the existing home on the site. He pointed out the existing home had frontage on Stonebridge Road and would have frontage on the proposed new road into the subdivision. He added that, in order to provide enough area to build on the north side of Lot 1, the subdivision street right-of-way location was proposed to come within nine feet of the existing house. He explained the standard street width was 31 feet which would provide an additional 9 1/2 feet of open area from the north property line to the curb of the proposed street. He also noted there was no sidewalk required or proposed on the south side of the street. Mr. Conklin recommended approval of the requested variance, explaining the curvature of the proposed street would give the visual impression that the existing house was not sitting closer to the street than other houses farther to the west as they developed. He also pointed out that, because of the additional 9 1/2 feet of open space (right-of-way), there would be a total of 18 1/2 feet from the edge of the street to the actual house. In response to a question as to whether the staff had any other solutions to this problem other than giving a variance, Mr. Conklin advised the staff did not see any other way a street could be put through and still provide enough room to build on Lot 1. In response to 1, as proposed, setback of 25 second street, lot 1. Ms. Orton's suggestion to eliminate Lot 1, Mr. Conklin noted Lot would have frontage on two streets which would require a building feet from both streets. He pointed out that, if there were no the south setback would only be 8 feet from the property line of In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Conklin advised 70 feet was the required minimum lot length in an R-1 zoning district. Mr. Boyd pointed out that, if they did not put in the cul-de-sac, there could be ten lots and Lot 1 could be eliminated. Dave Jorgensen, representing Mr. Holmes, stated the only other alternative would be to swing the street to the north, running along the property line coming out jai • • • Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals February 7, 1994 Page 2 to Stonebridge Road. He noted that would eliminate Lot 1. He also pointed out the depth of Lot 1 (approximately 218 feet) gave adequate space to put a house on Lot 1 with a driveway off the back side. In response to Mr. Boyd's questions regarding the width of building area on Lot 1, Mr. Jorgensen advised the buildable width would be 38 feet and the length would be more than adequate. Mr. Holmes stated he proposed to construct 1500 square feet houses on the subject property. In response to Mr. Boyd's suggestion in the back by moving the cul-de-sac, have the cul-de-sac but it seemed emergency access and trash pickup. Mr. Boyd pointed out the cul-de-sac could be put at the end of the street so it could be extended in the future. He added he was concerned the layout would eliminate all access to the vacant property in the middle (to the north). Mr. Jorgensen stated this project would be identical to the property to the north in which the street could have turned and then been brought to the south. He explained it was difficult to anticipate what the surrounding property owners would want to do. to eliminate Lot 1 and pick up an extra lot Mr. Jorgensen stated they preferred to not a necessary requirement for purposes of Mr. Boyd reiterated professional consultants had stated one of Fayetteville's major problems were the cul-de-sacs. He suggested a temporary cul-de-sac be provided so the street could be extended at some point in the future. Mr. Jorgensen advised they could do that, but no one had expressed an interest in continuing to the west or to the south. He added one of the reasons they felt the request was reasonable was the fact that the existing house (Mr. Holmes' residence) was set back from Stonebridge quite a distance and, since it was such a large lot, the requested variance would not encumber the lot too much. Ms. Orton asked for more information in regard to the lot split sign on the property. Mr. Jorgensen explained Mr. Holmes was splitting off the lot with his existing house in order to separate it from the proposed subdivision. Ms. Little advised the reason for the lot split was for financing purposes since the lot split could be approved more expeditiously than the subdivision. In response to Mr. Boyd's concern that Lot 1 might not have enough buildable area without asking for another variance, Ms. Little stated the staff was confident the buildable area on Lot 1 would be adequate. Mr. Holmes contended there would be room for a 38 -foot wide house with the front facing Stonebridge Road. Ms. Little advised the setbacks for the lot would be 25 feet from the two streets and 8 feet from the other two property lines no matter what direction the house faced. She added that, if the house faced Stonebridge, it would be the narrowest part of the house; but, if it faced the other street, the width would be closer to 60 feet. In response to a comment in regard to the variance request at hand, Mr. Jorgensen stated his personal feeling was setbacks were a little bit more than they needed to be and the trend was for the setbacks in the United States to decrease 222 Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals February 7, 1994 Page 3 somewhat. He reminded the Board there would be a total distance of 18 1/2 to 19 feet from the back of the curve of the street to the corner of the existing house because of the 9 to 10 feet from the building to the property line and the other 9 to 10 feet from the property line to the back of the curve at the very closest point. He also noted there was an existing driveway coming in off of Stonebridge Road with a side turnaround which could tie into the new street. In answer to a question from Ms. Little, Mr. Jorgensen stated there were no utility easements planned on the south side of Mr. Holmes' house but they had provided for the building setback to also be a utility easement along the north side of the new street in case a utility needed to go through. Ms. Little advised that, although there was a 50 -foot right-of-way, the City occasionally allowed the street to be positioned in a location other than the center of the right-of-way. She pointed out there would be a way to place the proposed street a little bit further to the north. She also noted that, by moving the street approximately 5 feet, they could change the separation of the curve line and the 50 -foot right-of-way dedication would remain the same. She also noted that, if the developer were to decide to move the street as she had suggested, she would then recommend the sidewalk be placed on the opposite side of the street, explaining the sidewalk ordinance called for the sidewalks to be set back 4 feet from the curb with the sidewalk being 4 feet wide for a total of 8 feet all within the right-of-way. Mr. Jorgensen agreed that, if they did design the street as Ms. Little suggested, then the physical distance from the back of the curb to the house would be approximately 25 feet. Ms. Orton asked for clarification on how the Planning Office handled this type of street. She stated she understood there was a Master Street Plan which designated future streets in certain areas by which each individual developer could plan. Ms. Little explained that, since consultants had noted cul-de-sacs were one of Fayetteville's problems, the staff was trying to rewrite the regulations to eliminate as many cul-de-sacs as possible. She further noted that, under the current regulations, a cul-de-sac was acceptable as long as it was not over 500 feet in length. She added this cul-de-sac did meet those guidelines. She explained the staff was not requesting the developer extend the street because the land to the west did have frontage to another major street. She added there were times the staff did ask for access, but it was mainly on larger tracts of land and it was almost always in areas where the cul-de-sac was over 500 feet in length. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Boyd, Ms. Little advised the requirements in an R-1 zoning were a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet and that minimum was exceeded with the proposed layout. Mr. Boyd stated he believed it would be better to add two 85 -foot lots at the back of the subdivision with a temporary cul-de-sac. Mr. Holmes stated it did not matter to him whether they kept the proposed cul-de- sac or had a temporary one. Mr. Jorgensen noted cul-de-sacs cost more to construct. In response to a question, Ms. Little advised the staff would recommend the Board of Adjustment leave the sidewalk issue to the Planning Commission. She added the proposed subdivision was on the next Planning Commission agenda for their review. Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals February 7, 1994 Page 4 MOTION Mr. Boyd moved the request be granted subject to approval by the Planning Commission of moving the street 5 feet to the north in its right-of-way and putting the sidewalk on the south side of the street. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0-0. 02029 Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals February 7, 1994 Page 5 APPEAL NO. SA94-1 - APPEAL FOR VARIANCE FROM SIGN ORDINANCE WEST OAKS ANIMAL HOSPITAL - 2820 DOROTHY JEAN The next item was Appeal No. SA94-1, a request for a variance from the sign ordinance, submitted by Marty Nall on behalf of the West Oaks Animal Hospital for property located at 2820 Dorothy Jean. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural. Mr. Don Fitzgerald of the Inspections Department explained the applicant was trying to gain more display area on his sign with a request for a variance to increase the square footage from the maximum allowed in an A-1 zoning district (16 square feet) to 48 square feet. He stated the applicant was arguing the 16 square foot sign was hard to read from the highway and that most of the businesses in the subject area exhibited larger signs than 16 square feet. He recommended approval of the variance stating 16 square feet was not visible to traffic along the 71 Highway. Mr. Fitzgerald further stated there were many signs in the area which were larger than the 16 square feet because many of those areas were presently zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. He advised the applicant's property was zoned A-1 bordering an R-1 district. He reminded the Board the ordinance required the sign be set back 25 feet from the property line abutting an R-1 zone. He explained the setback did not create a problem. He added there was a dedicated easement still in place for a street in the Moore Addition to the north which had never been developed. He explained a free-standing sign had to be set back 35 feet from the west and 35 feet from Dorothy Jean Street. He advised the applicant could meet those setbacks with the only problem being the size of the sign in order to be visible at that distance. Mr. Fitzgerald advised although there had been mention of a previous zoning change to commercial at this site, he had not found any record of that during his research. Mr. Boyd contended the ordinances did not allow direct illumination signs in A-1 districts and, in his opinion, the sign the applicant had applied for appeared to a direct illumination sign. Mr. Fitzgerald explained the proposed sign would be internally lit and was considered indirect illumination because it would not give direct illumination to the eyes of the viewer or traffic. Mr. Boyd pointed out he had not noticed anyone else in residential or agricultural areas having illuminated signs. He further pointed out the subject business currently had a very large sign on the wall of the building. Mr. Fitzgerald explained that, after discussions with Dr. Nall and hie representative, the staff had concluded that during summer and spring the sign on the side of the building was only noticeable from Highway 71 at a certain point in time because of the foliage. Mr. Boyd contended the applicant was not competing with the Pizza Hut, but with other veterinary hospitals and they did not have signs which were visible from the highway. He added the sign size would probably be legal if the applicant kept the words "Animal Hospital" with the lettering staying the same size. Jeff Gibbons, representing Dr. Nall, advised the applicant did not want a flashy commercial sign. He explained there was an access problem together with a visibility problem due to the trees causing an obstruction from the highway. He pointed out the visibility obstruction would be increased with the foliage in the spring and summer months. .7zs • Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals February 7, 1994 Page 6 Mr. Gibbons further explained to the south of the subject property, which was shown as a residential area on the zoning map, was vacant pasture. He advised the biggest problem was the trees which were on state property and could not be trimmed or pruned. He informed the Board one of Dr. Nall's areas of service was to trauma patients which sometimes required a client coming in the middle of the night with an emergency. He explained that, in that kind of situation, the client was not thinking clearly about how to get to the clinic and the sign would aid in their finding the clinic expeditiously. Mr. Gibbons noted that, in the sign industry, the rule of thumb was 1 inch of letter had 40 feet of readability and contended in this case, with only 16 square feet, the letters would only be 4 to 5 inches. He explained persons traveling at 60 and 70 mph along the highway would have no time to catch a sign that small. He added the clinic filled in for other doctors occasionally so there were clients coming in that had no idea where the clinic was located. He pointed out the message portion of the sign was 4'x 8' ("West Oaks Animal Hospital") and the 2'x 8' portion was a public service center for advertisement of community events, vaccination clinics, etc. He also pointed out the sign had no visibility from the residential area because the residential property was behind the building where the trees were located. He informed the Board that, when a sign was internally lit, the light was being diffused in a very soft halo versus spot lights which could shine in someone's window or eyes. Mr. Hanna stated the definition of indirect illumination was illumination so arranged that the light was reflected from the sign to the eye of the viewer and the definition of direct illumination was illumination so arranged where the light was directed into the eyes of the viewer with the use of a light source. Ms. Orton contended someone traveling along Highway 71 who saw the sign would not have any idea how to get to the clinic and stated she did not understand how a big sign, visible from the highway, would help people find the clinic. Mr. Boyd contended that, if they allow everyone along the street to have a free- standing lighted sign, Fayetteville would lose its reputation for being beautiful. Mr. Gibbons pointed out commercial zoning allowed for 75 square feet of sign, but the applicant was only requesting something that would be visible enough to let people know the location of the animal clinic. He added there had been some discussion regarding a possible rezoning to C-1 for the subject property. He pointed out that, under C-1 zoning, the applicant could have a sign twice as large as the one he was requesting. Mr. Boyd noted that, since the applicant kept animals on the premises, the subject business would be considered an animal hospital instead of an animal clinic. He explained hospitals could keep animals on the premises but a clinic normally did not. Ms. Orton stated, in that case, the A-1 zoning would probably be preferable. Mr. Gibbons reiterated that providing emergency services when time was crucial was a problem if the sign for the clinic was not visible. Ms. Orton pointed out that, if she were rushing to the clinic with an injured animal, she would have called the hospital for directions. C7.b • Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals February 7, 1994 Page 7 In answer to a question in regard to the dimension of the lettering on the proposed sign, Mr. Gibbons stated the letters were 8 inches. In response to a question from Mr. Hanna as to whether they could shrink the sign to 8tx 4', Mr. Gibbons stated the best possible solution would be to drop the changeable marquee which would still allow enough space for the name of the clinic with 10 to 12 inch lettering. He advised the height of a letter was important, but also the thickest of the letter was important to make the sign more readable. Mr. Rivaldo explained the sign ordinance was fairly stringent for a purpose. Mr. Gibbons contended that the sign not only needed to identify the business as an animal hospital but also need to identify what the clinic was. In answer to a question from Mr. Rivaldo regarding the primary type of complaints from the public, Dr. Nall stated they had not actually had very many complaints about how to get to the clinic. Mr. Hanna stated that he thought they should give Dr. Nall a break after he had cleaned up a property which had been basically a junk yard. Dr. Nall stated a number of people had thanked him for cleaning the property. He added they had purchased the property approximately 2 years earlier and it had taken approximately 6 months just for the clean up. He noted they had to get permission from the State Highway Department to clean the fence row, but had not been allowed to cut down any trees. Mr. Boyd used Dr. Hamm as an example of a veterinary who had no sign and pointed out people found their way to his clinic. Mr. Hanna expressed his belief an 8'x 6' sign was too large but an 8'x 4' (32 square feet) would be adequate to identify the hospital. He suggested they give the hospital a variance of a smaller size than requested in order to allow better visibility. He suggested they stipulate the marquee be eliminated from the proposed sign and that the sign stay with the business. In response to a question from Mr. Rivaldo, Mr. Fitzgerald stated that he believed Stanton Animal Hospital and Mohler Veterinary on Market Street (who both board animals) were in commercial zones which suggested Dr. Nall's clinic would not have to be zoned A-1 in order to board animals. In response to a question in regard to the chances of a rezoning petition to C-2 being approved for Dr. Nall's clinic, Mr. Fitzgerald advised there was C-2 zoning in the area south of Dorothy Jeanne, but A-1 and R-1 zoning to the north. Ms. Orton stated a rezoning request to C-2 on property which bordered R-1 would not be very popular with neighboring residents. Mr. Perkins reminded the Board of a situation they had recently heard on Colt Square where it had been determined that, if the applicant used paneled signs, he could actually cover the same air space due to the breaks in between the lines of information. He suggested the applicant could take the sign. panel and separate it, and cover a 6' x 8' area which would say the same thing but have less square footage. Mr. Fitzgerald advised it would have to be separate signs on the same pole and the signage had to total the required square footage. Mr. Gibbons noted that would be taking away from the aesthetic value just to try to accommodate the square footage by breaking it up. 022 • • • Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals February 7, 1994 Page 8 Mr. Perkins stated it seemed there were counter proposals being indicated in support of the idea to remove the marquee portion of the sign. He noted this would reduce the size of the sign to approximately 4' x 8'. He pointed out the sign would still be larger than allowed in A-1, but definitely less than allowed in C-1 or C-2. Dr. Nall advised he would be receptive to that compromise. MOTION Mr. Hanna moved to accept a variance with the maximum of 32 square feet and with the stipulation that, if the business moves, the sign would have to be taken down. In response to advised it was AMENDED MOTION a question regarding the indirect lighting definition, Mr. Rakes a matter of interpretation of the definition. After further discussion Mr. Hanna amended his motion to approve a variance for a 32 square foot sign which allowed for lighting within the sign and with the stipulation that the sign stayed with the business. Mr. Rivaldo seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-2-0 with Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rivaldo and Mr. Hanna voting "yes" and Ms. Orton and Mr. Boyd voting "no". aa" Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals February 7, 1994 Page 9 APPEAL NO. SA94-2 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE IBM CORPORATION - 4058 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE The next item was Appeal No. SA94-2, a request for a variance from the sign ordinance, submitted by Jack Zahniser on behalf of the IBM Corporation for property located at 4058 North College Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Fitzgerald advised the currentsign was a low- 16 square foot sign which met code. He advised the building was in the stage of being sub -leased to tenants who needed signs for advertisement. He referred to Exhibit A in the agenda packet which showed the two present tenants, IBM and Farmers Insurance Group, plus three other blank signs where they would like to put the names of additional tenants. He explained the applicant wanted to increase the height of the sign from 6' 9" to 9' 9" which was within the code and did not require a variance. He advised the variance was requested because the current setback was 16 to 18 feet and the request was to increase the size of the sign from 16 square feet to 34 square feet without increasing the setback. Mr. Fitzgerald added he had looked at the site which was at a major exit for 71 B. He pointed out the right-of-way was much larger than normal because of future possible access to the turn off. He noted the sign width would remain the same, but the height would be increased to 9' 9". He pointed out the only part of the request which did not comply with the ordinance was the display surface area. He advised the Board had granted this type of variance to Spring Creek Centre recently and the Northwest Arkansas Mall had also been a granted variance. He further noted the development at the northeast corner of Joyce and 71B had a much larger sign than IBM was requesting. Mr. Rakes explained the sign was originally designed to advertise IBM; however, now that IBM was renting office spaces, the new tenants wanted to advertise. He noted the current sign was well planned and within the ordinances. He stated it was extremely difficult for the applicant to find a location for the sign if it were moved back. He also pointed out the unusually wide right-of-way at the subject location and stated he believed it was partially due to the elevation. He advised the applicant was requesting to the sign remain at the 16 -foot setback and increase the size from 16 square feet to 34 square feet. He stated the variance would be in the setback for the size of sign proposed. In response to a question from Ms. Orton, Mr. Fitzgerald stated the setback for a 34 square foot sign would be 27 feet. He added the sign could not be moved back because the required parking was already in place and there was no landscaped area for the sign to be moved farther east. He referred to Exhibit B which showed the location of the present sign in relationship to the concrete parking lot. Ms. Orton clarified that, in order to enlarge the sign without a variance, the sign would have to be moved back 11 feet from the existing location. She noted there were two landscaped areas. Mr. Zahniser, representing IBM, advised they were currently trying to sub -lease spaces in the building since they were just a tenant also. He advised the request involved three sign blanks not including the existing one for Farmer's Insurance. He noted the sign blanks would be 4 feet long by 1 1/2 feet tall. He explained there was now a visibility problem with the height of the present sign since the adjacent building adjacent was closer to the road and had a brick wall with a huge sign. He expressed concern that, should their sign be moved • azg • • • Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals February 7, 1994 Page 10 back, it would decrease their visibility. He added IBM had a policy to not place signage on their buildings in the interest of keeping a low profile. In response to a comment from Ms. Orton regarding the use of signs on buildings by most of the businesses near this site, Mr. Zahniser contended there were many signs on the other side of the street, but there was not a frontage road in front of this site. He advised the brick building immediately south of the site had a very large pole with multiple tenant signs. In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Zahniser advised the access into the building had been designated an "enter only" access. MOTION Mr. Rivaldo moved to approve the request as submitted. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-1-0 with Mr. Boyd, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rivaldo, and Mr. Hanna voting "yes" and Me. Orton voting "no". INTRODUCTION OF JOHN STARKEY Bert Rakes of the Inspection Department introduced John Starkey who was recently transferred from the Municipal Court to the Inspections Department. He explained Mr. Starkey was in training to eventually work with the Board on the sign ordinances. REVISIONS TO SIGN ORDINANCE Mr. Rakes stated he had discovered there were six sign ordinances, one going back as far as 1969, which need to be revised. He advised the staff would be consulting with the Board of Sign Appeals as they continued their work in this area. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of January 3, 1994 were approved as distributed. The meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m. 02 30