Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-08-01 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, August 1, 1994, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Perkins, Marion Orton, Gerald Boyd, Lonnie Meadows, and Robert Nickle MEMBERS ABSENT: Thad Hanna and Craig Rivaldo OTHERS PRESENT: Tim Conklin, Don Fitzgerald, Bert Rakes, Sharon Langley, and others PROTOCOL Mr. Perkins called the meeting to order and explained the format of the meeting. APPEAL NO. BA94-20 6 BA94-21 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS RALPH WALKER - 1317-1339 PLUM TREE 6 1373-1389 PINE CREEK The first items were Appeals BA94-20 and BA94-21 submitted by Ralph Walker for property located at 1317-1339 Plum Tree and 1373-1389 Pine Creek respectively. The property was zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and the requests were for a variance from the required building setbacks. Mr. Tim Conklin advised the four subject lots (zoned R-2) were located in the Willow Springs Addition (approved last year) which was within two residential zoning districts, R-1.5 and R-2. He added the applicant, with the support of the staff, was currently applying for a rezoning to R-1.5 on the subject lots so that the entire property would be zoned R-1.5 which would allow a 20 -foot rear setback. He noted when the subdivision was platted, the developers were under the impression that the rear setback would be 20 feet on all the lots. He advised there would not be any development in this subdivision other than single- family dwellings. He noted the staff recommended approval of the variance since the 20 -foot rear setback would be consistent with other single-family dwellings in the area. In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Conklin stated the final plat of the subdivision had already been approved and the streets had been developed. In answer to variance was subdivision. a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Conklin assured the Board if this approved, only single-family development would take place in the In response to further questions, Mr. Conklin reiterated the current zoning was R-1.5 and R-2 and stated granting the variance would allow for 20 -foot rear setbacks as allowed in R-1.5 for the entire subdivision. Dave Jorgensen, representing the owner/developer, submitted a letter to the Board which reiterated the statements made by Mr. Conklin. He advised the request included lots 6, 7, 63, and 64 and was for a reduction of the rear setback from 25 feet to 20 feet. A member of the Board clarified the applicant was making the reque t in order to be allowed to start construction on the four subject lots while w iting for the rezoning process to take place. Mr. Conklin advised each appeal would need to be voted on separately. .769 • • • Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals August 1, 1994 Page 2 NOTION Mr. Boyd moved to grant the variance on construction thereon being in compliance development). The motion was seconded by Ms. Orton. The motion carried 5-0-0. NOTION Appeal No. BA94-20 subject to the with R-1.5 zoning (single-family Mr. Boyd moved to grant the variance on Appeal No. BA94-21 subject to the construction thereon being in compliance with R-1.5 zoning (single-family development). The motion was seconded by Ms. Orton. The motion carried 5-0-0. In response to a question from Mr. Jorgensen, Mr. Conklin stated building permits could now be obtained on the subject lots. .27° e • • Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals August 1, 1994 Page 3 APPEAL NO. SA94-6 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE METCALF'S RV PARTS, CRAFTS 6 MORE STORE - 2147 N COLLEGE AVE The next item was Appeal No. SA94-6 submitted by Metcalf's RV Parts, Crafts 6 More Store for property located at 2147 N. College Avenue and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request was for a variance from the sign ordinance. Mr. Don Fitzgerald advised the building was located behind Hunan Restaurant and noted both properties were owned by the same person. He added there was an existing free-standing sign in front of Hunan Restaurant which was all the ordinance allowed on a property under one ownership. He explained Mr. Metcalf was requesting to be allowed to place a free-standing sign on the east side of his building to make his business more visible. Mr. Perkins advised there had been a similar situation recently on another property with Justin's Clubhouse sharing the same lot with another business. He noted in that case an agreement had been made between the renters to share signage. In response to a question from Mr. Perkins, Mr. John Metcalf stated the property owner was not present, but he was the owner of the business. He advised his landlord had signed the variance request application, but the sign would be for his business. In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Metcalf stated he had not discussed signage with the landlord when he rented the building because he knew a wall -sign could be used. He noted in the three months his business had been in operation, he had realized there was a problem of customers being unable to locate his business and had spent quite a bit of money on advertising. He advised a large percentage of his customers still had trouble finding his business even with the assistance of a map on his advertising flyer because of his visibility problem. Mr. Metcalf explained another problem contributing to the lack of visibility was the number of refrigerated trucks which delivered daily to the restaurant in front because they blocked visibility of his building from the highway. He advised he currently had a permit for three signs but only two had been put in place. Mr. Metcalf contended there was only one second in which a person could view the property from Highway 71 while traveling in the traffic occurring there. He presented photographs as proof of his visibility problems. He advised the distance from the curb and the proposed location of the free-standing sign was approximately 166.5 feet from Highway 71 which was well within the ordinance. He stated he also had information on how much money he had spent on advertising. In response to a question from Ms. Orton, Mr. Metcalf explained to get to his building a person would have to enter the Hunan parking lot. In response to further questions, Mr. Metcalf advised the proposed sign would be no more than 30 feet high and he submitted information on the materials and design of the sign and framework. Mr. Metcalf advised he had discussed with the landlord the possibility of a sign split with the restaurant free-standing sign, but had been told she did not want to take away any of the amenities the restaurant had in their 5 -year lease. He added the owner did plan to check into splitting the subject property to allow for a free-standing sign if a variance was not obtained. He noted, however, he • • Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals August 1, 1994 Page 4 had invested $30,000 in the business and was not in a position to help pay for the splitting cost (the resurveying, etc.). Ms. Orton advised there were many buildings in the area which had the same problems and a number of them had worked it out with the land owner without a variance. A member of the audience, one of Mr. Metcalf's customers, stated he had trouble finding the business even after being there before. Mr. Pat Brooks and Mr. Jerry Peters also stated they had difficulty finding the business and contended there was a real visibility problem. Ms. Orton questioned whether a free-standing sign would make much difference in finding the business and suggested the Metcalf sign be placed with the Hunan Restaurant sign. Mr. Boyd contended if a variance was given to Mr. Metcalf, the other businesses in that area with the same problem would most likely be requesting a variance also. In answer to a question from one of the Board members, Mr. Fitzgerald advised that, in order for Mr. Metcalf to put an additional sign along with the existing Hunan Restaurant sign, a variance would have to be issued because it would exceed the maximum square footage. He added the size of the Hunan Restaurant sign would have to be reduced which was why the property owner was hesitant to request that they share a sign with Mr. Metcalf. One of the Board members pointed out the traffic increase on College Avenue and noted that would contribute to the problem of locating specific businesses. Ms. Orton expressed concern for the safety of traffic looking back at the proposed sign and proposed having the sign closer to the street would be the better solution. In answer to a question from a Board member, Ms. Langley advised the owner could apply for a lot split which would have to be approved. She noted frontage was not required on commercial property so it would not be considered a tandem lot, but pointed out an access easement would be required. Mr. Boyd pointed out there were a lot of people on Highway 71 who did not have a freestanding sign. Mr. Fitzgerald advised there was an approved application by Mr. Metcalf for three wall signs, but only two had been installed. Mr. Perkins advised that, with the wording of the ordinance, the only options for Mr. Metcalf would be to share a sign with Hunan Restaurant or to have the owner request a splitting of the property. Mr. Bert Rakes, Inspections Department, stated if the property were split, access would have to be granted by deed or easement. He added that, if it were granted by deed, the access would be a part of the property where Mr. Metcalf's business was located and would provide frontage. He noted, therefore, a sign could possibly be placed in that deeded access area. Mr. Boyd advised that access would be taken from the restaurant parking lot and contended the restaurant owner would object to a free-standing sign for another business sitting in their parking area. 02 72 Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals August 1, 1994 Page 5 Mr. Fitzgerald advised the two lots would still be under the same ownership even if it were split and he was not sure a sign could be placed within an easement if there was no ownership change. Mr. Boyd contended the sign being requested would not solve the problem or get the results Mr. Metcalf wanted. He pointed out the sign ordinance was passed to put some control on signage because there were too many signs and signs too large in Fayetteville. He noted Mr. Metcalf's situation was not unique with probably 50 people along Highway 71 who could give a justifiable argument similar to his. Mr. Perkins expressed concern that yet another free-standing sign would be put up on Highway 71 if a property split was approved. He stated there was nothing in the ordinance under the commercial district that gave any latitude for practical difficulty. MOTION Ms. Orton moved to deny the variance request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Boyd. The motion failed with a vote of 2-3-0 with Orton and Boyd voting "yes" and Meadows, Nickle, and Perkins voting "no". MOTION Mr. Meadows moved to grant the variance request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nickle. AMENDMENT After further discussion, Mr. Meadows amended his motion to state the variance be granted as requested subject to the sign being restricted to Mr. Metcalf's business at 2147 North College Avenue and that it be restricted in size to a maximum height of 30 feet and a maximum area of 48 square feet. The amended motion was seconded by Mr. Nickle. The motion carried with a vote of 3-2-0 with Meadows, Nickle, and Perkins voting "yes" and Orton and Boyd voting "no". MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of July 18, 1994 were approved as distributed. OTHER BUSINESS As requested by Ms. Orton at an earlier meeting, Mr. Rakes of the Inspections Department gave a report on the recent activity of the Sign Inspections Department. He advised they had issued an average of approximately two sign permits per day. He stated they had been under a tremendous strain in the Inspections Department in the last year due to the increase in growth, personnel changes, and policy changes. He noted there were some problems which they were working to correct. Ms. Orton asked what had happened to the changes to the sign ordinance which had been previously discussed. 273 • • • Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals August 1, 1994 Page 6 Mr. Rakes stated when he took over the Division, he went through all the ordinances they had to deal with including building codes established in 1965 and electrical codes established in 1982 in an effort to update them. He stated it was a matter of priorities and from where he was sitting, it seemed the Sign Ordinance was in a lot better shape than some of the others. He stated his goal was to revise all of the ordinances within the next year. In response to further questions, he explained the clarifications and changes to the Sign Ordinance were not being enforced yet because they had not been approved as part of the ordinance yet. Me. Orton explained she had asked for a report from Inspections to provide an update on what was happening with the changes they had proposed to the Sign Ordinance since she had not heard anymore about it. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. a79