Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-11-07 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, November 7, 1994, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MBU ERS PRESENT: Larry Perkins, Gerald Boyd, Thad Hanna, Marion Orton, Robert Nickle, and Craig Rivaldo MEMBERS ABSENT: Lonnie Meadows OTHERS PRESENT: Tim Conklin, Don Fitzgerald, Sharon Langley, and others PROTOCOL Mr. Perkins called the meeting to order and explained the format of the meeting. APPEAL NO. BA94-31 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS HOLLAND HOUSE, INC - 2707 WOODCLIFF RD The first item was Appeal BA94-31 submitted by Holland House, Inc. for property located at 2707 Woodcliff Road and zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request was for a variance from the required building setbacks. Mr. Conklin advised the applicant's request was for a 2 -foot variance for a porch which would mean a 23 -foot front setback instead of the required 25 feet. He added the Board of Adjustment recently had granted a variance for the house directly to the east for a similar situation. He noted that, due to the terrain of the site, the subject house and the house to the east had to be placed at their present locations. He added the building permit for the subject home was issued on October 19, 1994 and the foundation was currently under construction. He stated the site plan submitted along with the building permit had showed the structure to be properly located within the setback along a relatively straight street. He noted it was after the foundation was constructed that the applicant discovered the encroachment. Mr. Conklin advised the staff recommended approval of the variance request and noted the encroachment of the porch into the setback was insignificant. He contended requiring the owner to redesign the porch would not serve any purpose for the City or the neighborhood. Mrs. Holland advised the house would conform to the setback requirements if it was only 3 feet wide, but the variance was being requested in order to make the porch more usable and more practical. MOTION Mr. Boyd made a motion to grant the variance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nickle. The motion carried 5-0-1 with Rivaldo "abstaining". aR/ • • • Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals November 7, 1994 Page 2 APPEAL NO. SA94-10 CLARY DEVELOPMENT - W OF SHILOH, S OF JOYCE ST The next item was Appeal No. SA94-10 submitted by Clary Development for property located west of Shiloh and south of Joyce Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request was for a variance from the sign ordinance. Mr. Don Fitzgerald advised the building was being constructed on two lots (5 and 6) of Clary Development Shopping Center. He advised that, since it was an individual lot, the applicant was allowed to have a free-standing sign if they were not on the main area identification sign. He added the minutes of the Board of Sign Appeal meeting previously indicated they would not seek a free-standing sign in addition to the area identification sign for the shopping center. He advised the staff believed it would be appropriate for the applicant to have the sign as long as it was moved back to fall within the Code guidelines. Mr. Fitzgerald explained a large area identification sign had been granted for the entire development at an earlier meeting and noted this request was in conflict with that. Mr. Boyd stated, as he recalled, the understanding was that another owner (not Clary could have a free-standing if they did not have a section on the joint identification sign. Jeff Maxwell, representing Clary Development, advised the request was for a sign for a building with 8 to 16 tenants. He reminded the Board he had made a statement at the previous meeting that they might come back for a monument sign but had not been aware a monument sign was considered a free-standing sign. Mr. Boyd pointed out the applications for signs were on behalf of owners of property and not tenants. Mr. Fitzgerald explained the ordinance did state each lot had the right to a free-standing sign, but explained in this case one owner had an area identification sign for the shopping center. He added a variance had been granted to increase the size of the sign and the location of it since it was for the entire shopping center. He added that, if the tenants chose to be on the identification sign, they were not allowed to have a free-standing sign. He advised Clary Development, as owner of the lot, already had a free-standing sign for the development. Mr. Maxwell advised the identification sign had been reserved for the larger tenants such as Wal-Mart, National Home Center, and Service Merchandise. One of the board members clarified the area identification sign currently only had National Home Center on it. In response to questions, Mr. Maxwell advised Wal-Mart had indicated they only wanted to be on the area identification sign. In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Fitzgerald advised the size of the requested sign was 158 square feet, but the actual signage was 74 square feet requiring a 40 -foot setback from Joyce Street. He advised the applicant was requesting a free-standing sign in addition to the main sign and were requesting a variance to locate the sign 15 feet from Joyce right-of-way instead of the required 40 feet. ago? Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals November 7, 1994 Page 3 MOTION Mr. Boyd made a motion to grant the free-standing sign subject to the provision that the location must meet the Code and with the condition continuing that none of those tenants listed on the subject sign could be represented on the main identification sign. The motion was seconded by Ms. Orton. The motion carried 6-0-0. 0)93 Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals November 7, 1994 Page 4 APPEAL NO. SA94-11 DEE WRIGHT - 28 S COLLEGE AVE The next item was Appeal No. SA94-11 submitted by Dee Wright for property located at 28 South College Avenue and zoned C-3, Central Commercial. The request was for a variance from the sign ordinance. Mr. Fitzgerald advised the request was to erect a free-standing monument sign in the same place as the current sign which was located 8 feet inside the allowable limits of the Code. He advised the size of the proposed sign was 28 square feet and the purpose of the variance was for better visibility. In response to questions from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Dee Wright advised there would be a wall sign with a directory to be used by the other tenants. She added the existing sign was not big enough to list all the tenants. MOTION Mr. Rivaldo made a motion to approve the variance as requested. The motion was seconded by Hanna. The motion carried 6-0-0. • Board of Adjustment/ Sign Appeals November 7, 1994 Page 5 APPEAL NO. SA94-12 WALKER CONSTRUCTION - MEADOWLANDS DR, N OF HWY 16(WEDINGTON DRIVE) The next item was Appeal No. SA94-12 submitted by Walker Construction for property located on Meadowlands Drive, north of Highway 16 (Wedington Drive). The property is zoned R-1, Low Density Residential. The request was for a variance from the sign ordinance. Mr. Fitzgerald explained the applicant was desiring to construct an area identification sign to identify the area in which they were building homes. He noted the sign would be placed 30 feet north of Highway 16 on an easement of the drive going into the subdivision. He advised the sign would be placed in an A-1 district, but it was an area identification sign for the subdivision so it was allowed. He pointed out the Board was entering new territory because the request was to place the sign on the easement. In answer to a request for clarification, Mr. Fitzgerald advised the sign would be placed on a street right-of-way which had been dedicated to the City. In response to questions, Carl Walker, representing the developers, advised a gentleman in California owned the property on the east side of the right-of-way. He explained the entire 60 of right-of-way had been dedicated to the City. Discussion took place in regard to the location of the proposed sidewalk and it was determined the best place for the sign would be on the opposite side of where the sidewalk was to be located. Ms. Orton stated the sign might seem out of place at a later date if the property adjacent to the development was developed as commercial. Mr. Walker stated their reason for requesting the subject location for the sign was for visibility of the development from Highway 16. Ms. Langley, a member of the staff, requested that, if the variance was granted, it be made contingent on the City not being responsible for replacing the sign in the event it had to be moved. Mr. Boyd expressed concern that the sign would be located in a City right-of-way and suggested the Board get an opinion from Jerry Rose, City Attorney, before they granted the variance. Another member suggested they grant the variance contingent on the City's approval. Mr. Boyd also suggested that the sign should be located as close to the edge of the right-of-way as possible due to potential future developments and sidewalks. Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out the proposed sign location was off-site of the development. Mr. Boyd stated the off-site question could also be presented to Mr. Rose for an opinion. MOTION Mr. Boyd made a motion to approve the variance subject to approval by the City Attorney in regard to the fact that the sign would be located in a right-of-way and would be off-site and with the stipulation that, in the event the street was 0?95- Board of Adjustment/ 111 Sign Appeals November 7, 1994 Page 6 widened or the sign had to be removed, the City would not be responsible for replacing it. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nickle. The motion carried 6-0-0. MINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting of October 17, 1994 were approved as written. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m. • • 6