HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-02-06 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 6, 1995, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of
the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Perkins, Thad Hanna, Marion Orton,
Gerald Boyd, Lonnie Meadows
MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Rivaldo, Bob Nickle
OTHERS PRESENT: Don Fitzgerald, Tim Conklin, and others
Mr. Perkins called the meeting to order.
APPEAL NO. BA95-1 - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE SETBACK
C.F. ENGLAND - NE CORNER OF GREGG AND SIXTH STREET
The first item was a request for a variance from the required
setback on property located at the corner of Gregg and Sixth
Street.
Tim Conklin stated the site was already developed with a
polyterrian. Further he stated the proposal was to utilize the
same setback as they have on Gregg Street for their existing
building. They also requested to place their building to the
north of the property line closer than what is allowed. He
recommended that they could build it further south since they had
more room. He requested that discussion be opened regarding
relocation of the building further south to meet the 10 foot side
setback requirement.
Mr. Boyd questioned the scale and dimensions of the plat plan and
stated dissatisfaction its preparation because it was not to
scale.
Mr. Conklin agreed that the measurements were incorrect.
Mr. Boyd inquired if the lots were 16-18 or 19 and asked if the
subject property were partial lots being the west 25 feet of
those lots. Further he inquired who the adjacent property owner
was.
Mr. England stated he thought it was Kim's Auto, a Mr. Kim
Filburn.
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. England's land was 25 feet wide and Mr.
England responded it was 25 feet wide and about 200 feet long.
Board of Adjustment/
• Board of Sign Appeals
February 6, 1995
Page 2
•
•
Mr. Conklin inquired as to how they arrived at the platted
measurements and Mr. England responded that it had just been
surveyed when Highway 62 was improved. Mr. Conklin stated that
they had donated 50 feet for the improvements to Highway 62. Mr.
England further stated that he owned 25 feet and Mr. Filburn
owned the 95 feet shown on the subject plat.
Mr. Boyd asked if the lot was below minimum size lot for I-1
citing that with standard front yard and back yard requirements
they would have negative building space. Further he stated he
would preferred that the two buildings be connected to prevent a
lot split proposal in the future.
Mr. Conklin stated that zone I-1 does not require a minimum lot
size.
Mr. Boyd objected to creating additional nonconformance citing
the existing conditions of nonconformity would be compounded.
Mr. Boyd further asked for the code section that pertains to
second buildings. Mr. Boyd stated his position was that he
preferred the expansion of the existing building instead of
creating an additional nonconforming building.
Reading from the code, Mr. Conklin quoted Section 160.112,
"Erection of More Than One Principle Structure on the Lot of
Record. In any district, more than one structure, housing a
permitted principle use may be erected on a single lot, provided
that yard and other requirements of this chapter shall be met for
each structure as though it were on an individual lot."
Mr. Boyd asked if this was being done. Mr. Conklin stated this
code was the reason for Mr. England's request for variance.
Mr. England stated that the intended use for the space between
the two structures would be parking which he believed was
necessary since the improvements on Highway 62 had eradicated his
parking area.
Mr. Boyd raised objection to the creation of two nonconforming
structures based on the chance that future property owners might
wish to request two businesses on the subject property. Mr.
England stated that maybe at that time the board could turn them
down. Mr. Boyd responded that once the structures were there
there wouldn't be a lot the board could do about it.
•
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment/
Board of Sign Appeals
February 6, 1995
Page 3
Mr. Meadows asked about parking space requirements. Mr. Conklin
stated this had been discussed with the applicant and explained
that the building's primary use would be for storage and the code
required one parking space per thousand square feet. Mr. England
added that between the two. buildings there would be ample parking
for the business and further stated that there would not be any
walk-in trade.
Ms. Orton inquired as to how much lot space Mr. England lost when
the street was improved and Mr. England responded that it was 20
feet.
Mr. Boyd inquired about the notification sign and its location
and Mr. Conklin responded that the staff member who erected the
sign thought it had to placed in the ground and when he went to
check it, he relocated it to lean against the building.
Discussion ensued regarding the sign and its location.
Mr. Meadows asked Mr. England if the proposed site was where the
green house structure was located and if that was where he wanted
to put the building. Mr. England responded affirmatively.
Discussion ensued regarding second structures or "granny house".
Discussion ensued regarding old plat lots and partial plat lots.
Mr. Conklin inquired if the survey from the Highway Department
might help clarify this situation. Mr. Hanna stated that this
subject property in prior years was hardly ever used and was
accessed by a dirt road. Further he stated that it was his
opinion that the land was not really worth much and he does not
have a problem with making it useable because it's I-1 and zoned
for high density. He agreed with Planning that it would be
better to build away from the north property line. Further, he
requested that the applicant submit the survey.
Mr. Perkins inquired if any adjoining property owners were
present. There were none. Discussion ensued as to who the
adjacent property owners are and how they were notified. Mr.
Conklin stated that notification information was on file and
available for viewing in the City Planning Office. Further he
stated it would be possible to check the aerial photography for
proximity of other structures.
Mr. Perkins stated they the board was trying to avoid extending a
nonconformity and he asked for a motion.
•
•
Board of
Board of
February
Page 4
MOTION
Adjustment/
Sign Appeals
6, 1995
Mr. Hanna made a motion to table the request until the board was
presented with a survey.
Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
Motion carried with a unanimous vote.
l'
Board of Adjustment/
Board of Sign Appeals
February 6, 1995
Page 5
APPEAL NO. BA95-2 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SETBACKS
DAVID FOURNET - 1214 SHADY LANE
Mr. Conklin stated the applicant owns a three bedroom home on the
site and would like to add 288 square feet. Further he stated
this was a residential block that has already been developed with
6 homes on the block containing open area. Continuing, he stated
there are no homes in close proximity to the proposed addition to
be built at the back of the house.
Mr. Perkins asked if the party submitting the application was
present and Mr. Fournet acknowledged that he was. Further Mr.
Perkins asked if he had any additional comments.
Mr. Fournet stated he had spoken to the adjoining property owners
and they had no objections or restrictions to the proposed
addition.
Mr. Conklin stated that he would like to avoid variances allowing
encroachments on the setbacks and requested that this addition be
built according to the submitted plan.
Mr. Boyd inquired as to whether this was a minimum size lot. Mr.
Conklin stated that the minimum lot size for R-1 was 8,000 square
feet.
Mr. Boyd inquired if R-1 zoning would allow for office and Mr.
Conklin responded it was okay as long as the office was for
personal use and did not attract or generate traffic into the
neighborhood.
Mr. Conklin inquired as to the nature of the business to be
conducted in the house and Mr. Fournet responded that they had
rental property and operated a tele -marketing business with no
foot traffic.
Mr. Boyd inquired if Mr. Niblock owned all the vacant lot next to
and behind the subject property. Mr. Fournet responded that he
did. Discussion ensued as to surrounding property ownership.
MOTION
Ms. Orton made a motion to grant the variance as shown on the
plat.
Mr. Hanna seconded the motion.
The motion carried with a unanimous vote.
Board of Adjustment/
• Board of Sign Appeals
February 6, 1995
Page 6
APPEAL NO. SA95-2 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SIGN ORDINANCE
NIRVAM, INC. D/B/A HAMPTON INN - 735 SHILOH DRIVE
The next item was a request for a variance in the sign ordinance
submitted by Nirvam, Inc. d/b/a Hampton Inn at 735 Shiloh Drive,
zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Mr. Don Fitzgerald stated the subject property was in an overlay
district but this project was started before the ordinance was
adopted by the City; therefore, this was grandfathered in.
Mr. Perkins asked what the requirements would be if this was not
grandfathered in and Mr. Fitzgerald stated that the requirements
were 75 square feet and no taller than 6 feet. Mr. Fitzgerald
stated that we fall back on the ordinance as written since it is
in a controlled access area of the highway the ordinance allows
200 square feet for a free standing sign. They ask for two
variances, one for the size and one for the height of the sign.
First'the size of the sign is 19 square feet over the 200 square
feet provided by the ordinance and height of the sign is
requested to be 35 feet instead of 30 required by the ordinance.
• The reason for this is the fact that Hampton Inn is part of a
chain and the chain provides standardized signage for all Hampton
Inns. The representative from Hampton Inn added that there were
actually two sizes, one 25 feet high and the other 35 feet.
Mr. Perkins inquired if there was a square footage
differentiation and the representative from Hampton Inn stated
the square footage was proportionate to the height. Further Mr.
Perkins added the 25 feet high sign would have 77 square feet.
Ms. Alett Little entered the meeting and was recognized by the
board stating that the project was exempt from overlay district
and explained that they were permitted to have a normal size
sign.
Ms. Orton cited the Clarion had conformed to the ordinance by
placing the message board on the side of the building. She
requested that the Hampton Inn conform in a similar manner. Mr.
Perkins agreed with the request. Discussion ensued.
•
MOTION
Mr. Boyd moved that the board deny the variance. Mr. Perkins
stated that there are viable options for the Hampton Inn.
Ms. Orton seconded the motion.
The motion carried with a unanimous vote.
•
•
Board of Adjustments/
Board of Sign Appeals
February 6, 1995
Page 7
MINUTES
The Minutes of the regular Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeal
meeting of January 16, 1995 were approved as written.
OTHER BUSINESS
The Briarpatch sign and Colt Square were discussed and it was
noted that nothing had been done regarding the board's decision
in the matter. Discussion ensued. Mr. Fitzgerald stated that
appeal to City Council was pending and therefore no enforcement
of the Board's decision was possible.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at
4:30 p.m.