Loading...
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.