HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-09-08 Minutes•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THE
BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS
A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment and the Board of Sign Appeals was held on Tuesday,
September 8, 1998, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain
Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS REVIEWED -BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
BA 98-23.00: Variance (Thomas)
BA 98-26.00: Appeal (Sunset Drive)
BA 98-27.00: Variance (House)
MEMBERS PRESENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
ACTION TAKEN
Approved (5-0-2, with Hanna, Wilhelms
abstaining)
Denied (7-0-0)
Approved (7-0-0)
Gerald Boyd, Larry Perkins, Michael Andrews, Marion Orton, Bob Nickle, Paul
Wilhelms (arriving at 3:55 p.m.) and Thad Hanna (arriving at 4:00 p.m.)
Alett Little, Tim Conklin and Liz Hopson
Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting on August 17, 1998.
BA 98-23.00: Variance (Thomas?
1680 North College
This item was submitted by Philip E. Hadfield of Miller Boksus Lack Architects, P.A. on behalf of Mr. Richard
Thomas for property located at 1680 North College. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and
contains approximately 0.97 acres. The request is to reduce the required setback by 10 feet to allow for a 15 foot
setback along the north property line and to reduce the setback on the north and west sides of the property to allow
for an encroachment of an existing structure(currently a dry cleaning store).
Philip Hadfield appeared on behalf of the applicant.
STAFF'S COMMENTS:
Conklin:
Hadfield:
The site is at the southeast corner of Sycamore and College and is currently developed as
a dry cleaners. The applicant plans to build an "L" shaped building behind the existing
structure. Sycamore on the master street plan is classified as a collector's street with
currently 10 feet of right of way. Master street plan requires a 35 foot right of way from
the center line. Applicant has requested a 15 foot setback from the new right of way line
when Sycamore is developed. Staff recommends approval of the variance. The final plan
indicates a 15 foot green space, which would normally be a 25 foot setback if there is no
parking between the building and the right of way. The right of way will be granted
during the large scale development process.
The developers were concerned about the amount of the site being taken for right of way.
The owner thought that there would be more building space. If the variance is granted,
the developers will provide additional landscaping in excess of the requirements. The
owner would like to have as much square footage to build on as possible.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Jerry Wilson, an adjacent property owner, addressed the board.
Wilson: As an adjacent property owner, he was required to meet the standard setbacks for his
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 1998
Page -2-
Nickle:
property. He is interested to see how the developers plan to address the drainage issue
and retaining wall work. He would like to see the developers limited to comply with the
variance requirements for the existing building.
After reviewing the submittals regarding parking and easements, if the green space that
the developers have offered is constructed and maintained, he sees no problem granting
the requested variance.
Wilson: The board refused to grant his request for a variance, so he sees no reason why these
developers shouldn't comply with the setbacks as he did.
Mr. Andrews moved to grant the 10 foot variance request on the proposed building and to grant a variance to
bring the existing building into compliance with staff recommendations.
Mr. Nickle seconded said motion.
The motion was approved on a vote of 5-0-2 with Mr. Hanna and Mr. Wilhelms abstaining.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 1998
Page -3-
BA 98-26.00: Appeal (Sunset Dnve)
817 Sunset Drive
This item was submitted by Susan Raley for property located at 817 Sunset Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Low
Density Residential. The request is to appeal the Planning Director's decision of Violation #C98-26 regarding the
non -conforming use status of the duplex at 817 Sunset Drive.
Susan Raley and Steve Parker, attorney for Ms. Raley appeared before the board.
STAFF'S COMMENTS:
Little: The building at 817 Sunset Drive is a legal but non -conforming use. The house contains
two separate dwelling units, thereby constituting its use as a duplex. Since one of the
kitchens was never removed the structure maintains its use as a duplex.
Boyd: How many water bills come to the address?
Conklin: There is one water bill.
Hanna: Are there two gas meters?
Conklin: Yes, there are two separate gas meters.
Little: When examining whether or not a house is a single family structure or a duplex, the
planning department looks for separate cooking facilities --an additional kitchen, but when
the inspections department sees separate meters, they generally notify the planning
department to examine the structure's potential duplex use.
Perkins: Is there an issue of the number of occupants?
Little:
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Raley:
Parker:
Little:
City ordinance requires one parking space per bedroom, and this structure meets that
requirement.
According to her interpretation of zoning code ordinance §160.139 E, since this house
has been a single family dwelling for ten years, it has lost its nonconforming use status.
(Note: § 160.139 E states: "When a nonconforming use of a structure, or structure and
premises in combination, is discontinued or abandoned for six consecutive months or for
18 months during any three-year period (except where government action impedes access
to the premises), the structure or structure and premises in combination, shall not
thereafter be used except in conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is
located;")
He has done some research, and § 160.135 [Intent and Nonconforming lots of record] has
been superseded by § 164.07 in the new Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
The UDO was simply a restructured version of the Code of Ordinances, the information
in them is the same.
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 1998
Page -4-
Conklin: He has reviewed the information in both code books, and the information is the same.
Parker: § 164.07 cites the ordinance on nonconforming uses and structures. He has a letter from
Ruth Ann Grisso, a former propeny owner, and it states that there was a ten-year period
of non -exercise of use since the building was used as a single family dwelling. He cited
the precedent of Anderson vs. The City of Paragould. He wanted to know whether the
property at 817 Sunset is classified as a conditional use or a nonconforming use. In the
UDO, the structure could lose nonconforming use status if it has been "structurally
altered". He has pictures of drywall work that has been done to that property. In
§ 160.04, the house would be permitted as a conditional use under Unit 8, and he wants to
know if a conditional use has been granted.
Little:
Wilhelms:
Little:
There has been no conditional use granted for that property. The Planning Commission
decides conditional use, not the Board of Adjustment, so there is no point in discussing
conditional use before this board The structure is classified as a legal but nonconforming
use.
The real estate ad that was used to sell the house indicates that the house was marketed as
a two bedroom home plus a one bedroom apartment with kitchen and bath that could be
opened up td create a four bedroom home. Regardless of its use as a single family
dwelling, the house was sold as a duplex.
She wanted to clarify Mr. Parker's citation of §160.138 on page 151 of the Code of
Ordinances regarding nonconforming structures. Under § 160.139, Nonconforming uses
of structures or of structures and premises in combination, the structure at 817 Sunset
Drive retains its lawful use status.
Wilhelms: What about the condition of the repairs that Mr. Parker mentioned? Has the structure
been changed or altered in any way?
Conklin: There is no evidence that there has ever been a doorway between the two halves of the
building. There is currently no internal access between the units and both sides are
rented. The drywall work is aesthetic in nature and not a structural alteration.
Ira and Sharon Schwartzman addressed the board.
Mr. Schwartzman:
They bought the property at 817 Sunset from Dr. and Mrs. Pesnell who rented out both
sides during the time they owned the property. The house was listed by Century 21 as a
duplex, and he and his wife bought the house for use as an income property. If they were
to rent the house as a single family dwelling, the residents would be noisier than the ones
that are there now. The current renters are quiet, well-mannered people who make
excellent neighbors, and he isn't sure what the problem is. Had it not been for the city's
notice of public hearing, he and his wife wouldn't have known there was a problem at all.
Mrs. Schwartzman: They bought this house as a duplex, they haven't altered the building in any way, and
their intent is to preserve the neighborhood, not to disturb it.
Nickle:
He questions the timing of this complaint. Why didn't the neighbors come forward with
their concerns during the time that this house was sold twice instead of letting Mr.
Schwartzman enter into this situation unaware of any problem.
•
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 1998
Page -5-
Ranai Trulley addressed the board.
Trulley:
A complaint was made last fall which was never followed up on. The property was sold
quickly the last two times it was put on the market; there was never even a sign in the yard
advertising the property. When she bought her house, the property in question was being
used as a single family dwelling, so she had no idea that a duplex would be an issue. The
college renters have disturbed and upset the neighborhood.
Little: The Planning Department did respond to the complaint, made in the fall of 1997.
Nickle:
Little:
He asked the planning staff hypothetically if Mr. Schwartzman had come to the planning
office before purchasing his property and asked about the nature of its use as a duplex
what staff's recommendation would have been.
Mr. Schwartzman would have been advised that his property was a legal but
nonconforming use. He would be entitled to seek a conditional use from the Planning
Commission for extra security, but that step would merely be a precaution, not a
necessity.
Parker: His interpretation of the UDO is that since the property was not used as a duplex, it loses
its nonconforming use status.
Little: Mr. Parker is confusing his terms of "use" and "occupancy". The definition of a two
family dwelling (duplex) is "A detached residential building containing two dwelling
units, designed for occupancy by not more than two families.". A dwelling unit is defined
by "...containing independent cooking and sleeping facilities." The house at 817 Sunset
has two kitchens. Since the second kitchen was not removed during the ten year period in
question, it remains a duplex and retains its nonconforming use status.
Eugene J. Holmes addressed the board.
Holmes:
He has lived next door to the property at 817 Sunset for many years One of the previous
owners was a good friend of his. He has seen the house suffer greatly as a rental property
in his opinion.
John Watkins addressed the board.
Watkins:
He lives at 935 Sunset. He agrees with Mr. Parker's interpretation of discontinued use.
The building was not used as a duplex for ten years. The city's records say that the
property at 817 Sunset has been a duplex since 1966. His research indicates that in 1961,
the second zoning ordinance for the city of Fayetteville was passed zoning the area in
question R=1, Low Density Residential, which would eliminate the duplex's existence.
Prior to that, the first zoning ordinance was passed in 1952, which distinguished between
a residential zone and a 2 -family or duplex zone. It falls to the property owners to prove
nonconforming use, which he doesn't believe they have done. He doesn't feel that this
structure should be "grandfathered" into the R -I zone since the property owners cannot
prove that it was a duplex prior to 1966. He is the vice president of the Sunset Woods
property owners association, and they have amended their covenants to exclude any
multi -family dwellings, anticipating problems like these.
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 1998
Page -6-
Little:
This house has been a duplex for at least 32 years. Does Mr. Watkins consider "use" the
same as "occupancy"? The second kitchen defines the structure as a duplex regardless of
occupancy.
Charles Scharlaa addressed the board.
Scharlaa: He lives in a planned unit development in a house that has two kitchens and two front
doors but isn't a duplex in his opinion. He is using it as a single family dwelling.
Little:
Parker:
Little:
The UDO defines a dwelling unit as "One room or rooms connected together,
constituting a separate, independent housekeeping establishment for owner occupancy, or
rental or lease on a weekly, monthly or longer basis, and physically separated from any
other rooms or dwelling units which may be in the same structure, and containing
independent cooking and sleeping facilities." Therefore, the design of the structure
defines the use, not the occupancy.
He has cited only one case as a precedent. He can give examples of other cases.
The cases he has cited at this meeting are invalid for use as precedents because they have
little or no siinilarity to the current case.
Martha Dale addressed the board.
Dale:
She agrees with Mr. Watkins on the timing of the beginning of the zoning ordinances.
Since no one can prove that the house was a duplex before the first zoning ordinance was
passed in 1952, she thinks the house should conform to the single family dwelling R-1
zone.
Mary Margaret Warren addressed the board.
Warren:
She was a resident of the neighborhood in 1950 when John and Tranney White, the
original owners of the property, built the house. Mr. White traveled frequently, and his
wife was hesitant to stay alone in the house. Mr. White built a separate living facility
which was rented to females at the University.
Watkins: When was the kitchen built? If the kitchen were added later than the 1952 zoning
ordinance, the house would be illegally zoned.
Eldon Jansen addressed the board.
Jansen: He thought that the property owner at 817 Sunset would live in the house. His concern
about having rowdy renters centers around the house being rental property.
Wilhelms:
Perkins:
The situation is complicated, but the duplex hasn't changed since its construction.
Mr. Watkins mentioned covenants in his neighborhood. Are there any stipulations for
property maintenance in the covenants that might pacify the property owners who have
concerns about the upkeep of the property?
Watkins: His neighborhood with covenants in place is adjacent to the property in question but not
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 1998
Page -7-
Nickle:
inclusive. He mentioned the covenants only as an example that their neighborhood will
not tolerate a similar situation and has taken steps to prevent that occurrence.
He has sympathy for both sides, but the neighbors seem to have a baseline issue with the
house being rental property. The neighbors need to understand that if noisy and unruly
renters are their concern, turning the home into a single family dwelling will intensify that
problem. The potential that three "college kids" could move in together is highly likely,
and that scenario would create more problems for the neighborhood than the duplex use.
He sees that the real estate listing showed the house to be a duplex, and the planning staff
has stated that if Mr. Schwartzman had asked about the nature of the house before
purchasing it, the staff would have supported duplex use.
Boyd: The arbitrary nature of the renters is unfortunate, but that is reality in any rental situation.
Orton:
In her estimation. the definition of a duplex is separate utility meters. She has
encountered several houses with separate kitchen facilities that she wouldn't consider
duplexes. She thinks that a "duplex" should be more narrowly defined.
Conklin: The definitions are clear and specific.
Hanna: During the ten year period of single family use, was there ever a door connecting the two
halves of the structure?
Conklin: There is no evidence that there is now or ever has been internal access.
Eddie Bradford addressed the board.
Bradford: The house was never designated as a duplex.
Watkins: The duplex was not a valid use before zoning was adopted.
Parker: The burden of proof for "use" falls to the property owner. In his opinion, the property
owners have proven nothing.
Andrews: This duplex is a valid nonconforming use.
Boyd: The Board of Adjustment is not the legal end for these sorts of decisions. They are not
attorneys, merely board members.
Perkins: The zoning code they have available for review dates back to 1970.
Watkins:
Little:
There is no evidence of when the second kitchen was constructed. He wants the issue
tabled until the next meeting to give the board time to review the issue with the City
Attorney.
The planning department uses the zoning code daily and makes decisions accordingly.
The ordinances are black and white, and there is no need to review them with an attorney
who will more than likely not take definitive action anyway.
Perkins: What is Mr. Schwartzman's assessment of the possibility of tabling this item?
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 1998
Page -8-
Schwartzman:
He bought this property based on the fact that it is a duplex. He and his wife are doing his
best to enhance the neighborhood, as they live close to that area, they are neighbors also.
He has a renter waiting to move in pending a decision from the board at today's meeting.
He asks that the board make a decision today and not table the issue.
Andrews: How does the planning staff feel about the pre-existing ordinances (prior to 1970)?
Little:
The planning office doesn't recognize. nor does it feel the need to recognize any
ordinance prior to 1970. Copies of the prior ordinances are not available. They have
always used the 1970 code as a reference point. There is good evidence that this property
has been a duplex for at least 32 years. There would be no gain by tabling or postponing
this item.
Perkins: Does Mrs. Little ever encounter a reference to older codes prior to 1970?
Little: She has no access to prior codes. She can't say definitively whether there is reference or
not, but the office does not deal with anything prior to 1970.
Perkins: There is no need for the board to rule on the legality of a property prior to 1952.
Parker: That is why he is requesting a review by the City Attorney.
Boyd: He doesn't see the need for that action. The board can vote on this item, and there are
other avenues for appeal if the complainants choose to do so.
Watkins: By voting without consulting the City Attorney, the board ties the neighbors' hands and
forces them to incur the legal expenses associated with the appeals process.
Hanna:
Watkins:
How would Mr. Watkins feel about the hypothetical possibility of the disgruntled
neighbors combining their resources to purchase the property from Mr. Schwartzman and
turning the house into a single family unit? That would solve the problem.
He sees no need to do that. There are too many variables to speak to that issue anyway.
The list price on the last available real estate listing is $109,000. Assuming that the
complainants could come up with ten people contributing ten thousand dollars each, he as
a lawyer could fight a legal battle for basically free
Ruth Cohoon addressed the board.
Cohoon:
Hanna:
Parker:
She is a former resident of 817 Sunset. She lived in the home from 1966-75 and was
familiar with the original builders and owners, John and Tranney White. They built the
house for the purpose of being a duplex. She knew the lady who rented the side she
rented, and that lady lived there at least one year before she moved into the duplex. The
home was built in the middle to late 1950s. She thinks the house ought to remain a
duplex.
He confirmed with Ms. Cohoon that she had lived in one side of the duplex and that the
home was built as a duplex to the best of her knowledge.
There is no evidence that the home was built legally, since it is a duplex in an R -I zone,
•
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 1998
Page -9-
and the Planning Director has no idea about regulations before 1970. He wants the issue
reviewed by another attorney before a decision is made.
Wilhelms: This board is not made up of attorneys, nor do they have the need to be legal experts.
Perkins: The item can follow the normal course of legal action from here. If the board votes to
deny the appeal, the petitioners can appeal through the court system.
Mr. Boyd moved to uphold the Planning Director's decision that the house at 817 Sunset Drive remain a legal
but nonconforming use as a duplex.
Mr. Wilhelms seconded said motion.
The motion was approved with a vote of 7-0-0.
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 1998
Page -10-
BA 98-27.00: Variance (House)
72 Oklahoma Way
This item was submitted by Gregory T. House for property located at 72 Oklahoma Way. The property is zoned R-
1, Low Density Residential, and contains approximately 0.24 acres. The request is for a variance of the 20 foot
setback in order to construct a pool, trellis and deck along the east property line.
Greg House appeared to request the variance.
STAFF'S COMMENTS.
Conklin: The site plan shows the project in detail. The applicant has requested a variance to
construct a pool. deck and trellis. The original site plan shows a pavilion, but this
structure was discovered to be in a utility easement after his submittal. There is a six-inch
cast iron water line that transects the property and is contained within a 15 -foot utility
easement. The applicant requested that this item appear before the board despite these
complications so that the board may vote on the pool and deck, the structures outside the
utility easements. Because of the grading required, the pool will be over 30 inches in
height, which requires a 20 foot setback. There is a 19 foot variance request. The trellis
extends approximately 7 feet into the setback. There is an approximate 20 foot setback
for the deck, which could potentially be over 30 inches in height. Staff recommends
approval with the following conditions:
1) A survey will be provided so that the city may be assured that construction will occur
outside the utility easements and avoiding the water line.
2) A copy of the lease agreement with Western Methodist Assembly will be provided by
the applicant. Part of the deck will be constructed on their property. Staff has concerns
about signing off on a building permit authorizing anyone to build on someone else's
property.
3) The location of the pool, deck and trellis (excluding pavilion will be shown by
elevation.
4) Construction will be completed within one year.
5) Letters will be provided by the applicant from SWEPCO stating that the utility
company has vacated their easements. Staff has concerns that there were at one time
utility poles in this area that have not yet beeti relocated. There is not adequate
information at this time to confirm vacation of the utility easement.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Boyd: Can the applicant build within the city's setbacks on another part of his lot?
House: Yes, but the adjoining land could at a future date be developed, and he doesn't want to be
prevented from utilizing the entire lot.
Boyd:
House:
He has concerns about intensifying building on land with empty land adjacent.
The problem is the slope of the land, which causes the downhill slope of the pool to
violate the city's 30 -inch rule.
•
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 1998
Page -11-
Charles Wallace, director of Western Methodist Assembly, addressed the board.
Wallace:
He knows of no current plans to develop the land. He at one point had granted Mr. House
an easement to construct a privacy fence. He needs his trustees' approval before
proceeding further. He didn't get the notice of the board meeting, and he is unprepared to
approve any plans at this time, but he sees no problem with approval of the deck.
Boyd: The board will not grant authority for Mr. House to build on Western Methodist
Assembly property. The deck is not an issue at this time.
Little: The notification was returned to the planning office for insufficient address. The planning
office sends notifications to adjoining property owners based on addresses given by the
applicant.
House:
He would rather postpone a decision about the deck until a later date. He wants to build
the pool, and if an agreement can't be reached with the property owners, he won't
construct a deck.
Nickle: He wants to structure the variance to address the pool, trellis and deck as separate issues.
Mr. Hanna left the meeting at 6:05 p.m
• Mr. Nickle moved to grant a variance for construction of a pool, trellis and the deck on the west side, pending
an agreement with property owners on the east side deck, and pending staff approval.
Mr. Wilhelms seconded said motion.
The motion was approved on a vote of 6-0-0.
•
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 1998
Page -12-
The Board of Adjustment meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m
6:10 p.m. on September 8, 1998.
ITEMS REVIEWED -BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS
SA 98-4.00: Sign Appeal (Keating Construction)
SA 98-5.00: Sign Appeal (Trisign, Inc.)
The Board of Sign Appeals meeting was opened at
ACTION TAKEN
Approved 3-2-0 (Boyd and Orton
voted oppoesd)
Denied (west wall sign) 5-0-0
Approved (32 -foot wall sign, four
directional signs) 5-0-0
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gerald Boyd, Larry Perkins, Michael Andrews, Marion Orton, Bob Nickle and
Paul Wilhelms
STAFF PRESENT: Mike McKimmey, Alett Little and Liz Hopson
SA 98-4.00: Sign Appeal (Keating Constructionl
55 Sunbridge Drive
This item was submitted by Keating Construction for property located at 55 Sunbridge Drive. The property is zoned
R -O, Residential Office, and contains approximately 0.83 acres. The request is for three signs; one 28.5 square foot
free standing sign requiring a variance of 24.5 square feet, one 57.32 square foot wall sign requiring a variance of
41.32 square feet, and one 30.62 square foot wall sign requiring a variance of 14.62 square feet.
Bill Keating appeared in support of the project.
STAFF'S COMMENTS:
McKimmey:
Boyd:
Keating:
Boyd:
Keating:
Boyd:
Keating:
Boyd:
Keating:
The request is for two wall signs and one free standing sign. According to the sign
ordinance, the applicant has the ability to have two 16 square foot wall signs since he has
two frontages on the building. The variance request is for square footage.
What type of business will this building house?
West Telecommunications, a telemarketing business.
Is there any public traffic requiring signs? Who are the signs for, the employees?
The street will be connected to College, a major thoroughfare, and the company likes big
signs to enable people to see them.
It would be for name recognition only, not to encourage customers?
The signs would be for employees also.
Have the other building developers requested variances?
No, except for a few buildings on the east and west sides of the street, his company has
built all of the structures. These signs would be legal in a commercial zone, but since this
property is zoned R -O, the requirements are different.
•
•
Board ofAdjusnnent
September 8, 1998
Page -13-
Orton:
There seems to be no justification for such a large sign in an R -O zone.
Scott Love, a representative of West Telecommunications, addressed the board.
Love:
Nickle:
Love:
Perkins:
McKimmey:
Orton:
McKimmey:
Orton:
Nickle:
Andrews:
Keating:
Orton:
Andrews:
This will be an outbound site, and even if the variance is granted, the company logo will
be the smallest of their 17 outbound sites. There are corporate standards for the company
building, signs and general appearance. These logos are carried from site to site.
From the company's standpoint, which of the two wall signs, one being the West logo and
the other labeling the employee entrance, is more important?
The company considers the logo more important, but the employees will need some sign
guidance as well to know which entrance to take.
Is everything else along the road in full compliance?
As far as he knows, everything else is in compliance.
She doesn't want to divert from the Fayetteville sign ordinance because it makes the city
more attractiJe. That the company has done this in other areas is no justification for a
variance in this case.
If the building utilized a multi -tenant function, as was its original design, the tenants
would each be entitled to signs. Since this building houses a single tenant and has no
impact on adjoining neighbors, the tenant should be allowed his sign variance.
That is a dangerous precedent to set.
The employment entrance sign seems justified to minimize disturbance. The total square
footage for a multi -tenant building is greater than the signage the single tenant has asked
for.
Is there a third frontage to the building?
Since one tenant is utilizing the entire building, the 6 entrances originally planned were
minimized. The sign ordinance allows one sign per tenant.
If the variance were granted, would the variance be for this tenant only?
If the tenant leaves this building, the signs would transfer with the tenant.
Mr. Wilhelms left at 6:15 p.m.
Boyd:
He would like to see a separate vote on the monument sign.
Mr. Nickle moved to approve the variance for the two wall signs.
Mr. Andrews seconded said motion.
The motion was approved with a vote of 3-2-0, with Mr. Boyd and Ms. Orton voting against.
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 1998
Page -14-
Perkins:
Orton:
Perkins:
Is there any further discussion on the monument sign?
What has the board's recommendation been in the past with regard to these sorts of
variances?
The board has generally been keeping those signs within a 16 square foot size restriction.
Mr. Andrews moved to approve a variance of 12 feet for the monument sign, giving a total of 16 square feet.
Mr. Nickle seconded said motion
The motion was approved on a vote of 5-0-0.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 1998
Page -15-
SA 98-5.00: Sign Appeal (Trisign, Inc.)
153 East Monte Painter Drive
This item was submitted by Trisign, Inc. on behalf of Healthsouth for property located at 153 East Monte Painter
Drive. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office. The request is for two signs; one sign having 93 square feet
of display surface area requiring a variance of 77 square feet, and one sign having 38.75 square feet of display
surface area requiring a variance of 22.75 square feet.
Gerard Barry of Trisign appeared before the board in support of the project.
STAFF'S COMMENTS:
McKimmey:
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
The free-standing sign in front of the hospital is outlined in BOSA 91-2.00. The board
granted an oversized sign at that time. The applicant's request is for a 93 square foot
backlit halo neon wall sign. His recommendation is to deny the variance request. There
were limitations set at the time the medical park was built, and he would like to keep
within those limitations. The board has turned down other similar variance requests.
There were no public comments.
Barry:
McKimmey:
Barry:
Boyd:
Perkins:
Nickle:
McKimmey:
Little:
Nickle:
The hospital was bought by Healthsouth for use as a rehabilitation hospital. The signs
would be used for identification for the hospital's 24-hour service. These are attractive
signs that would not be lit during the day and would be backlit only at night. The 31 foot
length of the sign requested is due to the length of the word "Healthsouth". The buildings
in the medical park have no room for this type of sign, so there is no need to worry about
setting a precedent. There are also four 2x2 directional signs indicating where patients
and relatives should go.
The sign on the back of the building (sign #2) isn't visible from the street.
The sign is designed to be unobtrusive; patients and relatives will see it entering the
building.
He is reluctant to increase signage from the previous tenant. He is against a sign on the
back of the building which seems to serve no purpose. How much signage is allowed by
ordinance?
The applicant is allowed 16 feet on each sign.
The proposed directional signs shown seem completely appropriate, but the large sign
seems unnecessary.
There is no second frontage for the building; therefore, there is no allowance in the sign
ordinance for the second sign.
In an R -O zone, the applicant is allowed one on-site wall sign per building frontage.
How many signs are permitted?
Board of Adjustment
September 8, 1998
Page -16-
McKimmey: The applicant is allowed one sign per entrance. These would be enter and exit signs
limited to four square feet in size.
Mr. Boyd moved to approve up to a 32 foot wall sign in the front of the building and to approve the four
internal directional signs. He moved to deny approval on a west wall sign.
Ms. Orton seconded said motion.
The motion passed with a vote of 5-0-0.
•
•
•