Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-06-07 MinutesO MINUTES OF A MEETING OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND SIGN APPEALS A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals was held on June 7, 1999 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED Approval of Minutes from 5/3/99 BA99-6: Ice Plant, pp484 BA99-7: Bradberry, pp523 BA98-23: Thomas pp407 BA99-8: Simmons ATM, pp372 SA99-1: First Security Bank, pp174 MEMBERS PRESENT Michael Andrews Gerald Boyd Michael Green Thad Hanna O Bob Nickle Marion Orton STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Janet Johns Bert Rakes Brent Vinson ACTION TAKEN Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Larry Perkins STAFF ABSENT None k'' • Minutes of Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals June 7, 1999 Page 2 BA99-6: VARIANCE ICE PLANT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, pp484 This item was submitted by Cal Canfield on behalf of Ice Plant Development LLC for property located at 339 North West Avenue. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial, and contains approximately 0.67 acres The requirement is a rear setback of 15 feet. The request is for a variance of 15 feet at the rear. The Master Street Plan requires 35 feet of right of way from the center line of West Avenue and a front setback of 5 feet. The request is for a 20 foot variance at the front. Cal Canfield was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested 15 feet rear setback variance and the 20 foot front setback variance because of special conditions preexisting on the property. Discussion Conklin: I would like to welcome Michael Green as the newly appointed member of the board. There are 2 variances being requested. The first one is the 15 foot rear setback. This is currently Mr. Canfield's office. The building encroaches into the railroad right of way. He is working with the owner of the railroad right of way on an agreement. The other variance is a 20 foot variance along West Street. The building is currently on the property line along West Street which is classified as a collector street on the Master Street Plan and requires 35 feet of right of way from the centerline. Refer to page 2.11. The applicant has provided you with a site plan showing the property line location. The applicant plans to remodel the building and increase the square footage inside the structure. Green: The right of way for the collector street, is that going to actually be constructed in the future? Conklin: If West Street were to be widened in the future, that right of way would be required. The downtown area is somewhat unique. We recently approved a development on Dickson that made the street more narrow. Boyd: street? Doesn't the Brew Pub come right up the property line on the other side of this Conklin: Yes. • Minutes of Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals June 7, 1999 Page 3 Boyd: If anything was going to be done it would probably be changing that to a one way street. More likely so, they aren't going to widen it. Conklin: I don't see it being widened any time soon. The Superior Linen building is across this street and the developer requested a variance of the setback. Staff did support that. Nickle: Is the gravel parking lot going to be paved? Canfield: Yes, sir. It is. My office is currently in this building on the railroad right of way side We have an existing building that is exceeding it's property lines on two boundaries I am currently working on the railroad right of way ownership to establish some sort of agreement. It is difficult to proceed with anything in this building not knowing the status of your property lines and setbacks and bulk and area requirements. If we get the variance here, we're going to proceed with redeveloping this property which I feel is a vital piece of the fabric being developed down there. This is a vital building to the history of Fayetteville. This structure encroaches the railroad right of way and fully encroaches the front setback. Conklin: If the building were to burn, they would have to meet the setbacks. There have • been other projects that had variances approved. Such as, Brew Pub, the bakery building, Three Sisters building. • Hanna: What if the railroad comes back and says they will lease that property for 100 years. Should we give them an extra 5 feet? Canfield. John Lewis owns that. Public Comment None MOTION Mr. Hanna made a motion to approve the variance for the 15 feet from the new property line on the west and 20 feet from the existing eastern property line. Mr. Andrews seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 6-0-0. Minutes of Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals June 7, 1999 Page 4 BA99-7: VARIANCE BRADBERRY, PP523 This item was submitted by John and Hope Bradberry for property located at 310 West Mountain Street. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial, and contains approximately 0.52 acres The requirement is a front setback of 5 feet from the street right of way. The request is for a setback of 3 feet. John and Hope Bradberry were present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested 2 foot variance. Discussion Vinson: This was the old laundry building on Mountain Street. Mr. Bradberry has turned this into a residence and wants to provide a roof structure above the sidewalk which encroaches on the south setback. There is a 5 foot setback from the property line to the fence. Refer to page 3.6. The roof structure has not been completed but it has been started. They need the additional 2 feet because they have used some antique doors as a courtyard gate and wish to protect them from weathering. Boyd: Is it an eave? Conklin: It is an eave. Boyd: They will still be within their property line? Conklin: That is correct. Bradberry: The structure doesn't look proportionate as it stands. This is a cosmetic change. Public Comment None. Further Discussion Nickle: Is the planter encroaching into the setback? • • • Minutes of Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals June 7, 1999 Page 5 Vinson: Any structure that is under 30 inches is exempt from meeting setbacks. Boyd: How high can a wall be? Conklin: We don't regulate fencing. MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve the variance request to allow a 3 foot setback or a variance of 2 feet. Ms. Orton seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 6-0-0. Minutes of Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals June 7, 1999 Page 6 BA98-23: VARIANCE THOMAS, pp407 This item was submitted by Phillip Hadfield of Miller Boksus Lack Architects, P.A. on behalf of 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 for an extension of the original approval on September 8, 1998. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends granting an extension subject to the following conditions: 1. The variances and the large scale development approval would expire one year from the date of large scale development approval. 2. When submitted as a large scale development, the project must conform to all current City regulations. 3. Large scale development shall be submitted for the City's review and approval process no later than September, 1999, which is one year from the date of original variance approval. Discussion Conklin: This project was before the Board on September 8, 1998 as the approval was valid for one year from that date. They will be submitting a large scale development plan no later than September. Boyd: Have any conditions or has the situation changed since we first considered this? Conklin. No. Hadfield: The reason we haven't started yet was because there was a problem with the square footage which delayed the financing of the project. That has been rectified and we are ready to proceed. MOTION Mr. Andrews made a motion to approve the request. Mr. Boyd seconded the motion. • Minutes of Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals June 7, 1999 Page 7 • • Roll Call Upon roll call the motion passed with a unanimous vote of 6-0-0. • Minutes of Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals June 7, 1999 Page 8 BA99-8: VARIANCE SIMMONS ATM, pp372 This item was submitted by Joe Ruddell of Simmons First Bank for property located at the northeast corner of Highway 45 and Highway 265. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, and contains approximately 1 23 acres. The requirement is a 50 foot setback from the street right of way. The request is for a variance of 45 feet. Joe Ruddell and Don Cozart were present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested 45 foot variance with a condition that landscaping be added screening the ATM from the intersection of Hwy 45 & Hwy 265. Said landscaping shall be coordinated with AHTD and the City's Landscape Administrator. Discussion • Conklin: This site is along the Highway Department right of way and they are improving the intersection of Highway 265 and are requiring additional land which is affecting this project. There have been various requests for ATM machines including Community Bank and the ATM on Wedington at the Spot Not Car Wash for which variances have been granted. • Ruddell: They were working on putting in this ATM prior to my association with the bank. This was started about a year ago and we thought we would be able to landscape around it and there by taking the setback reduction option for a 25 foot setback instead of a 50 foot setback. At the time, we thought we had met the 25 foot setback based on the plan approved through large scale development when this project was originally developed. This is not going to block traffic or vision. Cozart: I have my attorney with me today not because of the Board of Adjustments but because we have an on going situation with the Highway Department. I bought this land within the last few years and met the required 25 foot setback reduction by providing landscaping around the site. Joe was instructed by the City in the last 2 or 3 weeks to have a survey there. I had never seen the drawing the Highway Department was proposing to take off that corner. I don't think they are taking much, if anything off the other side. For some reason, they decided to take everything off of our side. My lawyer understands there is $35,000 in escrow to cover the corner they want and that doesn't touch the amount of income I could loose if they proceed with their plan. I paid $591,000 for that corner. Conklin: The Highway Department did not have any drawings when Cozart's large scale • Minutes of Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals June 7, 1999 Page 9 • came through. We required the maximum under our Master Street Plan which is 110 feet total or 55 feet from the centerline. We didn't realize at that time that additional right of way would be required due to grading and fill. We did not have the ability to require that and we have no control over what the Highway Department is doing at that location. The setback reduction was allowed. Staff does recommend approval Ruddell: We have agreed to do the landscaping. We want to beautify the city. Nickle: I had a question about the size of the building. Your letter states the structure is 7 square feet. Ruddell: It should be 70 square feet. There will be a canopy which won't interfere with the traffic flow. There is room for two cars through there. Hanna: What happens if the state takes more than what they are proposing? Conklin: If the variance is approved, the structure would become nonconforming if the state took more than what is reflected on the plans. Boyd: The stacking would be between the ATM and the right of way for the street. Nickle: I was disappointed that it had already been constructed. I guess you had some miscommunications between the contractor and City. Ruddell: It was a calamity of errors. This was totally unintentional and we apologize for that. We did have direct communication with the City. Boyd: Was an application filed? Conklin: It was completed but not signed off. There were issues about the location and setback. Nickle: What is the current status of the permit? Ruddell: The permit is ready to be filed and we will do that once we get approval for the variance request. Boyd: Is there a penalty for filing after the fact? • Rakes: We will double the permit fee. • Minutes of Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals June 7, 1999 Page 10 MOTION Mr. Nickle made a motion to approve the variance request. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 5-1-0. Mr. Boyd votes against the motion. Further Discussion Orton: We have seen so many of these problems for the ATMs. Is there something that we can use in the Planning Office to avoid this? Conklin: The current zoning ordinance doesn't address ATMs or provide any special allowances for their construction. • • • Minutes of Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals June 7, 1999 Page 11 SA99-1: SIGN APPEAL FIRST SECURITY BANK, PP174 This item was submitted by James K. Taylor on behalf of First Security Bank for property located at 1219 East Joyce Boulevard. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and contains approximately 1.99 acres The sign ordinance requires a 26 foot setback for the proposed 32 square foot monument sign. The request is for a 10 foot setback which is a variance of 16 feet. James Taylor was present on behalf of the project. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval because this request meets and exceeds the requirements of the more restrictive ordinances. Discussion • Conklin: At the time this Targe scale was approved, they were requesting a monument sign which was reviewed by the Planning Commission as a part of Commercial Design Standards to ensure that it was not out of scale. Subsequently, it was approved subject to this variance being approved. • Orton: Why did the Planning Commission have the authority to approve a sign rather than the Board of Sign Appeals? Conklin: It is their purview to look at signs as part of the overall development to ensure they are compatible with the zone and adjacent developments. They looked at the Design Overlay District allowing monument sign to be placed along the bypass. The setback was based on the larger the sign the greater the setback. Monument signs are located near the front of the property because they are not high up and that is how we ran into the issue of not meeting the setback requirements. Boyd: This sign is about half the distance back from the other monument signs along Joyce. Particularly as you go east. Nickle: That is different zoning there. It's R -O. Not C-2. We approved Harvey Smith My concern is that in the future, there will have to be a variance This applicant was not aware that he had to come before this board. If the Planning Commission is going to do that, somehow they need to make it clear to the applicant. They need to make sure the applicant gets approval on this. 111/ Minutes of Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals June 7, 1999 Page 12 • • Conklin: I agree. We try to inform the applicants of what they need to do to get approval. Anytime you have monument signs not meeting the ordinance -- Boyd: There is a temporary sign out there that is very visible. If they build the monument sign where it is, they should cut down a couple of Bradford pear trees. Conklin: The Planning Division supports monument signs. Personally, I feel they are more attractive and when you're driving they are much easier to see because you're looking down and not up. Orton: What is the reason that this has to be closer? It's not designed according to the Overlay District Ordinance. Conklin: It's larger in area but it not higher. Nickle: They could put up a large pylon sign because they're zoned C-2. They had elected to erect a monument sign instead and this variance is a trade off. It's quid pro quo. We won't have to look at a big pylon sign. Conklin: The Planning Commission is looking at having a project designed better without a pylon than saying they can't do the monument sign that close to the right of way. Orton: I think monument signs look better but I'm wondering that the next case to come along, what guidelines provide for consistency? What is the criteria? Hanna: I think that's a good point and it needs to be addressed. I think we all agree that monument signs look better than pole signs. I'm in favor of this. We're having to give variances every time it comes up. The ordinance itself needs to be addressed and provide for options instead of making them come forward with a variance and a $350 burden. Conklin: We waived the fee. Nickle: From now on, we're just going to say they can have the sign 10 feet from the right of way? Hanna: I think we're setting the precedent. Maybe staff could pass that on because I know the City is looking at some of these ordinances. Nickle: I agree with Thad that maybe we should recommend through staff that those ordinances be reconciled to provide some option for monument signs instead of pole signs. • Minutes of Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals June 7, 1999 Page 13 Conklin: I don't think this will be the last request you will see. Planning Commission tends to recommend monument signs which are larger and closer to the street to avoid those pylon signs. We will try to develop some kind of criteria and provide for options which I can try to have together for your review by the next meeting. Hanna: Nickle: Boyd: We've had several monument sign appeals. The Planning Commission is obviously encouraging monument signs. When do they fill out their sign application? Conklin: At large scale development, we require sign elevation drawings showing what they will look like. There is no application filled out at that time because we don't know what the Planning Commission will approve. After Planning Commission, they prepare their construction drawings and apply for a building and sign permit. Boyd: If the Planning Commission approves something -- Nickle: compliance. Conklin: Appeals. They might not be aware that what they have recommended for approval is out of We try to inform them that they would need to go before the Board of Sign Boyd: I didn't get the impression that the applicant was aware of that. Conklin: We will try to make sure future applicants get on the agenda for your consideration. Rakes: The minutes of the Subdivision Committee reflect that the applicant was instructed to proceed for your approval. Boyd: I don't like the idea of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. Orton: I don't like the fact that the Planning Commission is approving something that isn't in the ordinance. The ordinance needs to be changed. MOTION Mr. Green made a motion to approve the variance request. • Minutes of Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals June 7, 1999 Page 14 • • Mr. Nickle seconded the motion. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 4-2-0. Ms. Orton and Mr. Boyd votes against the motion. • Minutes of Board of Adjustments and Sign Appeals June 7, 1999 Page 15 • • APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Andrews stated that the roll did not reflect his absence and requested that it be corrected. The minutes would stand with the correct. Meeting adjourned at 4:55. •