HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-05-01 Minutes•
•
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
5moo
A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, May/2000 at 3:45 p.m. in
Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS CONSIDERED
Approval of the Minutes
BA 00-2.00: Variance (Pavis, pp 360)
BA 00-3.00: Variance (Sexton, pp 371)
BA 00-4.00: Variance (Mason, pp 484)
MEMBERS PRESENT
Michael Andrews
Thad Hanna
Marion Orton
Larry Perkins
Michael Green
STAFF PRESENT
Tim Conklin
Dawn Warrick
Bert Rakes
Steve Cattaneo
ACTION TAKEN
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
MEMBERS ABSENT
STAFF ABSENT
None
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 2
Approval of Minutes
Perkins: The May 1 meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustments is now in
session. The first item of business would be to enter the meeting minutes
for the April 3, 2000 meeting into record. Are there any changes or
deletions that need to be voiced at this time? None being heard, please
enter those minutes into record.
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 3
BA00-2: VARIANCE
PAVIS, pp 360
This item was submitted by Charles Doyle on behalf of Darren Pavis for property located at 1809
Trillium. This is an R-1 property and request is for a 4.5 foot variance. Before we get staff
input, the letter of April 13 talks about a 2.5 foot variance.
Warrick: The letter, the way that I read it, it states that the garage is located 2.5 feet too
close to the street. In addition there is a 24 foot overhang so I combined the two
and came up with the 4.5 foot variance necessary. Did I say foot? Oh, well it's
certainly not that far into it. 24 inch.
Perkins: Okay. So the issue today is 4.5 feet.
Warrick: That's my understanding, yes.
Staff Recommendation
Perkins: Does staff have any additional background on this?
Warrick: Just kind of a review over how this came about, the master building permit for the
structure was issued back in July of 1999. At the time the contractors submitted a
site plan that did reflect the required 25 foot setback. Unfortunately the structure
was placed too close to the street. The homeowner didn't notice this, nobody
really noticed it until the homeowner was doing the walk through at a later date
when the structure was basically complete. So, at this point and time they are
requesting a variance for that 4.5 foot encroachment. One thing that's important
to keep in mind on this one, the front setback in this case is also a general utility
easement and there is an application being processed, getting ready to be
submitted for a vacation request, to vacate that portion of the utility easement in
which this is also encroaching. We've recommended approval of the requested
setback variance contingent upon the City Council's approval of the vacation. If
for some reason City Council decides it's not reasonable to vacate that 4.5 feet
then that action takes pnority over what we are doing. As long as the City
Council is agreeable to vacate that 4.5 feet then we are recommending that this be
approved contingent upon that. I would also mention that the homeowner has
changed contractors and that kind of fell in the midst of all of the construction.
The structure is basically complete at this point and time. It can not be finaled
until these vacation and variance requests are resolved.
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 4
BOARD DISCUSSION:
Andrews: I'm Michael Andrews. The rear setback is 20 feet. Is that correct?
Wan -ick: That is correct.
Andrews: How far from the rear setback does the home set?
Warrick: Based on the site plan that was submitted they are at that 20 foot setback. I'm
looking at the site plan that was submitted with the building permit. That's
located page 2.7 of your packet.
Andrews: So basically, this house couldn't have fit as it was designed and built in the lot
that it sits in right now?
Warrick: I think that's correct.
Perkins: Now is that 20 feet footprint or does it also have an overhang?
Warrick: It also includes overhang since we do measure from overhangs. We ask that on
their site plans they show us the measurements from overhang to property line so
that we get accurate setbacks.
Perkins: Is Mr. Doyle present?
Doyle: Yes.
Perkins: Do you have any input on this project?
Doyle: Everything is correct other than, I think she took the 2.5 feet and then plus 2 feet.
When I submitted this it was 2.5 inches.
Perkins: Oh, it does say inches. Excuse me.
Warrick: Well, then we can reduce that variance request.
Doyle: I was not present when the house footings were being poured and done. When it
was finished the footings were within the 25 foot setback. What put us out in the
variance was the brick veneer and the overhang that puts us in the easement.
• Perkins: So that changes it.
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 5
Warrick: That puts it to 26.5 inches.
Perkins: So it's really 2 feet 2.5 inches.
MOTION:
Green: I move the variance be approved for 26.5 inches.
Perkins: Contingent upon that vacation.
Green: Yes.
Hanna: I'll second
Perkins: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
ROLL CALL:
• The motion was approved on a 4-1-0 vote.
•
Perkins: Mr. Doyle, your appeal passes with that contingency on vacating that easement of
26.5 inches. Thank you very much for your time.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 6
BA 00-3.00: VARIANCE
Sexton, pp 371
The next item of business is appeal BA 00-3 submitted by Joseph S. Rogers on behalf of G.A.
and Elsie Sexton for property located at lot 23, block 2 of Kantz Place, R-0 property. The
request is for a 15 foot rear setback which is a 10 foot variance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Warrick: Just to hopefully familiarize everyone with this site, this is currently a vacant
piece of property that contains just over .5 acres. It's located on the north side of
Highway 45 just west of the new Kantz Place development which houses the Wal-
Mart Neighborhood Market. To the west there is a professional office
development with several different tenants. The applicant is proposing a
professional office building in this location. The basis of the applicant's variance
is stated in a letter and I'll try to synopsize it a little bit. The first reason being the
required right of way for Highway 45 is not existing. The Master Street Plan
requires that Highway 45 have a total of 110' of right of way. It's classified as
principal arterial and that would make it necessary for an additional 15' of right of
way adjacent to this property along the street. Also, the applicant stated the
required 10' of landscaping along the front property line as an issue that reduces
the useable property that they would have available for building. With regard to
the Master Street Plan, that is a plan that was adopted by the City Council and any
project that's coming through the development process is required to
accommodate that Master Street Plan. If it is a situation that the property is being
divided or a large scale development has been proposed, the right of way would
actually have to be dedicated to meet the requirements of the Master Street Plan.
If it's a situation where the project is just going through the building permit
process we just require that they meet setbacks as if the Master Street Plan was
being accommodated. Therefore the setbacks are taken from the new right of way
line which isn't necessanly the current property line. And this would be the
situation in this case because I don't believe the project would trigger the Large
scale development requirement, only the building permit process. Then with
regard to the 10 feet of required landscaping along the front property line, our
Commercial Design Standards actually require 15 feet of landscaping along the
front property line adjacent to commercial developments. This is a standard
requirement throughout the city for any commercial developments. Based on that
information, since that was the basis of the request for the variance, Staff was
unable to make findings necessary to recommend in favor of this variance request.
We did include the applicant's proposal. They wrote an extensive statement to
you with regard to their request and also provided a site plan. In looking at this
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 7
site earlier today, we noticed that there were several large trees on the site that
may not have been taken into account with regard to the site plan proposed. We
did not read from the site plan as though it was a building permit application, we
are reviewing it for their specific requested variance to the rear setback only.
Conklin: We just want to be sure the applicant is aware that other divisions will look at this
site plan and that what you are looking at before you today has not been approved
by the Sidewalk and Trails Coordinator or the Landscape Administrator or the
Engineering Division with regard to storm water drainage plans. It's just a
proposal to show how the building could fit on the lot. I think overall it's always
difficult for staff to make the findings on a parcel of land or a lot that's
undeveloped and fairly level, to make the findings that there is hardship. That is
why we did recommend denial.
Perkins: Tim, on page 3.11 if you look at that office building to the left of this proposal, if
this is in scale, it looks like the north side of those buildings is right up against the
utility easement.
Warrick: That's a good point. We actually looked at that this morning. That structure is
located on a corner lot where it has two front setbacks and two side setbacks and
no rear. The north side setback is a 10 foot setback. Because the larger setbacks
are imposed on the street frontages. That's a different situation on that one as
that's on the corner of East Oaks Avenue and Mission. So that building does have
a different condition to it than the one that we are considering. The property to
the north, while it's zoned R-0, its developed residentially. It's apartments.
Orton: What is the reason for wanting this variance?
Perkins: Is Mr. Rogers here?
Rogers: The reason for the variance basically is, we looked at the property using all the
required setbacks and I have a copy of that site plan as well. To develop the
property as the owner wishes, pushes the front of the building right up about 5
feet from the parking. So if you put a sidewalk there, basically there will be no
landscaping between the building and parking lot. And it also makes the building
very thin. So the thought was that if this is an office building which is the
proposed use, having a 25' setback in the back is basically wasted space in terms
of an office building, because it won't drive around to the side. So the thought
was to take some of that space basically and put it in front of the building so there
could be some landscaping between the building and the parking. That's the
major thing. It's not that he can't develop the property as it is. He's trying to
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 8
make it more appealing, make his building more appealing for passers by and so
forth, that there is actually some area in front of the building for landscape.
Perkins: I may be looking at the wrong print but on page 3.10, what is the distance from
the building to that parking lot? This area right in here?
Rogers. About 15 feet.
Perkins: Fifteen feet. And how much sidewalk space, I guess you were going to dedicate
the whole 15 feet for landscaping and sidewalk?
Rogers: Yes. Let me show you something. This is an enlarged copy of what you have.
This is a copy of the situation without the variance. In other words, you still have
the building but the building is pushed right up to the parking and the building is
long and thin.
Perkins: This building is configured a little bit different. You've got two offsets here.
Rogers: Right. By holding to this 25 foot setback I have to push the building as far
forward as I possibly can.
Perkins: Now, what's this distance?
Rogers. About five feet.
Perkins: About five feet.
Rogers: And this becomes basically unuseable. The reason we felt like it was a possibility
in terms of getting a variance is that, when they bought the property, they did not
count on a 55 foot right of way. They counted a 40 foot right of way so they lost
15 feet in that respect. So, what they are asking for is to get basically, 10 feet of
that back in terms of their property.
Perkins: Now on your parking lot, are these minimum spaces required for ease and ingress
and egress there?
Rogers: Those are to city standards.
Perkins: And they are not too large?
• Rogers: No. As you mentioned, the building over here is actually on a 10 foot setback. It
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 9
is a corner lot. This is residential. It is multi family and what you're looking at
out this back door is the end of an apartment building. The blank end of an
apartment building. So while it is residential, it's not like a single family, people
looking out all the time looking at the back of an office building.
Andrews: Is it right that this building is two story?
Rogers. Yes. One small portion of it will be two story.
Andrews: Just a small portion? Just this right here?
Rogers: Yes. Right.
Orton: Still, people who live in an apartment are people that look out the window.
Rogers: One, there are not windows on the end of the building. But, regardless, you're 70
feet away and we are saying, now we are making you 60 feet away.
Perkins: Tim are these the minimum number of parking spaces he needs for a building that
size?
Conklin: Actually it's the professional office space, one per 300, it's the maximum number.
Perkins: The maximum number.
Orton: Are there any large trees in here that we need to consider?
Rogers: There are a number of large trees. Several of them are diseased and will have to
come out anyway. As Tim mentioned, it's very preliminary. It's something the
owner wanted to pursue and he felt that the building would be better sized in
terms of proportion and would be much more appealing from the curb. Both from
his sake as the building owner but also from the city's sake in terms of looking at
a building and not having parking right at the face of the building.
Orton: Now here is this 10 feet of landscaping here and then your main reason is so you
can have some landscaping here?
Rogers: Near the building, yes This is the new right of way and that's city requirement.
And what we would like to do is have some landscaping at the face of the
building and give some relief to the face of this so it's not just flat. As you can
see on that one, the face of the building is relatively flat.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 10
Perkins: Is there anyone else present that has input?
Andrews: My question would be to staff if there is any, if you all have any suggestions or, l
mean it's not your position to design the property for them, but is there any way
that you have thought of that they could make this thing work without getting a
variance? Build a smaller building, what else?
Conklin: Thank you Michael. Once again, the findings, one of the findings you have to
make, and Mr. Rogers is really familiar with this, last Board of Adjustment
meeting with Lake Hills Church we discussed this. It's difficult to make those
findings when it states the applicant can't cause the need for the variance. By
redesigning this it can meet the setbacks.
Rogers. We obviously can meet the setbacks as you can see on this site plan. That was not
the reason the owner wanted to come. He can build just as big a building on the
site with or with out the setbacks. His point was a better use of the land and the
building to have the setback adjusted by 10 feet so he could enhance the look of
the building and enhance the use of the land. Obviously, with a site like this the
land behind an office building of this type is unused. It's not going to be used for
driving or trash or delivery or something like that. This is no man's land.
Perkins: Well, we try to find here that we stick with code when we can and if there is some
compelling reason then you know it's more favorable for an adjustment. There is
an alternative here that makes the request unnecessary. Granted, it doesn't set
with the owner's full wishes, there would be very limited space for landscaping
of the building, in front of it.
Rogers: The adjacent building obviously is pushed way back to the back, immediately
adjacent to us and I understand that's the comer lot.
Perkins: They loose both ways on a corner lot that way.
Rogers: I understand that they have the benefit of being a corner lot in that they have two
fronts but they also don't have any back. Like I said, the owner's motivation was
not to get an adjustment so he could build a larger building or anything, but from
a city's point of view as well, it looks, to him and to me, I confess that this would
be a better building, better looking building for the city as well. And I honestly
can't find in my own thoughts, looking at the site, looking at even the multi
family behind us, what that 10 foot would really cause in terms of a problem. The
building right next to us is 10 feet away from the same development.
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 11
Green: I have one question. This change of 110 feet right of way for the highway, did
this happen after he purchased the property for this use?
Warrick: I'm not sure when the property was purchased but that plan went into effect in
1995. It went through several public hearings and was adopted by the City
Council in December of 1995.
Green: I think that would make some, perhaps some influence on the way we look at it.
Rogers: I have a copy of the deed but I don't have it with me so I couldn't tell you the
exact date. It's been a number of years though.
Green. It looks to me like there's a little bit of a trade off here. 1 really hate for these
committees to get involved in design issues at all but it seems like on one hand we
tell them that we don't want the box -like structures and we want a lot of other
features that make buildings more attractive and then on the other hand, we force
them to take this and say, okay, in order to meet all of our requirements for
setback you're going to have to make it look like a box in order to utilize all of the
space and make it work. I'm having a little trouble I guess, wrestling with all of
these particular conditions that we are putting on people. Of course that's why
this Board is here. To look at special instances. This particular thing, if there is a
back end of an apartment staring at it at the rear setback, if there is a precedent for
another building in that same vicinity that aligns with it, I'm wondering why we
can't, couldn't make an exception in order to make the building look better, if you
will. There is probably a good chance that they are going to run into a 15 percent
tree problem there too. I don't know, I'm still kind of wrestling with this. It's not
one of these easy things. When you first look at it, it appears like it's very easy to
make that work but that's not what the Planning Commission is telling them.
They want buildings to have design features with them and not be just a flat box.
Perkins: Since there is the issue of canopy I'm not sure, but where are the trees located?
Can you basically point to where they would be?
Rogers: There are a number of trees on the site.
Conklin: Page 3.11
Warrick: Page 3.11 has a survey that shows all the tree locations and sizes.
Perkins: So they are all listed. This is Highway 45 and we are looking this way. Most of
the parking lot is going to affect the trees more than the building.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 12
Rogers. These trees are here but they are diseased so a number of those will have to come
out anyway.
Perkins: This parking lot will take up these and the building would get all of these here.
Orton: Of course, trees can be left in parking lots.
Perkins: So moving the building forward doesn't help with any trees.
Rogers. No.
Perkins: Your building would not line up with the one adjacent to you. It would be 5 feet
further from the setback?
Rogers: Right. We were holding it as far forward as we thought we could and get some
landscaping and some relief on the front of the building.
Hanna: For the record, Thad Hanna, I agree with Mike. I think he has an option here. It
looks better from the front but we go by this strict code and push it up and have
less green space out front. The property is so developed to the east and it's a nice
little commercial building to the west. I think having ten extra feet of green space
on the front would just make it more attractive so I don't have a problem with it.
It's still far away and seems by looking at it from the apartment building doesn't
say huh, that's out of code right there because it's not 10 feet further to the south.
I don't think it will ever be a point, I think it will still be farther away from the
property line than that commercial development on the west side. So I think it's
almost a mute point.
Andrews: Who owns the apartments?
Conklin: I believe Jim Lindsey does.
Andrews: And they were notified?
Conklin: Yes.
Perkins: Any further discussion?
Conklin: Mr. Chairman, just one other point. I try not to design other people's projects
either, but one incentive we do offer here at the City of Fayetteville with regard to
setbacks is if they bring a building up to the street and you do not have parking
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 13
between the building and the street, we do allow a 25 foot setback under R-0 with
landscaping.
Orton: Will there be any other variances needed in the development besides this setback?
Conklin: With regard to other ordinances, I'm not sure.
Orton: They will meet the landscape ordinance and all?
Conklin: The Landscape Administrator will have to review the plans.
Orton: And that has not been reviewed yet?
Conklin: No.
Perkins: Now you are saying because the parking lot being in front, instead of the 30'
setback it would be 25'?
• Conklin: Yes. If you have the building in between the front property line...
Warrick: And the parking lot is not required to meet the 25 foot rear setback. It would have
a 5 foot rear setback.
•
Conklin: They can be over utility easements also. That's one thing in our code we do try to
encourage if it's possible to get the parking back behind the buildings. I have not
designed this site out to see how that would all work but it is another option or
incentive we do have here at the city.
MOTION:
Andrews: Well, I am very much in favor of landscaping projects properly. Having just
finished a building of my own, I know there were plenty of setbacks that I had to
abide by that didn't provide me with the best alternatives, but I think with this
property there is the option to be able to build it within the setbacks that are there.
So citing those conditions, I'm going to recommend denial of the variance.
Orton: I'll second.
Perkins: Thank you. We have a motion to deny and a second. Any further discussion?
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 14
ROLL CALL:
Upon roll call vote is 3-2-0.
Perkins: It would require four votes in favor for your side of the appeal, so the request
fails. Thank you very much for your time.
Conklin: No, that was a motion to deny and that failed. So now, what we do at the
Planning Commission, other members can make a motion to approve if you want.
Perkins: The denial fails. Okay.
Conklin: You need a majority of those present.
Perkins: Okay, double negative got me. So, the motion to deny fails. Now, do we hear a
motion counter to that?
MOTION:
Hanna: I make a motion that we accept the variance request.
Green: Second.
Perkins: Okay, we have a motion to accept the variance as requested.
Andrews: I would make the suggestion that we add in there to make sure that there will be
landscaping, at least 10 feet of landscaping between the sidewalk and the building
should the motion pass.
Hanna: That's acceptable.
Green: That's acceptable to the second.
Perkins: Okay. We have a motion, a second and an amendment to the motion that's been
accepted. Any further discussion? Call the roll please.
ROLL CALL:
Upon Roll call the variance passes 3-2-0.
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 15
Perkins: We don't have approval yet.
Conklin: You have a quorum. And you have a vote 3 to 2.
Perkins: I'm still thinking we have seven members.
Conklin: But we don't. So in my opinion I think it passes.
Perkins: Alright, since we only have five active members.
Conklin: I don't think it's written that way in your bylaws. It's a majority of those present.
That's how the Planning Commission, when they hold their meetings, that's how
they poll their votes.
Hanna: You may want to wait until the next City Council meeting before you start cutting
down any trees.
Perkins: So with the amendment that Mr. Andrews made about the landscaping, the
request passes. Thank you.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 16
BA 00-4.00: VARIANCE
MASON, pp 484
The next appeal is BA 00-4 submitted by James T. Key on behalf of Chad Mason for property
located at 129 West Lafayette, R-0 zoning. The request is for a 26 foot front setback which is an
11.5 foot variance. Also a 20 foot front setback for the existing structure which is a 17.5foot
variance.
Staff has a drawing here.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Warrick: This is a little complicated so I've blown up the site plan to present. You'll see
that in the statement of the write up about the request, the requirements are
changed because of Master Street Plan requirements. Just as the Master Street
Plan affected the previous project on Mission Boulevard, the Master Street Plan
also affects Lafayette. It's classified as a collector which requires a total of 70
feet of right of way, 35 feet from center line on each side. Right now that does
not exist. Right now we have 55 feet of right of way total. So, we are 7.5 feet shy
of where that setback would be imposed by the Master Street Plan when we start
dealing with these projects and development issues.
Conklin: This is your current front property line.
Warrick. Right. The green dashed line here is the 7.5 foot in from that property line which
is where we consider the front property line to be with regard to meeting the
Master Street Plan. So everything, all the setbacks have to come from that 7.5
foot line which is 35 feet from center line of the street. Therefore, the 30 foot
setback requirement for the structure in R-0 zoning district places this red line as
the front set back for any development on the property. So what you can see in
the blue hatched area is basically everything that encroaches that 30' setback at
this point and time. The structure that is existing is located to the south, the porch
kind of wraps around the corner a little bit and then to the north of that a smaller
structure is the proposed addition area. You have a smaller site plan in your
packet. These are the considerations that we started with. The existing structure
and where it is in regard to the Master Street Plan setback location. In this
particular case we have to consider Lafayette Street mostly because of the Master
Street Plan issue. In the Master Street Plan a collector street would be designed to
accommodate 36 feet of pavement with 6 foot sidewalks and 10 foot green space
on either side of the street. As constructed right now, Lafayette has 40 feet of
pavement. Sidewalks existing on both sides. They don't necessarily have the
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May I, 2000
Page 17
amount of green space that would be required by the Master Street Plan. There
are some problems, especially on one side of the street, on the north side, where
there is a retaining wall and a pretty steep grade that would have to be overcome
in order to actually meet that green space. So, Lafayette currently functions with
40 feet of pavement which is even more than what would be the final build out on
a collector street.
Conklin: So, it's very unlikely that the city is going to go in there and widen that street
because it's already another 4 feet wider than what our current Master Street Plan
shows. Plus the parking and plus the city recently did go ahead and reconstruct
the sidewalk.
Warrick: So, while we have to take that into account, we feel like Lafayette Street is
probably built to the extent that it's going to be with regard to width. It may be
reconfigured to some degree in the future, but the width is there to meet our
current plans. The applicant at this point in time is requesting a two story
addition. It is pushed a little further back from Lafayette than the existing
structure, however they tried to tie it into the porch lines and to the roof lines of
the existing structure. The character of the proposed building, you have
elevations in your packet, will be very similar in nature to what they have
existing. No additional parking will be required which is an important thing
because they don't have to modify the existing parking lot. They have that
available and they meet the requirement with regard to the number of parking
spaces. So with all of those considerations, staff is recommending approval of the
variances requested. One of those variances, staff added in because we felt like it
was necessary to take care of the existing structure. While the original request
was just for the addition, we felt that if we were going to consider a variance for
the addition we needed to go ahead and address the existing structure as well. We
did recommend three conditions. The first being that the building addition match
site plans and elevations that have been submitted in your packet and that the
building materials for the addition be compatible with the existing structure and
thirdly, that the addition be permitted and under construction within one calendar
year from the date of the approval of the requested variances. Just so that we
know that it's a timely request. And I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Hanna: I think back on that building that we approved that had to be rebuilt on Boles and
Lafayette, I think it was. I don't know if you've been by there to see it, but what a
difference in the neighborhood.
Orton: What a difference.
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 18
Hanna: That neighborhood was in a state of degradation for many years and has been
revitalized. And they have worked with the Planning Office and tried to squeeze
this in there and based on their comments, I have no problems with it.
Andrews: From the looks on the variances, it looks like if we didn't approve this the existing
structure is further out of compliance than what they are requesting if I'm not
mistaken.
Warrick: That's correct.
Andrews: So, because of those conditions, I'll second.
Perkins: That was not a motion I don't believe.
Hanna: But I'll make it a motion if there is no further comment.
Perkins: Is Mr. Key present?
• Key: I am.
Perkins: Do you have any input sir? It looks like it's going your way right now.
Key: I'm here to assist you however I can. I have photographs if you are not familiar
with the site or the actual area we are talking about. There were some submitted
with your package. As Ms. Warrick stated, we are trying to compliment this
existing structure. This is the side where this addition will be placed. It's a nice,
old, classical residential architecture and we are trying to align our structure with
this existing line. Line up the roof plains to minimize the effect on the existing
structure and we considered doing it without a porch on the front and trying to
align the face of the existing structure up with, basically 31 feet of the existing
right of way. So we had to watch that overhang to comply with the setback. We
felt that having a porch element added to it just helped tie this into the existing
structure and made it work more effectively is why we asked for the variance of 4
feet for the porch. As Dawn and Tim stated, due to the Master Street Plan right of
way, improvements to this as a collector street, that request is actually 11 5 feet as
opposed to 4 foot. We have, just so you know, the front edge of our porch is
going to align with the front edge of the actual house. We've still got six or seven
feet of porch roof overhang in front of that. I went out and checked as well, I've
got some photographs, I don't know if it shows effectively that the front of the
• house adjacent to us, which I understand is not occupied, it sits out even further to
the north closer to Lafayette Street. We tried to give them some consideration in
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 19
planning this addition. We didn't want the addition to overpower the main
structure is why we tried to stick it back in there. We tried to maximize the
amount of square footage possible and still attain the desired effects in terms of
not over burdening the existing structure. Just very simply, they need the space.
They have a nice successful practice there. They have improved the property
considerably since they've bought it three or four years ago. And their position
right now is they are going to have to consider moving to another location but
they would like to stay downtown if they can by adding a little more square
footage to accommodate the additional secretarial staff. Their needs have grown.
They currently have, I believe, four attorneys working in house, an office
manager, which I think we indicated in our application package, eight employees.
A couple of those are part time. Unless there is anything specifically that I can
assist you with, I'll be glad to answer any questions you might have. Very simply
in a nut shell, it's a very nice site and we would like to improve it and
complement the neighborhood. We feel like it is a very nice neighborhood. I
agree with what Mr. Hanna commented about the structure that was approved. I
realize there were several variances granted on that for the apartments that, I
believe it was Thompson and Lafayette, west a couple of blocks. And we feel that
those types of improvements are happening in this neighborhood. It's a place that
this particular owner would like to stay.
Perkins: Any further discussion?
MOTION:
Orton: I was just going to move that we pass the variance.
Hanna: Second.
Perkins: We have a motion to approve and a second. Any further discussion? Any public
comment? No, Okay. We've had a motion and a second as submitted, please call
the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Upon roll call the vanance passes 5-0-0.
Perkins: Mr. Key, thank you very much for your time and good luck to your project.
Key: Thank you
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 20
Perkins: That concludes the items for the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment. If we have no
further business to discuss we will bring that session to a close.
Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. and the Meeting of the Board of Sign Appeals was called to
order.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 21
This will open the Board of Sign Appeals meeting for May 1, 2000. There is one item on the
agenda today.
Conklin: Two.
Perkins: I mean, two items on the agenda today.
SA 00-1.00: SIGN APPEAL
FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC LIBRARY, pp 485
The first sign appeal is SA 00-1 submitted by Louise Schaper on behalf of the Fayetteville Public
Library for property located at 217 East Dickson. It is a request for two banner signs, one 48
square foot and one 30 square foot. Does staff have any input on this appeal?
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Rakes:
I knew you would ask me that. R-0 is always a problem when it's next to
commercial particularly when you have heavy commercial like this. It's not
unusual for us to get requests of this nature in the R-0 zone. If this were
commercial we could have the wall signs without any problem and they could
have a free standing sign if they were commercial up to 75 square feet if it met the
setbacks. This being a temporary signage, staff is going along with it and
recommending that we allow them to do it.
Perkins: Is Ms. Schaper present?
Schaper: Yes.
Perkins: Do you have any input on that?
Schaper: I just want to stress that this is temporary to support the summer reading program
and as soon as that is over we will take them down.
Perkins: So, it would last through out the summer, you think until August?
Schaper: May, June, July and through the middle of August.
.Perkins: Middle of August.
Rakes: I'll have to compliment Ms. Schaper on coming and trying to abide by the rules.
In many cases of this type, they are put up and by the time we get them down they
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 22
Perkins:
Hanna:
Schaper:
Hanna:
MOTION:
Andrews:
Green:
Perkins:
Schaper:
Perkins:
Andrews:
Green:
Perkins:
don't need them any more.
We appreciate that. Any further public discussion?
Just cunous, did anybody complain? That would be my only concern.
No.
Then I have no concerns.
I think that since this is temporary in nature and sounds like we will be getting a
new library and this probably won't even come up in the future, I'll recommend
that we pass the appeal.
Second.
We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
I just want to say that we will be coming back again next year for the same
request.
Would that require another fee?
I make a motion that we amend the motion to let it run concurrently for every
summer reading session they have until they build a new library.
I'll second that amendment also.
So we have an amendment to the motion and a second. Any further discussion?
Call the roll please.
ROLL CALL:
Upon Roll call the appeal passes 5-0-0.
Perkins:
Schaper:
I like your summer reading program too.
You are our top performer.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 23
Perkins: Thank you.
Schaper: Thank you all.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 24
SA 00-2.00: SIGN APPEAL
NORTHWEST ARKANSAS MALL, pp 134
That brings us to SA 00-2 and Ms. Bishop, I didn't mean to over look you when I said there was
only one item. This is an appeal submitted by Alice Bishop on behalf of the Northwest Arkansas
Mall. This is a request for three additional signs at the entrances. Staff, do you have input on
this.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Rakes:
I'll start with the worst first, I guess. On your handout on page 2.8, the signs that
they have marked A and B, and I believe, they do have one existing free standing
sign between these two to where they would all three be visible at the same time.
Historically this has been a no, no. Now they can have some smaller directional
signs there, but you are talking about like 4 square feet unless they can get a
variance for something larger. I don't know how many people would be coming
back before you wanting to get two signs on the same lot. This is the problem we
have with it. Now sign C we don't have a problem with that. When we amended
the sign ordinance, it allows two signs, two monument signs on a subdivision or
something of this nature if the location is approved by the inspector. The
condition of approval was intended to be that they could not be seen from the
same location. So, really, C would be, according to the information here, it would
probably have to go to the Planning Commission even after we approve it because
that is on public property. That is public property along Mall Lane where they
decided to put the sign. So, we really don't have a problem with that. When you
get to D, the location of D, the sign ordinance is kind of silent on this issue. This
is way off the road. The only people that would be seeing it would be the
customers at the mall. We do have provisions for smaller signs and things of this
nature for nameplate signs or welcome signs and things of this nature, directory
boards in a smaller application. So, we really don't have a problem with the
location of D or as far as the directional signs. For larger places we normally see
directional signs. So the only, they may want to talk about some square footage
or something like that, the sizes or things of that nature, but this is pretty well
staff's recommendation on the signs.
Orton: Is this request for three free standing signs? I guess I didn't understand that it was
for monument signs or directional signs. How many free standing signs are they
asking for?
Rakes: I believe I'm correct, they are asking for 2 additional free standing signs on North
College and one on Mall Avenue. Is it a monument sign or what?
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 25
Bishop: It's a monument sign. It's a two sided monument sign and the two on College are
one sided. In fact I have hand outs I can give you to explain that a little bit.
Green: So basically, If I understand you, Bert, the sign D is probably no opposition to
that? There is no opposition to D?
Rakes: I wouldn't think so.
Green: It's only A and B. Having three signs on that front road is what the main
contention would be?
Rakes: I was thinking the only concern on sign D might be the size. Do you need one
that large or is the size adequate for their needs? But I don't see any opposition.
The ordinance is silent on this matter on the size of interior signs.
Green: Probably rightly so.
Rakes: Right. And I don't know of any other requests for one of this nature before and
you're talking about a shopping center of this size to deal with.
Orton: What concerns me here is the, how many other places, stores are going to start
asking for this sort of variance and what does that do to our sign ordinance. Why
is this particular one to be exceptional to all other businesses? If we are opening
pandora's box and there goes the sign ordinance, which I know the majority of
people in this city are very much for the sign ordinance. Certainly free standing
signs, will we start seeing them pop up all over and we start looking like
Springdale? I'll say it because Springdale's people say it to us.
Hanna: I would just ask Ms. Bishop, obviously the mall is very dynamic, it's changed a
lot in the last 25 years. What is the purpose of these signs?
Bishop: We currently have one free standing sign as Mr. Rakes mentioned. That is
required by lease. We have to accommodate Luby's Cafeteria and also the Mall
Twin Cinemas which shows the listings of the movie theaters. We are faced with
the dilemma. In order to put Northwest Arkansas Mall on that sign it would have
to be bigger and that would go against another ordinance. So, we felt like the best
option would be to go with monument signs. If you have seen the signs that are in
Tulsa at Woodland Hills Mall, they are similar to that concept. The ones that you
have the designs for are designed by an architect. They are very aesthetically
pleasing. They go along with the other look that we have at the shopping center.
I don't want to sit here and say we are special by any means, but we cover 122
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 26
acres of land which I can't say that many other businesses in Fayetteville do that.
We are also exposed to three major city streets. There are many different
elevations on our property. As was mentioned earlier, you can't really see one
sign from the other sign. One thing that we discovered when we started going
through this whole process and I've included those pages in the back of the
booklet that I gave you, on our original redevelopment that was submitted and
approved by the city, all of this signage was on the plan. So, in concept it has
already been approved by the city. We realize that we still have to get individual
variances but, that whole plan in total was approved at one point. We do maintain
the property, the city property that was mentioned earlier, where we would want
to put the sign on Mall Lane. We landscaped that, we maintain it, so, we're
already taking care of it and we realize that we would have to have some kind of
agreement from the city giving us the right to use that land to put the sign on.
That particular sign is a smaller sign and in order to get exposure it is needed.
When out of town visitors come to the area, they want to know if the Luby's Mall
and the Northwest Arkansas Mall are one and the same. We really are a regional
shopping center. I think everyone in Fayetteville knows we are Northwest
Arkansas Mall, but people that are coming in from miles around to shop now, do
not realize that. So, we need a sign that says Northwest Arkansas Mall and we are
asking for this because we feel like it is the best way to accommodate the need.
Hanna: Thank you. I would tend to agree with that. Since that new street has been built
that hooks into Johnson Road, and since they just got the second bridge fixed now
in Johnson, that's the way I go to the mall now and I know where it is but if
you're coming from the west, from Johnson, it s so congested there, if you miss
that turn off to the left, you have to go up, it's just a point. I think they have a
legitimate point. It's bigger than any other piece of property and the way it's on
that hill there, I'm not sure you can even see the street sign from Mall and Joyce I
guess that runs east and west?
Bishop: Joyce and Mall Lane.
Hanna: Can you even see this, the pole sign, the free standing sign on the east side of the
property?
Bishop: No.
Hanna: So, I believe that's a legitimate concern. Then if you are coming from the north
from Springdale, and we all assume everybody knows where the mall is and I'm
not here to be an advocate for the mall, but from common sense, if you are
coming up and you have Lowe's over there and it's easy to see, and I'm not sure
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 27
as you are coming up that hill if you can see that mall, Luby's sign. I've never
looked for it because I know where I'm tuming but I think if you are talking about
a safety issue being able to see in the flow of traffic, I think this is legitimate,
what they are asking for. This is not crazy or obtrusive I think monument signs
are what we have been leaning towards for any of our sign variances and have
looked upon those more favorably than any other type of sign. And if it's not
outlandish and fits with the land and the site, I think this is a unique piece of
property so, I don't control the government easement or government property, but
for the property they own, I sure don't have a problem with it.
Perkins: You mentioned sign A and B being in sight of one another, does the terrain
between there actually make, is it in your line of sight?
Rakes: If that's a monument sign on Mall Avenue, I don't believe that you can see over
there.
Hanna: There's no way you could see that. There are buildings in the way.
Perkins: Well, it's not only curved but you have a crest of a hill there.
Green: It would appear to me that there are at least three differences that would keep us
from setting a precedent for everybody else. Probably number one would be just
the size of the development out there. It's much too large for just one sign, I
would think, just from the acreage that we are dealing with. Number two is the
fact that there are these major entrances that are separated from each other so far
and this is another one of those things that is required for traffic flow, is to
separate these things great distances. Well, when you do that though, you are sort
of defeating the purpose of having one central entry point at the sign. Then the
third reason this would be unique is the terrain. With monument signs, I don't
believe you would be able to see one entrance from the other entrance just
because of the crest of that hill. From that standpoint, I don't feel like we would
be setting ourselves up for getting deluged with people requesting variances. If
they want to build a million square foot retail outlet and cover 120 acres I would
say come right ahead, let's talk to them.
Hanna: I think that is one other thing, I don't have the sign ordinance right in front of me,
but if they do have a pole sign and they wanted to build and new pole sign based
on the number of feet back from the street, I bet they could build it 150 feet high.
I don't know for sure. My point is if they had a big pole sign nght in the middle
of the property, a big old sign goes up that you could see from Rogers, and they
could comply with the ordinance, but I don't think it would look very good. It's
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 28
such a big piece of property I think you have to be one foot back for every one
foot up or whatever. Does it say right here?
Perkins: This only goes back as far as 40 feet. It could be a 30 foot high and 75 square
foot sign.
Hanna: So, multiply that by ten. My point is it's a huge piece of property and I think they
are being reasonable.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Alice Biship, Lisa Skiles and Jeff Bishop represented the applicant.
Perkins: Any further public discussion?
Ward:
Steve Ward, Fayetteville Chamber. Just certainly encourage you to view this in a
positive manner. I think it is a very unique situation. A major retail operation
that draws from throughout the region and I think the obvious quality of the
design, the monument, will really be an enhancement for the people coming in
from outside areas. I certainly don't think they would do anything offensive. We
have seen the landscaping and what they have done there and I think it would be a
real plus for the community.
Crider: Jim Crider with the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce. My comment is looking
at the linear footage along that front in front of the mall along the highway, you
could put several businesses along there and each one of them would have a sign.
But you have one major development and the are asking a rather modest request,
really, the real issue I think is traffic control, to make it a little bit safer. And to
let our out of town guests have a better time of getting in.
Andrews: What is the actual square footage again of the sign?
Bishop: The signs themselves?
Andrews: Yes.
Bishop: The two signs on College are 20x7 feet each, 140. And then the one on Joyce and
Mall Lane is 14x4 8 feet or 66.5 feet.
• Skiles: The actual surface area is slightly less than that because it makes it's connection
into a box or border.
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 29
Conklin: Did you say what the size of the sign was at Mall Avenue?
Skiles: 14 feet by four feet 8 inches or 66.5 feet.
Perkins: Mr. Rakes you mentioned that sign C would need Planning approval?
Rakes: Because it is being placed on public property.
Perkins: And that is actually beyond the scope of this Board.
Rakes: Apparently it takes both approving before they can have it.
Orton: Actually that is off site?
Rakes: It is off site. I don't know how the mall wound up with the maintenance of that
strip. I guess somehow or other they maintain the strip, so they are not going to
quit. I think it's in their favor that they do continue to maintain it.
Orton: Is that a better site than putting it up on the mall property?
Bishop: If you think about the median, just a block up at Georgetown is where our
property begins. But we get much more visibility by having it on Joyce. I think
the sign would get lost if it was a block up. And Jim was talking about traffic
flow, I don't think people would be able to see it from Joyce if it were sitting
back.
Orton: Not up the hill, I know I enter that way too. The sign that tells you to go one way
to Penny's and the other way to Dillards.
Bishop: Right, that's the directional sign.
Andrews: What is the area you are planning on putting that sign?
Bishop: Where the one way sign is in that area.
Andrews: Right here?
Bishop: Yes. That would have to be reworked. In fact, there is a water meter there that
we would have to move that we use to maintain the landscape. We figured on the
cost of doing that.
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 30
Andrews: You will be removing this tree?
Bishop: We haven't talked about all of that yet. We are Just taking it a step at a time. But
more than likely, the tree would have to be moved.
Andrews: It would be moved and not removed?
Bishop. Oh sure. We planted it. We don't want to do anything to destroy it.
Conklin: Traffic Superintendent will need to take a look at that, too, with regard to
visibility.
Hanna: That would be my only concerns would be visibility.
Conklin: We do have a fast food restaurant coming to us on that corner, across from
Service Merchandise, the northeast corner.
Hanna: Northeast corner of the mall?
Conklin: No, on Joyce.
Rakes: One thing that makes this more appealing to us was how they were low threshold,
the monument signs. We are seeing more monument signs so, rather than the pole
signs that we saw for so many years without any regard for monument signs, and
they are planning on using monument signs out there. The only thing wrong with
location of C is that, it's within the size limits and they are allowed at two
different locations as long as it's not visible from another, so I really don't see
much of a variance for C. And there is not any sign that's going to be permitted
that's going to block visibility. That is one of the things we check. We don't
check the trees but we do check the signs.
Green: That's another group that checks trees.
Perkins: Okay, Any further discussion?
Orton: Where is the present sign on this map?
Perkins: The Luby's sign?
Orton: Yes, Luby's sign.
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 31
J. Bishop: Off of the southeast corner of the newest Dillards in front.
Orton: And is D a monument?
Skiles: D is a small directional sign, monument nestled in the flowers and shrubs, one
sided.
Orton. So actually, directional, monument, monument and this is free standing?
Skiles: All of the monuments are free standing.
Andrews: I guess my only concern would be the size of the A and B signs. Being 140
square feet, is there any continency for making those signs, even though they are
beautifully designed, I think they are good looking signs, any contingency for
making them smaller?
Skiles: I think in working with the architects and the fabricators it was felt the letter size
to create the Northwest Arkansas Mall and the scale and manner of the location
that they are placed that, that was the appropriate size for what we were trying to
accomplish.
Perkins: What is the area of Just the wording?
Hanna: Three foot five inches.
Perkins: Okay, 3.5 and then how long?
Hanna: Eighteen
Perkins: Eighteen.
Bishop: Yes, 18 x 3 is the actual Northwest Arkansas. Mall lettering. There is the
architectural embellishment. It's a long, challenging name too.
Perkins: You can't leave it too small or it won't do what it's intended to do.
Skiles: The embellishment around the letters matches the directional signs that is
currently on the property.
Perkins: Any further discussion?
•
Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 1, 2000
Page 32
MOTION:
Green. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the variance.
Hanna: I second.
Perkins: We have a motion to approve and a second. Any further discussion? Call the roll
please. Wait, did you have another question?
Orton: These are Northwest Arkansas Mall, that this is only 4 feet three inches tall?
Skiles: That's the one on Joyce, Mall Avenue
Conklin: Double faced
Orton: Okay. And each of the others, they all say the same thing but different sizes?
• Bishop. Yes.
J. Bishop: They have one that is actually dual faced and the other two are single.
Orton: This food court, is this something you're adding?
Bishop: That is D the directional sign. It will not be on the main street. It will not be seen
from the streets.
•
Perkins: We do have a motion and a second. Call the roll please.
ROLL CALL:
Upon roll call the appeal passes 5-0-0
Meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.