Loading...
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.