No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-03-28 Minutes• • • Sirvy Rr.)c 1%.1c MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A special meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, March 28,1988 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Jerry Allred, Dennis Becker, Robert Waldren, Larry Tompkins, and Gerald Boyd MEMBRBS ABSENT: Deane Davenport OTHERS PRESENT: Mayor Marilyn Johnson, Freeman Wood and Don Bunn DISCUSSION OF SIGN APPEAL ORDINANCES Chairman Mills stated that the Board of Adjustment members hadsomequestions and wanted some clarifications of the Sign Appeal Ordinances to determine what has been done in the past. For example, how an appeal was given and why; what was considered a reasonable appeal, etc. Mayor Johnson stated that she had brought a copy of the original Ordinance so they could see what prompted this in the very beginning. The two areas that would be most important to you, as far as why, are (in second paragraph) 1) to promote the safety and recreational value of public travel and 2) to preserve the natural beauty of Fayetteville. To promote the safety of people traveling down the road so that they are not deluged by visual clutter of many signs. They wanted the people to be able to see the mountains and the trees. The second and third pages are the areas of the Ordinance which deal just with the Board of Sign Appeals and what appeals you will be hearing. Mayor Johnson further stated the make-up of the Ordinance is a criteria for the sign sizes and the jest of the Ordinance and that would be the thing that would be taken to you in order to make a determination. The most important thing in there would be when that would be met by a reasonableness that it is not in the best interest of them to follow the Sign Ordinance. Mayor Johnson stated that she had talked to Jim Pennington before she came to the meeting and what they plan to do with the City staff is to have the Sign Board of Adjustment March 28, 1988 Page 2 Inspector at the meetings so that he can make a determination and it is pertinent that he can make a reasonable recommendation to the Board of Adjustment members. For example, 3 feet in or behind a tree sometimes doesn't make any difference but if they want a 400 square foot sign where only a 200 square foot sign is allowed certainly doesn't leave room for much reasonableness. If the Sign Inspector can make a reasonable or a reasoned recommendation, he will be doing that. Mayor Johnson stated that they want City staff to work with people as best they can ( within the confines of the Ordinances) to allow them to do what they want to do. If there is some reason to adjust the Ordinances or some appropriateness to them asking for that, then that would be it. Mayor Johnson stated, You asked me before I came to look at the part of the Ordinance which indicated a "majority of the Board" or a " majority of the members". Chairman Mills said, Yes, it talks about a "full" Board. Mayor Johnson stated that it does say a majority of the "full" Board, but she's not sure if the City Board has always followed that. Chairman Mills asked if she was saying instead of a "full Board" it's a "majority of the full Board". Mayor Johnson answered, Yes, if there were only 3 of you here and it got 2 votes it wouldn't pass because you have to have a quorum. Gerald Boyd stated that they are always having a vacancy. Chairman Mills stated that if everybody was at the meeting or at least 4 then they would have the quorum She further stated they she doesn't ordinarily vote except in cases of a tie, but at the last meeting she had to vote to give 4 votes. Robert Waldren clarified that they would have to have a Quorum but the "full Board" would not have to be in place. Mayor Johnson stated that they would have to have 4 votes, no matter how many members are there, in order for it to pass. She stated that the City Board has probably granted some in the last year when they hadn't followed that. Robert Waldren stated that various commissions or boards have different sets of rules; they have a quorum of the full Board or a quorum of those present so this has to be a quorum of the Board. Mayor Johnson stated that she would take it back to the City Board for them to look at. Robert Waldren stated that they had been following the Quorum of the Board procedure. This Board has normally 7 people on it and there has to be at least 4 people vote for it. Mayor Johnson stated that if that is the procedure they have been following, then they should keep that in place and there would be no need to ask the City Board to look at it. Chairman Mills asked what if the staff recommends a variance and we don't agree. Mayor Johnson answered that it wouldn't be a problem because the staff is only making a recommendation to you. You will probably have 2 recommendations; one from the staff and one from the person filing the Sign Appeal. The Staff will only make recommendations. Gerald Boyd stated that as the Board of Adjustment, they are called upon to decide whether the Planning Department is exceeding their authority or misinterpreting the division which isn't an appeal. If it takes 4 to grant an 2 P Board of Adjustment March 28, 1988 Page 3 appeal, and we can't agree we might not be able to come up with enough people to come up with a decision. Freeman Wood stated that normally the City Attorney's opinion is used as to the interpretation of the Sign Ordinance. Robert Waldren stated that they have gotten an interpretation from the Planning Department (Sandra & Bobbie) many times before where the Planning Department interpretation was different from the City Attorney's interpretation then the Board of Adjustment members have to make a decision on which one to follow. Freeman Wood stated that the City Attorney's interpretation is the one to go with. Mayor Johnson stated that pretty much the Sign Inspector has been down the letter of the Law and hasn't been making recommendations. The Sign Inspector has been good about working with property owners and telling them what kinds of signs that they are allowed. She advised if they have a variance that they are requesting, then most usually it's not within the Law. It's not an interpretation of whether or not they can have it. Don Bunn stated that usually if there is a difference in interpretation between the person whose trying to put up the sign and our Sign Inspector, then they go to the City Attorney and then they go by the City Attorney's opinion. That sort of difference of interpretation shouldn't ever get to the Board. Mr. Bunn further advised that they shouldn't get a case where there is a problem with the interpretation of the Sign Ordinance as far as he is concerned. Mayor Johnson gave an example on setbacks, the property owner might say_.it_is..from.the, curb .and the ordinance says from the right-of-way and that would be where the variance would come in. Mr. Bunn stated that the only problem would be when one part of the Sign Ordinance says one thing and another part says something else and there is a difference in which one of those two apply. Larry Tompkins asked what they were talking about in terms of workload. Freeman Wood answered that there would probably be at least one every meeting. Chairman Mills stated that they have 3 at the next meeting. Don Bunn stated that these 3 had been placed on hold so it's not typical to have that many, but there haven't been very many Board meetings go by without at least 1 Sign Appeal. Mayor Johnson stated that this is a good thing because it shows that City Staff is working with people who want variances. Larry Tompkins asked, in terms of a 7 day notice that is required, how are we going to schedule this so that they can come to one of the meetings (Board of Adjustment meets on the 1st and 3rd Mondays). Will there be a problem scheduling these in? Freeman Wood answered that if they miss the deadline, it will have to be postponed until the next meeting. He stated that the City Board meets twice a month also. Chairman Mills stated that she is planning to hold the Board of Adjustment meeting first, then the Sign Appeal because the Board of Directors will not need the Board of Adjustment minutes but they will need the Sign Appeal minutes. 3 .1' h. Board of Adjustment March 28, 1988 Page 4 Mr. Tompkins asked in terms of a favorable or unfavorable decision by us, what happens. What is the recourse now; do they come to you (the mayor). Mayor Johnson answered, They can come to me. They come to a member of the Board of Directors and that member asks that it be heard by the whole City Board. Then they must get a majority approval in order to hear that request at the City Board level. Mr. Tompkins said, that means then that the City Staff will take our recommendation on and act in our interest of the Board. What if the Staff says "Yes", and we say "No". Freeman Wood stated that if the Board of Adjustment says "No" then they drop it and if it goes to the Board the person making the appeal will be taking it to the Board. Jerry Allred asked if their recommendation or vote gets to the Board. Don Bunn answered, Yes, the minutes will go to the Board and they will know why you made the decision ( assuming you said so at your meeting) and the person making the appeal will be at the Board meeting and they will present their case. Then the Board will decide. Mr. Allred asked the Mayor if she perceived applicants that get denied at this Board, appealing it to the Board of Directors and them hearing it again. Mayor Johnson answered, No, not given the temper of the Board as it is now. Mr. Boyd asked if the staff could appeal or only the applicant. answered, No. Mayor Johnson Larry Tompkins stated that he understands the police power and the constitutionality of what they are doing, but that he is interested in the aesthetics. He understands public safety in terms of the standard for wind, bulk , safety, and relationship, but it seems to boil down, a great deal, to aesthetics and design. Mayor Johnson stated that the idea, if the sign is pretty, it doesn't matter how big it is, is not true. Mr. Tompkins stated that you have the aesthetic and design problems which is a value decision and that is a tough one. Mayor Johnson stated they have never dealt with that idea; they do go strictly by the ordinances. Boyd asked if it would be considered a hardship if McDonalds requires arches that aren't allowed under the ordinance. Mayor Johnson answered, No. She stated that Holiday Inn is an excellent example with the old, ugly green and yellow sign. They went to court over that and lost and they said they could leave that up until the time came that they had to have a new sign. When the chain changed over, they had to go by the setback and height requirements. Larry Tompkins said he was interested in the relationship between the zoning ordinance and the sign ordinance. Using the standards of setback would be the criteria that they will use. Where do the trees and things come in? Do you see this as being a continuance of that concept as opposed to coming in and start wiping out the trees. Mayor Johnson answered, Yes, the trees would take first • • Board of Adjistment March 28, 1988 Page 5 priority in her mind. Most of the variances that you will be dealing with will be commercial variances because there are no signs allowed in residential districts except for sale signs. Mayor Johnson further advised that they might have to deal with trees that are blocking vision. They would have to deal with what is reasonable when giving the commercial operator the exposure he needs from that sign but at the same time recognizing that there are trees blocking the way which he has no control over. These are the grey areas that the Board of Adjustment will have to deal with. Mr. Bunn stated that as far as the aesthetics , the court system wouldn't allow (it was prohibited) a ruling on the sign contents. The sign content and how pretty it is isn't in question. Chairman Mills asked if there are any non -conforming signs that are in place now. Mayor Johnson answered that there were about 350 the last tally they had with the City Board. Freeman Wood stated that it was down below that number now. Mr. Bunn stated that the non -conforming signs would stay that way until the sign is replaced or they go out of business, etc. Chairman Mills referred to Page 8 in the Sign Ordinance where it talks about off- site, non -conforming signs and it says that off-site, non -conforming signs not otherwise prohibited in this Chapter shall be removed or altered so as to conform within 4 years from January of 1973. Freeman Wood stated that this Ordinance has been changed several times since 1970 when it was originally written. He stated that there are signs that were permitted under this ordinance that you couldn't put up now which in turn become non -conforming, but all the original non -conforming signs have all been taken down. Chairman Mills asked if when you grant a non -conforming sign, do you put a time limit on it? Freeman Wood answered that they didn't grant non -conforming signs, it wouldn't be non -conforming at the time. Mr. Wood stated that they hadn't gone out and made someone take down a sign that became non -conforming after the ordinance was changed. Mr. Allred asked if they altered the sign, didn't they have to meet the setbacks. Mr. Wood answered, Yes. Larry Tompkins asked where the widening of streets on the master street plan comes in to play. Does the future need to be considered as opposed to the existing? Mr. Allred stated that he got the impression that they just deal with the zoning districts and the sign setbacks for that district. Freeman Wood stated that the sign has setbacks of its own regardless of the street setbacks and right-of-ways. Mayor Johnson clarified that they deal with present setbacks not with the comprehensive plan for the future. • Mr. Allred referred to Page 16 (17 B.9 Free-standing Signs) in the Sign Ordinance which says free-standing signs will be prohibited and no free-standing 5 • • • c Board of Adjustmextr' March 28, 1988 Page 6 signs will be erected in R or R-0 districts provided one free-standing bulletin board per lot subject to restrictions on bulletin boards prescribed provided further one free-standing sign shall be permitted on a lot or parcel zoned R-2,3 or R-0 subject to the following restrictions. Number 2 says the sign should be back a minimum of 15' and number 4 says the sign should be set back a minimum of 25' from the boundary of an R district, but you are already in an R district because that is an exception. How do you deal with that? Freeman Wood answered that the intent of this was when there is a change in the zoning. For example, when you are going from R-1 to R-0. Mr. Allred stated that if you are going from R-2 to R-3, that is a useless condition because it's multi- family anyway. Freeman Wood answered, Yes, that's correct. He again stated that he thought the intent was changing from an R-1 zone. Mayor Johnson responded that number 2 is referring to the setback from the street right-of-way and number 4 is referring to setback from the boundary of the district. Mr. Allred asked if they needed to be provided with the location of the boundaries of the zoning districts on an appeal. Mayor Johnson answered that they would be given the property boundaries. Mr. Allred stated that this is referring to the boundary of the districts not the property boundaries. Freeman Wood stated that they would need to know the district boundaries in some cases. Don Bunn responded that he would provide them with a zoning map (a plat showing the property on a zoning map) similar to what is given to the Planning Commission. The zone of the property and the zones around it will be shown. Mr. Becker asked if it is up to the City to tell sign appeal applicants that they have another recourse for appeal past this Board or is that up to us. Mr. Bunn answered that the only appeal of the person making the appeal or bringing the variance to the Board of Adjustment is in the courts. He does not have another appeal. He added that the nonjudicial appeal from this Board is from a member of the Board of Directors. That doesn't keep the person making the sign appeal from going to a member of the Board of Directors and asking him to make an appeal. Legally the person coming to you has only one appeal and that's to the courts. Chairman Mills stated that she disagrees with that. She said that Paul Marinoni explicitly asked that the appeal be given through a member of the Board of Directors. She feels that when they come in to the Board of Adjustment and are turned down, she must inform them that they have recourse if you can get a Board of Director to present your case to the others. Mayor Johnson stated that if the Board of Adjustment didn't inform them that they have recourse in this way, then City staff should certainly notify them that they would have that appeal process. Chairman Mills stated that she thought possibly the Staff should mention this and that she will also. Don Bunn replied that this practically guarantees an attempt at an appeal when you tell them that. Some member of the Board of Directors will get a call on every sign. Mr. Becker stated that he feels that the applicants should be informed. Freeman Wood stated that the best way to inform them of their right to appeal through a Board of Director is to put it on the application and it would be their responsibility to read it. Chairman Mills asked that it be • Board of dju"stmei t— March 28, 1988 Page 7 • • added to the application and she will also make a note of it if they are turned down. Mr. Bunn clarified that it should be stated on the application that they have an appeal through the court system and that a member of the Board of Directors can appeal it, but not state specifically that the applicant has an appeal through a member of the Board of Directors. Chairman Mills stated that it should be taken verbatim from how it is stated in the Ordinance and put on the application. Mr. Bunn stated that he had talked to Jim and he had said the obligation was to tell the applicant exactly what is in the Ordinance; there are two appeals mentioned in the Ordinance: 1) the appeal to the courts of the person seeking the variance and 2) the appeal of a member of the Board of Directors and they are not tied together in the Ordinance. Mayor Johnson stated that the Ordinance has now been changed to state that a person seeking a variance has an appeal through a member of the Board of Directors. Mr. Allred stated that Section 17B (11.2) in the Ordinance relates to that. Mr. Bunn stated that what is in the Ordinance would be put on the application. Mr. Boyd stated that they have co -appointments as members of the Board of Adjustment and as members of the Board of Sign Appeals and since the rules are different for the two (but the members are the same), to avoid confusion it shouldn't be phrased that decisions are made by other Board of Adjustments. Chairman Mills stated that she plans to do the Board of Adjustment meeting first, then go into a meeting of the Sign Appeals. The meetings will take place on the same date at the same time. Mr. Becker asked about the problem of two faces of the sign, but only one size for the sign. Mr. Boyd answered that it was provided for in the Ordinance, only one side of a double-faced sign is counted. Mayor Johnson stated that if there are any questions, Jim McCord said he would come down and provide any information. Mr. Bunn stated if there were any changes or more information needed to go with the agenda, please inform the Planning Department. Mr. Boyd stated that he would like to have the Sections of the Regulations that are under consideration referenced so they don't have to search for it. 1 • • • Board of Adjustment March 28, 1988 Page 8 Mr. Bunn suggested that Richard Wilson, the sign inspector, should attend the Board of Adjustment meetings. Chairman Mills stated that Don Bunn is planning to mark where the sign should be as well as where they are asking for it to be on the material. Tompkins had some suggestions as to the format of the agenda: 1) Get the definition of the sign clear first 2) then the conditions that they are asking for (what is being violated). Mr. Bunn stated that the definition of the sign should be clear on the application. Don Bunn clarified that the setbacks are from the edge of the sign, not the post. Chairman Mills asked if a variance had ever been given on a sign with a covenant on it. For example, the sign might interfere with the Master Street Plan, could you tell them they could put the sign up until that time. Mr. Bunn answered that he had never seen a variance given with that sort of stipulation. • ABERNATHY, BRYAN-(SA90-12) 117 BABE RUTH BASEBALL LEAGUE (SA92-11). " . .183 BABE RUTH BASEBALL LEAGUE (SA92A1A1) • 179; BASSETT, DAVID (SA90-10) 113 CAR MART (SA88-8) 36, DISCUSSION OF SIGN APPEAL ORDINANCES DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENTS TO SIGN ORDINANCE DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED TREE ORDINANCE DISCUSSION OF 2010 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PLAN - VERSION III' ..` EMMA'S RESTAURANT (SA90-14) ENTRE' COMPUTER CENTER (SA88; 6) ENTRE' COMPUTER CENTER (SA88-6),...r EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER (SA90-5) EYE CLINIC OF NORTHWEST ARKANSAS 3.119u FAYETTEVILLE DIAGNOSTIC CLINIC (SA88-11) 44 GIBSON, ANDY (SA92-5) 162 GRAY, HARRY (SA92-1) 149 GREER PLAZA (SA88-16) 60 HARDEE'S FOOD SYSTEMS (SA88-5) ' 22`;' HARRIS, BOYD (SA89-1) 63 HARRIS, BOYD (SA89-1) 60 IBM CORP. (SA88-14) IGA AT EVELYN HILLS (SA88-7) 3ACKSON, LEE (SA90-2) 85 KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN (SA88-4) 19 -'{ _ KHODABANDEH, MOHSEN (BA92-22) :.176` LAZENBY REAL ESTATE CO. (SA88-3) 12:1 , LAZENBY, KEN (SA90-17) 136` MARKO, JOHN (SA91-2) 440` MCDONALD'S (SA89-6) :70 MCDONALD'S CORP. (SA88-17) :55: MCDONALD'S (SA92-2) 152 MCILROY BANK (SA92-6,7,&8) 164, • MCILROY BANK & TRUST (SA88-10) 41 MEASURING OF SIGNS 65 MONTESSORI SCHOOL (SA88-1) 10 MONTGOMERY WARD (SA90-1)'+ . 77 NELMS CHEVROLET (SA89-5) OZARK STAGEWORKS BANNER PEARSON, THOMAS JR. (BA92-15) PRESBYTERIAN & DISCIPLES CAMPUS CTR. (SA90-3) „70 129, 167, 87 RAZORBACK CLEANERS (SA90-7) 96 RAZORBACK EXXON (SA90-8) 101 RAZORBACK EXXON (SA90-8) � 98: REALTY CONCEPTS (SA88-12) 46 REALTY CONCEPTS (SA88-12) 50 REMAX REALTY (SA90-13) 124 RIGGS, RICK (SA91-5) 145 RISK, MARK (SA91-1) [38 • SANDERS, HOWARD (BA92-22) 178 SHEENAN, MIKE PROPOSAL TO AMEND SIGN ORDINANCE 79 STREET NUMBERS 67 • T. J. KWIKIT (SA88-2) 12 T. J. KWIKIT (SA88-2) 16 TACO BELL (SA88-19) 58 THE BERRY PATCH (SA88-9) 38 UNITARIAN -UNIVERSALIST FELLOWSHIP (SA90-16) 132 W. C. FARM BUREAU (SA90-9) 105 W. C. FARM BUREAU (SA90-9) 120 W. C. FARM BUREAU (SA90-9) 127 WALKER, KIRBY (SA91-4) 142 WALMART STORES, INC. (SA92-4) 162 WALTON ARTS CENTER (SA92-3) 156 WALTON ARTS CENTER (SA90-6) 94 ea it FAYETTEVI LLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLEE ARKANSAS • DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE Name BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT/SIGN APPEALS ATTENDANCE (November 6, 1989 - October 15, 1990) Total Meetings #Absentees Don Mills 20 1 Dennis Becker 20 1 Larry Tompkins 20 1 Gerald Boyd 20 3 Robert Davis 20 3 Robert Waldren 20 7 Dee Wright 20 3 • z \ 9 N N\ e iN 7 P •a \. N\ _c .9 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ C \ \ \ \ 31 Xx \ x \ \ \ \ \ C \ x C \ c \ \ >< \375 J \\`' 2 .c:54 C c D \ \ \ \ x 1 \.\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \:;,- • ?I \ \I\ C\ C C _D. 1 ,i7 \ \ N \ x \ \ \ \\ \ \ \?( \ \ ><f LI DT- rr i / :•-• rmr-Pr]I 61* X X X Xx% 4 + r