No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-09-17 Minutes• • MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Sign Appeals was held on Monday, September 17, 1990, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Larry Tompkins, Dennis Becker, Gerald Boyd, Robert OTHERS PRESENT: Becky Bryant, Elaine Cattaneo and Bob Hatfield MINUTES The minutes of the Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals meeting of August 20, 1990 were approved as distributed. Davis, Robert Waldren and Dee Wright / \ REQUEST FOR REHEARING OF APPEAL NO. SA90-9 - W.C. FARM BUREAU JOE RODMAN - S OF WEDINGTON DR, W OF BETTY JO DR (3389 WEDINGTON) The second item on the agenda was a request for a rehearing of Appeal No. SA90-9 for a variance from the sign ordinance submitted by Joe Rodman on behalf of Washington County Farm Bureau for property located on the south side of Wedington Drive, west of Betty Jo Drive (3389 Wedington Drive). The property is zoned R -O, Residential -Office. The request was for a variance from Article 17, Section 17B-9, of the sign ordinance. Bob Hatfield was present to represent Washington County Farm Bureau on behalf of Joe Rodman because of a death in Mr. Rodman's family. In answer to a question from Chairman Mills, Mr. Hatfield stated that he didn't know of any new information to present to the Board on this appeal. Chairman Mills advised that the Board of Sign Appeals needs to determine whether or not they want to grant a rehearing of this appeal. Mr. Davis stated that he feels the ordinance is sound and the judgment made at the previous meeting was sound. Also, neither the City nor Mr. Rodman have any documentation that shows there was a permit granted for the illegal sign. Therefore, he doesn't see any reason to have a rehearing. Mr. Tompkins stated that the staff has been very professional and helpful to this petitioner in answering all their questions and reviewing their options. He added that he is in agreement with Mr. Davis that he doesn't see any new evidence which would contradict the Board of Sign Appeal's previous action. He noted that he tends to go along with the idea that a rehearing would not be appropriate. Mr. Waldren stated that where the problem lies is that Mr. Rodman wasn't informed of what his appeal process was and time period involved after his variance was denied. Becky Bryant, Associate Planner, stated that Mr. Rodman informed the Board of Sign Appeals after their variance decision, that he would be going back to the Planning Commission for a rezoning. Mr. Waldren noted that, if Mr. Rodman had known he could appeal this with the help of a Board of Directors member within 10 days, he might have gone that route. Mr. Davis present at had a copy Ms. Wright business. commented that Mr. Rodman had a member of the Board of Directors the meeting as an advisor. Ms. Bryant advised that Mr. Rodman also of the sign ordinance, which tells the route of appeal. advised that they did grant a variance for a monument sign for this Chairman Mills advised that, technically, the time has lapsed for the /02 0 • • • Board of Sign Appeals September 17, 1990 Page 2 variance that was granted. Chairman Mills stated that she would not want to do anything with a variance on an R -O zoning when he has appealed to the Board of Directorstohave that zoning changed to commercial. She added that it is a question of either deciding whether to hear the appeal again or to wait on the City Board's decision on the rezoning. Mr. Tompkins stated that he is curious why both a rehearing to the Board of Sign Appeals and a rezoning petition were requested simultaneously. Mr. Waldren advised that Mr. Rodman had contacted him by phone and stated that he did not request a rehearing to the Board of Sign Appeals. Ms. Bryant stated that the City Planning office received two different lettere from Mr. Rodman. One stated that he wanted to pursue the recommendation from the Planning Commission which would entail an appeal on the sign issue. The staff advised him that in order to pursue that, he would have to go back before the Board of Sign Appeals and request a rehearing. The second letter was requesting an appeal on the rezoning. If he didn't intend that, there was a misunderstanding. In answer to a question from Mr. Waldren, Me. Bryant stated that the sign appeal could go to the City Board only by getting a rehearing from the Board of Sign Appeals. She added that the rezoning petition is already scheduled for the City Board's review. She advised that the City Board will only be able to hear the rezoning and not the sign appeal unless a rehearing is granted. Mr. Waldren stated that, if a rezoning is granted, a rehearing of the sign appeal will not be necessary. Ms. Wright stated that this meeting should be delayed until the City Board has made a decision on the rezoning. Mr. Becker stated that the staff is only reacting on what was requested. Mr. Waldren stated that apparently Mr. Rodman did something that he didn't intend to do. Ms. Bryant advised that Mr. Rodman had contacted the Planning office after he sent the letter to clarify his intent in regard to pursuing the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Chairman Mills advised that, at this meeting, they need to determine whether or not they want to grant a rehearing. Mr. Waldren stated that he has a real problem with all of this. He feels that Washington County Farm Bureau needs some avenue of appeal. He doesn't think rezoning the property just for a sign is the proper way. But, they are locked out from the Board of Sign Appeals unless a rehearing is granted. He sees no basis to grant a rehearing other than to provide an avenue of appeal. In answer to a question from Mr. Waldren, repetition without waiting a year. decision until after the City Board has Ms. Bryant stated that Mr. Rodman could She added that they could table this made a decision on the rezoning. Me. Wright stated that an avenue for appeal is needed. Mr. Waldren stated he didn't think Mr. Rodman knew his avenue of appeal. Ms. Bryant advised that Mr. Rodman also had a long conversation with Merrell, Planning Management Director, about all of this. that John Ms. Wright stated that they could table it until after the City Board meeting. In that way, they wouldn't have to make a decision either way until after the rezoning is decided. la1 Board of Sign Appeals September 17, 1990 Page 3 MOTION Ms. Wright moved to table this issue until after the City Board of Directors hears the rezoning petition, seconded by Becker. The motion failed 3-4-0 with Boyd, Waldren & Wright voting "yes" and Davis, Tompkins, Mille & Becker voting "no". MOTION Mr. Tompkins moved to disapprove the rehearing, seconded by Davis. The motion passed 5-2-0 with Becker, Boyd, Mills, Davis & Tompkins voting "yes" and Waldren & Wright voting "no". Ms. Bryant advised that the applicants have the option of re -petitioning. She explained to Mr. Hatfield that, if they want to re -petition after the City Board makes a decision on the rezoning, they will need to reapply to the Board of Sign Appeals and pay the $25 processing fee. Mr. Waldren stated that the Planning Commission passed a motion recommending to the City Board of Directors that Farm Bureau be allowed to retain the wall sign plus a monument sign after the rezoning request failed. He commented that this is a Gordian knot. OTHER BUSINESS Item tl: Rules & Regulations for Board of Adjustment Chairman Mills noted that Robert Davis and Gerald Boyd are working on updating the rules and regulations for the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Boyd stated that they plan to rewrite the rules and regulations and would like any input from the other Board members. He added that they have to keep in mind that the zoning ordinance is governed by what the State allows the City to do. Therefore, any bylaws they pass are governed by what the zoning ordinance states, so they can't add anything that is contradictory to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Boyd stated that, according to the ordinance, this should be called "rules" rather than "bylaws". The ordinance specifically states that the Board shall establish "rules" to set forth procedure. Mr. Boyd stated that the zoning ordinance refers to the "Planning Administrator" instead of "Planning Management Director" as the staff did in their draft. He added that he thinks they should use the terms used in the ordinance. Mr. Boyd stated that in the first paragraph of their old rules, it states that one of their duties is to regulate enforcement of conditional variances. However, he doesn't think they are doing that. The enforcement, in his opinion, is to be done by the Planning Administrator, who works for the Board of Directors. Therefore, he would like to delete that. Mr. Boyd stated that he thought that they meet on the first and is no business or it falls on a they should specify, under "Time of Meetings", third Mondays of every month except when there holiday. Mr. Boyd stated that, regarding "Records of the Meetings", he feels it should state that the Board is obligated to keep the records of the meetings. Even though the staff will keep the records, it should be noted that the Board itself is obligated to make sure records are kept and are accurate. • • • Board of Sign Appeals September 17, 1990 Page 4 Mr. Boyd stated that regarding "Quorum", the zoning ordinance simply provides that four shall be a quorum and the majority of the members present is necessary to conduct business. He noted that they have been going on the assumption that it takes four positive votes to approve a variance. However, it only requires the majority of a quorum. Chairman Mills clarified that there has to be four members present to conduct business, but a majority of those present (3) can pass a variance. Becky Bryant quoted from the zoning ordinance which states: "The concurrent vote of a majority of the members present shall be necessary to reverse any order, requirement, decision or determination of the Planning Administrator or to decide in favor of the applicant of any matter upon which it is required to pass under this chapter or to affect any variation in the application of this chapter." In discussion regarding abstentions, Chair Mills advised that the rules state that an abstention shall not be construed as a vote. Mr. Boyd stated that he feels that the Chair should vote. The consensus of the members was that the Chair should always vote. In answer to a question from Becky Bryant, Mr. Boyd stated that a tie would be the same as a denial. Mr. Boyd stated that, regarding the applicant or a representative being present, the Code states that the applicant can be present by "agent or attorney". He stated that he doesn't think the staff's statement that the representative should be someone "having the authority to commit the owner to compliance with conditions" is necessary. Mr. Tompkins stated that they need a clear procedure for when the applicant doesn't attend the meeting. The consensus was to draft this part of the rules directly from the Code. Chairman Mills stated that, if they do allow a rehearing, there needs to be notification to adjoining property owners. Mr. Boyd stated that he felt the staff's draft and the old rules should be combined. Chairman Mills stated that she would like the condition that a rehearing be based on new evidence or information. Mr. Boyd stated that as far as "Absenteeism", the Code provides for how the members are elected and removed. And, he doesn't think this Board has the authority to decide that. The consensus was to go by what the Code states. Becky Bryant advised that the last item in their current rules and regulations has the attendance provision. Chairman Mills stated that they used to receive a yearly attendance record which she would like again. She added that she doesn't like the enforcement term because they don't actually enforce. Mr. Boyd stated that, according to the Code, enforcement is done by the Planning Administrator. Mr. Boyd stated that they have rehearings, withdrawals, and deferrals which need to be clarified. He stated that Article 10 of the staff's draft ie o.k. Mr. Waldren commented that they could have the condition that, if the applicant doesn't show up, it would be an automatic denial. Chairman Mills stated that they could specify that there be no withdrawals once it has been advertised. Mr. Boyd noted that a deferral is a tabling of the application, so it could just be called a table. Mr. Boyd advised that he and Mr. Davis will continue to work on the developing of the Rules & Regulations. Anyone with comments should let them know. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:OOp.m. /caa