Board of Adjustment

Planning Department February 25, 2013 The Board of Adjustment will hold a regular meeting on Monday, February 25, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA Welcome Visitors 1. Review and approve the minutes of the April 23, 2012, Regular Meeting 2. A Public Hearing requesting approval for relief from the Zoning Code Article X. 10. 2. Wall Sign to allow an installed wall sign to remain at Mattress Max-Russellville, 2215 East Parkway, submitted by Max Lawton. (BOA.11.02.3595) 3. A Public Hearing requesting relief from Zoning Code Article III 1. 2. Dimensional Requirements for Accessory Building, submitted by Clinton Hartley for property located at 1824 South El Paso. (BOA 13.02.35.96)  BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES February 25, 2013 The Russellville Board of Adjustment met in a Regular Meeting, Monday, February 25, 2013, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers. Members Present: Chairman Blake Tarpley, Secretary Aldona Standridge, Vice Chairman Dusty Bonds, Jimmy Sims, and Jim Davenport. Members Absent: None Visitors/Officials Present: Mayor Bill Eaton, City Planner David Harris, City Attorney Trey Smith, CDD Brian Holstein, Jim Lynch/City Corp, Planning Assistant Lequitta Jones, Max Lawton, Clinton Hartley, Brad Nieman, and Brent Preddy. WELCOME VISITORS The First Order of Business was a request to review and approve the minutes of the April 23, 2012, Regular Meeting. Vice-Chairman Bonds moved to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Member Sims and passed unanimously. The Second Order of Business was a Public Hearing requesting approval for relief from the Zoning Code Article X. 10. 2. Wall Sign to allow two installed wall signs to remain at Mattress Max-Russellville, 2215 East Parkway, submitted by Max Lawton. (BOA.11.02.3595) City Planner Harris said the pertinent section of the Zoning Code bearing on this case was unclear. It states that wall signs shall not project above the top of the wall, but never actually mentions roof signs. However, that section has sometimes been interpreted as also prohibiting signs on the roof. Planner Harris said that, in his experience, a primary reason for the rooftop prohibition was to ban erection of steel frames with billboard-type signs on rooftops. A draft sign ordinance will be before the Planning Commission in the near future, and the language re: wall signs and roof signs should be clarified. City Planner Harris further stated that if the Board thinks the way the subject sign is mounted on the building is suitable, then that would be useful feedback as to how the Zoning Code should be rewritten in regard to such signs. Vice-Chairman Bond asked for clarification as to what the Code says about signs and billboards on the roof. Planner Harris said the code is not clear as to what the intent was. It refers to “wall signs” and states that they shall not extend above the roof line. It doesn’t really say you can’t have a "roof sign". So, you could make the argument that a steel frame and billboard-type sign would be permissible on the roof. I don’t’ think we would want that. But that is not what Mr. Lawton has done here. What I am saying if you think this installation of electronic message boards is attractive and suitable, then as I amend the sign code draft your decision will be reflected in the amendments. City Planner was asked if there was any other place to put the sign. Mr. Harris said they could be mounted on the facade below the roofline, or on an elevated free standing sign. Commissioner Davenport stated he was concerned about the other signs on this site. Mr. Lawton said his store faced two major thoroughfares and could have two signs; one on Weir, and one on East Parkway. Mr. Lawton said he could have taken down the one that you change out the letters on, but it wasn’t his sign, but belonged to my owner. Without defacing that sign, I put the message boards on the roof so that if I leave I can take them with me. Secretary Standridge made the motion to approve the request as submitted. The motion was seconded by Member Sims and passed unanimously. The Third Order of Business was a Public Hearing requesting relief from Zoning Code Article III 1. 2. Dimensional Requirements for Accessory Building, submitted by Clinton Hartley for property located at 1824 South El Paso. (BOA 13.02.3596) City Planner Harris said an accessory building had once existed in the back yard in roughly the same location as the new building that is the subject of the variance request before the Board. That building became deteriorated and a few years ago was demolished. When Mr. Hartley got ready to build a new building on the same location, he neglected to secure the necessary building permit. Subsequently, the Code Enforcement officer noticed the building and notified Mr. Hartley that it did not meet the setbacks stipulated in the Zoning Code for accessory structures. That is how Mr. Hartley came to appear before you requesting relief. The situation is somewhat more complicated than usual. The accessory building is only about 2.6 feet from the primary structure, and slightly less than 5 feet from the adjoining property line. The setback on 19th Street meets code. Fire Marshall Setian and Building Official Holstein have indicated that the issue of the building's proximity to the primary structure (the residence) could be adequately addressed if Mr. Hartley would agree to a fire rated wall on that side of the accessory building. If that issue is so addressed, then the request before the Board is to grant relief for the setback along the property line. City Planner Harris stated that the area is in an R-1 zone but that, based on the typical size of houses and lots in the neighborhood, R-2 or R-3 zoning might be more fitting. That would mean Mr. Hartley's request would be for relief from an eight-foot or six-foot setback. If the Board is comfortable with the 5-foot setback on the adjoining property, and Mr. Hartley is agreeable to providing a fire-rated wall next to the residence, then this request does not seem unreasonable. Mr. Hartley said he was willing to whatever to come into compliance with city code. Mr. Holstein requested he gutter that side of the wall next to the property line to ensure that runoff does not negatively affect the adjoining property. Member Sims made the motion to approve the request subject to Mr. Hartley providing the fire-rated wall between the primary and accessory building, and guttering the accessory building along the property line. The motion was seconded by Secretary Standridge and passed unanimously. Adjourned. _________________________ Chairman Blake Tarpley