HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-03-07 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
AND THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals was held on Monday,
March 7, 1994, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Marion Orton, Gerald Boyd, Larry Perkins, Craig Rivaldo, Bob
Blackstone and Thad Hanna
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lonnie Meadows
OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Tim Conklin, Bert Rakes, Don Fitzgerald, and
others
PROTOCOL
Mr. Perkins called the meeting to order and explained the format of the meeting.
APPEAL NO. BA94-6 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE BULK AND AREA REQUIREMENTS
CASTLE DEVELOPMENT - FIELDSTONE ADDITION
The first item was a request submitted by Harry Gray on behalf of Castle Development
for a variance from the bulk and area requirements in the Fieldstone Addition. The
property is zoned R-1.5, Moderate Density Residential.
Tim Conklin advised the site was approved as a preliminary plat by the Planning
Commission on January 10, 1994 for a total of 211 lots, 153 single-family and 58
duplex. He explained the applicant had requested the variance in order to split the
58 duplex lots into townhouse lots. He further explained the basic difference was
that each unit would be on a separate tract allowing single ownership, but the lot
area would remain the same. He stated that type of lot configuration was allowed
under R-2 and R-3 zoning districts. He noted density would remain the same under the
R-1.5 regulations with no increase by this action.
Mr. Conklin stated the applicant had been advised creation of the townhouse lot
configuration would require the plat to be reviewed again by the Plat Review
Committee in order to assure correct utility placement. He recommended the Board of
Adjustment approve the variance based on the fact that the density would not be
increased and that home ownership was preferable in terms of neighborhood stability
to rental units. He noted the Board of Adjustment might want to base any approval
on the condition that no more than two units be attached even though the
representative had stated that was their intention. He clarified the actual lot
size would be larger than that shown in the staff's report.
In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Conklin advised there were no standards
for minimum lot width or lot area under R-2 and R-3 zoning. He noted small lots
could be created with multiple units attached to each other on single lots.
Ms. Little noted the staff had suggested the condition to assure only two units would
end up being attached on each lot because the townhouse regulations allowed as many
as 10 or 12 attached units.
In response to a question from Mr. Boyd in regard to the required side setback, Mr.
Conklin stated that, with zero lot line development, the side yard between structures
had to be 15 feet. He noted that, in the subject case, as shown by the illustration
with the staff's report, an 8 foot setback would be maintained for a minimum of 16
feet between buildings to avoid having units immediately adjacent to the lot line.
In response to an inquiry from Ms.
variance in order to be allowed to
added there was a difference in the
development in that a 4 -hour fire
development and only a 2 -hour fire
the townhouse development provided
Orton, Mr. Gray advised they were requesting the
have the option of a townhouse development. He
division of a townhouse development and a duplex
wall was required between units in a townhouse
wall was required with duplexes. He pointed out
a safer type construction.
a3/
Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals
• March 7, 1994
Page 2
•
•
Ms. Orton noted the staff's argument seemed to be that townhouse development should
be allowed by right rather by variance.
Mr. Conklin stated staff planned to change the ordinances in order to allow townhouse
developments to occur in R-1.5.
In response to an inquiry from Mr. Boyd in regard to the Georgian Place development
off Garland, Ms. Little advised it was a townhouse development and was zoned R-2.
To clear up some confusion, Mr. Gray explained the subject lots for which the
variance was requested were lots 19 thru 66, lots 183 thru 188, and lots 206 thru
209.
Mr. Conklin noted those lots were zoned R-1.5 and the remainder of the development
was zoned R-1 allowing only single-family homes.
In answer to a question from Mr. Rivaldo, Mr. Gray advised there was not a planned
sequence to the development. He further stated a duplex development was planned, but
the variance would give the developer the option of townhouses for those persons who
were interested.
In response to an inquiry by Mr. Boyd, Ms Little explained that, if the variance
request was approved, the motion needed to be worded so it was clear two single-
family homes could not be placed on one lot.
MOTION
Mr. Blackston moved to grant the variance to allow townhouse development with the
condition that no more than two units be attached and that no detached homes would
be constructed on the subject lots.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Hanna.
The motion carried 6-0-0.
0)3?
Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals
• March 7, 1994
Page 3
•
•
APPEAL NO. SA94-3 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE
RYAN'S STEAKHOUSE - 3845 N SHILOH DRIVE
The next item was Appeal No. SA94-3 submitted by Renee Thompson of Allen Displays on
behalf of Ryan's Steakhouse for property located at 3845 N. Shiloh Drive. The
property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The appeal was for a variance from
the Sign Ordinance.
Mr. Don Fitzgerald stated the existing sign was 182 square feet which included the
Ryan's logo, name, and headliners. He pointed out the sign was currently placed 22
feet above ground level. He advised the sign could be raised approximately 10 feet
higher without a variance because the level of the sign was from the highway
elevation and not the elevation of the sign location.
Ms. Orton pointed out Ryan's was located on Shiloh (the frontage road), not the
highway.
Mr. Fitzgerald noted a precedent had been set with consideration given to the Exxon
Station at Farmington and Highway 62 based on that particular arrangement. He
advised the request was for a raise in elevation from the present height of 25 feet
up to 65 feet because of visibility problems with the tree line to the south. He
contended the staff had thoroughly assessed the situation on site and determined
there was the possibility of visibility problems when the foliage was on the trees.
Mr. Fitzgerald explained the staff had made a false assumption based on a 1987
ordinance which designated that portion of Highway 71 in front of Ryan's as a
controlled access highway. He advised they had since found that the controlled
access stopped at the intersection of the connecting road between 71 and 71B. He
stated Ryan's did not fall within the controlled access regulations of the ordinance
which allowed an 181 square foot sign. He further stated the variance request,
therefore, would be a raise in height from 25 feet to 65 feet and an increase in
total square footage from 75 square feet to 181 square feet. He noted the staff was
recommending a compromise in this case.
Mr. Pennington, representing Ryan's, presented photographs to the Board of the site.
He submitted there were two problems with visibility of the site: the restaurant was
sitting in a hole in relation to the surrounding businesses and the tree line to the
south of the property. He added they were requesting 65 feet in height in order to
get at the top of the tree line.
He contended the location of the utility easement along the front of their property
would not permit them to come any closer to the road for the sign. He also pointed
out the sign was sitting farther back on this site than the other signs along the
street.
In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Pennington stated the location of the
utility easement prevented them from locating the sign in the northeast corner of the
property.
Ms. Orton contended that, when she went to the site, Ryan's had a number customers
and it appeared people were able to locate the restaurant.
Mr. Pennington stated they did a good local business, but their main concern was the
20% of business from travelers.
In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Pennington stated the base sign was only
7 feet 10 inches by 18 feet.
Mr. Boyd contended that, according to his calculations, the Ryan's base sign was 162
square feet.
233
•
•
Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals
March 7, 1994
Page 4
Ms. Orton expressed her concern that the existing sign was not set back as far as it
needed to be for the size.
Mr. Pennington was assured her it did meet the set back requirements.
Ms. Orton pointed out signs on the other businesses along Shiloh (Ramada Inn and Red
Lobster) were very neatly in a line and the Ryan's sign looked larger than those
signs.
Mr. Pennington stated their sign was closer to the building because of the utilities
and the easements.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated he had researched the ordinance, Section 150.47, in regard to
the height of the sign. He read: "A freestanding sign located on property which
abuts both a controlled access highway and a state or federal numbered highway may
not be erected where the total height of said sign is greater than 30 feet above the
plain of the pavement at the highest area."
Ms. Orton clarified the pavement they were concerned with was the street in front of
Ryan's, not Highway 71.
Mr. Fitzgerald explained that, of the roadway had been designated as a controlled
access highway, the highway could be used as the elevation by which the height was
measured.
In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd regarding a compromise, Mr. Fitzgerald advised
the Inspection staff had spend considerable time viewing the site from all
directions. He stated they had determined there were spots where the Ryan's sign,
even without foliage, was not visible to any great extend including from the stop
light at the Citizens Bank south of Ryan's. He pointed out visibility from both the
west and north was good. He stated the staff did see a visibility problem from the
south due to the tree line and would recommend a compromise in the height.
Ms. Orton reminded the Board many times they had granted a variance in order to allow
a sign to be higher than a tree line and then the trees were cut down. She
contended the Board of Sign Appeals had no obligation to make sure the sign was seen
all the way up to the Mall and all the way down to Citizens Bank when the business
was not even located on that street. She added it would be unfair to allow one
business to put up a sign that was higher and larger when the other businesses had
to conform to the ordinance.
Mr. Pennington advised they were not on the same elevation with the other businesses
and all they are asking was to be on the same level.
Mr. Boyd stated he saw the Ryan's sign the first time he went by it coming from the
south.
The Ryan's manager reiterated that, in another 30 days when the foliage was on the
trees, the visibility problem would be much worse.
Mr. Fitzgerald reminded the Board they also need to determine whether they would
grant a variance on the size of the sign. He noted the size was based on the
controlled access designation but, since the highway was not designated as a
controlled access at that location, the size of the sign was nonconforming. He added
no signs for Ryan's had been permitted yet; he was holding them until the
determination had been made.
Mr. Hanna reminded the Board that, at the November 15th meeting when they reviewed
a request for a variance on the another sign, they were told that Ryan's had an
approved application for their sign.
;39
Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals
• March 7, 1994
Page 5
Mr. Fitzgerald stated that must have been a
holding the application. He noted most of
were installed and the staff was sure they
misstatement because the staff was still
the signs were not approved until they
met code.
In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Fitzgerald advised that, in order to bring
the sign into conformance, .it would have to be reduced in size to 75 square feet.
He noted it could be raised to 30 feet above the service road without a height
variance. He stated the distance from the right-of-way met the ordinance. He added
the staff had completed some research and determined Red Lobster and Ramada Inn signs
were in existence far beyond what the present ordinance required.
Mr. Rivaldo stated that, if they had already set the precedent, then he was content
with the size of the Ryan's sign since adjoining businesses had similar sized signs.
In answer to inquiries about the Dixie Cafe
in compliance with a 75 square feet sign. He
but it had not been issued and would not be
sign, Mr. Fitzgerald stated they were
advised they did have a permit on file,
until the staff looked at the sign.
The local manger of Ryan's stated they had a very positive attitude about
Fayetteville and he believed their request was within reason. He added the condition
of having the trees in that area should be taken into consideration.
Mr. Boyd stated he agreed a 65 foot high sign probably would help Ryan's business,
but it would not help Fayetteville to have every business along that road have a
bigger, higher sign, although they all had good reasons in wanting a bigger sign.
He contended one of the oldest and most successful businesses, Herman's, which was
one of Ryan's competitors, did not have any sign and did a great business.
• Mr. Blackston expressed concern that, if they granted the request, there was no doubt
in his mind they would have other requests for the same thing.
Mr. Boyd stated he believed the blue highway signs did more good than all the others.
In answer to a question from a Board member in regard to the reason for not placing
the sign in the northeast corner of the Ryan's property, Mr. Pennington reiterated
there was a utility easement and noted the ordinance did not allow placement of their
sign any closer to the road.
In answer to a question of what would put them on a level plain with the other signs,
Mr. Pennington stated they were asking for up to 65 feet, but 45 feet or 50 feet of
height would be enough.
In answer to a question in regard to reducing the square footage, Mr. Pennington
contended they were close to the size of most of the other signs in the area.
•
Mr. Boyd pointed out the sign size was two and a half times as big as the ordinance
allowed.
Mr. Pennington advised they did not want the sign to sit up any higher than any other
sign in the area. He explained their concern was to attract people making their
first trip to the restaurant. He provided a picture of the sign at a 40 foot height
for their review to see the difference in the proportion of the pole versus the size
of the sign.
In answer to an inquiry by Ms. Orton, Mr. Fitzgerald stated the Red Lobster and
Ramada Inn signs were approximately the same size as Ryan's.
Ms. Orton stated that, when she looked at them, Ryan's had not looked definitely
larger than the other signs.
Mr. Bert Rakes, Inspection Department, apologized for the staff's misunderstanding
in regard to the controlled access designation of the highway. He explained that,
a 31
Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals
• March 7, 1994
Page 6
•
•
with the designation the 200 square feet would be a legal sized sign. He added, as
far as the other signs in the area, the Ramada Inn and Nelson's signs were existing
prior to adoption of the ordinance.
He went on to say the sign was oversized and too close to the roadway, but pointed
out there was a high-pressured gas line running across the property.
In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Rakes advised the businesses on the east
side of the road were conforming.
Mr. Rakes advised the staff had not been able to research the microfilm and files to
find the information in regard to past signs in this case because several drawers of
files were in the process of being microfilmed. He stated he believed the Ramada Inn
was permitted originally with a 200 square foot sign and a variance for the setback.
Mr. Perkins summarized that, according to the ordinance, the Ryan's sign was too
large but the current height of the sign was allowed by ordinance.
Mr. Rakes stated that, due to the Inspection's staff's error in regard to the allowed
square footage, he would request the Board consider the square footage along with the
height request.
Mr. Boyd contended the business could reduce the size of the sign without any major
changes.
Mr. Fitzgerald stated the main logo sign was 140 square feet, the bulletin board was
28 square feet, and the remainder of the sign was 14 square feet for a total of 182
square feet.
Mr. Pennington pointed out that, if they were only allowed the logo
portion of the sign, they would not have any way to tell potential patrons what types
of food they offered. He added the fact that the sign seemed larger when driving
down the road was an optical illusion because the sign was sitting down low.
In response to Ms. Orton pointing out the ordinance allows them an additional height
of 5 feet without a variance, Mr. Pennington stated an addition of only,5 feet was
not going to help the situation.
When asked which was more important for the Ryan's sign, the height or the size, Mr.
Pennington stated the height was probably more important because of the visibility
problems with the tree foliage.
Ms. Orton explained that, while the Board appreciated the situation, there were
hundreds of other businesses in town whose signs conformed to the ordinance. She
stated the applicant was asking the Board to go against all the businesses already
established with conforming signs.
Mr. Perkins stated the request was to raise the height of the sign from the current
height of 25 feet to 60 feet (a 35 foot variance). He added that, if the Board
approved a sign 45 feet in height, the variance would be 15 feet.
There was further discussion regarding
areas where the sign could be placed.
a reason to grant the height variance,
higher sign.
Mr. Perkins advised they had two separate motions: one
variance and one on the square footage of the sign.
easements on the subject property and other
It was noted that, if they use the trees as
then every business with trees would want a
on the request for a height
0736
Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals
• March 7, 1994
Page 7
•
•
MOTION
Mr. Boyd moved to deny the appeal as requested for a height variance up to 65 feet.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Orton.
The motion carried 5-1-0 with Mr. Blackston, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Hanna, Mr. Perkins, and
Ms. Orton voting "yes" and Mr. Rivaldo voting "no".
MOTION
Mr. Rivaldo moved to approve the sign size as it existed.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Blackston.
The motion carried 6-0-0.
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals meeting of February 7,
1994 were approved as submitted.
The meeting adjourned at 5:07 p.m.
P32