Loading...
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