Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-11-15 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Sign Appeals was held on Monday, November 15, 1993, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: PROTOCOL Marion Orton, Gerald Boyd, Larry Perkins, Craig Rivaldo, and Thad Hanna Bob Blackston and Lonnie Meadows Alett Little, Bert Rakes, Don Fitzgerald, Jeff Maxwell and Sharon Langley Mr. Perkins called the meeting to order and explained the format of the meeting. Ms. Little then introduced Bert Rakes, Inspection Superintendent, and Don Fitzgerald, Sign Inspector. She explained the Inspection Department would now be responsible for sign appeals and those Board of Adjustment items which were post - occurrence. She added the Planning Department would continue to be responsible for those items which were pre -occurrence for the Board of Adjustment. APPEAL NO. SA93-13 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SIGN ORDINANCE CLARY DEVELOPMENT - W OF SHILOH, S OF JOYCE The next item was a request from Clary Development for a variance from the sign ordinance on property located at Spring Creek Centre (West of Shiloh, south of Joyce Street). The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Perkins stated he was a little unclear about the information in Mr. Rakes' letter on the requested variance. Mr. Rakes explained staff believed the sign ordinance did not address the type of sign being requested by Clary Development. He stated there were area identification signs, subdivision signs, and shopping center signs. He reminded the Board the area identification signs and subdivision signs addressed residential areas. He stated he did not believe they had a sign to address commercial subdivisions. He stated this development contained numerous commercial lots with several acres in each lot. He reviewed the businesses that would be established in the subdivision. He explained the applicant desired to install a 330 square foot sign which would conform to height and setback regulations. He went on to say the problem was that owner of the lot where the sign was located might also want to put up a free-standing sign. He reminded the Board the regulations stated there could be only one free- standing sign per lot. Mr. Perkins asked if it could not be covered in the section on joint identification signs under commercial zoning. Mr. Rakes stated the square footage was limited to 300 square feet. He pointed out that, since there were individual lots in this tract, each lot could also have a free standing sign. 0203 • Board of Sign Appeals November 15, 1993 Page 2 In response to a question, Ms. Little advised there were approximately 12 lots within the subdivision. She further stated there would be other commercial subdivisions in the area within the near future and noted there was already one located at Appleby Road and North College, Hammond Plaza. She informed the Board only one business in Hammond Plaza had applied for a sign at this time. • • Mr. Rivaldo asked if there was another shopping center in the area which had been used to set a precedent. Mr. Rakes advised he did not know of another one. He pointed out the other shopping areas within the city were owned by one entity but in this shopping center some of the businesses would own their lot. Mr. Boyd asked who would maintain the sign. Mr. Rakes advised the developer would have to maintain the sign. In response to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Maxwell, representing the developer, advised they would be building on lots 4, 5, and 6. He advised they would be on the premises to maintain the sign. He stated Wal-Mart, National Home Center, and Ryan's would own their lots. He explained they had hoped that, in constructing an area identification sign, they could eliminate each business putting up a free standing sign. He expressed his belief it would look much better to have one sign rather than several. Ms. Orton asked if the other tenants would be satisfied in not having a free standing sign. Mr. Maxwell stated he believed they would. Mr. Fitzgerald advised he had on his desk an application from Wal-Mart for a free standing sign which he had been holding until after decisions had been made at this meeting. He stated the proposed sign would face Joyce Street. He further stated Mr. Maxwell had not known about the Wal-Mart application. In response to a question, Mr. Maxwell stated the proposed area identification sign would be located on the National Home Center site. Ms. Little advised an application for a sign for Ryan's had already been approved. Mr. Hanna asked if the area identification sign would also be for those lots on the north side of Joyce Street. Mr. Maxwell stated those lots were also a part of Spring Creek Centre. Mr. Hanna asked if National Home Center had applied for a sign. Mr. Fitzgerald stated he had not received an application from National Home Center and had received an indication they were in favor of the joint area identification sign. ,boy • Board of Sign Appeals November 15, 1993 Page 3 Mr. Rivaldo pointed out that, should the Board approve the area identification sign and National also put up a free standing sign, it would be very confusing. Mr. Maxwell advised he did not believe National would want an additional sign. Ms. Orton expressed concern they were setting a precedent if they allowed the area identification sign and then each business would still be allowed a free-standing sign. Mr. Maxwell assured her the lots owned by Clary would not be applying for additional free-standing signs. He further stated National had not given them any indication they wanted a separate free-standing sign. Mr. Boyd suggested listing only those businesses in the shopping center which did not have free standing signs. Mr. Maxwell showed the Board a plat of the subdivision noting ownership on each lot. Mr. Hanna asked if all of the lots under Clary ownership had been leased. Mr. Maxwell stated they had not been leased yet. • Mr. Boyd asked if National had signed the application for the sign under consideration. Mr. Maxwell stated National had been notified. Mr. Perkins advised they could have an area identification sign at the entrance of the shopping center without any listing of businesses. Ms. Little asked if, in the interest of aesthetics, they would not prefer one large sign with everyone's name rather than individual signs. Ms. Orton stated it had already gone too far to have just one sign, that some of the businesses already had sign permits. There was discussion regarding negotiation with Wal-Mart and other non -Clary owned businesses to have their business listed on the area identification sign rather than individual free standing signs. Mr. Boyd asked why the applicant had asked for 330 square feet. He pointed out it could be argued the sign complied with the sign ordinance if it were 300 square feet instead of 330 square feet. He also asked why it had to be 32 feet in height rather than the 30 feet allowed by ordinance. Mr. Maxwell explained they had come up with those figures by calculating a sign for each business. • Mr. Rakes stated it was his understanding the Board had every right to grant a variance and condition it however they wanted to. He further stated he believed it Board of Sign Appeals • November 15, 1993 Page 4 would be reasonable for the Board to determine if a business had a listing on the area identification sign, it could not have a free standing sign. He pointed out there would be plenty of wall space for wall signs for each of the businesses. • • Mr. Hanna asked how lots 9, 10, and 11 would be addressed once those lots were developed. There was discussion regarding room on the area identification sign. Mr. Boyd stated he was in favor of limiting the sign, at this time, to 300 square feet. He further stated that, when lots 9, 10, and 11 were developed, they could come back before the Board and offer a trade of a free standing sign for a larger area identification sign. Mr. Maxwell advised they did not want four or five free standing signs. He advised they might have a monument sign at that point, but at this time he was uncertain what they would do. MOTION Mr. Boyd moved to grant the variance requested provided that the total signage area be reduced to 300 square feet, that the maximum height of the sign be reduced to 30 feet from the adjoining street, and that the variance be conditioned upon no listing for any business in the subdivision which had it's own free standing sign. In response to a question from Mr. Perkins, Mr. Boyd explained the variance was to allow the applicant to place a sign at the requested location and call the sign an area identification sign. He further stated that, as a condition for allowing that, they were putting conditions upon the granting of the variance. He pointed out there would be a good argument that this was an off-site sign and could not be allowed. Ms. Orton seconded the motion. Mr. Rivaldo stated he was having a problem visualizing an area identification sign together with some free standing signs. He further stated he believed Mr. Boyd's motion seemed fair. In response to a question from Mr. Maxwell, Mr. Perkins advised a monument sign was considered as a free standing sign. He further stated the businesses would be allowed wall signs. After discussion Mr. Boyd amended his motion to read "30 feet from the private street beside the sign" instead of "30 feet from the adjoining street" . Mr. Hanna asked if the sign supports were included in the measurement of the sign. Mr. Rakes stated just the sign panels were included in the measurements of the sign. 0106 • Board of Sign Appeals November 15, 1993 Page 5 Mr. Hanna pointed out there was a possibility the proposed sign was under 330 square feet; that it looked like the applicant had measured the supports together with the sign panels . The motion carried 5-0-0. MINUTES The minutes of the Board of Adjustment meeting of November 1, 1993 were approved as distributed. The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m. • •