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.
•
•