Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-05-23 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Fayetteville Planning Commission met in a special session at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, May 23, 1972, in the Municipal'Co'urt Room; Police Courts Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Members Present: Roy Clinton, Al Hughes, Donald Nickell, Helen Edmiston, Albert Witte, Al Donaubauer, Members Absent: Ernest Jacks, Dr. Walter Brown, John Maguire. Others Present: City Attorney David Malone, City Manager Donald Grimes, Ray White, Harold Lieberenz, Charlie Hall, Carl Atkins, Suzanne Lighton, Tony Zini, Jim Tidwell, Sylvia Swartz, Marion Orton, Vernon Rodgers, Bob Burban, Bryce Davis, Connie Clack, Jim Wooten, Jack Good, M. C. Boyer, Jerry Shelton, Robert Logan, Charles McNair, The purpose of this special meeting was to hold a public hearing on the proposed sign ordinance. Roy Clinton called the meeting to order. He asked that comments be PUBLIC HEARING kept to issues;ht;hand and said no vote would be taken by the Planning ON SIGN REGS. Commission until a later meeting when more Commission members would be present. City Attorney David Malone listed some changes to be made to the prepared ordinance. Most of them were minor typographical errors; those which were not were to omit the parts requiring a registration fee for existing signs and the annual renewal fee, to omit the part requiring the registering of existing signs, to omit the part exempting off-site wall signs painted on the exterior surface of a building or structure. Mr. Clinton invited discussion from the floor. He stated that signs have a lot of people against them from the pollution standpoint and that the Commission was trying to reach a middle ground so Fayetteville can live with it from the business community and from the aesthetic point. Carl Atkins with B & M Signs asked a question about Section 17B-3 "Sign Permits". With the word "repair" being used, will they be required to have a permit to perform their annual maintenance of signs? Suzanne Lighton said she did not believe the listed exemptions would cover this. David Malone noted that the word "maintain" is also contained in that section. Tony Zini with Humble 011 said that the company is going to change its brand name to EXON. How would they stand on this? Roy Clinton said they would have to get permits for every sign at every station when they changed them. Harold Lieberenz, Inspection Superintendent, said that this is the problem that disturbs him most in administering this. Occasionally we do have a change of design or advertising, oil companies are a good example of this. For example, in C-2 districts structural setbacks are proposed, most of the oil company signs are right on the right-of-way. Under the proposed ordinance, we would not be able to issue a permit to relocate a sign on the same pedestal. Also, non -conforming as to use, this ordinance provides 5-23-72 .2. for continuation of use and existing signs, etc, but they cannot be enlarged upon, and there also we cannot issue a permit to change a sign. There is • no relief written where they can appeal to a board. For example the service station on Highway 45 East, they wanted a sign, but I couldn't issue a permit because it is in a R-1 district. Ordinance 1747 and this proposed ordinance both say no free-standing sign issued in R-1. Charles McNair said if he read this right, if some drunk knocked a sign down, they could not replace it. Harold Lieberenz said that in the R-0 zone, for example, if someone knocks down their sign, they couldn't put it back up. As administrator of the ordinance, he thought there should be some relief whereby these people could go and get a review. Carl Atkins said he was still concerned about the words repair and maintain. Roy Clinton indicated he thought favorable consideration would be given this matter. The Planning Commission still needs to consider definitions such as lawful lifetime of a place of business and some other points. Jim Tidwell with Donrey Outdoor Advertising asked who would determine whether a damaged sign had been destroyed more than 50% of its replacement cost as it applies to non -conforming signs in Section 17B-5 (c). Roy Clinton said the Planning Office would. Harold Lieberenz said he has had this question come up,# regard to buildings, but not to signs. Determination would have to be made in the Planning Office and Building Inspectors office and would be based on cost figures we could obtain. There would be some way they could get a review should we decide against replacement. People can now request the Board of Adjustment to review our decisions on zoning. Mr. Lieberenz was not sure whether this ordinance provides any variance procedure. David Malone said it does not; that is one problem we have to solve. Sylvia Swartz suggested that if the annual renewal fee and the registration fee for existing signs is to be removed from the ordinance, the initial permit fee should be increased. This was discussed. David Malone said the fee should represent the cost of administering the ordinance. Mrs. Swartz suggested raising the initial fee to $5.00. Tony Zini, Humble 011, stated the proposal has a fee of 5¢ per square foot on top of the $2.00 fee. He thought that takes care of what Mrs. Swartz is requesting. Humble Oil has about 100 signs in this town that would be taxed as the ordinance reads now. This could run into a sizeable amount of money from the standpoint of signs. Roy Clinton said that when signs are presented with plans, etc., it takes some time to administer it. He thought it should be up to the Board of Directors to decide what the time is worth. Marion Orton, City Director, Section 17B-5 "Non -Conforming Signs" calls for such signs to be removed within 3 years except for on-site signs or off-site signs with a lease in effect. She thought the plan was to keep the present ordinance in effect regarding non -conforming signs. David Malone called to her attention that the repealing section of this ordinance does not repeal that section of Ordinance 1747. This section of the proposed ordinance would apply to signs that have been erected since Ordinance 1747 was adopted and which are conforming now but would become non -conforming. They would Is have 3 years from the date of adoption of the proposed ordinance to become 5-23-72 -3- conforming or be removed. Suzanne Lighton asked whether this applied to non -conforming signs exempt under Section 17B-6 "Exemptions" (n) and (p). Is there any necessity for giving notice to the owners of the property as required in some other instances? David Malone said that if the sign related to the place of business on the premises,it could continue during the lawful lifetime of the place of business. If it is an off-site sign, it would have to come down. Suzanne Lighton asked if it would be necessary to give notice to persons continuing in operation and continuing to display the types of signs prohibited in Section 17B-7 (f) and (g), fluctuating signs and portable signs. David Malone said the hearing this evening and the fact that it would also be heard before the Board of Directors later would constitute notice. Roy Clinton said that these are being prohibited because of the danger factor. Sometimes these are moved out too far; and as written signs that move or flash would have to be stopped from movement. Suzanne Lighton asked for clarification on "adjoining ground level" in Section 17B-9 "Free Standing Signs". This was discussed. Several persons seemed confused by the wording. Carl Atkins asked if there is an appeal clause in this proposed ordinance. There is not. Roy Clinton and David Malone both thought one should be in it. David Malone said that with the present wording, the appeal lies to the courts. Carl Atkins requested that a provision for appeal to the Board of Adjustment be written in. David Malone said that one of the most important things the Planning Commission has to consider is the fact that the ordinance as drafted does not have an appeal procedure. If the Planning Commission wants to recommend an appeal procedure, we can work one in. He thought there is obviously an area where we need one and there needs to be some kind of safety valve so honest differences of opinion can be aired. Whether the Planning Commission wants to provide an appeal procedure on size of signs, etc. is up to the Planning Commission. Albert Witte asked what the appeal procedure is under the current ordinance. David Malone said it is a safety valve procedure he has been talking about to the Board of Adjustment. The applicant convinces them there is a hardship so they can obtain a variance. Albert Witte asked Mr. Malone if he was aware why that had been omitted from this ordinance. Suzanne Lighton said that as a member of the Board of Adjustment, she would just as soon it go somewhere else. Vernon Rodgers questioned the requirement to set on-site business signs back 50 ft. on Dickson. He asked if this did not penalize this person by requiring him to set back 50 ft. The particular piece of property is only 75 ft, wide; is it fair to the person to have to build back 50 ft. and put his sign back 40 ft? Bryce Davis asked about the 50 ft. setback on signs if the properties on both sides are right up on the property line. Connie Clack suggested this would be something to consider before making the purchase of the property. Marion Orton said one solution for this might be that after a certain length of time, say 5 years, that all existing signs would have to be made conforming. Jim Wooten with the Arkansas Petroleum Council said that with a 50 ft. setback you are possibly endorsing the removal of trees, etc. to enable the motorist to see the sign. If we allow only one sign per place of business, the man on the corner would be at a disadvantage. He felt it would be more feasible to at least allow the rotation of the sign. A one -sign policy in regard to movement of traffic could possibly result in a hindrance of the flow of I0 5-z3-72 -4- traffic because the individual isn't going to be able to locate the establishment. Mr. Wooten said he had spent 7 years with the State Police; 3 years in charge of safety education. They constantly instructed the motorists to continually scan the; road ahead. He thought the person who is looking for a sign set'tiack 50 ft. creates a traffic hazard. He suggested some type of arrangement to allow at least two signs for businesses on the corner of an intersection and leave the placement of the sign to the land owner as long as it is no closer than 15 ft. to the right of way. A. M. Zinn with Automotive, Inc. said they presently have a roof sign. Would this be allowed to stand; and if so, would they be allowed a free- standing sign also. David Malone said they would be permitted to keep the roof sig land would be allowed one free-standing sign. He said they would be permitted a sign on the building and one free-standing sign. Tony Zini said that service stations are usually on corner of two streets and this would leave them only one sign permitted. Roy Clinton said it would be one free-standing sign which cannot revolve or flash. Suzanne Lighton asked if the ordinance would require a setback of 50 ft* from both streets for property on a corner. Roy Clinton said the zoning ordinance requires both now. David Malone said the way it is written it means both; there has been some discussion to make a smaller setback from one street. Marion Orton asked why the setback was different in the A-1 district. David Malone explained that the setback is keyed to the structural setback of the zoning districts. Mrs. Orton asked what happens if the property is rezoned; is the petitioner responsible for doing something about the sign? David Malone said it would become non -conforming, but that most of A-1 would have to be rezoned for a commercial use before it can be used commercially. Jim Tidwell said that he understands this to completely eliminate their business. David Malone said it does permit off-site signs in C Districts up to 75 sq. ft. in size. Mr. Tidwell questioned the "Whereas" clauses on the first page of the ordinance. David Malone said these "Whereas's" have to be the determination of the Board of Directors. 'The Planning Commission does not have to make recommendations on these. The Board of Directors will have to make certain determinations and if they are not satisfied with these clauses they can change them. Until the ordinance is signed by the Board of Directors these clauses are not in effect, but are based on determinations from other findings elsewhere. Sylvia Swartz said that as a citizen she thought many citizens would consider this wording correct. Jack Good said that there is a plea in this ordinance for the protection of the rights of tourists. He appealed for the rights of the natives. He acknowledged that signs are needed, but said they have become tacky and ugly. He felt they are being pressed upon the people. In his further remarks, he said the people are behind the Planning Commission and are proud of what is being done here. He felt that if something like the proposed ordinance is not passed now, the citizens might come to a point of arranging a vote on some kind of a law. Mr. Good further stated that he felt it would not be hard to pass a pretty strong measure by the citizens and that the citizens are behind the Planning Commission. He felt some people felt the same way, 5-23-72 -5- but have not said it. He said the advertising industry wants the Board of Adjustment to continue handling difficulties; but the citizens feel that the Board of Adjustment has been their patsy and whatever the problem has been, the Board of Adjustment has seen it their way. Carl Atkins said that their customers are people who reside, for the most part, in the City of Fayetteville and they make a sign according to their design not according to the sign company's. The customers ask ;where to locate them. These customers are Fayetteville's business people, tax payers, and the people who support its government. It is those people he represents. Sometimes guidelines are so strong that relief is necessary. The expense of going to court is so great it makes it prohibitive. Jim Tidwell asked for a clarification on the section about sign permits be revocable. M. C. Boyer said he has a permit which took him 8 months to obtain. He now has the sign which cost him about $8,000.00. Can this be revoked? David Malone said this clause is new in this ordinance; he did not know who proposed it or where it came from, but thought it deserved some study. It was noted that this clause had been in the agreements of the Arkansas Highway Department, but that they have removed it. Albert Witte said his opinion was that it is not there to warn permit holders that they do not have an eternal license, but it does mean that anyone, including the City of Fayetteville,kthat they can deprive you of your rights. In other words, he did not think it is worth worrying about. He thought it meant that all rights you get can be terminated by due process of law. Al Donaubauer suggested that the wording be changed to confrom with Mr. Witte's wording. Roy Clinton stated that obviously there will be many changes made in the proposed ordinance --this is only a draft. Marion Orton said that at a previous meeting the matter of allowing up to 200 sq. ft. for an on-site free-standing sign along Highway 71 By-pass was thoroughly discussed. Since then she has talked to Ernest Jacks who talked to the State Highway Commission and they do plan to have the type of uniform signs previously discussed. She now saw no need for making this exception within this ordinance. It was observed that the State plans to have only uniform signs that at the next exit there will be certain services available, but they do not plan to identify the brands or facilities. Jim Wooten acknowledged that the restriction of off-site signs within 660 ft. of the right of way of a controlled access highway is in keeping with the beautification act and the Arkansas statutes. He requested the Planning Commission consider looking at the specific crossings differently. Harold Lieberenz asked why political signs could go in residential areas with no permit or sign limitation as stated in the Exemptions but in areas where signs are permitted they cannot be handled that way. Mr. Lieberenz said he had been criticized for having treated campaign signs lightly. In one instance he had permitted a fence to be painted into a campaign sign after receiving a letter agreeing to paint out the sign after the election, but obviously that sign is larger and closer to the street than an outdoor advertising sign would be. David Malone agreed the wording is ambiguous. Mr. Lieberenz said he felt they should be treated alike in all zones. 5-23-72 -6- Roy Clinton informed the audience that there would probably be one more meeting of the Planning Commission on these regulations, then it would be adopted by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the Board of Directors with a recommendation. The Board of Directors would also have a hearing at which the ordinance would be read and adopted. Robert Logan urged that everyone who has any comment or criticism be asked to submit his comment in writing to the Planning Commission so the Commission would have something tangible on which to proceed. Albert Witte solicited some fresh approach from the public on two of the problems wrestled with: (1) how to property word the 30 ft. height restriction. (2) how to more clearly word the section about the intersection of the By-pass and other streets., He urged the Chairman to order a draft providing for a conventional review before the Board of Adjustment. Addressing his remarks to the man from Minute Man, he said the Commission has three alternatives: (1) to wipe out all signs period. He thought that would be the popular decision in the community if put to a vote of the poople. (2) On the other hand, the City could continue to be permissive as it has been. (3) 0r, be fair and work out some middle ground by not requiring the businesses to give up their signs, etc. He summed up his remarks by stating, "If you don't like the alternative we came up with, you might end up with no signs." Sn.answei.ato a question, Roy Clinton told Bob Burban that he could put up a sign now according to the present regulations, but it might become non- conforming when the new regulations are adopted; however, the sign would be allowed to stay as long as the business stays. Jim Tidwell said that if adopted as proposed, all their signs would become non -conforming. The Department of Transportation has decreed that all signs must be compensated for when they have to be taken down. He indicated he was ready to negotiate this matter with the City. Jim Wooten requested that the Commission consider the proposal of permitting at least 3 signs at intersections to be constructed at least 15 ft. back of the right-of-way in such a manner as not to be a public hazard, and that at least 2 signs be permitted for lots not on street corners, and also that at a corner no sign be permitted within an area 25 ft. back from that corner. He stated this has been done in other cities. He said any law which restricts the free enterprise of businesses places an undue burden on that business. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 P.M.