Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-06-27 MinutesMINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Fayetteville Planning Commission met at`7 OOxPeM,, Tuesday, June 27, 1972, in a special session in the Municipal Court Room, • Police Courts Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas, Members Present: Roy Clinton, John Maguire, Helen Edmiston, Donald Nickell, Dr, Walter Brown, Albert Witte, Members Absent: Ernest Jacks, Al Hughes, Al Donaubauer, Others Present: Carl Atkins, Herman Johnson, Pete Young, Brenda Blagg, David Malone, Marion Orton, Tony Zini, Peg Anderson, Jim Brock, Suzanne Lighton, Fred Burban, Jim Wooten, Sylvia Swartz, Marie Eoff, Evangeline Archer, Wilma Sacks, Chairman Roy Clinton called the meeting to order. The purpose of this meeting was to boatinue the public hearing on the proposed sign regulations adjourned from May 230 1972, Mr. Clinton informed the audience that PUBLIC HEARING the Commission had no plans to vote at this meeting. He said he had been ON SIGN REGS, questioned on why roof signs are prohibited, but did not personally know the reason. Particular items for consideration at this meeting were to be setbacks for signs from street right-of-way lines, and to determine a group to whom an appeal might be made in cases of hardship, Carl Atkins asked whether the section requiring a permit to repair a sign had • been revised. Chairman Clinton asked if by repair he referred to putting back in good order an existing sign to its original form, Mr. Atkins said he was referring to refurbishing a sign without changing the advertiser or anything, Herman Johnson, 601 Government; asked why they couldn't notify the City inspector ahead of schedule and let them either okay or deny the repair, Also, have the repairer state the cost of repair and have a maximum at which no fee would be charged. He said he felt inspections were necessary to make the town look better. A lot of signs are outmoded. Also, when a business goeecout they should take their signs down, Donald Nickell asked Carl Atkins if there was a atom and several ballasts were burned out whether he would consider it a burden to have the inspector come out and inspect it and get a permit. Mr. Atkins said the circumstances to which he referred was every two years they go by and repaint the sign pole, retouch the sign face, and at least once a year wash the sign face. While there if they find a burned out ba -last and they have one on the truck, they replace the burned out one. They have a man doing preventive maintenance at all times. Herman Johnson suggested they have a field man to inspect their signs before the work crew arrives and that that man get together with the inspector when he checks the signs out, David Malone said that elsewhere in the ordinance, the word "maintain" does not mean maintenance, but refers to keeping a sign, etc, Marion Orton suggested the reference to repairs be taken out of this part and a conforming sign would not need a permit for repairs, but a non -conforming sign would need one because we would need to know whether the damage was j0$, David Malone and Albert Witte both suggested changing the wording to "to " continue in use or keep" rather than to maintain, strike repair, and add repair in non -conforming section, J 6-27-72 -2- John Maguire arrived at 7:30 P.M. Tony Zini had a question about whether the City had the right to require anyone to fix up a sign in poor condition. Peg Anderson asked if damaged would not be a better word than destroyed in Section 17B-5. She said destroyed seems like total destruction. Jim Brock with Donrey Outdoor Advertising had some questions concerning off premise signs. He said that in many meetings over the past 2 years there has been a lot of talk about the needs to regulate off premise signs. They have always agreed with that idea and have talked with Mr. Lieberenz many times and offered their services, He asked why the Commission had decided against them and went to the extreme of total elimination. The proposal talks about off premise signs, but in effect it eliminates the outdoor advertising industry. Susanne Lighton said that one of the biggest problems the Board of Adjustment has faced has been the requests of people for a variance from the 75 sq. ft. size limitation. Some have been granted, but more have been refused. Dr. Walter Brown said he thought the Commission had in mind eliminating outdoor advertising signs inside the City Limits. Mr. Brock said the minutes of a meeting of the Sign Committee on July 26, 1971 reflect a discussion that they should either directly or indirectly eliminate this type of advertising. He asked whether the Commission considered this direct or indirect. Chairman Clinton told Mr. Brock that the off premise advertising is suffering under the movement of ecology and that this has influenced the thinking of the Commission. Mr. Brock said the Arkansas Highway Department does recognize they have a right to exist in commercial areas. Albert Witte objected to saying that the proposed ordinance outlaws billboards; it restricts the size of thbm, • Mr. Brock said the size of billboards was standardized by the advertising industry in the first part of the century. The advertisers choose the size of the signs. Marion Orton said that when signs are made they are made in different sizes to be used according to the regulations in various cities. Hawaii and Vermont both have statewide regulations. Herman Johnson said he felt that if advertising agencies want to advertise in Fayetteville they can either conform to our codes or take their advertising elsewhere. Fred Burban said he is a resident of Fayetteville and does not agree with Mr. Johnson. People in business here need advertising, If that is the stand the people will take this will just deprive businessmen of their livelihood, Roy Clinton summarized the problem areas of the existing ordinance and the efforts made in the proposed ordinance to alleviate the problem. In some ways the proposed ordinance is less restrictive than the old ordinance, He did not feel the setback problem had been dealt with effectively nor had the right of appeal. The proposal just about does away with moving, flashing signs primarily from the safety factor. Mr. Johnson said he felt that if he had to conform to the City regulations on his home, the businesses should have to conform to the City Regulations. David Malone requested that the Commission make a decision on what it desired to require for a business that merely changes the name of the business without changing the character of the business. They want to change their name on their signs. This comes up fairly often usually with service stations. Marion Orton said that if the intent of the ordinance is to clear up the signs and to make them conforming, then the moreocompenies that change their names, the sooner this can be accomplished. This was discussed with Jim Wooten, Arkansas Petroleum Council, taking the side of a liberal sign provision. Mr. Johnson took the side of the proposed ordinance and said the concerns were well able to afford the cost. i 10 9- 6-27-72 -3- Sylvia Swartz identified herself as a plain citizen and customer. She said the customer's have been offended by some of the signs that people have put up in Fayetteville. She asked for regulations for signs which do not offend people. Mr. Witte said there is nothing in Section b to deal with the express situation for making changes which neither increases nor decreases non- conformity. Marion Orton said that if the intent of the ordinance is to make as many signs conform as soon as possible the change mentioned by Mr. Malone would work contrary to what she felt the intent of the ordinance is. Roy Clinton questioned whether this might be handled by a definition of the lawful lifetime of a place of business. Marie Eoff asked what would happen to an expensive sign erected now should they change the regulations again next year. Carl Atkins told Mrs. Orton that a sign can last 5 years without maintenance, but can last 30 years with proper maintenance. Chairman Clinton noted that there are many businesses in town which could not conform to the proposed setback regulations, because they are only 30 ft. from the right-of-way and must use that area for parking. Suzanne Lighton said she felt there are towns over the country where they have sign ordinances and they have made very pretty towns. Evangeline Archer said the proposed ordinance seems to put new businesses on an unequal basis and suggested a time limit within which all signs must conform;otherwise it will take years to bring about conformity. David Malone asked if something could be added under nonmconformities that merely changing the name or product involved or the hours open would not require conformity, Mrs. Orton wanted no non -conforming sign to be altered except to bring it into conformity. David Malone asked the Commission if they wanted him to draft an appeal procedure, but received no answer. Sylvia Swartz said she thought an appeal would be more democratic if it were to go to the City Board of Directors and would also be at a time when more people could come. Wilma Sacks was in favor of a time limit on non -conforming signs. Mrs. Orton asked about the Board of Adjustment making recommendations to the Board of Directors on sign appeals just as the Planning Commission now does on rezonings, Mr. Wooten asked if the City would make compensation for signs which have to move back 50 ft. Mr. Malone said the theory is the law allows the owner to use that sign for a reasonable length of time. This differs from the rule the State is using where they tell you that the sign must come down at a particular time. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P,M.