HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-11-14 MinutesI ob
lie
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The Fayetteville Planning Commission met in a special session at 4:00 P.M.
Tuesday, November 14, 1972, in the Directors Room, City Administration
Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Members Present: Ernest Jacks, Donald Nickell, Al Hughes, Roy Clinton,
Morton Gitelman, Christine Childress, John Maguire.
Members Absent: Dr. Walter Brown, Helen Edmiston.
Others Present: David McW6thy, City Manager Donald Grimes, Pete Young,
Ray White, Russell Purdy, G. T. Zini, Marion Orton.
Chairman Roy Clinton
called the
meeting to
order,
The purpose of this
PROPOSED SIGN
special meeting was
to discuss
further the
proposed
sign ordinance.
ORDINANCE
The Commission discussed first how non -conforming signs should be
regulated. Morton Gitelman said that whenever someone is going to
change a sign, the new sign should be a conforming sign. Donald Nickell
agreed, When Mrs. Childress asked what if they did not have enough
room to meet the required setbacks, Chairman Clinton said this would then
become a problem for the Board of Adjustment. He also said setbacks
will be the major problem on this.
The Commission also needed to clarify the phrase, "lawful lifetime of
a place of business". John Maguire and David Malone both arrived
around 4:30 P.M. They were informed that the concensus seemed to be
that until there is a need to change the sign, the on site conforming
sign may continue,
After donsiderable discussion, Morton Gitelman proposed that Section 17B-5
Non -Conforming Signs, Section A. Subsection 1. be changed to read: IfOn site
non -conforming signs - All non -conforming signs regulating to a place of
business and located on the same premises as that place of business, may
be continued until: (A) The nature of the business conducted on the premises
changes in such a,manner to occasion a change in the existing sign; or (B)
the name of the business changes and the sign is changed or modified, either
in size, shape or legend,
David Malone advised the Commission that they have to provide a variance
procedure to take care of hardships because of the state law. Chairman
Clinton observed that he thought they also owed it to the people,
Mr. Gitelman said if ItJoell wants to build a cleaning store, why should he
get an advantagp'from building in a built up area over what he would if
he were going out in a new area of town, as long as there is enough room
for the setbacks and for him to make it conforming,
Chairman Clinton asked G.T. Zini, a member of the audience, if he wished to
comment on this. Mr. Zini said if he owned that cleaning establishment and
was going to sell the business, and building, if the buyer could not continue
to use the same sign, it would lower the value of that property.
� 2 -
John Maguire said that to him it seemed that it would be more equitable and
clear to just set a time limit for non -conforming signs and have them taken
down at the end of that time, If you do not allow him to change the sign,
then he will probably just leave up a crummy sign.
Roy Clinton asked the Commission whether they wished to ammend the section
on non -conforming signs as proposed by Mr. Gitelman, and to send this
recommendation to the Board. All of the Commission members voted in favor
of this amendment, except John Maguire, who voted against it.
Ernest Jacks requested that the Commission study Section 17B -9p Free -Standing
Signs. Regarding setbac�s of signs from R and R-0 District, the proposal
requires a minimum of 25 feet from the boundary of an R or R-0 District;
otherwise permits free-standing signs within one foot of the adjoining
property line. Mr. Jacks requested a provision requiring lighted signs to
have the light turned away from residential areas. He requested some
provision so that the light could not be beamed directly toward the
residential areas, Chairman Clinton asked Mr. Jacks to discuss this with
Mr. Malone and give him some phrase to use on this.
Russell Purdy suggested that Section 17B-9. Free-Stanting Signs, be ammended
by deleting the phrase, "or above the adjoining ground level if such ground
level is above the street level".
After discussion, the Commission agreed at this point.
Chairman asked if the Commission was satisfied with the way flashing signs
will be handled. They will just either have to turn the flasher off so
that the sign will either remain on all the time, or off all the time,
None of the Committee members expressed any dissatisfaction with these
terms,
The last and most troublesome detail to be worked out by the Planning
Commission was that of setbacks of ground signs. Russell Purdy had
submitted a letter to the Commission suggesting that setbacks of ground
signs be based upon the size of the sign, Al Hughes said that if the
70 sq*- ft. per sign was changed to 75 sq. ft., he would approve Mr. Purdy's
recommendation. This was discussed. Mr. Hughes also said that he thought
a 35 ft. setback was more desirable than a 50 ft. setback, Morton Gitelman
said that if the commission established its setbacks too far back, then even
in the newer areas, you will be getting variance requests. He suggested
a compromise to allow a 40 ft. setback rather than 35 ft. or 50 ft, John
Maguire questioned the difference in whether a sign sets back 50 ft. or not.
Ernest Jacks said that the purpose of the setbacks is to get a clear
corridor without sign obstruction. Mr. Maguire then asked why not just
prohibit free-standing signs altogether. He suggested to not permit any
more free-standing signs, except on the Interstate Highway, and to let the
Board of Directors test themselves on this idea,
City Manager Don Grimes said that if you can get the signs back far enough,
unless you are looking for a particular place of business, you can still
drive down a corridor and enjoy a reasonably pleasant experience. He felt
the difference inrsetbacks did make a difference. If you are looking for
a motel, the sign is there and you can find it. But if you are not looking
for it, the things are not jumping out at you*
. 3 -
Board Member, Marion Orton asked whether it was a hards�ip for a business
not to have a free-standing sign and still have a wall sign, John Maguire
Is said that except for the oil company -representatives at the hearings were
consumers, He did not feel that there had been a great proponderance of
concern among the business community,
Roy Clinton said that he had been contacted by the oil company representatives
who wanted to know whether they could put up a high speed sign along the
controlled access streets and also have a lower sign for the intercepting
street, This proposal would limit them to one free-standing sign per
property, None of the Commission members indicated a desire to change this,
John Maguire said that he would go on record as being iig&ifi§t totil-ly painted
buildings as signs.
The Conmiission members all agreed to change Section 17B-9, to require a
minimMI setback of 50 feet from street R.O.W. for free-standing signs, provided/��'
that if a building structure if lawfully located closer than 40 feet from the
street R.O.W. on site free-standing signs shall be permitted within 10 feet
of the front face of the building or structure, but in no event shall an on
site free-standing sign be permitted closer than 15 feet from street R.OeW.
Chairman Roy Clinton asked David Malone whether he could rework the ordinance
and have it before the Board of Directors at its first meeting in December.
Mr. Malone promised to try,
Ernest Jacks moved that the Commission approve and send to the City Attorney
for final drafting,the'�sign ordinance with corrections made at the last two
meetings on October 17 and November 14 and to recommend that the ordinance
be adopted for the Board of Directors. Christine Childress seconded the
motion,
Ernest Jacks, Donald Nickell.' Al Hughes, Roy Clinton, Morton Gitelman and
Christine Childress voted "aye'?, John Maguire voted 'Inay". The motior,�;passed.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:50 P*M9