Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-02-12 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on February 12, 2001, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 219 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED RZ 01-1.00: Rezoning (Dixie Development, pp 175) Page RZ 01-2.00: Rezoning (Lindsey, pp 440) Page RZ 01-3.00: Rezoning (NOARK Girl Scout Council, pp 175) Page AD 01-2.00: Administrative Item (McDonald's Sign, pp 145) Page MEMBERS PRESENT Nancy Allen Don Bunch • Lee Ward Lorel Hoffinan Sharon Hoover Conrad Odom Don Marr (arrived at 5:45 p.m.) • STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Dawn Warrick Sheri Metheney ACTION TAKEN Forwarded Forwarded Forwarded Pulled MEMBERS ABSENT Bob Estes Loren Shackelford STAFF ABSENT Ron Petrie • • • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 2 Consent Agenda: Approval of minutes from the January 22, 2001 meeting. Odom: Good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the February 12, 2001, meeting of the Planning Commission. The first item on the consent agenda is the approval of the January 22, 2001, meeting minutes. Are there any notations, remarks or corrections on those minutes? Seeing none, they will stand as they are. • • • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 3 RZ 01-1.00: Rezoning (Dixie Development, pp 175) was submitted by Ben Israel of Dixie Development for property located at 2091 E Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 4.81 acres. The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office. Odom: The first that we have on tonight's agenda is a Rezoning request. It's RZ 01-1.00, submitted by Ben Israel of Dixie Development for property located at 2091 E. Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural and contains approximately 4.81 acres. The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office. Staffs recommendation is for approval of the requested rezoning based on the findings included as a part of this report. Staff, any further comments? Conklin: There is nothing further. _Odom._ __ _4 ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. _ _ Israel: My name is Nancy Israel. I am an owner of Dixie Development. We are interested in developing this property as a compliment to the adjoining six acres that we own on the east side of the 4.81 acre parcel that we are talking about tonight. We feel that this rezoning request will be consistent with the General Plan designation use for this property and that it will be complimentary to the neighboring properties that have already been rezoned R-0 or a complimentary zoning. We submit this request to you to rezone the property for us. -PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom. Thank you Nancy. Now what we'll do is, we'll take any member of the audience that has a comment on this particular zoning request, would you like to come forward at this time? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Hoffman: Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion on this rezoning request and bring it back to the applicant for questions and comments from the Planning Commission. Commissioners do you have any questions, comments or motions I do have one question. The property adjacent to you on the east, have we gotten in drainage report on detention? I'm sorry, I should have asked this at agenda session and I don't want to come from out of the blue but we were going to have a report about the deletion of the detention pond on the north side of the property. • • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 4 Conklin: The condition was, if this development to the east required detention, a would have to come_back before_the_Commission. The engineers have not approached me about putting this back on the agenda so I'm assuming that they were able to make it work, to the best ofmy-knowledge. Hoffman: - —That's all I have. -Thank you: MOTION: Ward: I'll go ahead and recommend approval of RZ 01-1.00 for rezoning for Dixie Development. Hoffman: I'll second. Odom: We have a motion and a second for approval of RZ 01-1.00, do we have any further comments? Bunch: When do you expect to have the LSD come forward? Israel: I'm sorry I don't know that as yet This is sort of a new development for us and we have just started the preliminary stages of development, primarily being this rezoning request was the number one because if we could not get it rezoned, we did not want to purchase the property and develop it. I don't have a time frame for a large scale development. Bunch: I will be supporting this rezoning. Just one thing, early on in the stages, we need to make sure, I think it's in our packet but to reemphasize the fact since this is adjacent to another development, we need to limit the number of curb cuts and try to maximize internal circulation because it's such a busy street. I believe the property adjacent to the east, immediately to the east, I believe we added, at your request, we added a curb cut. I just wanted to remind you this early in the stages before you start drawing the plans, that's one thing we will be looking at. Israel: We are planning for the main access to be from Joyce Street but with cross access through the Commerce Park development as well. Odom: Any further comments? • Conklin: I would like to remind the Commission and the applicant that it does take five • • • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 5 affirmative votes to pass a rezoning and there is six members on the Planning _Commission_ this. evening. __ _ Odom: Nancy, it's our custom and policy to alert any applicant that's before us that we have several members absent, right now we have three that are not here. It does require five for a vote and we alwaysofferto the applicant the -opportunity to remove the item from the agenda for the next meeting if they so desire. Israel: Odom: No, I would like to leave it on the agenda please. Any further discussion? Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call, RZ 01-1.00 is forwarded on a vote of 6-0-0. • • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 6 RZ 01-2.00: Rezoning (Lindsey, pp 440) was submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on_behalfof J.E.-Lindsey_Family_Limited Partnership- forproperty. located South of Chamberland Square and East of Betty Jo Drive to Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare -Commercial -and contains approximately 18.25 acres. The request is to rezone to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Odom: The next item we have on tonight's agenda is another rezoning, RZ 01-2.00, submitted by Dave Jorgensen of Jorgensen & Associates on behalf of J.E. Lindsey Family Limited Partnership for property located South of Chamberland Square and East of Betty Jo Drive to Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 8.25 acres. The request is to rezone to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Staff's recommendation is for approval of the request for rezoning based upon the findings included as a part of their report. 1 would ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. Jorgensen: My name is Dave Jorgensen on behalf of Lindsey Properties, we are representing this property. As you mentioned the request is to rezone from C-2 to R-2. We are in -- agreement with staff findings. Odom. Dave, just to be clear for the record I have been pointed out that I said it was 8 acres, it is actually 18.25 acres. Jorgensen: _I thought you said 18. _— Odom: I probably did. Do you have any further presentation you would like to make? Jorgensen: - No: - Iwould be glad to answer questions. PUBLIC COMMENT: - Odom: We'll do that after we take public comment. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us on this issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant. Do we have any questions or comments for the staff or Dave? • Hoffman: I had a question about the access to Shiloh Drive and Persimmon. I didn't remember • • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 7 whether or not Persimmon was going to be extended to the site on the east? Conklin: We have not looked at the Large Scale Development plans yet but that is a —recommendation_thatstaff will be.making-that Persimmon does connect from Betty Jo to Shiloh Drive through this development. Hoffman. Thanks. That's all I have. Odom: Any further questions? Ward: Did we talk about Jewel Street also? Conklin: Their concept plat that I've looked at does show a connection through that pnvate property. Mr. Jorgensen probably better can answer that question about his work with that private property owner for connection up to Jewel. Jorgensen: We are trying to make that connection if at all possible. We need to have more access there. MOTION: Hoffman. I'll move for approval of RZ 01-2.00. Marr: I'll second. Odom. We have a motion by Commissioner Hoffman, second by Commissioner Marr to approve RZ 01-2.00, any further discussion? Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call RZ, 01-2.00 is forwarded on a vote of 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 8 RZ 01-3.00: Rezoning (NOARK Girl Scout Council, pp 175) was submitted by Wes Burgess of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of NOARK Girl Scout Council for property located at Northeast corner of Joyce Street and Park Oaks Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately-0.48-acres.--The-request-is-to rezone -to -R -O, -Residential Office. Odom: Item number three on tonight's agenda is another rezoning RZ 01-3.00, submitted by Wes Burgess of Crafton, Tull & Associates on behalf of NOARK Girl Scout Council for property located at Northeast corner of Joyce Street and Park Oaks Drive. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential and contains approximately 0.48 acres. The request is to rezone to R -O, Residential Office The staff's recommendation is approval of the requested rezoning based upon the findings included as a part of this report. Anything else on this? Conklin: Nothing further. Odom. Is the applicant here tonight? Please come forward at this time. MMM Burgess: I'm Wes Burgess with Crafton, Tull on behalf of the Girl Scout Council. As you know, ---- we are trying to rezone this property. The Lindsey family has been kind enough to offer this to the Girl Scouts and the intent is to built a small office building for administrative use which would be moving from Springdale. I'll take any questions that you might have. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Wes, what we will do before we have any questions is to see if there is any member of __the audience that wouldlike to address_us on this_request. Any member of the audience like to address us on this rezoning request? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom. Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the Planning Commissioners. I would like to point out that even though it is the Girl Scout Council that they will be held to the same standard as any commercial development that we have in there and I'm sure that you are mindful of the Commercial Design Standards and so forth that we have. Burgess: I understand. • • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 9 MOTION: Bunch: I move that we approve RZ 01-3.00 for recommendation to the City Council. Allen: I'll second. Odom: Motion by Commissioner Bunch and second by Commissioner Allen to approve RZ 01-3.00, any further discussion? Will you call the roll? ROLL CALL: Upon roll call, RZ 01-3.00 is forwarded on a vote of 7-0-0. • • • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 10 AD 01-2.00: Administrative Item (McDonald's Sign, pp 134) The request is to change the sign approved by Planning Commission for McDonald's Large- Scale- Development located at the NE corner of Joyce Blvd. & Mall Ave. Odom: Conklin: =Hoffman: Odom: Crouch: The next item that we have on tonight's agenda is an Administrative Item, AD 01-2.00. --The-request is to change the sign approved by Planning Commission for McDonald's Large Scale Development located at the NE corner ofJoyce Blvd. & Mall Ave. The —finding -on -this matter is that the Large- Scale Development was approved on July 24, 2000, and at that time the applicant was limited to a monument sign by the Planning Commission. The applicant had proposed a 15 foot tall, 58 square foot, freestanding sign but was limited to a monument sign. The applicant is now proposing a 10 foot high, 49 square foot sign. Staff's recommendation is for denial of this request. Staff recommends that McDonald's comply with the current city sign ordinances with regard to monument signs. Staff, do we have anything further? Nothing further on this I need to -abstain on this item. I did abstain -on the -Large Scale Development, so I won't be voting. I would ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. I'm Jim Crouch, here on behalf of McDonald's and Matthew's Management. As you related Mr. Odom, I wasn't here but I understand McDonald's was here back in July, in reviewing those minutes it would appear that at least there was an opportunity that there was some discussion about the possibility of coming back after the applicant had anvisit-with-people on landscaping committee to determinewhetheror not the trees along Joyce Boulevard would interfere with the signage that they proposed. Backing up a little further too, I think that, as I understand it and again I wasn't a party to this particular planning meeting, but I think the applicant was urged to put a monument sign there which was okay with McDonald's In any event, I think we are supposed to be back here but I'll try to tell you why we are here. I'm an attorney and I've looked from the standpoint of the procedural matter on how do we move forward with this. Obviously, we would like a sign different than what the Planning Commission said we could put in there, the six foot monument sign. The sign we are proposing is about a ten foot-monument sign. The sign that we proposed previously was a fifteen foot, fifty-eight square foot sign, this one is just under fifty. As I have looked at this from a procedural standpoint it appears to me that an applicant in Fayetteville who wants a sign has three entities or Boards it has to deal with, obviously the Planning Commission, the Sign Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 11 Enforcement Officer and then possibly the Board of Sign Appeals. Believe me, you all deal with your ordinance, I saw it for the first time today, somebody may correct me, I may be wrong at this but it appears to me that the Planning Commission authority on dealing with signs comes from the Design Standards from the Unified Development Ordinance and particularly section 166.14 where the Design Standards say you are to avoid or minimize large, out -of -scale signs with flashy colors. Again, l may be wrong about your involvement with this but that's what I perceive from reviewing this is that's the reason the applicant had to come to you in the first place about their sign. As I perceive that, in fact there is a little picture in your ordinance that shows a great big sign next to a not so big building, as I perceive it's a question of is that a proper design of a sign for that location? Does it look okay? Not it's size, not it's location, but does it look okay? Of course the staff apparently, as I said, recommended that McDonald's go with the monument type sign, which was okay. They are still okay with that although we are after a couple of options. Procedurally, I think we are here to ask you to say whether or not the design of the sign is appropriate for that location. May I approach you please? This is a monument sign which is actually a little taller than the one we are asking for but that's the one at Crossover Road which is the same design that we are proposing, in face it's the same sign except it's Just on a higher pedestal than the one we are proposing here. This is a pole sign that exists on College Avenue. Whatwe are asking you to do, I believe, again if somebody says we are out of order to do this we'll back up, is to say that's an appropriate design for that area. Of course, it's a universal McDonald's sign. It already exists in Fayetteville in a number of locations. Then, it's my understanding that, if you say that's okay that's an alright design for a sign, that it's not flashy or with flashy colors, then our next step is that, if we want to change it's location or size from what would otherwise be allowed by the city ordinances, then we go to the Sign Enforcement Officer and then ultimately under Ordinance 156.05 to the Board of Sign Appeals to ask them for a variance. I think under the code that we are dealing with in Fayetteville that, the Board of Appeals is the only body that can approve a variance from a sign location or size. So, that's procedurally, I think, why we are here. It's not really to ask for a variance but to ask you to say either of those two design of sings are okay. That's sort of what my presentation is about. I do have people here from McDonald's if you have technical questions about something. I would be glad to answer questions. PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Jim, we take questions after we have public comment. What I would like to do now, if that is the completion of your presentation, I would like to ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to address us on this Administrative Item. • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 12 COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom: • Seeing none, I'll close the floor to public discussion and bring ft back to the applicant for questions and comments. Jim, perhaps I should have done this before we began your presentation but, we have six of us here, there are five of us that you would have to sway to agree with you. We always give the opportunity to pull the item or remove it from the agenda and table it for the next meeting so that you can have other members here, there is no guaranty there won't be mofe than six of us next time as well. Conklin: Excuse me, Chairman Odom? On a large scale majority gets the vote. Odom: Majority? Conklin: -Yes. - — Odom: Forget it, you don't get that. Staff, do you want to cover just quickly, I sort of agree with what Jim has said there about some of the things that we have to determine or take into consideration, one if them is the Commercial Design Standards. I think we do also take into consideration whether or not it meets the sign ordinance and obviously any variance to the sign ordinance is done by the Board of Sign Appeals, that's correct. Conklin: That is correct. We bring you large scale developments every two weeks and the -Subdivision Committee takes alook-at them and the Planning Commission. We do advise the applicants Of the ordinance requirements with regard to signs. We always try to advise the Commission and inform the Commission when variances are being asked for. That is why staff has recommended denial on this, we do have an ordinance. We -amended that sign ordinance -a-year ago to allow -monument signs as an incentive to bring them up closer to the street, have a ten foot setback, a maximum height of six feet -- and -seventy-five squarefeet. _I believe that on this site, McDonald's can site a sign that meets our current ordinances. I don't see any unique situation that would have staff supporting that type of variance on this site. This is a brand new development that's going in, they did have a sign that did comply with our sign ordinance when they brought it forward, we did recommend a monument sign, we do have a monument sign standard that is an ordinance now and I think they need to meet that. That's why we are recommending denial. mMm Odom: Come on back up to the podium Jim, for questions and comments of the Planning Commissioners. Does anybody have any questions or comments? • • • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 13 Ward: When looking at this, my personal feelings are that, first of all I think putting the monument sign out-there_wassomething-that.I-was-fairly_interested in and I think it looks a little more classier than a pole sign out there. I also go along with the feeling that if the -sign-is going -to be -hid; why -have -a-sign?-T-he-next-step-is-to figure out for sure if it's hid. Is it going to be hid by the trees or by the Northwest Arkansas Mall sign, coming from -the west going east -and then -work it from there. I don't think that it's in stone that we have to strictly limited to be the six feet on a monument sign. I don't think that came down from God to Moses. I'm not set on that particular theory. You've got to prove to me that this sign, when you get done with it, that's been already approved will be of no use in the future because it's going to be hid by the trees on Joyce Street or by the Northwest Arkansas Mall sign. Only under those conditions would I look at doing any kind of change at all Crouch: -Mr.- Ward, I heard and understand what you said. I may be coming totally wrong -procedurally but we -are not -here to ask -you -if -that's the right size sign or if it's in the right location. We are here to ask you if that's an okay design of the sign in terms of - --the way it looks and -then we would go to -the Board of Sign Appeals to ask them. -where we can locate it and what size it would be. - - - Odom: I think I understand your question. Let me just give you my personal comments on it. The way that you are wanting it situated so close to the road, I think detracts from it and makes it larger and more out -of -scale with regard to the building and therefore, I -don''-t-feel-that.complies-with the Commercial -Design Standards. I hope that sort of addresses the issue that you were looking for there. 1. would like to take the - opportunity to address some of the concerns raised in McDonald's letter of February 7, 2001. The first point made there was that the ordinance allows a 75 square foot sign --which is 30 feet high. --It is true that the sign -ordinance does allow for a sign that is that high but it still must pass muster under the Commercial Design Standards. Furthermore, -it alsomustbe set back at least 40 feet from_thesight-of-way. I don't really think that number one applies. Crouch: Actually I believe the first design submitted, the monument sign complied with that. I think the monument is just subset of a freestanding sign. If you read the definition of a freestanding sign, it doesn't say on a pole, it says that it supports itself. I think by definition a monument sign is a freestanding sign. It so happened that the first time McDonald's came to you, they came to you with a sign that was 15 feet high That's higher than what you define as a monument sign, which is 6 feet high. I think it still fits within the definition of a freestanding sign. It was far enough back from the right-of- way that it complied with your sign ordinance. It was 58 square feet and it was set • • • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 14 back 40 feet, 1 believe. I believe at that distance it could have been 75 square feet. That's just a comment on a previous proceeding. Odom. —I -think -that -the -blanket -statement that -the -ordinance -allows -a -7 -5 -foot -square sign which is_35 foot high is in and of itself not correct because it leaves off the setback -requirement. Crouch: That was presupposing we setback far enough. - Odom: The sign that you are wanting is ten feet from the right-of-way. Crouch: I'm talking about the first application. When I said that would have complied with your sign ordinance, I believe it would have on it's location. Odom. Hypothetically, if you had a 75 square foot sign setback 40 feet, I don't feel as though it would meet the Commercial Design Standards in the neighborhood that itis currently in. That goes -also -to -item -number two which is that Circuit City has a 72 square foot sign which -is -12 feet high- I believe those calculations are -correct, isn't that right, staff? Conklin: -My understanding, -yes, they are meeting the ordinance requirements with regard to a freestanding sign with their setback. Odom: -That's right because -they have theappropriatesetback in that situation.. We will be planting numerous trees along Joyce Boulevard which will block our sign. The more trees that you plant •and if you put your sign up, that's going to block it, not if it's a monument sign. I think you may have more of an argument with bushes than you do treescItem-number 4, -you have allowed Northwest Arkansas -Mall to have a second 130 square foot sign which is 8 feet high on Mall Avenue which under the ordinance they are -only allowed: one sign which they-already:have on north College, furthermore, the new sign will block the visibility of our sign from the west. I've gone by that location, eyeballed it and done my best. I don't have the sign there from the Northwest Arkansas Mall, if it was I would probably be able to better delineate whether or not it was going to block it or not. Just from me eyeballing it, I can't see that it's going to. If anybody else has any questions or comments, feel free to pipe up. There are several more points there but I don't really think they are germane to the issue. Crouch: If we need to go the direction of justifying that size of sign, at that location, then I've got a technical person here to do that, I'm not qualified to speak to that. I guess, I would ask you to consider this though, if you say, "No, we won't approve the design of that • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 15 sign.", you don't think it meets the design guidelines because it's too flashy, then I guess _.I_would ask you to reconsider_allowing us to have a pole sign that's setback the proper distance that's in compliance with the second photograph I showed you. Odom: Again, there is more to the Commercial Design Standards then whether or not it's flashy or not. There is also the requirement that it not be large and out of scale I think that the taller that you make that, especially closer to the road, the more it becomes large and out of scale for not only that particular piece of property but for the development in general. Crouch: I guess we could argue about that Conrad. I just think that the applicant has no idea when he comes to you, unless he refers to the sign ordinance, of what is considered an appropriate sign. I thinkthat you know, as a matter of legislative construction, that the more specific controls the more -general. It says that you will try to avoid or minimize -large-out of scale signs with flashy colors.- I think that doesn't tell us as the applicant exactly what is appropriate. So, you go back and look at the sign ordinance and I think we can meet the sign ordinance. - - • Odom: Conklin: Crouch: Conklin: • Wasn't there a problem with the setbacks on the original application? I guess I'm confused here, when you say you can meet the sign ordinance with what is proposed The original application. The original application, my understanding, yes, it did meet the sign ordinance. We also -required monument signs for other businesses on Joyce Boulevard. We do have a standard for a monument sign and that's by ordinance, it's 6 feet high 75 square feet. That's why I'm veryconcerned about the Planning Commission recommending approval based on Just how a sign looks, whether or not it's appropriate. We do have an ordinance that gives direction on what signs are appropriate and allowed in Fayetteville. For a monument sign, having it closer up to the street, it's a 10 foot setback, 6 feet tall, 75 square feet. That's why I'm concerned. Crouch: May I respond to that? We received a copy from Sara Edwards and she says, the - factorstoaddress, this is to you I guess, are either that we can have a monument sign or a freestanding sign. If there is an ordinance that says that it has to be a monument sign along Joyce Avenue, then we are wrong. Your own Planner says that we can qualify by either a monument sing, which admittedly is 6 feet high or by a freestanding • • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 16 sign. It say in order to meet the Unified Development Ordinance under the freestanding sign provision, a sign with 49.square feet would have to meet a setback of 30 feet and would be allowed to be 27.5 feet tall. We are willing to do that, if you tell us that you wonit approve the -sign -that's -more -like -a -monument -sign, -even -though -if -s -10 -feet high as opposed to 6 feet high. Conklin: The ordinance clearly states what is allowed for a monument sign. We also discussed that we have Commercial Design Standards that talk about large out of scale flashy signs. The Planning Commission, back when they approved McDonald's, decided that a monument sign was more appropriate for a freestanding sign, than a pole sign. I think they've already ruled on that once, when they approved the development that they would like to see a monument sign. We have a standard for a monument sign, 6 feet tall, 75 square feet. Crouch: —In that -case, if you are stuck on a monument sign; which we are okay with except for the size, then we would ask again that you say that the design of that sign, not considering it's size or location, is all right then let's go to the --Board of Sign Appeals to -ask-them if they will -allow it -to be-modified—They are the onlyonesthat-can-allow a variance, I believe. If you need us to justify the size, which I think is inappropriate at this stage but if you tell me it is then I will let this other gentlemen talk about that. Odom: Crouch: I'm lost. What did you want us to do Jim9 —Again; I'm back to my first request. If you are telling us that the only thing that will be approved is a monument like sign then I'm asking you to say the design of that is okay and send us on to the Board of Sign Appeals and let us ask them for the variance. Odom. The design of what is okay? Crouch: The design of the sign. Odom: What is the design of the monument sign, this or this? Crouch: It's the one in your left hand. Odom: Okay. Ward: If we approve this variance at Planning stage here, the Board of Appeals could still turn • it down, right? Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 17 Conklin: You don't have the authority to approve the variance. As staff, we always advise you _of_what.the ordinances _are_and_whats required. A monument sign, what they are proposing is 6 feet tall, 75 square feet, setback 10 feet. This is kind of odd to be discussing, let's see how nice we can design any type of sign on this project and you guys say it's okay and then we go to the Board of Sign Appeals and ask to waive that ordinance. It makes- me- uncomfortable—I-think we have an ordinance in place, it's your job to decide that it's compatible and complies with our Commercial Design Standards and that they meet the ordinance requirement. It makes me very uncomfortable that we are discussing something outside an ordinance requirement, something larger than what our current ordinances allow. Ward: If a monument sign has less square feet then allowable, is there no way it can be taller? Conklin: We have a set standardwithoutrequesting a -variance from the Board of Sign Appeals. Ward: The Board of Sign Appeals can approve what they think is appropriate, no matter what size it is? — - - Conklin: Yes. They can approve any kind of variance with regard to the size of sign. What we have done with our Commercial Design Standards is to actually require something more restrictive from what the current freestanding sign ordinance allows. We also amended our ordinance last year to come up with a monument type sign standard. The Planning Commission has routinely, through the Large Scale Development Conunercial Design Standards review process, required monument signs. Ward: If this sign was moved to the west on the property, compared to where it is now I'm —sorry -to the east, it's on -the west -corner..- -If-this-sign was -moved to the west the appropriate distance, it would seem to me like it would have a lot more visibility from there than it would be -down on that -busy corner. That'-s.another_option-that I would consider. Crouch: I think if you go back to the original request of a 15 foot high sign, although it's on a pedestal monument type base, I think that the place they wanted to locate that, if you have a freestanding sign it would comply with the ordinance. Odom: It would comply with one but not the other. - Crouch: Well, it would comply with the ordinance, it would comply with your sign ordinance. • • • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 18 Odom: I would comply with the sign ordinance but in consideration of a large scale _development, there is more to_take_into consideration -than -one ordinance. You have to take into consideration all of the ordinances. Ward: If I remember the meeting right or during all the different stages that the large scale went through, it kind of became a consensus that a monument sign would look a lot classier - there and I think that was kind of the final drift that everybody wanted was a monument sign. The thing is now we want to make sure it works. Crouch: I don't have any problem with that. They were led to the conclusion that the staff wanted a monument sign long before, as I understand it, long before they got to you or they would have come to you with a request for a freestanding or pole sign. Conklin: If I can respond to that? Staff follows the lead of the Planning Commission and we --look-at-your-other projects -that have been approved at Planning -Commission, so we try to advise the applicants of what to expect at Planning Commission. Crouch: —I2m-sure that's true. Marr: If I comment on this and this discussion has somewhat confused me because if it doesn't really matter the size of the sign, then I'm not quite sure what the hell we are talking about. In terms of location of it, my vote on this development was based off of a monument sign because I felt it did fit the area and better fits the area and I still -believe that. -My intent is that the signage of that is, when I think monument I think of _the:ordinance requirements or that outline what a monument is. I don't think of a 15 foot sign or 10 foot sign, I think of a 6 foot sign. I also believe that McDonald's, and I probably should be an expert on it because I'm on the road every day and eat there just about all the time, that it doesn't matter what city I'm in, the shape of that building and I can find those arches just about anywhere. From my perspective, I think a monument sign was my vote, it's how I still feel. If we don't have a say on the sign size or height, then I say we move on. Bunch: I too was in favor of a monument style sign and like Commissioner Marr has based on the definition that we have for a monument sign, one of my concerns at the time was the sign that had been proposed would be obliterated in a few years with the trees as the trees grew. One of the comments that I made at the time that this came through, and I still believe that way, is that as the trees grow a monument sign will become more and more visible and will actually in time call better attention to the location than a pole sign that's going to be covered up by the foliage. I was in favor of a monument type sign • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 19 then because I felt it would be better in coordinating with those developments and with what_we were wanting.for_Joyce.Boulevard but also better for theapplicant in the long run. This was not a penalty type thing, it was something that in looking at it, would -create-a better signage -for -your -location. Crouch: -I'll have to let an engineer type try to respond -to that. Aguirre: Ben Aguirre with McDonald's Corporation. There are agreeably classy ways to do a monument sign and I think our exhibit shows a layout or design that would be aesthetically pleasing. I think the real question we had was two fold, one was going back to what you said Mr. Odom, in your opinion the Circuit City sign met the ordinance, however a sign that we might produce of equal size with a further setback would not. I'm not sure I see the consistency there. Odom: Let me clarify that for you. Circuit City's size building is significantly larger than the McDonald's that you are building there. Aguirre: Odom: Aguirre: I would argue that point. We are over 6,000 square feet. You are going to be the size of Circuit City? I would argue that we are going to be pretty close. I used to design Circuit City _buildings. I'm not sure_what.style that one -is -.but -I -know we are 6,000 square feet plus, almost 6,200 square feet. - Odom. I've seen your footprint and I don't think you come anywhere near the size of the - -Circuit City building. --I may be totally wrong.- -But in giving consideration to the Circuit City sign, I think it is in proportion to the building, that it meets the commercial design --.standards and in proportionto.your_building itwould not: - Aguirre: What about the aspect of setback? According to the ordinance a sign 12 feet high should be setback... Again I'm not here to argue on behalf of Circuit City, of course, but I'm just trying to make my point. A sign 12 feet high would have to be at least 15 feet back and that would only allow them 10 square feet. They are much larger than that. They are probably on the order larger than our sign that we are proposing which -would be in access of.5O square feet. Odom: They are also sitting back the correct amount of feet and their sign is not out of scale • with their building. Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 20 Aguirre: I guess I don't see the consistency there. I don't feel that I would agree with you that their square footage and height and-setbackare_in compliance with your ordinance Regardless, the second part of my statement would be that, our initial submittal was to setback even further, 40 feet or even further than that. At that distance we should have been allowed a 58 square foot sign and we were only going to propose the same 49 square foot. We have been allowed 27 feet high but we were only asking for 15 feet high. We were still going to tie in the base rather than a pole standing there. We were going to have it shrouded in masonry block and EFIS to colors to match the surrounding. I think if you go east of our property, of course you have the Circuit City sign which is the same design concept, if you go further west the adjacent shopping - center past the Best Buy has an even taller sign located even closer to the road. Odom: I hate to keep coming back to Circuit City but if I remember correctly, they wanted a much larger sign than they got andwedidn't feel that was appropriate because it was -out of scale with the -area: -We-were trying to not have monument signs. Their height is only 12 feet and they could have done it 30 feet high if they had gone back farther but we felt that wasn't appropriate because of the surrounding neighborhood. We've got to view each applicant, each LSD on it's own and also in consideration with the surrounding area. I may be wrong. Is Circuit City the same size as McDonald's? Conklin: Circuit City seems larger than McDonald's. I looked at it this weekend too. Aguirre: I think if they are similar to the way I designed them and -I think back when I used to design those, they are oriented with the broad side facing the street as opposed to the long side but if you are talking square foot with square foot, I bet we would be in the ball park. We may not be as big but we are not more than a couple of thousand feet off, if that. As far as the height goes, I -can't recall what the height of a Circuit City's red vestibule was but I know we are about 19'6" the front of ours. I think we compete or we are in the hunt, in the same class of building size. Again, we are asking for the actual square footage of our sign is far below what the ordinance had stated was acceptable. Along the lines of the monument sign requirement, we were okay with that, the only technical aspect we ran into is when we go back to the company that produces our signs, they have the arch is scaled proportionally with the field sign. The closest one we could get to the 6 feet high was the one that's 9 feet and some change and I think they rounded that up to 10 feet. For ease of access and installation and overall ,lust getting a hold of one of these things,we are asking that be allowed rather than having to go make custom molds and things of that nature. So, our intent was not to be derelict in this but just to use something that we got on the shelf. • • • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 21 Conklin: This is more for the applicant, on Wedington Drive you are on the Overlay District. _ You. were able to_meet the_sign ordinance_with_regard-to the monument sign on Wedington Drive. That's a co -branding with Exxon. Was that a custom made _McDonald.'s..sign .on. Wedington?- Aguirre: No. That is a standard sign for an oil alliance facility but, we have brand name issues that we have to stick by internally and the skying arches are one of those when we do --- not have a oil partner. When we have an oil partner where it's part gas station, part McDonald's there is another set of signs that we are allowed to use. Conklin: My only point was, they were able to meet the sign ordinance on Wedington Drive. Ward: If we disapprove this at this level, can they appeal it to the Board of Sign Appeals? If we approve it, we are just going to forward to the Board of Sign Appeals and they still are going to do what they want to with it right? No matter -what we do. — Conklin: You do approve the sign, the height and size. We have an ordinance. I'm asking that it —meet -the ordinance -requirement. -- If you -want to -approve something Tess than the ordinance requirement, you can do that also. Ward: If we approve this today, when it's forwarded to the Board of Sign Appeals, they can still change it or not approve it? Conklin: -=Then-not approve it. Ward: That's right. So matter what we do, they can still change it. Conklin: I just don't want to get in the habit of changing the sign ordinance every time we have a --development. _We_do have_standards.. Aguirre: I think that was part of our earlier question too. As we started looking into this and gathering information on what it is we are requesting, it was apparent to us that possibly this is not the setting for that approval That this is the aesthetic approval process here and that the technical approval of setbacks and height, things of that nature, go on to Sign Appeals. Conklin: I'm not sure how you separate that because aesthetics, you are looking at the height, size of the sign, location. I think you have to have those three things to be able to make a decision on whether or not the sign is appropriate. How high it is, how large it is and • • • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 22 Marr: where it's located on the site. In our minutes and our approvals we have you showing the site planwhere those signs -are goingto_ be. located._ So, it's more than just if it's a freestanding pole sign or monument sign, it's where it's located, how high it's going to beandhow-large it's going to be. -- I agree with you Tim. I've reread these minutes because I want to make sure I didn't miss something. There is nothing, when we were having this discussion about inonument and height and the issues and arguments that you are brining up tonight, there is not one thing in these minutes that coincides with the point of argument that we shouldn't consider the height and length because of the design. A question I have for you is, if your argument today is based on we shouldn't be considering that then, what was your reason for not addressing that when we had the discussion on height and type and location when we had the discussion in this meeting? Aguirre: --We-didn't have the knowledge-that-wasn-'-t the right setting for that type of decision at that time. The ordinance indicated that maybe this was the setting for that or our understanding of it but as we got into it further to make sure that we clearly asked our question -tonight, -we realized that this probably, under advisement from an -attorney, that - this probably is not the place to ask those types of questions or this is not the place that has the authority to decide on those questions. Marr I'm only one of six here but I do believe it's the place. I do believe it's part of Commercial Design Standards and I believe thatheightand type and location and so =forth are all a piece of that. My -counterparts may disagree with that but that would be my thing. - Ward: Tim, if they did want to move the sign to the east confer of the property, which would be the southeast corner, what would they have to do that, to move the sign that we -have approved already? Even to a different location, it wouldn't matter_where they moved it. Conklin: If it's minor, I would approve that administratively as long as it meets the ordinance requirements. Ward: If they have a legitimate problem that the sign is going to be totally hid by the =Northwest Arkansas Mall -sign if somebody -is driving from the west, then they don't really need a sign. If they can move the sign with the sign that's already been approved and put it in a different location as long as it meets all our setback requirements and so on, you can do that? Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 23 Conklin: Those type of changes I do approve administratively. However, you as a Commission _tonight would..like_to_see_where_that_location_is,-Iwould be_more than happy to bring that back to you. I do approve minor modifications administratively on large scale developments, to not bring everything back up to the Commission level. -Allen: I wondered if the crux of the matter here is that the visibility or the lack of availability of the sign that you might have? Aguirre: I think it's always been both. It certainly was the visibility of the sign at the last Planning Commission meeting. Since then I've learned that the availability compounds the issue of that sign. - - -- — - - Marr: That availability being that McDonald's doesn't have a standard six foot? Aguirre: -We don't have a-skying arch that's that size. When I say-skying arch, I mean the one you say in the photographs. We would have to have them custom made. Marr: What -are the standard -sizes of the skying arch? Aguirre: The one you see there is what we call a 70-100, we have one that's slightly larger than that called 90-200, the physical dimensions are roughly 14 feet by 9 and a half feet high for that one. Marr: 3 -assuming that the research is obviously, what comes to my mind is a monument sign that I see quite often in Fort Collins, Colorado. That particular sign would be a custom sign? Aguirre: Right. If it varied from what you see there it would be a custom made sign. Odom: Is there any further discussion? Aguirre: The only other thing I would like to add if I could is, I think the intent from our franchisees or owner/operators behalf when he sent the letter out on the 7th was to illustrate that on this particular project, McDonald's corporation as well as himself, the future owner/operator, has made considerable concessions from what we would call our standard and I know you may not see it that way. We've varied building materials, we've redesigned the complete look of the building as far as the color scheme. We did research to find materials that were compatible, in fact use materials similar to what was the Service Merchandise and WalMart. We've also undertaken a huge project, scope Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 24 Bunch: Allen: of work has increased, to help the City solve the storm water runoff problem in that area, all of_the_project..management_for-that-is going to betaken -on by myself at no fee to the City, coordinating that with the use of our contractor. Overall, we felt like the _spirit -of-what we've -done there was way above and beyond a normal client to help the City to solve some of it's problems with storm water and grading problems and things —of -that -nature.— We felt like it -would be in line to ask for this variance to help us out on the sign. On the question of availability of signage, in traveling to other cities, I've been to several where the McDonald's were quite successful and they didn't have anything near a freestanding arches, it was just a building that was right up on the sidewalk with a flat sign on the front of it and they had all the business it could handle. Also, when other applicants come before us, we do look at standardized signs that they have but there are many sign companies and it's not that difficult to make a custom sign. I know for convenience salce and from an engineering standpoint that it is nice to use standardized items but if a standard item doesn't fit the application then adjustments do need to be -made.—The question of the -lack of availability of a:standardized sign, -tome, doesn't —carry -that -much weight -because -there are -lots of -McDonald's -around the country where other than what we have been presented as a standardized sign have been used. I would go back personally with the ordinance and it would be your responsibility to design a sign that meets the ordinance and have it built. I-completelyconcur. I. see the onus to be upon you to -comply with the ordinances. I'm -song-that the signs you have available -don't comply but I can't imagine that people are not going to recognize this as a McDonald's. Odom: The only question I have for staff, they are asking -for 49 -square -feet as opposed to 75 square feet, have we ever given a concession where they are asking for less square _ o.otage_to-go-up a little bit? _ Conklin: Not with regard to granting a variance, I can't think of any. Odom: In the calculation of square footage, can you tell me if you have any idea what was used in the calculation of the square footage. Conklin: We=do-have:our-Sign-Inspector-here-tonight.- I -ll deferthat question:to-Mike McKimmey. McKimmey: The display surface area of the sign face itself is what is counted as the square footage, Planning Commission • February 12, 2001 Page 25 not the supporting structure that goes with it. So, everything above the red base there, _starting of the base of the_redpartthere Odom: —Do you.include in. the.calculation-the area -in.between -the arches? - McKinmwy: The air in between the arches, under the arches, is part of the sign thatwegenerally will that a close fit outline on designs like that. Odom: Have we had other signs in the past that have gone above the six foot, as far as the monument goes where they have less square footage? McKimmey: We have. Board of Sign Appeals granted a variance for a sign at the at the Bakery Building which is in exact corollary to this possible variance should you approve this. There is historical precedent for a variance of that nature. It's been approved by the Board of Sign Appeals and they are the vested body who takes care of those questions. • -Odom: — There has been a lot of question about exactly what we are talking about. What is our jurisdiction and what is the Board of Sign Appeals jurisdiction? • McKimmey: As I read it, your jurisdiction is out of the Commercial Design Standards ordinance. The Board of Sign Appeals administers all variances from the Sign ordinance and they have a vested interest there. They are the body that can grant a variance, contrary to -my opinion, contrary to the ordinance, to make adjustments which may be fair or address topographic problems. Odom. Even if we don't approve this tonight, they can go before the Board of Sign Appeals? McKimmey: They will still have a problem in that if you do not approve if they haven't met the Commercial Design Standards ordinance and that sign would not have passed muster of your body. Conklin: The Commercial Design Standards ordinance, what you approve is what we permit. So, if you don't approve a larger sign that they are asking for, then we won't permit it. If it's not approved, it doesn't meet our Commercial Design Standards. I would just slike_to.make_a pointabout thatcomparison, the Bakery -Building is an existing - development, this is a brand new development on a piece of property that was vacant and starting from scratch. When we look at ordinances, I like to try to meet our ordinances when we start from the beginning. On existing developments there is some • • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 26 Marr: circumstances that you have to grant variances for. I think one other point is, in the minutes of this, we had a motion to have a taller sign, 15 _foot at the_time and,-it.died-foralack of -second -which -I think -sends a pretty strong message of what eight other commissioners thought at the time about the Commercial —Design Standards and it's -fit. - - - - Odom: I would agree with you but I think they are asking us to address the monument sign itself to see if it's large and out of scale. McKimmey: The question before you, it seems to me is, if you had approved previous signs of this nature particularly a McDonald's sign and found it okay and then they are asking do you approve this McDonald's sign here on the basis of the Design Standards, that is the question they are asking. Precisely that question, no more, not is it too big or too small. --Your ordinance -is -so vague -as to an opinion and that's what you are asked -for. --Does this opinion, is it large out of scale or flashy and there is no quantifiable definition. The —sign ordinance has a quantifiable definition. The Board of -Sign Appeals is the body that --decides-that.—You-have-to- decide -whether you -like the sign -and -you've already decided that for McDonald's in Fayetteville. This is my point, do you approve the sign? That's the whole question before you. - - - Odom: We've approved this sign, is that right? This is at 265 and 45. Crouch: —That's Crossover Road. Odom. This sign is 10 feet high? Crouch: It's 12 feet high I think. The sign itself, the sign face is 9 feet high. Aguirre: It's 9 feet high. The only thing that's different is the dimensions. Crouch: The face is taller than what we are asking for. McKimmey: If you were to approve this sign and said it was okay under the Commercial Design Standards and I received an application for that sign, I would tum it down because it is not_confonning=with.the=ordinance.Then,-McDonald's could go to -the -Board of Sign Appeals and address the question of how close can we put that sign or how tall or how big and that's their decision. It's very clearly defined it just takes careful logical thought —about it and you have to decide if you like the sign. - • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 27 Odom: Then I have this question, we've already approved this sign because we have already approved the large scale development with a monument sign, why are we here? Crouch: That -s -why -I- pondered -out-loud-whether-we-were-supposed to be here because you had approved that kind of design of sign We are just here in an abundance of caution to -make sure we don't need to be here again- - — Odom. I assume the answer to that is because we had assumed that it was only going to be 6 feet tall. Conklin: That is met the ordinance requirements for a monument sign. Once again, we are starting from scratch here, a brand new development, let's try to meet our ordinances. Marr Personally, I still think that's the thing. We approved a monument, 6 foot sign, not a 15 footmonument sign. - If you read in the notes, Commissioner -Estes even reiterated it when we asked that point at the time we looked at the motion. It seems to me that the development is a 6 foot monument sign and if someone wants to come up with an 8 foot -monument sing -then -this -isn't -the -place to-do it,-it's-the-Sign-Appeals.—Obviously, I voted against. This is a different issue but the monument sign is my understanding and I think if you read these notes it's exactly what it says. Conklin: Yes, on page 27 in your Planning Commission minutes, at the very top, Commissioner Estes states "Because I. made the motion, let me-speak.to that.. Item two, it was my --intent-in making that motion to adopt the staff recommendation Item two reads, "Staff _.is recommending that a monument sign maximum 6 feet in height and 75 square feet, be installed for this project. It is my intention that the motion contained item two as a Condition of Approval." -We-ve-talked about the height, square footage of the sign back in July 24, 2000. Ward: If they wanted to make the sign 75 square feet, they can do that right? Conklin: That's correct. Ward: So, what they are really asking for is something that's going to be basically 26 square feet smaller but 48 inches taller, is that the crux of the whole matter? Conklin: Yes, it is. • Ward: Even if we approve it here, the Board of Sign Appeals can still turn it down or change • • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 28 it? Conklin: That's correct. Ward: If they decide they want to make a sign 75 feet instead of 58 or what they had ---proposed, they -can still do that? Conklin: I always encourage applicants to meet our ordinances. — Marr: My recommendation would be that we send what we've approved already to the Sign Appeals Board. We've approved a six foot monument sign and if they want something outside of that then it goes and I don't understand why we need to take a vote on it. I'm just trying to understand why we need to take a vote on it if we already have an approval of a 6 foot monument sign.—That's what the vote will be today at least on --whether-the large • scale stays -the same or whether they are going to change it. Right? Aguirre: I guess it was never approved as a 6 foot high monument sign. If you read further on —down,—Tim Conklin-actually-says-here,—we asked the question, there was -still the _outstanding issue there was no landscape plan submitted in the set of plans you had, the issue of the trees and the placement of the sign in relationship to those trees came up and the question was asked "Can we come back?" We were told we needed to meet with Kim Hesse and can we come back and Tim's words here on page 27 on the same meeting was "To answer your question, "Can they come back?" "Yes." Then he goes on to explain because we had to meet with Kim Hesse and discern those issues So, now we are coming back. Odom: That specifically visibility. You have made no presentation whatsoever that your meeting with Kim Hesse has any bearing on why we are here tonight. Conklin: Let me just clarify this mess, yes, you can come back. I had this conversation with Sara Edwards, our Development Coordinator and I said "I never thought you come back and not try to meet the ordinances." I always thought you would have a proposing that met the ordinances that was different from what was approved. That's why I was a little surprised to find out that we had a proposal in front of us that doesn't -meet our current ordinances. Aguirre: I think it's a matter, my point is, I don't think it was ever concretely decided what we had to have, were just told to go back and verify we did have to have trees along Joyce Boulevard and then if so, how did that weigh in against our sign. As part of that Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 29 learning process, yes we do have to have trees after meeting with Kim. Conklin: It's not that you have to have trees because you met with Kim, you have to have trees because our Commercial -Design -Standards -require you -to -have -trees. Kim Hesse asked to have trees shown on your plan at Subdivision Committee and for some reason they weren't showing on -there. -This is not staff telling the applicant or developer they have to do something, these are ordinances we are trying to advise the applicant what to do. Odom: I think the motion was clear as to what was allowed, under the motion. You did have the opportunity to comeback if you had some visibility problems or issues and ask for something else. Tim is right, even if you did that, you can always come back and ask for something that doesn't comply with the ordinances, you are going to have a hard time here doing that: What you've done is, you brought this back before us, I don't —think-it belongs -here in the first place, -you brought -it -back -under the guise that we said you could bring it back but there is no evidence whatsoever that there is any type of =blockage because of -foliage -or anything -of thatnature. My personal -opinion is, you -ought to put your permit in for the sign that you have -here and let the Board of Sign Appeals deal with it. Aguirre: I agree. I think that was what our concern was tonight when we first approached was, we are not even sure this is where we need to be with this conversation. We did have separate conversations with Tim and Sara in their office about "This is what we've learned and this is what we would like to have, where do we go from here?" This is - where they scheduled -us in to come. Odom: I believe the intent of the Planning Commission is well versed in the minutes of the prior meeting where we stated what our desires were and what we felt was required to meet the Commercial Design Standards. For us to elaborate on that any fiirther, I think just duplicates what we had already said. I don't think you are going to get a vote from us saying it's okay to have a larger sign and I don't think it's up to us to say that you can have a taller sign. I think that's up to the Board of Sign Appeals. Conklin: So, if we leave it there and the Board of Sign Appeals grants them a larger sign, permit it, don't bring it back? Odom. Our input is a 6 foot sign meets the Commercial Design Standards, 75 foot. If Board of Sign Appeals approves it, I don't know where you go from there. That's your job Tim. • • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 30 Marr: Would the larger one meet the Commercial Design? Odom: We've already ruled that it wouldn't. Conklin: The Planning Commission has been very consistent on Joyce Boulevard, in that - location, with regard to monument signs. Odom: Don't you think the Board of Sign Appeals would take that into consideration in their decision? Marr: Odom: Conklin: And read the minutes? I know the City Council always listens to us -P-rn not sure about the Board of -Sign Appeals: I would be more than happy to -forward them all this information and try to explain it to them the best I can of the issue on hand. If it's -the decision -that you don't need to vote on this, that's fine. I got a -direction and P11 go forward—I-would Just like to -say before -we end -this -discussion that McDonald's has gone a long way to work with the City of Fayetteville and the Planning Commission in meeting the Commercial Design Standards. I do thank them for that. Their -prototype building is a white building with a red roof, if you look at Wedington Drive, they've met those Commercial Design Standards. They did a tremendous effort in matching materials within that Wedington Place Subdivision and on Joyce Boulevard. They've worked with staff recently with matching the same split faced block, colors and design as the old Service Merchandise building. I worked with them on roof color to modify that administratively. So, staff has been working with McDonald's and McDonald's has been working with staff to come up with the best fit for Fayetteville. I don't want the public or the Commission to think that we are odds with each other because we have been working together really well to come up with some nice -McDonald's in Fayetteville Odom: Jim, you are the applicant. I would like you to make comment with regard to whether or not you want us to make specific action. Crouch: I guess just as a point of order I would like the minutes to reflect that what you approved previously was a sign that looks like the sign in that picture that's a monument sign at Crossover Road. If we can identify that for the record as Exhibit "A". I know it doesn't have dimensions on it but, as I understand it, what you approved previously and what you are saying now is, that we've already said that a sign that looks like this is • • • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 31 Odom: acceptable. I think you can certainly draw that inference but by the same token, a sign that is 6 feet —high -that looks -like -that -is -certainly -different -than a• -sign -that is 100 feet high and looks like that. Crouch: I understand. I agree that you approved a shorter sign but it's a sign that looked very much like the one that is put into the minutes except for it's size. I think that's a fair comment, isn't it? Odom: I would agree with that although I think that our determination was fairly specific with regard to the Commercial Design Standards and that the sign is being limited to 6 feet in that regard. - Crouch: —I -hope we didn't -waste -your time. I appreciate your input -on it and what you've said. I certainly thank the City Planners and everyone for all the help they have given on this =matter. Odom. I don't know what the appropriate action is to take on this matter. I'm going to make a decision as Chair that this item is simply going to be pulled from the agenda with no action to be taken. McKimmey: _The reason that McDonald's came_forward to thePlanningCommission has been that we have a method for approving a sign. The method is that as the Planning Commission approves a drawing and the City puts it's stamp on the drawing that this is an approved drawing, that thing is cast in stone. If the doggone thing isn't beige 141, if it's painted -rather-than brick, it -is cast in stone. -I-can't approve it. -I -can't override your authority. Okay. When you approve a sign that's in a drawing that has a stamp on it, that is exactly what they_are going to build and that's exactly what they are going to get from me, nothing more. What I'm asking and the reason they came here was, do you approve of their design? If so, then I can accept something different. If not, if you are requiring that they have a sign 10 feet from the road, exactly that number of square feet with a wide painted base or whatever it is, then I'm not going to go forward with it. Okay? So, here is what we are trying to do, they want to go and see if there if there is any further recourse to moving that sign and making it more acceptable to them, whatever it is that's acceptable We have a process that freezes their request right then and there. If you say they can go forward to the Board of Sign Appeals after you've already set that in stone, I don't see how that works. • • • Planning Commission February 12, 2001 Page 32 Conklin: That's why I asked them to clarify it, that whatever the Board of Sign Appeals approves, that I'll go along with it and won't bring it back. McKimmey: That needed clarification. I didn't quite get that. Odom: --- et me just say,—I'--11 probably confuse things more than help things. Let me just say how I think it is. We approved this large scale development and we approved it with the design that you are talking about This design on that picture is a McDonald's sign, however, that sucker is limited in height to 6 feet. McKimmey: - Right. Odom: _ So, if they come to you with something that's more than 6 feet, I think you have no alternative but deny it. That gives them the alternative to go to the Board of Sign Appeals and ask for a variance -of -that. McKimmey Very good, okay. Odom. That's my opinion of how it should be handled. McKimmey: I'm pleased to thank you very much for you assistance in the matter. Odom: _Staff,. do. we have anything further?__ Conklin. Nothing further. I would like_to make a couple of announcements. Tomorrow night, after agenda session, there is an Ordinance Review Committee. They are taking up the —Bicycle Parking -Rack -ordinance. -They are also looking at an ordinance to assess or have the ability to have impact fees for sidewalks in lieu fees. We have situations where -sometimes it doesn't make sense to build a sidewalk on some of these lot splits or single family homes that are being built in existing or established neighborhoods. They are discussing that. Then Thursday at 2 o'clock, we have our Subcommittee Definition of a Family meeting and that will be our second meeting with regard to looking at the definition of a family with regard to domestic servants. That starts at 2 o'clock in room 326. All the meetings are in room 326. Odom: —We are adjourned.- — -- - PC 2-12-01 Minutes of the January 22, 2001 PC meeting RZ 01-1.00 Dixie Development, pp 175 RZ 01-2.00 Lindsey, pp 440 MOTION Ward Hoffman SECOND Hoffman Marr D. Bunch Y Y B. Estes Absent Absent Absent L. Hoffman Y Y S. Hoover Y Y N. Allen Y y D. Marr Absent Absent Y C. Odom y y Shackelford Absent Absent Absent L. Ward Y Y ACTION Approved Forwarded Forwarded VOTE 6-0-0 7-0-0 PC 2-12-01 RZ 01-3.00 NOARK Girl Scout Council, pp 175 AD 01-2.00 McDonald's Sign, pp 134 MOTION Bunch SECOND Allen D. Bunch Y B. Estes Absent L. Hoffman Y S. Hoover Y N. Allen Y D. Marr Y C. Odom Y Shackelford Absent L. Ward Y ACTION Forwarded Pulled VOTE 7-0-0