HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-04-04 Minutes•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Sign Appeals was held on Monday, April 4,
1988 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Jerry Allred, Dennis Becker, Larry Tompkins,
Gerald Boyd and Robert Waldren
MEMBERS ABSENT: Deane Davenport
OTHERS PRESENT: Fred Hanna, Richard Wilson, Suzanne Stoner, William Lazenby,
Ralph Steinburg and Don Bunn
PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE
Chairman Mills welcomed Fred Hanna, the representative from the Planning
Commission, who will be attending the meetings for the next 3 months. She
announced that Larry Tompkins will be the representative to City Planning for the
next 3 months.
• RULES & PROCEDURES FOR SIGN APPEALS
•
Chairman Mills stated that there weren't any rules or procedures outlined for
the Board of Sign Appeals. She suggested they adopt the rules and procedures
that they use for the Board of Adjustment meetings and follow those for the Board
of Sign Appeals. The agenda will be divided into two parts 1) the first part
will consist of items to be considered by the Board of Adjustment and 2) the
second part will consist of items to be considered by the Board of Sign Appeals.
MOTION
Gerald Boyd moved to adopt the rules and procedures that are used for the Board
of Adjustment meetings and follow those for the Board of Sign Appeals contingent
on being able to change any inconsistencies that are found, seconded by Larry
Tompkins. The motion passed 5-0-0.
PARLIAMENTARY FOR SIGN APPEAL BOARD
Chairman Mills announced that she is appointing Robert Waldren to serve as
parliamentarian for the Sign Appeals Board as he does for the Board of
Adjustment. She further stated that she will continue not to vote except in case
of a tie or a vote for a quorum.
•
•
•
st'v Ojl' j.
Board of Adjustment
April 4, 1988
Page 2
APPEAL NO. SA 88-1 - MONTESSORI SCHOOL SIGN APPEAL -
VICKI BUTLER, AT 57 E TOWNSHIP
The first item of consideration was an appeal by the Montessori School for a
variance from the sign ordinance ( Sect. 17B-9) to vary setback requirements from
Township Rd., submitted by Suzanne Stoner for Vicki Butler. Request was to be
allowed to keep the sign as it is, requiring a variance of twelve (12) feet.
Suzanne Stoner, Administrative Assistant for the Montessori School, was filling
in for Melody of Woodpecker Signs who had planned to attend the meeting. She
stated that they had been informed of the law through the appropriate offices
here at the City and believed that they had been misinformed. She said they
didn't act at all in spite of the law, believed themselves informed of the law
and respectful of the law. In fact, they added extra measure to be sure and
believe that their actions were not in spite or in violation of the intent of the
law. She further stated that they hadn't had any complaints about where the sign
had been placed and she was told that the Inspection Office had not had any
complaints either. Therefore, it doesn't appear to be a hazard.
Gerald Boyd asked if a written application had been made pursuant to the rules
for granting a sign permit. Ms. Stoner answered, Yes, that at the time they paid
the permit fee, they didn't realize it was in error. In was, in fact, after
coming in and filing for the permit, that the inspector, Mr. Wilson, came out
and determined the sign placement to be in error. Mr. Waldren asked if the sign
had already been put up when they obtained the permit. Ms. Stoner answered, Yes,
that it was then that she found out the sign was about one -sign length off. In
the mean time, a third interpretation indicated that they were even further off,
but now it had been determined that they were about one sign -length (12') off.
Don Bunn stated that one of the difficulties in this case was the location of the
right-of-way along there, which curves along with the street. Montessori School
had called in and asked for a location and the person they talked to answered as
though it were a standard 31' wide street with a curb and gutter on it. The
question was answered correctly when considering the offset from Green Acres, but
on Township it isn't a standard situation because of the right-of-way. The fact
that Montessori School took someone's word over the phone contributed to the sign
being put in the wrong place.
Mr. Boyd stated that the procedure used to get a sign permit includes producing a
drawing of the proposed sign location, size, etc. If this had been done and the
inspector had gone out and approved it, Montessori School would have a good
argument. However, in this case, obtaining information over the telephone
doesn't propose a good argument.
Chairman Mills asked how long Woodpecker Sign Company has been in business. Ms.
Stoner answered that it had been in business for several years.
�0
• Board of Adjustment'
April 4, 1988
Page 3
Mr. Boyd asked if it would be possible to dig the sign up and move it to a
complying position and still be in the yard. Ms. Stoner answered, yes, and
explained that at the time they paid to petition, they believed that the sign was
going to have to be placed in the parking lot. Presently, it is Woodpecker Signs
that is actually petitioning, because Melody believes that she was misinformed.
Mr. Boyd asked what the size of the sign was. Ms. Stoner answered 18 square
feet. Mr. Boyd asked if the lattice work or posts were counted as part of the
sign. Mr. Wilson answered that you count the sign area itself, not the posts or
lattice. Mr. Bunn stated that the sign is 80" by 32".
Mr. Boyd asked Richard Wilson, the inspector, to explain the aspect of putting up
a smaller sign to be able to put it closer to the street. Mr. Wilson stated if a
smaller sign was put up, it could be put closer to the street. He went on to say
that the basic sign size is 10 square feet set back 15' from the right-of-way and
with each additional foot you set back, you can increase the sign size by 2
square feet up to a total of what is allowed in that area. This can vary
depending on the zoning. In this case the zoning is C-2, so they are allowed up
to 75 square feet if they set back 40' from the right-of-way.
Mr. Boyd asked how far the sign was set back in this case. Mr. Wilson stated
that the sign is in the right-of-way by approximately 2'. Mr. Bunn clarified
that the actual location is 8' from the Township right-of-way and the required
location would be set back 20'.
Mr. Boyd stated that, therefore, it could go back another 12' and still be in the
yard.
Mr. Allred, asked if Township is proposed to be four (4) lanes at some point.
Mr. Waldren stated that according to the five (5) year forecast it is.
Mr. Tompkins asked who would pick up the cost in the widening of the street,
including moving the sign. Mr. Bunn answered that the Highway Department would
pay for the widening of the road; if the right-of-way were to be widened at that
point, the sign would be able to stay where it is, but it would be a non-
conforming sign.
Mr. Allred proposed should the street be widened, the sign would have to moved at
some point. Mr. Tompkins stated that if it were widened within the next five (5)
years, then the sign would create a public traffic hazard regarding site
distance, because it blocks all traffic coming from the East for the second car
approaching on Green Acres Road.
Chairman Mills stated that in a lot of cases, the widening of the street may come
into play as to how the sign will be affected should it be widened.
Mr. Bunn stated that the right-of-way was difficult to locate, but he could
/1
•
Board of Adjustment
April 4, 1988
Page 4
locate it within a few feet. He further stated that in many cases the right-of-
way is hard to locate without a survey, so sometimes it a guess as to where the
right-of-way is.
The public hearing was closed and discussion took place between the Board of Sign
Appeal members.
Mr. Boyd stated that he thought relocating this sign could have been avoided if
the rules on how to get a sign permit ( producing an inked drawing & laying it
all out ahead of time in particular) had been followed.
Chairman Mills stated that putting up the sign before getting the permit seemed
to be the problem.
Mr. Tompkins said the sign as it is presently located isn't detrimental to the
basic policy of protecting the public safety as related to highways and streets
and it shouldn't have any detriment upon the natural beauty. However, the Master
Street Plan should be considered as well as the costs and impacts when approving
or disapproving a particular sign or creating non -conforming signs.
Chairman Mills said she had measured and there is ample room to move the sign
back to the curb which would put in within the required setbacks.
MOTION
Mr. Boyd moved to deny the appeal, seconded by Tompkins. The motion to deny
passed 5-0-0.
APPEAL NO. SA 88-2, T. J KWIKIT SIGN APPEAL -
TERRY CROOK, 2350 WEDINGTON DRIVE
Terry Crook wasn't able to attend the meeting to present his appeal, so nothing
was done about it.
APPEAL NO. SA 88-3, LAZENBY REAL ESTATE CO. -
WILLIAM LAZENBY, AT 1031 N. COLLEGE
The next item of consideration was an appeal for a variance to the sign ordinance
[Section 17B.11(c)(2)], submitted by William Lazenby to allow a Real Estate sign
(6'x 8') on the North side of his building. The request was for a six (6) by
eight (8) foot sign which is larger than allowed in R-0 zones.
Mr. Lazenby stated that the ordinance says that he can have a 4' x 4' sign
there, which with the size of his building would look like a postage stamp on a
large envelope. He added that his property is 2 1/2 lots back from North Street,
so he requesting a larger sign in order for it to be visible from the street.
• Mr. Boyd asked if he was planning to build anything between his building and
North Street. Mr. Lazenby answered, No, that he owns that property and it will
la
'Su,in •
Board of Adjustment
April 4, 1988
Page 5
be used as a parking area.
Ralph Steinburg of Steinburg Signs, who is the sign contractor, stated that even
if something was built there in the future the sign wouldn't enter into it
because it would have to be taken down.
Mr. Waldren asked what would be the sign area. Mr. Wilson answered that if it
was zoned C-2 they would be allowed 150 square feet or 20% of the wall area
Mr. Allred stated that the hardship here is that the area should not be zoned R-
0. Mr. Lazenby stated that they had tried to get it rezoned, but it was turned
down because the people on the street in behind it feel that it would hurt the
value of their property.
Mr. Steinburg stated that a lot of older people come into Lazenby Real Estate and
when they are driving down a busy highway, it is hard for them to locate where
the current sign is and be able to slow down to turn off in time.
Mr. Tompkins stated that as he was driving south from the intersection there, he
could only see a little part of the Lazenby Real Estate Building because of the
Washington Regional Hospital Sign. He questioned whether the sign would be
visible no matter what the size.
Mr. Tompkins asked what the sign would say. Mr. Lazenby stated "Lazenby Real
Estate."
Mr. Tompkins asked how much walk-in business they have. Mr. Lazenby answered
probably 40 to 50% and that is the reason for their being in a highly exposed
area.
Mr. Allred asked if Mr. Lazenby would attempt to get this rezoned again. Mr.
Lazenby answered that he hasn't had any luck trying to get it rezoned.
The public hearing was closed and they went into private discussion among the
Board of Sign Appeal members.
Mr. Waldren stated that the zoning is all wrong and he suggested that Mr. Lazenby
should go back again and try to get it rezoned and table this appeal for the
moment.
Mr. Boyd stated that the hardship in this case would be the R-0 zoning, and Mr.
Lazenby's hardship isn't any greater than anyone else doing business in a R-0
zone.
Mr. Allred replied that if it were a regular R-0 zone, the traffic wouldn't be
quite as fast and congested as this area and the smaller sign would be more
visible.
Mr. Boyd stated that the purpose for the R-0 zone is to protect the residential,
13
, 1 H!,4)
fJ
Board of Adjustment
April 4, 1988
Page 6
not to create more commercial space. Mr. Allred replied that the residential
here is in a minority position.
Mr. Tompkins stated that he feels it was designed as R-0, land use wise, in the
sense it is going to fulfill supporting uses of a major medical complex (the
Veterans Hospital & Washington Regional Hospital). Multi -family structures with
efficiency apartments would be a compatible supporting use of a medical complex
to house the people associated with it. He further stated that he felt that the
smaller sign would be more appropriate in terms of the scale. Also, he stated
that the use of the building would still be advertised appropriately with a
smaller sign. He doesn't see why the size of the sign is going to create that
much of a enhancement to the use since the side of the building is already
visibly blocked all the way up to within 200' going south.
Mr. Becker referred to Paragraph Two (2) of the Board Creation that says,"where a
strict enforcement of this Chapter would cause practical difficulties due to
circumstances unique to the individual sign under consideration, such action will
be in the keeping of the spirit and the intent of the Chapter." He stated that
the zoning should not be Residential because of the traffic and flow and the
commercial nature of the area. On the other hand, a 6' X 8' sign that says
"Lazenby Real Estate" would have the letters strung out across it.
Mr. Allred asked if the sign would be 48 square feet versus (should you get it
rezoned) 150 square feet. Mr. Lazenby answered, Yes Mr. Allred added that if
the variance was granted for 48 square feet, Mr. Lazenby probably would not
pursue getting it rezoned. On the other hand, if the request is denied, he would
probably consider getting it rezoned and then (if it was rezoned) be able to put
up a 150 square foot sign.
Mr. Bunn stated that there will be three (3) separate businesses in that
building: 1) the real estate, 2) the construction company and 3) a rental
company. He clarified that under the sign ordinance, a 16 square foot sign would
be allowed for each of those businesses, which means he is allowed 48 square feet
on the side of the building, but they have to be separate signs with the name of
that particular business on each sign.
Mr. Wilson stated that a 16 square foot sign would pertain to each business
located in the building per wall that the business occupies.
Chairman
answered
interior
could be
exterior
business
Mills asked Mr. Wilson to explain what he means by per wall. Mr. Wilson
that a building has 4 walls and depending on how they utilize the
of that building determines the walls. He went on to say that there
an interior wall (which is the center wall) without a sign, but the
walls that each business occupies are allowed a 16 square foot sign per
per wall.
Chairman Mills asked if on this building they could have three (3) different
signs on the East, West and North. Mr. Wilson answered, Yes, but not on the
Board of 'Ad3ustmeiitr
April 4, 1988
Page 7
South. Mr. Wilson added that also in a R-0 zone they are allowed a sign per
street that the property abuts. When you have a street on three (3) sides, these
are the only sides that they are allowed to have a sign in an R-0 district.
Mr. Bunn stated that if this appeal is varied, then he could still have two (2)
more signs on the building of 16 square feet each.
Chairman Mills stated that they couldn't count on a
whether or not to grant an appeal for this variance.
for the other businesses should be considered.
zone change, they must decide
However, the signs allowed
Mr. Bunn clarified that 48 square feet would be allowed either way. Mr.
Waldren stated that if they grant this appeal, Mr. Lazenby could put up 32 square
feet more of sign which would give him a total of 80 square feet.
Mr. Lazenby stated that he was only planning to put
the building and it would be smaller than 16 square
one more sign on that side of
feet.
Mr. Tompkins asked if the variance would run with the property, the wall and the
use even if Mr. Lazenby sold his property to someone else. Mr. Wilson answered
that once a variance is approved it runs with the building.
NOTION
Mr. Tompkins moved that the request for a variance be denied, seconded by Mr.
Boyd. The motion to deny passed 3-2-0, Tompkins, Boyd & Waldren voting "yes" &
Allred and Becker voting "no".
OTHER BUSINESS
Chairman Mills advised the Board of Appeal members to make a note of any
questions and clarifications on the Sign Ordinance. She suggested that Mr.
Wilson crack down on sign appeal applicants when they come in as far as asking
for an inked drawing, etc. There is a problem with people putting up signs
before a site is inspected and the permit is issued.
15
