HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-04-18 Minutes•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Sign Appeals was held on Monday, April 18,
1988 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
MINUTES
Don Mills, Jerry Allred, Dennis Becker, Larry Tompkins,
Gerald Boyd and Deane Davenport
Robert Waldren
Fred Hanna, Richard Wilson, Terry Crook, Mike Treadwell and
Don Bunn
The minutes of the April 4, 1988 meeting were approved as distributed.
APPEAL N0. SA 88-2 - SIGN APPEAL, T.J. KWIKIT
•
TERRY CROOK - 2350 WEDINGTON DRIVE
The first item of consideration was an appeal for a variance to the sign
ordinance submitted by Terry Crook requesting to be allowed to keep the sign at
his business, T.J.Kwikit, as it is requiring a variance of twelve (12) feet.
Mr. Crook stated that there is a visibility restriction at his business for
traffic westbound on Wedington because of a hedgerow of bushes and trees
separating his property and the property adjoining his on the East. He noted
that he owns the property to the West of his business. He stated that his sign
provides opportunity for visibility for traffic heading west. Visibility is less
restrictive for traffic heading east. He advised that he would like to appeal
that the sign be left where it is because of the visibility restriction and the
results of the future proposed widening of the street which will result in the
sign being removed.
Mr. Allred asked why the sign was not grandfathered in when the land was annexed
in the late 1960's. Don Bunn answered that signs were not grandfathered; when
this was annexed, all non -conforming signs were given a set amount of time to
come into conformance. Mr. Allred stated that if the variance is denied, then
Mr. Crook would not be allowed a free-standing sign in an R-1 zone.
Mr. Boyd asked if this was zoned Commercial, could he have a 20' setback. Mr.
•
/6
•
•
•
C
t Board of-Adiustment
April 18, 1988
Page 2
Bunn answered that it should be 15' setback with a certain square footage of
sign. Mr. Boyd asked how close the sign could come to the side property
boundaries. Mr. Bunn answered that he thought he could go right up to his side
boundaries. Mr. Boyd concluded that since Mr. Crook owns the property to the
West, he could move a free-standing sign on that side with the required setback
and it would be visible. Mr. Bunn stated that if he moved the sign at all, he
would probably have to move it back to the pump island.
Mr. Allred asked if it was on the Master Street Plan to widen that street. Mr.
Bunn stated that the highway department had done some surveys there already and
there are plans to widen that street, but he didn't know when they would have the
funds for such an expensive project. Mr. Allred noted that the sign would have
to be moved at the time of the street widening. Mr. Crook stated that he assumed
it would be moved with the highway expansion. He said he was told by the
surveyors that the widening construction would possibly begin in late 1988 or
early 1989. Mr. Boyd asked if they were proposing that all the expansion be on
his side of the road. Mr. Crook answered that he didn't know.
Mr. Crook stated that his immediate proposal when they widen the road is to move
the pump island over to the west side of the store on top of the tank area. As
far as long range plans, he desires to have commercial zoning there and build a
new store on the corner. Mr. Crook stated that moving the sign to another
location wasn't his purpose in coming to the Board of Sign Appeals, but if that
is the result of the meeting, then he would take that in consideration.
Mr. Tompkins asked if this sign was a non -conforming use at the present time.
Mr. Crook answered, yes. Mr. Tompkins asked if all other aspects such as
building setbacks, etc, were in conformance. Mr. Bunn answered, yes, they appear
to be in conformance.
Mr. Tompkins stated that he couldn't see the sign at all as he was driving West
on Wedington at a point of about 150' east of the store because of foliage. He
said also coming the other way he had difficulty seeing the sign because of the
elm tree. Therefore, he couldn't see a relationship between the business
opportunities and the need for that advertising sign. The foliage would have to
be cut back to achieve the advertising. He asked Don Bunn if it would be
permitted for Mr. Crook to have a wall sign. Mr. Bunn stated that he could have
a small wall sign in a Residential district. Mr. Tompkins stated that it appears
to be reasonable, if that sign is taken down, that a wall sign on the building
itself tends to advertise for the store. Mr. Crook stated that he already has a
sign on the canopy of his building.
Mr. Crook stated that his biggest concern is with the westbound traffic coming
from the east side of the store having no visibility.
Mr. Boyd asked if C-1 was the most restrictive zoning that permits a free-
standing sign. Mr. Bunn answered, yes. Mr. Boyd asked what he could do if he
was given C-1 rights. Richard Wilson stated that he could have 75 square feet of
sign with a 40' setback.
P1
•
•
•
Board of •Adjustmeh
April 18, 1988
Page 3
Mr. Becker asked if the sign was there when the property was annexed in. Mr.
Bunn stated that he thought it was there. It was already in the City limits when
the zoning ordinance was passed in 1970 and the sign was existing when it was
rezoned R-1. Mr. Davenport asked if they deny this variance, would the sign have
to be taken down. Mr. Bunn answered, yes, that he had consulted with the City
Attorney and that was his opinion.
Mr. Bunn stated that the sign would have to be taken down if the variance was
denied not just because it's a free-standing sign in a R-1 zone, but because it
is not in accordance with the ordinances. Mr. Davenport asked if there was any
other choice besides denying it or allowing it to remain as it is. Chairman
Mills answered that they evidently have the right to grant or deny the variance.
She stated that they had discussed in an earlier meeting that they ordinarily had
never had conditions on signs.
Mr. Allred advised that they do have the right, according to the guidelines in
the ordinance, to put conditions and restrictions on signs. His concern was they
deny the variance, then Mr. Crook looses all right to a free-standing sign that
has been there since 1956.
Mr. Boyd asked if they could grant the variance with the condition that that
particular sign was moved back far enough that it would meet the C-1 zone
requirements. Mr. Tompkins stated that to his knowledge that might be possible
to grant as a condition.
Mr. Allred moved to grant the variance with the stipulation that the sign meet
the setback requirements. Chairman Mills pointed out that under Section 17B 9 of
the Sign Appeal Ordinances it states that free-standing signs for R and R-0
districts shall be prohibited. After discussion, Mr. Allred removed his motion.
Mr. Boyd stated that he feels that the four -lane is speculation; it may or may
not be built. Chairman Mills agreed that it may be a long time before they widen
the road. Mr. Boyd stated that his feeling is that the sign should not stay
where it is. He suggested that Mr. Crook move that particular sign over to the
property line within the required setbacks. Chairman Mills advised that would
only be allowed in a C-1 zone. Don Bunn noted that there is a 25' minimum
setback for a sign from any R district so he could not set the sign on the
boundary line.
MOTION
Mr. Davenport moved to grant the variance on the sign to allow it to stay the way
it is, seconded by Mr. Allred. The motion to approve passed 3-2-0 with Allred,
Becker & Davenport voting "yes" and Boyd & Tompkins voting "no".
Board of Adjustment
April 18, 1988
Page 4
APPEAL N0. SA 88-4, SCOTT'S FOODS, INC. (KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN) - SIGN APPEAL
SUBMITTED BY JACK HILL AND MIKE TREADHELL - 514 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE
The second item of consideration was an appeal for a variance from the sign
Ordinance submitted by Scott's Foods, Inc. and represented by Jack Hill and Mike
Treadwell for the Kentucky Fried Chicken located at 514 North College Avenue.
The request was to be able to increase the size of the existing sign by
installing a Readerboard to their existing Roadside sign.
Mr. Treadwell stated that they are planning to remodel their Kentucky Fried
Chicken Restaurant and they want to compliment that remodel with a Marquee Board
(Reader Board) to their existing sign. They have 60 square feet of sign at
present which is 15 square feet below the allowed 75 square feet. They are
asking in this variance to gain 15 square feet to allow the installation of the
Marquee Board.
Mr. Tompkins asked Mr. Treadwell is there is a need for a Readerboard on
Restaurants. Mr. Treadwell stated that the Kentucky Fried Chicken Corporation
recommends that they have a Readerboard and in the majority of cities they do
have one. The main purpose of it is to notify customers of local events (good
public awareness).
Mr. Tompkins asked if the intent of the Readerboard would be to advertise the
internal activity of the restaurant rather than advertising the special of the
day. Mr. Treadwell answered, yes. Mr. Tompkins asked if the Readerboard could
be placed on the building rather than on the existing sign. Mr. Treadwell
answered that Kentucky Fried Chicken Corporation wouldn't allow them to do that.
The only place they would allow them to put the Readerboard would be attached to
the existing pole sign. As far as on the building itself, the only thing they
were allowed is a banner occasionally.
Chairman Mills asked why they could not use the existing sign and add another 15
square feet to it. Mr. Treadwell stated that he had talked to a couple of sign
companies about special making a sign for them. The sign companies said the
problem with a special made sign would be that the letters would be too small to
read from the ground.
Chairman Mills asked if they were planning to do away with the existing sign and
put up an entirely new one. Mr. Treadwell answered, No, they are wanting to add
another sign underneath the existing Kentucky Fried Chicken sign.
Mr. Becker asked what size the proposed white Marquee sign as shown in the photo
was. Mr. Treadwell answered that it was 5' x 6'.
Chairman Mills closed the public hearing and discussion took place among the
Board of Sign Appeal members.
Mr. Boyd asked Mr. Treadwell if there was something unique about this property
Board of Adjustment
April 18, 1988
Page 5
that would create an undue hardship such as is referred to in the definition of a
variance. Chairman Mills noted that the hardship and why the appeal has been
made are things that they do have to keep in mind when considering the Sign
appeal. She advised that in this case they were not using their maximum square
footage allowed so they do have some leeway.
Mr. Tompkins stated that in terms of reasonableness, he felt since it is not
going to be conducive to the business the function could be achieved by having a
Readerboard on the building.
MOTION
Gerald Boyd moved to deny the appeal, seconded by Tompkins. The motion to deny
passed 5-0-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Tompkins stated that he had talked to Ernie Jacks who is the author of the
Sign Ordinance. Mr. Jacks has stated that he would be more than pleased to talk
with this Board as to the intent and the spirit of the way he wrote the
ordinance. Chairman Mills stated that they would invite him to speak at one of
the meetings in the near future.
REPRESENTATION AT THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Mr. Tompkins stated that since Jerry Allred is on the Planning Commission Board
now, would it still be necessary for a representative of the Planning Commission
to attend the Board of Adjustment and vice versa.
MOTION
Mr. Boyd moved that as long as there is a member on the Board of Adjustment
serving also on the Planning Commission, that person would be the liaison between
the two, seconded by Davenport. The motion passed unanimously.
DISCUSSION ABOUT NON -CONFORMING SIGNS
Mr. Tompkins asked Don Bunn what is being done about non -conforming signs that
have been permitted by the County and Federal regulations. Mr. Bunn noted on
non -conforming signs in general, someone goes out and actively looks and when he
finds a non -conforming sign, he brings it to the attention of the owners. Then
the sign is either brought into conformance or they appeal for a variance. He
noted that the University of Arkansas -owned properties do not have to conform to
the City Sign Ordinance. He suspects that this might be the case with the County
Board of -Adjustment
April 18, 1988
Page 6
also. Mr. Bunn stated that he would research it and try to have some information
concerning what the Ordinance states about this, what the City Attorney's opinion
is and how the City enforces this by the next meeting. Chairman Mills asked Don
Bunn to check on this as to the legality and whether or not the City has
jurisdiction or whether they have just not exercised that jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION CONCERNING FREE-STANDING SIGNS IN R-1 DISTRICT
Chairman Mills stated that there had been some confusion about free-standing
signs in an R-1 district. She clarified that on page 16 of the Sign Appeal
Ordinance it states that free-standing signs are not permitted in an R-1
district, but a free-standing sign set 15' back in a lot or parcel is permitted
in R-2, R-3 or R-0 zones.
PAST APPEALS OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REARCH FINDINGS
Chairman Mills stated that she had did some research on past appeals to the Board
of Adjustment and found that:
1) in 1987 there were 28 appeals with 12 granted, 11 denied, 2 withdraw,
taken back to property owners and 1 was tabled. Of these appeals, 6
builders, 1 was a church, and 1 was the City Hospital.
2
were
2) in 1986 there 24 appeals with 17 granted, 2 denied, 3 were withdraw and 2
were tabled. Of the appeals, 10 were builders, 2 were from City Hospital
and 1 was the Sang Street Senior Center.
Chairman Mills stated that she plans to go back and look into the past minutes
further. She asked what the members would like for her to look for. Mr.
Tompkins stated that he would like for her to look for variances that were
granted on conditions.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 a.m.