No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-05-02 MinutesMINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Sign Appeals was held on Monday, May 2, 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, Robert Waldren and Deane Davenport OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Wilson MINUTES The minutes of the April 18, 1988 meeting were approved as distributed. REAPPOINTMENT FOR ANOTHER TERM Chairman Mills welcomed Bob Waldren who has been reappointed to the Board of Adjustment and the Board of Sign Appeals for another term. APPEAL NO SA 88-5 - HARDEE'S FOOD SYSTEMS - SIGN APPEAL BOB SOWELIS - 2190 W SIXTH STREET The first item of consideration was an appeal for a variance to the sign ordinance submitted by Bob Sowells and represented by Dan Rainer. Request was for a variance of approximately 12 square feet to be able to have a 25 square foot readerboard below the main sign, bringing the total square footage to 87 square feet. Property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Dan Rainer stated that they would like to add an appendage underneath the existing pole sign. Chairman Mills clarified that the sign they have now is 62 square feet and the sign is setting back about 50' from the highway. Mr. Rainer noted they have 62 square feet of existing sign, but it is setting approximately 40' back because of the jog in the road there. a�- • Board of Sign Appeals May 2, 1988 Page 2 • • Mr. Waldren asked how far back from the curb they are. Richard Wilson, sign inspector, stated that they are about 65' from the curb because of the odd right- of-way there. Mr. Waldren asked if the right-of-way ran straight there, would they be setting back far enough to allow this without a variance. Mr. Wilson answered, no, they would still be going 12' over the 75 square feet allowed. Mr. Boyd clarified that 75' feet is the maximum no matter how far back it is. Mr. Wilson answered, yes. Mr. Boyd asked why they had planned an oversized sign in the first place, were they not aware of the ordinance. Mr. Rainer answered that the sign company had came and did a survey and told them that they had checked with the City and would be allowed to put the appendage on their sign, so they did not check into it any further. Clyde West at Tri -Sign in Fort Smith was the installer. He further stated that after the sign was obtained, they found out they couldn't put it up. Mr. Rainer stated that the appendage is basically a readerboard for promotional items, advertising specials, etc. Mr. Tompkins stated that he assumed when he went out there that they were planning to put the readerboard up higher where the brackets are on the existing pole sign. Mr. Rainer stated that if it were placed there, the removal arm that is used to change the letters on a readerboard would not be able to reach that high. He stated that the readerboard would be placed-. a-littielower than where the brackets are. Mr. Tompkins stated that he wasn't able or the West. He said he was concerned traffic before they were right up on it. on the front of the building rather than overload; too much clutter, which is the Mr. Rainer stated that normally the only is the Hardee's sign. Mr. Tompkins advised that their existing advertising inability to see it. to see the sign traveling from the East about the readerboard being seen by He asked if they could put a wall sign adding to the problem of information intent of the sign ordinance to avoid. signs they put on front of the building the sign might not serve any purpose other than what sign is doing, because of the distance and the Mr. Boyd advised that the maximum sign size is 75 square feet, which can be changed if there is an unusual circumstance. Mr. Boyd stated that he could not see any hardship or unusual circumstances in this case. Mr. Tompkins noted that he agreed with Mr. Boyd's comments. In addition to that, he feels that what they have now is reasonable advertising. It still advertises the business and does it in a way which contributes both to the purpose of the sign ordinance which is to avoid the problems of public safety, traffic wise, and also the natural beauty. He stated that he was inclined to disapprove the request. 23 Board of Sign Appeals May 2, 1988 Page 3 Mr. Boyd stated that free-standing signs are the least favored type of sign under our ordinance. Chairman Mills stated that they have 13 square feet to work with before reaching their 75 square foot limit. MOTION Mr. Boyd moved to deny the appeal for a variance to the sign ordinance, seconded by Tompkins. The motion to deny passed 6-0-0. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tompkins noted that as he was investigating this particular sign, he was interested in the conformity of the Westwood Plaza sign which is across the street from Hardee's. Mr. Wilson advised that in that case they had applied for an appeal and they were given the approval to cut their sign down from approximately 290 square feet to 274 square feet because they had become 10 or 12 feet closer to the road (right-of-way). The original architect who drew the plat went by the original survey before Hwy 62 was widened. When this highway was widened, the right-of-way moved back another x amount of feet. Therefore, their sign was then only 30' from the right-of-way instead of 40'. Mr. Wilson stated that the sign is conforming now. Mr. Tompkins stated that this sign is so out of scale with the other signs in that area that they are getting an advantage and as the signing develops there, if the Westwood sign sets a precedent, it puts the Board of Sign Appeals in a bind. Chairman Mills advised that the Board of Sign Appeals should just pick up at this point and be very careful about what they approve. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned.