Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
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.