HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-06-06 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Sign Appeals was held on Monday, June 6, 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: Richard Wilson, Don Bunn George Faucette, Gary Ryel, David Condra and Elaine Cattaneo MINUTES The minutes of the May 2, 1988 meeting were approved_as,:.distributed.. SA 88-6 SIGN APPEAL - ENTRE' COMPUTER CENTER - FIRST SOUTH CENTRE OFFICE BUILDING - 280 N COLLEGE - GEORGE FAUCETTE, JR. The only item on the agenda was an appeal for variance from sign ordinance at Entre' Computer Center, First South Centre Office Building submitted by George Faucette, Jr. and located at 280 North College. This is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, and the request is to be allowed a total of 3 free standing signs. A variance in both number of signs and square footage would be necessary to grant their request. Gerald Boyd asked to be excused since there would be a quorum without his vote. Chairman Mills advised that Mr. Boyd would be abstaining. George Faucette stated that he is representing not Entre' Computer but FSLIC who is the building owner. A representative of Entre' Computer was in the audience ( David Condra). Mr. Faucette stated that Entre' Computer is in the process of moving into the building and hope to have some sign exposure. Gary Ryel of Crafton, Tull, Spann and Yoe, Inc. was in the audience. He is the building architect and has designed the layout and pedestal design that is being a5 • Board of Sign Appeals June 6, 1988 Page 2 • Mr. Faucette stated that the letter that he submitted is self-explanatory in terms of the request and the reasons for it. There is a building identification sign that sits out on the corner. He advised that there isn't any identification on this sign for the ground floor tenants. There are retail or quasi -retail type tenants there potentially. One of which is in, one of which is Entre' Computer (not purely retail, but need some identification), and then there is a third vacant space. That is why they are requesting three signs. Mr. Faucette stated that he realizes that the ordinance reflects that they can have one free-standing sign. For instance, out at Sterns Road and Highway 471 where the Metropolitan Light and Windmill Realty is. They have not only the free-standing sign which is quite large and good for their identification, but also have building signs that are setting on the marquees of the buildings. He stated that he understands that those are all legal, but he brought those up as an example that he believes isn't as aesthetically pleasing as what Mr. Ryel has proposed for this building to provide those sorts of exposure. The signs would be a maximum of 36" out of the ground and that is the highest part that the pedestal itself would be as proposed The sign itself would be a maximum of 18" high, each sign being 12 square feet (18" x 8' maximum). He stated that he feels like this is a fair request given that both the aesthetics and the visual or safety situation is not impacted by the signs and it is in the spirit of the ordinance. Larry Tompkins asked what the square footage of the present curved building name sign. Mr. Faucette stated that he hadn't measured that. However, the three signs that are proposed total 36 square feet. The staff has said that there is 54 square feet of building footage. Don Bunn advised that he was stating that from memory and he clarified that it should be 36 square feet. Mr. Ryel stated that on the face side it is about 30 inches tall and the linear measurement all the way around it should be about 50 feet. Mr. Tompkins noted that it was about 138 square feet. Mr. Faucette stated that it is a sign, but he would submit to the Board of Sign Appeals that it is as much a landscaping and design plan as it is a sign per se given what it is made out of and how it delineates the corner landscaping to the building. It takes the radius of the street where the curb is there in the intersection. Mr. Tompkins asked the architect if it was an office building or a retail office building. Was it designed as both. Mr. Faucette answered, yes. There are five doors on the street level, if it was a pure office building, you would have one building entrance and one elevator core that would access all the offices. Mr. Ryel stated that they have always referred to it as an office building, but that ground floor is attractive to retail tenants even though they did not target retail space for that ground floor. Mr. Tompkins stated that it were one or the other then they could have designed it for retail signs, etc., but they didn't so they have this question before them. • Mr. Tompkins stated that he felt that the integrity of the building would be hurt if they put up wall signs. He noted that the first floor arcades are telling aCo Board of Sign Appeals • June 6, 1988 Page 3 • • them what is in the building themselves. Could not a sign be placed on the building in the windows themselves with indication to what activity is going on within the retail space itself in place of the signs along the street. Mr. Ryel stated that the tenants would be allowed to place a sign inside their premises. In a retail or quasi -retail situation, they would want the recognition out on the street where a person can find the place before they actually get in front of it to make it possible for them to turn in one of the drives. Naturally, they are seeking some identification as far from there location as possible for the ease of their clients. Mr. Tompkins stated that driving down the highway, he had to get pretty close to see it going North, but coming South he could see it from quite a ways. Is this really doing the businesses the retail needs that they need given the building itself telling them that this is what it is. Mr. Faucette stated that he would think that would be absolutely true for the Oxford Shop there. He stated that Entre' Computer Company is a regional company. The representative for Entre' Computer stated that the reason that they are here is because they are required by IBM and by Entre' Corporates in Washington, D.C. to have a professional looking sign for an outbound sales organization. Frankly, they are not really in the retail business. These offices will be as much for conferences and demonstrations for clients as with anything else. What they would like to achieve from a signage standpoint is a very professional sign like you might see in front of an IBM branch or a doctor's office, etc. He said that it is in their opinion that a sign in the window would make them look a lot more retail and that isn't what they are trying to achieve. Dennis Becker asked what the typical wall sign area. Richard Wilson advised that they would be allowed 150 square feet or 207. of their wall for individual businesses. The building itself can only have 150 square feet or 20 % of the building wall area. Mr. Becker asked if the number of tenants would change from three in the future and if so would they be needing another sign. Mr. Faucette stated that the chances are good that there would only be three tenants because of the size and depth of the space that is there, but if that should change the fourth tenant would have to be willing to be there without a sign because there would only be three signs. Jerry Allred asked if this were granted would the building owners enter into a Bill of Assurance that there would be no wall signs placed on the building. Mr. Faucette advised that he hadn't asked them, but he felt sure that they would. Mr. Allred stated that he would hate for this to be granted and then for someone to legally be permitted to put 150 foot wall sign on there in addition to this. If there was an agreement that no wall signs would be placed, then he would be in favor of reducing it down to this because this would be much more attractive and much more professional. Chairman Mills asked if the Board of Sign Appeals was allowed to put covenants on signs. Don Bunn answered, yes. • Board of Sign Appeals June 6, 1988 Page 4 • • Mr. Becker stated that there is a safety consideration that has already been mentioned, but this is a critical intersection and someone trying to read a wall sign and keep their eye on the signal light, etc, could be dangerous. If they are willing to stay with a 36" height, it is much more in keeping with the sign ordinance in terms of beautification than hanging wall signs on the building. Mr. Allred asked if the existing sign is indeed considered a sign, would they only count the height and the width of the lettering and not the entire monument. Richard Wilson advised that the background would be excluded; just the actual letters would be counted in measuring it. He noted that he had no sign permit on the existing sign. Mr. Tompkins asked if they had considered putting the signs on Dickson Street. Mr. Ryel stated that they had considered that and it might potentially be an alternative for some tenants on the back side of the building. However, for these tenants on the west side of the building, they have not considered Dickson Street. Mr. Faucette stated that with the retaining walls on the north side it would be hard to get in more than one sign. Mr. Ryel stated that on the side of the property, the signage would have to be on down closer to where the motor bank structure is. Due to the utilities and the retaining wall, it would not be possible to locate a sign on the north end of the building. MOTION Jerry Allred moved that the variance be granted with the stipulation that an agreement be entered into with covenants stating that no illuminated or exterior wall signs be constructed or mounted on the outside of the building, seconded by Becker. The motion passed 3-1-1 with Jerry Allred, Robert Waldren and Dennis Becker voting "yes", Larry Tompkins voting "no" and Gerald Boyd "abstaining". Mr. Faucette asked Don Bunn if he would need to write up some covenants and present them to the Planning Department for consideration. Don Bunn answered, yes. Don Bunn asked them to clarify the intent of the provision. Was it not to have any attached wall signs at all, illuminated or not. Chairman Mills answered, yes. UPDATE ON MONTESSORI SCHOOL SIGN Chairman Mills asked Richard Wilson, Sign Inspector, to give them a report on what is happening with the Montessori Sign. Mr. Wilson stated that he went to the Montessori School last Friday to issue a ticket to them for not moving their sign. At that time, the person he had sent the violation notice to was not available. He went back Tuesday and the sign had been moved over the weekend, 013 • Board of Sign Appeals June 6, 1988 Page 5 • • therefore, he sent them a sign permit. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Allred asked about the sign at the Ozark Bowling Alley. Mr. Wilson stated that they had obtained a sign permit. Mr. Boyd asked about the Lazenby Building sign. Mr. Wilson stated allowed by ordinance in an R-0 zone 16 square feet per tenant per advised that he explained to Mr. Lazenby which walls would have to which business. He does meet the requirements. that they were building. He be occupied by Chairman Mills advised that she had talked with Ernie Jacks and he said that he would be happy to come to talk to us at one of our meetings about the original intent of the sign ordinance as soon as he finds his records. Don Bunn stated that he had done some research on the City's enforceability of our ordinances with the County and Federal establishments. He advised that he had asked Jim McCord his opinion as to the enforceability of the City's ordinances as applied to the County, State and Federal Government. Mr. McCord's answer was that the City cannot enforce their ordinances against those higher government entities. He stated as far as he knows, the. City has never enforced. the zoning ordinance in the case of the University or the County. In addition, the City hasn't enforced the building codes in those places. They are bound by the Southern Standard Building Codes, but the City doesn't do inspections on those properties. Don Bunn advised that there are some ordinances that the City does enforce on those properties especially on the University campus and one is the noise ordinance. This was brought up at a staff meeting and the City Manager has asked the City Attorney to get a report together on this very thing and try to come up with something that the City could go by. There have been some problems at the University with the Fire Codes. According to our attorney, the City can't enforce City Fire Codes. State Fire Codes are enforceable there. On one occasion, the State Fire Marshall had to be brought in to the University to reenforce the enforcement of State Fire Codes. Fire Codes as state regulations are enforceable. He stated that he doesn't know if the City can enforce that Code. The City has not chosen to try to enforce the Sign Ordinance on the County, State or Federal Government. Mr. Bunn stated that there is going to be something put together that will get the City consistent with enforcement there. aq