HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-08-01 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Sign Appeals was held on Monday, August 1,
1988 at 3:45 P.M. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Waldren, Larry Tompkins, Dennis Becker, Don Mills,
Gerald Boyd, Jerry Allred, and Deane Davenport
Richard Wilson and Elaine Cattaneo
Gary Ryel, Drew Clark, Walter Hedges, Glen Smith, and
Carol Walker
CITY REPRESENTATIVES*
OTHERS PRESENT:
Chairman Mills advised that before they start the Sign Appeals meeting they need
to make a change in their procedure. She announced that to grant a variance for
the Sign Appeal, they need to have a concurring vote of the majority of the full
Board.
MOTION
Mr. Waldren moved to have the concurring vote of the majority of the full Board
to be necessary to reverse any order requirement decision, etc, for the Sign
Appeals, seconded by Tompkins. The motion passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the June 6, 1988 were approved as distributed.
APPEAL NO SA 88-6 - ENTRE' COMPUTER CENTER
FIRST SOUTH CENTRE OFFICE BUILDING - 280 N. COLLEGE
The first item of consideration on the agenda was an appeal for a variance from
the sign ordinance at Entre' Computer Center, First South Centre Office Building
submitted by George Faucette, Jr. and represented by Gary Ryel, 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.
This appeal was approved at the June 6, 1988 meeting but the 3-1-1 vote wasn't
a majority of the full Board. Therefore, a re -vote was necessary.
MOTION
Robert Waldren moved to grant the variance with the conditions that were set
forth as a conditional variance at the June 6, 1988 meeting and followed by
discussion.
3o
•
•
•
Board of Sign Appeals
August 1, 1988
Page 2
Gary Ryel advised that since that last meeting, it had came to light to them that
in one of the lease agreements for this building , they had granted a tenant
permission to put signage on the front of the building. He stated that they have
an exact description of what they wish to put on the building. The restriction
agreed on was for no signage on the face of the building other than what was
existing. Therefore, they request that the signage that is already committed
would be permitted and none other.
Chairman Mills asked if he was saying no other wall signage. Mr. Ryel stated
that the limitation would be on the building face signage as it was before with
the exception of the one sign that they have previously committed to.
Chairman Mills asked if they still wanted the other three signs plus the wall
sign now. Mr. Ryel answered, yes. He stated that the committed sign would be in
keeping with the letters on the corner and it would be an 8" high gold individual
lettered sign with the words "Dean Witter" centered on the building on the second
floor at the balcony.
Robert Waldren withdrew his motion.
Larry Tompkins asked what the square footage would be for the "Dean Witter" sign.
Mr. Ryel answered that it would be 8" high and approximately 5' long which is a
little over 3 square feet. Mr. Tompkins asked what happened to the integrity of
the building that was argued last time. Mr. Ryel stated that it was their intent
not to have building signage and through whatever cause this statement was left
in one of the lease agreements for a tenant which was brought to light after they
had been in the last time.
Mr. Tompkins asked what the hardship was there, just the lease agreement. Mr.
Ryel stated that this particular tenant would not present a hardship. He stated
that their intent was to restrict building signage which was of their own
volition He noted that they preferred to have the signage on the ground. The
hardship that would be presented is for the first four tenants, not Dean Witter.
Dennis Becker asked if it would be at the second level. Mr. Ryel answered, yes,
it would be on the band between the first floor and the second floor.
Mr. Ryel showed a picture of what the sign would be like. Mr. Davenport asked if
it would be illuminated. Mr. Ryel answered, no.
Mr. Davenport asked if Dean Witter leaves, would the next tenant have the ability
to use that spot in the same way. Mr. Ryel stated that the agreement is in the
lease agreement with that tenant so when that lease is up then the sign agreement
would go with it.
Mr. Ryel stated that if they aren't allowed to put the building signs on the
pedestals out there, then their only recourse would be to go with additional
building face signage.
Mr. Becker stated that one thing about this is that it is on center, so if we
31
•
•
•
Board of Sign Appeals
August 1, 1988
Page 3
accept the lease agreement which he feels is reasonable, at least it would be
aesthetically pleasing.
Mr. Tompkins asked if they eliminated the three free-standing signs, would they
have a whole signage plan for the front of the building. Mr. Ryel stated that
they would implement one. Mr. Tompkins noted then that it wouldn't be a hardship
Mr. Ryel answered, no, their case is not actually a hardship in that they are
permitted signage on the building and their request is in order to maintain the
aesthetics of the building and the development as a whole, they would rather have
the signage on the ground.
Mr. Tompkins noted that there would be five signs: 3 free-standing, the
information about the building and now the "Dean Witter" sign. Mr. Ryel
answered, yes.
Mr. Allred stated that the hardship at this particular point would be on the
City. If they don't work something out, they could put a lot of signs on the
west face of that building. It would be a hardship on the City to have to look
at all the signage. He stated that they can control the integrity and the intent
of the sign ordinance easier by trying to work with this situation.
Mr. Tompkins stated that they could change the lease agreement.
Richard Wilson, Sign Inspector, stated that the space thatthey could put signage
on the building would be limited because there is a lot of window space there.
They could paint on the windows but that is not considered a sign, they wouldn't
need a permit for that.
Chairman Mills asked if they would be allowed to put a neon sign in the window.
Richard Wilson stated that if it is inside, they don't count it.
Chairman Mills asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak
in favor or in opposition of this.
The public hearing was closed and discussion took place among the members.
Mr. Davenport stated that he wouldn't have any problem with it as long as it just
died with this lease.
Mr. Becker stated that this is a good illustration of almost the lack of power
the Sign Appeals Board has. They have square footage, setbacks, etc. They don't
have anything on ugly. Here is an attempt to try to control the aesthetics end
of it.
MOTION
Dennis Becker moved to grant the variance with the provision that the present
lease agreement and the wall sign that is proposed goes with the tenant and the
other restrictions that were agreed on at the last meeting, seconded by Allred
and followed by discussion.
3a
•
•
•
Board of Sign Appeals
August 1, 1988
Page 4
Chairman Mills stated that the motion is to grant the variance of the three
pedestal signs and the one sign on the wall is to go with the tenant.
Mr. Tompkins advised that he was opposed to the free-standing sign. He stated
that it is a beautiful building and it could actually be cut up into a whole
retail building or a combination of office and retail. He stated that he is
inclined to think that there should be a nice plan to maintain the spirit of the
ordinance which happens to be aesthetics. He stated that he sees no problem with
the safety or traffic, but he does see a problem with the integrity of the
building being piece-mealed. He advised that he thinks there should be a plan
for the building and its signage in terms of wall signs. He noted that he is
opposed to it.
The motion to grant the variance passed 4-1-1 with Tompkins voting "no" and Boyd
abstaining.
SIGN APPEAL NO. SA88-7 - IGA AT EVELYN HILLS
1324 N COLLEGE - WALTER HEDGES & MIKE DRAKE
The second item on the agenda was an appeal for a variance from the Sign
Ordinance( Article 17, Section 17B 3). Submitted by IGA at Evelyn Hills located
at 1324 North College and represented by Walter Hedges & Mike Drake.
Walter Hedges stated that every year they have a greenhouse set up by the side of
their building. As the greenhouse is winding down, there is roughly a three week
period in the summer when they place a sign on the front of the building saying
that all the plants are half price or "Buy One, Get One Free". He stated that he
just wants to get a variance so that he can do that every year for roughly three
weeks.
Chairman Mills asked if this is something they will be doing each year. Mr.
Hedges answered, yes, they will be doing it every year but the greenhouse next
year will be farther back (south) almost out of the public view because of
remodeling going on there.
Chairman Mills noted that what he wants is to be allowed to put a large sign for
a short period of time up on the front of the IGA. Mr. Hedges advised that this
may all be unnecessary because they may not be able to put the sign up next year
because of the new construction.
Deane Davenport asked Mr. Hedges how many years they had been doing this. He
answered that they had been doing it for two years.
Mr. Tompkins asked what the temporary sign aspects where here. Richard Wilson
answered that there is no such thing. Mr. Tompkins asked about real estate
signs. Mr. Wilson stated that real estate signs are exempted as far as permits.
He noted that, theoretically, they are temporary because they are supposed to be
removed so many days after the land is sold. He stated that he didn't think
there was a specified time limit in the ordinance.
•
•
Board of Sign Appeals
August 1, 1988
Page 5
Mr. Davenport asked about banners. Mr. Wilson stated that a banner is treated as
a wall sign and they are required to buy a permit. As long as they have the
space available for signage, they can put up a banner. Mr. Wilson stated that in
this circumstance there is a complex of buildings so they are only allowed one
sign per wall per building. The only walls they have is the wall toward the
parking lot and the wall toward College Avenue.
Mr. Hedges stated that he was confused because he was told that to make that
plant sign legal, they could cover up their IGA sign with a bedsheet or
something. He stated that he didn't see much point in that. Mr. Wilson stated
that would be legal because they would only be advertising the plants and not the
IGA at that point.
Mr. Boyd asked if the IGA sign was the maximum signage size allowed. Mr. Wilson
stated that it was probably bigger than maximum.
Chairman Mills clarified that as long as they have a banner that covers the IGA
sign and does not exceed the square footage then he is legal. Mr. Wilson stated
that they would have to get a permit for it.
Mr. Tompkins noted that on Page 4 of the Sign Ordinance there is a definition of
a "Portable Temporary Attraction Sign Board" which is temporary in nature. Mr.
Wilson stated that the portable sign is outlawed under "general regulations".
Mr. Tompkins stated that he agreed that there is a fallacy to overcome in the
Sign Ordinance Law. He stated that he sees contradictions and he would like the
technical staff to study this and make recommended changes. It seems that the
intent of the ordinance is to provide the private sector and others whether it is
a banner or whatever. The intent of this is to permit temporary signs that will
encourage these short-term uses.
Mr. Allred stated that he doesn't think it is right to allow some properties
temporary permits and not others because they happen to be in the center instead
of on a free-standing building. He felt that if you are not going to allow
temporary permits, don't allow anyone to have them.
Mr. Wilson stated that a banner doesn't become a temporary permit. It is
considered as part of their allowed signage.
Mr. Boyd asked what the maximum size sign that will be allowed there on the new
facade. Mr. Wilson answered that they would be allowed 20% of their wall area.
He stated that they are allowed one sign per wall. In Section 11 it states that
"wall signs shall be limited in number with one wall sign per business on each
wall with a limit of four walls signs per business per building".
Mr. Allred noted that this building has three walls so why wouldn't it be allowed
one wall sign per wall.
Mr. Tompkins asked Mr. Hedges what exactly he was asking for. Mr. Hedges stated
3L1
•
•
•
Board of Sign Appeals
August 1, 1988
Page 6
that he only wants to be allowed to have this sign for three weeks out of the
year. Mr. Tompkins asked if they will have any plant sales coming up again until
next year. Mr. Hedges answered, no, not until next July.
Mr. Tompkins stated that the technical staff could look at this complex question
of the temporary sign and then have Mr. Hedges come back if necessary.
MOTION
Robert Waldren moved to table this until the staff can look at this and get it
worked out, seconded by Allred and followed by discussion.
Chairman Mills advised that they have a motion and second to table this until the
staff can look at it and get a little more input and they will get back with Mr.
Hedges before it is time for the Plant Sales next year.
Mr. Davenport stated that they need to give Mr. Hedges a sooner time than that,
maybe 60 days. He asked if it would take longer than 60 days to look at this and
give this gentlemen a determination? He advised that one of the complaints that
is always made about coming before one of these boards if that they put off
things.
Chairman Mills asked Richard Wilson if he could come up with an interpretation
within 60 days. Mr. Wilson answered, yes.
AMENDED MOTION
Robert Waldren amended his motion to table this
The motion to table passed 6-0-0 and followed by
for 60 days, seconded by Allred.
discussion.
Mr. Boyd noted that it seems to him if they can put reader boards on free-
standing signs which is adding on to a free-standing sign, that there ought to be
something allowed similar to wall signs.
Mr. Tompkins asked if this should go to the City Planning Director for an
interpretation. Chairman Mills answered, yes, she would think it would go to
him. Richard Wilson advised that he would talk to Freeman Wood, Inspection
Superintendent, and find out his interpretation. Then he can take it to his
supervisor if necessary.
Mr. Allred stated that he felt they needed to get the City Attorney's
interpretation.
Mr. Wilson stated that one sign per wall per business had been brought up before
and not to exceed so many signs had been brought up before. The stipulation was
that you couldn't take a back wall and put it on the front wall or take a side
wall which faced another tenant and put it on the outside.
35
•
•
•
•
Board of Sign Appeals
August 1, 1988
Page 7
Mr. Allred advised that the ordinance doesn't state that.
Mr. Tompkins stated that he thought they were talking about taking on the whole
question of the temporary sign. Chairman Mills stated that they could discuss
the temporary sign part later if he wanted to.
Chairman Mills advised Mr. Hedges that they would get in touch with
as they know something, no longer than the 60 day period.
SIGN APPEAL NO. SA88-8 -- CAR MART
DREW CLARK - 2786 N. COLLEGE
him as soon
The third item of consideration on the agenda was an appeal for a variance from
the sign ordinance at Car Mart submitted by Drew Clark and located at 2786 North
College. Property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial.
Mr. Clark stated that they have an appeal that they need an extension of
basically 2' road frontage to the highway. They want to appeal it so that they
do not have to do other types of construction as far as removing their flag pole
which is in the middle of the lot in the center of the building. He stated that
they explored putting the new sign at both the south and the north ends of the
building, but they ran into the problem of obstructing other businesses.
Therefore, they are proposing to put the sign right in: the center of the lot in
front of the flag pole and it would be just a little less than two feet from what
the ordinance requires.
Mr. Tompkins stated that he was assuming that they want 75 square feet of sign.
He stated that with the 15' they would get 2 square feet for every foot up to 40.
Therefore, they actually could build a sign right now under the existing
regulations but they couldn't get 75 square feet. Mr. Clark stated that the sign
has already been built and the gentleman that built it had called the City to
obtain specifications for the sign.
Richard Wilson stated that they had come in and obtained a permit and said they
were going to set it back 40' from the right-of-way. Then they called and said
they were going to have to get so many feet from the flag pole which would put it
into the setback requirement so they were informed that they would have to apply
for an appeal.
Mr. Wilson advised
could put a sign
problem putting the
to set it directly
setback and take up
flagpole.
that they have other locations on the property where they
post. They have over 100' frontage so they would have no
sign somewhere in that location. He noted that if he wants
in front of his building, he therefore has to intercept this
some of that space without hitting his flagpole or remove the
Mr. Clark stated that they are basically trying to get around having to remove
the flagpole and having to relocate it and having to obstruct the other
businesses next door.
3Co
•
Board of Sign Appeals
August 1, 1988
Page 8
Mr. Becker asked what the distance was between the flagpole and the sign as it is
drawn on the diagram that was submitted. Mr. Clark answered that it would only
be about 6 inches.
Chairman Mills asked what size the flag is. Mr. Clark stated that it is about 3'
x 12'. Mr. Davenport stated that the flag would probably be blowing over the
sign part of the time. Mr. Clark advised that the flagpole will be up higher
than the sign.
Mr. Tompkins asked if it would be a problem to move the sign in back of the
flagpole. Mr. Clark stated that they are not wanting to have to do that just for
the fact of the cosmetic look of it and they don't want the flagpole obstructing
the sign.
Mr. Tompkins advised that they have a current sign painted on the building and
they want the free-standing sign for advertising. He asked if they could not
reduce the size of the sign. Mr. Clark stated that the sign was built before he
ever knew there was going to be a problem. He stated that they have $3,000 tied
up in it, it is an attractive sign and they aren't wanting to obstruct anyone
else there by putting it all the way on the north or the south side of the
building.
Mr. Clark stated that it is basically a sign with a reader board. Mr. Boyd
advised that they could make the reader board slightly smaller and put it
exactly where they want it. Mr. Richard advised that they would have to drop
back to a size of 58 square feet. He advised that from 60 to 75 feet there is a
40' setback requirement. Therefore, when it goes over 60' they have to be back
40' from the right-of-way. He explained that when you take 2' off of that (to
58'),the sign could go 39' back which would be 1' back to 40'.
Chairman Mills asked Mr. Wilson what the setback requirements are in the C-1
zoning. Mr. Wilson answered that for a 10 square foot sign they need to be 15'
back from the right-of-way and for every foot they set back,they can decrease
their signage 2 square feet until they reach 40 square feet as a setback. Then
it dumps to 60 and you can go all the way up to 75 square feet with the same 40'
setback.
Mr. Becker noted that whether or not they want to move the sign slightly north or
south to slip it by the flagpole, they wouldn't be getting anywhere because the
flagpole would still be going up by the edge of the sign. He stated that they
are talking about 5%; he would just as soon grant the variance if they are going
to be measuring inches.
Chairman Mills asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to speak
in favor or in opposition of this appeal.
The public hearing was closed and discussion took place among the board members.
Mr. Tompkins stated that he agreed with Mr. Becker that the whole intent of the
31
•
•
•
Board of Sign Appeals
August 1, 1988
Page 9
Sign Ordinance has to be with the settings. He asked if this 5% really detracts
that much from the aesthetics. He noted that he didn't think the fact that the
money had already been spent on the sign was a hardship. In that sense, with the
comment of the negligible aspect of it, if it is located right there, he feels
that the intent of the ordinance has been fulfilled and he has no problem with
it.
Mr. Davenport stated that it seems in lot of cases that they go get the sign
permit and then change their mind about where it is going to be which makes it up
to the Board of Sign Appeals to bend the ordinance. He noted that the people
making the signs should check into this further and until they send out a
message, the sign makers are going to continue making the signs and the persons
continue coming to us for a variance afterwards. He stated that he doesn't feel
any compunction about making them move the flagpole if they really want to put
their sign there.
Mr. Boyd stated that he tended to agree with Mr. Davenport. The change is
minimal but the hardship is also minimal; it isn't the Board's hardship. Also,
he advised, for some reason, when the ordinance was written that 40' seemed to be
critical. It ,lumps from a 40' to a 75 square feet sign He noted that 2' isn't
much, but also there are other locations that it could be put in.
Mr. Waldren stated that he doesn't see a hardship here.
Mr. Davenport advised that the message they need to send out is to the Sign
Makers to get it straight according to the sign ordinance of that particular
City.
MOTION
Mr. Boyd moved to deny the variance, seconded by Davenport. The motion to deny
passed 5-1-0.
SIGN APPEAL NO. SA 88-9 - THE BERRY PATCH
GLEN L SMITH - 650 N 54TH AVENUE
The fourth item of consideration on the agenda was a request for a variance from
the Sign Ordinance for a sign located at the southwest corner of North 54th
Avenue and Highway 16 West Property is zoned A-1, Agricultural.
Glen Smith stated that he wanted to mention the speed limit along Highway 16 West
where his sign is located is 55 mph and his sign is extremely important to him
because his farm is not visible from the highway. He stated that he had made a
mistake on the drawing he had submitted, he had "south" on an arrow and it should
have been "north".
Mr. Boyd asked if Mr. Smith owned that corner piece of property, would this sign
be legal. Richard Wilson, the Sign Inspector, stated that it would still be
illegal because the sign is in the right-of-way.
35
•
•
Board of Sign Appeals
August 1, 1988
Page 10
Mr. Smith advised that when he asked his neighbor, Russell Jack, for permission
to put the sign up about 10 years ago, he was told that Mr. Jack's property ran
to the center of what is now North 54th Avenue.
Mr. Waldren asked if Mr. Jack would let him move his sign back to get it off the
right-of-way. Mr. Smith answered that he had not approached Mr. Jack about
moving the sign.
Mr. Davenport asked the Sign Inspector how far the sign would have to be moved
back to be off the right-of-way. Mr. Wilson stated that it depends on how big
the sign is. Mr. Waldren stated that he had calculated that the sign was 17.5
feet. Mr. Wilson stated that, in that case, he would have to move it back 19'
from Highway 16 and from 54th Avenue.
Mr. Smith stated that there is no way Mr. Jack would allow him to put a pole up
in the middle of his pasture because they would not want to mow around it.
Mr. Tompkins asked if there is a problem with it being a temporary sign. Mr.
Smith stated that it wasn't a problem with him because his business is temporary
from June 1 to mid July. He stated that the sign has been going up there during
harvest season since 1978.
Chairman Mills asked if the post for his sign is set in concrete so that the post
stays there all the time. Mr. Smith stated that the post does stay there all
the time. Chairman Mills asked if there is anyway he could set a post only for
the period he is selling at the property location. Mr. Smith that Mr. Jack had
moved out of state and he didn't know how to locate him to determine this.
Mr. Tompkins asked if the New Life Chapel might allow him to put a sign on there
property. Mr. Smith stated that he asked them first about placing his sign and
they informed that they didn't think that it was in keeping with the Lord's work
to put a sign there.
Mr. Wilson stated that if he had a lease with someone it would be considered an
on-site sign. Chairman Mills clarified that if Mr. Smith leased or bought 20'
then he wouldn't have a problem.
Mr. Allred stated that this sign was there prior to it being annexed in and he
feels that is somewhat of a hardship. Why is it now all the sudden inappropriate
when it has been there since 1978. If it were a new sign , he stated that he
would be opposed to it.
Mr. Waldren stated that he had been to Mr. Smith's place and it is hard to find
even with the sign.
Mr. Becker stated that with the facts 1)that it was in existence before the
Ordinance, 2) it is located in a heavy rural area and the Sign Ordinance came
about on a urban situation and 3) that it is of a temporary nature, there must be
some category in the ordinance that would allow people to have a sign for this
3q
•
•
•
Board of Sign Appeals
August 1, 1988
Page 11
type of situation. He noted that there may be something that could be amended or
changed in the ordinance with the City Attorney's help to allow for this.
Mr. Boyd noted that there is a problem because this is zoned for agricultural
purposes and being used for such but there is no way to get a customer out there
under the present sign ordinance.
Chairman Mills asked how much longer he will need to keep his sign up. Mr. Smith
stated that they took the sign down already. Chairman Mills stated that maybe
this could be tied in with the appeal that was discussed earlier in regard to
temporary signs.
Mr. Waldren stated that he felt like this one and the one discussed earlier are
two different circumstances. One is urban and one is agricultural and the Sign
Ordinance, as Mr. Becker said, was written for urban situations. He stated that
this should be a matter for the state since it is on their right-of-way.
Chairman Mills stated that is another question; Does the Board of Sign Appeals
have the authority to grant a variance if the sign is in the right-of-way.
Mr. Waldren stated that the right-of-way is there for the convenience of the
citizens of Arkansas and when you become an incumbrance upon that convenience,
you have no more use of the right-of-way. He noted that since the sign has been
there that long, he didn't think the state would do anything about it.
Mr Davenport stated that if it were a different situation with the pole sitting
in the right-of-way, he might look at it differently from a safety standpoint.
He stated that he agrees that it has been there since before that area was
annexed, they would be imposing something that is after the fact.
Mr. Waldren stated that it doesn't look like he is on the state right-of-way to
him.
MOTION
Robert Waldren moved to grandfather this in and grant the variance, seconded by
Allred and followed by discussion.
Mr. Tompkins stated that as far as the safety question, this doesn't pose a
safety problem. He stated that underlying all of this is the same intent as the
zoning ordinance which is to preserve the aesthetic quality. Mr. Waldren advised
that if this was a new sign, he might have a different viewpoint on it. Mr.
Tompkins stated that he sees no distinction because of age. Mr. Waldren stated
that this was legal one day and not the next because somebody decided that this
was a violation of a City ordinance when he wasn't even in the City Limits when
he first put up the sign.
Mr. Boyd stated that he wanted to put some emphasis on the fact that there is a
legitimate hardship. There isn't any other way to put a sign for this business.
Flo
•
•
•
Board of Sign Appeals
August 1, 1988
Page 12
The motion to grant the variance passed 5-1-0 with Tompkins voting "no".
SIGN APPEAL 11 SA88-10 - NCILROY BANK & TRUST
CAROL WALKER - NW CORNER OF HWY 265 & HWY 45
The fifth item of consideration was a request for a variance from the sign
ordinance for Mcllroy Bank & Trust submitted by Carol Walker and located at the
northwest corner of Highway 265 & Highway 45 E and zoned C-1, Neighborhood
Commercial.
Carol Walker stated that they are leasing a building from Lindsey Construction
for an Automatic Teller Building and night depository at the Lindsey Mercantile
site. She stated that their problem is that they are not real sure what Mr.
Lindsey is going have on his sign. She stated that she had talked to Richard
Wilson, the Sign Inspector, and he hasn't received anything from them as of yet.
She noted that the ATM is an individual business entirely and she would like to
put a sign on two sides and the front because their building is sitting at an
angle so the front of the building can't be seen when coming up Highway 265 and
Highway 45. She stated that she would like to have these signs for advertisement
so that customers will know where the automatic teller is located on the lot.
Jerry Allred stated that it looks to him like they are getting the cart before
the horse since they don't know what Lindsey Mercantile has applied for. He
stated that he would hate to grant this variance not knowing what they are
planning to have as far as signage. He asked the Sign Inspector is Ms. Walker
went ahead and put her signs up, then Lindsey would have to work with the balance
of the total signage left. Mr. Wilson answered, yes. Mr. Wilson stated that he
had talked to Lindsey's architect twice and he sent someone down who went through
the location as to where they can put the signs, how many they can have on the
building and asked them to get the information back to him as soon as possible so
they could determine the Automatic Teller (ATM) signage. However, he stated that
they still haven't gotten anything back from them yet.
Chairman Mills asked Ms. Walker if she had talked to Lindsey about this. Ms.
Wilson stated, yes, and from what she understands they are planning one large
sign in the front. She stated that she doesn't know if they are going to have
small signs at the pumps. She noted that it was her understanding that they were
allowed four signs and how that affects her building she doesn't know. She
advised that the Lindsey Mercantile canopy comes out over the ATM building, but
it is not a part of their business. Robert Waldren stated that it is a free-
standing building.
Richard Wilson stated that the situation here is that the ATM building is set
inside the other building (the canopy) and the canopy is the main (the common)
building. He advised that she is not a tenant in a tenant space because it does
not go all the way to the wall of the canopy.
LI I
•
•
•
Board of Sign Appeals
August 1, 1988
Page 13
Larry Tompkins stated that he felt because of leasing, he did not perhaps agree
that this is a free-standing building. He stated that they need to get this
cleared up first. He asked Mr. Wilson if he was saying that because the canopy
extends over, this plus the canopy plus Lindsey's building is one building. Mr.
Wilson answered, no, Lindsey has two buildings there: the individual store and
the individual canopy. The wall from that canopy is considered all the way down
to the ground because that is how they figure the wall space to that building.
MOTION
Larry Tompkins moved to table this until they can get an interpretation.
The motion died for the lack of a second.
AMENDED MOTION
Robert Waldren amended the motion by stating that he would like to table this
until they can get the interpretation that Mr. Tompkins is looking for and he
would like to know what Lindsey has in mind before they grant a variance.
The motion died for the lack of a second.
Deane Davenport stated that he felt that it is Lindsey's responsibility to give
his lessees some signage depending on the interpretation that comes out of this
building thing. He stated that he did feel this should come to the Board of Sign
Appeals because Lindsey and his architect should make sure that their lessees
have the signage that they need.
Chairman Mills stated that she had contacted Lindsey's architect and asked them
he give the Board of Sign Appeals some information on this and he promised to get
back in touch with her but hasn't yet.
SECOND AMENDED MOTION
Mr. Davenport moved to table this appeal until the property owner, the City Staff
and the lessee have all gotten together to see if there is a signage problem,
seconded by Waldren.
Chairman Mills asked Ms. Walker if she had a problem with time. Ms. Walker
answered, yes, because the night depository and the ATM will be operational by
the 15th of August.
The motion passed 5-1-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
Item #1
Chairman Mills stated that the Board of Sign Appeal agenda needs to be changed so
that it will have as complete information as the Board of Adjustment has. She
stated that the Sign Appeal on this last meeting did not in many instances say
Lia
•
Board of Sign Appeals
August 1, 1988
Page 14
what the applicant was asking, what they wanted, etc. She advised that Larry
Tompkins and Dennis Becker are working on how the Board would like the sign
appeals written up.
Jerry Allred stated that he would like to add that there was some mention today
that the Ordinances that were given to them when they took over the Sign Appeals
are not what they are using in the Planning & Inspection Office. He stated that
he would like to know why they do not have the proper information to make these
decisions.
Gerald Boyd asked if the new format will state the zoning and the Sections of the
ordinance that they want a variance on. Chairman Mills answered, yes, and when
they get it together they will give all the Board members a copy to review and
discuss.
Item # 2
Chairman Mills stated that it is that time of year when they elect a new chairman
for the Board of Adjustment & Sign Appeals. She noted that the names will be
submitted at this meeting and will be voted on at the next meeting.
• MOTION
Jerry Allred moved to nominate Don Mills for chairman, seconded by Waldren.
Jerry Allred moved that nominations cease, seconded by Waldren.
Both motions passed unanimously.
Item # 3
Jerry Allred announced that on August 9th, the Planning Consultants will be
meeting with the Planning Commission to go over the new proposed zoning ordinance
and it is an open meeting. Gerald Boyd asked if copies of the proposed
ordinances will be available. Mr. Allred stated that he has a copy at his office
if anyone wants to come look at it.
Larry Tompkins stated that he feels that the Planning Consultants should meet
with the Board of Adjustment and Sign Appeals also.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
•
