No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-10-17 Minutes• MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS A meeting of the City of Fayetteville Board of Sign Appeals was held on Monday, October 17, 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, Robert Davis, Gerald Boyd and Dennis Becker Robert Waldren, Larry Tompkins and Dean Davenport John Merrell, Mark Brewer, Don Cobb, Ernie Stenstrop, Deborah Dean, Elaine Cattaneo and Richard Wilson The minutes of the meeting on October 3, 1988 were approved as distributed. SIGN APPEAL # SA88-12 - REALTY CONCEPTS, INC. MARK BREWER - 524 NORTH COLLEGE The first item an the agenda was a request for a variance to the Sign Ordinance, Article 17, Section 17B-9 submitted by Realty Concepts, Inc. and represented by Mark Brewer and located at 524 North College. Property zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Request was to be allowed to move their current fixed sign 16' to the West where the portable sign is currently located. Mark Brewer stated that he has a correction to the information in the agenda. He noted that it states that there is a Realty Concepts wall sign on the front of the building and that there is no sign on the front of the building, there is an address only which is required by the City. Richard Wilson advised that he is right, there is no Realty Concepts sign on the front of the building. Mr. Brewer stated that he has a situation where Smith's Two -Way Radio had two micro -wave dishes (at this time they only have one) which block the view of his sign. He noted that he wants to move a sign which is behind those two dishes and behind a large tree. He would like to put his real estate sign between those trees which would put it at approximately 15' from the right-of-way. In doing that, it would put his sign in between two trees in line with a flag pole at Kentucky Fried Chicken, then it would be in view going due North. He advised that coming back to the South, this particular building is setback between a large antique home that has been for sometime an antique store which blocks site vision from that side. He noted that to make it more attractive and easier for his clientele to find his business, he is asking for this variance. He stated that he doesn't want to have to cut the trees down. He added that the one micro- wave dish being removed has helped visibility a little bit heading North. Chairman Mills noted that if he cut the middle tree, he really wouldn't have a problem with the sign he has there. Mr. Brewer stated that it would help. He noted that any distance that they would be allowed to move the sign forward would help. 50 • Board of Sign Appeals October 17, 1988 Page 2 • • Mr. Davis stated that there is no center lane here; it is a lousy location for a business. Chairman Mills asked if there was anyone here to speak for or against this. The public hearing was closed and discussion took place among the board members. Mr. Davis stated that it is hard to make a judgment without knowing what kind of an option Smith is going to go to from day to day. Chairman Mills stated that if he cut the trees down, he would have visibility with the sign he has now left where it is. Mr. Becker stated that it would be pretty tough to go against the staff recommendation which is to deny this. MOTION Becker moved to deny the variance, seconded by Boyd. The motion to deny passed 4-0-0. SIGN APPEAL OSA-14 - IBM Corporation 4048 N COLLEGE - DON COBB The second item on the agenda was an appeal for a variance from the Sign Ordinance submitted by Don Cobb of D -Sign Company for the IBM Corporation at 4048 North College (Lots 3 & 4 of Bassett Place). Request was to be allowed to place their 4' x 4' sign 10' from the right-of-way. Don Cobb referred to the letter that he submitted to the Planning Office requesting that the location be varied. According to the ordinance, the distance from the right-of-way is not consistent with the distances planned for this sign. He advised that the right-of-way is quite a ways off of the actual lanes of traffic of the highway there due to culverts, drainage, etc. He noted that from where he interpreted the right-of-way as being (in line with the right-of-way concrete mark that he found there), he measured 21' back to the concrete curb which puts them back at 17' which is 2' inside the requirement. He added that Mr. Wilson's recommendation was to appeal to put it in the middle which would put it at a 10' setback. He advised that IBM is just trying to identify their building for their business people who come to town. He noted that he has some pictures that show the conservative nature of there sign. Chairman Mills asked what he was referring to when he talked about putting the sign in the middle. Mr. Cobb stated that he was talking about in the middle of the D shaped dirt area shown on the plat. He noted that they were planning, because they knew they were close to having a problem, to put it all the way back as far as they could toward the curb. However, when Mr. Stenstrop, Mr. Wilson and he discussed this and agreed that it could be a problem with traffic cutting s► Board of Sign Appeals • October 17, 1988 Page 3 close to that on the back side there. There could be a problem with an overhang of a mirror on a van or a truck. He added that they would be flexible to move it back closer to that curb if that would help. Mr. Boyd asked if that was a multi -tenant building. Mr. Stenstrop stated that at this point, IBM is the only tenant but they have some space on the third floor that is available for other tenants which is a potential for future growth. Mr. Boyd asked how another tenant would advertise. Mr. Stenstrop stated that they would not be able to. He added that they feel that their request for the variance meets the spirit of the ordinance. IBM is very conscience of its image to the public and they are concerned about how they fit into the community. He noted that they strive not to do anything that would be objectionable. He advised that the corporation has on it consulting services a distinguished architect, Jerry McQue, who is Dean of Architecture of Harvard University and he establishes certain design criteria and quality of design that the corporation follows. Mr. Davis asked if they had considered putting the sign on the building. Mr. Stenstrop stated that they try to avoid putting it on the building because they feel that would detract from the architecture of the building. Mr. Boyd stated that it could be on the southern boundary of their property if they have room past the curb. Mr. Stenstrop stated that there is a small planting area there between the property and McNaughton Realty.. He noted that it would almost be blocked from view and tend to associate the Windmill building with that sign rather than their building if it was placed in that location. Mr. Boyd asked what was back in the island there and would it be a possible location. Mr. Stenstrop stated that there is a light pole there and shrubbery and the island would be blocked from vision as you are approaching this. Mr. Boyd asked if this entrance was one-way. Mr. Stenstrop answered, yes. Mr. Becker stated that if you don't know that is a one-way entrance, the sign doesn't tell you a lot. He noted that if it is going to be marked as a one-way, that will help. However, regardless of the sign location, they will have problems there. Chairman Mills stated that even if they put a smaller sign, it wouldn't help. Mr. Becker asked where the one-way sign will go. Mr. Stenstrop stated that the landlord would be the responsible for it and he didn't know where it would go. Mr. Boyd asked who is responsible for selecting the sign and its location, because we have our City Code and he rather resents a trained professional saying where they are going to put their sign without even asking first. Mr. Stenstrop stated that he didn't think anyone was aware until they were ready to get the sign permit that they didn't meet the requirement. He noted that the perception is that there is all kinds of room there. Although, there isn't in reality because the shoulder of the road is so wide and the culvert is there. eel • Board of Sign Appeals October 17, 1988 Page 4 Chairman Mills noted that they would expect the architect to check into this. Mr. Becker stated that the one-way situation is very dangerous. He noted that he understands their point about the best location for the sign. Mr. Boyd asked if the sign was a standard sign and had already been made. Mr. Stenstrop answered, yes, and that it had been made. The public hearing was closed and discussion took place among the Board members. Chairman Mills stated that she thinks they have options here. She noted that they have run into too many plans set up by people who should know the regulations in the past. Mr. Becker asked what the physical distance is that they can have that falls within the ordinance. Mr. Cobb stated that they have requested 10' to the edge of the sign and the ordinance calls for 19'. He noted that they could go 16.5' so that they could still have it within the concrete curb there. Mr. Becker asked how far is it between the edge of their parking lot and the real estate building south of them. Mr. Cobb answered that it is about 12'. Chairman Mills asked Mr. Merrell where the traffic sign (the one-way sign) would go or is that something they have to be concerned about. Mr. Merrell stated that he believed the traffic sign could go virtually anywhere os .the property. He advised that, normally, those directional signs are not heavily regulated by any City. Mr. Cobb stated that the main people they are going to be trying to notify of the one-way are the people coming from the parking lot. They would not really need to worry about the people coming in the entrance so they could even possibly place it on the pavement in the parking lot. Mr. Becker stated that he really thinks there is a safety factor and that the sign ought to be placed in the most noticeable apparent place possible. He noted that he feels if they recognize there is a safety concern, that circumstance allows them to go beyond the literal interpretation of the Sign Ordinance law Therefore, he feels they should do whatever they can to make that sign as apparent as possible since they are now a party to what is happening here. He added that with this situation, he would put that sign exactly where they are wanting to put it. Chairman Mills asked if Mr. Becker thought it might be more appropriate to have it on the building. Mr. Becker stated that he thinks in this particular case having it on the building would be out of the question because you are by this place before you see what is on the building. He noted that the island there is the key spot and from a practical approach they should allow it right were they want it. Chairman Mills commented that if people know where the building is, they will probably go around and go in the back. 5-3 • Board of Sign Appeals October 17, 1988 Page 5 MOTION Becker moved to approve this variance as requested. The motion died for the lack of a second. MOTION Boyd moved to deny the variance, seconded by Mills. The motion to deny passed 3- 1-0 with Mills, Boyd & Davis voting to deny and Becker voting against denial. Richard Wilson, Sign Inspector, advised that he had just seen the picture of the sign and realized that the address on it would be deleted from the total square footage area of the sign, so they would be within the sign square footage if they moved the sign 15' back from the right-of-way. Therefore, it can be resolved and they can work this out. OTHER BUSINESS • STAFF REPORTS John Merrell, City Planning Director, stated that he has been involved in urban planning for about 16 years and the last 9 of those have been in the public sector. He added that for 9 years, he was an advisor and prepared these type of staff reports for the Board of Zoning Appeals in Danville, Virginia which is the same as this Board. He added that he would like to advise that there are going to be times when the Board as a whole or individual members disagree with the staff recommendations and he expects that. He advised that if they vote in a way that is contrary to the staff's recommendation, the staff will not be upset. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 94