The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1989-09-18 Minutes• MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Sign Appeals was held on Monday September 18, 1989, 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: Don Mills, Dennis Becker, Larry Tompkins, Dee Wright and Robert Davis Robert Waldren and Gerald Boyd Elaine Cattaneo, John Merrell and Freeman Wood APPEAL NO.SA89-5 - NELMS CHEVROLET 2403 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE The first item on the agenda was a variance request from the Sign Ordinance - Appeal No. SA89-5 submitted by Nelms Chevrolet for property located at 2403 North College Avenue and zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Chairman Mills stated that a representative is supposed to be present for any appeal. There being no one present to represent this item, it was not discussed. APPEAL NO. SA89-6 - MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT PROPOSED SIGN LOCATION - 2425 OLD FARMINGTON ROAD The second item on the agenda was a variance request from the Sign Ordinance - Appeal No. SA89-6 submitted by McDonald's Restaurant for a proposed sign to be located at 2425 Old Farmington Road which is zoned I-1, Light Industrial & Heavy Commercial. Chairman Mills stated that there standard procedure is to hear the applicant's input. Then they allow anyone in the audience the chance to speak for or against the appeal. Then the public hearing is closed and deliberation takes place among the Board members. Ray Jones, the McDonald's Franchisee for this area, stated that he is accompanied today by the Highway 62 McDonald's Store Manager, Vicky Kinder, and their Supervisor, Carrie Steele. He noted that their purpose in being present at this meeting is to ask the Board of Sign Appeals to consider a portion of the sign ordinance (Art. 17, Sect. 17B-9) which prohibits any off-site sign from being within 660' of a controlled access road with the Highway 71 Bypass being a controlled access road. He noted that the one thing they can do that has the greatest potential of attracting more business to their restaurant is to get some of the people who are traveling that Bypass off the road and into the restaurant. Right now there is no way for anyone traveling the Bypass to know that the restaurant exists unless they are from the area or have some sort of prior knowledge of the area because the existing sign and the restaurant aren't visible from the Bypass. 10 Board of Sign Appeals September 18, 1989 Page 2 Mr. Jones submitted photos which show the intersection and the proposed sign location. He stated that he is sure whoever initiated the sign ordinance were trying to eliminate a lot of the unsightly signs and situations that existed such as the flashing signs, billboards and oversized signs. He noted that he agrees with this ordinance but would like them to consider an off-site sign. Instead of having a billboard, they want to have an arches sign on the property next to Sine's Body Shop. He noted that it is their contention that this particular intersection as it is could be treated as an industry in itself which is currently under-utilized. In his opinion, something needs to be considered for that particular stretch where the Bypass comes through the City Limits of Fayetteville to have some different rules and regulations in regards to signs than the rest of the City. Instead of restricting signs in that area, there might be some way they could tastefully allow signage to pull people off the Bypass for hotels, service stations and restaurants primarily. Mr. Jones stated that the McDonald's Corporation exists on 3.5% of everything that comes across the counter at McDonald's. Here, the tax structure is set up so that the City of Fayetteville and Washington County get three percent of what is spent in the restaurants. This would add up to more if they are allowed this sign to let people know they are in this area. Ms. Kinder stated that they had a recent experience with two greyhound buses that had came to their restaurant who questioned why they didn'thave a sign out by the Bypass because they had driven around for thirty minutes looking the McDonald's restaurant. Chairman Mills stated that as far as changing the ordinance, this Board can't do anything to help him with a proposal for changing the ordinance. She advised that the only thing the Board of Sign Appeals does is hear appeals for variances of the Sign Ordinance. Robert Davis stated that the ordinance is coming up for a rewrite and reconsideration in the near future. Chairman Mills advised that there is a new Unified Development Plan in the works, but it does not include the Sign Ordinance. Although, it has been suggested that a new sign ordinance might be developed. However, that might be a long time away. All they can do today is hear their appeal for a variance. Dennis Becker stated that he just returned from a long trip and noticed that the State Highway System is quite useful in setting up the lodging, eating and gas information signs at exits. These are nice controlled, blue information signs. He asked if Mr. Jones had investigated this with the State Highway Department. Mr. Jones advised that he had talked to Larry Law in the Little Rock office at length about the informational signs. Mr. Law has informed him that the State of Arkansas is in the process of pursuing that. Mr. Jones noted that it is his understanding that the ones on Interstate 30 from Little Rock to Texarkanna are in place. The contract has been let on the ones for the section of Interstate 40 from Little Rock to Fort Smith and they are working on the ones toward Memphis. He noted that the only problem is with the provision that they have right now, these signs can only be put up in areas where the speed limit is 65 • Board of Sign Appeals September 18, 1989 Page 3 mph. Those signs are not allowed on any portion with a 55 mph speed limit which would eliminate anything from Fort Smith to this area at the present time. Larry Tompkins stated that this proposed sign location seems to be a good idea, but he isn't sure the sign at this particular location would give people enough time to get off the Bypass. Also, since this is zoned industrial, there is no reason why that concrete block building is going to remain where it is. Buildings could be developed on that site that would block a sign at this particular location. Mr. Jones stated the portion close to the street is such a narrow area with all the easements both for the street and the utilities, it would be very difficult to build anything there. He added that he is not as concerned about potential development there as he is about doing business one and one-half blocks off of this intersection and not having anyone know he is there. Mr. Tompkins stated that Mr. Jones' pressure on the State Highway Department along with others might help change the 65 mph speed limit rule. He added that the speed limit rules doesn't seem very reasonable. Mr. Jones stated that he was told the 65 mph restriction was put on it because in areas such as Little Rock, it would be too congested to place signs along with the exits and everything else. He added that he agrees those signs are very informative and that would probably be the best thing to do. Mr. Tompkins asked if his proposed sign would be visible going North and coming from the West. Mr. Jones answered, yes, the location they have picked out is very visible from both of those directions. He added that the reason they did not put up a sign when they first opened the store is that they wanted to work it out with the property owners to have a sign where Hardy's has theirs. Since they could not work this out with the property owner, they are proposing this location. Mr. Tompkins asked John Merrell, Planning Management Director, if the measurements shown on this sketch are accurate. Mr. Merrell stated that it would generally be measured to the closest point of the right-of-way and the drawing looks like it has been measured in the correct way. Mr. Becker asked Mr. Jones if he had exclusive rights over all others set up with the property owners. Mr. Jones stated that it took four months to work out a deal with the property owner. Dee Wright asked Mr. Jones if he would be able to put up a sign at the restaurant that is as tall and as large as the Exxon sign near here. Mr. Jones answered, no, there sign is 30' high which is as high as they can go. Freeman Wood, Inspections Superintendent, stated that there is a possibility of granting a height variance on that existing sign. Mr. Merrell stated that he wanted to note that this Board just recently denied a sign variance for the application at the restaurant and the Taco Bell next 1�' • Board of Sign Appeals September 18, 1989 Page 4 • door. They could still come back and refile or amend their request for a height variance. Mrs. Wright stated that she can see hardship because when the McDonald's restaurant is losing business, it is important to the City of Fayetteville because of the city taxes. Mr. Davis stated that this particular exit off the Bypass does provide two hotels, a service station and the various restaurants which would be Justification for the State to consider that it meets the criteria for being a good place to place an informational sign. Mr. Tompkins stated that the 660' that the Federal Government has set aside along the major expressways was developed for a reason. He asked Mr. Jones if he knew what the reason was. Mr. Jones stated that the State of Arkansas has a 660' restriction, but as he understands it, the State has had to approve the signs that have been placed here already. He advised that he asked the State if he got a variance from the City of Fayetteville for a sign, would he then have to apply for a sign from the State of Arkansas and was told that he would have to. Mr. Jones added that the 660' mentioned in his application is in the sign ordinance that the City of Fayetteville has restricting off-site signs for lodging, eating and gas stations from appearing within 660' of a controlled access road. Mr. Merrell advised that the reference to the 660' restriction is on page 596.6.1 and states "no off-site sign shall be permitted within 660' of the right-of-way of any controlled access highway". Chairman Mills asked for clarification on whether the term "highway" or "road" is used. Freeman Wood stated that it states "highway" and the staff had the Board of Directors clarify this about a year ago and the Bypass out there was designated as a "controlled access highway". Mr. Becker stated that Arkansas may be out of step with the other states because most states change the speed limit on 65 mph highways to 55 mph as you approach developed areas but the informational signs are still there. There are other states that allow the 55 mph to co -exist with the information sign. Mr. Merrell stated that the staff thinks that the issue of signs along the Bypass is a major issue to this City. As most planning staffs would, they are recommending that no variance be granted for this or any other sign in these locations. If added that if a decision is made to open the door to off-site signs in these areas, there will be a real proliferation of them on the Bypass over the years. If this City were to decide to allow this type sign, some thought will be given to what type signs, whether or not they would be illuminated, spacing between the signs, etc. Aesthetics would have to be totally thrown out the window as any sort of consider to vote on at all. Mr. Tompkins stated that he thinks the staff has a good point, but he looks at it a little more broadly than that and looking at it as more of a policy. He noted that he feels the policy is pretty cut and dried here. There aren't any 13 • Board of Sign Appeals September 18, 1989 Page 5 • • terms using "aesthetics" but they do have "preservation of the natural beauty and scenic resources". Mrs. Wright stated that as a business person in insurance, she likes as much signage as she can get. The more people you can attract to your location, the more money you will make. She noted that at least in her line of business, people will look it up in the phone book. However, with a restaurant or a hotel, the public has to see the sign before they are going to stop. She advised that she can see a problem with intersections when there is no signage allowed. Restaurants are also helping the City by giving them money. There has to be some sort of compromise situation. She added that she wants to see Fayetteville look good, but she is also concerned for the financial welfare of the town and the people. It is real important that this is taken into consideration when they are creating the new sign ordinance. Mr. Jones noted that if the sign was placed there, it would be visible for about one and one-half miles coming from the North and maybe a mile from the South. Mr. Merrell stated that he has one problem with the reasoning in that if people are pulled off the Bypass to eat at this restaurant, they just get right back on the highway once they eat and go on to somewhere else. Therefore, how much would it really be helping the economy of the community. Mr. Tompkins asked if they had checked into the possibility of using the Sines Body Shop building for wall signs or roof signs. Freeman Wood advised that roof signs are prohibited and off-site wall signs are also prohibited. Mr. Jones stated that the sign he is proposing is the same small sign that is in front of bot hof their two restaurants here and he doesn't want something that would look like a billboard on someone else's business. The Public Hearing was closed and discussion took place among the Board members. Mr. Tompkins stated that he thinks this appeal is well thought out and he can see where it would be conducive to the tax base of the City. However, the intent and the spirit of the sign ordinance particularly in the preservation of natural beauty and when he puts the test of reasonableness to this, he has to be opposed to the appeal. Chairman Mills stated that it seems to her that maybe the group of restaurants could combine forces and appeal to the State Highway Department for the informational sign. Then the changes might be made in a safer way without signs blossoming up all over the place. Mrs. Wright stated that they represent the City and she discussed this with some other businesses in town. Some of the feedback that she got was that because of the sign regulations in Fayetteville, some businesses have backed out of putting their business in Fayetteville for economic reasons. She noted that maybe the City could come up with some kind of City signage if the State is not going to with the food and lodging listed. • Board of Sign Appeals September 18, 1989 Page 6 • • Mr. Wood stated that the City couldn't put them on the right-of-way. The only thing the City could do if they change the ordinance is to allow an off-site sign with space that could be leased on that sign. Mr. Merrell stated that it is possible that the City could deal with the Highway Department and approach them on something like that. Chairman Mills stated that she really thinks they need to look at policy because they have a basis there and not aesthetics. She added that this is something they might talk about more later on when they begin to rewrite the sign ordinance. NOTION Mr. Becker moved to deny the appeal, seconded by Tompkins. The motion passed 4-1-0 with Becker, Tompkins, Davis & Mills voting "yes" and Wright voting "no". Mrs. Wright asked if Mr. Jones could make another appeal about raising his existing sign. Chairman Mills stated that is something Mr. Jones will have to decide. Mr. Jones clarified that as he understands that his options are to appeal for a higher sign at the existing location. Chairman Mills' noted that he does have the option to appeal this to the City Board of Directors. Mr. Jones asked if he approached the State Highway with the signage out on the highway, would this group support him in this effort. Chairman Mills stated that as a board, the only thing that they do at this point is to hear appeals for a variance. The Sign Ordinance has been written and is in City law and the Board of Sign Appeals had nothing to do with writing it. Whether the Board of Sign Appeals would want to support a signage approach to the State Highway is something they would have to talk about. Mr. Jones asked if there is any indication of how long it might be before there is a new set of rules and regulations on the books. Mr. Merrell stated that it might be next spring before the Unified Development Ordinance is adopted and on the books. Mr. Jones relief would have to come from a new sign ordinance and not the Unified Development Ordinance. MINUTES Approval of the Minutes of the Board of Sign Appeal meeting on April 3, 1989 were approved as distributed. The Minutes of the Board of Adjustment meeting of August 7, 1989 were approved with one correction. Mr. Becker pointed out that the Minutes state that Jay Berryman is the "General Manager of Packaging Specialties", but it should read that he is the "owner of Architectural Construction". OTHER BUSINESS nS • Board of Sign Appeals September 18, 1989 Page 7 • • Mr. Becker stated that he had been attending the Planning Commission meetings. They had recently approved a large scale development plan for Pack Rat with a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment that they approve a reduced number of parking spaces to save the trees. Mr. Merrell advised that the trees they were talking about are the trees to be put in with the new landscaping. He noted that it was looked at and the staff found a way to work it out administratively. Mr. Merrell announced that there is a workshop scheduled with Al Raby for September 21st in Room 111. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.