HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-03-19 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT/SIGN APPEALS MEETING
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals was held on
Monday, March 19, 1990, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration
Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Dennis Becker, Larry Tompkins,
Gerald Boyd, Robert Davis and Dee Wright
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Waldren
OTHERS PRESENT: Becky Bryant, Elaine Cattaneo, Don Cobb and Mike Sheehan
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting on March 5, 1990 were approved as distributed.
APPEAL NO. SA90-1 - VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE
MONTGOMERY WARD - EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER
The second item on the agenda was Appeal No. 11A90-1 for a variance from the Sign
Ordinance submitted by Don Cobb of D -Sign, Inc. on behalf of Montgomery Ward.
The property is located in Evelyn Hills Shopping Center and zoned C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial. The request was for a variance.from.the Sign_Ordinance
Don Cobb, of D -Sign Company from Lowell, Arkansas, stated that he was contacted
by Dualite Signs, who controls Montgomery Ward's signage program, in regard to
this sign. Then, the first order of business was to check out the permitting
capabilities of the sign in question. He came and talked with Richard Wilson,
City Sign Inspector, prior to the sign being installed and explained the size
of the sign, the type, etc. He noted that he also explained that this sign
location was on the south elevation of the Montgomery Ward building over the two
end bay doors at the end of the automotive section. He was told at that time,
there was no problem with it and that it would not conflict with the existing
signage. He was informed that it was more of a descriptive term of the nature
of the business. Then, he came back on February 5th for the permit, discussed
it again and paid the fee. Two business days later, Mr. Wilson called him
and told him that the sign would have to be taken down because the Montgomery
Ward sign is on the south elevation. He was given two options: 1) take the
sign down or 2) appeal it to this Board. He then contacted the Dualite Sign
Company and explained the problem and contacted Freeman Wood, Inspections
Superintendent, and John Merrell, Planning Management Director. He was
instructed by them to go through the appeal process.
Mr. Cobb stated that the problem, according to the interpretation by the Sign
Inspector, is that their sign is in violation of the ordinance. He appealed
to the Board to be allowed to leave the sign as it is.
Mr. Tompkins stated that he appreciates the efforts Mr. Cobb went to in trying
to comply with the ordinance. He added that this Board has had appeals based
upon misunderstanding from the staff before.
n'�
• Board of Sign Appeals
March 19, 1990
Page 2
•
•
Mr. Cobb advised that he had informed the Sign Inspector, when he obtained the
sign permit, that they intended to place the sign on the part of the building
facing the main part of the parking lot between Montgomery Ward and Anthony's.
Mr. Tompkins asked if the staff mentioned, at that time, the four signs per
building allowance. He stated that he had counted five signs on the building
currently, including the Montgomery Ward sign on the canopy. He asked if there
is a committee for Evelyn Hills Shopping Center regarding the signage in the
shopping center. Mr. Cobb answered that the staff had informed him that the
two "Auto Express" signs are considered informational and not signs.
Becky Bryant, Associate Planner, stated that there a lot of things that need to
be clarified. She added that when she looked at the building, she considered
the Auto business a separate business from Montgomery Ward. Therefore, she was
applying a slightly different criteria. She added that she also looked at the
"Auto Express" as advertising and not informational. The ordinance is vague
as to how these things should be interpreted.
Mr. Davis stated that this is not a four-sided building; it is a five -sided
building. He stated that whether or not this is a franchise or a part of the
business doesn't seem to be relevant.
Ms. Wright stated that the point about the five sides should play a role in the
amount of signage allowed because the extra side might block -some of the other
signs.
Chairman Mills stated, in her opinion, "Michelin" is not a business sign, but
an advertisement.
Mr. Davis stated that he can understand why Montgomery Ward would want a sign
to combat the competition with such stores as Sears.
Ms. Bryant stated that originally the staff thought the main consideration was
aesthetics and this wasn't really a violation of the aesthetic consideration.
However, since then they have thought about the color issue and the fact that
this sign is the only non -blue color in the shopping center. Also, it is the
only sign in the shopping center that advertises an outside product. She
pointed out that Montgomery Ward did not sign as the owner on the application
and typically the staff has required that the owner sign the application.
Chairman Mills agreed they do normally require the owner to sign the application.
Mr. Becker asked if the sign ordinance stipulates what the sign must say. Mr.
Tompkins answered, "no." Ms. Bryant advised that according to the Sign
Inspector, there is a difference between informational signs and other signs.
Mr. Becker stated that the geometry of the building and the height difference
in the road lines gives the impression visually that the portion to the west is
a separate building. Therefore, this may require some sort of consideration
• Board of Sign Appeals
March 19, 1990
Page 3
•
•
as opposed to the four signs for a square building.
Mr. Davis stated that the fact that it isn't blue doesn't have any relevance at
all.
Chairman Mills advised that they don't have the aesthetics portion in the current
ordinance, so they can't consider it with this appeal.
Mr. Boyd stated that they might be able to take into consideration the size of
the property and how big of a sign would be on this building. He noted that
Mr. Cobb had received incorrect information.
Mr. Cobb stated that he had never had to get the owner of the property to sign
the applications in the last two years he has been doing this. Ms. Bryant
advised that they were discussing the owner signing the appeal application, not
the application for the sign permit.
MOTION
Mr. Davis moved to grant the appeal, seconded by Wright and followed by
discussion.
Mr. Tompkins stated that, from his calculations, there is a possibility of a 512
square foot sign on this building. He added that he is a little concerned
about the intent of "natural beauty" as relating to the numerous signs. The
only clutter he sees in this shopping center is the windows being used by the
IGA and Western Auto for signage. He noted that he is concerned about the
aesthetic aspect of it, which he will refer to as "natural beauty" because they
are talking about appearance. He stated that the "Michelin" sign seems lost
among all the larger signs and it adds to the clutter. He added that he is
opposed to it.
Ms. Wright stated that the geometric aspects of this
more signage that the average four-sided building.
standpoint, she understands why they need to compete
She noted that it shouldn't be up to this Board what
advertise and they shouldn't consider this in making
stated that she is in favor of this appeal.
building might call for
Also, from a marketing
with their competitors.
product they choose to
their decisions. She
The motion passed 5-1-0 with Mills, Davis, Boyd, Becker & Wright voting "yes"
and Tompkins voting "no".
MIRE SHEEHAN - PROPOSAL TO AMEND SIGN ORDINANCE
Mike Sheehan stated that his father, Tyke Sheehan, was unable to attend this
meeting as planned because he is in the hospital. He noted that he represents
API Sign Shop and stated that he is seeking an amendment to the sign ordinance.
He and his father feel that the sign ordinance discriminates, inadvertently,
toward sign shops. Signs are their product and the sign ordinance prohibits
them from displaying their product. For example, he referred to a monument
tee
• Board of Sign Appeals
March 19, 1990
Page 4
company on North College and a motorcycle shop that displays their products
outside. He explained that the reasons they would like to display their product
is to show their customers the different mounting methods, the different types
of signs available and what signs that have in stock.
Chairman Mills explained that the Board of Sign Appeals doesn't make the
ordinance; they only have the authority to hear an appeal from someone who has
a problem and is seeking relieve. She added that he would probably need to
speak with someone in the Planning Office.
Ms. Bryant stated that Mr. Sheehan had proposed this to John Merrell and Mr.
Merrell felt that the Board of Directors would send Mr. Sheehan back to the Board
of Sign Appeals to get their recommendations so he referred Mr. Sheehan to this
Board first.
Chairman Mills stated that she doesn't intend to speak for the Board of
Directors, but she doesn't believe that they can make a recommendation because
they don't set the ordinance.
Ms. Bryant stated that they are working on a revision of the ordinance at this
point.
• Chairman Mills asked Mr. Sheehan what prohibits him from displaying his signs.
He stated that, according to the sign ordinance, he can only have two signs.
He advised that he doesn't have room inside his shop to display them, but he does
have room outside. He stated that it would benefit him if he could put out a
blank sign, but a sign displaying different lettering methods would benefit him
more.
•
Mr. Boyd stated that he may be able to display signs without lettering without
violating the ordinance.
Ms. Bryant stated that she believes there is a section in the code that prohibits
second-hand stores from displaying goods outside without screening.
Chairman Mills suggested that Mr. Sheehan write some proposals that he would like
to see included in the new sign ordinance which could be studied by them and the
staff as they go into the revisal of the ordinance.
Mr. Tompkins noted that the ordinance states "The term sign shall mean and
include every device, frame, letter, figure, character, mark, plane, point,
design, picture, stroke, stripe, trademark, or reading matter, which is used or
intended to be used to attract attention or convey information when the same is
placed out-of-doors in view of the General Public; in addition, any of the above
which is not placed out-of-doors, but which is illuminated with artificial or
reflected light not maintained stationary and constant in intensity and color
at all times when in use shall be considered a sign within the meaning of this
chapter, when placed near the inside surface of a window in such a way as to be
in view of the General Public and used or intended to be used to attract
attention or convey information to motorists. For the purpose of determining
c1b
• Board of Sign Appeals
March 19, 1990
Page 5
•
•
number of signs, a sign shall be considered to be a single display surface or
display device containing elements organized, related, and composed to form a
unit. Where matter is displayed in a random manner without organized
relationship to elements, or where there is a reasonable doubt as to the
relationship of elements, each element shall be considered to be a single sign".
Mr. Tompkins added that it definitely relates to that informational sign which
attracts attention. He noted that an informational sign is different from the
product and he doesn't see why their product couldn't be displayed.
Mr. Sheehan stated that there had been a comment made earlier at this meeting
that all signs are informational type signs, but that isn't necessarily true
because signs are his product.
Mr. Tompkins stated that he sees no conflict between his product and the sign
that he needs to advertise his business.
In answer to a question from Chairman Mills, Mr. Sheehan advised that they had
moved from one location to another and had an accumulation of used signs. He
noted that there has been some comment made by the City about their used signs
on the premises. In fact, he has been required to put a fence up to hide them.
He added that he suspects that his father, Tyke Sheehan, who was planning to
attend today was directed to come before this Board with his proposals.
Ms. Bryant advised that Mr. Sheehan had applied for a conditional use for a sign
shop at this new location and one of the conditions by which it was approved
was that they screen a number of items stored out back. Mr. Sheehan stated
that there is some lumber and miscellaneous items, inherited from the previous
occupant, stored outside which looked trashy.
Chairman Mills suggested that Mr. Sheehan go to the Planning Office with his
proposals and find out exactly what he needs to do. Ms. Bryant advised that
he could provide some recommendations to be presented to the Board of Directors.
In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Sheehan stated that their location
is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential.
OTHER BUSINESS
Item #1 Chairman Mills stated that she had been informed by the City Attorney,
Jerry Rose, that there had been a suit made against the City in connection with
the ERC Properties setback variance request that they recently denied. She
noted that she had met with Mr. Rose and he is asking for comments and
suggestions from the Board of Adjustment. She announced that she is calling
a special meeting of the Board of Adjustment to meet with the City Attorney on
Monday, March 26, at 3:45 p.m. to discuss what will be involved with this suit
and what their options are. Mr. Rose has asked for some input from the Board
of Adjustment regarding whether or not a fine should be proposed and, if so, what
a reasonable amount would be.
Chairman Mills advised that there is nothing to give any guidelines whatsoever
• Board of Sign Appeals
March 19, 1990
Page 6
•
•
on this. She noted that it would be difficult for the Board of Directors to
determine a fine amount because each case is different. She added that Mr.
Rose informed her that he feels the case for the City is a very solid one.
Mr. Davis stated that, as he sees it, it is ERC Properties' problem and not this
Board's problem and he doesn't think they should provide a solution.
Mr. Tompkins stated that he agrees and is ready to uphold the intent and the
spirit of the zoning ordinance. He doesn't feel a compromise is in the picture.
Chairman Mills stated that the City Attorney wants their input so that if this
goes to Court and the judge agrees to a settlement, they would have a reasonable
amount determined.
DISCUSSION OF 2010 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
VERSION III - DATED DECEMBER 6, 1989
Mr. Davis referred to 9.4(E) on page 238. He stated that, instead of it reading
"the concurring vote of a majority of the members shall be required for the Board
of Adjustment to...." , it should read "the majority of those present."
Ms. Bryant stated that this new ordinance lumps the-Board°of Sign Appeals and
the Board of Adjustment procedures together. The consensus of this Board was
that they be kept separate.
Chairman Mills stated that the only time she votes for Board of Adjustment is
when there is a tie and, with Sign Appeals, she votes.
Mr. Tompkins stated that he has a problem with what the relationship is between
the Signs on page 205, the Board of Adjustment on page 237 and the Board of Sign
Appeals on page 212. On page 205 it refers to Board of Sign Appeals hearing
an appeal from the sign ordinance, then on page 239, it states that Board of
Adjustment shall hear sign appeals. He noted that in one place it talks about
the Board of Sign Appeals, then it talks about the Board of Adjustment with no
powers or duties for the Board of Sign Appeals.
Mr. Davis stated that the Board of Adjustment is set up under a statue of the
state government which is one reason they should be kept separate.
Chairman Mills stated that she would like to see step-by-step procedures in the
ordinance for the applicants which state their options and their appeal rights
for simplification.
Mr. Tompkins stated that they could just have a "Board of Appeals" which handles
all the variance requests and appeals. Ms. Bryant advised that some things can
only be appealed to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Tompkins noted that on page 238, 9-4(D) it should read "....by a minimum of
0�
• Board of Sign Appeals
March 19, 1990
Page 7
•
•
four members, which constitutes a quorum."
Ms. Bryant advised that the staff will be going through this ordinance with Jerry
Rose, City Attorney, so that he can make suggestions on all of these items.
Mr. Davis referred to 9-4(E)(2) and stated that the Board of Adjustment doesn't
receive any orders from the Planning Administrator. He noted that the Planning
Administrator has purely a staff advisory function.
Chairman Mills noted that, if someone comes in who has disagreed with an
interpretation that the Planning Administrator has made, the Board of Adjustment
would determine whether the Planning Administrator is right or wrong.
Chairman Mills stated that the staff needs to determine exactly what
to come before the Board of Adjustment. As this reads, it seems as
is more that might come to them than they need to be handling.
is going
if there
Mr. Tompkins stated that 9.3(D) states that the "Board of Adjustment shall hear
and decide all matters referred to it or upon which it is required to pass under
the ordinance." He noted that "all matters" could be anything.
Mr. Tompkins noted that page 238, 9-5(B) states appeals to Board concerning this
ordinance may " be taken by any person aggrieved or any officer or department
of the City affected by any decision of the Planning Administrator." He added
that this could include any department that the Planning Administrator
supervises.
Mr. Tompkins stated on page 239, 9-5(E)(1), it gives the size of the sign to be
posted. He noted that this size becomes a standard, but the signs may need to
be larger.
Chairman Mills noted that there is a typographical error there with "eighteen
(19)". She added that page 240, 9-5(F), states "any party may appear in
person or by attorney or by agent at the appeal hearing." She questioned
whether there is any place in the ordinance that states that the appeal must be
signed by the owner or his/her representative. Ms. Bryant stated that this
would be more of a departmental policy.
Chairman Mills asked if the staff is planning to raise the fees in the new
ordinance. Ms. Bryant stated that they discussed not even putting the fees
in the ordinance and having a blanket statement to be able to set them from time
to time.
Mr. Tompkins stated on page 240,9-5(I),
have all the powers of the officer..."
Mills stated that her thought on this
overrule the Planning Administrator.
it states "The Board of Adjustment shall
He asked what officer means. Chairman
was that this gives them the power to
Chairman Mills stated that on page 241, 9-6(1), it states that "the Board of
Adjustment determines that the public convenience and welfare will be
• Board of Sign Appeals
March 19, 1990
Page 8
•
•
substantially served." She noted that "hardship" isn't mentioned in this.
Mr. Becker stated "non -conforming structure" should be added to the definition
list.
Mr. Tompkins stated that on page 242, 9-6(F), it states that "The Board of
Adjustment shall not, under any circumstances, grant a variance to permit a use
otherwise not permissible...." He questioned if when a zoning request is
denied, would the applicant then have the right to come to the Board of Appeals
according to this new ordinance.
Chairman Mills reiterated that this new ordinance leaves it open for any number
of things to come to the Board of Adjustment that they haven't done before.
She noted that there needs to be a determination as to where these appeals should
go.
Mr. Tompkins stated that the ordinance has always referenced City of Fayetteville
and City Limits, but now it references "jurisdictional area." He asked if they
are dealing with "jurisdictional area" or "City Limits." He referred to page
245 where it states "The City." Chairman Mills stated that this new ordinance
flip-flops the use of two terms. Mr. Tompkins stated that this needs to be
clear.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned•at 5:30 p.m.
cb\
ABERNATHY, BRYAN.(SA90-12) _ 117 .
BABE RUTH BASEBALL LEAGUE (SA92-11) - . 183 .
BABE RUTH BASEBALL LEAGUE (SA92-11) • • '179; 1. '
BASSETT, DAVID (SA90-10)
CAR MART (SA88-8)
36.
DISCUSSION OF SIGN APPEAL ORDINANCES 1: ` . 1
DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENTS TO SIGN ORDINANCE, , 128°
DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED TREE ORDINANCE 1759
DISCUSSION OF 2010 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PLAN - VERSION III 82
EMMA'S RESTAURANT (SA90-14)
ENTRE' COMPUTER CENTER (SA88; 6)
ENTRE' COMPUTER CENTER (SA88-6);..)
EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER.(SA90-5)
EYE CLINIC OF NORTHWEST ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIAGNOSTIC CLINIC (SA88-11)
GIBSON, ANDY (SA92-5)
GRAY, HARRY (SA92-1)
GREER PLAZA (SA88-16)
HARDEE'S FOOD SYSTEMS (SA88-5)
HARRIS, BOYD (SA89-1)
HARRIS, BOYD (SA89-1)
IBM CORP. (SA88-14)
IGA AT EVELYN HILLS (SA88-7) 33';
126 ;
25;1,
.
99;'
1:15
.162 .
149';.
60
63
60
JACKSON, LEE (SA90-2)
KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN (SA88-4)
KHODABANDEH, MOHSEN (BA92-22)
LAZENBY REAL ESTATE CO. (SA88-3)
LAZENBY, KEN (SA90-17)'
MARKO, JOHN (SA91-2)
MCDONALD'S (SA89-6)
MCDONALD'S CORP. (SA88-17)
MCDONALD'S (SA92-2)
•
•
•
•
85
12:1
:136;
•
X140` :
70
''; .152
MCILROY BANK (SA92-6,7,&8) 164
MCILROY BANK & TRUST (SA88-10) 41
MEASURING OF SIGNS 65
MONTESSORI SCHOOL (SA88-1) 10
MONTGOMERY WARD (SA9011).a 77
NELMS CHEVROLET (SA89-5) 70
OZARK STAGEWORKS BANNER
PEARSON, THOMAS JR. (BA92-15) "r
PRESBYTERIAN & DISCIPLES CAMPUS CTR. (SA90-3)
129,
167
87
RAZORBACK CLEANERS (SA90-7) 96.
RAZORBACK EXXON (SA90-8) 101
RAZORBACK EXXON (SA90-8) 98,
REALTY CONCEPTS (SA88-12) 46
REALTY CONCEPTS (SA88-12) 50
REMAX REALTY (SA90-13) 124
RIGGS, RICK (SA91-5) 145
RISK, MARK (SA91-1) 138
SANDERS, HOWARD (BA92-22) 178
SHEENAN, MIKE PROPOSAL TO AMEND SIGN ORDINANCE 79
STREET NUMBERS 67
T. J. KWIKIT (SA88-2) 12
T. J. KWIKIT (SA88-2) 16
TACO BELL (SA88-19) 58
THE BERRY PATCH (SA88-9) 38
UNITARIAN -UNIVERSALIST FELLOWSHIP (SA90-16) 132
W. C. FARM BUREAU (SA90-9) 105
W. C. FARM BUREAU (SA90-9) 120
W. C. FARM BUREAU (SA90-9) 127
WALKER, KIRBY (SA91-4) 142
WALMART STORES, INC. (SA92-4) 162
WALTON ARTS CENTER (SA92-3) 156
WALTON ARTS CENTER (SA90-6) 94
FAYETTEVI LLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
•
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
Name
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT/SIGN APPEALS
ATTENDANCE
(November 6, 1989 - October 15, 1990)
Total Meetings #Absentees
Don Mills 20 1
Dennis Becker 20 1
Larry Tompkins 20 1
Gerald Boyd 20 3
Robert Davis 20 3
Robert Waldren 20 7
Dee Wright 20 3
•
9
a
m H
7m
74 C
N
J
O
0
V
v'
_
U`
,
n
W
N„
11\"\\\\\\\"\\\\\\-
\\\\\\\\\\\x\\\\\\E
i
\
` \
` \
\
` \
` \
`
\
\
\
\
` \
\
C \
\
` \
ll
F
i•
\
\
\
\
\
C\
\
C\\
\
\
\ \
\
x
K v1_
\
\
\
),
,`
\
\
\
\
\
\ \
X
\
\ \
s
\\\-><-
,
N
\>"\
\
\x.
$
-
\
'`
c\
\'
i 1
\
\
\
\
''.x
\ \
\
\
\ "4
L
9
a
m H
7m
74 C
N
