HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-04-02 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Sign Appeals vas held on Monday, April
2, 1990, 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,
Gerald Boyd, Robert Davis and Dee Wright
Robert Waldren
Becky Bryant, Elaine Cattaneo, John Merrell, Freeman Wood
and Lee Jackson
APPEAL NO. SA90-2 - VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE
LEE JACKSON - 98 S. DUNCAN
The first item on the agenda was Appeal No. SA90-2 submitted by Lee Jackson
for property located at 98 S. Duncan which is zoned R-3, High Density
Residential. Request was for a variance from the Sign Ordinance: Article 17,
Section 17B-9.
Lee Jackson stated that he had talked with the city staff and was advised that
a 4' x 4' sign could be placed on each side of the building. He advised that
he has a sign that, in essence, could be cut in half to fit within those
perimeters. However, it would be objectionable to him..to_cut,the.sign..in_half
because it is a very well -decorated and attractive redwood sign. He -stated that
he would like to place it on one side of the building (preferably the front) and
would be willing to sign a statement that there would be no other signs.
Mr. Tompkins stated that each business can have a sign in an R-0 district.
He added that Section 17B-11 states that there is a limit of one on-site wall
sign per business in an R or R-0. He stated that he thought that applied to
the office aspects and not to residential multi -family. Looking at other
apartment buildings, there is only one sign on one side of the building.
Freeman Wood, Inspections Superintendent, stated that he is the author of that
ordinance by the direction of the previous city manager, Don Grimes. He stated
that it was the intent to allow a sign on an apartment building. The intention
was that apartments would be one business and that a building on a corner lot
would be allowed two signs.
In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Jackson stated that he didn't check
Fayetteville's sign ordinance before the sign was made. The sign, which cost
$2,500, was actually made for a property in New Mexico. He added that it did
win an award from a landscaping committee in Albuquerque for being such a nice
sign. He reiterated that it wasn't made for this location, but it could be very
easily adapted to this situation. He added that he is planning to place the sign
between the windows on the corner of the building.
In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Jackson stated that he has six
apartment units, and he feels that the sign would enhance the value of the
subject property, the surrounding properties, and the image of that entire area.
• Board of Sign Appeals
April 2, 1990
Page 2
•
•
He added that he doesn't currently have a vacancy problem, but there is the
potential for a vacancy problems for the summer months because of the university.
Chairman Mills noted that what he is trying to do is use an existing sign.
The public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Wright stated that she doesn't see a problem, since it is an attractive
sign.
John Merrell stated that the sign is totally out of scale and out of character
for that type of architecture.
Mr. Becker stated that it would be a major convenience to grant the variance.
There doesn't seem to be a hardship other than the fact that he has an existing
sign that he wants to use. He noted that he doesn't see a hardship in terms
of the actual existing conditions.
Mr. Tompkins stated that he doesn't see any practical difficulties nor does he
see that it would be unreasonable for Mr. Jackson to adhere to the present
ordinance. He stated that he is inclined to disagree with the request.
Mr. Jackson stated that the issue that he has was not hardship per se, but that,
if the sign was cut in half, he could place each half on two sides of the
building.
MOTION
Mr. Boyd moved to deny the appeal, seconded by Davis. The motion passed 5-1-0
with Mills, Davis, Boyd, Tompkins and Becker voting "yes" and Wright voting "no".
OTHER BUSINESS
Item 111: Mr. Becker stated that there have recently been several t -shirt sales
vendors sitting up in parking lots around the city. He added that these could
cause a big sight -distance and safety problem at intersections. In answer to
a question from Mr. Becker, Freeman Wood advised that these temporary vendors
are required to get a Certificate of Occupancy. He advised that the police ran
several of them out last Friday because a problem with counterfeit souvenirs.
He stated that the ones who set up at a stop light intersection aren't as much
of a problem. But, in other locations, they try to enforce the setback and keep
them back from the road.
Item #2: Mr. Tompkins stated that, in terms of the unified development code,
he is concerned about the intensity of a lot: the square footage of the lot and
the square footage of the structure. He stated that they do have a lot area
calculation formula, but he isn't sure there is a building square footage
formula.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
•
