No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-06-18 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Sign Appeals was held on Monday, June 18, 1990, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: KERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Dennis Becker, Robert Waldren, Gerald Boyd, Robert Davis and Dee Wright Larry Tompkins Elaine Cattaneo, Freeman Wood, Jerry Rose, Nancy Couch and Mike Flynn APPEAL NO. SA90-5 - VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER - 1388 NORTH COLLEGE AVE The only item on the agenda was Appeal No. SA90-5 submitted by Nancy Couch on behalf of Askew Enterprises for Evelyn Hills Shopping Center located at 1388 N. College Avenue which is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Request was for a variance from the Sign Ordinance: Article 17, Section 17B-9. Mike Flynn, president of Askew Enterprises, stated that, when the sign ordinance was first established, they were involved in some litigation to be allowed to keep their sign where it is. Basically, it was allowed to stay as it was as long as it wasn't changed. He noted that the sign was erected around 1970 and is not a joint identification sign which identifies each business. He added that it is much more aesthetically appealing that a sign with thirty different names, lettering styles, and colors. He noted that they are proposing to match the original design of the sign as well as the navy blue ceramic tile that is around the front of the shopping center buildings. The slogan would read "Fayetteville's First and Most Convenient Shopping Center." He explained that their intention in renovating the shopping center was to renovate a landmark (the first shopping center in northwest Arkansas) in a fashion that would perpetuate it. He advised that they have spend approximately $850,000 on the center exclusive of the sign. Mr. Flynn advised that the sign is the electrical switchhouse for all the parking lot lighting, so the whole pad and wiring would have to be moved. Because of this, they have a hardship situation. Also, if the sign were moved back 30 feet,. it would not be visible because of the hill. He advised that they cooperated with the City and the Veteran's Administration in the moving of their traffic signal to alleviate a dangerous intersection. They relinquished ownership of the traffic signal and spent $12,000 for turning radiuses to make it less dangerous. Mr. Flynn commented that, if they had a joint identification sign, it would defeat the whole purpose of the sign ordinance which is aesthetics for the City. It appears that their real problem is that the sign is too close to the road and possibly too high. He noted that he assumed the Northwest Arkansas Mall got a variance for their sign. He added that the road has been changed some since the sign was put up as well. a° Board of Sign Appeals June 18, 1990 Page 2 • Mr. Flynn noted that, as he understands it, they could paint the sign even if the variance is denied. • In answer to a question from Mrs. Wright, Ms. Couch stated that they are trying to stay with all the colors of the shopping center in renovating the sign. Chairman Mills noted that there is a period of time in which a non -conforming sign is allowed to stay up. Jerry Rose, City Attorney, stated that he doesn't think it is particularly relevant to the discussion of whether they should grant a variance in this case. However, according to the former city attorney, Jim McCord, there was a case in 1977 (S & K, Inc. vs. City of Fayetteville). The issue in that case was whether or not the uncompensated removal of signs through amortization was constitutional. The City tried to get some signs taken down including S & K's and the Holiday Inn signs. The local court (chancery court) gave an injunction against proceeding against taking the signs down. The injunction was appealed to the supreme court which gave a very muddled opinion. That led up to the other two cases (the Don Ray and Mcllroy Bank cases) which declared the City's law to be constitutional. These two cases sort of contradicted the S & K case and overruled it. However, because of "the Law of the Case Rule" which means that if an injunction is won in good faith, they are allowed to keep it. He explained that just because the law changes after the injunction is given, doesn't mean they didn't get it in good faith and can't keep it. He clarified that the "Law of the Case" only applies if it is the same people involved. Therefore, when the Holiday Inn sold out, it no longer applied to them. He added that he couldn't find a record of Askew Enterprises being involved in the S & K lawsuit which took place in 1977. However, on October 1, 1986; Jim McCord sent a letter to E.J. Ball, who was representing Askew Enterprises, stated that he had been requested to determine whether the owner of Evelyn Hills Shopping Center will voluntarily remove (at the owner's expense) the non- conforming free-standing sign at the entrance to the parking lot. He asked Mr. Ball to consult with the shopping center's owner, John Askew, and then advise him of Mr. Askew's position. He stated that he was unable to find any other correspondence regarding this. Mr. Rose advised that this sign is non -conforming at best and if they change it or modify it in shape, size or legend, it would probably fall under the amortization clause and the City could ask them to take it down at their expense. Mr. Flynn stated that he has the City's best interest in mind and he wants to do something that will improve the property and make the city look better. He added that he has had several people call him and request that they renovate the sign just like it is since it is a landmark. He noted that their real problem is that the sign is too close to the street, but it isn't dangerous. Nancy Couch, sign designer, stated that the only change they are making is adding the slogan. She noted that the structure wouldn't be changed. Mr. Boyd advised that they could have a 300 square foot total joint • identification sign. He asked how much of that square footage could be identifying the businesses for the shopping center. Freeman Wood answered that there is no limit of how much can be for the shopping center. There would be q\\ • • • Board of Sign Appeals June 18, 1990 Page 3 a space or a sign for every leasable space in this shopping center. He clarified that the 300 square feet is not automatically granted. It is based on a calculation of floor space up to a maximum of 300 square feet of sign. In answer to a question from Mrs. Wright, Mr. Flynn stated that he has 33 spaces in the shopping center. He added that the sign is 225 square feet. In answer to a question from Chairman Mills, Freeman Wood advised that the Northwest Arkansas Mall sign doesn't meet the requirements, but it was approved by John Merrell, Planning Management Director. He further stated that there was a misunderstanding when the Mall contacted Mr. Merrell about the sign. He didn't intend to approve a sign that didn't meet the requirements. Chairman Mills noted that they aren't changing anything about the sign other than painting and lettering. She asked if they really need a variance for this. Mr. Wood advised that the staff would be much more comfortable in allowing it if a variance was granted by the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Boyd stated that, from what Mr. Rose stated, they have no evidence that this sign was covered by the injunction. Nancy Couch stated that she feels it is necessary to have a sign ordinance, but she doesn't feel that they are out of line by asking to change the wording on the sign. Mr. Boyd advised that, if the sign had been removed and they were starting from scratch, they wouldn't be allowed to have this sign. Mr. Waldren stated that the basic problem is the setback. He added that they could make it work if it were set back farther. The problem is, if the sign were set back farther, the traffic patterns would have to be changed and the sign would not be visible because of the hill. He commented that he thinks there is a hardship here because of the lighting switchhouse and the expense of cutting up pavement and moving all of it. Chairman Mills asked what size of sign they would be allowed to have if sign had to go up in the current location. Mr. Boyd stated that they be allowed to have 20 square feet of sign. Mr. Becker stated that he thinks that sign has some national heritage. that he feels their proposal is in keeping with the nature of the sign They also need to consider the safety and sight distance aspects. any attempt to upgrade that sign would be a plus. MOTION a new would He stated ordinance. He feels Mr. Waldren moved to grant the variance as requested with the provision that there be no variance as far as further changes in the sign except for maintenance, seconded by Becker. The motion passed 5-1-0 with Davis, Wright, Mills, Becker & Waldren voting "yes" and Boyd voting "no". OTHER BUSINESS Item 111: Chairman Mills advised that Mr. Becker can no longer go to the City Planning Commission meetings, so they need to start the rotation process of attending these meetings. qeY Board of Sign Appeals June 18, 1990 Page 4 • MOTION • • Mr. Boyd moved that Larry Tompkins be chosen to start the rotation of attending the Planning Commission meetings, seconded by Waldren. The motion passed 6-0- 0. Item #2: Freeman Wood, Inspections Superintendent, stated that Dr. Ben Israel has a sign up on his property located on Rolling Hills Drive which the staff refused a permit for. He advised that the sign has an arrow on it and his question to the Board of Sign Appeals is whether or not it is a directional sign. He advised that directional signs are exempt according to the ordinance, but in his opinion, this isn't a directional sign. He commented that Jim McCord's interpretation was that they couldn't regulate what was put on a sign. He asked if the Board agreed. The consensus of the Board of Sign Appeals was that they agreed with that interpretation. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. 0,5