HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-07-02 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Sign Appeals was held on Monday, July 2. 1990, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: MOMS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: MINUTES Don Mills, Larry Tompkins, Dennis Becker, Robert Waldren, Gerald Boyd, Robert Davis and Dee Wright Robert Waldren Becky Bryant, Elaine Cattaneo, Freeman Wood, Bill Mitchell, Nancy Couch, Don Cobb and Bob Morris The minutes of the June 18, 1990 meeting were approved as distributed. APPEAL NO. SA90-6- VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE WALTON ARTS CENTER - E OF WEST AVE, S OF DICKSON ST The first item on the agenda was Appeal No. SA90-6 submitted by Bill Mitchell on behalf of the Walton Arts Center for property located on the east side of West Avenue, south of Dickson Street and zoned C-3, Central Business Commercial. Request was for a variance from the Sign Ordinance: Article 17, Section 17B-9. Bill Mitchell, Walton Arts Center Project Director, stated that as part of their ground breaking celebration, they obtained a temporary permit from the City to mount some 4' x 8' plywood panels on the fence along West Avenue. This was for a children's painting project as part of the festivities. The children produced a series of eight environmental paintings with different themes. In addition to those eight paintings, there is one 4' x 8' sign that credits the area businesses who made the whole thing possible. Whimsicals Gallery actually coordinated this effort on the Arts Center's behalf. Since there were more than 200 children involved in the project, they would like to put the paintings on public display and had selected the north side of the old warehouse building on the corner of Spring Street and West Avenue for the purpose of doing that. He noted that there is a site sketch with his application of the north wall of that building showing how the paintings would be mounted. In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Mitchell stated that they wanted to mount them during the construction stage to help beautify the site. It would be for approximately eighteen months which is the life of construction project itself. He noted that the building they plan to mount these on is the housing for the general contractor. In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Mitchell stated that this wall is quite a distance from Dickson Street. Mr. Boyd noted that the construction will be between Dickson Street and that building. qa • Board of Sign Appeals July 2, 1990 Page 2 • In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Mitchell stated that they would probably not be using the paintings when the site is completed. The life of the paintings is probably not much more than twelve to eighteen months because of the weather. In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins stated, Mr. Mitchell stated that Whimsicals Galley wouldn't have an alternative display option that wouldn't have to come before the Board of Sign Appeals as a variance. They did not indicate that they could display them inside their building. Mr. Davis stated that the paintings wouldn't be very visible from Dickson gtreet because of the distance. In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Mitchell stated that the whole purpose would be to display the children's art. He stated that the building on which the paintings would be displayed is scheduled to be renovated, so he would expect that there would be exterior renovation as well as interior after the Arts Center is complete. He noted that they did make a commitment to the children to display the paintings, but didn't specify a location or a time period. Mr. Tompkins stated that this is a unique situation, but he is concerned about placing signs on public property. It is a non-profit organization. He noted that he is concerned about the deterioration of the paintings. Mr. Mitchell stated that, if they became ratty, they would be removed so as not to detract. He added that, when he discussed this with the staff, Becky Bryant suggested a rotating arrangement. However, they don't have the staff to do that. He advised, however, that they would consider that option and would consider displaying them for a shorter term if the Board so desired. Mr. Tompkins stated that it would be difficult to cut off part of the paintings to bring them into conformance. There being no one else wanting to speak to this, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Becker stated that this is a unique situation. He suggested that they consider granting the variance for six months on a review basis to keep an eye on the condition of the signs. Mrs. Wright stated that she agrees with the review suggestion. Mr. Tompkins stated that this is a unique situation. By placing the signs on public property, they would be establishing a policy. They would be stretching the ordinance quite a bit by allowing this. He stated that he feels comfortable with it because it doesn't detract. It would continue to market the Walton Arts Center. He stated that he has no problems with granting this with the conditions mentioned. • Mr. Boyd stated that he isn't positive that these paintings would be signs. He noted that he doesn't have a problem with this. John Adams of 320 West Meadow stated that he can't believe that the City of Q\ • Board of Sign Appeals July 2, 1990 Page 3 Fayetteville would force someone to get a permit to put up a painting. He stated that, in his opinion, they should be allowed to put up the paintings. He added that he hopes the City of Fayetteville isn't in the business of licensing art. He added that, if they are signs, they are political signs because of the environmental aspect. Therefore, they would not be regulatory under this ordinance except under certain circumstances. His concern was that a precedence would be set with this. Mr. Becker asked the staff for clarification on what qualifies these paintings as signs. Freeman Wood, Inspections Superintendent, advised that the paintings are clearly signs by the literal sign definition in the ordinance. Becky Bryant advised that the ordinance states that any picture intended to he used to attract attention or convey information when placed out-of-doors in view of the general public is considered a sign. The staff feels that these paintings will be used for both of those purposes. Mr. Tompkins stated that their charge as members of the Board of Sign Appeals is to enforce the spirit and intent of the ordinance. He added that Mr. Adams' comments should be addressed to the City Board of Directors, who have the authority to to modify or change the ordinance. • Mrs. Wright stated that Mr. Adams' concerns would apply to the new ordinance that is being drafted. • MOTION Commissioner Becker moved to accept the variance on a six-month review basis not to exceed the construction period, seconded by Tompkins. The motion passed 5- 1-0 with Tompkins, Boyd, Wright, Becker & Mills voting "yes" and Davis voting "no". APPEAL NO SA90-7 - VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE RAZORBACK CLEANERS - W OF ROLLSTON, N OF DICKSON ST The second item on the agenda was appeal No. SA90-7 requesting a variance from the sign ordinance submitted by Nancy Couch on behalf of Razorback Cleaners for property located west of Rollston, north of Dickson Street and zoned C-3, Central Business Commercial. Nancy Couch, representing Razorback Cleaners, stated that her client's sign was built in 1969 but was never permitted. Last August, they contracted her company, Northwest Arkansas Sign Shop, to replace the panels in this roof sign. She noted that she thought they had a permit prior to that. She advised that, in repairing the sign, they didn't change it except for putting the address on it. The sign was placed on the roof when the building was built. It has a big iron pipe that goes down through the brick wall on the inside. She stated that it would take a lot of repairs on the building to remove this sign. Chairman Mills advised the Board that roof signs are not allowed. Ak2 • Board of Sign Appeals July 2, 1990 Page 4 • Ms. Couch stated that the sign ordinance states that roof signs shall not he permitted except on appeal to the Board of Sign Appeals. She noted that she had told her client that, since the sign was there before the sign ordinance was developed, he might be allowed to keep it. Mr. Tompkins stated that, with this appeal, they are essentially involved in the enforcement process. He stated that they haven't received a ruling from the City Attorney on this enforcement situation as they requested. In answer to a question from Chairman Mills, Ms. Bryant stated that there isn't anything in the sign ordinance reflecting that, if a non -conforming sign is 50% or more destroyed, it might be replaced. Mr. Tompkins noted that, when the sign ordinance came into affect in 1970, everyone was given a five-year period to bring all signs in the City into conformance. In answer to a question from Mrs. Wright, Mr. Wood stated that this sign is off the beaten path, so the violation wasn't spotted earlier. It was discovered during the staff's concentrated code enforcement process in which they are reviewing every piece of property throughout the City to bring all signs into conformance. Ms. Couch stated that their wall sign isn't visible because of the location of this business, so the roof sign is essential for their business to be visible from Dickson Street. In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Bryant stated that this particular sign could be hung from the side of the building legally, if it doesn't stick out more than eighteen inches. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Mills stated that the wall sign is visible from Dickson Street when traveling from east to west, but it isn't visible when traveling from west to east but neither is the roof sign. Mrs. Wright asked who would pay for the expense and removal of that sign. Chairman Mills stated that it would be the owner's expense. Mr. Tompkins stated that this is a neighborhood type of business orientation and they could put that roof sign on the wall. He noted that he is inclined to disagree with the variance. NOTION • Mr. Boyd moved to deny this appeal, seconded by Davis. The motion passed 6-0- 0. cc\ • Board of Sign Appeals July 2, 1990 Page 5 • • APPEAL NO SA90-8 - VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE RAZORBACK EXXON - SE CORNER OF FUTRALL DR & W SIXTH ST The third item on the agenda was appeal No. SA90-8 for a variance from the sign ordinance submitted by Bob Morris on behalf of Razorback Exxon for property located on the southeast corner of Futrall Drive and West Sixth Street and zoned I-1, Light Industrial & Heavy Commercial. Don Cobb of D -Sign Company, representing Bob Morris, stated that he was contacted by a representative of Budget Tire, Mr. Threet, who owns the property. Mr. Threet stated that he had contacted the City with a variety of types of signs to see which one would be acceptable in place of their existing sign. From their list, the sign in question was chosen by the City as the one that would be allowed. He noted that there was some trouble locating the right-of-way line. When he later checked into it, he was told that they would have to get a surveyor to determine where the right-of-way line was. He then contacted the State Highway Department to establish the right-of-way. R.C. Walker of the State Highway Department did establish the line. He noted that the sign was then moved over to the east side of the property and back to a 40' setback to comply. However, when they applied for a permit, the staff stated that it still wouldn't pass because of the high-rise sign. They explained that it would constitute a violation based on the fact that there would be two free-standing signs on the property. In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Cobb advised that they would be taking down the existing sign and are wanting to put up a sign that would be conforming in every respect except that there would be two free-standing signs. In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Mr. Wood advised that, when the sign ordinance was put into affect, there was not a limit on the number of signs in the industrial district. This was discovered when a sign permit was obtained for the high-rise sign, because they already had a free-standing sign along the highway. But the ordinance did not limit it to one sign. The City issued permits around 1979 to put up a legal high-rise signs there. After that time, the Board amended the sign ordinance to only allow one free-standing sign in the I district. Therefore, the high-rise sign is non -conforming now, because the ordinance was amended. Ms. Bryant stated that as to whether this high-rise sign could be ordered down is the question they have presented to Jerry Rose, City Attorney. Mr. Wood clarified that the variance is for two free-standing signs. Mr. Cobb stated that he would be glad to get more information on this if they want to postpone it. Mr. Tompkins stated that he is interested in the measurements of the height of the high-rise sign as to whether it is from the grade of the Bypass or the service road. • Board of Sign Appeals July 2, 1990 Page 6 • • Chairman Mills stated that it was her understanding from the staff's report that the high-rise wouldn't conform in any way. If this is not the case, then they need more information. Mr. Tompkins stated that he is interested in the number of signs they have on the building. It seems that they have too many signs for the whole site. Ms. Bryant stated that on the old sign permit, it states that it is a 50' high- rise sign. Mr. Wood stated that, according to their records, the high-rise sign has 143 square feet and was evidently issued off the controlled access highway which allows up to 200 square feet. That would also explain the height, because the controlled access highway measurement allows it to be higher. It is a legal non -conforming sign. Chairman Mills stated that, regarding the five-year amortization period, this high-rise sign has probably amortized out. Mr. Wood stated that, in his opinion, the amortization period applies to only those signs at the date of the adoption of the ordinance. He doesn't think it carries through to the ones that were put up legally by the ordinance. Mr. Boyd clarified that, if the high-rise sign was removed, they would be allowed to put up the other sign without an appeal. He added that they could allow this variance with the condition that by the time the high-rise sign is twenty years old, they have to get rid of one or the other. In answer to a question from Chairman Mills, Mr. Cobb stated that they would not want to remove their high-rise sign, unless they are forced to because it is important for their price advertisement. MOTION Mr. Tompkins moved to deny this appeal, seconded by Davis and followed by discussion. Mr. Becker stated that he likes Mr. Boyd's proposal. Ms. Bryant advised that the ordinance states that the Board may impose reasonable conditions in granting a sign variance. Mr. Boyd stated that the twenty-year time period is arbitrary and he would hesitate to make a special proposal at this time. Mr. Tompkins withdrew his motion and Mr. Davis withdrew his second. Chairman Mills asked if they would like to consider tabling this for more information. The other members agreed. Chairman Mills advised Mr. Cobb that they are not promising that this will be approved after further consideration. aR • Board of Sign Appeals July 2, 1990 Page 7 • • MOTION Mr. Boyd moved to table the appeal until the next meeting, seconded by Wright. The motion passed 6-0-0. Chairman Mills stated that she would like some advice on the enforcement of removal of the sign in this situation. Ms. Bryant clarified that they want information on their authority to remove legal non -conforming signs and information on fair amortization periods. Mr. Tompkins stated that he is interested in any letters of agreement OT gentleman's agreement on the sign when that right-of-way was widened. Mr. Becker stated that the other point is the highway bypass signs (blue informational signs) that are currently in the works and how they might affect the use of the high-rise sign. OTHER BUSINESS Item #1: Planning Commission meetings Chairman Mills advised that she is willing to attend the Planning Commission meetings until this fall when they could again begin a three-month rotation system for all members. The members agreed with this. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. `O�