The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-08-06 Minutes• MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Sign Appeals was held on Monday, August 6, 1990, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Larry Tompkins, Dennis Becker, Robert Waldren, Gerald Boyd, Robert Davis and Dee Wright OTHERS PRESENT: Becky Bryant, Elaine Cattaneo, Joe Rodman and Paul Marinoni MINUTES The minutes of the July 16, 1990 meeting were approved with one correction on "MEMBERS PRESENT" and "MEMBERS ABSENT" in the heading of both the Board of Adjustment and Board of Sign Appeals minutes. It should reflect on both sets of minutes that Robert Davis was absent and all the other members were present. APPEAL NO. SA90-9 - VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE W.C. FARM BUREAU - S OF WEDINGTON, W OF BETTY JO(3389 WEDINGTON DR) • The only item was a request for a variance from the sign ordinance submitted by Washington County Farm Bureau for property located south of Wedington and west of Betty Jo Drive (3389 Wedington Drive). Property is zoned R -O, Residential -Office. Appeal was for a variance from the sign ordinance: Article 17, Section 17B-9. Joe Rodman stated that they have asked for a variance of the sign ordinance to allow them to put up a free-standing sign on the northwest corner of their property. Their architect determined that this location would conform with the existing ordinance specifications. He stated that it would be a 4' x 6' free- standing sign and would be approximately 12' high in order to be visible. It would have the Farm Bureau logo and the name "Washington County Farm Bureau" on it. In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Rodman stated that they already have a Farm Bureau Sign that is visible coming from the east but isn't visible coming from the west. However, a lot of their business comes from the west and clients don't see the sign on their building unless they are familiar with it. In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins regarding the house numbering through this area, Mr. Rodman stated that their existing sign has their house number on it. He stated that the staff • report in the agenda packet notes that the sign is illegal. However, when they built the building eleven years ago, they were in the City Limits and complied with all the zoning requirements at \p4 III Board of Sign Appeals August 6, 1990 Page 2 that time. They were told that the existing sign would comply. He advised that at that time the Federal Land Bank occupied the building directly east of them (which is now Photography Unlimited). They wanted to put up a monument sign in the front similar to that that the Federal Land Bank had erected in front of their building prior to this. The Planning Staff at that time advised them that they could do that, if the Federal Land Bank were agreeable to a small sign on top of their existing sign. They decided on the alternative which was the lettering that is on the building now. After several conversations with the City Planning staff, they put up the existing sign and weren't aware that it was illegal until they received the staff report in the mail today. He added that Farm Bureau is nationwide, and they have members coming into this area from all the other states. They are attempting with the request for a free-standing sign to go into a systematic form of advertising to let out-of-state clients know where they are located. • • In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Rodman stated that their Fayetteville office gets a tremendous amount of business from people outside of the county, who attend the university. Mr. Davis stated that he is confused as to why they would want to locate the sign on the west side of the property rather than on the east. Mr. Rodman stated that was the only location they could place it without requesting another variance. That chosen location was simply to comply with the setbacks. In answer to a question from Mrs. Wright regarding the staff's suggestion of a sign attached to the wall, Mr. Rodman stated that they want it out closer to the highway so that people coming from the west can see it. Mrs. Wright stated that the trees would probably block it from either way. Mr. Waldren asked if he had any problems with what the staff has recommended with a monument sign. Mr. Rodman stated that if the City is recommending that a monument sign be located on the northeast corner and be tied to the removal of the lettering from the building, then they do have a problem with it. If the lettering were removed, the outline of the letters would still be visible on the brick. Also, since their signs are standard in size in Arkansas, a standardized sign of the size recommended by the staff (12 square feet) doesn't have the name of the organization on it. He stated that they don't have a problem with a sign out front with just the logo, unless it is tied to taking the name "Farm Bureau" off of the building. He stated that at the last meeting of their Board of Directors, the consensus was to pursue the rezoning request to C-1 if the variance is denied. However, if the Board of Appeals granted them a variance to put the monument sign on the northeast corner of the property as III Board of Sign Appeals August 6, 1990 Page 3 recommended by the staff and allowed them to leave the Farm Bureau letters on the building as they are now, he would recommend that the Board of Directors of Farm Bureau (32 members) accept it. Mr. Rodman noted that he has talked to the owner of the property adjacent to them on the west side who has agreed to allow them to trim a tree to improve visibility. Mr. Davis stated that, if the existing sign on the building isn't in compliance, it should go to the City Prosecutor. Becky Bryant, Associate Planner, explained that there hasn't been a violation issued on the existing sign. She just recently determined that it was illegal while doing research for this appeal. There is no record of a permit being issued for it. Mr. Rodman stated that they don't have a copy of a permit, because their contractor would have gotten it. In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Rodman stated that he is opposed to removing the existing sign because of the aesthetics and the fact that approval was obtained from the City Planning staff when they put it up. • Ms. Bryant noted that, according to the ordinance, a free-standing sign would be allowed on this property only if there are no other signs. Therefore, regardless of whether the existing sign is legal, it would have to be removed in order to put up a free- standing sign. • Mr. Rodman stated that he feels the Board of Directors of the Farm Bureau would be very receptive to dropping the pursuit of a rezoning and would accept the monument sign on the northeast corner. However, the idea of removing the letters from the existing sign hasn't been discussed. Mrs. Wright asked if the staff's recommendations have changed any since the staff report was written. Ms. Bryant answered, no, that something nondescript such as a monument style free-standing sign in front could be done in good taste. She added that she is concerned about having two signs there. The concern about the coloring on the brick if the lettering was removed would probably be quickly dealt with by the sun. Mr. Tompkins stated that there is a possibility for potential construction of a building on the property to the west which could obstruct the visibility of the sign. Mr. Rodman stated that he didn't feel a potential building on the west would obstruct the view of a monument sign in the staff's recommended location. In answer to a question from Mr. Waldren, Ms. Bryant stated that A \O • Board of Sign Appeals August 6, 1990 Page 4 • with a commercial rezoning, a free-standing sign would be allowed only in that northwest corner. They could have one free-standing sign and a wall sign. Mrs. Wright stated that, according to the planning consultant's research, there had been a projection for a new airport out that direction. She questioned whether he had projected that this area be residential or commercial. Ms. Bryant stated that Wedington is largely residential with certain commercial nodes in the recommended study by the RM group, but this study hasn't been adopted. Mrs. Wright stated that they need to keep the future in mind when they make decisions in this area. Ms. Bryant advised that the staff is very concerned about commercial stripping on Wedington Drive. Mr. Rodman advised that five acres directly across the highway in front of their property was just recently rezoned to C-1. The west boundary of North Salem Road is in a direct line with their west property line which is the buffer for commercial development from what he understands from conversations with the staff and Mr. Marinoni. Therefore, even if their property was rezoned C-1, they would not be out of conformity with what has already been done. Mr. Becker stated that the 55 mph speed limit in this area makes it very difficult to see signs and adds to the problem. The reduction of the speed limit would help with some of the visibility problem. He stated that he is in favor of the staff's recommendation for the monument sign on the northeast side of the property which is away from the tree line. Mr. Davis stated that this is a commercial area and the property in question is surrounded by commercial except on the southeast side. He noted that there isn't much chance for a residence on R -O property between commercial properties. Ms. Bryant noted that R -O allows a lot of things besides residences such as multi -family dwellings and offices. Mr. Waldren stated that he agrees with Mr. Davis that it seems this will eventually be going to commercial. He added that they might as well let him have the signs there while they have a little bit of control over it. If it is zoned C-1, he could put up anything he wants there. He stated that he would be in favor of letting him put up a monument sign and leaving the sign on the building. The public hearing was closed. • Mr. Davis stated that it seemed that the classification of R-0 for this location wasn't thought out at the time it was made, because it is no longer in keeping with what has developed there. \OD • Board of Sign Appeals August 6, 1990 Page 5 Mr. Boyd stated that R -O was used as a buffer between residences and commercial. Chairman Mills stated that they need to be extremely careful with what signs are allowed here so that it won't end up like College Avenue once was. Mr. Tompkins stated that he concurs with Mr. Davis regarding the land use, but they are not in the area of land use planning. They are in the area of looking at signs and aesthetics. He stated that he has a problem in looking at the reasonableness of this and what they have attempted to do with the sign ordinance which has to do with quality, traffic and the aesthetics aspects. There is a proliferation of signs along this strip, so it seems that the aesthetic aspect is being destroyed already. He noted that he agrees with the staff that the intent is not to have over signage. He stated that he is inclined to disapprove of the request. In answer to a question from Mr. Boyd, Ms. Bryant stated that the largest free-standing sign allowed in an R -O zoning would be 4 square feet. • MOTION • Mr. Waldren moved to grant the variance for a monument sign on the northeast side of the property as recommended by the staff and to grant a variance for the sign on the building, seconded by Wright and followed by discussion. Mr. Tompkins stated that if that part of Wedington is widened to four lanes, someone will have to pick up the cost of moving the signs. Mr. Waldren stated that he would assume that would have to be negotiated by the City and the Highway Department. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION Mr. Waldren amended his motion to state that if and when additional right-of-way is obtained for the highway, the Farm Bureau will be responsible for relocating their sign, seconded by Wright. The motion was denied 3-4-0 with Wright, Waldren & Boyd voting "yes" and Becker, Tompkins, Mills & Davis voting "no". MOTION Mr. Becker moved to grant a variance for the monument sign as recommended by the staff with the removal of the sign on the building, seconded by Davis. The motion passed 6-1-0 with Boyd, Becker, Tompkins, Wright, Davis & Mills voting "yes" and Waldren voting "no". \OR III Board of Sign Appeals August 6, 1990 Page 6 • Chairman Mills advised that with this approval they will be allowed to put up a monument sign on the northeast corner of the property, but will have to remove the sign on the building. Joe Rodman stated that this leaves them no choice but to go back to the pursuit of the rezoning to C-1. OTHER BUSINESS Item #1: Appointment of Chairman Chairman Mills stated that they need to vote on the new chairman for the upcoming year. She asked if there are any other recommendations other than herself. There being no response, she asked for a vote of those in favor of Don Mills being chairman. The vote in favor was unanimous. Item #2: Bylaws Chairman Mills advised that Becky Bryant, Associate Planner, has drafted new bylaws for the Board of Adjustment which were included in the agenda packet. She asked for any additions, deletions or suggestions they may have. Mr. Davis stated that Article III, Paragraph A, should have an addition which reads "Chairman of the Board of Adjustment may review the list of candidates in the City Clerk's office in advance and indicate the candidate whose qualifications would best serve the Board's needs." Mr. Tompkins compared Article II, Paragraph A, with the proposed Unified Development Code. The Unified Development Code states that they hear and decide appeals from any aggrieved officer of the City (not just the Planning Management Director). Ms. Bryant stated she believed that was an error in the proposed Unified Development Code. Mr. Waldren stated that in Article VI there needs to be a clarification of how many votes it takes to pass an appeal, whether it be a majority of the quorum present or a majority of the full Board. The consensus was that there should be four positive votes to pass a request. Chairman Mills suggested that the abstention information be listed under "Quorum and Vote". It should state in this section that if a member is going to abstain, it must be announced prior to any discussion. • Mr. Becker asked for clarification on Article XI, "Withdrawals" where it states that "except for cause no case shall be withdrawn". • Board of Sign Appeals August 6, 1990 Page 7 Ms. Bryant advised that if a written request to withdraw is made and it has been advertised, the Board has the authority to vote on that request anyway. Mr. Becker stated that 1 & 3 in Article XI are redundant because if a withdrawal can only be made by written request, then it couldn't be done verbally at the public hearing. Mr. Tompkins stated that once an appeal has been advertised, they should take some sort of action on it by tabling or voting. Chairman Mills asked, in regard to Article XI, Paragraph 2, if a request was changed could it be resubmitted without waiting a period of one year. Ms. Bryant stated that with a case like that in the Planning Commission, they have to rule that there is either new information or the request is materially and substantially different. Chairman Mills stated that needs to be included here. Mr. Becker stated that since they aren't dealing with rezonings, they shouldn't penalize them with the one-year waiting period for a setback variance. • Ms. Bryant advised that the one-year just has to do with withdrawals. • Chairman Mills stated that withdrawals and deferrals could be lumped into "all applications will be heard" with the Board having the discretion to table. Artilce XII, Paragraph 4, could be put with Article XI. Ms. Bryant advised that that it is important to keep Article XII, Paragraph 2, because the applicant should bear the cost of readvertising. Chairman Mills stated that they could have the condition that no requests can be withdrawn after it has been advertised. Mr. Boyd stated that Article 7, Paragraph E, states that "no application for variances shall be voted upon by the Board unless the property owner is present or unless the Board is satisfied that a representative of the owner having the authority to commit the owner to compliance with any conditions which may be imposed..." Chairman Mills stated that they need to deal with the owners. Mr. Boyd suggested that it could state "the property owner or a duly authorized representative shall be present. Chairman Mills advised that Article X needs to state that a rehearing will hear only that material that hasn't been brought up before. Board of Sign Appeals III August 6, 1990 Page 8 • • Mr. Tompkins stated that it isn't necessary to state that "meetings will be conducted informally" in Article VII, Paragraph C. Mr. Boyd stated that Article C, Paragraph C, is telling the Board of Directors how they have to act, and he doesn't think it is called for in their bylaws. Ms. Bryant stated that the bylaws also serve as an orientation for new Board of Adjustment members. Item #3: Attendance Chart Chairman Mills asked that an attendance chart be provided to all the members for the past year for their information. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m.