The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1990-08-20 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Sign Appeals was held on Monday, August 20, 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, Gerald Boyd, Robert Davis and Dee Wright MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Waldren Becky Bryant, David Bassett, Shawna Jarrett and Terry Harper MINUTES The minutes of the Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals meeting of August 6, 1990 were approved as distributed. APPEAL NO. SA90-10 - VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE DAVID BASSETT - 230 SOUTH BAST AVENUE(B & B BAR -B -Q) The second item on the agenda was Appeal No. SA90-10 for a variance from the sign ordinance submitted by David Bassett for property located at 230 South East Avenue. The property is zoned R-0, Residential -Office. The request was for a variance from Article 17, Section 17B-9, of the sign ordinance. David Bassett stated that they were found in violation right after the sign ordinance came into affect in 1980. At that time they went before the court, and the charges were dropped, so they were allowed to keep their sign. Therefore, the sign has been in that present location for almost 30 years. The only thing that has changed on the sign is that the plastic, which blew out when the wind storm came through. It was replaced and the "Coca-Cola" logo removed. In answer to a question from Chairman Mills, Mr. Bassett stated that he had not been able to determine whether or not the sign is in the right-of-way. It has not been officially determined, but there is supposedly 20' of right-of-way there, which would put the sign right on the edge of the right-of-way. The Highway Department is aware of the sign and has never said anything about it. If the sign is in the right-of-way, it would be a matter of inches. B & B has a unique problem being down below the highway and the steepness of their driveway. It is very dark along that section of the highway at night which makes it very difficult to find the driveway. It is even difficult to find the driveway in the daytime so the sign helps to mark it. He noted that it has been suggested that they place entrance signs there. But, if it is measured off the right-of-way, the entrance signs would be where the sign is. Therefore, he is using his sign to light the entrance area at night. Mr. Tompkins stated that the concept of hardship in terms of topography is probably appropriate with this application and is a factor in land use. However, he isn't sure it is a similar factor in signage. Reasonableness is probably more critical. In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Bassett stated that the dimensions are approximately 5' x 7'. In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Bassett stated that there haven't been many traffic accidents near his entrance. In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Ms. Bryant stated that she doesn't know of any plans for that part of the highway to be widened at that point. She noted that the Master Street Plan designates it as a "Principal Arterial", which requires a right-of-way of 80' to 100'. That section of highway is already 100' wide. Mr. Tompkins stated that it looks like the major egress to that property is South Street to East Street. Mr. Bassett stated that about 80% of their customers //3 • • • Board of Sign Appeals August 20, 1990 Page 2 enter off of the highway with 60 to added that the problem has been that because of a bad runoff problem. He Street to help with that problem. 70% of them exiting out East Street. He East Avenue has been in such poor condition advised that he has paved a portion of East Mr. Tompkins stated that he has a problem with traffic safety. Also, travelling north, the sign isn't visible for quite a distance because of the vegetation and another sign. Mr. Becker stated that he is also concerned about the traffic safety. He advised that he would suggest that they should seriously look at and work with the State before illegally putting something in the right-of-way area because of the safety conditions here. Mr. Bassett stated that there have never been any rear -end accidents or swerving off the highway at this location in 30 years. He added that the removal of the steps would provide room for an entrance sign, but that would have to be approved by the Highway Department since the steps are on highway property. Mr. Tompkins stated that this is in an R-0, Residential -Office, zoning district which makes the sign size (28 square feet) non -conforming. R -O only allows 4 square feet of sign. Mr. Bassett advised that this property was originally zoned C-3 when the building was built. He added that they didn't know when it was changed and never received notice of a rezoning. There being no one else wanting to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Tompkins stated that it has been pointed out by the applicant that there are many reasons to support this sign. For one, it has been there for 30 years. But, since it is basically a community type of establishment, he isn't quite sure what percentage of business they get from out of town. He stated that this is almost a text book example supporting the purpose of the sign ordinance in terms of traffic safety, investment in right-of-way by community and the potential conflict that is there in terms of turning patterns and changing driving habits. He noted that there is access from East Avenue. He is opposed to the request. Mr. Becker stated that, based on the peculiar nature of the site and the location, it wouldn't be the same if it was changed. In all communities, some weird balls are needed and this is one for Fayetteville. He noted that he would go along with the staff to allow it. Given the right-of-way, in this particular case, it isn't at grade level, and it is up in the air far enough to take care of any safety problems. He would be in favor of granting the variance. Ms. Bryant commented that they don't have any definite idea of where the right- of-way is. Mr. Boyd stated that they couldn't give him permission to put the sign in the right-of-way, but that is another problem. There are unique circumstances here, and he would be in favor of a variance because of the terrain. MOTION Mr. Becker moved to grant the variance, seconded by Boyd. The motion passed 5-1- 0 with Becker, Boyd, Mille, Davie & Wright voting "yes" and Tompkins voting "no". • • • Board of Sign Appeals August 20, 1990 Page 3 XsAPPEAL NO. SA90-11 — VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE EYE CLINIC OF NORTHWEST ARKANSAS — 2039 GREEN ACRES RD The third item was a Appeal No. SA90-11 for a variance from the sign ordinance submitted by the Eye Clinic of Northwest Arkansas and represented by Shawna Jarrett for property located at 2039 Green Acres Road. The property is zoned R-0, Residential -Office. Shawna Jarrett, business manager for the Eye Clinic, stated that before they made their application for the sign to be repainted, they firmly believed that they originally had a permit. She added that they feel that their situation is unique because their building sits quite a distance off the road. Because of this, they need a sign on the wall as well as at the road. Most of their patients are elderly and have poor eye sight. Even with 20/20 vision, the names on the wall of the building are barely legible from the driveway. The sign is 24 square feet, and they had no idea that size would be in violation of the ordinance. Also, in 1986 they requested a variance for the larger free-standing sign near the road. When they originally applied for this in July, the Inspections Department told them that there was no problem with a 16 square foot sign. They were told there was no problem with having two signs, but they would need to appeal for the larger sign. Then, when they received the staff report, they found out that two signs would be in violation. They have a large parking lot with several buildings around so they need a sign on the wall that tells the patients where to come. It has been on the wall for so many years that there are a lot of patients who would be totally confused if it were removed. Although, their property is zoned R-0, there are no residences in their area. Mr. Davis stated that he had to go to the Eye Clinic on an emergency basis about one and one-half years ago had a difficult time finding it. Also, an acquaintance of his, who is in drastic condition, had to ask his assistance to find the clinic. According to his calculations, the building is approximately 444 feet from the roadway. He stated that he thinks it should have a visual sign from the road. Mr. Tompkins stated that in terms of the type of signs and the character of the signage along Green Acres Road, it is rather nice. He stated that he didn't see a problem with a smaller sign that would be in conformance being placed in a proper location at the roadway. He added that the design and the lot layout make this complex. Chairman Mills advised that she lives in that area and travels Green Acres Road. She suggested that they just put "Eye Clinic" and the street number on the wall sign. Then the people would be able to see it. Ms. Jarrett advised that there are several eye clinics in town and they have had problems with their identity in the past so they feel that the doctors names need to be on the building. Chairman Mills stated that they should think about taking the sign off the building and putting large letters there. There seems to be too much clutter on the sign for people with poor eyesight. Mr. Becker stated that there must be an address not just the doctor's name. Using the address distinguishes it from the other eye doctor's. A property near here on the south side has an address on the power pole near the entrance and on the building which makes it easy to find. Ms. Jarrett stated that his experience has truly been that people know where Green Acres so they are looking for specific doctors. She stated that Mr. Becker has a good point, and she will recommend that they put the address on the /ts • • Board of Sign Appeals August 20, 1990 Page 4 sign. However, their experience has been that most people look for the doctor's name on Green Acres Road. Mr. Becker noted that this is a very peculiar situation. It is a long distance from the road to the face of the building. Also, it is unique in the fact that this office is kind of a side office of the other doctor's office with the parking closer to the other office. In this situation there are a lot of buildings, and the argument that two signs are needed is valid. Becky Bryant, Associate Planner, advised that they could have an informational sign on the building of up to four square feet. It could say "Eye Clinic Entrance". Ms. Jarrett stated that, on the other hand, if all the doctors names were placed on the sign, they would be in such small print, it wouldn't be visual for their patients. Chairman Mills asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak in favor of or against this appeal. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Tompkins stated that this situation is unique. However, with what they are attempting to do with the sign ordinance in terms of the character of signage in Fayetteville and the quality of life, etc., there are options under the present ordinance in terms of informational signs, wall signs and directional signs. He doesn't think it is necessary for them to have two signs. Chairman Mills advised that they have obtained a variance for the size of the sign on the street so that doesn't come into play with what they are discussing today. They currently have two signs, the one in front, which they have obtained a variance for, and the one on the wall, which they do not have a permit for. However, in an R -O zone, only one sign is allowed. Chairman Mills stated that the sign in the front and then an informational sign on the wall would be ample in her view. In answer to a question from Ms. Wright, Chairman Mills clarified that the variance is for the second sign and not for a larger sign. Ms. Jarrett advised that the variance they already obtained is for a 3'x 4' sign in the front. They have a large 24' square sign on their wall which is larger than the 16' square feet allowed. Mr. Becker stated that they are discussing whether to allow two signs as well as the size of the wall sign. MOTION Mr. Becker moved to allow two signs subject to the wall sign conforming to the ordinance, seconded by Wright. Mr. Tompkins suggested that for clarification the motion be split into two parts: 1) two signs and 2) the wall sign conforming to the ordinance. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION Mr. Becker amended his motion to split the motion into two parts. MOTION Mr. Becker moved to allow two signs, seconded by Davis. The motion passed 4-2-0 7/6 • • • Board of Sign Appeals August 20, 1990 Page 5 with Becker, Wright, Davis, & Boyd voting "yes" and Mills & Tompkins voting "no". MOTION Mr. Becker moved that the wall sign be required to comply with the 4 square feet ordinance requirement, seconded by Tompkins and followed by discussion. Mr. Tompkins clarified that there is 16 square feet existing on the wall sign and this motion is for only four square feet of wall sign. The motion passed 4-2-0 with Becker, Wright, Davis & Boyd voting "yes" and Mille & Tompkins voting "no". Chairman Mills advised that the wall sign on the building must conform to the four square feet. She suggested that Ms. Jarrett talk with the Planning Staff as to what they need to do from here. APPEAL NO. SA90-12 - VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE BRYAN ABERNATHY - 1643 HUNTSVILLE ROAD The fourth item on the agenda was Appeal No. SA90-12 for a variance from the sign ordinance submitted by Dr. Bryan Abernathy and represented by Terry Harper of Putman & Maglothin Law Offices for property located at 1643 Huntsville Road. The property is rezoned R-0, Residential -Office. Mr. Harper stated that Dr. Abernathy has recently built a new clinic on Highway 16 and has a foundation for a monument style sign already up. He noted that this is an attractive sign in a basically undeveloped part of town. A large part of Dr. Abernathy's clientele is elderly people from the surrounding communities who would have trouble reading a small sign. Therefore, they are requesting a variance. They would be using approximately 9.75 square feet on the area of the letters alone. But, if the spacing between the letters is counted, it would total approximately 13 square feet. Mr. Davis stated that they can presume that the contractor was sent down to get a sign permit and was told what the standard size. Then, instead of building a pedestal according to the ordinance, they have put up a large pedestal and are now asking for a variance. Mr. Terry advised that the contractor had called the City and was told to place the pedestal 15' from the right-of-way, but, as far as he knows, wasn't told of the four square feet requirement. In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Terry stated that the top of the letters will start about six inches down below the top on the structure in between the two columns. In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Terry stated that he doesn't know why they put it perpendicular to the right-of-way. Mr. Terry stated that as the sign in proposed, it isn't too offensive, as far as the size of the letters, and will be readable for those traveling by. Mr. Becker stated that he thinks they do themselves a disservice with the sign being perpendicular to the right-of-way which makes it harder to read from the road. He noted that a great concern for legibility was stressed in the applicant's letter for the agenda. Mr. Boyd stated that, as far as the safety issue, he doesn't think it would be safer if the sign were smaller. // • • • Board of Sign Appeals August 20, 1990 Page 6 The Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Tompkins stated that he likes the residential character of the building. He noted that the building will advertise itself, and he feels that the address itself is the key. The traffic is heavy there, and that highway will probably be widened someday which will make the sign nonconforming. He noted that he is inclined to oppose this request. Ms. Wright stated that she feels that it is important for the sign to be visual, and if it is any smaller, it wouldn't be readable. She is in favor of granting the variance. Mr. Becker stated that this gets into some of the shortcomings that they have with the R-0 zone dealing with specific occupancies. He added that he hates to see someone penalizes for a development that pulls back from the street and increases the open area. He noted that they get stuck with a sign ordinance that was basically developed for structures close to the highway to keep control of the ugliness and the highway noise. Therefore, he would tend to be on the lenient side of approving the variance given the fact that they still don't understand all that the sign ordinance was meant to control in this particular area to R-0. As long as the address is included some place in the information, the 6' to 12' square foot display area would be reasonable. Mr. Davis stated that, if the Sign Inspector is knowledgeable, he would have given options in addition to meeting the requirements that are printed on the permit which set out the limitations. This would have been a chance for the staff to give advice both on the size of the pedestal and the virtue of a vertical versus a horizontal sign. Chairman Mills stated that the staff most generally doesn't give their own ideas, but only the information requested. Mr. Becker stated that they need to back up the staff and encourage recommending options. There may be ways to increase safety and legibility. Chairman Mills stated that Dr. Abernathy was told the size of sign he wanted, but he wanted a larger sign. MOTION Mr. Boyd moved to grant the variance, 0 with Becker, Boyd & Wright voting "no", seconded by Wright. The motion failed 3 -3 - "yes" and Davis, Tompkins & Mille voting In answer to a question from Mr. Terry, Mr. Tompkins stated that the appeal of the Board of Sign Appeals is to the City Board of Directors. OTHER BUSINESS Item #1: Proposed Bylaws for the Board of Adjustment Chairman Mills asked if anyone had any comments regarding the revised version of the Bylaws. Mr. Tompkins stated Article II(A). It Planning Management he feels that the word "enforcement" should be included in should state "an interpretation or enforcement made by the Director". Ms. Bryant stated that the staff does send out violation notices, but they are //I • • • Board of Sign Appeals August 20, 1990 Page 7 enforced by the City Prosecutor. There was considerable discussion about the Board of Adjustment's enforcement authority. Ms. Bryant stated that she will check the State law regarding this. Mr. Tompkins stated that in Article II(B), it states "to authorize" variances, but he feels it should state "to hear requests and make decisions" on variances. Ms. Bryant stated that Robert Waldren made the point that they way Article VI is worded so that the quorum number is at least as large as the required votes to pass. One way to alleviate this would be to require that the Chair vote. Mr. Boyd stated that Roberts Rules of Order is referred to twice. He pointed out a couple of grammatical errors. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 1/?