HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-10-01 Minutes• X • MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Sign Appeals was held on Monday, October 1, 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: MINUTES Don Mills, Larry Tompkins, Dennis Becker, Robert Waldren, Gerald Boyd, and Robert Oayss Dee Wright Becky Bryant, Elaine Cattaneo, David Johnson, Rick Johnson, Margie Moldenhauer, Mike Creech, Joe Rodman, and Robin Brandeis The minutes of the September 17, 1990 meeting were approved as distributed. APPEAL NO. SA90-13 - VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE REMAX REALTY - PROPERTY LOCATED AT VARIOUS LOCAL SITES The second item on the agenda was Appeal No. SA90-13 for a variance from the sign ordinance submitted by Margie Moldenhauer on behalf of REMAX Realty for property located at various local sites. The appeal was for a variance from the sign ordinance: Article 17, Section 17B-9. David Johnson, broker for REMAX Realty, stated that they are wanting to be allowed to display a cold -air balloon. He noted that they have requested a variance because this doesn't fit into any category in the sign ordinance. He advised that this balloon would be displayed at a subdivision three days per week for a total of twelve hours per week or probably 600 hours per year. This balloon is anchored down to the ground, is only temporary, and is only up when the agent is on site. It is a pleasant attraction that signifies activity in a new home development. It is always located on private property and off the street. He noted that they would like to be allowed to put the balloon up in subdivisions when an open house is going on without having to go through the restrictions of getting a permit each time. He added that the balloon isn't erected in inclement weather or when the wind is blowing hard. Mr. Tompkins stated that they obviously feel the present advertising system is not appropriate. This would supplement their present conventional marketing process. • Mr. Johnson stated that they do spend a lot of money on advertising. But, historically real estate signs are where most of /ay • • • Board of Sign Appeals October 1, 1990 Page 2 their buyers come from. The balloon is a different form of advertising and only identifiable with REMAX. It is a logo on all of their business cards and stationary. This is a cold -air balloon, but it is associated with their hot-air balloon. It does enhance their capability of marketing a subdivision. In answer to a question from Mr. Becker, Mr. Johnson stated that it would only stay up four hours at a time. He added that the agents are there for about two hours on Friday, four hours on Saturday and four hours on Sunday. They put the balloon for each open house when they get there and take it down when they leave. Rick Johnson, agent for REMAX, stated that he wanted to clarify the difference between a hot-air balloon and a cold -air balloon. The cold -air balloon is an 8' tall stationary balloon. It doesn't float. It isn't a blimp or a helium -filled balloon which is referred to in the sign ordinance. It is firmly attached to the ground(does not leave the ground) and stays stationary just like a sign with posts. It is heavy and sits on the ground firmly and is firmly attached with four anchors on the top so it doesn't flap in the breeze. It is plugged in with a fan which brings air from the outside in. As soon as it is unplugged, it completely deflates. Margie Moldenhauer, a broker for REMAX, stated that they have an alternative plan in regard to the hours the balloon will be in the winter after the time changes. She added that there is a lot of money invested in these new subdivisions. The builders put a lot of their liability on the line. REMAX feels that they owe it to the builders. Normal marketing just doesn't always work. Mr. Tompkins asked if this balloon would be in addition to normal advertising signs. Ms. Moldenhauer stated that they have a small open house sign placed in front of the house, a "for sale" sign, and an information center sign. But, they would rather take up the open house signs and put out the balloon, if necessary. In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Ms. Moldenhauer stated that they just have one balloon. In answer to a question from Mr. Becker, Ms. Moldenhauer stated that the maximum display for one day would be eight hours. She noted that the company from which they purchased the balloon states that it will stand high winds, but since it cost $800, they don't take any chances with it. There being no one else wanting to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Tompkins stated that he would like to thank the staff for doing a good job in analyzing this. He questioned whethered business signs are appropriate in the function or the quality of a residential area. He noted that he is interested in the extended use based upon the idea of whether or not this is a business sign. He stated that he has a problem with the balloon and thinks the present marketing system is enough. ��S • Board of Sign Appeals October 1, 1990 Page 3 Mr. Boyd stated that the balloon is a neat gimmick. However, if this one is o.k., would one five times this big be o.k.? This balloon is neither a subdivision sign nor a "for sale" sign for an individual property. It certainly attracts attention, but one of those spot lights in the sky(which are banned) attracts attention too. If they approved this, they would be opening a pandora's box. Mr. Davis agreed that, if they allow this, someone else would likely bring in a hot-air balloon just to attract attention. It would open up all kinds of flamboyant new ideas that aren't in keeping with the intent of the sign ordinance. Mr. Waldren stated that seventy-two hours in a year's period should be sufficient. He agrees that others are going to want some kind of logo or symbol for their advertising, if this is approved. Mr. Becker stated that the definition in the sign ordinance of a banner is "any sign printed or displayed upon cloth or other flexible material, with or without frames". It doesn't say that the cloth can't be circular. Banners are exempted for advertising private sales events. This may be a loophole. Becky Bryant, Associate Planner, stated that the current interpretation of a "private sales event" is a fund raising event. MOTION Mr. Tompkins moved to deny this variance request, seconded by Davis. The motion passed 5-0-0. Chairman Mills advised that they have the right to appeal decision to the City Board of Directors within 10 days. this APPEAL NO. SA90-14 - VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE EMMA'S RESTAURANT - 215 NORTH EAST AVENUE The third item on the agenda was Appeal No. SA90-14 submitted by Mike Creech on behalf of Emma's Restaurant located at 215 North East Avenue. The property is zoned C-3, Central Business Commercial. The appeal was for a variance from the sign ordinance: Article 17, Section 17B-9. Mike Creech, sign and its is too small a 49' lot. requirement representative, submitted some photographs showing the location on the property. He advised that their lot to comply with the ordinance requirements since it is There is no way they can meet the 25' setback from the R -O properties on either side of their Board of Sign Appeals October 1, 1990 Page 4 building. He advised that the sign is aesthetically pleasing to most. It is almost impossible to see it unless they are right in front of the restaurant. It is well placed and not obtrusive. He noted that they have a new banner, for which they haven't gotten a permit. They thought that once a banner was permitted, it could be replaced. In answer to a question from Chairman Mills, Mr. Creech stated that he thought there was a street number on the building. If there isn't, he will mention it to the landlord. In answer to a question from Mr. Waldren, Mr. Creech stated that the parking sign in the yard is legal. In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Ms. Bryant stated that the variance is for 22'(the required 25' minus the 3' existing setback). She added that they can't technically meet the required side yard setback. Their setback from the street right-of-way meets the ordinance. There being no one else wanting to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Tompkins stated that, as far as the aesthetic aspect, the sign fits the site. It doesn't create advantages not enjoyed by others in the neighborhood. Therefore, at the present time given this particular sign and not considering the banner, he has no problems with it. Mr. Boyd stated that, as long as the neighbor next object, he doesn't see any reason why they shouldn't door doesn't approve it. Mr. Davis stated that the sign is unobtrusive, and he doesn't have a problem with it. MOTION Mr. Boyd moved to grant the variance, seconded by Davis and followed by discussion. Mr. Tompkins clarified that the is designed presently with no motion passed 5-0-0. motion is for the sign the way it changes. Mr. Boyd agreed. The REHEARING OF APPEAL NO. SA90-9 - VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE WASHINGTON COUNTY FARM BUREAU- 3389 WEDINGTON DRIVE The fourth item was a variance for Appeal No. SA90-9 for a variance from the sign ordinance submitted by Joe Rodman on behalf of Washington County Farm Bureau for property located at 3389 /a7 III Board of Sign Appeals October 1, 1990 Page 5 • Wedington Drive. The property is zoned R-0, Residential -Office. Joe Rodman, representing Washington County Farm Bureau, stated that he had this appeal before them previously. He doesn't have any new evidence to present to them. He added that they put their business in about twelve years ago. At that time, the zoning or the signs didn't matter much, because none of the other land was developed, except for the building which is now Photography Unlimited and Maple Manor Apartments. Betty Jo Corner has developed since then, which makes the sign a little more important to them today. He advised that he would like to have the chance to ask some procedural questions after the board has made their deliberations. MOTION Mr. Waldren moved to grant a variance for a monument sign and to allow the sign on the building to stay as it is. The motion died for the lack of a second. MOTION Mr. Davis moved to uphold the staff's recommendation which is to grant a monument sign with the condition that the sign on the building be removed, seconded by Tompkins. The motion passed 4-1-0 with Tompkins, Boyd, Becker, & Davis voting "yes" and Waldren voting "no". Chairman Mills stated that this motion denies his appeal to be allowed both the monument sign and to keep the sign on the building. She advised that he has ten days to appeal this decision to the Board of Directors. Mr. Rodman asked, if they successfully appeal this to the Board of Directors and are granted a variance, does the thirty day period to get the monument sign erected begin from the date that variance is granted. Ms. Bryant stated that she would interpret it to mean that he would have thirty days to get a permit and start the process of erecting the sign. Mr. Waldren advised that Mr. Rodman will have to have a city board member take this to the Board of Directors for him. X DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE The fifth item on the agenda was a discussion of Sign Ordinance. • Chairman Mills advised that given them amendments to the amendments to the Becky Bryant, Associate Planner, has sign ordinance to review. She added /028 • Board of Sign Appeals October 1, 1990 Page 6 • • that the Board of Sign Appeals would not be voting on this, however. It would be the Planning Commission. Ms. Bryant stated that the staff would like any recommendations that the Board of Sign Appeals might have. Chairman Mills advised the members to look at these amendments and make any notations that they might have. Then, they will discuss them at the next meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Item #1: Ozark Stageworks Banner. Chairman Mills advised that Robin Brandeis would like to present her appeal for a variance on a banner at this meeting because of a time crunch. Robin Brandeis, representing Ozark Stageworks Theater, apologized for not having more time to present her case formally on the agenda. The play will take place on October 19th, 20th, 26th, 27th, & 28th and November 2nd & 3rd. Chairman Mills asked her to present information regarding her problem, and the Board will then determine whether or not they will hear the appeal at this meeting. Ms. Brandeis advised that their problem is that, according to the Sign Inspector, their banner advertising their upcoming play is too large. She would like permission to hang the banner on the church at 600 Mission Boulevard to advertise the location of their next play. Ms. Bryant stated that the staff has not had an opportunity to do any research on this application. It was received in the Planning Office late on Thursday of the previous week. Ms. Brandeis stated that a banner that fits within the 16 square foot allowance wouldn't be legible from the street since the church sits so far back from the road. Even this sign will be barely visible, but it will be better than not having a sign to inform the public of the location of their play. Mr. Tompkins stated that he isn't sure they can vote to hear this at this meeting. Chairman Mills stated that her concern is that the staff hasn't had time to advertise this variance request. Mr. Davis stated that there is a problem of immediacy, because the dates of the play can't be changed. It wouldn't cause any big /a9 • Board of Sign Appeals October 1, 1990 Page 7 • • problems if the banner is put up until the play runs out. Then Ms. Brandeis has ample time to deal with this problem in the future. He has no problems with the banner being allowed to be placed on the building until November 2nd. Mr. Waldren stated that he isn't sure that advertising a variance for this is totally necessary, since it is of a temporary nature. He has no objections to hearing it today. Mr. Tompkins stated that he has a problem with it. He feels that they have legal problems including proper notification to allow the neighbors to come in to the meeting, plus the fact that the staff needs time to research it. In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Ms. Bryant advised that the church has a conditional use in R-1. Mr. Tompkins stated that this would be using it for another cultural facility. Ms. Bryant advised that there is a zoning issue which needs to be looked into. Mr. Boyd stated that he thought the sign ordinance didn't specify what size banner for a temporary use. Mr. Becker asked if this would qualify as being exempt from the sign ordinance. Mr. Tompkins stated that he is concerned that they aren't following the procedural aspects of this and that could give them problems down the road. He noted that the next meeting is on October 15th, and the play begins on October 18th. He doesn't see a hardship situation. Mr. Becker stated that he feels this is a private sales event, so this banner would be exempt and a permit would not be needed. Mr. Boyd stated that they could give an unofficial advisory opinion that this is a banner and is exempt from the sign ordinance. Ms. Brandeis stated that, because of the late date of obtaining permission for the use of the church and the late date of finding out what she needed to do to get to this Board, they haven't done their leg work of getting approval from the neighborhood. Chairman Mills stated that there is a question of whether this is a private sales event or a public sales event which would make a difference. Ms. Bryant stated that they her interpretation of the ordinance is that when a banner is placed on a wall, it becomes a wall sign and has to meet the ordinance regarding wall signs. [Only public event banners are exempt.] /3d • Board of Sign Appeals October 1, 1990 Page 8 Chairman Mills reiterated that what they need to do is determine whether or not they want to hear this appeal and, if so, when. Ms. Bryant stated that there are two types of advertising the staff does on sign appeals: 1) the agenda notice in the newspaper, and 2) putting a city sign up on the property (Just recently been adopted for sign appeals). Mr. Boyd stated that, in the Board's informal opinion, this banner may not require a permit. MOTION Mr. Davis moved not to hear this appeal today, seconded by Boyd. The motion passed 4-1-0 with Tompkins, Boyd, Davis, & Becker voting "yes" and Waldren voting "no". Chairman Mills advised Ms. Brandeis to check with the Planning staff to see where she needs to go from here. Item #2: Community Aesthetic • Mr. Tompkins asked the staff to xerox anything they can find that has to do with "community aesthetics" for the board members. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. /31