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