HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-11-05 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Sign Appeals was held on
Monday, November 5, 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:
Don Mills, Larry Tompkins, Dennis Becker,
Robert Waldren, Gerald Boyd, and Robert Davis
Dee Wright
Becky Bryant and Lucille Jachim
MINUTES
The minutes of the October 15, 1990 meeting were approved as
distributed.
V/ APPEAL NO. SA90-16 - VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE
UNITARIAN -UNIVERSALIST FELLOWSHIP - 901 W CLEVELAND ST
The second item on the agenda was Appeal No. SA90-16 for a variance
from the sign ordinance submitted by Lucille Jachim on behalf of
Unitarian -Universalist Fellowship for property located at 901 West
Cleveland Street. The property is zoned R-3, High Density
Residential.
Lucille Jachim introduced Alma Brother and Jack Neal, two other
members of the Board of Trustees for the church. She noted that
she is the aesthetics chair.
Mr. Davis noted that he had problems finding the location. Ms.
Jachim stated that the church is difficult to find because of the
view -obscuring trees and vegetation. The entrance to the church
is by way of Oakland although their address is listed as 901 West
Cleveland. She noted that the only way the proposed sign will be
visual is when traveling west on Cleveland, because there is a
ditch along Cleveland and it is also very densely wooded. She
noted that they want an appeal for a variance from the four square
foot maximum. She stated that they made a four square foot free-
standing model sign and placed it the required 15' back from the
right-of-way to see how it would look. She presented pictures of
this sign taken from approximately 50' and 75' away. Richard
Wilson of the Inspections Department came out and helped her locate
the stakes and measure the distance from the right-of-way. She
noted that they contacted Woodpecker Sign Company in Hogeye who
came and spoke with them. They decided that a two square foot
sign would not meet their needs and hope to convince this Board for
a variance. She noted that the staff says they need four
variances: 1) the maximum display surface area shall not exceed
four square feet, 2) the height of the sign shall not be greater
/3 a
•
•
Board of Sign Appeals
November 5, 1990
Page 2
than 6' above the level of the street upon which the sign faces,
3) the sign shall be a minimum of 25' from the boundary of the R
districts, 4) a provision that disallows any other signs on
property. She advised there has been some discrepancy in how the
6' should be measured, whether it should be from the ground, or
from the street level. It seems to her, in all good faith, that
rise of the property is no more than three or four feet in which
case they are talking about possibly 6" above the level.
In answer to a question from Chairman Mills, Ms. Bryant stated that
the property around this is zoned R-3, but this sign is probably at
least 25' from the boundaries of the other properties.
Mr. Waldren stated that as he reads this, the only restrictions
listed in the staff report that they need a variance from are #1,
3, & 7.
Ms. Jachim stated that it came as a complete surprise to her that
they had an existing sign on the building. It is about 30' up and
obscured. It is also obsolete, because the name is wrong. It will
be removed. As far as a bulletin board sign, they don't plan one
in the future at all.
Mr. Tompkins asked what the problem would be with cutting down some
of the vegetation and letting the structure itself be the sign.
Ms. Jachim stated that it is a church of nature lovers,
environmentalists, etc., so cutting a tree would be like cutting a
limb. However, they could trim the vegetation.
Mr. Tompkins observed that it might be cheaper to replace the wall
sign with a new one given the cost of a new wall sign as opposed to
the cost of the sign they are proposing. Ms. Jachim stated that
she would think they would have to do more than trim the vegetation
to make it visible. She explained that two ends of the structure
are concrete block and are laid at an angle which makes it
difficult to put a sign on that part of the building. A new wall
sign placed where the present one is wouldn't be very visible.
Ms. Jachim stated that the existing sign predates the sign
ordinance. Mr. Tompkins asked if they need all of the signs (3
total). Ms. Jachim stated that they wouldn't need the one on the
building. Mr. Tompkins stated that they could just have an
address sign on the building to identify the address of the
building.
Jack Neal stated that their church is very unique in its design
architecturally. It would be almost sacrilegious for them to
consider cutting down a tree or even trimming the limbs. They
want their sign in keeping with the aesthetics and beauty of their
church building. They have given it a lot of thought and want to
keep the sign as simple as possible.
• Chairman Mills asked if they had thought about doing a wall sign on
the south end of the church. Ms. Jachim stated that side is quite
/33
• Board of Sign Appeals
November 5, 1990
Page 3
obscured, too, and is also concrete block, which would make it
difficult to attach a sign. Assuming it would be visible, the only
thing they could do would be to mount letters on a background and
hang it.
There being no one else wanting to speak, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Becker asked how it was determined that they didn't meet the
six feet requirement. Ms. Bryant stated that she had discussed
this with Freeman Wood, who thought that it exceeded the 6'
requirement. She agreed that it would be almost impossible to tell
without a transit. He noted that he would agree with the
representative that it might be off only by a few inches plus or
minus. Secondly, this is a unique piece of architecture, and they
can't just necessarily bang up a wall sign on the east end of the
church. He noted that he also believes that the more foliage
they can get in that area, the better. As far as he can see, the
only problem is the sign size. As far as the wall sign vs. the
free-standing sign and this being a unique piece of property, he
would be in favor of the variance.
• Mr. Waldren stated that he agrees with Mr. Becker.
•
Mr. Tompkins stated that he thinks the design of the sign is well
done. He noted that he agrees with the concept of the vegetation
and some of the aspects regarding the integrity of the church
itself. However, he feels that the building should be more
visible. He is also concerned about adding more signs. He
thinks the existing sign and the parking sign on the tree detract
a little bit. He added that he is concerned with some of the
existing signs in the neighborhood as far as aesthetics. He has
a problem with the pole sign particularly, when it is just for
visitors, because the members know where the church is. He has a
little concern with the proposed sign being at an angle for the
people traveling on Storer and going west on Cleveland. It
wouldn't do any good for the people coming the other direction.
Unless there is a way to get rid of all of the other signs,
including the one on the wall and the free-standing sign that is
existing, he would be inclined to disagree with the variance.
In answer to a question from Chairman Mills, Ms. Bryant stated that
an address sign would be informational, and they also have the
exemption of a bulletin board, if it has the date and time of the
services. Those are things that would be totally exempted that
they could do at any point in the future. They could also do
another wall sign on any side of the building with street frontage.
Ms. Bryant stated that her list of conditions was not complete and
/ace
411 Board of Sign Appeals
November 5, 1990
Page 4
•
•
if they do grant the appeal, the staff suggests it be contingent on
the removal of the wall sign and prohibition of the bulletin board
sign and also any other future wall signs.
Mr. Tompkins stated that the technical reading of the ordinance
says that informational signs, parking signs, directional signs all
provide "information". However, he feels all signs provide
information and all signs add to the clutter. He is concerned
about the aesthetic aspect of it.
MOTION
Mr. Waldren moved to grant the variance with the stipulation that
the existing wall sign be removed and the prohibition of any future
bulletin board or wall signs, seconded by Boyd. The motion passed
4-2-0 with Davis, Waldren, Boyd & Becker voting "yes" and Tompkins
& Mills voting "no".
OTHER BUSINESS
Item #1: Rules for Board of Adjustment
Chairman Mills stated that all the members had been provided with
a revised copy of the Rules for the Board of Adjustment. She
asked that they look at this and give any changes or corrections
they might have.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45
p.m.
/Ss
r