Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-09-16 Minutes1 • • • MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, September 16, 1991, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Becker, Don Mills, Robert Davis, Larry Tompkins, Lonnie Meadows, and Marion Orton MEMBERS ABSENT: Gerald Boyd OTHERS PRESENT: Becky Bryant, Kirby Walker, David Galvin, and others Mr. Larry Tompkins called the meeting to order. He explained it was the purpose of the citizen Board of Sign Appeals to hear and decide appeals, whether there was an alleged error in any order, requirement,' decision, or interpretation made in the enforcement of the sign ordinance. He further explained where strict enforcement was unreasonable and causes practical difficulties unique to the circumstances, the Board may grant variances for the erection of a new sign or impose reasonable conditions so as to insure compliance with the intent and spirit of the ordinance and to protect adjacent properties. He stated it was the intent of the sign ordinance to promote the reasonable, orderly and effective display of signs while remaining consistent with the city policy to protect the public investment in streets and highways, promote the safety and recreational value of public travel and to preserve natural beauty. APPEAL NO. SA91-4 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SIGN ORDINANCE KIRBY WALKER - 3722 N. FRONT STREET The first item was Appeal No. SA91-11 for a request for a variance of the sign ordinance (Article 17, Section 17B-9) by Kirby Walker on behalf of Kirby's Grill & Bakery for property located at 3722 N. Front Street. The property is zoned C- 2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Mr. Walker appeared before the Board and explained that three out of four restaurants did not make it. He stated he and Mr. Galvin had worked very hard to be sure they were an asset to the city and that they did make it. He stated he believed the request for the variance was a reasonable request. He further stated they believed their sign was within the spirit of the law, however, technically speaking they needed a variance. He further stated that the law sets forth those establishments on a controlled access highway were able to have larger signs than his request. He explained he believed their establishment was on a controlled access highway. Mr. Tompkins explained the Board acted upon interpretation and the spirit of the law. He stated they were hearing a variance, not an interpretation. Mr. Kirby explained that he believed he was located in such an area where the traffic they were appealing to was in excess of over 300 feet from the building. He further explained that for his business to have access to the customers and the customers to have access to the restaurant, they needed a sign larger than prescribed by the code. He stated the sign he was requesting would have 180 square feet while the code maximum was 75 square feet. He contended the variance should be granted because the business had limited access, visibility was difficult, and similar businesses in his area had signs larger than 75 square feet. In response to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Walker stated existing signs in the area included El Chico's at 190 square feet, Red Lobster was 180 square feet, Northwest Arkansas Mall in excess of 200 square feet, and Luby's in excess of 75 square feet. He further explained that El Chicos had a wall sign as did as The Colony Shop, Lindsey and Associates, and Red Lobster. IvIt 4.0 • Board of Adjustm „J.uno-4-77- 1991 Page 2 There was discussion regarding pole signs in the immediate vicinity of Mr. Kirby's restaurant. Mr. Davis asked why Mr. Kirby had chosen that specific site for his restaurant since there were numerous trees between the highway and the restaurant. Mr. Kirby explained that were trees, part of the pointed out there were a 30,000 cars a day drove by year there were no leaves number of large gaps where this site and, while there on the trees. He further there were no trees. Ms. Mills pointed out that, for traffic from the north, there would be no gap in the trees until they were even with the restaurant. In response to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Freeman Wood, Inspection Supervisor, stated the signs had to be at least 40 feet back from the road. Ms. Mills asked how the businesses on the west side of the highway were allowed to have larger signs than those businesses on the east side. Mr. Wood explained that when the sign ordinance went into effect it had been city policy to consider 71 Highway Bypass a controlled access highway. He further explained that control access highways were state or federally owned highways designated by the Board of Directors as a control access highway. He stated that official designation had never taken place but 71 Highway Bypass had always been considered as a control access highway. He further stated they were trying to get the matter cleared up. • Mr. Galvin stated it appeared the city had been very consistent in signage for restaurants. Ms. Orton stated she could see the difference with this area and areas with uncontrolled access with the lanes of traffic and frontage road. She further stated this site had all of the characteristics of a controlled access road. She further pointed out the large wall signs seemed to be more effective than the pole signs. Ms. Bryant stated she had spoken with Perry Franklin, Traffic Department, regarding a definition for "controlled access highway". He had told her this area of Highway 71 did not meet that definition. Mr. Davis stated he was interested in the dates the sign variances were granted. Mr. Wood stated the Red Lobster and Ramada Inn signs had been granted variances approximately one year before the El Chico sign but he did not know the dates. Mr. Davis asked if the signs were erected prior to the present ordinance. Mr. Wood stated he believed they were. He explained there was no service road to the Ramada Inn at that time. • Ms. Mills stated she believed the sign Mr. Walker was requesting appeared to be ineffective and suggested a wall sign might be more visible. She further pointed out it did not seem consistent to require Mr. Walker to have a smaller sign than the adjoining properties. Mr. Becker stated he agreed that the trees were a barrier. He pointed out that five out of six buildings in the immediate vicinity had signs larger than 75 square feet. He explained he found it difficult to enact a 75 -foot maximum. He explained the precedent had been set; should they reverse it and limit the sign to 75 -feet, that would set a new precedent. • • • • • • Board7l-d9istme is / 4 /� g/ Page 3/ ��mi Ms. Orton stated she had been on the Board when the original sign ordinance had been passed and believed it should be strictly followed. She further stated that, in this particular case, she believed that this street was a controlled access. She explained she believed it would be unfair to deny the request for a variance. Mr. Tompkins stated they were talking about the northern entrance to the City of Fayetteville. He explained that, while he agreed with the idea of consistency, that the trees blocked the view, and the idea of equity, he believed they needed to view this as a unique area since it was the city's entrance. MOTION Mr. Becker moved to approve the variance. Ms. Mills seconded the motion. Mr. Tompkins stated the variance was for a 105 square feet free standing pole sign. The motion passed 4-2-0 with Mr. Becker, Mr. Meadows, Ms. Mills, and Ms. Orton voting "aye" and Mr. Davis and Mr. Tompkins voting "nay". Mr. Freeman Wood distributed information relating to the definition of a controlled access highway to the Board explaining it was just a proposal and requested feedback from the Board. Ms. Mills asked if they suggested recommended changes at the next meeting how long would it be before the Board of Directors would act upon the proposal. Mr. Wood stated it would probably be approximately a month. COMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Tompkins stated that Mr. Davis and Mr. Boyd were working on rules for the Board of Sign Appeals. He asked for a status report. He explained he had given Mr. Boyd a draft, Mr. Boyd was going to review it. MOTION Ms. Mills moved to adjourn. Mr. Becker seconded the motion. The motion passed 6-0-0. The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.