Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-12-16 Minutes• MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Sign Appeals was held on Monday, December 16, 1991, at 5:00 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Becker, Don Mills, Robert Davis, Larry Tompkins, and Marion Orton MEMBERS ABSENT: Gerald Boyd and Lonnie Meadows OTHERS PRESENT: Alett Little, Sharon Langley, Steve Hartman, Jim Neighbors, Rick Riggs, and others PROTOCOL Mr. Larry Tompkins called the meeting to order and explained it was the purpose of the Board to hear any sign appeals where there was an alleged error in any order, requirement, decision or interpretation made in the enforcement of the sign ordinance or where strict enforcement was unreasonable and caused practical difficulties unique to the circumstances. He further explained the Board could grant variances for the erection of new signs or impose reasonable conditions so as to ensure compliance with the intent and spirit of the ordinance and to protect adjacent property. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM SIGN ORDINANCE - SA91-5 RICK RIGGS 2999 N. COLLEGE AVENUE The only appeal for the meeting was Appeal No. SA91-5 presented by Rick Riggs for Walmart Stores, Inc. located at 2999 N. College Avenue (Fiesta Square). The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Ms. Little explained the request was for a variance to permit four signs on the front face of the building and also a variance for informational signs in excess of four square feet on the side of the building. She further explained the store was in the process of changing its sign lettering and was exchanging most of its existing signs. She pointed out on the eastern face (the front) of the store a sign permit had been issued for exchange of the current Wal-Mart sign. She stated the variance for the front of the building had been requested for an additional sign "We Sell for Less". She further stated the sign would be 87 square feet and would replace the "Discount City" sign on the front of the building but at a different location on the face of the building. Ms. Little stated the applicant had also requested a new sign "Pharmacy", 16.75 square feet, to be located under the vestibule. She further stated they were also requesting a sign stating "Tire and Lube Express" 132 square feet in area to replace the current "Auto Center" sign on the front of the building. Ms. Little pointed out the ordinance required each business have only one wall sign. She stated the company name was the primary sign. She also noted to the Board that on December 1, 1981 the applicant had been permitted to have two wall signs on one wall. She explained that variance had been granted to specifically allow the current Auto Center sign in an area not to exceed 75 square feet. She stated the variance had been approved in lieu of one free standing sign. Ms. Little then reviewed the variance requests for the southern (side) portion of the building: "Tire and Lube Express" in the place of the present "Automotive Center" sign; and 6 automotive service bays with informational signs. She explained the ordinance required information signs be limited to a maximum of four square feet in area. She stated three of the proposed signs, two reading "Oil Change" (8.7 square feet) and one reading "Alignment" (8.0 square feet) would exceed the area allowed by ordinance. She explained three additional signs "Tires" did meet the ordinance requirement. 1� S • • • Board of Sign Appeals December .d-2; 19911 Page 2 1621 l 1 She further explained the change from Automotive Center to Tire and Lube Express would not be automatically granted by the original variance because the original variance was for 75 square feet. She stated the additional size requested, 132 square feet, would be in excess. She recommended the request for four signs on the face of the building be denied. She further recommended that "Tire and Lube Express" be permitted in the place of "Auto Center" so long as it did not exceed 75 square feet in area. On the southern side of the building, Ms. Little recommended the granting of the variance to accommodate the size of the informational signs. She noted the frontage of the subject building was 291 square feet, 20 feet tall, making the surface square feet frontage to be 5,820 feet. She stated the current Wal-Mart sign occupied approximately 250 square feet. She stated the requested Tire and Lube Express sign would occupy 132 square feet, the Pharmacy sign would occupy 16.75 square feet and the "We Sell for Less" sign would occupy 87 square feet, making a total of 485.75 square feet, or a total of 8% of total wall frontage. She stated that Sec. 158.049(a) of the ordinance noted that the display surface area of all wall signs on any one wall could not exceed 150 square feet or 20% of the area of the wall. Ms. Mills asked if the original variance granted in 1981 allowed a third sign or if they had been allowed one sign and received a variance for a second sign. She asked if "Discount City" and Wal-Mart were one sign. Ms. Little explained it had been considered one sign and they had received a variance for the other sign. Mr. Jim Neighbors, manager of the Fiesta Square Walmart store, appeared before the Board and explained the store would be remodeled in order to update both the interior and exterior of the building. He further explained this allowed for consistency with the newer, prototype stores. He stated the signing requested was also consistent with the new stores. He pointed out the location of the signs they were requesting. He further pointed out the informational signs for the south side of the building would not be illuminated but the ones they were replacing were currently illuminated. He also explained they would especially like to have the requested signage in the Fayetteville area since numerous Walmart associates came to this area to visit the home office and the stock analysis meetings were held in the Fayetteville area. Mr. Tompkins stated he was interested in the aesthetic aspects of the signage to the integrity of the building. Mr. Neighbors explained that from the drive-by point of view, they wanted the citizens to know what services were available at that particular store. He explained not all stores had pharmacies, nor did all stores have auto lube expresses, etc. Mr. Tompkins asked if they had thought of alternatives with a free-standing sign to clean up the front of the building. Mr. Neighbors stated they had not. In response to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Neighbors explained the informational signs above the automotive bays were for customer information. He further explained that the bays had different types of lifts as to putting on tires versus oil changes, etc. Ms. Little noted she had talked with they had a past trend of looking configuring the signs as a percentage signs requested were added together face, well within the limitations of the City Inspection Division and had found to the surface area of a building and of the surface. She stated that if all the they would cover only 8% of the building the ordinance. PAL • • Board of Sign Appeals December Yl 1991 Page 3 Ilel(C(ctI Mr. Tompkins stated he would like to break the request into two parts: part one, the store front including the four signs and part two, the signs on the side of the building. Ms. Orton requested a sketch of the location of the signage on the front of the building. Ms. Mills commented Wal-Mart had done a very nice job of landscaping in the front of the store and she believed the two signs they were permitted with the landscaping would be very nice and much more appealing than the requested signage. She further stated she could not believe other areas of the country would allow them to place the requested signage. Mr. Becker stated he agreed with staff's recommendation. He expressed his belief that Wal-Mart was a household word and did not have to have "Satisfaction Guaranteed" all over the building. MOTION Ms. Mills moved to deny the variance of the two signs ("We Sell for Less" and "Pharmacy") on the front and keeping the "Tire and Lube Express" to a maximum of 75 square feet as granted in the original variance. Ms. Orton seconded the motion. Mr. Tompkins stated he liked the plans for updating the building and he agreed with the motion. He further stated he believed that whatever Wal-Mart did set a pattern for every other store in Fiesta Square. He stated they had an opportunity to develop a good aesthetic, harmonious, continuous upgrading of the center. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Becker stated he agreed with staff's recommendation to approve the informational signs on the south side. He explained he believed the purpose of clarity was defeated when they began changing the height and size of letters. He further explained it was better to keep the same height in terms of conveyance, than it was to start changing letter size in this particular case. He expressed his belief that continuity was important. In response to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Becker stated the signs would be large enough to accommodate the words "Oil Change and Alignment". Ms. Orton asked how the size of the proposed lettering -compared with the existing signage. Mr. Neighbors stated at the present time there were 18 -inch letters and they were proposing to replace those with 12 -inch letters. He further explained the new signs woulif—not be illuminated. Me. Orton stated that, since the signs were not on the front of the building and were informational only, she did not find the request as objectionable as the request for the front. Mr. Tompkins pointed out the south side of the building was more visible from the street than the front was. He further stated he saw the same principle of visual clutter. ry7 • Board of Sign Appeals December i3' 1991 Page 4 16)111 ( MOTION Mr. Becker moved to accept the variance as stated in the staff recommendations. Mr. Tompkins clarified staff had recommended approval of the request. Ms. Orton seconded the motion. The motion failed with Mr. Becker and Me. Orton voting "yes" and Mr. Davis, Mr. Tompkins and Me. Mille voting "no". Mr. Tompkins informed the applicant the decisions could be appealed by contacting a member of the Board of Directors to forward the requests to the entire Board of Directors. OLD BUSINESS Mr. Tompkins reminded the Board the Rules and Regulations for the Board of Sign Appeals were pending until action was taken by the Board of Directors. He stated he believed that would occur at the first Board of Directors meeting in January. Ms. Orton stated she would be able to attend the Board meeting on behalf of the Board of Sign Appeals. NEW BUSINESS • Mr. Tompkins asked for a meeting schedule for 1992. He was informed by staff that they were in the process of preparing the schedule. The Board of Sign Appeals meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. • 19%