HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-01-06 MinutesA meeting of the
6, 1992, at 3:45
Mountain Street,
MEMBERS PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
PROTOCOL
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS
Fayetteville Board of Sign Appeals was held on Monday, January
p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Gerald Boyd, Dennis Becker, Don Mills, Robert Davis, Larry
Tompkins, Marion Orton, and Lonnie Meadows
Alett Little, Sharon Langley, Harry Gray, Berry Brook and
Berry Herzog, Ray Jones, and others
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 - SA92-1
HARRY GRAY - NORTH HILLS MEDICAL PARK
The first appeal for the meeting was Appeal No. SA92-1 presented by Harry Gray
for North Hills Medical Park. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office.
Ms. Little explained variance request was for a variance from the sign ordinance
to permit two area signs of 34 square feet. She reminded the Board that the sign
ordinance allowed only 32 square feet. She stated the applicant was also
requesting a variance from the sign ordinance to permit building identification
signs of 10.84 square feet and only 4 square feet was allowed by ordinance.
She reminded the Board that North Hills Medical Park was a Planned Unit Developed
located in an R -O zone. She stated the developers had submitted plans for two
entrance signs and for eleven signs to identify nine buildings and the doctors
practicing in those buildings. She also pointed out the developers were
requesting only two area signs rather than the three allowed by ordinance. She
also noted they were requesting a freestanding sign per building. She explained
they were requesting two signs for the Fayetteville Diagnostic Clinic, a major
building in the clinic, and they were also requesting two signs for a second
building housing the North Hills Imaging Center and the North Hills Breast
Center. She explained these were two separate functions housed in the same
building. She pointed out the two free-standing signs were currently designed
to contain a display surface area of 8 square feet for the identification of the
building and an additional 2.84 square feet of area for the listing of the
doctors' names.
Ms. Little recommended that the variance request for the area identification
signs to exceed 32 square feet be denied. She also recommended the denial of the
variance request for more than one free-standing sign per building in the
development. She noted that, due to the high quality development in the PUD and
the need for traffic direction within the medical complex, she recommended a
variance of two square feet per identification sign be granted. She explained
the ordinance allowed four square feet, she recommended six square feet, and the
applicant had requested eight square feet.
Ms. Little pointed out the Board of Sign Appeals had a unique opportunity before
them and they should discuss the option of allowing the full eight square feet
requested for building identification as well as the 2.84 square feet for
IHq
•
•
•
Board of Sign Appeals
January 6, 1992
Page 2
physician identification on a free-standing sign if the developer would be
willing to voluntary to give up their right to 16 square feet of wall display
area which was allowed under the ordinance.
Mr. Harry Gray, Northwest Engineer, appeared before the Board. He reminded the
Board the Medical Park was a 26.6 acre tract of land located on a 70 acre tract.
He explained they had requested and received R-0 zoning even though there were
sign limitations. He stated he believed the signage plan they submitted was a
good one. He explained the 34 square foot signs requested would be placed one
at the northwest corner of the project and one at the southwest corner. He
stated each one would be located on over an acre of landscaped area. He
explained that the entire site of most R-0 developments were less than one acre.
Mr. Gray further stated he believed the free-standing signs would be compatible
with the development. He explained the signs would be set back from 150 to 300
feet from the street right-of-way. He stated the area identification signs were
set back so there should be no problem for safety of traffic.
Mr. Gray stated they had also thought about requesting a variance on the
informational signs. He stated there were two service areas. He stated the
signs were eight square feet and the ordinance only allowed four square feet.
He explained they were hoping that all of the service vehicles would be directed
to the service area. He noted these signs were proposed to be set back over 200
feet from street right-of-way. He explained they would like them to be a little
larger than provided by code so the service vehicles could see them. He once
again stressed the signs would be compatible with the project.
Mr. Barry Brook presented colored drawings of the proposed signs. He stated the
medical park was something everyone wanted to be proud of. He explained the
signage was an integral part of the buildings within the complex.
Mr. Gray pointed out there was over eight acres of landscaping within the medical
park.
Ms. Mills stated there had been a tremendous amount of thought put into the
development of the medical park with the zoning, meeting the setbacks, meeting
the building codes. She asked why they could not meet the sign ordinance.
Mr. Gray stated it had to do with square footage. He explained that they had
believed asking for C-1 zoning with the multiple uses would be an overkill. He
stated they had not believed it was fair to the city nor to the adjoining
property owners. He pointed out that this was the only variance requested for
the entire development.
Mr. Davis asked why the developer and engineer had not sought information from
the Planning Division for sign permits with as much enthusiasm as they had the
design of the complex. He stated they seemed to be in the position of repeatedly
being caught by engineers coming in with a fait accompli. He stated they had
already invested in the land and the building and then claimed they needed a
bigger sign.
Mr. Gray explained that C-1 zoning was not within the scope of their plans even
though they would have been able to have larger signs. He stated he believed
they had a reasonable request for signage rather than change the zoning. Mr.
Gray further pointed out that, with a project as complex as the Medical Park, it
was impossible to plan every single detail. He further commented that it was
amazing that on a project with the magnitude of the Medical Park this was the
only variance being requested.
SSU
Board of Sign Appeals
January 6, 1992
Page 3
Mr. Davis stated the Board was not amazed because they heard this type of request
all the time.
Mr. Tompkins asked which streets within the complex were public.
Mr. Gray stated Futrell, North Hills, Monte Painter and Winberly were all public.
Mr. Tompkins then asked if Mr. Gray felt the signage was appropriate since there
was a different color scheme, different shaped signs, etc.
Mr. Gray stated everything was compatible.
Mr. Becker reminded the Board of an educational handout they had received
approximately a year earlier regarding aesthetics and land use controls. He
stated the article had discussed the recent trends in signing and sign
regulations. He further stated other parts of the country were finding that to
encourage an area -wide or district -wide understanding of signage and encourage
the total area to be signed and they gave a relaxation of standard city signage
as a way of encouraging the development of a total area He explained this Board
normally heard requests regarding just one sign. He pointed out this request was
different -- this was the largest signage by area appeal that had ever come
before the Board. He stated he would like the Board to be as recent as other
parts of the country in looking at the overall beauty and maintaining safety,
maintaining visibility. He also pointed out that some of the signs were set
quite a ways back from the public street, therefore the actual size of the sign
appeared to be reduced. He explained he believed they should look at this
request as an area -wide signage.
Mr. Becker expressed his belief that to insist that a 34 foot sign be reduced to
32 feet, given the scope of the complex, was ridiculous. He further stated he
believed this would be the best signage the City of Fayetteville had seen.
Mr. Becker noted the former Planning regime had also handed out the R -O signage
and a re -definition of R -O. He explained the present R -O requirements were very
strict and did not do a good job when considering an office aspect but dealt much
more with residential areas. He stated they had already looked at the suspect
portion of the present R -O and accompanying that with the recent trends in sign
regulations, he believed they should look at the request with a positive eye.
Mr. Boyd stated he believed he agreed with Mr. Becker. He stated he understood
the intent of R -O zoning was to be a buffer between residential and other areas
and usually it was a relatively small area, such as a house. He stated that,
with 26 acres being zoned R -O and completely planned, it seemed they could and
should relax the standards.
Ms. Mills stated it
sign variance. She
the signage as much
had not had to ask
bother her that with so much planning they had to ask for a
explained she was concerned that the planning did not go into
as it went into all of the other areas. She pointed out they
for a variance on anything else but signs.
Mr. Davis used the Fayetteville Diagnostic Clinic as an example and noted that
was all that needed to be identified for any patient to get to his proper
designation. He stated to expand the sign to include the doctors' names a
distance from the building would not locate the proper building as readily. He
pointed out they could have the doctors' names in the entryway or hallway. He
stated he saw no reason to have a large portion of the signs contain the doctors'
names away from the building.
Mr. Becker stated this project was a Planned Unit Development with the public
streets on the perimeter. He explained this project was basically on private
15,
•
•
•
Board of Sign Appeals
January 6, 1992
Page 4
property. He stated they had always looked at things from a public property,
public street aspect. He also pointed out they had no control over the
University signage, they had no control over any state or government signage.
He expressed his belief this was an attempt to try to make something decent. He
stated it was beautiful. He asked that they not "beat it up". He asked that the
Board give them a break.
MOTION
Mr. Becker moved to approve the variance as requested.
Mr. Boyd seconded the motion.
(Upon request, the secretary read the request as follows: "Variance from the
sign ordinance to permit two area signs of 34 square feet (32 square feet being
allowed by ordinance) and a variance from the sign ordinance to permit building
identification signs of 10.84 square feet (4 square feet allowed by ordinance)."
Mr. Gray stated questioned if they were also voting on a variance for the service
area.
Ms. Little stated information signs (service area signs) did not require permits,
however no such sign could exceed four square feet. She stated if they wanted
the service area signs to be larger than four square feet, they would need a
variance.
Mr. Becker amended his motion to include the signage in the service area.
Mr. Tompkins noted this was the first time the Board had looked at the urban
design precedent and they were also looking at first time users versus habitual
users. He explained the first time a patient went to the medical center they
would need the signs but the second time they went, they would not need the signs
as much.
Ms. Orton pointed out it also meant they would be looking at planned unit
developments with special consideration.
Mr. Tompkins stated that was the purpose of a Planned Unit Development -- to
begin to move into urban design the quality of life they were talking about.
The motion carried with Ms. Mills, Ms. Orton, Mr. Becker, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Boyd
and Mr. Tompkins voting "yes" and Mr. Davis voting "no".
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM SIGN ORDINANCE - SA92-2
McDONALD'S - 2425 OLD FARMINGTON RD.
The next request for a variance from the sign ordinance was presented by Ray
Jones on behalf of McDonald's Restaurant, 2425 Old Farmington Road, for a
variance allowing an off-site sign.
Ms. Little stated McDonald's had applied for a sign permit for an off-site sign
in December, 1991. She stated the request was for a directional sign to be
placed in the south tip of the pie -shaped tract of land occupied by Sines Body
Shop. She explained the planned sign dimensions were a display area of
approximately 70 square feet with an elevation of approximately 30 feet. She
further explained the requested sign would be located approximately 80 feet from
the right-of-way of Futrall Road. She stated it was not possible to measure the
distance from the right-of-way to the by-pass because the right-of-way for the
(S 2
•
•
•
Board of Sign Appeals
January 6, 1992
Page 5
frontage road, Futrall Road, was held in common with the right-of-way for the by-
pass. She noted Futrall Road was a part of the State Highway system.
Ms. Little stated the requested permit had been denied under Section 158.43 of
the Sign Ordinance which stated that "No off-site sign shall be permitted within
660 feet of the right-of-way of any controlled access highway." She further
stated that, as a precedent, both Hardy's Restaurant and Braum's Restaurant had
been permitted such off-site signs. She also noted that McDonald's had once
before been denied a permit for an off-site sign.
Ms. Little stated that Section 158.03 of the Sign Ordinance, under the definition
of Controlled Access Highway" stated, "Any state or federal numbered highway
designated by ordinance as a controlled access highway by the Board of Directors
of the city." She stated after research, she had found the Board of Directors
had not designated Fulbright Expressway as a controlled access highway.
Ms. Little explained the Arkansas State Highway Department had three highway
classifications: full control of access, partial control of access, and
uncontrolled access. She stated their definition for full control of access
stated, "The authority to control access is exercised to give preference to
through traffic by providing access connections with selected public roads only
by prohibiting crossing at grade or direct private driveway connections." She
pointed out that, in all respects, Highway 71 by-pass met that criteria. She
further pointed out that the highway was accessible only by designated exit and
entry ramps. She stated the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of December,
1991, approved for funding Highway 71 to be built to interstate standards. She
further stated they did not designate which interstate it would be but it would
probably be the link in Interstate 49 from Shreveport, Louisiana to Kansas City,
Missouri.
Ms. Little stated Mr. Joe Shipman of the Fort Smith office of the Highway
Department, had explained a signing project to display business logos for Highway
71 from the south end of the Highway 71 by-pass to the Missouri State line was
presently underway. She stated all signs should be in place by May, 1992.
Ms. Little recommended the Board of Sign Appeals deny the application for an off-
site sign for McDonald's Restaurant. She stated the recommendation had been
based on the signing project by the Highway Department which should give adequate
exposure to retail establishments and the fact that Highway 71 meets all the
criteria for a controlled access highway.
Mr. Jones reminded the Board he had previously requested a variance for an off-
site sign. He stated his justification at that time had been because the
additional business the sign would attract to the restaurant which would increase
the tax revenue for the community. He further stated his request had been denied
at that time. He stated he had not brought up the fact that Hardy's Restaurant
and Braum's Restaurant had already been issued permits for off-site signs. He
stated his reason for again requesting the variance was that both other fast-food
restaurants in his vicinity had been granted off-site signs. He noted that the
Supervisor of the Inspection Division, Mr. Freeman Wood, had been absent when
both the Hardy's request and Braum's request had been made. He stated he had one
off-site sign on the left of his business and one on the right; one application
had been approved before his request and the other had been approved after his
request. He stated he just wanted to be treated the same as the other applicants
in his area had been.
In response to a question from Ms. Orton, Mr. Jones stated the property where he
desired to place his sign was in close proximity to the location of the Hardy's
sign but it was not the same piece of property.
IS3
•
•
•
Board of Sign Appeals
January 6, 1992
Page 6
Ms. Orton asked what was on the piece of property where Mr. Jones wanted to
locate his sign.
Mr. Jones stated Sines Body Shop was located on the
property.
Ms. Orton stated she believed the sign ordinance stated an off-site sign could
only be located on a vacant piece of property. She asked if Mr. Jones was
planning on putting the sign within the fence.
Mr. Jones stated he was. He explained the fence had been built since he made his
request. He also noted the piece of property where the Hardy's sign was located
also contained the Employment Security Office and encompassed Wal-Mart and
Hardy's.
Ms. Little stated Section 158.47(C) which discussed free-standing signs in a
commercial district read as follows: "Only one off-site freestanding sign shall
be permit on any vacant property of one ownership."
MOTION
Ms. Orton moved to deny the appeal.
Ms. Mills seconded the motion.
Mr. Boyd stated when the permit for the other signs were granted, the requests
did not come before the Board of Sign Appeals. He explained the Board was being
consistent.
Mr. Becker commended Mr. Jones on his efforts to compete on a level playing
field. He stated he had empathy with Mr. Jones. He did note the blue highway
signs were being installed so McDonald's would have highway notification.
Mr. Tompkins stated that even though there might have been an oversight, he
believed the preservation of natural beauty and attempting to avoid clutter,
attempting to back up the reasonableness of traffic and investments, he did not
believe the non -conforming signs set a precedent.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Tompkins stated Mr. Jones could appeal their decision to the Board of
Directors.
The Board of Sign Appeals adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
The Board of Sign Appeals reconvened at 6:30 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Tompkins asked about the final copy of the Board of Sign Appeals By-laws.
Mr. Boyd stated the By-laws could
from the Board of Directors.
Ms. Langley noted that the Board
at their January 7 meeting.
not be adopted until they received a decision
of Directors would be reviewing their request
(S`4
Board of Sign Appeals
January 6, 1992
Page 7
MINUTES
Ms. Mills moved to approve the minutes as distributed.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
The Board of Sign Appeals adjourned at 6:35 p.m.
155-
ABERNATHY, BRYAN (SA90-12)
BABE RUTH BASEBALL LEAGUE (SA92-.11)
BABE RUTH BASEBALL LEAGUE (SA92.1 i) •
BASSETT, DAVID (SA90-10)
•
CAR MART (SA88-8)
DISCUSSION OF SIGN APPEAL ORDINANCES
DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENTS TO SIGN ORDINANCE
DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED TREE ORDINANCE .
DISCUSSION OF 2010 UNIFIED DEVEI PMENT PLAN - VERSION Iff
EMMA'S RESTAURANT (SA90-14)
ENTRE' COMPUTER CENTER (SA88; 6)
ENTRE' COMPUTER CENTER (SA88-6);.✓
EVELYN HILLS SHOPPING CENTER (SSA90-5)
EYE CLINIC OF NORTHWEST ARKANSAS
4
FAYETTEVILLE DIAGNOSTIC CLINIC (SA88-11)
GIBSON, ANDY (SA92-5) 162
GRAY, HARRY (SA92-1) 149.;.
GREER PLAZA (SA88-16) 60
•
HARDEE'S FOOD SYSTEMS (SA88-5)
HARRIS, BOYD (SA89-1) 63
HARRIS, BOYD (SA89-1) 60
117
183
179:
113
128"
1'75•
• 82....
126'
IBM CORP. (SA88-14)
IGA AT EVELYN HILLS (SA88-7)
JACKSON, LEE (SA90-2)
•
•
KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN (SA88-4)
KHODABANDEH, MOHSEN (BA92-22)
85
19
:176
LAZENBY REAL ESTATE CO. (SA88-3) 12:
LAZENBY, KEN (SA90-17)136`
MARKO, JOHN (SA91-2) ;140'
MCDONALD'S (SA89-6) •70
MCDONALD'S CORP. (SA88-17) ',55-
MCDONALD'S (SA92-2) ..4 152
MCILROY BANK (SA92-6,7,&8) 164
• MCILROY BANK & TRUST (SA88-10) 41
MEASURING OF SIGNS 65
MONTESSORI SCHOOL (SA88-1) 10
MONTGOMERY WARD (SA90-1)k 77
NELMS CHEVROLET (SA89-5) 70
OZARK STAGEWORKS BANNER 129,
PEARSON, THOMAS JR. (BA92-15) • 167•
PRESBYTERIAN & DISCIPLES CAMPUS CTR. (SA90-3) 87
RAZORBACK CLEANERS (SA90-7) 96.
RAZORBACK EXXON (SA90-8) 101
RAZORBACK EXXON (SA90-8) 98.'
REALTY CONCEPTS (SA88-12) 46
REALTY CONCEPTS (SA88-12) 50
REMAX REALTY (SA90-13) 124
RIGGS, RICK (SA91-5) 145
RISK, MARK (SA91-1) 138
• SANDERS, HOWARD (BA92-22) 178
SHEENAN, MIKE PROPOSAL TO AMEND SIGN ORDINANCE 79
STREET NUMBERS 67
•
T. J. KWIKIT (SA88-2) 12
T. J. KWIKIT (SA88-2) 16
TACO BELL (SA88-19) 58
THE BERRY PATCH (SA88-9) 38
UNITARIAN -UNIVERSALIST FELLOWSHIP (SA90-16) 132
W. C. FARM BUREAU (SA90-9) 105
W. C. FARM BUREAU (SA90-9) 120
W. C. FARM BUREAU (SA90-9) 127
WALKER, KIRBY (SA91-4) 142
WALMART STORES, INC. (SA92-4) 162
WALTON ARTS CENTER (SA92-3) 156
WALTON ARTS CENTER (SA90-6) 94
lbw
