Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-04-20 Minutes• • • MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Sign Appeals was held on Monday, April 20, 1992, at 4:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Gerald Boyd, Don Mills, Robert Davis, Marion Orton, Lonnie Meadows, Larry Perkins and Thad Hanna Alett Little, Sharon Langley, Andy Gibson, Larry Wheaton, others Ms. Don Mills called the meeting to order. and APPEAL NO. SA92-4 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF NUMBER & SIZE OF SIGNS WALMART STORES, INC. - 2999 N. COLLEGE The first item on the agenda was a request from Walmart Stores, Inc. Ms. Little stated the representative for Walmart had requested this item be delayed until May 18, 1992. Board members noted dates they would be unavailable for meetings. It was determined there would be a quorum on May 18. There was discussion regarding the postponement of the Walmart hearing. Ms. Mills stated that if the City had to re -advertise, Walmart would be responsible for the costs of such notices. APPEAL NO. SA92-5 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SIGN ORDINANCE ANDY GIBSON - 1200 N GARLAND The next item on the agenda was a request for a variance from the sign ordinance for the Campus Book Store, 1200 N. Garland, represented by Andy Gibson. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Ms. Little explained the sign as proposed was permissible and could be given a sign permit. She further explained staff had brought the request to her with some questions regarding the definition of a wall. She stated she believed it would be a good idea for the Board of Sign Appeals to look at the request and give guidance to the staff. Ms. Little stated the business was planning to open in the old Dillons Food Store and, in preparation for opening, the owner had enlarged the front face of the building by placing a 12' by 36' facia board against the front wall. She explained this structure extended 4 feet above the current height of the building. She stated the sign area proposed by the business was 120 square feet which was permissible even if the wall area had not been enlarged. She explained it was not a question of whether the sign fit within the ordinance, but a question of whether owners were allowed to enlarge a wall to the point to allow a larger sign than had been permissible on the original structure. Ms. Little pointed out this was a fairly common practice in Fayetteville. She stated she did want the Board of Sign Appeals to assist in interpretation on this matter. Ms. Little explained the sign requested had the dimensions of 30 feet by 4 feet. She stated the area of the face of the building, prior to installation of the additional facia board, was approximately 680 square feet and a sign of the same dimensions as planned would occupy 17.6% of the face of the building, which would be permissible. f 62 • Board of Adjustments April 20, 1992 Page 2 She also called their attention to the fact that the facia board extended above the roof line of the building. She asked for their interpretation whether this was a roof sign. Mr. Davis stated that, if the printing on the sign had been moved up to the top of the sign to make it more widely visible, he would believe it was a roof sign. Ms. Little stated she believed they should consider that. She pointed out that the sign ordinance did not allow nor permit roof signs unless the applicant demonstrated practical difficulties in utilizing a wall sign and demonstrated that a variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the sign ordinance. She stated the only question before them at this time was what was a wall. She also stated this was the second request of this nature that she had seen since she was Planning Director. In response to a question from Ms. Mills, Ms. Little stated she would have no trouble considering the additional facia board to be a wall if it extended the length of the building. She stated that the fact it was just in a small area lead her to believe it was not a wall. Mr. Boyd pointed out that directly across the street Harps had a very similar sign. Ms. Little agreed that it was not an uncommon occurrence in Fayetteville. Mr. Boyd stating that, as far as measuring for the size of the sign, he believed the inspectors might make a rule to not take into account any new construction. He explained that would not allow someone to add onto a building just to get a bigger sign. He also stated they not consider a sign to be a roof sign, even if it was new construction, if the addition was substantially the same height as the things on top of the roof. He explained a very common way of building was to put up a shield to hide the air conditioning units, etc. He explained when it was there already, no one would say they couldn't put a sign up there. He explained they just needed to use common sense. Ms. Little asked if his interpretation of roof included the height of turbines, air conditioning units, etc. Mr. Boyd agreed as long as such fixtures were on noted they would have to use common sense. He someone put up an old fashioned water condensing but, as far as the normal fixtures that sat on acceptable. Ms. Little clarified by saying that would be allowable as long as there was a parapet or some type of board for signage. Mr. Boyd agreed. He stated it could go up that high without being called a roof sign. He further stated that, in this case, he did not believe it was a roof sign. Ms. Mills asked if would be of assistance to staff to have the size of the sign determined by the original building wall and not allow them to include the square footage of the addition. Ms. Little stated it would be a great help. Mr. Boyd agreed and stated he believed that would discourage additions just to have larger signs. the basic building. He again gave as an example that, if units, it would be too high; top of roofs, that would be • • • Board of Adjustments April 20, 1992 Page 3 Ms. Little requested the Board pass a resolution stating their decision. Mr. Andy Gibson, representative of the College Book Store, explained he had decided on the size of the sign prior to adding facia. He stated he and the sign inspector had measured the area. He explained he had not been trying to get a bigger sign but to get a little bit higher sign since the store was located in a depression. Ms. Little pointed out the sign did not violate the maximum height. It was determined that staff would prepare a resolution for the Board of Sign Appeals which would be voted on at their next meeting. MOTION Mr. Boyd moved that the signage requested be granted. Ms. Mills pointed out Mr. Gibson did not need a variance. The motion was withdrawn. APPEAL NOS. SA92-6, 7, & 8 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SIGN ORDINANCE McILROY BANK - 1113 N. GARLAND, 1947 N. COLLEGE, & 1512 S. SCHOOL The next three appeals were from Mcllroy Bank, represented by Larry Wheaton for three variances on properties located at 1113 N. Garland (C-1, Neighborhood Commercial), 1947 N. College (C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial) and 1512 S. School (C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial). Mr. Wheaton explained the bank desired to add an information sign to three existing signs. He stated they wanted to add a 25" by 49" sign to the existing signs. In response to a question from Mr. Perkins, Mr. Wheaton stated the requested signs were the same size as the one located at Highway 45 and Crossover Road. He explained there was also the same sign on the building in Oak Plaza. He showed the Board a drawing of the sign and stated they wanted to attach them to the bottom of the existing signs. He explained the problem was the existing signs were at maximum size for the distance from the right-of-way. Mr. Wheaton stated the signs advertised the locations of the national networks of ATM machines. He explained the signs would provide customers with information on where there was an ATM machine available for their use. He stated that customers from all over the world could use the ATM machines in Fayetteville since Mcllroy was on the national network. Mr. Wheaton also pointed out that visitors from other areas would spend any money they received from the ATM in the community. He further stated the bank had checked into the cost of moving the signs back so they could have a larger sign but the cost would have been $800 per sign. He also noted they had already purchased the new signage at a cost of $4,000. He stated that, if they had redesigned the existing signs, it would cost $6,000. He explained that, due to the cost of either moving or redesigning, they had determined that, if they did not receive a variance, they would be unable to put up the additional signs. Mr. Hanna asked if the new signage would be attached to the pole. Mr. Wheaton stated they would be attached to the pole but snug to the bottom of the existing sign. Board of Adjustments April 20, 1992 Page 4 In response to a question, Mr. Wheaton stated the total footage of the signs on North College and South School were 40 square feet and the sign on North Garland was 60 square feet. Mr. Wheaton informed the Board there were approximately 100,000 transactions per month on ATM machines with approximately 20,000 to 25,000 of those being out-of- town users. He stated he believed the out-of-town users would increase during the summer months. Ms. Orton stated she could understand why the Bank was requesting the additional signage. She asked if these signs could not be wall signs instead of being attached to the existing signs. Mr. Wheaton stated the sign at North explained the signs would be easily signs. He agreed that, if they could place the signs on the building. Garland was not visible from the road. He seen from the road if they were on pole not get the variances, they would probably Ms. Orton stated everyone wanted a larger sign so they would get more business. She further stated they had to comply with the sign ordinance unless there was a terrain problem, etc. She stated the request was in violation of the sign ordinance and she did not see any justification for a variance. She also explained that, if they allowed the bank to have a larger sign, everyone else would want a larger sign. Mr. Wheaton explained they were requesting the variance because they were providing a service. He further stated it would cost the bank $6,000 to provide this service. Mr. Perkins stated there was a sign on 15th Street that sat back approximately the same distance as the Mcllroy signs and it was three times as big as the Mcllroy signs. He further stated there were three signs -- the price of gasoline, a credit card sign, and the name of the business. Mr. Boyd explained that there was a special section price of gasoline. He explained that type of sign Ms. Orton explained they considered the overall size the sign was set from the street. Mr. Perkins stated he could see there would be a problem on inconsistencies and setting precedence. Mr. Hanna pointed out that, if the banks could not put the signs under the existing pole signs, they would ask for a variance for signage on the building. Ms. Orton stated she was not against what the banks were doing but they had to go by the sign ordinance and it would be up to the banks to figure out how they could add signage and still comply with the sign ordinance. She pointed out that, they should have made a smaller sign originally in case something came along such as these signs that they wanted to add, but they had not. She stated they had made the maximum size. Ms. Little stated she had just realized that the signage would be permissible at the North Garland site because it was set back 40 feet from the right-of-way. She quoted the ordinance regulating such signs wherein it stated the maximum display surface for a sign set back 40 feet or more would be 75 square feet. regarding signs showing the was excluded. of the sign and how far back Ms. Mills asked about the requests on College and School. ins Board of Adjustments April 20, 1992 Page 5 Ms. Little stated they were only set back 30 feet from the right-of-way so the maximum sign size was 40 square feet. She stated that while the signage requested was informational in nature, it did violate the sign ordinance and she therefore recommended against the granting of the variances. Mr. Boyd pointed out there were severe restrictions in the sign ordinance on free-standing signs while the signage on the sides of buildings were overly generous. He explained that in Fayetteville they did not see the "forest of signs" they saw in other towns and that was because of the sign ordinance. Ms. Orton explained that, when the sign ordinance had been drawn up, it had been determined that free-standing signs caused more clutter and confusion and hazards for traffic than a wall sign. She stated it had been intentional that wall signs were more generous. Mr. Perkins noted there had been landscaping around the pole at the North College site and, once the shrubbery was in bloom, the pole would not be visible. MOTION Mr. Boyd moved to deny the variances for the two signs under consideration (1947 N. College and 1512 S. School). Mr. Davis seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-2-0 with Me. Orton, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Davie, Ms. Mills and Mr. Boyd voting "yes" and Mr. Hanna and Mr. Perkins voting "no". Ms. Mills explained Mr. Wheaton could appeal their decision by taking it to one of the Board of Directors who could present it at the Board of Directors meeting. The Board of Sign Appeals adjourned. fVk