HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-10-19 Minutes• • MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, October 19, 1992, 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: PROTOCOL Don Mills, Lonnie Meadows, Marion Orton, Larry Perkins and Thad Hanna Robert Davis and Gerald Boyd Alett Little, Freeman Wood, Sharon Langley, Abel Obreagon, and Mary Cope Ms. Don Mills called the meeting to order. She explained the format of the meeting. APPEAL NO. SA92-11 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE SIGN ORDINANCE BABE RUTH BASEBALL LEAGUE - WALKER PARR & BABE RUTH PARR The next item scheduled to be heard was a request for variance from the sign ordinance submitted by Jim Hawkins for the Babe Ruth Baseball League. The property is located at Walker Park and Babe Ruth Park. Walker Park property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential, and Babe Ruth Park property is zoned I-2, General Industrial. Ms. Little explained that Ms. Orton was correct regarding a code which prohibited advertising in city parks. She read Section 97.088: "No person in a park shall paste, glue, tack, or otherwise post any sign, placard, advertisement, or inscription whatever, nor shall any person erect or cause to be erected any sign whatever on any public lands or highways or roads adjacent to a park." She pointed out that was in direct conflict with the request for the variance. She explained they did not have the authority to overrule that code. She recommended the Parks Board make the decision as to whether they wished to change the ordinance or if they wished to enforce that code. She further suggested that, should the Board of Sign Appeals reach a consensus, they could forward that recommendation to the Parks Board. Me. Orton stated the request was contrary to the sign ordinance. She further stated it was up to the Parks Board if they wanted to change the ordinance. Me. Mills stated she would rather see the Parks Board make the determination without comments from the Board of Sign Appeals. She pointed out it would depend upon action by the Parks Board as to whether this request would come back before the Board of Sign Appeals. MOTION Me. Mills moved to recommend this item go to the Parke Board for their action. Mr. Hanna seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. APPEAL FOR VARIANCE FROM SIGN ORDINANCE - SA92-12 RED LOBSTER - 3885 N. SHILOH The next item was an appeal for a variance from the sign ordinance submitted by Charles Jennen of Sign Art on behalf of Red Lobster. The property is located at 3885 N. Shiloh and ie zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. • r Board of Adjustments October 19, 1992 Page 2 Mr. Freeman Wood explained this variance was based on interpretation of the ordinance. He stated that, if the Sign Inspector had felt comfortable with interpreting the ordinance, he would have issued the permit. He explained the building had a roof tower that extended approximately 12 feet above the roof of the building and the top of the tower had sloping sides which matched the mansard roof of the building. He advised a mansard roof was defined in the sign ordinance as any roof that had an angle greater than 45 degrees which derived part of its support from the building wall, was attached to (but not necessarily a part of) a low slope roof, which extended along the full length of the front building wall, and three-quarters of the length of a side building wall. He went on to say that, for the purposes of the sign ordinance, a low slope roof meant any roof with a pitch less than three inches rise per twelve inches horizontal. Mr. Wood stated the request was to place three 18 square feet signs on the north, east, and south side of the sloping sides of the tower. He further stated each sign would be a logo critter. He requested the Board interpret the sign ordinance. Abel Obreagon, representing the sign company, and Mary Cope, an associate with Red Lobster, appeared before the Board. Mr. Obreagon showed photos of current signage and the proposed signage. He pointed out the current sign was hidden by trees. He advised Red Lobster was attempting to make all of their restaurants consistent in appearance. He also reviewed the sign specifications with the Board. Ms. Cope advised they had taken down the weathervane and fencing from the roof of the restaurant. In response to a question from Me. Orton, Me. Cope explained she was trying to keep the existing trees. She further stated company representatives were advising her to remove the trees since they blocked the signage. She advised they would also be removing the marquee. Mr. Obreagon stated they wanted to remove the clutter and emphasize "Red Lobster". He pointed out they were losing 120 square feet of signage. Mr. Meadows stated the Board needed to determine if the proposed signage area was a roof or a wall. Mr. Perkins stated if it was a mansard roof, it would be a wall sign according to city code. He advised they could have four signs per building cover 20% or 150 square feet of the area. Ms. Mills asked if the 20% applied to just the tower or the total wall of the building. Mr. Wood pointed out if the request were approved, that would be all the signs allowed by the ordinance. He further stated staff was not comfortable in making the determination as to whether this was a roof sign or a wall sign. Mr. Perkins stated he saw this as a mansard roof, making it a wall sign. He further stated it was not like an extra billboard being stuck on the roof but was part of the structure. Ms. Mills stated that, under the definition of a mansard roof, the code set out: "attached to a low slope roof and which will extend the full length of the building wall". She pointed out this structure did not extend the length of the building. She further stated she had not thought of a tower as a mansard roof. I$y • • Board of Adjustments October 19, 1992 Page 3 Mr. Wood stated he wrote the definition and had not taken into consideration a tower. He explained they had been trying to keep someone from building an eight foot addition just for signage. He also pointed out the mansard roof did go all the way around the tower. Mr. Meadows pointed out the tower had not originally been built to mount a sign. Ms. Orton stated she was in favor of calling this a variance. She pointed out there were too many variations to make a set rule and she would prefer to see this type of matter come before the Board item by item. Mr. Perkins pointed out this request was for a recognized structure, that the tower had not been put on for signage. Ms. Mills stated part of the problem would be solved when the new sign ordinance was complete. Mr. Hanna stated in this case he would be in favor of calling the area a mansard roof. He expressed his belief that the subject sign would not detract from the building. He also expressed hope the trees would not be cut down in the front of the building. MOTION Ms. Orton moved to grant the requested variance. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-1-0 with Mr. Hanna, Ms. Orton, Mr. Meadows, and Mr. Perkins voting "yes" and Ma. Mills voting "no". MINUTES The minutes of the October 5, 1992 meeting were approved as distributed. PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE Ms. Mills asked if the members had time to review the sign ordinance and make suggested changes. She stated the only question she had regarded banner signs - - the definition stated banners were to be cloth or flexible material. She pointed out the Sign Inspector treated banners as wall signs. Ms. Little recommended a separate category for banner signs. There was discussion by the Board regarding regulation and placement of banner signs. Ms. Orton recommended changing "unless affixed to a window" to "unless inside a window" on wall signs. The Board also reviewed recommendations made by the Sign Inspector. Ms. Orton stated a number of years earlier there had been bulletin boards placed on Dickson Street for placement of signs advertising bands, garage sales, etc. She explained this stopped people from putting signs on street light poles, etc. Ms. Mills stated she thought it would be a good idea to have several bulletin boards up and down Dickson Street. The rest of the Board agreed. 1B5 • Board of Adjustments October 19, 1992 Page 4 The Board also discussed enforcement of the sign ordinance for eignq street corners, light poles, real estate signs,, etc.. Ms. Mills stated she did not want anything] in the: code that could; net be. enforced. She asked if staff had discussed enforcement withAthe City Attorney,. located on Ms. Little stated she had not but would be doing so in the future. Also included in the discussion was political signs and further discussion regarding banner signs. They discussed limiting the number of days and number of times a business could use a banner. Ms. Little stated she believed an ordinance committee should be appointed to work on the sign ordinance. She further stated the Board of Sign Appeals needed to prepare their suggested changes to the ordinance to present to the committee. The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. iSb