Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-07-07 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS A meeting of the Board of Sign Appeals was held on Tuesday, July VV, 1999 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN Amendment to the UDO §174.10: Signs None -more discussion MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Michael Andrews Thad Hanna Bob Nickle Marion Orton Larry Perkins Gerald Boyd Michael Green STAFF PRESENT STAFF PRESENT • Tim Conklin Janet Johns Bert Rakes Brent Vinson • None Minutes of Board of Sign Appeals July 7, 1999 Page 2 AMENDMENT TO UDO §174.10: SIGNS Perkins: We're here to discuss allowing monument signs as an option in commercial and industrial zoning district with the same setbacks as allowed in the design overlay district. Conklin: I put this together. I worked with Bert Rakes the Inspection Division Director. They are responsible for enforcement of the sign ordinance. We have issues when the Planning Commission requires monument signs outside the overlay district. Those signs are not able to meet the current setbacks in the Sign Ordinance and it makes it necessary for each case to come before this Board with a variance request. At our last meeting, we had a sign for First Security Bank on Joyce Blvd and this issue came up once again. How do we resolve the problem? What I have attempted to do is make this fit into our current UDO structure. Our proposed definition for a monument sign is a free standing sign other than a pole sign in which the entire base is in contact with the ground. A couple of issues to think about are whether or not we allow them to locate the sign on top of a berm. At section 174.10 Freestanding Signs, we added: "Monument Type Freestanding Signs. The sign shall be a maximum of six feet high, 75 square feet in display surface area, and set back a minimum of 10 feet from the right of way. In the case of lots with double frontage, two monument signs shall be allowed." This is verbatim from the overlay district which is where those standards came from. Bert and I have discussed double frontage. The reason this was done in the overlay district was on Millsap Road where you have the Highway, a lot of time they will want a monument sign on the highway side and on the Millsap side that is why we allow 2 on 2 street frontages. We need to consider whether or not we want to allow 2 monument signs in the rest of the city. In the actual ordinance under C Districts, we added: "A monument sign may be substituted for a freestanding sign." This allows people the ability to say, yes, you can have a pole sign or you can have a monument sign if you meet these standards. In I Districts, we added: "A monument sign may be substituted for a freestanding sign." Also, in C Districts, we added a new section under Joint Identification Signs: • Minutes of Board of Sign Appeals July 7, 1999 Page 3 • • "a. Commercial Subdivision. A joint identification sign may be located at an entrance to a Commercial Subdivision that does not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic and which has been approved by the sign inspector. A freestanding sign other than a monument sign will not be allowed on a lot within the subdivision." This came up with Spring Creek Centre with the Home Depot and Service Merchandise developments and whether or not we allow them to have the one joint identification sign and them additional pole signs on each lot or did that count for their one free sign. From my memory, this board stated that the one joint identification was the one freestanding sign for that development and no additional pole signs would be allowed within Spring Creek Centre. This is another issue that the Board of Sign Appeals has dealt with in the past and that is why this has been added. Under D. I District, we have added: "A monument sign may be substituted for a free standing sign." Under Area Signs, we added: "Residential Subdivision. A residential subdivision may have up to a maximum 24 square foot one-sided identification sign on a fence or wall on each side of the entrance." Most of the subdivisions being built in Fayetteville are requesting that they be allowed to place the name of the subdivision as the entrance and this addition will make allowances for that. Nickle: What happens if they have more than 1 entrance like Hidden Lakes? They have an entrance on Old Wire and another entry on Mission. What would happen if you have 2 very visible entrances? Do we allow one on each of these or do you allow 2 signs at each entry. Rakes: What the ordinance currently allows is 1 at 1 entrance. It can be a 2 sided sign but it can only be one side. I don't know how to handle that. We could do either. Nickle: Otherwise, you make them choose the main entrance. Conklin: I have seen many subdivisions in other areas with more than 1 entry way sign. Those developments are normally large developments. Nickle: I don't think the general population has a problem with them. I think the residents of an area like to be able to identify it or give directions. Perkins: There could be a need for one at each entrance. • Minutes of Board of Sign Appeals July 7, 1999 Page 4 • • Rakes: Our largest violation is instead of a monument sign in a median, they want one on each side and that is what we are trying to address. I came up with sizes by trying to soften the size. They can have one 32 square foot double sided sign which can be seen from both ways or they can have two 24 square feet one sided signs located on either side of the entrance. Nickle: Perkins: That's only useful if they have a fence to utilize. You just split the 2 sided sign. Rakes: 1 reduced it. I you split the double sided 32 square foot sign you have 64 square feet of signage. Perkins: Now is the 24 -- I may be misled -- you have display surface area under item B of 32 feet but under residential it's 24 feet. What is the distinction there? Rakes: The only way we have been permit any of residential subdivision signs is under area identification signs criteria which is 5 acres or more. This is where they are able to permit for a subdivision sign. Now, they have can 32 square feet. Nickle: Back to the subdivision with 1 entry, I have seen in other areas, like you'll have an office park and you drive by a building with XEROX monument sign and then another one say IBM, and whatever -- that's a building identification where it's in an office park situation and you have a sign up so people can find the building. You have the center identification and then a monument marker to direct people to the building. I think that is attractive because they are all monument signs and we should consider that because we're liable to get some office parks come in here. I think that is something we need to think about. Conklin: We had to go back to North Hills Medical Park and we did a variance on the little signs that identify the buildings. Nickle: If someone comes in from out of town, you could drive around North Hills all day without signs. You have to have signage out there like that. It would be very frustrating for somebody trying to locate an office there. Orton: I remember those signs were designed by the architects. We allowed them and then they changed their minds and it wasn't because of our sign ordinance. Perkins: What are we wanting to arrive at? Do want to give commercial and industrial setting a choice of either a pole sign or a monument sign? Conklin: Yes. That is what I understood from the last meeting to avoid having applicants Minutes of Board of Sign Appeals July 7, 1999 Page 5 being required to come back before this board and request a variance when the Planning Commission requires a monument sign. This would allow a monument sign as an option. Rakes: I think we also need to focus on who does what? Before this ordinance can be changed it has to go before the Council. What Tim and I are looking for is some direction to submit for legal review and Council approval I would like to say we have the Board of Sign Appeal's blessing on this. Perkins: These changes are what you would feel comfortable presenting to the Council? Rakes: We'll probably work on this more with the legal staff. This is the direction we are going. We want legal to look it over. Hanna: I appreciate Tim getting to this so quickly. It was just the last meeting that we discussed a variance on the Sign Ordinance and we didn't have anything to go on. The other thing is people keep saying monument signs are better looking and it makes sense to put something out there that gives them a choice -- a pole sign or a monument sign. I appreciate Tim. Nickle: It saves us the hassle of dealing with the same thing every time when you know that is the right direction to go in. I am all in favor of this. I think we ought to give a little more consideration to the commercial subdivision and to multiple entrances in residential subdivision. We need to come up with something that makes sense. We can't let them put the name all over the place but there still -- the main reason for signage is to direct traffic and that is what they want. The signs focus the general public to get to where they want to go. Rakes: entrances. There a big project, CMN Business Park. There's going to be several main Nickle: In phase II. Rakes: There's a maze of entries on that like you wouldn't believe. Conklin: Johnson Road, Van Asche, Steele Blvd -- Nickle: We don't need any unnecessary meetings but we'll talk again. I can't imagine some kind of multiple signage like that. It would benefit the public. We want to make Fayetteville friendly to the public so that other areas come in and utilize the services that are offered here. Rakes: We want to have an ordinance that covers everything that we are aware of at one • Minutes of Board of Sign Appeals July 7, 1999 Page 6 • • time. Nickle: You might do a little research on those subdivision signs and what is typical whether it's here or some other area. Rakes: We might want to contact the developers and see what they want. Conklin: It would be fairly easy to inventory what is existing here. I'm for looking at what is existing and trying to determine whether that is appropriate for Fayetteville. Rakes: I know of one subdivision that has a monument sign that is barely on their property and it's already been hit. If they could have put in on a fence, they could have 2 to where it could be seen from both directions. Orton: In commercial districts, off site: "Only one off-site freestanding sign shall be permitted on any vacant property of one ownership." That has caused us problems in the past. In industrial, off site signs are prohibited. I don't see why commercial needs off site signage unless there are circumstances that the Board of Sign Appeals can make findings on. But as use by right -- Perkins: If you don't write it in, it won't be an issue. Like the McDonald's sign on the bypass which is 2 miles away. Conklin: Braum's has one that says 3 blocks that way. Nickle: That's on vacant property. Conklin: Bert is much more familiar with the sign ordinance but you can put up a pole sign up on a vacant piece of ground. Orton: They can make that legal by having a small lot. I think that is what happened. It's a loop hole. Rakes: Those are the last ones that I know of that we permitted. There is some question about whether they were legally permitted or not. Perkins: It predates the ones where you see all of the food and fuel places on one highway sign. I don't remember the details. Minutes of Board of Sign Appeals • July 7, 1999 Page 7 • Nickle: I don't know if that is abused. Orton: It was abused at that time because the people could have a separate piece of property to fit the sign ordinance. Nickle: Is that on the Exxon station? Orton: The Exxon station was built next door and put up new signage and left the old pole sign. Nickle: We need to eliminate that. Orton: Or at least not make it a provision of the sign ordinance. Rakes: The Exxon station is in an industrial zone. When the new signs were permitted, it was found that industrial zones allow 2 signs. We corrected that. More than likely that was grand fathered. The Braum's and McDonald's are clearly off site freestanding signs. There have been other freestanding signs. Orton: districts. The off site does leave a loop hole so they can get these in our commercial Nickle: Do you want to eliminate that? Orton: Yes. There could be circumstances they could bring to the Board of Sign Appeals. Perkins: Leave it out and deal with it only if it gets suggested. Orton: Yes. Not give it to them as a use by right. Rakes: I was trying to think what we have permitted in the past. We have permitted some. The Western Sizzlin, where the Panda is now, had a permit for that. That's several years ago. Sometimes, that can be the only value to a piece of property would be the sign. A good example of that is at Wedington and Garland where they recently improved that intersection. There was a triangle left out of that which couldn't have a building on it but it could have a sign. The value of that property was the sign. They get a lot of rental fees off that sign. The City bought that. • Nickle: When is the last time we permitted an off site sign? Minutes of Board of Sign Appeals July 7, 1999 Page 8 Rakes: I don't remember the last one. Nickle: Should we make any changes if we haven't seen any problems? Rakes: We don't want to get something controversial in the changes. Nickle: There might be something that draws fire somebody and I hope they send it back or something or the Council won't pass it. If it's been a problem, I'd say let's look at it but if it's not been a problem recently -- Orton: It has been a problem in the past and you're leaving the door open. Andrews: If they can Justify it then they can get into compliance with a variance. Rakes: Typically, where this happens, I don't know of any other lots in Fayetteville that it's going to have the same requirements as the one along the bypass and the overlay district will keep that in control. Typically, where this happens, it's on a larger commercial tract where somebody wants to advertise a business in town or something of this nature or a business away from there. They go out and search out and find a place -- a vacant lot -- as soon as they build on it and it is improved, well that's it. Is it harmful under these conditions? I'm not taking sides, I'm Just putting up what I've discovered over here. If you have a vacant lot -- an acre or 2 -- Andrews: There shouldn't be sign on it if there's not a building there. We've said before the reason for a sign is to get people to where they need to go not just advertise the business. That's why we did away with billboards. They were just advertisement. Rakes: That's exactly right. Orton: At the time we adopted the sign ordinance, there were billboards all over town and there were a lot of off site signs. We gradually got them amortized and they came down. We were a better looking city and the citizens appreciated that. I know there are people that own that property that couldn't put up another sign but I don't think that is our concern. If there is a business behind another business, I can remember some along College, there is a reason. You have the sign on property so they can find the building. That's something to consider but it's not for every business. Andrews: There is something I have a question about and that is entrance and exit signs on property. Are they allowed to have a logo on those or not? Years ago, I was under the understanding that those were suppose to be entrance/exit and that is the only reason for them to exist. Then we let it on Payless Shoes and now it's everywhere. Minutes of Board of Sign Appeals July 7, 1999 Page 9 Rakes: The ordinance doesn't specifically allow it. It's doesn't disallow it either. It's more of a call than anything else. Andrews: Let's clarify that. Rakes: I've seen them just like you have. Nickle: I think they're okay when you have driveways that are adjacent to each other. Sometimes you might be unclear about which one of those you're pulling into. You might go in the exit. Hanna: Shakey's Ice Cream on College -- we we're pulling in and there was a car in front of us and he pulled into the gas station. I don't know if he was paying attention but if you're not familiar with an area then you're looking for some guidance. I never notice the logos. Rakes: It's hard to dictate every situation. The entrance and exit signs have really caused us a lot of problems there is no doubt about it. I don't really know how to correct it. Nickle: What sort of problems? Rakes: Like you were talking about. Even the size of them and the location of them. The only criteria we have is visibility. Nickle: If they obstruct visibility? Rakes: Right. The size is 4 square feet. You get somebody coming in wanting something a couple of inches over -- do we have any leeway at all? The next one down the road wants one just like it. I can very well understand why we need it. Nickle: You might want to come up with something that specifies at least the size if nothing else. Rakes: I'm kind of surprised it's as big as it is. It's been working very well. Mike has done a good job on these signs and banners -- when you get into the sign ordinance, those banners are a pain. It has to be patrolled everyday. Perkins: We started today wanting to talk about monument signs in industrial and commercial and the those changes that you put together sounds favorable. Nickle: You've got our support and help. • Minutes of Board of Sign Appeals July 7, 1999 Page 10 Perkins: Do you need a letter or something from the Board of Adjustment? Conklin: Before we bring this to City Council, we should probably work these other issues and then come back to you. The minutes would be included indicating your support. Perkins: We've talked about monument signs and off site signs in commercial. Orton: Industrial zones don't allow off site signs. Perkins: Also, the entrance signs and the use of logos and perhaps adjusting the size. Nickle: They have the size. I wouldn't worry about that. Perkins: Are we thinking about reducing the size and height as a compromise? Andrews: Why don't we take a look at those and get an inventory for the next meeting? Perkins: There is no real time crunch on presenting this to Council because the monument • sign issue doesn't come up that often. • Conklin: That is correct. Perkins: This does need to be cleaned up. Nickle: Anything else you think we need to look at while we're doing this -- Rakes: Like on the freestanding sign -- the height of those are measured from the level of the street that they are facing. We need to determine how to measure that height. Fayetteville lends itself to hiding monument signs or it could really make them visible on a hillside. Nickle: Tim, have you need anything in other cities that address those sorts of things. If you're down below -- the overlay district requires berms and then you have to put the monument sign below the berm, it really defeats the purpose. We need to look at those issues and compare them to other cities and what they've done to handle those things. Rakes: The problem is, we are the leader in the sign ordinance If you go outside of Arkansas -- Vail, Colorado, for example, I called them one time and asked what they did about automobile dealerships serving more than 1 manufacturer and wanting 2 signs. They said we don't allow automobile dealerships. It's going to be hard to find. I've been that route. We need to deal with our own situation. • • • Minutes of Board of Sign Appeals July 7, 1999 Page 11 Nickle: It needs to be addressed in some fashion because we would like to think that we're being fair and if you have a location that is down here -- for instance, along College Avenue, where Evelyn Hills slopes down. The whole thing slopes down. There are other areas on North College that haven't been filled in that do the same thing. They either go down or just the opposite, they go up and by the time you meet the ordinance, you're giving them a tower. There needs to be some way of making an adjustment to the road bed. Conklin: That's something to look at. At Glenwood Shopping, on 265 and 45, the McDonald's sign is on top of a retaining wall. Perkins: Ryan's had an issue with visibility from the south and complained that they were lower and they wanted a 40 foot sign. Conklin: It's difficult. Every site is different. You're either down in a hole or you're up on top of a hill. We'll work on it and see what we come up with. Rakes: The most difficult one to deal with is Payless on 6th and Shiloh. They have the 2 monument signs, plus the entrance and exit signs and they have more signs than they have building. I don't know what we can do about that now. Conklin: We have direction on what to bring back. Orton: I'm glad you're working on it. We all are. Meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.