Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-07 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS A meeting of the Board of Sign Appeals was held on Tuesday, September 7, 1999 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN SA99-2: Exxon, pp528 Approved MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Michael Andrews Gerald Boyd Michael Green Thad Hanna Bob Nickle • Marion Orton Larry Perkins • STAFF PRESENT Tim Conklin Janet Johns Mike McKimmey Brent Vinson None STAFF ABSENT Bert Rakes Minutes of Sign Appeals • September 7, 1999 Page 2 • • SA99-2: SIGN APPEAL EXXON, PP528 This item was submitted by Griffin Mardis Investments, Inc. for property located at 833 South Crossover Rd. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately .60 acres. The requirement is for a 40 foot setback. The request is for a 10 foot setback or a 30 foot variance. Kevin Hodges was present on behalf of the request. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance request because it meets and exceeds the requirements of the more restrictive ordinance. Board Discussion Perkins: The first item of business today is SA99-2.00. Does staff have any input on this? McKimmey: Only that this request comes from the Planning Commission decision under the Design Overlay District requirements. We are hoping to put forward something that will resolve the 2 ordinances concerning signs at a later meeting. This request falls in line originally with provisions we hope to bring forward. The last 3 sign variances we brought forward here were requests for monument signs. The sign actually measures 61 square feet. They want to site it 15 feet from the right of way at the intersection of Crossover and Huntsville. Boyd: When they apply for this, do they apply for all the signage they are going to have on the whole thing? McKimmey: No. They only apply for what needs the variance. Boyd: How much other signage can they do? McKimmey: They can have 4 walls signs per structure. If they have a separate canopy, they can have 4 wall signs on the canopy structure. They can have 4 wall signs on their building. Orton: There are 3 buildings. There is the proposed store and a car wash -- McKimmey: The model for that you can find over on the Exxon Station on 62. They put identification signs on the car wash showing what it is and which way to drive. There hasn't been any commercial type signs advertising the business on the car wash. We support it. Minutes of Sign Appeals • September 7, 1999 Page 3 • Orton: So there will be no freestanding signs for this whole development. McKimmey: That's correct. Orton: What about the ditch? Are they building over that? McKimmey: I'm not aware of what their plans might be for that. Conklin: They are going to leave it open as far as I know. Orton: So, these buildings are all on the side of that. Conklin: That's correct. Perkins: Was there an issue about visibility at the corner? McKimmey: Nothing that I'm aware of. Perkins: Does the representative have any input on this? Hodges: We're going with the smallest sign. By ordinance we could put a pole sign out and go much larger. We're trying to keep with the trend in Fayetteville to have ground mounted signs which are more aesthetically pleasing. We're going by the design standards for the overlay district. We're not in the overlay district. Boyd: The overlay district has the same regulations for wall signs? McKimmey: No. Boyd: We're taking one but not the whole -- McKimmey: We're discussing the issue of freestanding signs, not the whole package. Correct. Boyd: I personally would like to see what the total signage package is going to be before I discuss or vote on a variance. Hodges: I think this board is to discuss the appeal. Everything else has been turned in as far as signs on the building itself. I do not have any of that with me. • Boyd: Does staff have it? Minutes of Sign Appeals • September 7, 1999 Page 4 • • Vinson: I'll go and try to locate something. Conklin: See if Dawn has the commercial building permit. Green: We had discussed the same issue earlier unifying or giving developers an either/or type situation with the sign ordinance. Are we any closer on that? Has work been done on that? Conklin: We have been working on that. I need to get with Inspections and bring forward a proposal for the City Council. Hanna: In the amendment to the sign ordinance, you have that drafted and we have discussed the requested amendment to the sign ordinance to allow a monument sign with a 10 foot setback instead of a freestanding pole sign. If your amendment to the sign ordinance is accepted by the City Council, then, we wouldn't be here. Conklin: That's correct. We are trying to allow them to have an option to use a monument sign on their property closer to the street and not as high up and in my opinion, more aesthetically pleasing to this community. We're going to try to amend our ordinance to accomplish that. Hodges: The wall signs do meet the current ordinance. I don't remember exactly what they are but I do remember they meet the existing ordinance as is. Orton: This would allow a monument and no pylon. Monument signs are more pleasing than the free standing. Conklin: The staff and Planning Commission want to encourage businesses to use monument signs instead of pole signs. Boyd: What happened to the pylon sign on Highway 62? Did that ever come down? McKiminey• No. It hasn't come down. Boyd: I thought they promised to take that down. McKimmey: I have a copy of the letter that says they will. That letter is 8 years old. Boyd: Is this the same company? McKimmey: I don't know. Minutes of Sign Appeals • September 7, 1999 Page 5 • • Boyd: The sign ordinance allows an awful lot of wall signs as we discovered on College Avenue. I just can't vote for a variance. Every time we approve a variance, everybody else wants one also. We allow them to just cover up a building with other signs after we approve a variance. Hodges: The wall signs meet the ordinance requirements. We're dust asking that instead of a pole sign, we can have a smaller monument sign with a 10 foot setback. Boyd: I realize that but the sign ordinance allows you too much signage. Andrews: What we're voting on is to allow a monument sign 10 foot from the road or be able to put a pole sign back from the street. I had much rather see a monument sign rather than a pole sign any day of the year. Either way, you will have the same number of wall signs. That's my understanding. They could put in a pole sign and still have the same number of wall signs or do the monument sign. Conklin: That's correct. We met with the developer and we looked at the site. We worked with them on getting their curb cuts approved and lined out and the issue came up about that sign. The issue was they could either put up a pole sign or they asked what the possibility would be of using a monument sign at the corner. We said they would need to ask the Board of Sign Appeals and as staff we would support that request. Andrews: It's going to be 40 feet away if they do a pole sign and the only place I see for it is beside where the underground tanks would be or somewhere in there. Nickle: What they're asking for if I understood correctly would not be a variance under what you are proposing to the City Council. Conklin: That's correct. Nickle: If the City Council passed that in a month or 2 months or whatever in that format, then we wouldn't be talking again today. They would have that as a right. Conklin: Either to put a pole sign up 40 feet back or a monument sign. Orton: I would certainly go along with this. What does bother me if the Exxon sign on 62 that still has not been removed. Andrews: If it is the same owner, could we not hold anything in this approval until they come into compliance with that? Minutes of Sign Appeals • September 7, 1999 Page 6 • • McKimmey: 1 don't know if we can hold approval like that. It would probably require action from the court. Boyd: We don't have much enforcement of the sign ordinance. They just continue doing it and nothing happens. McKimmey: Contrary to that statement, I spend a great amount of time on enforcement. 40% of my time is spent on enforcement. Andrews: I don't think the ordinance allows for enforcement. You can send a letter but why couldn't we send a city crew out there, take the sign down, and bill them for it. We should consider putting something like that in place in the future. McKimmey: Back when the ordinance was drawn up, my boss was the only one doing enforcement. He was responsible for removing a lot of the "grandfathered" signs. Green: It seems to me that there are 2 separate issues here. One of them is it could be the same or a different entity. I don't know whether it makes any difference or not. I don't see that we can hold one's feet to the fire on a past issue that doesn't concern what's coming before this Board right now. We need to look at this variance and vote on it. If there is an outstanding enforcement issue, then we ought to take appropriate action to follow through with that. Nickle: Staff is comfortable with that. It's a moot point if the Council passes what we have discussed and approved for a monument sign option in the sign ordinance. Public Comment None. MOTION Hanna: I'll make a motion to approve the variance as requested. Andrews: I'll second. Roll Call Upon roll call, the motion passed with a vote of 6-1-0. Andrews, Hanna, Nickle, Orton, Perkins, and Green voted for the motion and Boyd voted against. 9(119 SAm:Z Exxon M. ANDREWS G. BOYD N T. HANNA \I B. NICKLE _. I M. ORTON \I K. PERKINS N rn.G .