Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-01-06 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, January 6, 2003 at 4:00 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN SNA 02-3.00: Sign Appeal (UARK BOWL LLC, pp 483) Approved Page 2 SNA 03-1.00: Sign Appeal (Collier Drug Store, pp 484) Approved Page 9 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Marion Orton Michael Andrews James Kunzelmann Joanne Olszewski Michael Green Bob Nickle Sherree Alt STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick David Whitaker Don Hancock Renee Thomas Board of Sign Appeals January 6, 2003 Page 2 SNA 02-3.00: Sign Appeal (UARK BOWL LLC, pp 483) was submitted by Don Hunnicutt on behalf of UARK BOWL LLC for property located at 644 Dickson Street. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial. The requirement is a display surface of a projecting sign shall not exceed 16 square feet. The request is for a 76 square feet surface area (a 60 square feet variance). Green: I will call to order a meeting of the Board of Sign Appeals. There are two items to consider by the board. The first new business is SNA 02-3.00. It is a sign appeal for the UARK Bowl submitted by Don Hunnicutt. It is located on Dickson Street and this request is for a 60 sq.ft. variance of the sign area. Mr. Hancock, I guess you are going to address us on this and give us some background on that? Hancock: Yes. The applicant is requesting the variance for a projecting sign. Actually, where he wants to mount the sign makes it a roof sign and not a projecting sign. It doesn't qualify under the definition of a projecting sign. The ordinance says that the Board of Sign Appeals is the only one that can authorize a roof sign. Green: If this were not mounted on the roof periphet, it would still be considered a projection sign right? Hancock: It meets part of the qualifications of a projecting sign but not the definition for a projecting sign. A projection sign is either perpendicular or at an angle to the building. This would fall more under a wall sign. It sticks out more than 18" from the sign so it is not a wall sign. Since it is above the roof it is classified as a roof sign by our ordinance. Green: Do any of the board members have any questions for Mr. Hancock at this time before we open it up to the public? Orton: The size of it, do any of these hybrid types of signs it might be cover one. A wall sign could be that large but none of the others could be as large. Whitaker: If it were a wall sign it couldn't project more than 18" off the wall. Hancock: Correct. I believe there is a drawing in your packet of how he wants to attach it so it could be read above the sidewalk. This one projects 5' from the wall. Nickle: I can't tell from the pictures where exactly they would propose to mount this thing. Hancock: I believe there is a jewelry store on one side. Nickle: Is it between these two parts of the building right here? Hunnicutt: Yes. Board of Sign Appeals January 6, 2003 Page 3 Olszewski: Could they do a projecting sign and have it fit in there and have it small enough so it was the 16' and if it was smaller it wouldn't project out that far? Hancock: A projected sign you read up and down, the letters are under one another instead of parallel like on a wall sign. On a projecting sign the letters are under one another or printed at an angle. He can't get 16 sq.ft., that is why he is asking for this big sign like this, which makes it a roof sign because it is above the roof line. Nickle: It is above the roof line of these two buildings, not that part of the building it is on. Hancock: That is correct. Green: Maybe we should hear from the applicant. Alexander: Rick Alexander here for the UARK Bowl, LLC. We have got some color pictures to show adjacent size. I only have these two pictures so if I could I would like to pass this around. This is the sign that was there when we acquired the building. As you can see, it sits at the level, the top of the sign would be at the level of the deck. There is a deck that goes with that part of the building. There are two apartments up there and we tried to do a historically accurate recreation. Rather than leave that roof space we made that deck. The existing sign that we had stuck out 7' or more. I don't know exactly what it was but I believe it was more than 5'. The problem with the regulations, I guess we do maybe fall somewhere in between. When I read the findings of fact it said the reason that the staff recommended denial was it said based on the findings we don't fit within the guidelines and that is why we were asking for the variance because we don't fit within the guidelines. What we have done with this building is we took what was an events facility in the building, the building had always been used as an events facility, and we put the events facility on the lower level. One of our problems we have is letting people know what is in that events facility. If you put the wall sign on the front you really can't see it from Dickson Street and if you put it on the side you can't see it on Dickson Street because of the adjacent buildings so there is no way to let people know what event we have. We also wanted to do a sign rather than, it was my opinion when we first did this, is that we could probably recreate the sign on a grand fathered basis but it just wasn't very attractive. If you look at the signs up and down the street almost all of the buildings have signs that protrude more than 5'. This is the UARK Theater, this is the building next to us. The book store has a canopy sign that goes out 5' or 6'. We wanted to keep with the nature of the building and wanted to make a sign that kind of went with the UARK Theater more like a marquis, which really blends in with what is going on across the street and allows us to like a theater, advertise what our event is. There are multiple events. We have seminars, we had a New Years Eve party, Tyson Foods rents it. What we were trying to do, and we realize that we don't fit within the exact guidelines, is it a roof sign or is it a wall sign, but we tried to pick a protrusion into the street that was comparable to what is going on in the street and we tried to pick a style that was comparable to what is Board of Sign Appeals January 6, 2003 Page 4 Green: going on in the street in terms of the marquis type style. We went out less than we probably would want to but in order to get any kind of visual as you are coming down Dickson we felt like we had to be at least 5' out so that at some point as you are driving past you have an opportunity to read the sign. That is what we were trying to do. Again, if you look at the sign that was there, that certainly stuck out more than 5' and the reason we didn't recreate that on the building is that it was frankly, ugly and we didn't want to do an ugly sign. That is how we ended up where we are. I don't know if it is a roof sign, a wall sign, I appreciate that the regulations are what they are. This obviously doesn't fit neatly in between and that is why we thought it was appropriate for a variance. We tried to do a nice building, we hope we did. We spent a lot of money doing this and it would really be a detriment to try to rent that facility and not to be able to advertise what is going on there. This may or may not be appropriate in other parts of the city but I think with Dickson Street being the entertainment area and the fact that there are these overhangs, I know that the Brew Pub got a variance and I was in support of it, for their overhang. There are overhangs on Dickson Street. We think it compliments what is going on in the street and we think it is compatible with what is going on in the street. We tried to keep it to a minimum and still have something that was fairly attractive. We appreciate your support. All the other activity that is going on with the Dickson Street Enhancement Project and the widening of the sidewalks in some areas and street lighting and things like that, I guess that is all going to be compatible and still complimentary with what you are proposing with this sign? Alexander: We took all of that into consideration. Of course, I sit on the board of DDEP and we wanted to do something that was attractive with what DDEP was doing. The sidewalk currently is 7'. DDEP is going to increase the width of the sidewalk to 7'6" so the sidewalk will actually be a little bit wider than it is now. It is far enough up that it matches the other buildings and we are very conscious of what is going on with DDEP. Green: This UARK Theater with this particular sign that is in place created a few problems with some of the street lighting and having to deal with that. Alexander: We have got the option on that and our hope is that if we get to do that project, we want to turn that back into a theater and actually restore that old marquis and do a 1940's art deco theater. I guess we will visit that later. We are thinking about what is going to happen across the street and I hope that is compatible with what they are doing. That is certainly a key part of that whole atmosphere in terms of the old marquis. When we say UARK Bowl most people think we are talking about the theater. Board of Sign Appeals January 6, 2003 Page 5 Green: I certainly like what you have done down there. It has really added to the area down there. My own personal experience in trying to find the UARK Bowl, it is kind of difficult. Alexander: That is the biggest thing that is driving this. That is one of our complaints from customers, we can't find you. We tell them where we are and unless you just happen to look right when you are going by that is really all you can see. We have a neon wall sign up on the top which we try to keep with the flavor of the building, but you really can't see that unless you are far away. It is problematic and that is one of our biggest complaints, people just can't find us. We are kind of hidden back in there. Nickle: Did I understand you asking about redoing the lighting on Dickson Street, would this interfere? I don't know where the lighting is going to go in this area. Alexander: I think the light is going to go in front of the pub. Hunnicutt: It is going to go almost in front of that door. Nickle: A projecting sign would not interfere with that? Alexander: No it would not interfere with that. The sign is going to be in front of Mickey Finns and our sign is here, our understanding is that the light is going right there. Andrews: I have a question about the lighting of the sign. Will it be illuminated from within or are you going to project lights on it? Alexander: It will be from within so we can put names and so on up there. Andrews: My question was that if the light in front of Mickey Finns and presumably up the street, and then there is a sign projecting out, I just want to make sure that we aren't going to create a dark spot. Alexander: We may put lights in it now that you bring it up. We would do whatever makes it comfortable for the people. The way that sign sits it projects from the building but right behind that is an open space so we don't think that is going to be a problem, but if it was we would correct it with lighting. Andrews: My last question is that the height of the sign is not higher than the roofline here is it? Alexander: It is not. In fact, it is almost identical to what the old sign was. It is going to be even with the top of the deck, even with the railing. Nickle: Ok, it wouldn't be any higher than this? Board of Sign Appeals January 6, 2003 Page 6 Alexander: No it would be that height. Orton: Where is the lower edge? Alexander: The lower edge is below the metal. Hunnicutt: It allows anyone on the deck to see out over the sign or over the railing. Alexander: The lower edge is not any lower than this. Hunnicutt: The sign is only 4' so it wouldn't be. Nickle: I think when the sign ordinance was originally configured, one of the things that it probably didn't address was Dickson Street. We were more concerned about College Avenue and the big huge signs on College Avenue and the pylons and things like this. Where you have a dense commercial area such as this, flat wall signs are more difficult to see when you are driving by where it is so dense that you have maybe nothing but solid signs. Sidewalls don't do any good unless your building is on a corner I think that was one of the things that was not considered when the sign ordinance was done. Orton: One of the main concerns were the pole signs and so many. Green: One other thing about this particular situation, the overhang there at the pub would tend to block the view of any other flat sign. Would anyone else like to address the board concerning this matter either for or against? Alt: Mr. Chairman, I would like to state for the record that due to a common interest at the UARK Bowl I need to abstain. Merryship: Rob Merryship, I am Richard's partner at the UARK, LLC. There is one other step besides the sidewalk being expanded with DDEP. If we get the sign up with somewhat of a theatrical work to go hand in hand with that we are also planning on doing some major tile work and entry work into the facility that is already pre -lit. Further back as it recesses to the north so what we would like to see at the end of all of this would be an illuminated sign with a theatrical look and the new sidewalk and we are thinking some kind of marble tile or some kind of a red carpet look going into the theater so we hope to accomplish a whole new look for that piece of the sidewalk up there. Nickle: I think that suggestion about a down light or two or even a spot light could add to that effect and it would be a safety issue. I was a little concerned with the light being on the side if this thing. We should obscure that light. Board of Sign Appeals January 6, 2003 Page 7 Alexander: Merryship: Alexander: Alexander: Green: Alexander: Green: Nickle: Kunzelmann: Andrews: Alexander: Green: Andrews: Alexander: Hancock: Nickle: Andrews: Now that he mentions it, that is a good idea. We probably will do that. We want to make it a focal point. As I think about that, the light in front of Mickey Finns, you might want to think about if that is going to obscure the line of sight of your sign. It probably will a little bit but I just don't know what to do about it. The fixture itself will extend about 12' above the sidewalk to about 15'. That is probably right. Are there any other comments or questions? I am a little concerned about the overall size. I think that they have done the best job given this opening that they are trying to connect between those two openings so I think they have done the best job that they could to create a sign that is going to have a nice look to it on Dickson Street and our entertainment area. I too was concerned about the size of the sign but as I look at these photos of the theater across the street it doesn't appear that the area will be any greater than what is existing across the street. Do you all own the building of the jewelry store and Mickey Finns? That is all part of this building. There are two pieces that bump out, it is like a little "U" and it has got a hollow piece. It is all the same building, it is all the UARK Bowl. Would anyone like to make a motion? I just want to make sure that the motion is for 64 sq.ft. and I believe that this says 76 sq.ft. We have got conflicting things here. I think that 76 sq.ft. was the total and 64 sq.ft. was the variance. 64sq.ft. was the surface area itself of the sign, 76 is the entire frame and all. Ok, I see. The dark areas are not for display purposes. The requirement is for 16 sq.ft. of display area and the request is 64 sq.ft. of display area so the request is for a 48 sq.ft. variance of display area. I want to make sure that we have got the right wording. Right here it says we have got a 60 sq.ft. Board of Sign Appeals January 6, 2003 Page 8 variance and I don't think that is correct because that is talking about surface area and we are giving a variance for display surface, correct? Hancock: Well, the sign doesn't even meet the definition of a projecting sign so actually, they are asking for a variance of a roof sign. Andrews: That is not what is on here. It says here that we are giving a variance for surface area, not that we are giving a variance for a roof sign. I don't see anything in this appeal unless we want to amend it. Do we need to amend it? Hancock: It says the applicant is requesting a variance for a projecting sign. Hunnicutt: When we applied we were asking for an appeal for a sign in the wall and then he said it was a roof sign. We didn't discuss that matter before the appeal was turned in. Hancock: The application was turned down and after I went down and looked at it I realized where they were mounting it to was the roof. Whitaker: I think a short and sweet way if you would like to phrase a motion, as submitted by the applicant. I think that is what you are suggesting is that the drawings that they have submitted with their application would be what you are approving. That may be a short and sweet way to do it. I think early on we identified that it is not really this kind of a sign or that kind of a sign. I must say I was a little surprised when I was researching this that I couldn't find the definition of or any mention of movie or theatrical marquis in our sign ordinance. We might want to look at that in the future because these things are going to come along. They were invented for precisely the reasons that Mr. Alexander and Mr. Merryship want one. They have particular citing needs in an urban environment, that is why the old marquis got invented. I think we may need to look at that. I will sit down with the boss and with the Community Code Compliance officers and see what we can come up with so that we don't have to do this little dance every time something like this should come along. MOTION: Nickle: I would move that we approve the variance as requested by the applicant with the additional requirement of some down lighting in there so as to prevent any later mishaps. Andrews: Second. Board of Sign Appeals January 6, 2003 Page 9 Green: There has been a motion and a second to approve the variance as requested by the applicant with the stipulation of additional lighting in the courtyard. Is there any further discussion? Call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to approve SNA 02-3.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-1 with Ms. Alt abstaining. Alexander: For the record, we are in support of Carl's application. Board of Sign Appeals January 6, 2003 Page 10 SNA 03-1.00: Sign Appeal (Collier Drug Store, pp 484) was submitted by Herb Crumpton on behalf of Collier Drug Store for property located at 100 W. Dickson. The property is zoned C-3, Central Commercial. The requirement is for a 10' front sign setback. The request is for a 3' front sign setback (a 7' variance). Green: The next item for the Board of Sign Appeals is SNA 03-1.00, it is a sign appeal for Collier Drug Store submitted by Herb Crumpton. He too is on Dickson Street. It is zoned C-3. This requirement is for a 10' front sign setback, the request is for 3', which is a 7' variance. Don, can you give us some background on this one? Hancock: This ordinance was established in 2000. It says that a monument sign, which is the same as a free standing sign, shall be setback a minimum of 10' from the street right of way. They can't really move it back 10' without taking up the parking spots, that is why they are requesting the variance. There is a little island there that they are going to landscape and put the monument sign right in there. Green: Are there any other findings of fact, etc. that we should be considering here? Hancock: No. They do have a roof sign on the building, but that has been there for 50 years. This is the only monument sign that I am aware of on Dickson Street. Nickle: The square footage is within the allowed limits? Hancock: Yes Sir, it is. Green: Would the applicant like to address us? Crumpton: Herb Crumpton, I am the architect for the project. Here is my presentation team, Carl and Mel Collier. Our request seems pretty simple compared to the last one. What we are doing is we are just requesting a variance in the setback requirements for the sign. I think all of you probably have a site plan for this. With the addition of the work on Dickson Street, the ten spaces that were parking in front of the building have now been lost to four spaces on the street. The entrance to the parking lot is sort of setting back off the street a little bit about 16' back off of the street. The property line never really comes to play exactly in this problem here. We are sort of hiding back in there. We are wanting a way to pull people into the parking lot on that side of the building. It matches, you can call this half of the hamburger bun. Actually, the city is doing landscaping right out here as well with the light there. Rather than making this setup on poles or what have you, we are sitting right on the ground with landscaping that is only 6' tall. In fact, it is smaller than the project sign that is out there now. I think our basic reasoning here is to help identify where to get into the parking lot. It is internally illuminated. It is going to be Collier's blue. The letters will be white and they will match the graphics that are used on the big sign up above. There are some inlays here for tenant places. This is the way we identify the doctor's office at the rear of the Board of Sign Appeals January 6, 2003 Page 11 building and hopefully a soda shop or something up front a little bit later. The plaza is under construction now up front and is just now being completed and we are coming out that way with the walk. We are hoping to have your approval so we can go ahead with the sign. Collier: We are actually 16' away from the street right of way on this sign. Nickle: It is way far back from that. Collier: Our proposed sign is way further back than our previous sign was from the street right of way. Nickle: Right, plus you are losing a little parking. Orton: Those weren't good to get out of. Nickle: They were my favorite parking places to get in and out real quick. Green: Have you done some sight line studies to see that that monument sign is not going to obstruct or cause a safety hazard for people pulling out? Crumpton: We have also confirmed this, that as the car pulls out the eyes of the driver have to be past the sign before you can even see to start turning because of the city's building of that little island. You actually pass it first. Hancock: It won't be blocking the view of anybody exiting. Green: Even for pedestrians on the sidewalk? Collier: No. Crumpton: The sidewalk is 8' wide. Collier: 1 would also add that the three lights at the top are fiber optic lighting, very low key, the building is going to have some fiber optic lighting on it so it relates back to the building. Green: Are you planning to leave the roof sign as it is? Collier: Yes. Actually, the neon is being taken out of the roof sign so that when we put back we will put back fiber optic and it will all be one color. Currently, I believe the 0 is a different color of neon. That is the problem with neon, you wind up with different colors. The electrical contractor hasn't quite figured out how to bend this rope up in these letters yet but that is another problem in another day. I might go on to say just a little bit, I have been working on this project for about a year and a Board of Sign Appeals January 6, 2003 Page 12 Green: Nickle: half now and I've seen a lot of improvements that they have made down there in an effort to help clean up stuff on Dickson Street with the removal of about 600' of overhead primary wire that was down there by locating their pad mount transformer out front. A lot of times there are things done that don't have to be done that certainly help. It got rid of that wire that crosses Dickson Street, we tried to take it back one more pole but SWEPCO said that is our limit, we aren't going any further. That, along with some other improvements in the parking lot. We have met all of the landscape requirements and all of the parking requirements. This is our last requirement. Ok, is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak for or against? Are there any other questions or comments from the board? I think they have done a great job. Once I realized that this shadowed area down here, how far back in essence it sits from the street sign, it is important to guide the people back to the parking because it will have a totally new look to it. Olszewski: I agree. MOTION: Andrews: Olszewski: Collier: Orton: Green: Roll Call: Green: I move for approval of the variance as requested by the applicant. I will second it. I would like to take this opportunity to make just a quick comment We found that the Planning Depaitment has been wonderful to work with. Everyone from the City Engineering staff, this is a complex thing. Remodels are far more complex than new construction and our efforts with Herb and the city's efforts have been just wonderful from the cooperative standpoint and our compliments to everybody involved. Like Hillary Clinton says, it takes a village to raise a family. It took the whole city to make this project the success that I know it is going to be. Thank you. We have a motion and a second on the table, are there any other comments? Call the roll please. Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve SNA 03-1.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. The motion passes. Good luck on your project. Is there any other business that should come before this board? We are adjourned.