Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-04-07 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEAL A regular meeting of the Board of Sign Appeals was held on Monday, April 7, 2003 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN SNA 03-4.00: Washington Regional Page 2 SNA 03-5.00: Walgreen's Page 6 MEMBERS PRESENT Michael Andrews Michael Green Bob Kohler Bob Nickle Approved Approved MEMBERS ABSENT Sherree Alt Joanne Olszewski James Kunzelmann STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Renee Thomas David Whitaker Sara Edwards Kris Bunten Board of Adjustment April 7, 2003 Page 2 SNA 03-4.00: Sign Appeal (Washington Regional Medical Center, pp 251) was submitted by Peter Nierengarten on behalf of Washington Regional Medical Center for property located at 3215 N. North Hills Blvd. The property is zoned R-0, Residential Office, A-1, Agricultural, and C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request is to install two additional wall signs which exceed the maximum square footage and number of signs allowed. The ordinance requirement is for a maximum of four wall signs per business with a maximum of 16 square feet per sign in an R-0 district. Green: We will convene a meeting of the Board of Sign Appeals. Warrick: We are switching staff members. Sara Edwards, our Associate Planner drafted the sign variance application. Green: The first item of business is a sign appeal by Washington Regional Medical Center. This property is zoned R -O, A-1, and C-2. I guess there are several pieces of property out there. The request is to install two additional signs that exceeds the square footage. Sara, would you like to give us some more detail on this? Edwards: Yes. We are recommending approval as shown on the attached site plan and as described in the attached memo from the applicant with the following conditions. That if they do not comply with the terms of the variance it shall be revoked. The proposed sign must comply with provisions of the electrical code and be permitted accordingly and a sign permit must be obtained prior to installation. This is the Washington Regional hospital site on North Hills Blvd. I think everyone is familiar with that. The request is for two sign variances needed to accommodate two additional wall signs. I believe you heard this item last year for several sign variances already and they did attach a listing of all the signs they have on site. The proposal is for additional wall signs, one with a hospital name and one with admission registration. You should have pictures in your packet and on your site plan. We have found those two signs to comply with the sign ordinance but just to let you know those will be added. The two signs that do not comply with the sign ordinance is an ambulance entrance and emergency entrance. The reason they don't comply is two reasons. We have a limit in all zoning districts of four wall signs per building. Actually, all four signs on the main entrance side, there are four there and so we have interpreted that to be the four that are allowed and then these two emergency entrances and ambulance entrances will be an additional to the four allowed as well as those are on the R -O side and there is a limit of 16 sq.ft. and one of those is proposed to be 30 sq.ft. Findings, you are required to make a finding that strict enforcement of the sign regulation would cause practical difficulties. Staff has interpreted that the sign ordinance is impractical due to the use of this site as a hospital. This site is the site of the hospital campus and building necessitates a need for both additional and larger signage. Most of the property that we have in town is for a small office building whereas, the hospital has elected to put a large hospital up here which makes it unreasonable to allow for only the four wall signs and a 16 sq.ft. limit. This site is unique because public safety needs to be considered. There is a need for the wall signs to direct both pedestrian and Board of Adjustment April 7, 2003 Page 3 automobile traffic. Each of these signs are needed for emergency services and are necessary to direct patients to the proper entrance to get assistance as quickly as possible. That is why we are recommending approval. Green: Ok. Nickle: Sara, I'm not sure I understand number one on the conditions, does that mean they have 30 days to get the signs up? Edwards: They have 30 days to obtain a permit. Green: Is that a standard requirement that we have? Edwards: Yes. There is a finding which is "E" on page 2.4 and that is a requirement so we just stated that in the conditions of approval to make sure we covered that one. Green: Thirty days is the normal time for sign appeals and we basically give a year on variance requests. Edwards: l don't think it will be any problem. They have already applied for their permits and all it takes is our signature basically. Green: Ok, so it is sort of a moot point but nevertheless. Would the applicant like to address us for anything? Nierengarten: Sure. I am Peter Nierengarten, I am with US Infrastructure and I will be pretty brief. I just brought a few little boards to kind of show you all what we were up to at Washington Regional. The first one here, just to kind of show you what we have got on site already, I know that the packet got passed around that has the existing signs but this illustrates what the signs look like as installed. This is a directional sign that is directing traffic around the site. This is a monument sign for the Womens Center. This is one of the wall mounted signs that Sara was referring to that are neon lit, which is what our new wall signs are proposed to be neon lit as well. These are the four sides where we are proposing to place the new signs. The two that we are asking for the variances on are the ambulance entrance and the emergency entrance. This sign actually illustrates well why we need a more permanent type sign at this location because when the wind is blowing this sign flaps and you can't read really what it is. The other two signs are large Washington Regional Medical Center across the front of building here and by admissions registration in this location. This third board illustrates what the signs will look like installed. That is the same as what you have got in your packets. If you all have any questions of me I would be glad to answer them at this time. Green: These three signs I guess are going to be internally illuminated at night? Nierengarten: Yes, similar to the large emblem signs but of course they will have letters on them. Board of Adjustment April 7, 2003 Page 4 Kohler: Nierengarten: Green: Nickle: Andrews: Green: Roll Call: Green: It is hard to argue with the need for way finding signs for a hospital. It really is because in the letter that Jack Mitchell wrote you all, this entrance for the ambulances is locked and if someone comes to the hospital and is in immediate need of emergency medical treatment and they go to the ambulance entrance instead of the emergency entrance they can't get in because they don't have the key card to get in the door so they need to understand that this is where the public goes and this is for ambulances only. Are there any other questions? Is there anyone from the audience that would like to address us on this issue? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion. I move that we approve the request with the appropriate staff conditions. Second. Ok. There has been a motion and a second to approve the appeal with staff recommendations and the three stipulations staff is recommending. Is there any other discussion? Shall the appeal pass? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve SNA 03-4.00 was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Thank you. Board of Adjustment April 7, 2003 Page 5 SNA 03-5.00: Sign Appeal (Walgreen's, pp 523) was submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Keystone Engineering on behalf of BENCORE for property located at the northeast corner of 6th Street and S. School Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 2.00 acres. The request is for an 8' tall freestanding sign with a total surface area of 53.36 square feet and a 15 foot setback. The ordinance allows for a 54 square foot sign with a 37 foot setback. The request is for a 22 foot variance. Green: The second item on our Board of Sign Appeals is a sign appeal submitted by Geoffrey Bates of Keystone Engineering for property located at 6th Street and S. School Avenue zoned C-2. This request is for an 8' tall free standing sign, a little over 53 sq.ft. with a 15' setback and the ordinance allows for 54' with a 37' setback so the request is really for a 22' variance in sign setback and not necessarily area, is that correct? Edwards: Yes. We are recommending approval subject to two conditions. One is that the sign shall not move or flash and we put that condition on there because this sign does have a reader board, which is dissimilar from the last item and that the variance shall be automatically be revoked if it is not applied for within 30 days. The sign is for a new Walgreen's site which is located on the northeast corner of 6th and S. School. This site encompasses area from School to Locust and 6th Street to 5th Street. The request, as I said, is for an 8' tall 53.36sq.ft. monument sign with a 15' setback. A monument sign, however, is defined by the sign ordinance as being no greater than 6' in height. Therefore, this sign cannot be classified as a monument sign, it must be classified as a free standing, we also have classified a pole sign as free standing sign. As you stated, this specific variance is a 22' variance. The Planning Commission did review this with regards to commercial design standards and they felt that the sign did comply with commercial design standards. If you are not aware of that, the determination has to be that it is not a large, out of scale sign with flashy colors. The practical difficulties due to circumstances unique to the individual sign, staff encouraged them not to use a free standing sign in order to beautify the area of town. We have recommended the use of a ground mounted sign in lieu of a pole sign. The ground mounted sign is less visible the further back it is placed making the use of a pole sign more desirable for the applicant. Therefore, we are supporting this sign because it will only be 8' tall whereas, if they were to go with a pole sign they could have 28.5' tall with a greater setback so we are trying to encourage a more attractive sign. We felt that our recommendation has caused the site to be unique. The site is being redeveloped and the proposed sign is smaller than the maximum display area permitted for a monument sign, which is 75 sq.ft. Therefore, we are recommending approval. Andrews: And it is not a monument sign? Edwards: A monument sign is defined by our ordinance with height, it can only be 6' in height. Whereas, this one is 8' in height. It practically really is what you would think of as a monument sign. Board of Adjustment April 7, 2003 Page 6 Andrews: Edwards: Kohler: Edwards: Kohler: Edwards: Andrews: Whitaker: Kohler: Whitaker: Nickle: Whitaker: Warrick: Nickle: Is there a reason that we didn't have a 2' variance on the monument sign instead of this and then it would have fit in the setback? I know, it is six one hand and a half dozen of the other but I am just wondering why. Basically just because of that definition. Is there any distinction between square footage of reader board verses square footage of stationary? There is not. We counted both as square footage. What is allowed to be presented on a reader board? It can't move, it can't flash but other than that whatever advertisement. There is also a restriction on the time of change. What is that rule on the change, how often? To my understanding, I don't think that has been precisely set out in the ordinance. I know we are currently in a situation where we have entered into an agreement with one particular party on what constituted non -flashing but it is an area that needs to be looked like. If it changed every 10 seconds is that flashing or non? Yes. The other Walgreen's that we dealt with, we worked out with them every 24 hours they can put up a new message up there. The rational and the motivation is to not have something that will distract drivers. The idea is that certainly the reader board can say something different everyday but that is not something moving or flashing in the field of vision every five or ten seconds. Should we or should we not have something about the 24 hour period or should we just let a sleeping dog lie? My inclination as a lawyer is that it would be better to have something in writing anytime but my understanding is that is not how we have been doing it procedurally. It is kind of an informal understanding with the other Walgreen's? We do not have anything of record on the 24 hour agreement that I know of. I believe there were some complaints from drivers by with regard to that one when it was originally placed on the site and there was concern. Our sign inspector at the time reached an agreement with either the manager or some supervisor who had the authority at that store to make a decision that 24 hours would be appropriate. Did that sign require a variance? Board of Adjustment April 7, 2003 Page 7 Warrick: It did not. It is a pole sign with a reader board on it. It is the same basic sign but it is on poles instead of ground mounted. Whitaker: And it is setback. Warrick: It does meet the setbacks for a pole sign. Andrews: Is it the same size sign? Edwards: I believe it is 75 sq.ft. so it is a little bit bigger. Andrews: Ok, so that one is 75 sq.ft. total and this is 53 sq.ft. total. Green: Would the applicant like to address us? Bates: I am Geoff Bates, I am the engineer representing Walgreen's. Walgreen's is under the impression that they are going to get to change it once per day. They are not thinking that it is going to be scrolling or rotating, I have told them that since day one. They are not planning on it flashing or scrolling. They change it once a day, that is what the other store on Township does and that is what they are planning on doing also. Nickle: So it wouldn't be an unexpected burden if we added that as a condition? Whitaker: I don't think it would be. It is at your discretion. I think it is certainly something that sounds like can be handled administratively as well but in your judgment if you feel that it would be better to have that as a condition of approval I don't see that it would be a burden if they already understand that is how they are constrained. Green: Are there any other questions? Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address us on this issue? Andrews: I'm not sure from the drawings if I know exactly. I went out there and tried to figure where it was going to be placed. Is the building that is there going to come down? Warrick: Yes, it will be a completely raised site. Andrews: Ok, so this is where that monument is going to be right here? Warrick: That is the proposal. Andrews: Is it going to be two sided? Bates: Yes, just like a monument. Board of Adjustment April 7, 2003 Page 8 Andrews: It doesn't look like it is going to be visible on the other side very much. Bates: Andrews: Warrick: Kohler: Bates: Collier: Warrick: Kohler: Bates: Green: Edwards: Green: MOTION: Nickle: Whitaker: Andrews: Well we could move it closer to the right of way. I was thinking that if it were at an angle it could be one sided and would be just as visible I would think. You can't even see that sign coming from the north. The request doesn't include the wall sign, which is allowable by ordinance. The reader board would be on both sides? Yes Sir. The sign is roughly 8'x3' because the square footage is calculated multiplied by two for both sides right? The display surface area is 54.75, so each side has that display surface. The reader board is 2'8"x9', 25 sq.ft. and the other part is 27 sq.ft. I know they really, really wanted a pole sign and it took a lot of convincing to get them to this. They are very set in their ways like all the other chain stores. We felt like we were trying to compromise and we really worked with the city just to get them to come to this area of town that really needs some revitalization. They have both been working back and forth with each other I think. If you did a pole sign the setback would be back into your building itself there if you complied with the setbacks for a pole sign so I can see that this is a compromise. That area that we are dealing with, the 54 sq.ft. maximum, that is per side right? Yes. Are there any more questions, comments from the audience or anybody? Is there a motion? I make a motion that we approve it as requested. I don't guess I need to add that 24 hour deal since it is in the minutes that they have that understanding with us. Yes, and like I said, I think it is something that can be handled administratively if complaints came in they could be addressed at that time. I would feel better about it if we did just so it is binding in black and white. Board of Adjustment April 7, 2003 Page 9 Nickle: I don't have a problem with adding it since their engineer says they understand that already and they are in agreement to it we can add that as a condition. I would like to make that part of the motion. Andrews: I will second. Green: We have a motion and a second to approve the Variance with the two items that staff has recommended plus a further stipulation that the reader board be changed no more frequently than 24 hours. Nickle: Can we put in something about they have to put Go Hogs every game day? Whitaker: I think the market will drive that. Green: Ok, is there any other discussion? Shall the appeal pass? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve SNA 03-5.00 was approved by a vote of 4-0-0. Green: Ok, the sign appeal passed. Thank you. We still don't have a quorum to consider the minutes of the previous meeting so we will just carry those over to the next meeting and will make that the first item of business of our next meeting. Is there any further business that should come before us at this time? Ok, once again, we would like to welcome Bob Kohler to the Board of Adjustment and with that, we will stand adjourned.