Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-10-06 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEAL A regular meeting of the Board of Sign Appeals was held on Monday, October 6, 2003 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ITEMS CONSIDERED ACTION TAKEN SNA 03-11.00: Sign Variance (Northwest Arkansas Mall, pp 134) Page 2 SNA 03-12.00: Sign Variance (Jones Motor Cars, pp. 213) Page 10 Tabled Approved MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Michael Andrews James Kunzelmann Sheree Alt Michael Green Joanne Olszewski Bob Kohler Bob Nickle STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Renee Thomas David Whitaker Board of Sign Appeals October 6, 2003 Page 2 SNA 03-11.00: Sign Variance (Northwest Arkansas Mall, pp 134) was submitted by Jeff Bishop of the Northwest Arkansas Mall for property located at 4201 N. Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request is for a monument sign, in addition to the existing 4 monument signs, located at the intersection of Steele Blvd. and the west end of the mall parking lot. The sign ordinance allows one freestanding monument sign per lot. Green: We will call to order the Board of Sign Appeals for the month of October. The first item on the agenda for Sign Appeals is consideration of the minutes of the August 4`" meeting. I sort of like these minutes. Has everyone read those and agree that they are correct? Are there any corrections or additions that need to be made to those minutes? Ok, we will consider those minutes approved. The first item on the Board of Sign Appeals agenda is a sign variance for the Northwest Arkansas Mall. They are asking for an addition of one free standing monument sign. Dawn, can you give us some background on this issue? Warrick: Yes Sir. This project is at the Northwest Arkansas Mall, 4201 N. Shiloh. The applicant proposes to erect a new monument sign, a freestanding sign, at the western edge of the subject property which is out the back of JC Penny's to the west where the new Steele Blvd. intersects the outer road circle around the mall property. This request, as I mentioned, is for an additional monument sign. The sign would be in addition to the existing signages currently located on the site, which consists of one pylon sign, two monument signs along the eastern property line, College Avenue, and an additional monument sign at the intersection of Mall Avenue and Joyce Blvd., several directional signs and wall signage for various tenants are also located on the property and on the structure. With regard to findings, no additional freestanding signage may be erected on this site without a variance. In fact, there have been additional variances granted through the Board of Sign Appeals for the Northwest Arkansas Mall. Included in your packet are minutes from the May 1, 2000 Board of Sign Appeals meeting at which time the mall did request three monument signs, the two that are located on North College Avenue, as well as the one at the intersection of Mall Avenue and Joyce Blvd. were considered in that meeting. With regard to whether strict enforcement of the sign regulations would be unreasonable in this situation, staff found that strict enforcement of the sign regulations would permit the proposed sign. The amount of signage for the property has already been increased beyond current allowances through previous actions of the board. The amount of signage which has been allowed on the property staff felt to be reasonable without this additional monument sign. The other pertinent finding was that the Northwest Arkansas Mall is a large development with many tenants. It is unique. It is probably the only development in town with the number of merchants located under one roof that we have. It may be accessed from many different streets. While it is a unique development, the board has already addressed this condition by granting additional monument signs. Two of which are almost two times the allowable size in display surface area that is permitted for this type of sign. Staff felt that it was unreasonable to think that people traveling within this commercial area of Northwest Arkansas could not find the Northwest Arkansas Mall or understand that they have arrived at Board of Sign Appeals October 6, 2003 Page 3 Green: Bishop: that development without this particular additional sign. Based on those findings, staff is not recommending in favor of this request. Thank you Dawn. Would the applicant like to address us? I am Jeff Bishop with the mall office I think at the time the request was made two years ago this particular entrance wasn't in place. We also feel like we need to be proactive as the neighborhood is changing so that kind of lead us to this point. We feel that there are quite a few resources spent to market the property as a regional shopping center and with that in mind, we would like to have this particular entrance with signage. Traffic is increasing there. People are traveling to the mall off the western side of town and we feel like we are requesting the same thing that anyone would do. We feel like it is our responsibility, if you will, to go for this since it is in our own backyard. Green: Are there any questions or comments for anybody? Olszewski: You are asking for a sign that says Northwest Arkansas Mall right? Bishop: Yes Ma'am. Olszewski: Is there going to be a sign that says once you hit that point? When I went out there today there was all that building going on and you definitely know it is a parking lot. Is there going to be anything that says this way to Sears, this way to Penny's? I know when you come up Mall Avenue your monument sign is almost down by McDonald's and then you get up there and there is a sign that says which way to go. I guess that's my other question. Is there going to be anything once you hit that that says anything other than you've arrived at the mall? Church: We were scared to ask for that. That's a great idea. At the time CMN developed their project part of the agreement in allowing that traffic to connect with the mall traffic is that we would put up a monument sign, we are going to do landscaping and directional signage would also be nice. You can't see the other entrances from that entrance and we want to delineate our property and CMN's property and we are trying to be very proactive in doing that. So many times we wait to put in infrastructure until after everything is said and done and we are trying to do this before that area becomes very congested. Nickle: It seems like to me directional signage for this location would be even more important than a sign identifying saying Northwest Arkansas Mall. I understand that's nice too. I pulled in back there one time a few months ago and it was a little confusing. I kind of stumbled on the route, I went up to look at the new apartments that were under construction and I thought, wow, I didn't even know you could go in this way. As you say, people came up behind me and honked because I was going where am I? To me, a directional sign saying this way to Sears or that way to Penny's or this way to Board of Sign Appeals October 6, 2003 Page 4 Dillard's would make even more sense than something that says Northwest Arkansas Mall to me. Olszewski: I was looking at it this weekend, as you can imagine with Bikes, Blues, that's why I couldn't get there to that part until today. What I noticed is that the signs that are there are very tastefully done. I know they are larger than they should be but they are very tastefully done. When I was reading this I was thinking where they would want to be consistent and have it all over the place. I had been on that road before and when I went today I was shocked to see the building that had happened. I couldn't figure out if I was on the right street. I had to ask an engineer if I was indeed on the right street. I turned around and I looked at it and thought there's no way you don't know you've hit the mall because there's the parking lot. Is it something to make it consistent with what you have or is it something to say this is our parking lot so that there's that? I could just sit here for a long time and figure out which way do I go? Kohler: Is part of our task today to decide the content of the sign or just the fact that there is a sign there? Warrick: They have a specific proposal in front of you that shows you an elevation and size and location for the proposed monument sign so it is appropriate to consider what it is that they are presenting. Kohler: But it wouldn't preclude the placement of directional information either? Whitaker: From a legal standpoint, I think those could certainly be conditions of approval if you thought that would make it worth granting the variance, make it a special situation. Kohler: We don't want to necessarily limit it if at some point these concerns about direction come up and then it is too late. Olszewski: I guess I'm bringing it up because it is one thing to put up a sign that says their name but if they need directions they are going to have to come back and ask for another sign and then we are going to really be in a situation. Nickle: I would rather see them incorporated together if we could do that. If we are going to have one there, I think most people know that they are at the Northwest Arkansas Mall area but now what do I do. That's my concern. It is a safety issue from my standpoint of view because like I said, I was sitting there and there was traffic behind me honking so I can see some potential safety hazards there because of lack of direction. I would be more inclined to approve something that says ok, you can have a sign there but it has to be more focused on directional information, turn left to go here, turn right to go there than just saying here you are, X marks the spot doesn't do me any good unless I can see where Y is or Z is. Kunzelmann: That begs the question, how large? What square footage are we talking about here? I missed that part of how large is the actual square footage of this proposal. Board of Sign Appeals October 6, 2003 Page 5 Warrick: Jeff, do you happen to know the size of the directional sign at the north end of Mall Avenue? Bishop: I don't. I can tell you from our renovation days, it is roughly the size of a 7' board, because at one time they used wood planks on a temporary basis as directional signage and came back with basically the same scale with permanent directional signage, 3'x7'. Green: I know that the staff has recommended denial of this request but from my own observations, this is a very unique. The scale of this project is very unique to Fayetteville. We really don't have anything else that would compare to it. There are multiple entrances that are not visible from the other entrances. Basically, when they get to this point, they don't know exactly where the boundary is for the mall property and where the business part ends without some kind of signage. Of course it is sort of my own understanding I guess that the purpose of limiting the number of monument signs was because of the clutter and that kind of thing. This is so large and with such remote separate entrances then I don't see that clutter would be a consideration because you can't even see the other signs from this entrance especially. I am very prone to emphasize completely with the necessity of a sign of actually identifying the property and maybe also allowing them to have directional information on the sign too to clarify and prevent a bottle neck of traffic there. I think that would make some sense too. Kohler: As that west part gets developed it will be no lesser of an entry point than some of the others. I think the only issue really is timing. I can see maybe in the future it may be slightly better timing than now but just because that development isn't fully even close to fully filling in back there but if they want to be proactive then I don't see any problem with it. Alt: As some people have said, you don't even know that that street leads you to the mall right now. Kunzelmann: In the spirit of consistency, I would lean more towards having this sign at the corner and then having the directional sign here and of course, that's not what we're looking at. Alt: No, unfortunately not. Olszewski: I would like to know, you mentioned that you were afraid to ask for that, would you want to go and revisit this and come back with what you want? Bishop: We certainly could. We could go with what we've had thus far which is a separate directional sign in addition to this, is that what you're thinking? Board of Sign October 6, 200 Page 6 Olszewski: Appeals 3 Kunzelmann: Olszewski: Green: Olszewski: Green: Warrick: Kunzelmann: Warrick: Church: Kunzelmann: Nickle: Warrick: Kohler: Warrick: Olszewski: Bishop: I think it would make a difference. We might be talking clutter if we are talking a directional sign. I would like to see a similar amount of square footage redesigned with more information if that is possible. That would still meet your consistency but give you what you want all at once. I would think that we could word our motion to allow them some flexibility in identifying that and putting directional information on it as they see fit. I think that is more of a business opportunity. And let staff deal with it? Yes, as long as we have a size of the monument sign. It would help us if you have a maximum size that you felt to be appropriate and a style of sign if you feel a monument sign is appropriate with a certain maximum sign face then regardless of whether it is just the Northwest Arkansas Mall or if it is that plus directional information I kind of need to know what it is that you would expect us to permit if that is the route you choose to take. Along these same lines, when I approach the mall from other directions, the landscaping is actually consistent from entrance to entrance, is that something that we can address making the landscaping around this side more consistent? Probably not too much. I think that's a little bit removed from your authority. We agree with you though. I was thinking the holly trees and the back drops. What's the square footage of the other monument signs out there? The one at Mall Avenue is 66' according to the records from 2000 and the ones along North College are about 140' each. They are request 63.8' on this one. Yes. We are saying that the directional signs are 28 sq.ft.? I would say 21 to 25 is what the current ones are. Board of Sign October 6, 200 Page 7 Kohler: Appeals 3 Church: Kohler: Bishop: Nickle: Alt: Bishop: Warrick: Bishop: Warrick: Andrews: Church: Warrick: Church: Bishop: Whitaker: Olszewski: Is there ever a place where there is a Northwest Arkansas Mall combined with directional or are they always separate? They are always separate. Ok. Actually, on this elevation that I included, the quilt pattern and the color the intent of the design was for consistency sake it was what we had gone with everywhere else. There's no reason to think that you couldn't maybe incorporate some directional information on a sign like this with the same type of quilt pattern which is kind of the mall's finish. You are doing a 63.81', if we said 70 sq.ft. would that give you enough room to add some directional information in that context and still be big enough to identify it like that? You would be putting your larger stores. I think that's what we have in the food court. There's no doubt we could do that if we change the overall scale of the sign and have this section that you see now we could include that directional information. Aren't the directional signs taller? They are now. That's something we need to address. If the board wants to pursue the directional component to this sign I need to understand what kind of height we would be able to permit. I have a problem with trying to design something at this meeting. We are not in any hurry. I hate to ask for you guys to come back. When is the next meeting? The first Monday of next month. That will work. We can go back to our sign company. It probably is best for you to review a proposal rather than sending out broad parameters and hoping for the best. Should we entertain a motion to table it? Board of Sign Appeals October 6, 2003 Page 8 Green: We can do that, whatever the wishes of the board are. Nickle: Does that give you enough time to come back? That way you can be ready for Christmas or Thanksgiving or whenever people shop. Green: That's Labor Day when Christmas starts. I have always wanted to stay out of the design business when we're on this board because that's not really our function to try to design these things. I would like to leave some kind of flexibility so that they can determine what they want to do. It is more of a business decision I think and a marketing decision than for us to try to determine what's best for them. If you all feel like the directional information should be incorporated as part of this sign so that there won't be two issues there then maybe we should consider tabling this. Nickle: I agree with you. I am concerned about safety issues too and I think directional, I'd like to if possible, solve both problems at the same time if it is reasonable and I would be much more flexible to go up a little bit on square footage to be able to solve what I see is additionally a safety issue as well as a business issue. I would certainly be more likely to look at raising 70 sq.ft. to 90 sq.ft. if we could put everything and solve both of those problems at the same time. Kohler: What would be wrong with having the existing height limitation and then increasing the square footage to 80 and that's not really telling them a design, that's just giving them a broad boundary to stay within and then leave it up to them on the aesthetics of their sign? Nickle: I would think that they need to consult the sign people but how are we going to put this directional information on there, how best to put it on there. Olszewski: My big concern is that you get to come here and say what you really want. If you wanted a directional sign I think we should address that. I really trust that you will figure out how to bring this all in and make it tastefully done because you've done that so far. I am more in favor of tabling it and letting you come back with what you really want knowing what the general limits are out there and we can go from there. Green: Is there a motion of any kind? MOTION: Andrews: I will move that we table. Olszewski: I will second it. Green: It has been moved and seconded to table this issue until the next meeting until it's taken off the table again. Can you call the roll please? Board of Sign Appeals October 6, 2003 Page 9 Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Green: Thank you. Board of Sign Appeals October 6, 2003 Page 10 SNA 03-12.00: Sign Variance (Jones Motor Cars, pp. 213) was submitted by Mandy Bunch of EB Landworks, Inc. on behalf of Mike Jones for the property located at 3547 N. College Ave. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request is for an additional freestanding monument sign for a proposed Jones Mercedes dealership. Green: The next item on our agenda is consideration of a sign variance on behalf of Mike Jones for the property on North College Avenue. It is a request for an additional freestanding monument sign for a Mercedes dealership. Dawn, can you give us the background on this one? Warrick: Yes Sir. The subject property is located at 3547 N. College Avenue. This is the site of Jones Motor Cars. The applicant is in the process of proposing, and does have Planning Commission approval for a Large Scale Development to install a Mercedes Show Room and collision center on the northern portion of this site which is currently vacant. The applicant is requesting with that project to install one new freestanding monument sign. This portion of the property, the majority of the property is located within the Design Overlay District. Therefore, pole signs are prohibited. The applicant is proposing a monument sign, with that, they wish to maintain their existing pylon sign. Staff has made several findings and recommendations in this particular case. The monument sign that they are proposing does comply with the setback and height size, display surface area regulations of the Overlay District. One consideration that we made with regard to this application was that the subject property is located on two separate parcels, separate lots of record as reported by the County Assessor's office. These two tracts of land are developed together as one overall project. However, they could be split into two separate pieces of property. Strict enforcement would not permit the additional sign in a commercial property one freestanding sign is what is permitted. That causes a challenge to a project such as this where there are several different brands of vehicles being marketed and sold. There are different branding requirements and restrictions amongst the various dealerships, such as we can be there but we can't be on the same sign as they are. That's pretty common what we see in these types of situations. That is specifically an issue with this particular project. There's information from the applicant in your packet and it basically outlines the fact that Mercedes will not agree to being on a group signage. For their new showroom that is apparently restricted by their corporate imaging and branding program. Staff is recommending approval. We have made several recommendations for conditions that we feel are appropriate in considering this additional freestanding sign. 1) Existing Mercedes-Benz wall sign shall be removed prior to issuance of the sign permit. There is a wall sign on the existing showroom that is a Mercedes sign specifically. 2) Upon approval of this request the said monument sign must meet the regulations for the design overlay district. The proposal does, this is just kind of covering all of our basis requirement. The sign shall not exceed 75 sq. ft. of display surface area or exceed the 6' height limit. 3) The requested monument sign shall be setback 10' from the master street plan right of way. 4) The requested sign shall match elevations and materials submitted to the Board of Sign Appeals. 5) The variance shall only apply to the proposed (Mercedes Benz) dealership on the subject property. Should the use of this Board of Sign Appeals October 6, 2003 Page 11 site change in the future only one freestanding sign shall be permitted. 6) The Board of Sign Appeals consideration of an extended approval period to allow for the installation of the proposed sign with construction of the Large Scale Development for the Mercedes Benz dealership. You will note that in the findings there is a section from the Sign regulations, Chapter 174 that states that any variance granted by the Board of Sign Appeals shall be revoked if the applicant does not comply with the terms and install the sign within 30 days. This project has certainly not begun construction. It was just approved recently by the Planning Commission. The applicant is appealing one of the conditions of the Planning Commission so it is still in the process of approval. Staff is recommending that should the sign appeal be granted that it basically go along with that approval time frame span along with the Large Scale Development and that it would become invalid if the Large Scale is not constructed within the time frame that it is required to be installed. With those recommendations and findings, staff is in favor of this request for an additional freestanding sign for this project site. Green: The applicant has agreed to these conditions? Warrick: Yes Sir. The applicant just handed me signed conditions of approval. They are in agreement with those conditions. Green: Would the applicant like to address us? Bunch: Yes Sir. My name is Mandy Bunch, I'm with EB Landworks. I am representing Mike Jones today. Garth is also here with Ken Shireman Associates and they are the architect of record. I just want to be brief because I don't know how in depth you want me to be but we can answer probably most of what you throw at us. I just want to kind of go over the site plan. It is kind of small, I can pass it around if you want. Mr. Jones has about a six and a half acre property. This is his existing building and parking area, this wide field here, this is his new project that he is proposing to have some display area and landscaping as part of the new project with the Mercedes showroom located in this location and then the collision center behind it. He has met all of the requirements as far as building signage, etc. for everything. One thing that he was looking at as a really important item with the Mercedes dealership is they want the signage on the building, they want the monument signage. This is something that he has wanted for years and has settled for Mercedes being on the wall on the face of the existing building and then the pylon has his GM brands that he sells. With this project he definitely wanted to address that. There are two parcels of record. I don't want to repeat everything Dawn said, but there are two parcels. We could pursue a lot line adjustment, he would prefer not to. He would prefer to have it approved and follow the black and white rules in a more creative way. We can pursue that but he prefers not to. I think that's pretty much it. The major issues are the branding, etc. We've also got a little bit of a visibility issue. I don't know if you guys might've had the opportunity to drive by but from the north, here is a picture of the bypass and here is the existing dealership in this location. From the north his property pretty much has no visibility until you are right on it. It is the most Board of Sign Appeals October 6, 2003 Page 12 interesting situation on College that you can get. Quite honestly, if you are looking from the Kinko's area, you look right over the top of the building. It is set down about 7' from the highway in this corner. With his new business in this location, his existing pylon is right here and again, you cannot see that until you are right here because there is a tree line slope that impedes any visibility from the north. He is hoping that the introduction of a monument sign in this location will also aid in his visibility from the north. Do you have any questions about those issues? Kohler: Does the Overlay District affect this parcel or the other one? Bunch: Both. Kohler: If a portion of a parcel is in the Overlay District does that subject the entire parcel? Warrick: No, only that area that is actually within the boundaries of the district would have to comply with the regulations. We do have properties where it spans. Kohler: How does the Overlay District situation affect this or does it? Warrick: It pretty much covers the entire site. Bunch: It is kind of interesting. Here is the boundary of the expressway and the 660' offset is taken at this location but the ramp was actually offset when the boundary was platted so it actually comes down. Warrick: You can look at page 2.15 on that map that staff created. Kohler: The sign is within that Overlay District? Warrick: Yes, both the existing and the proposed are in the Overlay. Nickle: If they would've excluded that ramp, I think this is kind of a fluke situation because I remember when they passed this thing. As a matter of fact, all of this CMN Phase I because it was already developed got relieved of the obligations of the Overlay District. I suspect that every one of these property owners if they would've realized it was in the Overlay District they would've applied at that time too as we're already developed, get us out from under this thing. I think that was the intent to modify new construction, new stuff along the expressway. Warrick: That is a good point. Many of the projects within CMN Phase I, which is basically Millsap Drive, do comply with the Overlay District. However, there are three specific subdivisions that were exempted by ordinance when that Overlay District was created and applied. Green: Ok, very good. Are there any other questions or comments? Board of Sign Appeals October 6, 2003 Page 13 Andrews: Warrick: Green: MOTION: Kohler: Andrews: Green: Roll Call: Green: Warrick: Andrews: Whitaker: Warrick: Nickle: Warrick: I guess my question is to clarify, if they did split this property and they could sell it to anybody, is there anything that they are asking for that would be in violation of that or that would need a variance or anything? No. They have two tax parcels on the property. They could, as Mandy said, request a lot line adjustment to make them independent so that each grouping of structures was located on it's own independent tract and they would be in compliance. The existing sign would be considered a non -conforming sign but it would be able to stay as is. What they are asking for does comply with the regulations for a new sign if it didn't have something else there already. That makes sense. Is there anyone else? I move that we approve the request as requested subject to the conditions of staff. Second. We have a motion and a second to approve the request with the staff conditions. Is there any further discussion? Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve SNA 03-12.00 was approved by a vote of 7-0-0. Thank you. Is there any other business that should come before the Board of Sign Appeals? I have nothing further. Is there anymore thought of any changes to the sign ordinance? I haven't heard anything from you folks yet. When we do we will be working with them on that. If you have any recommendations or questions please let us know. You all are charged with dealing with this ordinance and what happens with it certainly affects you. Were we going to get a copy of the new big book? Yes Sir, I will have that for you at your next meeting. It is online if you have questions between now and then and you access the City of Fayetteville's main website under City Code the only part of the city code that is currently out there are development regulations. You can certainly access that information on line and we will get you materials at your next meeting. Board of Sign Appeals October 6, 2003 Page 14 Green: Thank you. We are adjourned.