Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-11-03 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEAL A regular meeting of the Board of Sign Appeals was held on Monday, November 3, 2003 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN SNA 03-13.00: Sign Appeal (Central United Methodist Church, pp 484) Approved Page 2 SNA 03-11.00: Sign Variance (Northwest Arkansas Mall, pp 134) Approved Page 5 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Michael Andrews Michael Green James Kunzelmann Sheree Alt Joanne Olszewski Bob Kohler Bob Nickle STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Renee Thomas David Whitaker Suzanne Morgan Kris Bunten Board of Sign Appeals November 3, 2003 Page 2 Please note that some portions of this meeting were inaudible due to technical difficulties. Renee Thomas, Senior Secretary SNA 03-13.00: Sign Appeal (Central United Methodist Church, pp 484) was submitted by Brian Swain on behalf of Central United Methodist Church for property located at 6 W. Dickson Street. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office. The requirement is for a 10' setback for the proposed monument sign. The request is to allow a 5' setback. A 5' variance. Andrews: I will call the meeting of the Board of Sign Appeal to order. Warrick: I would just note that you got some new materials this afternoon that included a second item on this agenda that was overlooked. Andrews: The first item on the agenda would be approval of the minutes from the last meeting. Are there any changes, questions or comments? Hearing none, the minutes will be approved. The first item is SNA 03-13.00 for Central United Methodist Church submitted by Brian Swain on behalf of Central United Methodist Church for property located at 6 W. Dickson Street. The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office. The requirement is for a 10' setback for the proposed monument sign. The request is to allow a 5' setback. A 5' variance. Staff recommends approval with two conditions. Staff? Warrick: This request is for a monument sign to be located at 6 W. Dickson Street, which is the site of Central United Methodist Church. The requirement for a monument sign in this location in an R -O zoning is 10' from the property line. The request is to allow a 5' setback, which is a variance of 5'. The proposed sign is 2.5' wide, 9' in tong, and 4' 4" tall. The total sign area is 35.75 sq. ft and a display surface of 16 sq. ft., which is the maximum permitted in the R -O zoning district. As stated, staff is recommending approval with two conditions. The first is any existing freestanding signs on site shall be removed prior to issuance of the sign permit. 2) The requested sign shall match elevations and materials submitted to the Board of Sign Appeals. We do have signed conditions of approval from the applicant and I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. It is kind of hard to tell but on page 1.6 you will see that the right of way line is the north right of way on Dickson Street so this is very close to Dickson Street at the intersection. The existing sign on the site is smallish, it is on a white pole and it is where it is shown here. Brian, you may be able to help a tittle bit with locating that. Swain: I am Brian Swain, I'm the administrator of the church. We actually have three buildings along Dickson Street. Starting at Highland and working Board of Sign Appeals November 3, 2003 Page 3 your way east is the Wesley Building. The second building is our sanctuary building, the third building is what we call our education building. The Wesley building is the area where the sign is now. It is immediately south of that building kind of at a point where we have a sidewalk running north and south and then the sidewalk along Dickson running east and west. We are proposing to locate it in a similar area of the property but it would be actually a little bit north of the existing sign right now. Kohler: Is it double face or single face? Swain: It is double face, it would be perpendicular to the street and you will be able to see it coming and going up and down Dickson, which is exactly how the current sign sits now. It is a perpendicular sign. Nickle: How far to the west of Highland would that be? Swain: I don't know that I know the exact measurements of that. It is a considerable distance from Highland. Nickle: I'm just concerned about visibility at that corner. Swain: In the letter I put in the packet I addressed that issue. We actually did a mock up of the sign where we actually put it out there. It was 4'x10' mock up of the sign and we got over on Highland to look and see if you were at the stop sign there could you see, would there be any obstruction. We detected none. I am asking you to trust me on that one to some extent. Basically, we didn't detect any. We were concerned about that issue as well. We don't want any accidents to occur as a result of our sign and so that is why we did the mock up using some plywood to determine how it would impact this building. There did not seem to be any problems with visibility. Andrews: Are there any other questions? Does anybody else from the audience want to address this issue? Olszewski: Staff, what is the date on this map? Warrick: That map is from our current GIS but the aerial photograph is February, 2002 that indicates the footprints. The footprint information is from February, 2002. Olszewski: The question I'm having, is it at all possible to have something that would say submitted on and the date? When you look at this you might think that there is no building here but there is. Board of Sign Appeals November 3, 2003 Page 4 Warrick: The property is probably in several different legal descriptions and the legal description for the property where the request is being heard is what we require when they submit. Whitaker: Whatever legal parcels. They may be contiguous but they are not necessarily the same parcel. Olszewski: We just should know that these maps are out of date. Warrick: The date on there is the review date. That is going to be the same for all of your materials. The different layers in our GIS system are going to be updated at different times so it is very difficult for us to get an accurate date for the entire map information. That is a good point. It is going to continue to change. We update those layers as the information becomes available with regard to our GIS system. With regards to depicting the subject property, it is not always going to be everything that this particular applicant owns. It is going to be the description of the parcel that the action is being taken on. Andrews: Are there anymore questions? Kunzelmann: I move that we approve the variance as requested with the staff's recommendations. Olszewski: I will second it. Andrews: We have a motion and a second to approve the request to allow a 5'setback, a 5' variance with the two conditions. Will you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve SNA 03-13.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Board of Sign Appeals November 3, 2003 Page 5 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. Andrews: The first thing we have to do is vote to bring this item off the table, is that correct? Whitaker: Yes. Andrews: We have a variance that was tabled submitted by the Northwest Arkansas Mall, is there a motion to bring it off the table? Kohler: So moved. Kunzelmann: Second. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to take SNA 03-11.00 off the table was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Andrews: We have SNA 03-11.00 back before us again. This is a request for a monument sign in addition to the existing four monument signs located at Steele Blvd. at the west end of the mall parking lot. The ordinance allows one free standing monument sign per lot. Staff, can you give us some information? Warrick: The new information that you have would be the first two pages on your supplemental information packet. That is a letter from Mr. Jeff Bishop with the Macerich Company and a new graphic of their proposed sign. This is back before you after being heard October 6`h. The Board of Sign Appeals at that time did suggest that the applicant bring forward what they really wanted and include directional information. That was something suggested by the board and something that the applicant also felt would be appropriate in this location. That is what you have back before you for consideration. Staff did not revamp the report that was originally submitted. Honestly we overlooked things and realized today that we needed to get it back before you. We didn't feel like it was appropriate to change the recommendation. The minutes from your last meeting stand as to your conversation and the new revised material. Andrews: Any questions? Kunzelmann: I have a question. Is it possible for them to add another directional sign in the future? Board of Sign Appeals November 3, 2003 Page 6 Warrick: It would be appropriate for you to add that as a condition if you expect in the future for that to come. This is an item being heard as a variance. It is important that what you approve is what you expect to see. If future changes are appropriate then you need to make that known now. If you feel that another marquee would be acceptable to the Board of Sign Appeals then it would be appropriate to state that so that staff in the future can look at that recommendation and won't have to bring it back to you with an alteration to a sign that was provided this approval. Kohler: Just to recap, as long as it is not exceeding 65 sq.ft. Bishop: It is the same square footage. Kohler: What about the location? Nickle: It is in that median. Kohler: There is nothing marking this new addition. Warrick: There is a new street, Steele Blvd. that intersects the rear of the mall. There is a large residential development being constructed up there, just north of the mall. Kunzelmann: Will the tree that is in that median be saved? Kohler: It will. In fact, we've got a spot that we can put the tree. Nickle: I believe the applicant has done what we asked them to do. Directional signs to me are very important. It just eliminates somebody just cruising looking for the right place to go. I think the size of the project is important too. We are going to have a lot of residents living up there fairly soon that are going to need some directions. That is a massive project, how many units was that? Warrick: I want to say that it is somewhere in the hundreds. It is probably around 250 units. I want to say it is about 22 acres of property and it is zoned for 12 units per acre. Nickle: I think this helps address the safety issues with the directional signs. I would move that we approve it with the additional if you have a marquee for directional, with another identification sign if necessary in the future. Kunzelmann: I second that. Board of Sign Appeals November 3, 2003 Page 7 Andrews: We have a motion and a second for an additional monument sign. Is there any additional comment? Call the roll. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve SNA 03-11.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Andrews: Does anyone have anything else for the Board of Sign Appeals? Warrick: I have new code books for you. I think they are in our office. You are welcome to stop by the office if you would like or we will deliver them to you. Andrews: The Fayetteville website has excellent ability to report violations, it makes it very easy. Warrick: Accessfayetteville.org and there is a place for citizens to place service requests or complaints. I would request that if anybody would choose to report a violation through that to Planning, please do not make it anonymous if you want some sort of response. We will contact you and let you know the outcome or let you know if there is no violation if you give us contact information. It has a tracking mechanism so you can tell how long. Andrews: It is very easy. Warrick: A lot of people do report issues that we don't have any control over and that is why it is very important for us to have contact information so people don't just think we're not doing anything but we can report to them that it has been resolved because we don't have a restriction or it has been resolved because their situation is conforming or something else, we can at least tell you why it looks like there is a violation. We do research those situations. It is a city wide system that allows us to track violations. Andrews: We stand adjourned.