HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-01-05 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS A regular meeting of the Board of Sign Appeals was held on Monday, January 5, 2004 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. ACTION TAKEN SNA 03-14.00: Sign Appeal (U of A Medical Sciences/AHEC, pp 177) Tabled Page 2 SNA 04-01.00: Sign Appeal (Millsap Professional Building, pp 212) Approved Page 11 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT James Kunzelmann Michael Andrews Sheree Alt Michael Green Joanne Olszewski Bob Kohler Bob Nickle STAFF PRESENT STAFF ABSENT Dawn Warrick Renee Thomas David Whitaker Suzanne Morgan Board of Sign Appeals January 5, 2004 Page 2 SNA 03-14.00: Sign Appeal (U of A Medical Sciences/AHEC, pp 177) was submitted by Arlisss Herriman for property located at 2907 E. Joyce Blvd. the property is zoned C- 11 Neighborhood Commercial and R -O, Residential Office. The proposal is to construct additional directional signs within the site. Green: We will call to order a meeting of the Board of Sign Appeals. The first item on the agenda for Sign Appeals is the consideration of the minutes from the November P meeting. These minutes were attached, I was not present at that meeting. Kohler: There was a statement on page 6 that was attributed to me and I believe it was Mr. Bishop. About half way down where it says "in fact we've got a spot that we can put the tree." Would be Mr. Bishop. Warrick: That was Jeff Bishop representing the mall property. Green: Are there any further corrections or additions to the November P minutes? Hearing none, we have quorum without my vote so we will declare those minutes approved. The first item of new business is a Sign Appeal submitted by Arliss Herriman for AHEC, the property is located on Joyce Boulevard and the proposal is to construction additional directional signs within the site. Dawn? Warrick: The subject property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Crossover Rd and Joyce Blvd. The building on the property is being leased by the University of Arkansas Medical Sciences. A sign permit was issued on November 13, 2003 for two wall signs for 2907 E. Joyce St, which is AHEC I – Medical and Administration building, one wall sign each for AHEC II and AHEC 111, and a monument sign. The subject property is zoned R -O along the western property boundary for a total of eight feet. The remainder of the property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. The monument sign was permitted at 42 square feet on the subject property and appears to be located within the R -O zoning district along the western edge of the property. Chapter 174.10 H (3) allows a maximum 16 square foot monument sign in an R -O district at a minimum of 10 from the street right-of-way. If the monument sign is erected at the eastern edge of the median or within the greenspace on the east side of the drive isle, 10' from the MSP right-of-way line, the monument will be within the C-1 zoning and allowable by ordinance at 42 sq. ft. At this time the monument sign has not been erected on the property. The applicant's request is to add two directional signs on the property. The first proposed sign is 28 square feet (5'6" tall by 5' wide) and is located at the northwest corner of AHEC I at 155 feet from the property line. The second proposed sign is 15 sq. ft. and is located along the eastern parking lot 125' from the property line. Staff recommends denial of directional sign #2, the smaller of the two at 15 sq. ft., and approval of sign #1 with an area of 14 sq. ft. Note: Some portions of the audio of this meeting were inaudible Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary Board of Sign Appeals January 5, 2004 Page 3 The location of sign #2 along the parking lot does not meet the definition of a directional sign as a sign that is located at the entrance or exit on a lot; therefore, staff is recommending denial of the request for a directional sign at this location. Staff is recommending a 14 sq. ft. directional sign in the location of proposed sign #1 to provide enough area to display the major function of each building and eliminate the need to place several small directional signs throughout the site. Centralizing the information for the users and visitors of these facilities is desirable; however, the size proposed is excessive. A smaller sign at 14 sq. ft. sign can convey enough way finding information for users and visitors. With regard to granting a variance from the literal provisions of the Sign regulations for the creation of a new sign in instances where strict enforcement of the Sign regulations would cause practical difficulties due to circumstances unique to the individual sign under consideration, and in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Sign regulations, staff finds that it is reasonable for signs to be permitted on the subject property which will conform to the sign regulations. This site does contain three structures which house a variety of services. Combining all directional information on one sign as opposed to several signs will allow for clarity and guidance to visitors as to where their needs may be met. Directional signs are permitted by Chapter 174 and are exempt from the requirement of obtaining a sign permit. Directional signs, however, are only allowed with a maximum of 4 square feet of display surface. The applicant request two signs at 28 sq. ft. and 15 sq. ft. In respect to strict enforcement of the Sign Ordinance, staff finds There are several buildings on this complex with varying functions. There are no restrictions to the number of directional signs allowed on the site. Combining information into one directional sign with a reasonable area will limit clutter and provide direction when properly placed at the entrance or exit of the lot. The number of buildings and functions of each are unique to this medical/educational facility. Staff recommends allowing enough area to provide way finding for the major function of each building. The location of sign #2 along the parking lot does not meet the definition of a directional sign as a sign that is located at the entrance or exit on a lot. As such, staff is recommending denial of the request for a directional sign at this location. The location proposed for sign #1 is located at the terminus of an entrance/exit drive isle for the lot. I will be glad to answer any questions that the Board should have. Green: Thanks Dawn. Is the applicant present? Herriman: I didn't exactly understand all of the lingo and moving the sign and all, the original thought process, we have the two entrances and we were trying to put the monument sign between the two entrances. We were trying to keep it on the commercial property but get it between the two entrances so that people will identify that plot of land, the campus as being the campus. After we had identified the campus with a monument sign we had hoped Note: Some portions of the audio of this meeting were inaudible Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary Board of Sign Appeals January 5, 2004 Page 4 to be able to drive in the larger, we just got through expanding the entrance because it was a narrow entrance onto Joyce whenever Joyce was widened it cut the throat of our entrance down it cut the flair out of it and cut it down to like a 19' wide entrance and we have had some fender benders there with people trying to swing in and swing out so we just expanded it to 28' wide so that it would be the standard for entrance and exit. With that in mind we hope that most people will enter there and then whenever they enter and drive the hundred feet into the property then they would see this directory that would show them which way to go. We arrived at the size of the directory by just going out and putting up 2" high letters and 3" high letters and 1" high letters and say if you are here in your car when can you start reading these? That is why we came up with the size signs that we did. They were something that someone could read as they were approaching 50' back, make a decision to either turn to the right to go to the medical library or turn to the left to go to the medical facility or around to the other classrooms and the administrative area. That was the reason for the size of the sign. It was nothing scientific about it other than there was a group of us that got out there and said can you read that with an idea of keeping the traffic moving and sorting. What we do at our facility, a good example was about two weeks ago, Children's Hospital comes up one day or two days to do physical and mental assessments for physically and handicapped children. They were scheduled at that time to do those assessments in the medical clinic. With the flu raging we decided that we were going to set them up around on the east side in the administrative conference room to keep the children in the wheelchairs and stuff away from the illnesses. We went out with our markers and poster boards and started trying to guide people around with signs that said "Children's Hospital, do not come here, go to the other side of the building." We didn't have any way to refer to the other side of the building other than just go to the east side. Two thoughts. One would be if we are restricted to 14 sq.ft. on the primary sign when we drive in we will just have to work with that. We will have to whatever the lettering size is to get the information on there that is what the size of the lettering will be. The other sign that has been recommended for denial actually turns the people after they drive up to the primary directional sign and turn left the first entrance they see is the entrance, a well documented entrance, that goes into the medical clinic. For 1/3 of the people we don't want them to stop there. We don't want them to park, get out of their cars, go down and go to the medical clinic and ask further directions because they can't get to us in the administrative or residency program or the nursing classes, they can't get to us from there. They come back out, get in their car and drive around to the east side of the building to do whatever they came to do. That was the reason for the smaller sign. We had hoped for them to approach the directional sign say "Oh, I need to go to building one." Turn left and see the other sign that indicates that if you are not going to the family medical center for medical care then keep driving and Note: Some portions of the audio of this meeting were inaudible Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary Board of Sign Appeals January 5, 2004 Page 5 go around to the east side of the building to get around to the administrative and the classrooms and the academic area. If we have the one directional sign and it says administration and family practice residency in building one then they are still going to come in that door that is right there. It is a covered walk way, it is about 50' long back there and it is a prominent entrance and people are still going to come in there and they are still going to be told you need to go back and go back around to the other side of the building. We can get people through if we walk them through the clinic we do have a door we kept locked between the two buildings but it is not what we want to do. We don't want people going through the medical treatment area to get back to the administrative area. That was the reason for the request for the second sign. Nickle: You've got three buildings here, who goes to these two buildings to the west? Herriman: The lower building there, the southwest building the Department of Psychiatry has their U of A employment assistance program in there and in the back half of it we have our receiving, some storage and our purchasing person. Nickle: I guess my question is does the public go there? The people that normally go for treatment for whatever don't go to these two buildings over here correct? Herriman: Yes and no. When someone on the U of A Fayetteville campus asks for employee assistance, whether it be financial counseling, family counseling, or whatever then that is where they go. Nickle: That is a different function I guess is what I'm trying to say. Herriman: It is a different function, yes. Nickle: The public in general that come to you for medical treatment in general, not talking about the employees or anything else, those people all go to this building over here, is that correct? Herriman: Yes to the north end of that building. Nickle: If I remember correctly these two buildings over here were not part of your original campus is that correct? Herriman: That is correct. We have had the southern one for three years and we just acquired the more northern one, the Health South Rehab, we just signed a lease on that in June, 2003, just seven months ago. We added a lecture hall in January of last year the nurses in Arkansas started being required to Note: Some portions of the audio of this meeting were inaudible Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary Board of Sign Appeals January 5, 2004 Page 6 have CE to keep their license so there is a huge demand now for CE credits for all medical. There are more nurses from a medical standpoint than all the other professionals combined so we have a 100 seat lecture hall in there where I think this year we will do 240 separate CE programs for pharmacists, physicians, nurses, med techs, x-ray techs, all medical disciplines and most of those are held in the evening or on Saturday or on Sunday. Nickle: I guess what I'm trying to understand, this is more like a campus, if you will, environment where you have different functions and people need to be guided more to different directions than in a typical complex that you might see. Somebody says you go out to AHEC and you get there and say here I am now where do I go. I am not talking about the size of the signs or anything else, it is kind of like going to a hospital and which one do you go into. Those are issues that we've faced before that frankly, our sign ordinance perhaps didn't anticipate those types of things when it was structured. I am not sure if I see the placement of this directional sign here on this map, it looks like there is a parking place right in front of that. I wonder if somebody parks in front of that how much good you are going to do having a sign. Herriman: With the legs on it, we talked about that, and the people that have the Honda Accords and the Ford Tauruses can park there. Kohler: It is a 6' height limit on directional signs in R -O I believe. If so, a pickup truck would negate that sign. Herriman: What I would do is I would have two or three people that can park there. They get there at 7:30 in the morning. Kohler: Even if there is a car there, just by the color of the car, it is still a bit of, if nothing else, a distraction. Herriman: We talked about curbing it and making a little peninsula out and moving that sign I guess at what would be the back of a parked car. If the car is parked on both sides of the peninsula there and the sign was out on the peninsula that was our first level of discussion. Kohler: I think that would be more affective. Nickle: I don't foresee that as being that helpful. Dawn, this large tract here, is that the C tract, is that all Commercial? Warrick: If you turn that where Joyce is on the north side. This is at the southwest comer of Joyce and Crossover. Note: Some portions of the audio of this meeting were inaudible Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary Board of Sign Appeals January 5, 2004 Page 7 Nickle: So all of this is C-1 where the original clinic is. Warrick: Correct. There is a small portion of that C-1 property on the west side of the entrance drive that you spoke of and as long as we can place the monument sign in that C property then we are in good shape with regard to ensuring that it is on the correct location. I don't have any problem with doing some additional measurements and making sure that that happens. Nickle: It seems to me that you have a lot going on on this board right here. I don't know whether the solution on that, the obvious thing is people want to come in and you want to get them directed left or right as quickly as possible. You have got a great big UAMS which could probably be minimized. To me, I come in and I'm sitting there in my car and I'm trying to figure out which way to go and traffic is behind me so I want to have something out there to guide me as quickly as possible. I'm not too sure it wouldn't be appropriate to put a sign, the one that you want to go to the left and go around to put that somewhere closer to the entrance because you want them to go that way and then maybe another little arrow sign that sticks out and staff can give you a recommendation as to where better to go to help them find their way. Herriman: We struggled with how to turn them around the corner. Nickle: I think one of those island deals may be necessary that you were talking about creating. Warrick: We might want to look at this a little bit differently. This sign that I itemized as number one on the site plan really doesn't serve the purpose of a directional sign. It may be that the board wants to consider that more of a second freestanding sign and consider it with regard to that function as opposed to entrance, exit, left, right sort of directional. It does serve for way finding and to give people direction but the size of it really can't function under our definition of directional sign, of course, without variances it couldn't be either. The second question as to how to get people around to the administration portion of the large building could possibly be handled with some wall signage. There is additional opportunity on this site for wall signage. We could certainly go out and help to troubleshoot that a little bit. I don't know if that is the solution but it is something that could be considered within the ordinance, additional wall signage on that structure. Nickle: Are you in a big rush on this? Herriman: No Sir. Note: Some portions of the audio of this meeting were inaudible Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary Board of Sign Appeals January 5, 2004 Page 8 Nickle: I would like to see some more working with the staff to work on these issues and if we need to consider a second monument sign for this site. Because of the particular nature and the people that I know are coming out there I think the more helpful signs you can give those folks it is going to save them aggravation. Warrick: We will be more than happy to continue to work with you on what we are doing here. Kohler: As far as I'm concerned the size of this sign is not the problem because it is a campus, there is a lot of information that needs to be conveyed as far as way finding. I completely believe you when you say that you went out there and took the different size letters. That is the best way to do it. If this is what it turned out to be I would be in favor of granting the variance as far as the sign. The placement of it is another issue and if it turns into a monument sign. This would be helpful for me if I went into that, I would want to know every bit of information on this sign and I would want to know it at the size that it is. This sign is consistent with your logos on your other signage and from a design standpoint it is for their program. To me it is a matter of placement and the matter of the most affective sign, not that it is too large in this case. Nickle: I think staff could be very helpful in helping you coming up with a solution and that guidance that is needed by your patrons. They could certainly look at the actual placement because it is difficult to tell just looking at this exactly where that C-1 property line is in relationship to where you want to put that sign. I would move that we table this request until, when do you want it tabled to? Warrick: Probably until the applicant is comfortable with the revised submittal. Herriman: We've had no professional help with this other than the graphics part. We sat around in a staff meeting and made our own 2" letters up and went out and walked them. We are a long way from the UAMS campus in Little Rock, they have people there. We are a little bit of a lone ranger up here. Nickle: I think because you've taken on these other buildings and other entities that you are trying to guide people to as well and this being the primary entrance as far as signage is concerned I think guidance within here is very important and I think staff could help you with some recommendations that will familiarize the situation. Kohler: Is the 28' driveway the primary you are talking about? Because the one to the west looks wider. Herriman: That is probably because my AutoCAD skills are poor. Note: Some portions of the audio of this meeting were inaudible Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary Board of Sign Appeals January 5, 2004 Page 9 Kohler: The one you had widened is the one you are calling your primary? Herriman: Yes, the other one is still at 20' or 19' was the original width when the buildings were built in 1976 or 1977, a long time ago. Kohler: Unfortunately that utility easement, you could put a sign in there that might be helpful. Green: I would also think that getting people to not stop at your main covered entranceway would be a goal if you are trying to go around east. Maybe you could put some of that information on this one sign that the administration and residency east side or something like that, so that they wouldn't try to stop there. Alt: Possibly use some of the wall signage that you are talking about. Warrick: It helps for us to understand what kind of issues the board finds important with regard to going back and revamping this to some degree. I am hearing that the placement and effectiveness of the sign are critical, way finding of course is everyone's main goal. Correct me if I'm wrong, we are not opposed to considering an additional freestanding sign to achieve those objectives. Green: One other thing I observed too is that those other two buildings, 2 and 3 have a totally different architectural style and look. They don't look like they go together so you don't immediately feel that is an integrated campus of buildings. As far as I'm concerned, that is another thing to detract the unity out there. Kunzelmann: In terms of sign number two possibly being wall signage, I don't know how affective that will be if you're a driver having to look through a passenger side, wall signage is a little difficult. I don't like the idea at all of having a parked car in front of the sign, I think that is a point with a moving car and pedestrians trying to pick out what to look at. Herriman: We can certainly make the peninsula out and do a little landscaping on the point of it and move the sign out and not have the competition with the cars. Kohler: I wonder if that would affect your parking requirement. Herriman: Fortunately for us by adding the other buildings we have 91 spaces on the commercial part of it and then 40 some so we are one of the few places that we can accommodate our 100 people on Saturday and Sunday and on Note: Some portions of the audio of this meeting were inaudible Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary Board of Sign Appeals January 5, 2004 Page 10 the evenings because they can park all the way around. We have more parking spaces than some places have, which is nice. MOTION: Nickle: I would move that we table this request until the applicant wants to return. Kunzelmann: Second. Green: There is a motion and a second to table this particular item, shall we table this request? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to table SNA 03-14.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Note: Some portions of the audio of this meeting were inaudible Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary Board of Sign Appeals January 5, 2004 Page 11 SNA 04-01.00: Sign Appeal (Millsap Professional Building, pp 212) was submitted by Mark Caldwell of Caldwell Stone, Inc. on behalf of Southern Star Enterprises and Terry Trichell for property located at 509 E. Millsap Road, Suite 101. The property is zoned C- 2, Thoroughfare Commercial and is in the Design Overlay District. The request is to allow a modification of the existing sign at the site. Green: Next on the agenda is a Sign Appeal submitted by Mark Caldwell on behalf of Southern Star Enterprises and Terry Trichell for property located at 509 E. Millsap Road. The request is to allow a modification of the existing sign at the site. Dawn? Warrick: The subject property is located south of Millsap Rd at 509 E Millsap Rd., zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. A large scale development for the Medical Plaza on Lot 14 of CMN Business Park was approved by the Planning Commission on June 8, 1998. At that time the location of the monument sign was proposed but no elevations were submitted. In March of 2000, the applicant resubmitted plans for a large scale development with changes to the parking lot configuration and building location. Elevations for the monument sign were also submitted. The modifications to the site plan and elevations for the 42.75 square foot monument sign were approved; however, the proposed location of the monument sign was not addressed and its current location does not meet the 10' setback from the MSP right-of-way. The current sign is located 36' from the centerline of Millsap Rd. with a 1' setback. It is staffs understanding that with the approval of the large scale development and a sign elevation, the applicant assumed approval of the location of the monument sign as shown on the plat and was unaware that a sign permit was still needed. As such, the monument sign was erected in the north drive -isle island. Recently, the owner wished to change the content of the monument sign. No permit is needed to change sign content but upon looking into the matter, it was discovered that there had not been a permit issued for this sign when erected. The applicant requests a permit for an existing monument sign located 1' from the right-of-way line, a variance of 9'. Staff recommends approval for a 9' variance for the monument sign located at 509 E. Millsap Road. The monument sign exists within an island approved with the large scale development of this structure and constructed for the purpose of display. In addition, the proximity of the monument sign to the right-of- way line is consistent with the location of surrounding monument signs. Green: Thank you Dawn. Is the applicant present? Caldwell: I am Mark Caldwell. We have a pretty good indication of what we want to do here. Essentially we are not changing the sign overall size and we are just trying to give it a less anemic look, bring it up, make it more noticeable but keep the current location. We have considered other locations on the site and there just doesn't seem to be one. The utilities Note: Some portions of the audio of this meeting were inaudible Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary Board of Sign Appeals January 5, 2004 Page 12 that are placed to provide for a sign are there so if we could do that that would be just right. Nickle: Dawn, if I understand this, this is just a request for a Variance to leave it where it is, is that correct? Warrick: They do want to make some aesthetic changes to the sign but the answer is yes, they want it to remain in that island where it currently exists. Whitaker: The bulk and area will not change. Warrick: The bulk and area will not exceed the allowance allowed by ordinance. Kohler: I am trying to get a handle on if the actual size of it as it is now is at or less than the square footage that was approved. Caldwell: It is less than the square footage than is required. Kohler: But what is allowed? Warrick: 42.75 sq.ft. is what it is currently, that is what was approved or reviewed by the Planning Commission. 75 sq.ft. of display surface area is the maximum. I don't think 75 sq.ft. of display surface area unless you took out the aesthetic portion of the sign would fit in that median because you would have to expand it quite a bit. The height of the sign can not exceed 6' and that is consistent with what's existing. Kohler: This drawing here is what was approved? Warrick: That's what is proposed. Kohler: Proposed now? Warrick: It is not significantly different at all from what is existing. Kohler: The 13' length is the same? Warrick: Yes. Olszewski: Dawn, do they do anything now with Large Scale Development for a checklist to sort of tell the applicants? Warrick: We have a checklist that is about 8 pages long and we do pay more attention to the signage now because signs are managed by the Planning Division now and they were not in the past. The Planning Division was made responsible for the sign ordinance in January of last year and since Note: Some portions of the audio of this meeting were inaudible Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary Board of Sign Appeals January 5, 2004 Page 13 that time we have changed some procedures and we have become much more aware with what we need to do with regard to signs. We considered them in the past but it was not quite as focused for us. Olszewski: That checklist that is 8 pages long, who is that for, is that for you? Warrick: It is for the applicants. We have checklists as well but we do require that they place information with regard to sign locations on their plans. Olszewski: Is there anything that tells them that just because it is shown on the elevation doesn't mean it is a go? I am thinking about the future. Warrick: No but there is nothing on there that says you have to have a building permit either. We can place additional information with regard to what permits are required. This particular location, the contractor that was erecting the building also did the monument sign. They are a general contractor. They are not a sign contractor. The sign contractors in town are very aware of what the requirements are and they are very consistent in obtaining the required permits. When a situation like this comes along, in fact, I talked to the general contractor about this project not too long ago, and he was completely unaware that a permit was required for a monument sign. I believe that that is just an issue of his background and what he is used to working on. Their business is building buildings and not signs. It was an afterthought and just a part of an add on to their contract with this structure to place the sign. That is a large construction company in town and they are very well aware of it now and we are going to do what we can to ensure that people understand that there are sign permitting requirements regardless of who is placing the sign on the site. Green: Are there any other comments for or against from the audience? Are there any comments from the board? MOTION: Alt: I move that we approve the sign appeal with the staffs conditions. Nickle: Second. Green: We have a motion and a second to approve the request as stated along with staff's recommendations and conditions. Is there any further discussion? Shall the appeal pass? Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve SNA 04-01.00 was approved by a vote of 6-0-0. Note: Some portions of the audio of this meeting were inaudible Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary Board of Sign Appeals January 5, 2004 Page 14 Green: Thank you. Is there any other additional business that should come before the Board of Sign Appeals at this time? Seeing none, we will stand adjourned. Note: Some portions of the audio of this meeting were inaudible Renee Thomas—Senior Planning Secretary