HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-07 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS A regular meeting of the Board of Sign Appeals was held Monday, September 7, 2004 at 3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Items Discussed BSA 04-1138 (NWA MALL PARKING LOTS, 134) Page 2 BSA 04-1205 (FIRE MOUNTAIN/RYAN'S, 174) Members Present Michael Green Joanne Olszewski James Kunzelmann Bob Nickle Sherree Alt Michael Andrews Staff Present Dawn Warrick Jeremy Pate Suzanne Morgan David Whitaker Renee Thomas Action Taken Denied No action necessary Members Absent Robert Kohler Staff Absent Board of Sign Appeal September 7, 2004 Page 2 BSA 04-1138 (NWA MALL PARKING LOTS, 134): Submitted by JEFF BISHOP for property located at NWA MALL. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.00 acres. The request is to allow 60 freestanding signs to identify parking areas. Nickle: They need some kind of identification, I don't know what. Maybe color is not good because some people are color blind. Olszewski: That is not our job though. Nickle: I would be more comfortable with a lot less than 60 because I think that you can probably identify this thing with less than 60 signs. That is what I meant when I said I was driving by and I looked up there and thought my gosh, that is going to be this big. I didn't know exactly how big this big was but it is 8' now. I would be much more comfortable with a lesser amount. I don't know what that amount is that would still do the job to help people identify where they are parking. Alt: maybe there is something else that the mall can do. I know Alice has lots of expertise in that area and there could be something. I definitely recognize a need for it and I think we all feel that way. I just don't know the answer to that and our decision is hard today. Green: It looks to me like also probably the most important ones to be identified would be the ones between the main parking fields and the mall as people are coming in and can identify which lot they came from and then be able to identify that coming back out instead of wasting signs on perimeters would it make more sense to maybe concentrate the signage sort of up front closer to the building. Nickle: To me that would be less objectionable when you are just driving by the place because they are sitting well inland if you will. That is a good point on getting them closer to the building just before you walk up going into the building you are looking up and you can see it right there. You're not going to miss these signs if they are 8'. I would agree with that and that might be able to save half of them or some number. It is hard to tell looking at this. I'm having a hard time seeing, these little shadow areas are where they are proposing signs? Morgan: That is correct. Nickle: I think that may be a very good point that you would be able to reduce some of these outer ones because they are not going to be as meaningful when you are driving in anyway. When you are at the edge of the parking lot you are not sure where you are going to park anyway. It is only when Board of Sign Appeal September 7, 2004 Page 3 you are walking into the building that you really want to know which parking lot you've parked in. Alt: And walking out of the building. Nickle: I could see, I'm just outside the building, number one there are two Dillard's around here and way around here could be everything. I can see a definite need to have some kind of identifying form whatever that form is. I would really agree with Mike and I don't know how many of those are interior signs. Bishop: I counted 32 exterior signs around the perimeter. Nickle: The two on the very north side of Dillard's you are going to have to have something there anyway. Bishop: I didn't count those. Nickle: Ok. Olszewski: Is it up to us to figure it out or do we table it? Do we have a motion to take it or say no? Andrews: I think we can talk about numbers that we are comfortable with. I would like to find out from the applicant what would be the minimum that you think that you would be able to use to adequately cover this? Church: I'm fine with just putting them on the entering road. The only thing about the outer ring road is if somebody is driving through the lot and they are supposed to meet somebody in a specific area they are not going to know where they are until they get up close to the building. I would almost lean toward going every other pole and still going around the edge of the lot just so that there is some identification marker. We are still cutting the number in half. That way somebody who is coming to a lot would know where they are coming to also. Green: So 30 of these, would that be workable for your purpose? Church: I think so. Olszewski: If we are discussing 30 are we discussing 30 like we have just seen here? Nickle: That's why I asked that question if these are one sided and she said they are two sided. Olszewski: Then do we have an issue with content? Board of Sign Appeal September 7, 2004 Page 4 Nickle: I think they are going to make an interpretation on whether they consider that an offsite sign. That is not a question that we have to answer. Whitaker: The question becomes is 30 times the number of freestanding on site signs in the spirit of the ordinance more than 60 times the number. That is the question that you have to answer. Olszewski: So if we were to say some number other than 60 what they put on it we aren't looking at that. So, who looks at it? Whitaker: Planning would be the ones to look at it. If they thought that the material posted on the sign violated some provision of the ordinance they would then give them a violation notice and then proceed administratively with that. This is requesting a permit. A permit for the 63 freestanding signs was denied by administrative staff. They have appealed to you to get a permit in spite of that number. Anything else is beyond the scope of this body. Olszewski: So we can just say no and they can come back with something else. Nickle: I'm not sure that I understood that. Olszewski: If I were to make a recommendation to uphold the denial then they could just start again and work through that all again and planning with the content. Green: We have sent them back to the drawing board I think twice already on this same issue. Olszewski: Some of that was because they weren't quite sure. Green: At some point there is going to be a hardship condition there just by trying to go out and get the necessary designs done. Nickle: This is not an appeal of staff's interpretation. This is just an appeal for a variance. Whitaker: It is actually an appeal of the denial of a permit. You denied the permit correct? Morgan: My understanding is that the applicant submitted information stating what they would request but it was told to them that their request would be denied. I do not believe that an official application was submitted. Board of Sign Appeal September 7, 2004 Page S Whitaker: On page 1.16 from Jesse Fulcher to the Northwest Arkansas Mall said he can't approve the additional sign permit application. Once again, because this body meets so often to deal with bulk and area variances it is easy for the lines to get blurred on what is going on here. A true variance application would be I can't put my sign there because there is a giant wall between me and the street and if I put my sign where the ordinance says I have to nobody will even know I'm there. Most of what you are going to see however, is appealing the denial of the permit, hence, the name of the board. Green: It really seems to me that obviously, we have expressed that there is a definite need for identification of those large areas out there because that is the largest parking fields that we have in the city, other than the University and it may be even larger than the university lots. I would think that 30 of these signs would be a good compromise. I sort of agree that 60 is maybe too much for all of that area, even though it is a huge area. Somehow or another I think that we do need to consider allowing some kind of identification from a distance. If you are coming out of one of the mall entrances it is going to have to be fairly large for the distance that you are going to be trying to read it. Scale wise it probably doesn't bother me. As far wide as these spaces are and as large as the distances are. Olszewski: Didn't you just say that we have to say yes or no to this? Whitaker: Grant the appeal or deny it. Olszewski: We have to say either yes or no to this appeal. If they want to change it they will need to resubmit. We don't get to do a variance on this. It is either a yes or a no on this. Whitaker: They could resubmit their application with revisions. What you are considering today is whether to grant the appeal of the denial of the permit. Olszewski: That is where we get back to if they want to try again we can table it or we can say no. Whitaker: I think Mr. Green makes a good point however, about the continual tabling of someone's project. At some point we recognize at some point that may constitute a denial because they keep coming back. Olszewski: So it is really either a yes or a no. Church: Can I make a comment? I guess I would like to offer out that we will be willing to reduce the number of signs to the number 30 and we can alter Board of Sign Appeal September 7, 2004 Page 6 our original submittal. I don't know if that makes a difference but we are willing to do that. Green: Can we make an approval as other conditions that they have no greater than 30 of these signs as a condition of approval? Whitaker: It is not the way I see it. Even the language of the notice of denial that they were sent says that an appeal may be filed with the Board of Sign Appeals if you are aggrieved by an interpretation or decision regarding this matter. They are appealing denial of the permit. It could happen either way but procedurally it will either happen by this board denying the appeal, which will send them back to square one or they could withdraw their appeal and resubmit the revised permit application to Planning staff who would then review it as if it were a clean slate, a brand new permit application. Does it meet our ordinance, etc.? If, as I suspect, staff still makes the finding that it is outside the spirit and intent of the ordinance it would come back to you eventually, but it would come back with the revised numbers and/or materials and/or locations. Green: I just hate to have them keep running around this endless loop. If we table it again it is probably going to be less time because they could effectively submit it at our next meeting. Olszewski: I think he just said that we can't table it. We either say yes or no. Green: We can table it, he is just saying that there is some point where we shouldn't. Whitaker: I also agree with your point in this. My understanding of your original tabling was that you wanted more information, you wanted clarification and that is fine. I think it has been clarified what they want. Unless you feel like you need more information then the proper thing is to either approve or deny the appeal at some point. That is what justice requires for the applicant is that once you have the information you make a decision either before or against their appeal. Kunzelmann: I would like to see this done before the holiday shopping center so if they are revoking their request or our denial, is either one of them faster to come through the process? Whitaker: I would defer to planning staff for the actual logistics as to which would move quicker. Morgan: It would be the same. They would have to meet the same deadlines for applications to come to this board and submit a permit for review prior to that. Board of Sign Appeal September 7, 2004 Page 7 Nickle: When is your next submission? For them to turn in the paperwork if we deny it? Morgan: It is generally approximately three weeks prior to this meeting. Alt: Clarify for me what the reasoning behind this being considered a free standing and not a directional sign. Just to give me just a broad definition. Whitaker: The definition the law describes to a freestanding sign. Alt: I'm thinking in my head that these are meant as a purpose to direct people. Whitaker: You try to look beyond purpose and look at what they actually physically are. On page 1.5 at the top of the page the legal definition of a freestanding sign is a sign which is attached to or a part of a completely self supporting structure, i.e. a light pole, the supporting structure shall be set firmly in or below the ground surface, shall not be attached to any building or any other structure whether portable or stationary. I think a reasonable person could include that a light pole in a parking lot fits that definition. Andrews: Are there any other questions that we have? Nickle: I wish we could do it but I think David has advised us that it is more appropriate for us to say deny or approve this specific appeal since this is an appeal from an actual denial. I regret that you are going to have to go through the cycle again and come and see us as soon as you can would be one of my thoughts. I don't see, from what your interpretation of that is, I never looked at this as being an appeal because it didn't say an appeal from up at the top. I didn't look at this as that until you pointed out that it says heck! We are the Board of Sign Appeals. I didn't interpret this as an appeal from a denial. I didn't read my literature thoroughly enough to realize what had happened here. I think in the interest of time that I will go ahead and move that we deny the appeal request for 60 signs. Olszewski: I will second. Andrews: We have a motion and a second to deny the appeal, is there any further discussion? Green: I wish there was another alternative to just denying it. If we could state some conditions like we have placed conditions on everything else I don't know why we can't place conditions on this other than there may be some legal problem in doing that. I am just thinking that there ought to be a Board of Sign Appeal September 7, 2004 Page 8 better way than keeping them coming back to us every month. We run them around all the time. Nickle: If David tells me we can do it I would do it. Whitaker: If I thought you could I would tell you right now. Andrews: We have a motion and a second, call the roll please. Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to deny the appeal was approved by a vote of 5-1-0 with Mr. Green voting no. Thomas: The motion carries by a vote of five to one. Andrews: We do have new business of 04-1205 submitted by Ryan's Corporation for property located at 3825 N. Shiloh Drive. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The request is to replace three wall signs a low profile pylon with two redesigned wall signs and a smaller relocated pylon sign. Would staff tell us about this? Morgan: We reviewed the request for this and realized that this subject property is located in the Design Overlay District and that is the discretion of the Planning Commission as stated in Chapter 161. This will be heard at the September 13`h meeting of the Planning Commission. Andrews: So it was mistakenly put on our agenda and no action from us needs to be taken? Morgan: That is correct. Andrews: Good. Is there anything else? Meeting adjourned.