Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-11-08 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS
A regular meeting of the Board of Sign Appeals was held Monday, November 8, 2004 at
3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Items Discussed Action Taken
BSA 04-1274 (EASTSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH, 527) Approved
Page 2
BSA 04-1275 (NOODLES ITALIAN KITCHEN, 173/174)Approved
Page 6
BSA 04-1276 (REGIONS BANK, 175)
Page 9
BSA 04-1277 (FIRST STATE BANK, 485)
Page 12
Members Present
Michael Green
Michael Andrews
Robert Kohler
Joanne Olszewski
James Kunzelmann
Bob Nickle
Denied
Approved
Members Absent
Sherree Alt
Staff Present Staff Absent
Dawn Warrick
Renee Thomas
David Whitaker
Board of Sign Appeals
November 8, 2004
Page 2
BSA 04-1274 (EASTSIDE BAPTIST CHURCH, 527) Submitted by Eastside
Missionary Baptist Church for property located at 325 S. Crossover Road. The property
is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, for units per acre and contains approximately
2.50 acres. The request is for a variance to allow a 60 sq.ft. monument sign in the RSF-4
zoning district.
Andrews: We will convene the Board of Sign Appeals. The first item on the agenda
is the approval of the minutes from the September 7th meeting. Are there
any corrections, comments or changes? Seeing none, we will enter those
into the record. The second item is the approval of the minutes from the
October 4`" Board of Sign Appeals. Are there any changes to those?
Hearing none, we will enter those into the record. That brings us to our
first item of new business, BSA 04-1274 submitted by Eastside
Missionary Baptist Church for property located at 325 S. Crossover Road.
The property is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family, four units per
acre, and contains approximately 2 1/4 acres. The request is to relocated,
reposition and increase the size of the existing pole sign.
Warrick: There is a better description in the actual report, we revised that
description to make it more clear. The request is to allow a variance for a
60 sq.ft. monument sign in an RSF district. We are treating this as a
variance request. The property is located on Crossover Road at the
northwest corner of Wyman and Crossover. It is zoned single family. The
existing development on the property is Eastside Missionary Baptist
Church and the associated parking area, which was approved as a
Conditional Use in this zoning district by the Planning Commission in
1985. A Large Scale Development to construct the church was approved
in 1989. The church currently has a non -conforming monument sign on
the property. We do consider that non -conforming, no freestanding sign is
permitted in the RSF-4 zoning district. The existing sign in it's non-
conforming status can remain until such time as it is destroyed or
removed. At that time, of course, we would only be able to permit what is
allowed by our ordinance in the RSF-4 district, which would include a real
estate sign, a home occupation sign or a wall sign not exceeding 16 sq.ft.
Staff is recommending denial of this request. We feel that we have many
churches in Fayetteville that are located within residential districts. This
particular site would not be awkward or create a hardship in any site
specific manner. It is relatively flat, it has fairly good visibility, although
you are driving rather quickly on Crossover Road at that particular
location. There are not other structures or intervening obstacles that
would prohibit your view of the structure if it were to have a wall sign
located on it. The existing monument sign is visible and staff is not
recommending that that monument sign be removed. We permit the
content of the sign to be changed because the sign itself is located there. It
is a structure that is in place. The applicant's proposal is demonstrated on
page 1.10 and that would be basically to take the size of the sign that they
Board of Sign Appeals
November 8, 2004
Page 3
Ruff:
currently have and to turn it so that it would be perpendicular to Crossover
Road. The location of it would basically be at the right of way line for
Crossover Road as it currently exists. Due to the fact that we could not
identify any special circumstances or conditions inherent to the land staff
is recommending denial of this variance request.
I'm David Ruff, I'm the Treasurer of the church. The reason we ask for
the sign is because on the current sign we cannot put the events and
everything that is going on with the church. Since the new highway has
gone by in front of us they have taken a lot of our frontage. Also, we are
dealing with speed. When the sign was originally designed, you would
have to slow down and come to a screeching halt to read the fine print to
find out. We contracted with D -Sign to design our sign and it was his
recommendation to turn it sideways so it could be viewed coming and
going at the higher rate of speed. We are requesting a variance over
rezoning, because we thought first we would have to have it rezoned but
there is not a setback, we would have to have a variance. I don't know
which you put in front of which. Even if we have it rezoned we would
still have to have a variance because there is not enough room there. We
have come here looking for direction and help.
Kohler: This is a circumstance where you have a very, very busy street in front of
the church. I am in favor of doing it because this always will be a north
bound artery.
Nickle: To me, it is more of a safety issue. I can well remember when it was a two
lane road and traffic was considerably slower along there. If you were
driving along at the speed limit you would have to slow considerably to
see the sign as it exists facing the road instead of perpendicular to the
road. To me, it is more of a safety issue that people can see it from a
distance rather than screech to a halt when you get up to it to see it.
Probably if the church owned this land today they would request a P-1,
Institutional zoning and the church would be further back, etc. To me
widening this highway, which is not anything you can blame the church
on, is a mitigating circumstance.
Green:
The only other thing that I was looking at was the possibility of having a
wall sign there on that large wall. In order to accomplish the same thing I
think you would end up with something that would be a lot more intrusive
to an RSF-4 than a smaller monument sign in front of it.
Kohler: A wall sign on a church has a different feel than a wall sign on a
commercial property. I think that church architecture is different.
Olszewski: I like the existing sign.
Board of Sign Appeals
November 8, 2004
Page 4
Andrews: If they went for a rezoning and got this rezoned and got a variance to bring
this current structure what would they be permitted?
Warrick: I believe they would be permitted a monument sign. One of the main
constraints on this particular site are the setbacks that they have available
to them. The structure appears to be sitting approximately 20' from the
new right of way line so generally if you go for a sign that is the maximum
display surface area that is not a monument sign you would have to set
that sign back 40' from the right of way. That would be 20' into your
building. However, a monument sign is permitted to be located 10' from
the right of way, 6' tall maximum so it is lower to the ground. The
proposal that they have however, is for a sign that is on the right of way
line. That is a little bit of a concern for me because that is ideally where
our sidewalk would be located. However, a monument sign would
probably be appropriate in this location if it were in a different zoning
district given that it is the type of freestanding sign that has the least
setback. The sq.ft. area is a maximum of 75 sq.ft. The sign height is 6'
maximum.
Ruff: We are asking for 60 sq.ft.
Andrews: Would anyone else like to address this issue?
Kohler: If it is 10' back but 12' long it would be in proportion to the building.
Warrick: If it was 12' long, the building it 20' from the right of way line according
to the drawing that they have provided and I'm assuming that the setbacks
are accurate. I don't believe that the display surface area that they have
shown, that is dimensioned, but it would not include the frame for the
sign.
Cobb: That is correct.
Nickle: So you don't have any frame that would exceed this 12'?
Cobb: No, there is no brickwork intended.
MOTION:
Green: I move that we approve the variance request as submitted.
Nickle: The one that is in the drawing on page 1.10?
Green: That's right.
Nickle: I will second that.
Board of Sign Appeals
November 8, 2004
Page 5
Andrews:
There is a motion and a second. Will you call the roll please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve BSA 04-1274 was
approved by a vote of 4-2-0 with Mr. Kunzelmann and Ms. Olszewski
voting no.
Board of Sign Appeals
November 8, 2004
Page 6
BSA 04-1275 (NOODLES ITALIAN KITCHEN, 173/174) Submitted by Kirby
Walker for property located at Lot 18 CMN Business Park II, Phase II. The property is
zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately 7.57 acres. The request is for
a variance of allowed display surface area for a wall mounted sign within the R -O zoning
district.
Andrews: The second item on our agenda is BSA 04-1275 submitted by Kirby
Walker for property located at Lot 18 CMN Business Park II, Phase II.
The property is zoned R -O, Residential Office and contains approximately
7.57 acres. The request is for a variance of allowed display surface area
for a wall mounted sign in a R -O zoning district.
Warrick: This site is located just south of the Old Navy building, which is attached
to Home Depot. It is in the CMN II, Phase II Business Park. It adjoins a
wetlands area and the city trail. Those amenities are located on the
property to the south and east side. The applicant did go to the Planning
Commission in September of this year and obtained a Conditional Use
approval to establish a restaurant in the R -O zoning district. They did get
approval for a different use however, the sign regulations still carries the
underlying zoning, which is R -O. Those sign restrictions are greater than
what a sign in the C-2 zoning district, which a majority of this business
park is zoned C-2. In fact, this area is developing with a lot of restaurant
chains. There are office buildings, some hotels, shopping and then a lot of
restaurants to support that. This particular location, staff was very
comfortable in being able to recommend a Conditional Use for a
restaurant here because we feel that it is compatible with the surrounding
uses, that it is an amenity that supports the retail area that is to the north of
it and that is filling in around it. It also is providing a good site and rest
pit for those that are using the trail system. They actually have an outdoor
eating area adjacent to the trail. That is the background to get it to this
point and that they went through a Conditional Use process. The property
was zoned R -O in late 1993 or early 1994 when all of this 300 acres of
CMN was zoned for development purposes. During the discussion of a
Large Scale Development at the Planning Commission level we did
address frontage. We did let the Planning Commission know that if they
were going to pursue the wall sign shown that the R -O zoning would not
allow for a sign of that size. They were aware that they would be pursuing
this option. We asked the Planning Commission to put some input on that.
As part of the motion approving this Conditional Use the Planning
Commission did recommend the sign. While you are not bound by that
decision, we felt like it was appropriate to provide some insight. They
were reviewing the project for commercial design standards, which does
have a requirement that they consider the signage. That is why it was
included in the review for the Conditional Use and the Large Scale
Development. We do feel that it is appropriate for this sign to be a little
larger than what an R -O zoning district would provide because the type of
Board of Sign Appeals
November 8, 2004
Page 7
development that is going into this location is more consistent with a C-2
type of building and it is also more consistent with those restaurants that
are almost immediately adjacent to it and very close in proximity to this
location. We felt that having restaurants along Van Asche Drive and
along Shiloh Drive with different types and sizes of signage would be
inconsistent. Those are the reasons that staff is recommending in favor of
this. The request is for an 86 sq.ft. wall sign. It is a wall sign that has two
different components, lettering, a fork and tomato. It is the same wall sign
that is on their building on N. College Avenue right now. If they were to
maximize in the C-2 it is 200 sq.ft. or 20% of the wall surface, whichever
is less. We are recommending two conditions. The second is that it
comply with the maximum for the C-2 wall signage and the first is to
obtain the necessary permits.
Jefcoat: I'm Tom Jefcoat with Milholland Company. I think Dawn has stated
everything accurately. This is the sign on the existing building, he just
wants to move it to this building.
Kohler:
Jefcoat:
Kohler:
Warrick:
Kohler:
Warrick:
Kohler:
Warrick:
Andrews:
MOTION:
Kunzelmann: I move that we approve the variance with staff's recommendations.
It will not be internally lit right?
Yes it is.
If we are reusing an old sign why is there a need for a variance in this
case?
Because the sign itself is not what you are permitting. You are permitting
that much display surface area in this zoning district. The location is
different. If this were a C-2 location we would still need to permit that
sign so that it is in the proper location and the proper size. We are not
permitting the content.
The buildings are both C-2.
No, this is Residential Office.
But the Planning Commission said we should treat it as if it were C-2.
You have to grant a variance in order to do that. That is their
recommendation. They had to grant a Conditional Use for a restaurant in
this district but the underlying zoning is still R -O.
Would anyone from the audience like to address this? Motions?
Board of Sign Appeals
November 8, 2004
Page 8
Olszewski: Second.
Andrews: Is there any further discussion? Will you call the roll please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve BSA 04-?? Was
approved by a vote of 6-0-0.
Board of Sign Appeals
November 8, 2004
Page 9
BSA 04-1276 (REGIONS BANK, 175) Submitted by Regions Bank for property located
at 1465 E. Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and
contains approximately 3.822 acres .The request is for a 72 sq.ft. freestanding sign with a
10' setback (a 30' variance).
Andrews: The next item on the agenda is BSA 04-1276 submitted by Regions Bank
for property located at 1465 E. Joyce Blvd. The property is zoned C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 3.82 acres. The
request is for a 72 sq.ft. freestanding sign with a 10' setback, which is a
30' variance. Would staff like to give us a report?
Warrick: This project is the Regions Bank which was recently constructed and
opened at 1465 E. Joyce Blvd. It is at the intersection of Joyce Blvd. and
Vantage Drive. The actual access into the site will be extended further
south. It is part of a collector street, which is Vantage, and it runs north
across Joyce past the post office and up to Zion Road. The applicant did
install a monument sign in May, 2004 and that sign contains 45 sq.ft. of
display surface area. The applicant has requested a new sign for this
location, a replacement sign. The reason that it is before you is that it is
proposed to be taller than 6' in height. Therefore, it cannot be set at a 10'
setback as a standard monument sign would because it does not meet the
definition of a monument sign. It would have to be classified as a
freestanding sign. A freestanding sign containing 72 sq.ft. of display
surface area is required to be setback 40' from the public right of way.
The applicant is proposing to set this sign at 10', which would be
permitted if it were a 6' monument sign. Therefore, staff is
recommending denial because we feel that there are not circumstances on
this site that prohibit the visibility of the sign at 6' in height as opposed to
their requested 8'. We feel that the 6' standard monument sign allowing
for the display surface area that they are requesting would be adequate and
appropriate, and obviously, would allow for the amount of display that
they are wanting. It is really a matter of how far off the ground it is. We
are recommending that they comply with the standard 6' high monument
sign or that they set their proposed sign back the required 40'. They have
indicated the location of the existing and proposed sign in your packet.
Green: Is the actual location where they are proposing to do this lower in
elevation than the street right of way or property line?
Warrick: I will let the applicant address that.
Cobb: I'm Don Cobb with D Sign. The grade where the sign is to be installed is
not much lower than the streets. They are trying to get the sign to be
viewed below the canopy of Bradford Pear trees. The other issue is the
elevation. I think they built that up with dirt when they landscaped that.
Other options were to put it on a 2' base.
Board of Sign Appeals
November 8, 2004
Page 10
Nickle: I'm trying to understand, this is the current location. What is their reason
for wanting to change it?
Cobb: They felt like the visibility in the current location, if it was back a little
further there would be a better angle and to get it up a little bit. The main
concern was height. I told them at the very least they would have a 40'
setback. They were thinking that basically they could have the 10'
setback. It is almost a monument sign. They are just trying to get a little
better visibility.
Andrews: If you are headed west on Joyce you can't see the bottom. I guess it is
divided up into three sections. You can't see the bottom 1/3 of that sign.
Kohler: Certainly the angle change, but there isn't any increase in the visibility
from Vantage. I guess a question I have is did anyone ever think about
taking up a parking space and putting it in there?
Cobb: I told them that.
Nickle: Will they still meet the parking ordinance?
Warrick: Very likely. We have a range of 30% below and 30% above the target
number on parking. I feel very comfortable in saying that they will likely
be within that range. I would note that this is not the only bank on Joyce
Blvd. There are many others. One that is in a similar situation on the
south side of Joyce is First Security Bank. They have no freestanding
signs. It has the same row of trees in front of it. It has been there several
years. We feel like the applicant has the ability to increase their existing
signage in square footage. They have 45' of sign that they can increase by
30' to 75 sq.ft. of display surface area and leave it in the same location. In
our opinion, they chose that location originally and felt it was appropriate.
I realize things can change after you have people coming and going but
increasing the square footage in the existing sign is an opportunity to
move things around a little bit and make things more visible. That was
our rational. They have several options really within the confines of the
ordinance that they can still have adequate signage. The setback is 10'
from either right of way line. It is meeting the setbacks.
Kohler: There wouldn't have to be any additional approvals for that sign to
expand?
Warrick: No. Really the only thing they are wanting is a couple of feet in height in
addition. If they maintain the 6' high they would be perfectly fine.
Board of Sign Appeals
November 8, 2004
Page 11
Nickle:
I think it was pointed out, they can modify the land under it to achieve that
height or they can lose this parking space if they want to build a whole
new sign, either of those options are available. Or, they can expand their
current sign square footage wise but not height wise. If they did that they
could raise the content enough to accommodate those needs. It seems to
me that there is capability for them to explore that without requiring
anything.
Kohler: I agree. I thought the signage on the building was appropriate.
Green: It looks to me like there were several other options other than needing a
variance at this point.
MOTION:
Kohler:
I will move that we deny the variance as it is requested.
Kunzelmann: Second.
Andrews:
There is a motion and a second to deny. Will you call the roll please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to deny BSA 04-1276 was
approved by a vote of 6-0-0.
Board of Sign Appeals
November 8, 2004
Page 12
BSA 04-1277 (FIRST STATE BANK, 485) Submitted by Mathias Shopping Centers for
property located at 300 N. College Avenue at the northeast corner of College and
Dickson Street. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains
approximately 0.86 acres. The request is for a 10' variance from required setbacks for a
new illuminated monument sign.
Andrews: Next on our agenda today is BSA 04-1277 submitted by Mathias
Shopping Centers for property located at 300 N. College Avenue at the
northeast corner of College and Dickson Street. The property is zoned C-
2 and contains approximately .86 acres. The request is for a 10' variance
from the required setback for a new illuminated monument sign.
Warrick: First State Bank is occupying this structure. This is across the street from
the County Courthouse. It was previously occupied by the administrative
offices of SWEPCO I believe. There may have been some other office
uses. This building has been in this location for a very, very long time.
The request that they are presenting to you is a request for a 10' variance
for a monument sign. That seems rather extreme because that would
equate to a 0' setback from the public right of way for a monument sign.
However, we feel that there are special circumstances on this particular
site. There is the location of the structure, there is retaining wall in front
of this structure that you may be familiar with. The fact that they are
looking for some type of signage, as far as some wall signage on the
structure. Strict enforcement of the ordinance would not permit a sign
because of the proximity to this building to the right of way line. There
would not be possible for them to meet a setback. They have provided a
graphic that shows where the retaining wall is located and where their
proposed monument sign would be. What they are showing is that the
monument sign can be placed at 55' from centerline from College Avenue
and that is well into the developed portion of this property, but it is not in
the structure. The 55' is what we place as the master street plan right of
way line. The setback requirement would be taken from that point so
really you would be looking at a minimum of 65' from the centerline of
College Avenue in order to locate a monument sign on this site. What
they are showing, that they have proposed a location that gets it out of the
future public right of way but would still allow room for it to be seen if it
were in fact, located there. They are proposing a sign that has a display
surface area of 32 sq.ft. on a total sign which is 64 sq.ft. in size. That is in
your packet. We believe that because of the slope of the property, the
retaining wall, the proximity of the building to the street that their request
is appropriate. We are recommending in favor of this setback variance.
We have recommended two conditions. That it comply with the size
requirements for a freestanding sign within the C-2 district and also that
the proper permit be obtained prior to installation. That is all that I have.
Board of Sign Appeals
November 8, 2004
Page 13
??: We really have no other option on the property. I will be happy to answer
any questions.
Andrews: Is there any other signage going on the building?
??: As far as signage for the retaining wall, because of the trees in front of the
property there is really little visibility for the building itself.
Wray: I'm Curtis Wray with Mathias Properties. When we got into this and
started working with First State Bank we thought we could go back and
put lettering on that retaining wall, but I think we have that submitted for
the next meeting. I would like it if we could discuss it today. One of the
problems that we are having is we are trying to identify this building as
300 N. College but it is commonly called the old Swepco building.
Kohler: There are buildings all up and down College with trees in front of them.
Warrick: Yes there are. Particularly south, some north, but on north you end up
seeing more parking lots that are encroaching the area of future right of
way.
Kohler: Even if College was widened there would be enough right of way?
Warrick: Yes. We are lucky that this substantial building is not within that future
identified right of way area.
Green:
I can empathize with your problem there because even today I think I
referred to it as the old Swepco building. It is going to be hard for me to
get over that.
Wray: It was hard for some of us in the office to get over that.
Kohler: Some of us call it the other Warren Segraves building on that strip.
Wray: That is another thing. One of the things that came up is why don't you
attach something to the building itself. We don't want to do that. We
want to go back and try to get the brick to match. We are trying to do it
decent.
MOTION:
Green: I move that we approve the variance request as stated along with staff's
two separate recommendations.
Kunzelmann: Second.
Board of Sign Appeals
November 8, 2004
Page 14
Andrews: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Call the
roll please.
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve BSA 04-1277 was
approved by a vote of 6-0-0.