HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-12-20 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS
A rescheduled meeting of the Board of Sign Appeals was held Monday, December 20, 2004 at
3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
Items Discussed Action Taken
BSA 04-1341 (FIRST STATE BANK, 485) Approved
Page 2
Members Present Members Absent
Michael Green
Sherree Alt
Michael Andrews
Robert Kohler
Joanne Olszewski
James Kunzelmann
Bob Nickle
Staff Present
Suzanne Morgan
David Whitaker
Staff Absent
Renee Thomas
Board of Sign Appeals
December 20, 2004
Page 2
BSA 04-1341 (1s` STATE BANK, 485): Submitted by ROCHELLE BROGLEN for property
located at 300 N COLLEGE AVENUE. The property is zoned C-2, COMMERCIAL
THOROUGHFARE. The requirement is to install signs on the (attached) building wall. The
request is to allow a wall sign on a detached retaining wall.
Andrews: We will convene the Board of Sign Appeals meeting. The first item on the
agenda is the approval of the minutes from the November 8th meeting.
Green: I have one minor correction, on the last page of the minutes I believe Warren
Segraves.
Andrews: The only item on the agenda is BSA 04-1341 for First State Bank submitted by
Rochelle Broglen for property located at 3000 N. College Avenue. The property
is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, the request is to install a sign on the
building wall, to allow a wall sign on a detached retaining wall.
Morgan: The subject property is on the corner of College and Dickson Street. They
addressed the board on November 8, 2004 at which time they requested a 0'
setback adjacent to College Avenue for placement of a monument sign at the
southwest comer of the property. This was approved by the Board at the time. At
this time the applicant requests approval of two non -illuminated 13.75 sq.ft. signs
located on the retaining wall south and west of the structure. At this time the only
signs which exist on the property are the monument sign which was approved in
November and there are actually three existing illegal banner signs on the
property displaying the name of the business, which staff is working with the
applicant to remove. They are requesting that they place two signs on the
retaining walls. Staff evaluated this request and was unable to approve it. They
are allowed four wall signs. However, wall sign definition states that it is to be
affixed parallel to the wall or printed on the wall of any building. Because they
are requesting that these wall signs, not necessarily wall signs, be placed on a
retaining wall staff was not able to approve it. In essence, they will be likened to
additional monument signs. Staff does not recommend approval of this request.
We find that strict enforcement of the definition and interpretation of a wall sign
as a sign placed on the wall of the building is not unreasonable. Not only is it
enforced for all surrounding properties but the location of the structure is closer to
the streets than other structures in this zoning district. Also, placement of this
sign parallel to College Avenue would result in the placement of a sign within the
master street plan setbacks. At any time, if that right of way were to be obtained
for future expansion of the street it would become a non -conforming sign. Staff
finds that the structure itself is very visible and that wall signs could be placed on
that structure with great visibility to the adjacent streets. If you have any
additional questions I will be glad to address those.
Broglen: My name is Rochelle Broglen, representing Mathias Properties and First State
Bank of Northwest Arkansas. I brought photographs of the building and if I could
ask you to keep in mind that these were taken this time of year. That is the
Board of Sign Appeals
December 20, 2004
Page 3
Green:
Wray:
Green:
Dickson Street elevation, the College Street elevation is on the second page.
Keep in mind that there is no foliage on the trees at this time. It is very obvious
that there will be no visibility on the structure. College, with the exception if you
were sitting in traffic, going south bound, you are going to get very little
visibility. A few other things is the landlord is very adamant about not having
signs installed on the building for a number of reasons. It is a historical building.
To drill into the slate would call irreparable damage to it. Secondly, the building
was never designed to have wall signs. A sign across that building would detract
enormously from it. Staff recommended going above the tree line, and again, I
think only on the College Avenue would that be even remotely feasible but again,
would not have any visibility at all. The signs that we are proposing are
approximately 7% of what the ordinance would allow for us to put on the building
wall. We are proposing to put two signs that are less than 7% in size of what
would be allowable. The previous occupant, SWEPCO, had letters installed in
the exact same location. We are just trying to duplicate the look.
This monument sign setback variance that we approved at our last meeting looks
like it has the same information that you are proposing for the wall signs which
would be directly below it. Is there a reason why we are having the same
information?
My name is Curtis Wray, I'm from Mathias Properties. The tenant has requested
this as additional advertising. Coming into the market, that is one of the reasons
for the three illegal signs that we have requested come down. They are trying to
get up and get open and they are trying to get a little more exposure.
I can empathize with trying to identify the building as 300 N. College with those
kind of identifying signs but I was just wondering why we had the monument sign
and then directly below it on both sides is where these things are proposed to be
located. I was having trouble seeing what value those would have.
Nickle: I assume that the monument sign at some point would work to a tenant sign for
the other tenants in the building.
Wray: It is a big building. There is one tenant in it right now with two more floors.
Trying to second guess and trying to figure out what is going to happen with it, I
can't do that.
Olszewski: What does the monument sign say?
Broglen: The upper half says 300 N. College and then it says First State Bank.
Olszewski: This request is for two more signs that say First State Bank and then you are
allowed four wall signs for each tenant, is that what it says?
Broglen: One wall sign for each wall.
Board of Sign Appeals
December 20, 2004
Page 4
Morgan: If there are multiple tenants, more than one business, wall signs shall be limited in
number to one wall sign per business on each wall with a limit of four wall signs
per business.
Olszewski: So we could potentially have four wall signs per business?
Morgan: Correct.
Olszewski: Then there is possibly at least another tenant going in there right?
Alt: Two more floors.
Wray: There is 10,000 sq.ft. per floor. We are in the process of leasing one tenant 1,900
sq.ft. This building is hard to work with. We are trying to break it up into spaces.
We have some legal offices going in. I can't tell you how many tenants there are
going to be per floor. Right now we are working with the third floor because it
breaks up easily. The second floor was where SWEPCO had their offices and it
will have to be completely revamped.
Olszewski: Who did we grant that last variance to?
Wray: To the property owner.
Olszewski: It wasn't to the bank, and this one is being requested by the bank?
Wray: By the property owner for the bank.
Kohler: My personal opinion on this is I would hate for the last action of the Board of
Sign Appeals to allow anything to be attached to that building, which denying this
variance would allow them to attach a sign to the building. It would allow them
to attach their sign to the building without a variance. I am just saying that that is
a historical building. I would feel bad to set up anything that would allow them to
do that by denying this.
Olszewski: But they are allowed to do that now.
Kohler: But they wouldn't if we gave them a variance. It's true, another tenant could.
Andrews: Would we be denying them the right to do that if we passed this variance?
Whitaker: You would not. You would be making it where they didn't need to since you
were granting this.
Kohler: Sure, or some other tenant could.
Board of Sign
December 20,
Page 5
Whitaker:
Wray:
Kohler:
Wray:
Olszewski:
Nickle:
Olszewski:
Green:
Wray:
Appeals
2004
By right because the way the language in the definition of wall sign is written.
One of the things that I would ask for you to consider on this building is that it is
an unusual building, it is set with two retaining walls. You've got a glass first
floor, you've got a slate second and third floor. It is very difficult to put signage
on. We are not trying to come back with a second monument sign or something.
We are just trying to work with what is there and get it visible.
I can only imagine that Warren Segraves, there was a reason he didn't provide for
signage on the building. I think we should honor that.
You had a single occupant and it is changing.
My concern is we say it is ok to put a sign on a retaining wall for one thing and
what does that say to the rest of the tenants when they come in, why don't they
have a right to?
We won't be a board then.
What does that say to the next people coming in? That is a disadvantage to them.
It is probably saying that we would rather have their signage on the retaining wall
than on the building. Even if they put more tenant signs on it, I am like Bob, I
would prefer to see them on the retaining wall than to see them on the building.
May I offer something? What if I limited it to this one tenant? This would help
me for the next tenant that comes in and says they want a sign on the retaining
wall.
Olszewski: What if you limited instead not to this one tenant but to this one sign and then you
decide.
Wray:
Olszewski:
Wray:
Nickle:
If I have one sign per retaining wall as we are asking, I have no problem with that.
I am going to give it to who is there and then there will be no more.
My concern is these tenants are going to keep coming back and back.
I don't want to do that. I think the whole thing is this is an attractive building, it
is an unusual building. That is what I kept seeing in this is it is a unique
circumstance. It is so close to the road, you have got basically no setback and if
you will limit it to one sign on the west and one on the south. It helps me.
Was your concern that we just grant it for that specific area at that specific
location with that naming?
Board of Sign
December 20,
Page 6
Olszewski:
Nickle:
Olszewski:
Andrews:
Kohler:
Andrews:
Kohler:
Appeals
2004
My concern is we grant it and then two months down the road they come back
and want more signs and it becomes this messy looking thing with all these signs
which is not in the spirit of the sign ordinance. Part of what you are saying is you
don't want it on the building but what if we drive by there in six months and it is
on the building too and it is just messy.
It might be cleaner if we want to grant it, this specific area that they requested on
each of the retaining walls without naming a tenant. That bank may come and go,
we've seen banks merge and whatever else. It used to be First National on the
square and then it changed a couple of times and now it is Bank of America. I
think we should just say where.
Almost in lieu of the wall signs. I don't know if you want to say that but you are
doing this in lieu of wall signs if we grant this.
Would you be willing to do that in lieu of wall signs?
He is giving away his right.
You can always tear this down and put up wall signs. We are saying if you are
going to put this there then you give up wall signs.
For this tenant.
Whitaker & Olszewki:
Andrews:
Wray:
Olszewski:
Kohler:
Alt:
Whitaker:
Wray:
Whitaker:
For the property owner.
We give you this area to put up instead of a wall sign.
What I would ask is instead of in lieu of to allow me an area. I can't imagine
going in on that building and putting anything else but I would hate to be
restricted to that if I could have four. I would hate to give that up I think. I'm just
trying to think through this.
The only reason I mentioned it is you were thinking one of the reasons to give
them this is so they wouldn't have a wall sign.
I would love it if they agreed not to put anything on the building.
Is that something that we could do?
A mutual agreement would be ok.
Whatever tenant uses that then they would lose their wall signs.
You could not compel a property owner to relinquish the right that the ordinance
grants. A voluntary mutual agreement between the board and the applicant could
Board of Sign Appeals
December 20, 2004
Page 7
be incorporated as part of the approval. However, if the applicant chooses to
retain the rights granted under the law passed by the City Council they must be
allowed to. Only the City Council can change the substance of the ordinance,
which is what that would be.
Kohler: This might be overstepping the abilities of this board but white plastic, requiring
brushed aluminum or metal or something is overstepping right?
Whitaker: Yes, because the ordinance doesn't say that they shall be made of brushed
aluminum.
Kohler: Let me just bring this one thing up. A lawn mower that is going to spit rocks out
will break your sign. Plus, it would look a lot better to have metal. On a Warren
Segraves building I would hate to see white plastic.
Olszewski: So, are you saying that you want to do this instead of a wall sign?
Wray: In the spirit of the law, yes, I would much rather have this for this tenant than put
it on the building.
Olszewski: You are willing to decide who's name goes on it.
Wray: You never know who is going to be in there next. First State Bank may go away
next week.
Olszewski: So what happens when the next person comes in and wants a sign as big as First
State Bank's on the retaining wall?
Wray: They can't have it because you limited it to one sign. Is that not what we have
done?
Kohler: We are not saying you can't change the sign out to a new tenant, it is just the area
that we are allowing.
Olszewski: We are just going to say that you are going to get tenants on those two empty
floors very soon and what do you say to them when they want a sign?
Wray: We have all the signage that we can put out there.
Nickle: We are just approving those two and that's all.
Wray: In the world of commercial real estate the 100 sq.ft. office will want the same size
of signage as the 10,000 sq.ft. user and you have to draw a line somewhere and
say they can't have it. This makes it easier for me to say you can't have it.
Instead of me being the bad guy you are the bad guy. They will have a directory
Board of Sign Appeals
December 20, 2004
Page 8
as you go in the building, there will be a directory by the elevator that will list
them by floor plan.
Whitaker: As a reminder, internal signs like that are exempt. Those are always useful.
Green: I move that we approve the request for a variance for the two signs each requiring
14'9"x12" high to be used for tenants on the two retaining walls as shown and
any other signs on these walls will not be allowed.
Whitaker: Basically, what you are saying is the variance that you would be granting would
be exclusive to these and any others would have to request at a different time.
Green: Yes, it only applies to these two wall sign areas.
Kohler: But we can change them out as they see fit.
Green: Yes, we just called them tenant signs.
Whitaker: This didn't get to you because it was going to be handled administratively.
Probably eight or nine months ago Dawn Warrick contacted our office and asked
about a certain property and when we determined by looking at the facts in that
case it was not a new sign but a new tenant utilizing the sign and changing the
message on the sign but not the dimensions or the height or anything like that, no
permit was required. They were simply changing the message of the sign. If you
have a new tenant that comes in and says I don't want it on a retaining wall, I
want it 30' high hanging over College Avenue, that would be a new sign
requirement. If another bank were to acquire this one the other bank could come
in and put the same type of lettering with their name on it in the same spot.
Wray: That is why they created this. SWEPCO had their signage in the exact same
location and when they came in they said that's where we want our sign.
Andrews: We have a motion, is there a second?
Kunzelmann: Second.
Andrews: Is there any further question or comment?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve BSA 04-1341 was
approved by a vote of 7-0-0.
Andrews: Is there anything further for the Board of Sign Appeals? Hearing none, we will
stand adjourned.