Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout157-90 RESOLUTIONResolution 157-90 No resolution ever written. See attached memorandum. 15-2 FAYETTEVILLE • THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS TO: FROM: THRU: DATE: SUBJECT: 1 Hdeko P,(J& Cdriti.eA MEMORANDUM , 5.02 MICROFILMED City Board of Directors John Merrell, Planning Management Director Scott Linebaugh, City Manager 4% 14 September 1990 fS� Rezoning Appeal by Joe Rodman on behalf of Washington County Farm Bureau 9 July 1990 6 Aug 1990 27: Aug 1990 29 Aug 1990 5Sept 1990 t Rodman requested rezoning from R -O to C-1 in order to install 4X6 pole -mounted sign. Planning Commission referred to Board of Sign Appeals. f Board of Sign Appeals granted four variances, permitting Farm Bureau to site a 12 sq. ft. sign in N.E. corner of property so long as the existing, illegal wall sign was removed. Rodman asked Planning reconsideration of rezoning Commission denied rezoning that, if sign appeal went. granted. Rodman requested rehearing before Board of Sign Appeals. Commission for to C-1. Planning but recommended to Board, it be • • Rodman appealed rezoning to Board of Directors. Sign variances expired because Rodman did not comply with terms of variance within 30 days. Recommendation As we have stated several times in this case, the issue is signage not land use. The current zoning is perfectly suitable for its present and ongoing use as an insurance agency. We strongly recommend that you deny the rezoning for the following reasons: 1. It would be a circumvention of the Sign Ordinance and Board of Sign Appeals. 2. It would be legally questionable. 3. It would unnecessarily promote the commercial stripping of Wedington Dr. 113 WEST MOUNTAIN 72701 501 521-7700 MINUTES OF THE. BOARD OF SIGN APPEALS A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Sign Appeals was held on Monday, September 17, 1990, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: MINUTES Don Mills, Larry Tompkins, Dennis Becker, Gerald Boyd, Robert Davis, Robert Waldren and Dee Wright Becky Bryant, Elaine Cattaneo and Bob Hatfield The minutes of the Board of Adjustment/Sign Appeals meeting of August 20, 1990 were approved as distributed. REQUEST FOR REHEARING OF APPEAL NO. SA90-9 - W.C. FARM BUREAU JOE RODMAN - S OF WEDINGTON DR, W OF BETTY JO DR (3389 WEDINGTON) The second item on the agenda was a request for.a rehearing of Appeal No. SA90-9 for a variance from the sign ordinance submitted by Joe Rodman on behalf of Washington County Farm Bureau for property located on the south side of Wedington Drive, went of Betty Jo Drive (3389 Wedington Drive). The property is zoned R -O, Residential -Office. The request was for a variance from Article 17, Section 17B-9, of the sign ordinance. Bob Hatfield was present to represent Washington County Farm Bureau on behalf of Joe Rodman because of a death in Mr. Rodman's family. In answer to a question from Chairman Mills, Mr. Hatfield stated that he didn't know of any new information to present to the Board on this appeal. Chairman Mills advised that the Board of Sign Appeals needs to determine whether or not they want to grant a rehearing of this appeal.. Mr. Davis stated that he feels the ordinance is sound and the judgment made at the previous meeting was sound. Also, neither the City nor Mr. Rodman have any documentation that shows there was a permit granted for the illegal sign. Therefore, he doesn't see any reason to have a rehearing. Mr. Tompkins stated that the staff has been very professional and helpful to this petitioner in answering all their questions and reviewing their options. He added that he is in agreement with Mr. Davis that he doesn't see any new evidence which would contradict the Board of Sign Appeal's previous action. He noted that he tends to go along with the idea that a rehearing would not be appropriate. Mr. Waidren stated that where the problem lies is that Mr. Rodman wasn't informed of what his appeal process was and time period involved after his variance was denied. Becky .Bryant, Associate Planner, stated that Mr. Rodman informed the Board of Sign Appeals after their variance decision, that he would be going back to the Planning Commission for a rezoning. Mr. Waldren noted that, if Mr. Rodman had known he could appeal this with the help of a Board of Directors member within 10 days, he might have gone that route. Mr. Davis present at had a copy Ms. Wright business. commented that Mr.' Rodman had a member of the Board of Directors the meeting as an advisor. Me. Bryant advised that Mr. Rodman also of the sign ordinance, which tells the route of appeal. advised that they did 'grant a variance for a monument sign for this Chairman Mills advised that, technically, the time has lapsed for the 5.03 • September 17, 1990 Page 2 • variance that was granted. Chairman Mills stated that she would not want to do anything with a variance on an R -O zoning when he has appealed to the Board of Directors to have that zoning changed to commercial. She added that it is a question of either deciding whether to hear the appeal again or to wait on the City Board's decision on the rezoning. Mr. Tompkins stated that he is curious why both a rehearing to the Board of Sign Appeals and a rezoning petition were requested simultaneously. Mr. Waldren advised that Mr. Rodman had contacted him by phone and stated that he did not request a rehearing to the Board of Sign Appeals. Ms. Bryant stated that the City Planning office. received two different letters from Mr. Rodman. One stated that he wanted to pursue the recommendation from the Planning Commission which would entail an appeal on the sign issue. The staff advised him that in order to pursue that, he would have to go back before the Board of Sign Appeals and request a rehearing. The secondletter was requesting an appeal on the rezoning. If he didn't intend that, there was a misunderstanding. In answer to a question from Mr. Waldren, Ms. Bryant stated that the sign appeal could go to the City Board only by getting a rehearing from the Board of Sign Appeals. She added that the rezoning petition is already scheduled for the City Board's review. She.advised that the City Board will only be able to hear the rezoning and not the sign appeal unless a rehearing is granted. Mr. Waldren stated that, if a rezoning is granted, a rehearing of the sign appeal will not be necessary. Ms. Wright stated that: this meeting should be delayed until the City Board has made a decision on the rezoning. Mr. Becker stated that the staff is only reacting on what was requested. Mr. Waldren stated that apparently Mr. Rodman did something that he didn't intend to do. Ms. Bryant advised that Mr. Rodman had contacted the Planning office after he sent the letter to clarify his intent in regard to pursuing the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Chairman Mills advised that, at this meeting, they need to determine whether or not they want to grant a rehearing. Mr. Waldren stated that he has a real problem with all of this. He feels that Washington County Farm Bureau needs some avenue of appeal. He doesn't think rezoning the property just for a sign is the proper way. But, they are locked out from the Board of Sign Appeals unless a rehearing is granted. He sees no basis to grant a rehearing other than to provide an avenue of appeal. In answer to a question from Mr. Waldren, repetition without waiting a year. decision until after the City Board has Ms. Bryant stated that Mr. Rodman could She added that they could table this made a decision on the rezoning. Ms. Wright stated that an avenue for appeal is needed. Mr. Waldren stated that he didn't think Mr. Rodman knew his avenue of appeal. Me. Bryant advised that Mr. Rodman also had a long conversation with John Merrell, Planning Management Director, about all of this. Ms. Wright stated that they could table it until after the City Board meeting. In that way, they wouldn't have to make a decision either way until after the rezoning is decided. 5.04 • September 17, 1990 Page 3 MOTION Ms Wright moved to table this issue until after the City Board of.Directors hears the rezoning petition, seconded by Becker. The motion failed 3-4-0 with Boyd, Waldren & Wright voting "yes" and Davis, Tompkins, Mills & Becker voting "no". NOTION Mi. Tompkins moved to disapprove the rehearing, seconded by Davis. The motion passed 5-2-0 with Becker, Boyd, Mille, Davie & Tompkins voting "yes" and Waldren & Wright voting "no". Ms. Bryant advised that the applicants have the option of re -petitioning. She explained to Mr. Hatfield that, if they want to re -petition after the City Board makes a decision on the rezoning, they will need to reapply to the Board of Sign Appeals and pay the $25 processing fee.. • Mr. Waldren stated that the Planning Commission passed a motion recommending to the City Board of Directors that Farm Bureau belallowed to retain the wall sign plus a monument sign after the rezoning request. failed. He commented that this is a Gordian knot. • • 5.05 • Bobby Hatfield President Stanley Swope Vice President AIMS • Washington County Farm Bureau P. 0. Box 1030 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702-1030 September 10, 1990 Ms. Sherry Thomas City Planning Commission City of Fayetteville Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Dear Ms. Thomas: The Washington County Farm Bureau would like to appeal the recent decision of the City Planning Commission to the City Board of Directors. We feel that the Board was in error. All agreed that we were entitled to relief to our sign usage problem but that it should not be resolved by rezoning. Since we have already been .turned down by the Board of Sign Appeals we feel we are entitled to seek relief through rezoning by the City Board of Directors. While it is true that we have A-1 and R-1 properties in our area we are within approximately 100 yards of C-1 property to the east of us and have five acres that have recently been rezoned C-1 directly across the street in front of our office. We feel that C-1 is in keeping with the character of where our office is located. ncerely, 0 oe B. Rodman, Agency Manager RECEIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 4-/o - fo ,t" 5.06 Herb Wyle 2nd Vice President James Anderson Secretary -Treasurer • Bobby Hatfield Re den[ Stanley Swope Vice President 1/S Washington County Farm Bureau P. O. Box 1030 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702-1030 September 5, 1990 Ms. Sherry Thomas City Planning Commission City of Fayetteville Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 Dear Ms. Thomas: We would like to appeal the denial of our request for rezoning by the Planning Commission. Sincerely; til oe B. Rodman, / Agency Manager f 5.07 Herb Wyle 2nd Vice Preaidera James Anderson Scrota ry-Treasu rer Bobby Hatfield Presdes! • Stanley Swope Vice President • O r� Washington County Farm Bureau P. 0. Box 1030 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702-1030 August 28, 1990 City Planning Commission Attention: .Becky Bryant Associate Planner City of Fayetteville Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701. Dear Ms. Bryant: We wish to pursue the recommendation of our rezoning request by the City Planning Commission to the City.Board of Directors. Please schedule this and please advise us of any other steps we need to take at this tithe. SAncer, j1^ 1 i/i oe B. Rodman, Agency Manager JBR/dc 5.08 Herb Wyle 2nd vice President James Anderson S`.'c-r ta.y.r ensurer • • • FAYETTEVI LLE THE WY OP FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS Washington County Farm Bureau Atten: Joe B. Rodman P.O. Box 1030 Fayetteville, AR 72702-1030. 5.09 RAMMING OFPARRIENT September 7, 1990 Dear Mr. Rodman: As you know, the rezoning petition you submitted on behalf of Washington County Farm Bureau was reviewed by the City Planning Commission at their August 27th meeting. At that meeting, the motion to approve the rezoning failed. If you wish to appeal this decision to the Board of Directois, you must state specifically in writing to the City Clerk why you consider the Planning Commission's findings and decisions in error. Such appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) days from the date of the Planning Commission action. We have your written statement of appeal but it is not complete. Please write us an amended letter stating why the Planning Commission's decision was in error. The Planning Commission did make a recommendation to the City Board of Directors relative to an appeal of the Board of Sign Appeals decision on your sign variance request. They recommended that the request of leaving the sign on the building be allowed plus the smaller sign as recommended by the Sign Appeals Board. Your request for a rehearing is on the September 17th Board of Sign Appeals agenda. Enclosed is a copy orthe minutes from the Planning Commission meeting which pertain to your petition. If you have any questions, please let us know. Enclosure 110 WEST MOUNTAIN 72101 501 521.7100 Sincerely, Elaine Cattaneo, City Planning Secretary 5.10 MINUTES OF A MENTING'OF TEE FAIR173VIIZE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, August 27, 1990 in the Board of Directors Roos on the second floor of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MN BERS PRESENT:. Fred Hanna, J.B. Springburn, Jack Cleghorn, Gerald Elingaman, Jerry Allred, Jett Cato, Charles Sickle and Joe Tarvin MMS ASSIST: OTHERS PRESENT, J. David Ozment • John Merrell, Don Bunn, Elaine Cattaneo, members of the press and others MINUTES: . The Minutes of the regular Planning Commission' meeting of August 13, 1990 were approved'as distributed. PUBLIC SMARM - REZONING PETITION 0R90-17. WASHINGTON COUNTY FARM BUREAU - 3389 WEDINGTON DRIVE The second item on the agenda was'a public hearing for rezoning petition IR90-17 submitted, by Washington County Farm Bureau and represented by Joe Rodman for property located south of Wedington Drive and west of Betty Jo Drive (3389 Wedington Drive). The property contains 1.43 acres. The request was to rezone from R-0. Residential -Office, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that this was on the Planning Commission's agenda about a month ago. There was a public hearing and the Planning Commission agreed with the staff that this is not a zoning issue and recommended to refer it to'the Board of Sign Appeals. Farm Bureau then went before the Board of Sign Appeals, which voted 6-1 to recommend several variances but not a variance to allow both a free-standing and a wall sign. They were granted variances on location and display area He noted that this property is bordered by A-1, R-0, or R-2 zoning on three sides. The staff sees this as a sign issue and feels that Farm Bureau has several different options to accommodate some sort of a sign there. The staff recommends denial of this request. Joe Rodman stated that this is a question of Sign usage, so they shouldn't have been before the Planning Commission the first time. He advised that the reason they originally petitioned for a rezoning was that they were given wrong information by mistake from the Inspections staff. He further stated that they came out of the Board of Sign Appeals meeting with less than what they had when they went in. Therefore, they are pursuing the rezoning again. The question is still one of sign usage, but It is also a zoning question, since rezoning appears to be the only way to get any relief. Mr. Rodman stated that he has had several discussions with the staff and thought they had worked out a solution, until he received a copy of the staff report. One of the meetings with the staff took place on the property where they discussed the location of the proposed free-standing sign. Although, it was not the:vost desirable location, it simply had to be put there to comply with all the s1 Planning Commission August 27. 1990 Page 2 5.11 necessary setbacks. The staff then recommended another location on the northeast Bide of the property and a smaller sign. He explained that the original request was for a free-standing 4' X 6' T -mounted sign. They had given no thought to a monument type sign with smaller dimeneions(3' x 4'), until the other location was pointed out by -the staff. They were informed by the Farm Bureau headquarters in Little Rock that a 3' x 4' sign would be available. The only difference in it and the sign Originally requested is that there is not any writing on it (only the Farm Bureau logo). He noted that they were not made aware of any problems with the existing lettering on their building from the staff, until he received the staff•recommendation in the mail about 10:00 a.m. on the morning of the Board of Sign Appeals meeting. The staff's letter pointed out that the existing sign was illegal. The sign on their building is simply lettering that says "Farm Bureau".• The sign ordinance le somewhat vague on how the signs are supposed to be measured. He wap told that the space between the word "Farm" and the word "Bureau" would have to be included in the total square footage, which puts them over the 16 square feet required. The Board of Sign. Appeals passed a motion for a variance which allows them to put up a sign on the front of the property, but requires that they take the words "farm Bureau" off the building. In view of what has taken place out there, they have a problem with that. He quoted from the staff report and stated that the information regarding them having to buy a sign instead of using one of the larger free signs distributed by the national headquarters ien't correct. He also rebutted the statements from the staff that three quarters of the surrounding property is zoned residential -office, agricultural and medium density residential and that much of the actual development occurring along Wedington Drive is residential in character. He noted that in the strip between Betty Jo Drive west to Rupple Road, he counted four residencee and eight business Locations (counting Betty Jo Corner as one business Iodation). • He added that, at the Board of Sign Appeals meeting, he did state that he felt the Board of Directors of the Farm Sureau would be very receptive to dropping the pursuit of a rezoning and would accept the monument sign on the northeast corner, if they were not required to remove the letters "Farm Bureau" from the building. He noted that Mr. Davis and Mr. Waldren of the Board of Sign Appeals had indicated that they felt this is a commercial area. Mr. Rodman commented that they aren't asking for anything that would be nonconforming as compared with what is already taking place out there. He advised that they don't intend to change their business operations. In answer to a question from Commissioner Springborn, Mr. Rodman stated that their present zoning, leaving the sign aspect out, accommodates all other aspects of their business there. In answer to a question from Commissioner Cleghorn, Mr. Rodman stated that they would be happy with a monument sign and keeping the sign on the building. In answer to a question from Commissioner Cleghorn, Mr. Merrell advised that the Board of Sign Appeals' decision can be appealed to the City Board of Directors. An amendment to the sign ordinance would also have to go through the Board of Directors. Bob Hatfield, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Farm Bureau, stated that they definitely need a better aign to accommodate their 4,000 members in Washington County and others from out of the county. He added that the property owner just went of this property couldn't be here tonight but doesn't object to a rezoning to C-1. There being no further comments from the audience, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Hann,. advised that Mr. Rodman commented at the previous meeting that they didn't expect the location or the nature of their business to change within • • • • 5 1 Planning Commission August 27, 1990 Page 3 the next ten to twenty years. They are only interested in identification to help people find their office. At that meeting, all of the ramifications of the rezoning request were discussed and the Planning Commission recommended that their problem be taken through the sign appeal route. Commissioner Tarvin stated that, in view of the existing zoning in that area and " of the steps -that Mr. Rodman has taken in an attempt to resolve the iseue, he believes that rezoning it would be compatible. Commissioner Tarvin moved to approve the rezoning as requested, seconded by Allred and followed by discussion. Commissioner Springborn stated that he can't agree that the Planning Commission should be undertaking solutions for problems that ought to go to the Board of Directors. The route of appealing relative to the sign hasn't been exhausted so it seems that, by acting on this rezoning petition, the Planning Commission is getting in the way of both the sign ordinance and the Board of Directors. Commissioner Allred stated that, when they approved a rezoning.of Bob Davis' property across the street from•thie property, it was his understanding that commercial zoning would be kept on the east side of Salem Road. If so, shouldn't this property be commercial, since it falls within that boundary. Mr. Merrell stated that there could be argument made for that, but the Parm Bureau property is properly zoned for the existing use. Commissioner Cleghorn stated that he feels it is absurd that ?arm. Bureau can't .have the sign they are requesting.. However, it isn't right to rezone land for a sign. The motion failed 4-4-0 with Allred, Banns, Tarvin F Cato voting ^yes^ and Cleghorn, Springborn, Rlingamaa & Sickle voting "no". Chairman.Sanna advised that there are five positive votes necessary to approve a rezoning. MOTION • CoMmieeioner Rlingaman moved to recommend to the City Board of Directors that the request of leaving the sign on the building (as it is) be allowed plus the smaller sign as recommended by the Sign Appeals Board, seconded by Cleghorn. Chairman Hanna advised that the motion is to recommend to the City. Board of Directors that the sign that hae been approved by the Board of Sign Appeals be approved and the sign that is on the building be allowed to stay. The motion pegged 8-0-0. Chairmen Banna adviged that the rezoning was not approved, but the Board of Sign Appeals decision can be appealed to the Board of Directors and the Planning Commission hae recommended that the City Board approve the signs that were requested. LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF BIO-TECB PBARMACAL, INC DALE BENEDICT - W OF SHILOH, N OF. OLD FARMINGTON RD The third item on the agenda was.a large scale development plan for Bio -Tech Pharmacal, Inc. submitted by Dale Benedict and represented by Carl Russell of Smith & Russell Architects for property located on the west side of Shiloh Drive, north. of Old Farmington Road. ' The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, containing 10 Acres: c • Planning Commission July 9, 1990 Page 4 The neighborhood is apprehensive about the College Avenue eir neighborhood. He stated that he can see going to some sort of buffer between the resi The west boun•- y of the subject propert to stop the come al development There being no one else NOTION g to speak, 5.13 al creeping eventually there is 1 area and the commercial. d seem to be a reasonable place R-0 seems like a reasonable request. the public hearing was closed. Commis ner Springborn moved to recommend approve . - R-0 rezoning, seconded by ckle. The motion pasaed 6-0-0. PUBLIC REARM FOR REZONING PRITCION 090-17 YASRINGTQi. COUNTY FARM BUREAU - (3389 WEDINGTON DRS OF WEDINGTON,W OP BETTY JO The third item on the agenda was a public hearing for a rezoning petition (1R90- 17 submitted by Washington County Farm. Bureau for property located at 3389 Wedington Drive (south of Wedington Drive, west of Betty Jo Drive), containing 1.43 acres. The request was to rezone from R-0, Rasidential-Office, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, stated that the staff feels that this is strictly a sign issue rather than a rezoning issue. An inspections staff member led Mr. Rodman, of Washington County Farm Bureau, to believe that a rezoning petition would be a better way to handle this instead of going to the Board of Sign Appeals. He explained that Farm Bureau would like to put a free- standing sign in the yard, but they aren't allowed in the R-0 zoning. That is their reason for requesting this commercial zoning. The staff has spoken to Mr. Rodman and explained that this is actually a sign issue, but Mr. Rodman decided to carry through with the rezoning petition. The staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission refer this to the Board of Sign Appeals. Joe Rodman, representing Washington County Farm Bureau, stated that their purpose is to put up a free-standing sign. He noted that he did receive conflicting 'advice from the staff as to their best approach. They were first told to go through the application process for a sign permit which they did. This application was rejected and a member of the staff indicated that it would be a waste of time to appeal it. Instead, they should request a rezoning. Since then, the staff has indicated that, if that they did appeal it, the staff is prepared to recommend a variance to allow them to attach a 24 square foot sign to the side of their building. However, because of the way the property is situated and the location of the building, a 24 square foot sign attached to the side of the building would not be visible to traffic coming from the west. Mr. Rodman explained that the reason they are requesting this sign is that their State Farm Bureau organization and their National Farm Bureau organization are trying to standardize signs in all states. The purpose of the sign is to make it easier for Farm Bureau members, who aren't from this area, to locate the office when they have problems. • 5.14 Planning Commission July 9, 1990 Page 5 Paul Marinoni, a member of the City Board of Directors and a member of the Farm Bureau Board of Directors, stated that Washington County Farm Bureau has a membership of about 4,400 people. There is currently commercial activity there and to rezone it commercial would be completely logical, in his opinion. Furthermore, recently the Planning Commission considered an application by Bryce Davis to rezone property on the north side of Wedington Drive and granted C-2 up to Salem Road with the logic being that.Salem Road would be a demarkation line where C-2 would stop.. If Salem Road were extended south, the subject property would be included in the commercial zoning node of the Bypass and Wedington Drive intersection. He noted that their request is to rezone the property. There being no one else wanting to speak, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Springboin advised that he supports the staff's view of this application with all due respect to Mr. Marinoni and Mr. Rodman. He noted that the last time a situation like this came up he opposed considering a rezoning to accommodate a sign problem, and his feelings on this sort of matter haven't changed. When there is a sign problem, it should be pursued through the correct channels. - In answer to a question from Commissioner Allred, Mr. Merrell clarified that this has not gone before the Board of Sign Appeals. Commissioner Allred stated that they need to.look at that area and develop a game plan with some logical planning. : They don't really have a feel for how this area is going to develop. He requested that the staff review this area and give some feedback as to how they want'to Look at this growth area in the future. Chairman Hanna advised that he has observed the Washington County Farm Bureau business for a number of years and it is vary attractive, but he did have difficulty figuring out what kind of business it was because the sign wasn't that visible. He noted that Farm Bureau has stated that they don't intend to move, and they want to use the bigger sign to attract their insurance customers. They are also located across the street from C-2 and adjoin R-0 and C-2 on the west side. He has no objection to seeing it rezoned to C-1 regardless of the sign issue. Commissioner Ozment stated that they are using R-0 to accomplish some positive things, but apparently the sign situation is causing some anguish when a case like this comes up. He noted that'he seas the merits of an R-0 zoning here and across the street, but he doesn't know how best to address the problem of signs in these locations. He stated that they have a potential problem that needs to be resolved with Signage in R-0 zones to accommodate a business and at the same time protect the integrity of what they are trying to prevent from the abuse of signs. Commissioner Ozment suggested that they table this until the sign request is decided by the Board of Sign Appeals rather than vote on it tonight. Beccuse, if it does not pass, they could not hear the rezoning petition again for another • • 5.15 Planning Commission July 9, 1990 Page 6 year. Commissioner Nickle stated that they came across this situation just recently with the wallpaper business and ended up rezoning it to commercial, although the petitioner didn't have that in mind initially. He advised that all efforts should be exhausted in trying to achieve the signage they want before a rezoning of the property is considered. He noted that he isn't necessarily opposed to rezoning the property. MOTION Commissioner Springborn moved to table this rezoning petition to give the applicant an opportunity to ascertain whether the Board of Sign Appeals can handle this signage problem, seconded by Ozment. The motion to table passed 5-1-0 with Cement, Allred, Springborn, Cato and Nickle voting "yes" and Hanna voting "no". - - - LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR WALTON ARTS =TEE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE & U OF k - SR CORNER OF WEST AVE & DICKSON ST ourth item on the agenda was a large, scale development plan f• the Walton Arts er submitted by City of Fayetteville and. the Univers' y of Arkansas and repro-_ ted by Andrew Gibbs for property located on the theast corner of West Avenue - d Dickson Street. The property is zoned , Central Business Commercial. Don Bunn, City En: eer, stated that this large -cale development plan vent before the Plat Revie Committee last week. Al of the utility companies have been working with the ts Center on servici•: the property. He stated that the staff has asked that •e easements re• -sted by several utility companies on the site be written up an• .ranted on parate legal instruments by. the Arts Center representatives. John Merrell, Planning Management D e or, stated that the request is to approve the large-scale development pl: based •n the site plan for the area. He advised that, eventhoughth= utility coy'•-nies and the city staff have been working vary closely with 1 Mitchell, the ts Center coordinator, approval of the large scale develgpment plan is still re • ired by the Commission. Andrew Gibbs, who is.nn the Arts Center Council, sta that he is present to represent on Bill Mitchell's behalf. He advised that Jo .• Mott, the Architect for the Arts Centel, is also present. He noted that they are .ware of the issue of the utility,.easements and are looking into whatever they ne-• to pursue in that regard. In answer, to a question from Commissioner Nickle, Mr. Gibbs stated t - they aren't .working with the layouts of the parking as part of their end o the project. He stated that the Arts: Center Council has an arrangement with the City that the Walton Arts Center will be built contingent upon parking provi•-d an Dickson Street by the City of Fayetteville. PETIT/CN FOR AMENpEIT.it TBE ZONING MAP Psrinatama..44s ? Al AH a of y t 4 . ce c24 o PETInCmrs gum 33 P7 AJ+ c( S%ti PHONE nit APPLICAnm i DATE 6,-/? - F d PUBLIC NEARING DATE ATE FEE PAID - CASHIER =MS OF PEOPEETr: ?3 Yl CJe LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (PLEASE ATTACH II THERE IS i,ts reicr Nr SPACE) • Tats To TEE PROPERTY IS VEST IN Li .1 $1t �l %H (bc it ?SE F,Q d PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE IS FRO( To e REASON FOR REQUESTING CHANGE: T s ,1 c r YXG T..,�octi� 5.16 REASON MANGE IN ZONING WILL NOT =FLICT wrm SURROUNDING LAND USES: Q( !o 6 4S % Yio_tccsi H''c- (G iFdo,4. nE P.t‘P '7y —4 -/ Lei% d ,4 y mPy SflTM of PROPERTY IS ATTACHED. NOTE: IF PROPERTY OWNER DOES NOT SIGN PETITION, PLEASE F,iLSH AUTHORIZATION FOR SOMEONE ELSE 10 SIGN. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY PLANNING CQIHISSIO S ACTION BOARD OF DIRECTORS ACTION ORDINANCE NODES ( ) SIGN NOTICE ( ) NEWSPAPER NOTICE DATE ( ) PLANRNING amscroE'S STAFF REPORT ( ) CORRESPONDENCE . ( ) OEDRUNCE ( ) IGNITES ( ) OMEN ENFORMAnOi RESPECTFULLY SUMMED; Property Owner ]] n_r1-.L4 .1 iNc.�e-ALi PASSED AND APPROVES • • FAYETTE` I LLE THE CRY OF FAYETTEVILLE. AW(ASS • MEMORANDUM T0: City Planning Commission FROM: B. Bryant, Associate Planner;52 DATE: 22 August 1990 SUBJECT: Request for Rezoning from R-0 to C-1 for Property Located at 3389 Wedington Dr Background On 9 July 1990, Washington County Farm Bureau, represented by Joe Rodman, petitioned the City Planning Commission for a rezoning from R-0 Residential Office to C -1 -Neighborhood Commercial for the sole purpose of erecting a 4 X 6 pole -mounted sign. The staff felt strongly that the issue at hand was signage not land use, because the property was zoned properly'for its ongoing use as an insurance agency. Consequently, the staff recommended that the petition be denied, and the petitioner referred to the Board of Sign Appeals. The Planning commission voted to table the item to give the applicant an opportunity to take the issue to the Board of Sign Appeals. On 6 August 1990, the Board of Sign Appeals heard the Farm Bureau's request for a variance to install a pole -mounted sign in the northwest corner of their property. The staff report noted that a sign in the northwest corner --the only legal site for a freestanding sign --would be invisible from the west. The staff further noted that signage regulations in R-0 may be overly restrictive. We recommended .a change in the sign ordinance, allowing more display area for a certain type of freestanding sign - the monument style sign. In regard to Mr. Rodman's request, we recommended that the Board of Sign Appeals grant avariance from the 4 square foot maximum display area to 12 square feet. We also recommended variances from three setback criteria so that the sign could be located in the northeast corner for maximum visibility. If a freestanding sign is erected on a building zoned R -O, then no other signs are permitted. We felt that with all the other variances recommended, the existing wall sign would be superfluous, unnecessary, and anathema to the spirit of the sign ordinance. Thus, we recommended its removal. The Board of Sign Appeals voted to grant such variances as recommended by the staff. Despite staff and Board of Sign Appeals efforts to accommodate the Farm Bureau's signage needs, Mr. Rodman was not happy on two counts. First, he would have to buy a sign instead of using one of the larger, free signs distributed by national headquarters. • 113 WEST MOUNTAIN 72701 501 5217700 • 5.17 5.18 Second, he was concerned about the outline of the letters that would remain on the wall after removal of the wall sign.' We contacted N.W. Arkansas Sign Shop, and they gave us an estimate of $225 for a two-sided wood sign, duplicating the national logo. Also, according to the Sign Shop, a very inexpensive spray wash will remove the letters' outline from the brick. Staff Recommendation We find it disturbing that a rezoning hinges on such issues as a $225 sign and temporary brick discoloration. Washington County Farm Bureau has been dealt 'with fairly and reasonably on the signage issue. According to case law, rezonings may be granted for such general purposes as the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare; to stabilize property values; and encourage the appropriate use of land. We do not believe that a rezoning may be legally granted for the purpose of circumventing a sign ordinance. The Farm Bureau has thrown out a back-up argument that in 20-30 years they may want to move, and it may be easier to rezone their property now than then. We do not believe that such a long-term, speculative rationale has validity. In further rebuttal, we contend that three-quarters of the surrounding property is zoned Residential Office, Agricultural, and Medium -Density Residential. The one block of C-2 zoning nearby is not developed. We hope that commercial development along Wedington will be largely limited to nodes at the bypass, Rupple Road, and Double Springs Road. Much of the actual development occurring along Wedington Dr. is residential in character. To allow more and more spot rezonings, means that the spots will become commercial strips which, in turn, threaten the residential investment that has occurred and the scenic value of the Wedington Dr. corridor. For all thereasonsoutlined heretofore, we strongly recommend that you deny this petition for rezoning. • • FAYETTEVI LLE M OTT OF FA17TTEVILL.. ARKANSAS MflCRANDUN TO: City Planning Commission FRCN: B. Bryant, Associate Planner 33' DATE: 3 July 1990 SUBJECT: Rezoning Request by Washington County Farm Bureau Background 5.19 Washington County Farm Bureau is petitioning to rezone their property from R -O; Residential -Office, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial for the purpose of installing a freestanding sign, which is not allowed in R -O districts. Insurance sales are a use by right in R -O districts. The Farm Bureau has no intention of selling this property or moving. We have informed Joe Rodman,:Agency Manager, that this is not an issue of land usage, because the land is appropriately zoned for its ongoing use as offices: Rather, the issue is one of signage to be addressed by the Board of Sign Appeals. However, Mr. Rodman has decided to pursue the rezoning anyway. Staff Recommendation It is our firm recommendation that this petition be denied and the petitioner referred to the Board of Sign Appeals. To decide in any other way would be a circumvention of the Sign Ordinance and the Board of Sign Appeals. 113 WEST MOUNTAIN 12701 S01 521-7700 •