MINUTES Planning & Design Review Board January 9, 2018 The regularly scheduled meeting of the City of Wilson Planning and Design Review Board was held on Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 7:00 pm in the Council Chambers on the third floor of the Municipal Building. City Ralph Owens Gerald Daugherty Judy Weatherington Charles P. Farris, Jr. Bruce Carroll County Alicia Eatmon Charles Farris was absent from the meeting. Also present was Rodger Lentz, Janet Holland of Development Services and two interested citizens. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Weatherington at 7:00 p.m. Minutes: The December minutes were approved as distributed. #1: ZONING CHANGE REQUEST REQUESTED ZONE: Light Industrial (LI) PRESENT ZONE: General Commercial (GC) APPLICANT: Ron Sutton for Herring-Sutton and Associates PROPERTY OWNER: P & S Builders, LLC PROPERTY ADDRESS: 3015 and 3023 Forest Hills Road, SW PROPERTY SIZE: approximately 3.05 acres GENERAL DESCRIPTION: Corner of Meteor Drive and Forest Hills Road SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION: 3711-21-5120.000 and 3711-21-4258.000 (PINs) PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: Vacant and undeveloped Janet Holland presented the staff findings as follows: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1) Approval. 2) If you move to approve the request, be sure to preface your motion with the reasonable statement below. 3) If you move to deny the request, be sure to preface that motion with the not reasonable statement below. I MOVE THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS REASONABLE DUE TO ITS CONSISTENCY WITH THE FOLLOWING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND THAT IT BE APPROVED: 1.2/2.1/2.2/2.5/5.1/5.2/8.1/8.2/8.3/28.1/28.2 I MOVE THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS NOT REASONABLE DUE TO ITS INCONSISTENCY WITH THE FOLLOWING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND THAT IT BE DENIED: 1.3/2.5/2.7/7.1/7.2/7.3/7.6/30.3/32.1
2 BACKGROUND: 1) In Primary Growth Area and the Primary Service Area. 2) Inside city limits. 3) Within the WS4-C Watershed. Development shall comply with watershed regulations. 4) Not within an overlay district. 5) Within a flood zone. Development shall comply with any flood regulations. 6) The property was a portion of the preliminary plan for Bridger s Commercial Park Section I in 1998. Lots 1 & 2 were recorded in Plat Book 35 Page 256 within Section I of Bridger s Commercial Park in 2006. 7) The lots were rezoned from I-1 (Industrial I) to B-4 (Intermediate Business) by the City Council on May 17, 2007. The property has remained undeveloped due to economic conditions since that time. The map below indicates the property and its adjacent uses. 8) The City s Future Land Use Map in our 2030 Comprehensive Plan shows this site classification as Industrial (I) and defined by the Comprehensive Plan (pages 64-65) as follows: Industrial Development of industrial, flex space, and office uses in locations that are compatible with adjacent uses. Industrial employment centers are designed to function as campuses with integrated pedestrian facilities and transitions to adjacent, less intensive uses. FISCAL IMPACT: 1) The source of the following information is the Cost of Land Uses Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared for the City by the consulting firm TischlerBise and dated February 4, 2008. 2) The study evaluated five nonresidential land use prototypes on an annual cost-benefit basis: big box retail, community-based shopping center, office, industrial park, and hotel. 3) The land use most-closely associated with the subject rezoning is industrial park. 4) According to the study, the Industrial Park prototype produces the highest net surplus because of revenue generated from property taxes, sales taxes, and transfers from the Electric Fund. Also, this prototype has the second lowest operating costs and lowest capital expenditures. Ron Sutton came forward and offered to answer any questions of the Board. Mr. Sutton said he concurred with staff findings. Mr. Owens moved that the proposed amendment is reasonable due to its consistency with the following comprehensive plan policies and that it be approved: 1.2/2.1/2.2/2.5/5.1/5.2/8.1/8.2/ 8.3/28.1/28.2. Mr. Carroll seconded the motion and, by unanimous vote, the motion passed. #2: ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT CHANGE REQUEST APPLICANT: Rhyan Breen, Farris and Farris CHAPTERS: 11 & 17 PURPOSE: Sign Regulations (Mural Additions) Rodger Lentz presented the staff findings as follows: History The application for a text amendment is coming to you as a result of an enforcement action, and subsequent appeal of that action by the owner of Brewmasters. The enforcement is related to a mural installed at Brewmasters that prominently includes the name of the business within an artistic mural. Exhibit 1 is the order of the Zoning Administrator. This document provides the background for the enforcement case. Exhibit 7 is the current sign regulations from the City of Wilson UDO. The section in question is 11.7.3 that reads:
3 11.7.3 ART & ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES Integral decorative or architectural features of buildings or works of art, provided such features or works of art do not contain advertisements, trademarks, moving parts, or lights. Application for Text Amendment Brewmasters, through their legal counsel Farris & Farris, filed an application for a text amendment. This was one option provided, during the administrative hearing, as an opportunity to keep the mural, if their text amendment was adopted. Exhibit 2 is their application for a text amendment. This amendment was provided to the City Attorney s office for review. Based on that analysis and staff s analysis, we do not feel their proposed amendment achieves their desired result for the following reasons: 1) It relies on the intent of the person or entity that displays or creates a sign or mural. We believe that this will lead to inconsistent enforcement and more confusion in the community. In addition, it puts staff in the position of trying to judge someone s intent rather than applying measurable standards. For consistency in enforcement sign ordinances should contain standards easily applied and measureable. 2) The proposed amendment includes a new definition for commercial message. Commercial message is commonly understood to include the name of a business no matter how that name is displayed. The Brewmasters mural contains a prominent display of the name of their business imbedded in an artistic mural. As such, we believe that the Brewmasters mural falls under their proposed definition for Advertisement. In the justification section, the applicant states that the UDO leaves several terms undefined. In rebuttal, those definitions are not included in the UDO since they have common meanings (rather than industry jargon). For terms not defined in the UDO, the ordinance directs staff to use a dictionary and the common everyday meaning of those terms. Their amendment also requests that their mural be grandfathered. Due to concerns with their proposed amendment, we have developed an alternative proposal presented in Exhibit 5 and discussed below. Review of Sign Regulations and Ordinances for Murals Exhibits 3 provides a review of Sign Ordinance purposes and includes several pictures to show various signs and murals that are of a commercial and non-commercial nature. This should help provide context for the review of our current regulations, text amendment, and the difficulty in using intent or artistic display as the means for judging whether a sign or mural is or is not commercial advertising. It is our contention that even an artistic display can be commercial in nature and should not simply be exempt from sign regulations when it includes references to specific products, business name, product names, and similar elements. Without such distinction, all signs would be created and installed under the auspices of art and such installations would seek an exemption from regulation even if they are commercial in nature (rather than purely non-commercial art). This is the reason that our current regulations exclude commercial elements and advertising message from the exemption for artistic displays in section 11.7.3.
4 Exhibit 4 is a review of regulations for murals from across the country. The alternative proposal for text amendment was developed from this research. Proposed Alternative Amendment to the Sign Chapter Related to Murals Exhibit 5 is a proposed amendment to the sign chapter for murals. It includes definitions and a set of standards for new murals. One of the key issues for murals raised by the applicant is their contention that the current ordinance is not clear and is open to interpretation. As stated in their application, they believe that the current ordinance leads to arbitrary enforcement and that this should be corrected. To address the concerns of the applicant, this proposed amendment provides standards for the size, location, and timing for murals. Here are some key elements: 1) It regulates the amount of text within a mural without regard to commercial or noncommercial content. It limits text, and commercial elements (such as logos and trademarks), to the wall sign size limits already outlined in Chapter 11. It provides for a maximum size of up to 100 square feet for any text and any commercial elements within a mural. This provision changes policy and allows murals with a commercial or advertising message, but limits area of text and commercial elements within the mural. 2) Limits the overall size of a mural to 1000 square feet. 3) Places restrictions on compensation for displaying a mural and requires murals to be displayed a minimum amount of time so that these regulations do not provide a loophole for off premise advertising billboards. 4) That all existing murals are grandfathered in and can be continued (this provision, if adopted, would allow the mural at Brewmasters to remain). 5) Contains specific limitations on obscenities. Exhibit 6 is a reference document that relates to existing state law regarding obscenities. This statute is referenced in the proposed amendment. Ms. Weatherington asked about the sign ordinance that was passed several years ago and why those signs are still there. Mr. Lentz said that those signs have permits and when violations are noted, letters are sent out, but those signs were grandfathered in. Mr. Carroll said that permitted signs are fine, but if a sign is already in violation, why give a grandfathered option. Mr. Lentz said that the applicant was given two options to correct a text change amendment and an appeal to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Owens asked if there were any other signs that have these same standards. Ms. Holland said that there are some vintage signs but none like Brewmasters. Mr. Lentz said that there are some murals up in the downtown area, but there isn t any text on the sign. Some board members felt that the business put the sign up without getting permission and if they were not caught, there would be no issue; however, if they were caught regarding an area of signage, then they would ask for forgiveness. Mr. Daugherty stated he felt there is nothing wrong with the current sign ordinance and questioned the change. Staff said that the sign in question does not conform to what is needed for a permit so the applicants have asked for an ordinance change.
5 Rhyan Breen came forward to represent Brewmasters and thanked the city for its work on this issue. Mr. Breen gave the purpose of why the request was before the Board and how the mural was created. He said that the owners of Brewmasters wanted something on the side wall of the business and asked an artist to paint something. What is now on the side of the building is the result of what the artist painted. It is perceived to be in violation of the ordinance because of the word Brewmasters that can be seen in the painting. He noted that Brewmasters is not the only sign that is in violation. He said that there are several signs on Ward and Nash that are in violation of the sign ordinance. He said that these signs are not in compliance and have gone under the radar for years. He noted that there are several signs located downtown that are in violation. Mr. Lentz said before the UDO was adopted, there were no exemptions for artistic displays. He said the downtown displays were old and a permit was not given. He said that this would be the first mural under the exemption. Mr. Owens moved to adopt Exhibit 5, which describes the proposed changes to the ordinance, but to disallow #11, which states Grandfathering Any Vintage Original Art Murals shall have legal non-conforming status unless such mural contains changing images as defined within the definition of an Original Art Mural. Vintage Original Art Murals may not be altered but may be repaired. Mr. Carroll seconded the motion and by a vote of 5 to 0, the motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS: Having no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:10. Respectfully submitted, Janet Holland Acting Secretary to the Board