Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-08-02 MinutesAwRoved 9If MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING 43.0-2` The Fayetteville Board of Adjustment met at 3:30 P.M., Monday,, August 2, 1971, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Members Present: Suzanne Lighton, J. F. Palmer. Members Absent: J. F. Robinson, Roy Clinton, Carl Yates. Others Present: Col.. C. F. Cox, Jack Burge, J. 0. Borders, Marion Orton, Peg Anderson, John Lisle, Don Offenbacker, Harold Lieberenz. Since there were only two members present, no action could be taken; however, all interested persons concerned with the three appeals before the Board were heard. In the absence of J. F. Robinson, Chairman, Suzanne Lighton presided. The first appeal discussed was filed by Gulf Oil Company - U.S. for a 22 ft. high on -premise sign to be located at 2320 Highway 62 West and which would also be closer to the East property line than permitted. Col. C. F. Cox and Jack Burge represented the appeal. They stated the service station was flat roofed and approximately 14 or 15 ft. high. The sign had already been erected about 5 £t, from the East property • line rather than the required 10 ft. Photographs showing the sign from different approaches were presented. Marion Orton asked why -the sign could not conform to the 10 ft. setback requirement. The applicants said this would place it in the driveway. They said when the plans were drawn, the former ordinance was in effect. The sign location conformed to that ordinance. When the building permit was issued, no comment was made on the location of the sign, they assumed it to be satisfactory. To relocate the sign farther back on the property and conform to the setback would require not only moving the sign, but also moving a light pole. The applicants admitted the sign had been erected without a permit. The applicants felt it would be cheaper to obtain an additional 5 ft. to the East than to relocate the sign. GULF OIL CO. 2320 Hwv. 62 ;•;est Mr. Lieberenz asked the applicants what the disadvantage would be if the ordinance were to require a setback equal to the setback of the building; would this necessitate a higher sign: Col. Cox said that at highway speeds, a person's range of vision is in front of them; therefore, a sign set back 50 ft, at this height will not be seen. In answer to another question, he said he has found no place in Arkansas or Oklahoma where ground signs are not permitted. Miss Lighton said she :has seen buildings where a wall sign would be adequate, but has seen other places where it would not be. _ There was a discussion about the reasons for limiting the height of signs. Mr. Palmer said he preferred them to be up higher. Peg Anderson made some comments. John Lisle, Attorney for d -sign, Inc., also had some comments. He complained his client no longer knew what type sign to design for his customers. Some variances had been granted to exceed the regulations. It costs money just to design a sign, and this is • L 0 8-2-71 -2- is a handicap to the sign profession. He agreed with Mrs. Anderson a business'should have only one ground sign. He suggested culling signs where a business no longer exists. Mr. Palmer suggested a sign permit require a bond guaranteeing the sign would be maintained or removed. Mr. Lisle suggested permits be issued for a specific period of time, then renewed at the end of that period of time. If the sign permit is not renewed, the sign would come down. Mrs. Anderson noted that the Internal Revenue Service depreciates a sign completely in 10 years. John Lisle asked to be advised of any meetings of the Sign Ccrnittee. 431x2 'J n The second appeal considered.was also filed by Gulf Oil Company - U.S. also for 2320 Highway 62 West, and requested a variance to permit a 91 fte high sign, exceeding 216 sq. ft. in area, and less than 10 ft. from the West property line. Col. Cox said the proposed sign is designed to serve the North and South bound traffic on the By-pass, He also said the variance in setback was not necessary on this sign. The probable speed limit on the By-pass was discussed. Photographs were presented taken from locations on the By-pass. Col. Cox said the particular height requested was determined through the use of a high boom truck on location to see what was necessary to clear the trees, etc. The public hearings on the two Gulf appeals were closed. Col. Cox asked to be advised when the meeting was scheduled to take action. GULF OIL CO. 2320 Hwy. 62 HI. The next appeal heard was filed by Commonwealth R -F Corporation (71 Drive - In Theatre) for 3041 North College Avenue for variances to permit the COMMONMEALTH R -F replacement of the existing marquee with one 30 ft. high having more CORP. (71 Drive - than 246 sq. ft. in area. J. 0. Borders was present on behalf of the 30Ll N. College application. There was some discussion as to whether the height of the sign should be based -on the height of the concession stand or the height of the screen. Mr. Palmer asked if the star was to have action lights. Yr. Borders said it would have chasers, unless the Board objected. The lights could be maintained constant. The existing sign :is almost beyond repair. Miss Lighton asked that Mr. Borders find out the height and area of the existing sign before the Board met again. Peg Anderson said one sign on a large tract of property such as this could have a larger sign, in her opinion, than on smaller tracts with denser signs. The public hearing on this appeal was closed. John Lisle requested the Board to give further consideration to the application of d -sign, Inc. on behalf of Purvis -Horton on which the Board had granted the height requested but held to the maximum 75 sq, ft. area regulation. Mr. Palmer said at this time the only way the sign companies can plan and design signs is within the regulations as they now exist. If the applicant desires to resubmit after the Planning Commission and Board of Directors makes further recoirmendations on the sign regulations, they may do so. The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 P.M. d -sign, Inc.