Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-09-13 MinutesMINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING 437-2 J The Fayetteville Board of Ad°ustment met at 3:30 P.M., Monday, September 13, • 1971, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas, Members Present: J. F. Robinson, Suzanne Lighton, J. F. Palmer. Members Absent: Carl Yates, Roy Clinton. Others Present: Harold Lieberenz, Don Offenbacker, John Lisle, Jr., Dennis Tarkington, Peg Anderson, Marion Orton, Mrs. Imhoff, William Storey, John Lufkin, Chairman J. F. Robinson presided and called the meeting to order. The first matter considered by the Board was an application for a THE SHACKRESTAURANT variance filed by Donald J. Offenbacker on behalf of The Shack Restaurant, 121 W. Dickson 121 West Dickson Street. Mr. Offenbacker was present as well as Dennis Tarkington, Manager of the restaurant. Don Offenbacker stated they desired to raise the existing sign, which he estimated to be between 75 and 80 square feet in area, and place a 4.ft. by 8 ft. marquee sign beneath. The members of the Board asked questions of the applicant. The proposed sign would be 8 ft. off the ground, still not exceed the height of the building, and be to advertise specials. There would be no moving lights, but it would be lighted from the inside. Mr. Offenbacker estimated the cost of the proposed sign change to be $1,000.00. Harold Lieberenz noted that most drive-in type restaurants have A -type • signs as does The Shack now. He described them as a traffic hazard and unsightly. For this reason he was in favor of the request, because the proposed marquee would replace such a sign. Miss Lighton asked whether the A -type sign was not in violation of the ordinance. Mr. I.ieberenz explained that the zoning ordinance prohibits them from service stations, but does not specifically prohibit them elsewhere. Comments and questions from the audience were invited. Mrs. Peg Anderson questioned why another sign could not be erected rather than altering the existing one. Mrs. Marion Orton asked if it is possible t) replace the existing identification sign with a smaller one. Mr. Offenbacker estimated the cost of doing so would be around $2,500.00. He told Mrs. Anderson the proposed marquee would not revolve as the existing sign does. The public hearing was closed. The next matter considered by the Board was a request by d -sign, Inc. for reconsideration on an application for variances in area and height of a d -sign, INC. sign to be located at 2335 North College Avenue for.Purvis Brothers and (Purvis Brothers partially approved July 19, 1971. The Board had approved the request for M5 N. College a variance in height, but had denied the request for a variance in area of the sign. Don Offenbacker and John Lisle, Jr., his attorney, were present. They requested approval of a marquee type sign. Comments and questions from the audience were invited. Mrs. Imhoff asked why this sign could not be installed as a flat wall sign and said it is • a shame to keep cluttering the area with signs. Mr. Lieberenz said the building is not wide enough for this size sign and there is no wall surface 9-13-71 -2- 438-2_ on which to put the sign. Mars. Orton noted the sign was erected after the • regulations were in effect and asked why in the planning of the sign the regulations were not taken into consideration. Mr. Lisle said the problem in determining the size of a sign is what you have to put on the sign. Mrs. Orton said in many areas of the country they are adjusting to this size sign. Mrs. Peg Anderson acknowledged the need and desire for identification signs, but said she is opposed to advertising signs within the City limits. She feels marquee signs are advertising signs, and felt advertising can be done better in other ways. She felt it unfair to other people to keep granting changes. Mr. Offenbacker said he is not working with the business to the South for a replacement sign for their existing sign. He said it would probably necessitate a variance request also. The next matter considered by the Board was an application by Harmony Investments, Inc. to appeal a decision of the Planning Administrator HARMONY INVESTMENTS or application for a variance for property located at 1443 West Sixth 1443 W. Sixth St. Street should the Planning Administrator's decision be upheld. John Lufkin, the operator of a Economy Liquor Store at 1444 West Sixth Street, and William Storey, Attorney, were present. Mr. Storey said he had made application for a sign permit to erect a sign across the street from the liquor store on property under the same ownership as the property where the liquor store is located. The Planning Administrator had designated this as an outdoor advertising sign because it was not located on the property where the busi.r:ss was • and had denied the permit because the sign was not set bac. from the street 50 ft. Mr. Storey disagreed with this decision. He felt the 50 ft, setback provision applied only to the outdoor advertising "as we know it" and not to this particular type of sign. He did feel that if the Planning Administrator's decision was accepted, then they were entitled to a variance. He presented photographs to illustrate how the business is hidden from Westbound traffic. Mr. Lufkin said he had had numerous persons tell him they had missed the store because it is hidden behind trees. Mr. Robinson asked Mr. Storey if he was contending that this is an on-site sign. He said his contention is that the ordinance does not require an identification sign to be on-site. Comments and questions from the audience were invited. Mrs. Imhoff suggested the trees be removed. Mr. Storey said they did not own them. Mrs. Peg Anderson suggest larger letters be used for house numbers. She reminded the Board that nearby were 5 Donrey signs which have not been granted variances to make it legal for them to remain up. If a variance were to be granted on this, the Board would have to act on those. She and Mrs. Imhoff felt an on -premise sign is an on -premise sign. Mrs. Orton said people are able to find our houses with very small numbers on them. The public hearing was closed. The Board discussed the first two matters considered again. Mrs. Lighton said she liked what Mrs. Anderson had said about advertising signs and identification signs being different. Mr. Palmer said he would rather • see the marquees added as to see them put up another separate sign each or to have them continue to use the A -type signs. Mr. Robinson said he felt the Shack and Purvis Brothers should receive the same consideration. 9-27-71: Mr. Robinson said what he intended to say was that the problems of the two were similar enough that they could be considered at the same time. 9-13-71 -3- 1%439-2-- J& 3-439-2--J. F. Palmer moved that the c:,)plication for a variance filed by The Shack THE SHACK Restaurant and the request for variance in sign area filed by d -sign, Inc. for 2335 North College Avenue be approved. Miss Lighton seconded the d -sign, Inc. motion. It was approved unanimously. Miss Lighton moved that the Board uphold the Planning Administrator's HARMONY INVESTN ruling that this is not an on-site sign covered in the application filed by Harmony Investments, Inc. Mr. Palmer seconded. It was approved (interpre unanimously. Mr. Palmer stated he felt the applicant was under a hardship and the HARMONY INVESTMENTS existing conditions constitute a traffic hazard. He further stated each case must stand on its own. Mr. Palmer moved to approve the proposed (variance) sign with a 15 ft. setaack from street ROW, Mr. Robinson seconded. Mr. Robinson and Mr. Palmer voted "Aye." Miss Lighton voted "Nay.', The variance request was not approved, because the ordinance stipulates that the concurring vote of three members of the Board shall be necessary . . . . . to effect any variation in the application of this ordinance. The minutes of August 23, 1971, Board of Adjustment meeting were approved as mailed. ' 'The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 P.M. • E