Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-02-07 Minutes0 PwR a MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING13-8 496-2- The Fayetteville Board of Adjustment met at 3:30 P.M., Monday, February 7, 1972, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Members Present: J. F. Robinson, Carl Yates, Connie Clack, Roy Clinton. Members Absent: Suzanne Lighton. Others Present: Richard Hipp, A. B. Morgan, Tony Zini, Peg. Anderson, Russell Purdy, Wesley Howe, Carl Atkins, F. H. Martin, David Malone, Patrick Horan, JoAnn Gosnell, Leonard Greenhaw, Harold Lieberenz, Pete Young. Chairman J. F. Robinson called the meeting to order. Chairman Robinson announced that the information had already been heard on the first item on the agenda, Appeal No. 71-17, Duane Nelson, 117 North College Avenue. Chairman Robinson elected to depart from the order of the agenda and consider the various matters according to the amount of time he felt each would require with the ones requiring the least amount of time to be heard first. The first item considered was Appeal No. 71-18, Ben Hunt, 1753 South School Avenue, on an application to vary setbacks, deferred from December 20, 1971, and continued from January 24, 1972. Richard Hipp, Attorney, was present to represent the application. Mr. Hipp stated he was authorized to state Mr. Hunt was willing to give the needed right-of-way for widening Highway 71 to the City if approval could be granted on this condition. He was also authorized to give a release stating that if the City has to take right-of-way and it becomes necessary to remove the porch, Mr. Hunt would bear the cost of removing the porch and also would not request remuneration for the cost of constructing the porch. Mr. Hipp answered questions from the Board of Adjustment. There were no questions from the audience. The public hearing was closed. The next item considered was Appeal No. 72-4, Humble 011 & Refining Company, for property located at the Southeast corner of Highway 62 West and Highway 71 By-pass, public hearing on application to vara height, size, and location of sign. A. B. Morgan and Tony Zini were present to represent the application. Mr. Zini said the only interchange as such on the By-pass is at this intersection and the property line starts 600 feet from the center of the highway. He said they had no visibility and requested a sign 170 sq. feet in area. Chairman Robinson asked questions about value and improvements planned. Mr. Morgan gave the land value as approximately $65,000 and the building costs, complete with furnishings, as $100,000. Mr. Robinson noted that this would increase the-taxbase. Mr. Morgan agreed to have the location_of the sign conform to the regulations. Chairman Robinson invited comments from the audience. Peg Anderson did not agree that a person looking for a service station would not APPEAL 71-17 DUANE NELSON 117 N. College APPEAL 71-18 BEN HUNT 1753 S. School APPEAL 72-4 HUMBLE OIL & REFINING CO. Hwy 62 West 2-7-72 -2- 57-2 - - find one even if the sign were conforming. Russell Purdy declined to comment other than to say he was prejudiced. Wesley Howe stated he was neither for nor against this sign or the Gulf sign, but was of the opinion the Board of Adjustment did not have the power to make the variance it made for Gulf or the variance it was considering for this applicant. A. B. Morgan stated the applicant needs a sign 53 feet high from grade to top of sign in order to clear the trees to the South. The public hearing was closed. The next item of business was Appeal No. 72-2, B & M Signs, 3901 North College Avenue (Ramada Inn site), public hearing on application to vary size of sign, continued from January 24, 1972. Carl Atkins and F. H. Martin, Attorney, were present to represent the application. Roy Clinton stated in all fairness to the applicant he felt he could not vote on this appeal. He said when the Planning Commission approved the rezoning and large scale development plan for Duane Nelson, the plans indicated a "Great Signe. The Planning Commission did not approve a sign and requested to be advised if an appeal was filed on the sign. Mr. Clintons name was on the resolution passed by the Planning Commission and he had endorsed the motion; therefore he felt compelled not to vote. David Malone, City Attorney, was asked to advise the Board on whether Mr. Clinton should vote. He stated it is up to the individual members. If any of them feels they have prejudged the case they should disqualify themselves. Otherwise, the members who remain can decide the case. In any case, he thought they owed it to the applicant to hear his case; F. H. Martin had some comments on the state enabling legislation on zoning laws. He disagreed with Mr. Howe's comments on the Humble appeal. He quoted court cases from Pulaski County regarding Board of Adjustment appeals. He stated to get to the West side of the highway when traveling North, one must take the loop off the highway, then cross all 4 lanes of traffic. There are also problems for traffic approaching from the North. He predicted a conforming sign would create traffic problems and cause accidents. He felt a hardship existed because of terrain and the highway design. He did not feel the adjoining property owners would be adversely affected nor would the public interests. The cost of the building is 1i million dollars. Peg Anderson felt when all signs are smaller, people will be able to see them all well and that people really looking for a place to stop will not be going 60 M.P.H. Also, she said national signs are very recognizable. Russell Purdy felt confused by the earlier comments regarding zoning laws and variances, but was distressed because it seems every new business that comes into town has fine reasons why they need signs. Carl Atkins said this was the first sign of a smaller size in this area. The public hearing was closed. The next item of business was Appeal No. 72-3, David J. Barrow, 428 West Dickson Street, public hearing on appeal from an administrative decision of the Planning Administrator and/or appeal to vary size of wall sign. Patrick Horan and JoAnn Gosnell represented the appeal. A brochure prepared by the applicant and previously mailed 01 to the Board of Adjustment was reviewed. The applicant felt the proposal should be considered ornamental decor and not a sign. The APPEAL 72-2 B & M SIGNS (Ramada Inn) 3901 N. College APPEAL 72-3 DAVID J. BARROW 428 W. Dickson 2-7-72 -3- Planning Administrator had ruled it a sign and declined a permit because of the size. The proposal and basis for the appeal were discussed. Harold Lieberenz told the Board he would prefer to have the Board rule the proposal a sign and if necessary grant a variance; because if it were considered to be ornamental decor, there wculd be no way of preventing something similar in the residential districts. Peg Anderson said she basically did not oppose the proposal. Russell Purdy did not oppose the proposal but would rather they wait until the proposed sign regulations are adopted and do it legally. The public hearing was closed. Carl Yates moved to uphold the opinion of the Planning Administrator as regarded Appeal 72-3, David J. Barrow, and to grant the request for a variance in size of a wall sign. Connie Clack seconded. The variance was approved unanimously. 458-2- UAIA� Roy Clinton moved that the Board of Adjustment grant the variance request of Ben Hunt, Appeal 71-18, with the stipulation Mr. Hunt APPEAL 71-18 agree to remove the construction in question at such time as the City finds it necessary to condemn the property for right-of-way with no reimbursement of his $500.00 expenditure to be made at that time. Chairman Robinson and the other members discussed again the appeal of Due.ne Nelson, Appeal 71-17. Mr Robinson and Mr. Clinton were APPEAL 71-17 inclined to favor the appeal with a provision that the curb island go all the way back as noted on the latest sketch and with limits on entrances and exits and the South exit marked for "no left turn." Mr. Yates was convinced Mr. Nelson had not shown a hardship not shared by the other properties there. Mrs. Clack felt this should fall under use of service station because the ordinance does not insist that all the things listed that may be done have to be done. Carl Yates moved that the Board of Adjustment deny the request for variances. Connie Clack seconded. The vote was taken. Yates and Clack voted "Aye". The appeal was denied because it requires three concurring votes to approve a request. Clinton and Robinson voted "Nay" and gave as the reason for their action: 1. Proposed use an orderly use, with traffic control more efficient than in many uses where no variance would be required. 2. Not in the category of a service station since it would be necessary to get a car washed in order to purchase gasoline, and no other services normally attendant to as service station are offered. 3. The neighborhood and the general public would not be injured or damaged by the proposed use, but to the contrary, the neighborhood and general public would be benefited by the proposed use. 4 The appeal was denied. 2-7-72 -4- The Board discussed the proposed Ramada Inn sign, Appeal 72-2, B & M Signs, and Humble Oil sign, Appeal 72-4. The feeling of the majority of the Board was that possibly the ordinance should be changed to permit "high speed signs", but they were reluctant to grant a variance on this basis. Mr. Yates said he personally did not see anything wrong with either request, but as the ordinance is written he did not see how the Board could continue to sit there and change it. He felt either the ordinance should be changed or they should quit granting variances. He felt the people should convince the Board of Directors and the Planning Commission that the ordinance should be changed. It was noted another joing discussion on the proposed sign regula- tions was scheduled for February 14. Roy Clinton moved that Appeal 72-2, B & M Signs, and Appeal 72-4, Humble Oil & Refining Company, both be tabled until a later date. Connie Clack seconded. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 P.M. 0 11 459.11 _ APPEAL 72-2 APPEAL 72-4 TABLED 72-2 & 72-4