Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-03-13 Minutes(�ppwo�ed 3 zVI -9z MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING ? 465:,2'-2 1 The Fayetteville Board of Adjustment met at 3:30 P.M., Monday, March 13, 1972, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas, Members Present: Carl Yates, J. F. Robinson, Roy Clinton, Connie Clack, Suzanne Lighton. Members Absent: None, Others Present: Walter Niblock, Hoyet Greenwood, Pete Young, Harold Lieberenz, Hugh R. Kincaid, Peg Anderson, Russell Purdy, F. H. Martin, Chairman J. F. Robinson called the meeting to order. The first item on the agenda was the public hearing on Appeal No. APPEAL NO. 72-10 72-10, Hoyet Greenwood, for the Southeast corner of Poplar Street HOYET GREENWOOD and Leverett Avenue, on an application to vary setbacks of building Poplar & Leverett and distance between curb cuts and intersection. Walter Niblock, Attorney, and Hoyet Greenwood were present to represent the application. Roy Clinton stated he felt the Planning Commission had to approve the variance request on curb cuts, not the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Lieberenz said this was included in the request because the zoning ordinance does specify location of curb cuts for service stations. This was discussed and by mutual consent deferred to the Planning Commission for a decision. Also requested was a variance in setback of a canopy from Leverett and a setback from side property line on the East. Mr. Greenwood said he could move the build 1# ft. to the West and cut the size of the proposed office section to provide a 7 ft. setback on the East side rather than the required 10 ft. In answer to a question from Carl Yates, he said he would still put in the gasoline service pumps, whether he got the variance on the canopy or not. He admitted the office was not essential to the operation of the grocery store, but said he would have to have one somewhere eventually. He said if it came to a choice of which variance to grant, lie wanted the variance on the canopy. It was noted that to the East of this property is a private drive into a mobile home park, probably 25 fte wide, at least. Peg Anderson had some comments regarding the petition for rezoning and the addition of other uses to the convenience grocery. The public hearing was closed. The next matter discussed was Appeal 72-9, Road Investment & APPEAL 72-9 Development Enterprises, 395 North College, tabled from March 6, ROAD INVESTMENT & 1972. Hugh R. Kincaid, Attorney, was present on behalf of the DEVELOPMENT ENT, application at this meeting. He said he had checked with Clayton 395 N. College Powell, Street Superintendent, and the location of the sign would be no problem for the proposed street radius of 20 ft. He said there would be a hardship if the applicant has to use this land and observe all the zoning setbacks. He felt the permission of pump islands 25 ft, from right-of-way with no provision for a canopy was an oversight in the ordinance. 3-13-72 -2- 466-: Suzanne Lighton asked what the applicant planned to do about a fence along the West property line. Mr. Kincaid said the property owners had contacted them; they planned to build a cedar or redwood fence similar to what is there now. Mr. Kincaid agreed they could make the sign stationary and not rotating. There was some discussion on whether a canopy should be interpreted as a structure. Russell Purdy asked whether a canopy would be allowed to go right up to the edge of the property if it were not considered a structure. There was no other information. The Board returned to the first item for deliberation. Chairman Robinson pointed out to the members that there was a potential for law suit on each case. The applicant in each case could file a suit and so could the City. He requested each member give their reason for voting. Miss Lighton suggested moving the gasoline pumps closer to the building to require a lessor variance on setback of canopy.. Mr. Yates did APPEAL 72-10 not think this would work out as well; his personal feeling was that a canopy is a special case. He did not think it made any sense to allow pump islands 25 ft. from right-of-way and require canopy to be back farther. Mr. Robinson did not see where canopies do any harm, they make the property look better, and make it easier for someone buying gasoline. Roy Clinton said the office space factor should be considered at this time. He suggested if the Board did not approve the office, they should look at a further setback on the pump island and canopy. Connie Clack moved that the Board allow the variance on the canopy as requested and consider the office separately. Carl Yates seconded. There was further discussion. Roy Clinton did not think the office was a consideration when the property was rezoned and did not think it should be considered now. He preferred to move the canopy back to 31# ft. from Leverett which would prevent building any office there. Miss Lighton agreed with Mr. Clinton. Walter Niblock stated he was authorized to say his client no longer wants to build an office there. The vote was taken. Yates, Robinson, and Clack voted 11Aye," to grant the variance on the canopy. Clinton and Lighton voted "Nay,° and both stated they were not opposed to the canopy but preferred to move it back. The request for the office was withdrawn. The Board discussed again Appeal R72-9, Road Investment and APPEAL 72-9 Development Enterprises, Carl Yates said he was not present at the last meeting, but he had talked to the applicants and explained that if the Board of Adjustment saw fit to grant a variance they would have to go with the minimum variance that could be complied with. They indicated they could accept a variance for a setback of 40 ft. from College Avenue for the canopy and could comply with the setback for the cashier's office from College Avenue. They stated they could not move the location of the canopy to the South any, but felt they might out the canopy off on the North side 3 ft. If they are turned down, they can still have the pump islands without the canopy. Roy Clinton moved that the Board of Adjustment approve the entire request, including the height of the sign, as amended with the 3-13-72 -3- 60 ft. setback for the cashier's office from College Avenue, and the 40 ft, setback of the canopy from College Avenue. He thought the sign would create a traffic problem if located farther back. Yates seconded. There was further discussion. Miss Lighten said she could see all the arguments and understand the hardship with just 1/3 of the property being used, but she thought the tract was just too small for all they were trying to do. Connie Clack said she was bothered that they were approving a sign that would be non -conforming under the proposed ordinance. The vote was taken. Clinton, Yates, and Robinson voted "Aye." Clack and Lighton voted "Nay." ----------- 467-2 Roy Clinton moved that the Board of Adjustment approve the variance request for a sign on Appeal No. 72-4, Humble Oil & Refining Company, tabled from February 7, 1972, as requested on size and with height APPEAL 72-4 not to exceed 30 ft. above the plane of the highest road at the Humble Oil & Ref. intersection. Carl Yates seconded. Mr. Clinton noted that this would be in line with the proposed sign regulations for intersections such as this. The motion was approved unanimously to grant the variance. Next the Board discussed the request for action on Appeal 72-2, B & M Signs, for a Ramada Inn Sign at 3901 North College Avenue. APPEAL 72-2 Mr. Yates said it seemed to be a lot of difference in having a B & M SIGN CO. 75 square foot sign on a 50 ft. lot and having a larger sign on a (Ramada Inn) larger lot. He thought having a 150 square foot sign on a 350 foot lot looked better than having a 75 square foot sign every 50 feet. He asked F. H. Martin if this was the smallest standard sign they make. It is. He further stated that he assumed that if the Board of Adjustment granted a variance for less than 392 square feet, then they would put up a non-standard sign. Roy Clinton said he felt this should be given the same consideration as high speed signs. Mr. Robinson asked the Board members if they thought 75'square feet was adequate at this location. He had driven by the location to see how well a sign could be seen. Mr. Clinton said he preferred to turn the question around and disregard Ramada Inn's interests and relate it to traffic moving at a very fast pace. He felt 75 square feet was too small, but that the 392 square feet requested was too large. The group was working with the safety stand- point when they came up with 200 square feet at intersections along the by-pass. Mr. Yates and Mr. Robinson did not'feel the Hoard should be concerned with the interests of Ramada Inn either, but with people who are looking for the motel and will be so close to it when they see it, a sudden stop could cause an accident. They also agreed 75 square feet was not enough, but that 392 square feet was too much. Connie Clack agreed, but questioned how much was needed. On the basis that this falls in the same category agreed on in the joint meeting, Mr. Yates moved that the Board approve the request for a sign up to 200 square feet in size. Roy Clinton seconded. Mr. Robinson said he felt this was still inadequate in size. The. vote was taken. Clack, Clinton, Yates, and Lighton voted "Aye," • Robinson voted "Nay", a variance was approved for a sign 200 sq.ft. in size. The minutes of February 7, and March 6, 1972, were approved. The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 P.M.