Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-10-09 MinutesMINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING The Fayetteville Board of Adjustment met at 3:45 P,Mes Monday,* October 9 ain Street,, 1972, in the Chamber of Commerce Board Room, 123 W. Mount, is Fayettevilleo Arkansas. Members Present: James White, Connie Clack, Carl Yates, Albert Witte, Members Absent: Suzanne Lighton Others Present: Pete Young, Donald Grimes, Esther White, Tony Zini, Pat Neeley, Austin Fitzgerald, Larx7 Baggett, Duane Nelson, Don Offenbacker, Mrs. Willard Howerton, Susie Ledford, Chairman Carl Yates called the meeting to order, The first application discussed was Appeal No. 72�27, Leo Peel, APPEAL 72�27 2356 Juneway Terrace, on an application to vary setbacks, This LEO PEEL application had been tabled August 28, 1972 in order to give the 2356 JUNEWAY TERRACE applicant a chance to come back before the Board with a revised plan. Esther White, attorney, represented the appeal. She re� viewed the revised plan with the board members. The setback from Juneway will be 40 ft. or in line with other existing structures, on Juneway Terrace, Mr. Peel now requests a setback from Town- ship Road of 35 ft., rather than the 45 ft, required by zoning setback and major street plah-.sbtback. Albert Witte asked how this would compare with other houses along Township Road. Mrs. White said the only other thing nearby on Township is immediately across Juneway, and that building is set back 50 ft. Mr. Yates said that from there, West, there is practically nothing until you reach Fisher Buick, which is, of course, right on the R60,W, . Going to the East, all the houses are setback, except the one r immediately East, There was no opposition present, andr-Lno further Questions from the Board, The public hearing was closed. The next item listed on the agenda was the public hearing on Appeal APPEAL 72-30 72-30, Shenandoah Garden Apartments, Inc.,, 1200 E4 15th Street, SHENANDOAH on an application to vary minirmim lot width. GARDEN APTS, 1200 E9 15th ST* There was no one present to represent this application, There was no opposition present. The Planning Administrator informed the Board that the letter to Marshall Carl-islest-A�o'was-t6,-rd]�r.es i ent y the petition, had been misaddreS5ed, and she had been unable to contact him by phone today.to advise him of the meeting, The Board unanimously agreed to table the public hearing until the next meeting so that a representativrelpould be present, The next item of business was the public hearing on Appeal No. 72�31, Humble Oil and Refining Company, 601 W* 6th St., on an application to vary setback of sign, Tony Zini, Pat Neeley, and Austin Fitz� APPEAL NO* 72-31 gerald were present to represent the application. Mr. Zini said thatHUMBLE OIL & the previous sign had been knocked down by a cattle truck in order to REFINING CO. avoid hitting a car on the wrong side of the road, They requested 6ol w. 6th ST* permission to replace the sign on the same base. The I�l District (�7 requires that ground signs be set back a minimum of 15 ft. from the street R.O.W. Carl Yatess Chairman, read the letter from �O Harold Lieberenz, Inspection Supt., in which he questioned whether the existing sign base might be on street R�O.W. rather than on private property, If this were the case, Mr. Lieberenz advised the Board of Adjustment that they did not have the power to grant a variance. 10�9�72 �2- to enable someone to erect a sign on street R*O.W. Mr. Yates said that he had looked at the sign himself and was of the same opinion. Mr. Fitzgerald said that when the sign was erected, the street was not as wide as it is now, and that.he had obtained a permit to put it -in its previous location. He said that he did'hot know where they would put the sign if they could not put it back in the same location. A new sign would hang back toward the building, rather than toward the R.O.W. Mr. Fitzgerald said it was important to have a sign, because most of the gasoline business these days is sold on credit cards. In the discussion that followed, the sugges� tion was made that a survey be obtained to determine where the street R.O.W. was, Albert Witte said that he thought that the applicant also needed to consider whether they could make the sign conform to the ordinance, By a unanimous consent, the Board tabled the application tntil the next meeting, to enable the applicant to obtain further information as to where the street R.O.W. lies. The next matter before the Board was the public hearing on Appeal No. 72�32, Larry L. Baggetto 697 W. Center St., on an application to vary height of sign, Mr. Baggett was present to represent the application. Mr. Baggett proposes to erect a sign 18 ft. high APPEAL NO* 72-32 rather than the height of the building, which is only 13 ft.'- rLARRY L. BAGGETT 41nches, Mr. Baggett said that the store to which the sign 697 w. CENTER lie applies is itself, a little hiddenii as it is on University, which is not a heavily traveled street. He felt like that withtthe sign he could draw traffic off eenter Street* He said the sign would be non—blinking, and would be turned off at 11:00 P.M. each night. Mr. Yates noted that the proposed ordinance would require signs to be back 50 ft. fr4 street R.O.W., and asked Mr. Baggett for his reaction to moving this sign back if the variance were granted to enable the sign to be 18 ft. high. Mr. Baggett was of the opinion that moving the sign back 50 ft, would place it in the way. Howeverj, after further discussion, he agreed that he might consider a setback of 15 ft. from street R.O.W. There was no opposition present. The public hearing was closed. The next item of business was the public hearing on Appeal No. 72�339 APPEAL 72�33 11 A ,;y Duane Nelsons 2202 No College Avenue, on an application to vary the DUANE NELSON NN kz,� size of a sign, Mr. Nelson and Mr. Offenbacker were present to represent 2202 No the application, Mr. Nelson showed pictures of the standard signs for COLLEGE AVE* Baskin�Robbins Ice Cream franchise, and said that he had turned this sign down because it would not confdrm with the City's regulations* He said the Elaine Powers Buildingo immediately to the North, is only 25 or 30 ft. from the R*O,W, The Baskin—Robbins building sets back 55 ft. He said that he was not asking for a pole sign at this location. Various designs of signs were discussed by Mr. Nelson and the Board, There was no opposition present. The public hearing was closed. The next item of business was Appeal 72-34, Bill Bequette, 1000 South Washington Ave., on an application -,to Vary minimum lot width and APPEAL 72-34 minimum lot area for a duplex. There was no one present to represent BILL BEQUETTE the application. There were several persons present to oppose the 1000 so application, Mrs. Willard Howerton, the adjoining property owner on WASHINGTON the South side, stated she felt like the".1oft was too small for a duplex,' I] 0 (0) (r �, Coo � 10.9-72 -3� Susie Ledford, the property owner on the North side, said that she did not think that a duplex was needed there. There were several other ladies present in the audience who opposed the application4.but they were not identified, James White asked the ladies if there were any other duplexes in this area. Mrs. Howerton said there was one down the street two blocks to the South, Mr. Bequette still was not present. The Board delayed the balance of the public hearing until Mr. Bequette could arrive, Al Witte moved to grant the variance on the Nelson application, Appeal 72�33, because he thought this was in the philosophy of the discussed proposal to encourage wall signs and discourage ground signs. James APPEAL 72-33 White seconded the motion; it was approved unanimously, The Board discussed the application of Larry L./Baggett, Appeal 72-32, to vary the height of a sign, James White stated that any sign where Mr,B&ggetto proposes it would not be visible fr9m anywhere except from the intersection of University and Center Street, He thought he would almost have to have the sign farther back to be seen. Chairman Yates said that personally, he had nothing against the additional height, APPEAL 72�32 but that he was inclined to want to do something on the location, as a condition, However, he needed some help from the other Board members on this, Albert Witte said that'rhe thought the Board had caught Mr. Baggett by surprise, and that Mr. Baggett was not prepared to respond at the time. He recognized that the other Board members hated to force something on Mr. Baggett. Mr. Witte moved to bring this matter up the next time the Board meets, and in the mean time, to have Mr. Baggett confer with the Chaitman for the purposes of coming up with alternative proposals. Connie Clack seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously. The Board discussed Appeal 72-27, for Leo Peel again, Albert Witte APPEAL 7247 asked whether this would affect the future of Township Road. Chair- man Yates said that personally, he did not think so. If the City does take 20 ft. and widen the street, he would still have 15 ft. from the R.O.W. to his building, Mr. White noted that he would probably have 25 ft. or 50 from the traffic way to the building. Mr. White moved to grant variance on the revised plan submitted by Leo Peel, Albett Witte seconded the motion; it was approved unanimously, James White moved to table the balance of the public hearing on Appeal 72�34, for Bill Bequette, till a later meeting when Mr. APPEAL 72-34 Bequette could be present. Albert Witte seconded the motion* it was approved unanimously, The minutes of the September 18, 1972 Board of Adjustment meeting were approved as mailed. The Board voted unanimously to schedule future meetings for the FUTURE MEETINGS second and fourth Monday of each month, thereby alternating meetings 2nd & 4th MON* with the Planning Commission, The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 P*Me