Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-11-13 Minutes0 0 0 40$S BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES The Fayetteville Board of Adjustment met at 3:45 P.M., Monday, November 13, 1972, in the Directorts Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Members Present: Carl Yates, Albert Witte, Suzanne Lighton. I Members Absent: James White, Connie Clack Others Present: Russell Purdys L. M. MacGoodwinj Herbert Gibson, Jr., John Honeycutt, G. T. Zini, Pat,, Neeley, Helmut Wolf. Don Grimes. Chairman Carl Yates presided at the meeting and made a few opening remarks. Chairman Yates informed the audience and applicants that each individual case before the Board of Adjustment is considered on the jiiexits� of' that case, Just because the Board had granted a variance in a particular case does not mean that they would grant another person a variance in similar circum tances. Chairman Yates read from the ordinance the powers and duties of the Board of Adjustments. The restrictions emphasized that a variance granted is to be a minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, property, or the structure, Chairman Yates also told those present that it takes three concurring votes of Board of Adjustment members to grant a variance. For thatreason, and because there were only three Board of Adjustment members present at this meeting, Mr. Yates stated it might be desirable to delay taking official action on some of the appeals for that- -reason, Chairman Yates also requested that those speaking or making A presentation try to speak loudly enough so that all in the room can hear, Miss Lighton added to Chairman Yates comments that each appeal is heard, the public hearing is then closed, and after all the appeals have been heard, the Board goes back later and takes action, Everyone is welcome to stay until the end of the meeting, APPEAL 72-35 GIBSON DISCOUNT CENTER 3340 N. COLLEGE. Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal No. 72-35, Gibson's Discount Center, 3340 N. College Ave. on an applica- tion to vary size of a flat wall sign and also to vary the size and height of a ground sign, Herbert Gibson, Jr. was present to represent the application. Mr. Gibson said that Gibson's Discount Stores is taking over the former location of the Kroger Family Center. Kroger Family Center had the word "Kroger" spelled out in box letters and Family Center in script. Gibson's proposes box letters for Gibson's Discount Center. The letters would be approximately the same size,as Kroger had on the building. They would not protrude above the w top of the building, The other variance request was for a free- standing sign in the parking lot. The sign'is a typical sign used around the country in about 300 stores, It is the same typical sign as used by the former franchisee down the street, Mr. Gibson did not regard the sign as extreme or unsightly, He said the parking lot is an extremely large parking lot, and according to the City Ordinancesy there could be three or four signs on the parking lot; one for each business, as long as it did not exceed 75 sq. feet for each sign. Chairman Yates APPEAL 72-35 GIBSON DISCOUNT CENTER 3340 N. COLLEGE. . 2 - Russell Purdy stated that he would not grant either request if he were on the Board, Mr. Gibson felt that the size of th 4 e sign should be based on the square footage of space in the shopping center* Mr. Purdy said that he could not assure this to be fact, but his opinion was that the Planning Commission is getting weary of the sign ordinance, and would finish this very soon. He suggested that the applicant wait for the outcome of the proposed ordinance* Chairman Yatesaaskdd Mr. Gibson whether he would consider a smaller sign that would meet the requirements at present, Mr. Gibson said he would prefer to wait and see what the proposed sign ordinance brings. .The public hearing was closede The public hearing on Appeal 72-360 John Honeycutt, 926 N. APPEAL 72-36 Garland Ave. on an application to vary setbacks* Mr. Honey- JOHN HONEYCUTT 1 cutt was present to represent the application' Mr. Honeycutt 926 N* GARLAND stated the building will be a residential garage and requested a varianc e to allow a 1 foot setback from the North side than property line, and a 10 ft. setback from the alley, rathei a 20 ft. setback. He stated that if you observe the 20 ft. set back from the alley, it would place the building very close to said the request was for a sign almost 10 times the permitted size of a sign, and asked that Mr. Gibson submit justification. -for this sign, Mr. Gibson said the building to which the sign applies is 400 feet off the street R.O.W. He stated he thought the sign could be lowered. Both Mr. Witte and Miss Lighton reminded him. that his proposed sign did not in any way advertise the other businesses located on the property, Mr. Gibson said that his sublease stated that his business would be the only one on the property with a ground sign. He requested that the Board take individual action on each part of the request. Mr. Witte%.asked Mr. Gibson if he was aware of the strong public interest the citizens of Fayetteville have expressed onrsign r'eg'u- lations, Mr. Gibson said that he was not aware of the reasons the people opposed large signs. He knew there were signs of this size in the City of Fayetteville and he did not see why this sign would be objectionable. Miss Lighton briefed Mr. Gibson on thepproposed regulationse Mr. Gibson stated that his business needea relief, as they were not allowed to use the name of "Kroger" in their advertising. If he were unable to obtain the ground sign, he would at least like to have the letters on the front of the building. Le M. McGoodwin, property owner to the South, added some commentse I LI He stated that he considered the wall sign completely in order, a and recommended that the Board of Adjustment grant this request, as being compatible. As a neighboring property owner, he stated that he would have no objection to a large ground sign, but as a citizen of the city of Fayetteville, he would oppose the large ground sign in any way he could. He urged the Board of Adjust- ment to hold to some reasonable, compatible standing sign*'outt-front, He w as not requesting a limit to 75 sq. feet, but that the size 4 be reasonable. Russell Purdy stated that he would not grant either request if he were on the Board, Mr. Gibson felt that the size of th 4 e sign should be based on the square footage of space in the shopping center* Mr. Purdy said that he could not assure this to be fact, but his opinion was that the Planning Commission is getting weary of the sign ordinance, and would finish this very soon. He suggested that the applicant wait for the outcome of the proposed ordinance* Chairman Yatesaaskdd Mr. Gibson whether he would consider a smaller sign that would meet the requirements at present, Mr. Gibson said he would prefer to wait and see what the proposed sign ordinance brings. .The public hearing was closede The public hearing on Appeal 72-360 John Honeycutt, 926 N. APPEAL 72-36 Garland Ave. on an application to vary setbacks* Mr. Honey- JOHN HONEYCUTT 1 cutt was present to represent the application' Mr. Honeycutt 926 N* GARLAND stated the building will be a residential garage and requested a varianc e to allow a 1 foot setback from the North side than property line, and a 10 ft. setback from the alley, rathei a 20 ft. setback. He stated that if you observe the 20 ft. set back from the alley, it would place the building very close to . 3 - his house, and would cut down on his yard space. If the building were to observe the 8 foot setback on the North line, this would cut down on his space in getting into the garage. He showed an albernate drawing illustrating the setbacks as required.to demonstrate these points, This would necessitate the removal of a large tree and would reduce the turning radius getting into the garage, Chairman Yates asked Mr. Honeycutt whether he had considered turning the building around and entering from the alley. Mr. Honeycutt said that for several reasons, he did not.wish to do that. 47 4 1. He would have to cut down a large tree, 2. He has a permit from the Arkansas Highway Department to put a driveway in off Garland Ave. and he could not enter the gaisge off Garland if the building were turned around. 3* The alley carries a lot of foot traffic, and he was concerned about having an open garage facing into an alley at night. Chairman Yates expressed concern over the safety factor of a driveway opening on to Garland Avenue. Mr. Honeycutt presented pictures of the tree which he wished to retain, and also of neighboring buildings which were close to the alley, perhaps as close as 10 feet. wo, Mr. Witte asked whether the alley could be used to go all the way to North Street. Mr. Honeycutt said he could get as far as fHardbes by way of the alley, or he could get to either Hughes or Berry St. by way of the alley. Mr. Honeycutt said he would normally turn North when leaving his driveway and entering Garland Avenue. He volunteered to comply with any special requirements on constru- ction in order to obtain the variance, Miss Lighton asked whether he had talked to the neighbors to the North. Mr. Honeycutt said the property to the North is rental property by a Mrs. Collins, Bobbie Jones said that Mrs. Collins had called her office earlier in the day and had asked questions about the variance, but had not either opposed it or approved it. There were no further questions. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal 72-37, Humble Oil and Refining Company, 121 N. College Ave. on an application to vary setback of sign. G.T. Zini and Pat'Neel6y- were present to represent the application. Mr. Zini brought a survey to show where the sign was originally located in 1950, It was located along the corner of College and Meadow, but he said it had been knocked down about 5 times at that location, and was then moved to the south property line. He requested permission to replace the present "Essoll sign with an "Exxon" sign, The sign would1:be within the 75 sq. foot maximum size, and would not be on the R.O.W. but it would be on the South property line. He said they only had about 75 feet of frontage on College Ave, Chairman Yates asked about the possibility of moving the sign 15 ft. to the West and keeping it on the South property line, Mr. Zini said they would prefer to use the same base from the expense standpoint, and just change the sign. This would involve removing 4 bolts, taking the old sign down, and replacing it with the new sign, using the same wiring and same base. APPEAL 72-37 HUMBLE OIL & REFINING CO. 121 No COLLEGE 4 Mr. Witte asked whether replacing the sign would affi�6t`the normal life span of the sign. Mr. Zini did not feel that -'it would, since the same base, pole and wiring would be used and only the sign itself would be replaced. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal 72-38, Humble APPEAL 72-38 Oil and Refining Company, 313.,:W, Dickson St., on an application HLTKBLE OIL COO to vary setbacks of sign. GOT. Zini and Pat Neelek-,were present 31X\W* DICKSON to represent this application, Chairman Yates noted that the existing sign overhangs the sidewalk, He told the applicant that there is no required setback from ROO.W. but that the Board has no authority to grant then the right to put a sign over the R*O.W. Mr. Zini said that the sign could be turned around on the pole so that it would not overhang the sidewalk, Joe Monday, owner of the station, said that this would af - f - ect�his business, but it is the only place where a sign could be Put. If 00 the sign is moved back, they would not have visibility. At one time, the sign had been on the East side of the property, but it was knocked down several times by bakery trucks. Chairman Yates observed that the applicant has not mentioned, but there is a hardship involved in this because the adjoining buildings are all right up on the side- walk, Russell Purdy suggested that the applicant wait for the out- come of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Neel:ey-said that time was important, and although they could accept a delay of a week or so, the company is in the process of changing the signs in South Arkansas now. Mr. Witte remarked to Mr. Purdy that he hoped the Board of Directors would spend some time on the proposed sign ordinance before it passes it, because the time spent by the Planning Comnission and the sub-conunittee should not effect the duties of the Board when they pass or amend a sign ordinance, He also said that he thought the Board of Adjustment would be looking for guidance from the Board of Directors as to what their intentions are concerning the new ordinance. And he thought the Board of Adjustment would suffer if they do not get this guidance, The public hearing was closed. Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal 72-39, Bogdanka APPEAL 72-39 Arias, 205 West Skyline Drive, on an application to vary setbacks. BOGDANKA ARIAS 205 SKYLINE DR. There was no ane present to represent this application, However, Helmut Wolf, adjoining property owner,to the South was present to discuss it. He stated his house is located 24 ft. from the edge of the pavement, and was not sure that 13,ft. 6 inches, shown on an earlier permit for his house, was accurate as to the distance from house to RIO.W. Mr. Wolf had 2 comments, 1) He requested jq the Harold Lieberenz, Building Inspector, stay with the old house numbering system for that part of town. The houses both J North and South of the subject property are in the 100 series, 0 and he requested that this property carry a number accordingly. I - 2) He also requested that the Board of Adjustment, if a variance was granted, make a condition that the old decrepitt house down in the' gulley be removed. He considered the request for the variance entirely reasonable, but considered the old existing house to be a health menace, City Manager, Don Grimes, asked whether the building in question is a dwelling, He was told that it had been at one time, 0 40 r0l . 5 - It was noted that the property is not large enough for two dwellings on this property, However, it was also noted that she might wish to say she was converting this old dwelling to storage or some other use, Russell Purdy stated that his opinion was that the variance should be granted because it was a big improvement on what is there now. But only with the stipulation that that old house should come down. He said it was bbcomini_�, a social menace as well as a fire hazard. He suggested that the terms in the letter to the Board "in line with" be interpreted to mean, "the same distance as" since the pavement curves in this area. The public hearing was closed. Chairman Yates asked the other members whether they wanted to take action on the request heard today, with only 3 members presento since it does require the affirmative vote of all three members, to grant a variance, Albert Witte asked an information'. question of Herbert GiVeons Jr. APPEAL 72-35 He asked how the proposed Gibson sign compared in size to the former Kroger sign, Mr. Gibson was of the opinion that it was actually smaller. The word "Gibson's" uses the same number of boxes as the word Kroger didp but the script letters for "Family Center" extended a farther distance across the building than the block letters "Discount Centerl� would for Gibson's sign. Mr. Witte stated that he would like to discuss Appeal 72�35 for Gibsons Discount Centers in -two separate parts. He stated that he was inclined to grant the first part for several reasons. 1) He agreed with Mr. McGoodwins argumentsr on the wall sign. 2) Under the proposed ordinance, this would be a legitimate sign, Mr. Witte said his memory of all the discussion of this section and the philosophy that�,I-went into drafting it is to encourage wall signs, and he is yet to hear a strong argument,. against that* The arp- ment has been made that we are opening the door for some bizarre wall sign, but he did not feel that was relevant in this case* As he under- stood the applicant, they would like to have some immediate relief for they are already open. Mr. Witte moved that the Board of Adjustment grant the request for a 630 ft. flat wall sign, Suzanne Lighton seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously. Albert Witte said that regard- ing the wall sign, he would want to certainly table it, and would even be inclined to deny it as being much more out of line. Mr. Witte moved to deny a request for a variance on a ground sign. Suzanne Lighton seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously to deny the sign. Mr. Witte told Mr. Gibson that his impression was that one reason for the strong anti -large sign feeling in the City of Fayetteville, is the large sign down the street that used to have the name of Gibsons on ito The Board discussed again Appeal 72-36, for John Honeycutt* Both Miss APPEAL 72�36 Lighton and Chairman Yates were in favor of trying to save the tree, Miss Lighton would like to have the applicant see if the building could be moved even a foot or more in line with the requirements, Mr. Witte stated that he was inclined to give some relief in this case, All three expressed concern about putting a driveway into the property off Garland Avenue. The Board conferred with Mr. Honeycutt again on several points* Miss Lighton moved to grant the variance request for a setback of one foot from the North property line, but to modify the request from 10 ft. to 12 feet on the East property line,,and to condition the request that he not be allowed to open a driveway to Garland Avenue. Albert Witte seconded the motion, and it was approved unanimously. 0 I r�ip . 6 - The Board discussed Appeal 72�37 for Hlimble Oil & Refining Company again. The Board conferred with the applicants on the cost of constructing a new base for the sign. Mr. Neeley said they would have to relocate a merchandiser and that he was not sure where the electrical lines run. They are underground and under concrete beds. Without all the extras, the cost would run about $50O.or $600. Suzanne Lighton moved to grant the variance,request, Albert Witte seconded the motion, which was approved unanimously. APPEAL 72-37 Suzanne Lighton moved to grant the variance request on Appeal 72-38 for Humble Oil & Refining Company. Carl Yates seconded the motion APPEAL 72.38 and it was approved unanimously. I Regarding Appeal 72-39 for Bogdanka Ariass Albert Witte -asked what I APPEAL 72-39 the policy of the Board was on applicants not showing up. Chairman Yhtes said that in some instancesy when the applicant does not show up, the Board has delayed taking action. However� he acknowledged that there were several interested parties present who were urging the granting of the variance, After a discussion, Albert Witte moved to grant the variance with the condition that it be in accordance with the setback of the house to the South, or not any closer than that house, and that the present structure on the property be removed. Suzanne Lighton seconded the motion, which was approved unanimouslyo The minutes for the October 30, 1972 Board of Adjustment meeting had not been distributed in time for approval at this meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 5:25 P.M.