HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-07-14 Minutes•
zppt-0o€ d2
.Tu 1 023, /fir
MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held at 3:55 P. M.
Monday, July 14, 1975, in the Directors Room,City Administration Building,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Connie Clack, Chairman Carl Yates, David Newbern.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Suzanne Lighton, James White.
OTHERS PRESENT: Nadine Dennis, Lowell A. Wetherbee, Sr., Mr. $ Mrs. Carl Collier.
Chairman Yates called the meeting to order and opened the APPEAL NO. 74-37
public hearing on Appeal No. 74-37, Nadine Dennis, 1018 Nadine Dennis
South Washington for a request for an additional review. 1018 S. Washington
Mrs. Dennis had been granted a variance at the December 30, 1974 Board of Adjustment
meeting to put a roof over an existing porch, to extend it 2 feet further to the
rear, and 5 feet further to the North. The porch would be 6' x 15' and only
6 feet from the South side property line. At the last meeting (June 30, 1975)
Mrs. Dennis was back before the Board of Adjustment to ask for the variance to be
amended to be allowed to build the porch 8' x 19' Consideration of the request
was tabled at that time so that surrounding property owners could be notified of
the change of request.
Mrs. Dennis was present to represent.
She said she would like to have the porch 8' x 19' so she could put her washer and
dryer there and she explained that the footing had already been dug for an 8 foot
porch because she had thought that was what had been granted.
No one was present in opposition.
The public hearing was concluded.
The public hearing was opened on Appeal No. 75-21, APPEAL NO. 75-21
Lowell A. Wetherbee, Sr., (Ozark Home $ Garden Center) Lowell A. Wetherbee, Sr.
20 E. Township, on an application to vary setbacks. 20 E. Township
Mr. Wetherbee was present to represent.
He told'the Board of Adjustment that he had a nursery display with a wire fence and
he wanted to build an 8 foot high arbor shade on the top of this. He said it
would be framed with 2 x 6's on edge and 1 x 4's laid flat on this on a 7 inch
center with 3 to 4 inch space between. He said the existing fence comes within
•2 feet of the street right-of-way. (The right-of-way is 40 feet from the
centerline of Township.) Mr. Wetherbee said he had measured 42 feet from the
centerline of Township and set the corner post when building the fence.
In answer to Chairman Yates' question, Mr. Wetherbee said this would be of a
temporary nature and would probably not be there for more than 3 -to 5 years.
Mr. Wetherbee said he rented from Mr. Pat Tobin and would probably be moving to
a more permanent location within a 5 year period. He said he would be building
a flat structure 8 feet high and would not create a visibility problem along the
right-of-way of Township. He said he did have some nursery stock which hampered
vision to a certain extent, however, there was enough room at the end of this
to see before actually getting into the line of traffic on Township. He said he
had the nursery stock there because people could see it more easily.
Chairman Yates asked Mr. Wetherbee if he had room to move this further away
from the street.
Mr. Wetherbee replied that he had trees placed on every available space that he
had. He said he had a building permit to build from the rear of the fence line
up to within 50 feet of the right-of-way and if this variance were to be granted
ivb
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment
July 14, 1975
-2-
he would have one building project rather than two. In other words,i£,the variance
were granted he would build up to the 40 foot right-of-way line,
Mr. Yates said he remembered that the Board.of.Adjustment granted Pat Tobin a
variance to build two buildings 40 feet from the right-of-way of Township.
Mrs. Clack stated she drove by to look at the property and felt that the roof over
the fence would not be any harm as far as traffic was concerned and that it was
actually the shrubs that obscured the view. She said she mentioned to Mr. Wetherbee
the possibility of putting a low growing shrub or plant along there and putting
those tall ones farther back. She said Mr. Wetherbee was reluctant to do this
because the trees that were out front were a selling point because of the foliage
in the fall and the blossoms in the spring. Mrs. Clack felt that if the variance
were granted it should be limited to this particular project.
No one was present to oppose Mr. Wetherbee's request and the public hearing was con-
cluded.
APPEAL NO. 75-22
Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal No. 75-22, Carl Carl Collier
Collier, 2165 Manor Drive, on an application to vary height 2165 Manor Drive
and/or setbacks of wall.
Mr. and Mrs. Collier were present to represent.
Mr. Collier explained that they would like to build a 5 foot high rock wall
along the right-of-way line. (For structures in excess of 30 inches, the ordinance
requires a 25 foot setback.) He said this would be built to follow the contour
of the ground with periodic step-downs.
Mrs. Collier said there was a SO foot right-of-way there but only 20 foot of pavement.
She said this would be 15 feet from the street (pavement) and if they met the
required 25 foot setback it would be getting deeper into the property. (The
elevation drops about 6 or 7 feet in that 25 feet.)
Mr. Collier said their house was not on this property, but that it was South of this
property.
Mr..and Mrs. Collier stated they wanted the rock wall to keep animals, dogs, etc.
out of their yard and to keep their dogs in. They said the neighbors had given
their approvals on this and it was felt by them that it would not jepoardize
property values.
In answer to Chairman Yates' question, Mr. Collier said they really needed the
variance to be allowed between 0 and 3 feet from the street right-of-way because
of jeopardizing the life of the trees.
The Colliers said they had had some problems with people driving up their driveway
thinking it was a subdivision street and would go through their circle drive back
out to the street.
Chairman Yates wondered if the wall would block the view of the neighbor to the
East as he pulled onto the street.
Mr. Collier said this neighbor's driveway was almost to (the neighbor's) East
property line./
Mrs. Collier pointed out- that if there was a visibility problem it would be
because of the contour of the land at that location rather than the wall.
Connie Clack stated she was in favor of the wall but did not know about the
visibility problem..
There was no one present to oppose the request.
The public hearing was concluded.
David Newbern felt there was not that much of a difference APPEAL NO. 74-37
between the previous request and.this one and stated. he was Nadine Dennis
in favor of granting the request.
Connie Clack moved to grant the amended variance as requested on Appeal No. 74-37,
Nadine Dennis.
David Newbern seconded the motion which was approved'unanimously.
177
Board of Adjustment
July 14, 1975 -3-
Mr. Newbern said the request of Lowell. Wetherbee, Sr., APPEAL NO. 75-21
Appeal 75-21., concerned him since it was .such a big one and Lowell Wetherbee, Sr.
yet on the other hand it was for a temporary type structure. He said he felt
Mr. Wetherbee had a problem in that his business was too big for that particular
location. He felt there were two solutions to the matter. One would be to move
this to where it would be placed beyond where thesetback requires it to be and the
other one would be to move the business to another location. He also felt that
this would set a precedent; and that if the variance were granted, the Board should
be sure it was understood that it would be only for this particular request.
Mr. Newbern said there was already a " pretty healthy" variance on the side setbacks
on Mr. Tobin's property and he was worried about the way it had developed.
Mrs. Clack was uncertain about what to do but felt if the variance were granted that
there should be a time limit on it.
In answer to Chairman Yates' question, Mr. Wetherbee said it would be agreeable
with him to set a time limit on the request.
Chairman Yates felt the variance as requested was a big one and asked Mr. Wetherbee
if he could live with a variance to be allowed to come within 15 feet of the
right-of-way (This would be 13 feet less than what he is requesting.)
Mr. Wetherbee said his posts were on a spacing of 10 feet and the variance should
either be 12 feet or 22 feet.
Chairman Yates said he somewhat went along with the idea of moving the whole thing
back (even the shrubbery.).
Mrs. Clack said they could require Mr. Wetherbee to do this or just not put a roof
over the front portion as a condition if they granted a variance.
David Newbern said he had difficulty in trying to find anything about this
property that is unique or otherwise invokes the variance ordinance other than
that Mr. Wetherbee's business is too large for this location. Mr. Newbern said he
could not get used to the change from the "strict construction" days when the Board
went along with strict construction (wording of the ordinance).
Mr. Wetherbee said the fence was built within the regulations of the ordinance and
the arbor shade would be merely for easier maintenance and watering.
In answer to Chairman Yates' question, Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones quoted
the Zoning Ordinance concerning fences (Article 17, Appendix A). "In any required
front yard, no fence or wall shall be permitted which materially impedes vision across
such yard above the height of 30 inches, and no hedge or other vegetation shall be
permitted which materially impedes vision across such yard between the heights of
30 inches and 10 feet."
Mrs. Jones said Mr. Wetherbee did talk to her about the fence and it does not materially
impede vision but she had not seen what he has in the way of foliage.
Mr. Wetherbee said he had not had any complaints since he had been there.
After further discussion Mrs. Clack moved to grant the variance to allow Mr. Wetherbee
to build within 12 feet of the street right-of-way rather than the 2 feet as requested
on the condition that he make that the front edge of his display bed and abandon
the use of the South 10 feet he is presently using.
David Newbern seconded the motion.
Mrs. Clack then amended her motion to add that this be granted for a maximum of
a three year period and limit it to the use that Mr. Wetherbee now proposes for
that, that it not be used for a permanent structure, and that it be for Mr. Wetherbee's
use only.
David Newbern seconded. the. amendment to the motion.
Clack and Yates voted in favor of the motion.
David Newbern opposed.
The motion failed to pass due to only three members being present and one voting
against.
The. Zoning Ordinance requires the affirmative vote of 3 members to grant a variance.
I73
Board of Adjustment -4-
July 14, 1975
Mr. Newbern said he was not in £ayor,of the motion since he felt this.was a situation
where he could not see anything• that should excuse the use of the property contrary to
the ordinance. He said he thought the request was a reasonable one but felt that
this scheme would only prolong the situation that Mr, Wetherbee is in of having a
business in a place where he needs to exceed:what'the ordinance requires. He said he
was very sympathetic as far as -his economic problem was concerned but felt that
he had not represented anything that indicates that his situation is unique in any
way which requires an action by this Board.
APPEAL NO. 75-22
Mrs. Clack said she would like to allow Carl Collier, Appeal Carl Collier
No. 75-22, to build the rock wall but felt that this request was not any different than
the others. She felt there really was not anything concerning this situation that
justified a variance. '
Chairman Yates said in times past they had granted variances in order to preserve the
life of trees on the property. He felt this was a large variance, but stated that
he understood the need for it.
Mrs. Clack felt the wall would look better along the right-of-way rather than being
set back the 25 feet.
Mr. Newbern was concerned about the problem of people coming up the Colliers dirveway,
but agreed with Mrs. Clack that this request was no different from the others.
Mrs. Clack said perhaps they could build a gate without putting up a fence. This
would keep people from coming up their driveway.
The Colliers said when they applied,for the variance they had not anticipated any
problems.
They said if they did not get the variance they would not build the fence at all.
Mrs. Collier said their children would not play out in this front area because of the
dogs coming into their yard and they really needed this area fenced.
Mr. Yates said he would like to have a chance to drive out and see the property.
After further discussion the Board decided they would like some time to think
over this request and give the members a chance to drive out to see the property. Also
they felt it would be better to wait until the other two Board members were present to
make a decision.
Mr. Newbern said he felt that if the other Board members had been present that
Mr. Wetherbee's request would have stood a better chance of being granted. He felt
if they did call a special meeting that Mr. Wetherbee's request should be brought
before them for further consideration also.
Connie Clack moved that the Board postpone consideration of Appeal No. 75-22, Carl Collier,
until a special meeting can be arranged.
David Newbern seconded the motion which was approved unanimously.
APPEAL NO. 75-21
David.Newbern then moved that it is the concensus of the Board of Adjustment that the
failure of the motion on Mr. Wetherbee's request leaves his application for a variance
in a status quo and it has not been.. rejected nor approved and that it be taken up at
the special meeting of the Board.
Connie Clack seconded the motion; The motion was approved unanimously.
Chairman Yates requested that Mrs. Jones notify Mr. Wetherbee of their decision.
The minutes of the June 30, 1975 Board of Adjustment meeting were approved
as distributed.
There was no further discussion,
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 P. M.
MINUTES