Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-07-23 MinutesvgutiSt a9 /97s MINUTES OF A SPECI.AL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A special meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45 P. M. Wednesday, July 23, 1975, in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Connie Clack, Chairman Carl Yates, James White, David Newbern. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Suzanne Lighton. Lowell Wetherbee, Sr., Mr. and Mrs. Carl Janet Bowen. Chairman Yates called the meeting to order. The first item was further consideration on Appeal No. 75-21, Lowell A. Wetherbee, Sr. (Ozark Home 8 ship, application to vary setbacks, tabled July 14, 1975. a 2 foot setback from the street right-of-way of Township, is required. Mr. Wetherbee was present to represent but stated he had no further comments. Mr. White asked Mr. Wetherbee if the trees really needed this kind of cover. Mr. Wetherbee said it helped in maintaining this nursery stock. He told Mr. White that there would not be any sides to this structure. He said the fencing as it stood now would not be changed in any manner. Chairman Yates stated he felt this request was similar to situations of service stations and gas pumps. They can, under the ordinance, locate the gas pumps out within a certain distance of the highway, but they cannot put a cover over it. Mr. Newbern felt they established at the last meeting on this that Mr. Wetherbee was not in violation of the ordinance by having a chain link fence, but he said it was not resolved in his mind whether or not he was in violation of the ordinance by having the nursery stock there. At the last meeting Mrs. Clack had made a motion to grant Mr. Wetherbee a variance to be allowed 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. This would be for a three year period and for Mr. Wetherbee's use only. The motion failed to pass at that meeting due to only three members being present and one voting against. No one was present to oppose the request. Mrs. Clack said she was ready to make the same motion that she made at the last meeting. She said she would rather have him build the roof closer to the highway in order to get him to move the trees back. Mrs. Clack then 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 and that the variance be granted for a maximum of a three year period and limit it to Mr. Wetherbee's use only. Mr. White asked how far in front of the building the canopy would extend if it were 12 feet from the right-of-way. Chairman Yates said as he understood it, the building was within 40 feet of the right-of-way so this would be 28 feet past the building, He said they had been told that the display as it stands now extends 38 feet past the building. Mr. White then asked Mr. Wetherbee how much room he would have if he brought the canopy back even with. the building. Mr. Wetherbee said it would be agreeable with him to build the canopy even with Collier, Bobbie Jones, APPEAL NO. 75-21 Lowell A. Wetherbee, Sr. Garden Center), 20 E. Town - The applicant was requesting while a SO foot setback • Board of Adjustment July 23, 1975 -2- the building and leave the rest of what'he has -uncovered, Mr, Wetherbee said he would prefer this- rather than losing 13Q square £eet..of display area. (This would be a variance of 10 feet.) Mr, Wetherbee said .he'explained.this to the Board of Adjustment at the last meeting. Mr. Newbern, Mr. Yates, and Mrs, Clacksaid they had not understood this at the last meeting, Mrs. Clack withdrew her motion. Mr. White then moved to grant Mr. Wetherbee a variance to build the canopy even with the front of the building. Connie Clack seconded the motion which -was approved unanimously. APPEAL NO. 75-22 The last item was further consideration on Appeal No, 75-22, Carl Collier Carl Collier, 2165 Manor Drive, application to vary height and/or setbacks of wall, tabled July 14, 1975.. Mr. and Mrs. Collier were requesting to be allowed to build a 5 foot tall rock wall along the right-of-way line. The ordinance requires a 25 foot setback from right-of-way for structures which materially impede vision in excess of 30" high. Mr. and Mrs. Collier were present to represent. In answer to Mr. White's question Mr. Collier said this was not shown as a through street on the Major Street Plan. Chairman Yates stated he drove out to look at the property in question and noticed two posts there. In answer to Chairman Yates' question, Mr. Collier said he estimated they were about 8 to 10 feet back from the property line. Chairman Yates said it appeared to him that the wall could be built there along this line without disturbing the trees. Mr. Collier said this wall was going to be about 18 inches thick and it would need to have a footing. He felt that the root structure might be disturbed when digging for the footing. Mr. Collier said they would like to have the fence along the crest of the hill where Mr. Yoe had cleared out the trees so they could be sure they would not disturb the root structure of the trees. He said this was right on the turn -in where a car would not turn in by accident and they would realize they were on private property. Chairman Yates said he would have guessed the posts to be approximately 10 to 15 feet back from the property line. - David Newbern said he would like to see property owners be allowed to do whatever they wanted to with their property. He said, however, that he was troubled by this request because he was not convinced by the reasons that the Colliers had given that there was a valid reason for invading or avoiding the implications of the ordinance. He said he felt the people turning into their drive was a practical reason they had given for granting the variance, but he felt. this could be taken care of by putting up a gate across their driveway. He said he was not inclined to go along with a 25 foot variance. Chairman Yates said it was his inclination to not go along with the full variance but after looking briefly at the property he felt there was the possibility of going back some ways. He felt a fence could be built in line with the two posts that were there. Mrs. Clack stated she would like to see them build the wall and felt perhaps the ordinance should have some more leeway for things of this nature. There was no one present in opposition to the request. James White moved to grant a variance to allow the Colliers to erect the wall essentially where the present fence posts are now to minimizethe amount of destruction of the trees. Mrs. Collier stated that she would like for them to either approve the request as submitted or deny it. She felt like they would stand a better chance of getting something done if they i8► ►82 J •' Board of Adjustment -3- July 23, 1975 took it before the Board of Directorstotry to..get the ordinance amended if the request were to be denied. She.also.asked the .Board .of. Adjustment,if they could make a recommendation to the Board of Directors to have the ordinance amended concerning this matter. The members of the Board of Adjustment statedthey felt it would not be their place to do this. They explained .to Mrs, Collier that it was the Planning Commissionts place to make recommendations to the Board of Directors regarding amendments to the ordinance. Mr. Newbern felt this would,be a good time for this to be 'brought out and encouraged the Colliers to try to get something done about this. Mr. White felt there should be something else in the ordinance excepting regulations where cul-de-sacs were concerned,, and felt this would be a good opportunity to get something done concerning that. After reading from a memorandum that Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones'had from City Attorney Jim McCord, Mr. Newbern stated he felt if they could rationalize and say that there was a "practical difficulty" with the trees that would keep the Colliers from complying with the ordinance as it is written, he felt they would be on fairly firm ground in granting the request as it was made. He said, however, as Chairman Yates had pointed out earlier, the Board of Adjustment is charged with a minimum variance to alleviate the practical difficulty. Mrs. Clack felt the variance should not be granted but they should approach the Planning Commission to initiate to the Board of Directors to take some of the bad features out of the ordinance; she stated her alternate would be to grant the variance to some degree and then the Colliers could use it if they wanted to. Mr. Newbern stated he felt the trees did constitute.what he thought was a practical difficulty, but he said he still liked the idea that Chairman Yates had brought out and the form of Mr. White's motion which would be to grant a variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty. Chairman Yates stated if the Colliers did not want the Board of Adjustment to consider a lesser variance, they would not. Mr. Newbern added that even if they were to grant a lesser variance this would not preclude the Colliers from trying to get something done about the ordinance. Chairman Yates also stated that he didn't feel like it would have any bearing on this if they granted them in this specific instance some degree of relief. Mr. Collier agreed with this. However, Mrs. Collier felt it would have some bearing on the Board of Directors' decision if they were granted the lesser variance. David Newbern seconded the motion which was on the floor. The motion was approved unanimously. The minutes of the July 14, 1975 Board of Adjustment meeting were MINUTES approved as distributed. There was no further discussion. The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 P. M.