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.