Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-09-08 Minutes• • 601f oe 54.10tce.ti Ui/97s MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held at 4;,00 P, M. Monday, September 8, 1975; in the Board of Directors Room; City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Carl Yates, Suzanne Lighton, Connie Clack, James White David Newbern. MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: None. Jim Powell, Monroe Laner, Alfred Crozier, Henry Miller, Harry Ainsworth, Randy Murphy, Bobbie Jones, Janet Bowen. Chairman Yates called the meeting to order. The public hearing was opened on Appeal No. 75-27, Jim Powell, APPEAL NO. 75-27 636 West Maple Street, on an application to vary height and/or _ Jim Powell setback of fence. 636 W. Maple ST. Mr. Powell is requesting a 5 ft. high privacy fence along the sidewalk with a 0' setback from the property line. The ordinance requires "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 . . . ." Setback from street right-of-way along the front yard is 25 feet for zoning setback and 711 feet for the Major Street Plan - - -except on the West 21 feet the setback required is 25 feet. Mr. Powell was present to represent. He told the Board of Adjustment members that the fence was not there for any monetary gain on his part but that is was there for the conveninece of and to provide privacy for the tenants j_n the house for the following reasons. (1)Arkansas Avenue (which is one of the busiest intersections in town) dead -ends right in front of the house and the fence would hap keep noise down and also keep car lights from shining in the windows at night. (2) the fence would allow the ten nts to move around the confines of their apartments in privacy. He said he put the fence along the sidewalk since there is only 8 feet between the back of the sidewalk and the front porch, and if he complied with the ordinance and set back 25 feet the fence would be inside the house. He also explained to them that Mr. Monroe Laner owns the property to the West adjoining this and has an apartment house on this property. He said he would be willing to angle the fence so that it would no longer block vision at the driveway to Mr. Laner's apartments. (The fence would be the same heighth). Mr. Laner was present and submitted pictures showing how the fence on Mr. Powell's property blocks the view of anyone entering or exiting through his driveway. He said one had to be pulled out into the lane of traffic before he could see properly. He felt that Mr. Powell was not aware of a setback requirement when he built the fence; however, Mr. Laner said he, as well as his tenants, were concerned about the traffic hazard this fence was creating. Miss Lighton asked Mr. Laner how far East the fence would have to be moved to allow proper visibility and Mr. Laner replied he did not know at what point the angle would have to start. Miss Lighton asked why a building permit was not obtained before the fence was built and Mr. Powell replied that he thought the construction of the fence would be covered in the building permit they obtained for the other work at the location. Al Crozier, manager of the apartments at 636 West Maple, was present and added that they were not aware of the height regulation. David Newbern inquired as to whether there was a driveway on the East side of the fence that would be used and if he was planning to do anything on that side and Board of Adjustment September 8, 1975 Mr. Powell replied that there was not a visibility problem on this side, but if it was a problem, he could take that down. Mrs. Clack said she did not know how a point at which visibility was adequate could be determined unless the fence was torn down. Henry Miller, former resident at 636 Maple Street, was present and stated there was a visibility problem here anyway and he --felt the fence did not add to the problem. In answer to Mr. White's question, Mr. Powell said the house at this location was being remodeled. Harry Ainsworth, resident of Mr. Laner's apartment on the property to the West, was present and stated he agreed with Mr. Powell on the noise and lights and felt the fence was a great idea so far as that part was concerned. However, he said with the fence there he could not see when pulling out of that driveway until he was out in the street. He said there was also a hazard to pedestrian traffic on Maple Street with the fence there, stating that a boy had to jump to the hood of his car one day as he was attempting to pull out of the drive in order to keep from being run over. Mr. Ainsworth pointed out on the drawing how the fence created a visibility hazard. Mr. Laner said the manager of Mr.. Powell's apartment house, Mr. Crozier, suggested that they run the traffic one way, however,-: Mr. Laner said he could not do this. Mr. Ainsworth said he had tried using the driveway for an entrance rather than an exit and it was also difficult to enter from this direction. Mr. Powell said he agreed with what everyone had said and realized they were mostly concerned about the safety of it and he said he was willing to do whatever was necessary. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said she received a telephone call from James Graham, a tenant in Mr. Laner's apartment building, complaining about the fence and the difficulties he and his room mate had in getting out. Mrs. Jones pointed out (concerning the angle of the fence) there was a deed recorded in which a Mr. Crouch deeded 21' x 161/2' for the widening of Maple Street. She said this was shown on the drawing and it came right up near the corner of Mr. Powell's apartment house. Mr. Crozier pointed out that if the street were widened it would go through the house and it would have to be torn down. Mr. Laner felt there was an error in this 21' x 16'1' being owned by the City for street widening purposes. Chairman Yates said he did not see what bearing it had on this case except if it has been deeded to the City, the Board of Adjustment could not grant a variance on anything in the street right-of-way. He said if a variance was granted, it would have to be conditioned on whether this had been deeded to the City. Mr. Powell said if it had been, he would move the fence so that it would in no way be on the City's property. David Newbern said he had a call from Mr. Vorsanger of the University on this request and he had some misgivings from an esthetic point of view more than anything else even though he felt the traffic problem was bad. Mr. Vorsanger felt the fence would not be very attractive at that important entrance to the University. Mr. Newbern said he himself walked• past this location everyday and he noticed there was a driveway at the Alpha Chi Omega house which abuts Mr. Powell's property, then there was Mr. Powell's driveway going in which he understood Mr. Powell was going to retain (on the East side of the property), and then there was the driveway that Mr. Laner and Mr. Ainsworth had talked about. He said that made three driveways in close proximity to the fence. Mr. Newbern felt that vision was a factor with all three of these driveways. Mr. Randy Murphy, architectural consultant to Mr. Powell concerning the fence, said he wanted to dispute this for public record. Mr. Crozier commenting on the esthetic part of the fence, said they had started a 24 foot mural on the fence and they quit doing work on that when they found out the fence was in violation of the ordinance. The public hearing was concluded. HP -r • n Board of Adjustment -3- September 8, 1975 Miss Lighton said she simply didn"t know what to do. She felt that if the variance for the fence were granted it would need to indicate how APPEAL NO. 75-27 muchof a variance and at this point nobody seemed to know at iim=Powe11 what point the fence.would have to be moved back. - Mrs. Clacksaid she felt the fence served a useful purpose for the tenants and said 'if something could be worked out where it could be retained without creating a hazard, she would be in favor of doing it. There was some question as to whether the street right-of-way line is actually where the fence is at present or 5 foot further North. Mr. Powell said the abstract had been brought up to date and he did not think it reflected this parcel as being deeded to the City. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones commented that she obtained her information concerning this from the City Clerk's Office. She also pointed out that the plat book shows the street right-of-way extending 10 feet North of the section line instead of 5 feet. Mr. White said he did not know where the property linewas and he wasn't sure if anyone else did. He stated he could not see how any variance could be considered except for the heighth of the fence. David Newbern said he came prepared to vote against the request as it was since he walked by this location every day and had seen some accidents there and he felt the fence would just compound what was already a bad situation. He said he wassympathetic to the point that the fence was a good idea to keep the light out of the windows. He said he was not in a position to make a motion that would satisfy everybody both property line wise and in terms of what the angle should be on each corner. He said he was not sure whether to say the Board could vote on this request and then if Mr. Powell has another request later they could consider it; or whether the should wait a week and let Mr. Powell present some sort of detailed sketch of a varied variance. He said this seemed to be the best thing, but he did not want to take that much of Mr. Powell's or the Board of Adjustment's time. Miss Lighton said she wondered how much time they would need to allow Mr. Powell if he did.start taking the fence down. Chairman Yates said, even with everything that had been said, that he felt he could not vote in favor of the request since it seemed to him that it would be compounding an already very hazardous traffic situation. He said he felt he could not be a party to anything that would do this. He said Mr. Powell was remodeling a house that was too close to the street and he felt this Board could not be a party to anything that would promote this situation. He said he was in sympathy with the tenants needing some relief from the noise and lights; however, if they did not grant the variance, he felt it might encourage Mr. Powell to do something else at this location, such as putting heavy blinds at the windows. Chairman Yates said in his opinion the fence would create less of a hazard if it were 5 feet back rather than being against the sidewalk, and he asked Mr. Powell if he could live with this much of a variance if the Board should see'fit to grant it to him. Chairman Yates also asked if the fence could be put essentially against the front porch, have a gate in the fence, and have it extend just the width of the house. Mr. Powell said he could not answer that without taking another look at it and doing some measuring. Miss Lighton asked about angling the fence (if the fence were placed right up against the porch) right at the corner of the porch on the West end. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said they could,not do this without a variance since there would be a setback of 25 feet. Mrs. Clack felt the idea of moving the fence up to the porch was a good one. 1q 3 Board of Adjustment -4- September 8, 1975 Miss Lighton moved to defer action on this request for two weeks and allow Mr. Powell to come back to the Board of Adjustment without readvertising (unless an essentially new issue is raised in his request) if he can come up with a plan that will meet the suggestions that were made at this meeting. Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said most of the people concerned in this matter were present at this meeting and she had the addresses of those who called on it and they would be notified of this. Mr. Powell asked if he could take the fence down and use on the portion of the fence that would have to be moved back and they could come around and look at it to see if the visibility problem had improved, Chairman Yates said he did not want to leave the impression that the variance would be granted if he did this, but told Mr. Powell he could do it on his own if he wished to do so. Chairman Yates brought up the possibility windows to keep the car lights out. Mr. Randy Murphy said these windows of them would block out the light. David Newbern told Mr. Powell that he would construction material were of constructing something in front of the under the roof and anything built in front still need to bringfa back to the Board of Adjustment for them to consider. James White felt that the 1631' x 21' parcel should be clarified (the is shown to be dedicated to the City for street widening purposes). Miss Lighton said this should be in the abstract. It was suggestedif this does not show up in the abstract that Mr. check with his abstractor. definite There was no further discussion. The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 P. M. proposal parcel that Powell should • • •