HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-05-05 MinutesMINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45 P.M., Monday,
May 5, 1980, in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Chester House, Mrs. Don Mills, Robert Waldren,
Steve Nickles, Larry Smith, David Crittenden, Larry Thompkins.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. $ Mrs. Ralph Nesson, Dr. J. B. Hays, Cynthia Stewart, Bobbie Jones.
Acting Chairman, Chester House, called the meeting to order at 4:02 P.M.
The first item for discussion was the public hearing APPEAL NO. 80-8
on Appeal No. 80-8, Ralph H. Nesson, 1007 Morningside RALPH H NESSON
Drive, on an application to vary setbacks from side of 1007 MORNINGSIDE DRIVE
building to neighbors property line (side setback).
Present to represent were Mr. $ Mrs. Ralph H. Nesson.
Mr. Ralph Nesson stated that he applied for permission to alter an existing structure
on his property. He said that the existing structure was a very unsightly storage area
which was attached to his home, and that he would like to construct a greenhouse in its
place The greenhouse would supply energy in the form of solar heat and food in the
form of vegetables grown during the winter months. He felt that by building this
greenhouse he would be conserving energy and, also, improving the property by creating
a more attractive structure attached to his home. Mr. Nesson said that the south wall
of the existing structure is almost exactly on the property line, and that it was apparently
built without a permit.
Mr. Thompkins stated that he understood, from the application, that the building
was actually 2 ft. from the property line. Mr. Nesson said that the corner of the house
was on the property line and as the building extends east, it increases in distance
from the property line. Mr. Thompkins asked what Mr. Nesson's neighbor's feelings
were on the proposed greenhouse. Mr. Nesson said that he had spoken to his neighbor
about his plans to build the greenhouse. His neighbor had shown some concern about it
being a commercial greenhouse, which is not the case; and that being her only concern,
he felt she was not opposed to it. He said that she felt the present structure did need
altering as it was so unsightly. He stated that the owner of the property did not live
next door.
Dr. Crittenden stated that, as he interpreted Mr. Nesson's blue print, the
proposed greenhouse would be extended and not just altered. Mr. Nesson stated that
the shop area was on the western side and that it would not be altered at all. That
what would be altered would be the storage area which is on the eastern side. Dr.
Crittenden asked if Mr. Nesson was going to build two new walls. Mrs. Nesson stated
that they were going to tear down two existing walls, the south and east walls, and
replace them with glass. Dr. Crittenden asked if the whole area was already existent,
and Mr. Nesson stated that it was.
Mr. Thompkins stated that the general condition of the neighborhood seemed to be
good and that a lot of improvements were being made.
Mrs. Mills asked what Mr. Nesson's plans would be if his request for a variance
were denied. Mr. Nesson replied that he would probably just paint the storage area. He
said that he felt the unsightliness of the building was due in part to the materials
used to construct it. He said that it appeared to be pieced together with plywood.
Painting it, he felt, would make it look better cosmetically without actually improving
it. Mrs. Mills expressed concern over the fact that Mr. Nesson was so close to the
property line and wondered if there was any way he could utilize the existing structure
Board of Adjustment Meeting
May 5, 1980
Page 2
or perhaps just make it longer. Mr. Nesson stated that by making the storage structure
longer, he would be going into the shop area which he did not want to do as this will
be the only storage area that will remain.
Mr. Waldren asked if Mr. Nesson was going to put in a concrete slab. Mr.
Nesson stated that there was an existing slab which he planned to use. Mr. Waldren
then asked if the greenhouse would be glass or visqueen and Mr. Nesson stated that it
would be glass. Mr. Waldren said that it looked like the drop wall on the side of
the greenhouse would extend over the neighbor's property and asked how the neighbor
felt about that. Mr. Nesson said that he did not think that any part of the green-
house would extend onto his neighbor's property. He said that in the drawing it may
appear that part of the structure would extend onto his neighbor's property, and, if so,
he would alter it so that it would not.
Mr. House asked about external solar collectors. Mrs. Nesson stated that the
collectors would be internal and would be made from 5 gallon drums.
There being no further questions, Mr. House closed the public hearing on
Appeal No. 80-8.
The next item for discussion was the public APPEAL NO. 80-9
hearing on the Appeal No. 80-9, 2781 N. College DR. J.B. HAYS
Ave., on an application to vary setbacks. Present to 2781 N. COLLEGE AVE.
represent was Dr. J. B. Hays. Dr. Hays asked the
members to see exhibits provided. He stated that he planned to modernize the existing
station by putting in new pumps, and by placing an overhead canopy there that would
be approximately 20 ft. by 55 ft. as a convenience and comfort to the clientele.
Mr. House stated that the required setback is 20 ft. and that Dr. Hays was
requesting only 11 ft. setback: Dr. Crittenden asked if this set back was required
specifically for canopies. Bobbie Jones replied, "yes, for service station
canopies". Dr. Crittenden then asked if this setback were from the edge of the street,
and Bobbie Jones stated that it was from the edge of the right-of-way. She said
that the setback requirements were 50 ft. for the service building, 25 ft. for the
pump island and 20 ft. for a canopy over the pump islands.
Dr. Hays said that he thought some variances of this type had already been given.
Dr. Crittenden asked if the existing poles were the ones that were going to be used.
Dr. Hays said that new ones would have to be put in.
Mr. Waldren asked what the height would be above the ground. Dr. Hays was not
sure. Dr. Crittenden asked if there was any particular reason for picking the
particular style of canopy exhibited and Dr. Hays replied that that was the style they
liked the best.
Mr. Thompkins asked if the existing right-of-way had always been that wide.Bobbie
Jones stated that at some point in time the right-of-way was probably less than
it is now, but that setbacks would have been increased to allow for the Major Street
Plan after 1970. Mr. Thompkins wondered if it was already non -conforming. Bobbie
Jones stated that the pump island is existing and that it was non -conforming in
location unless it had a variance granted at the time of construction. Mr. Thompkins
wondered if the new 80 ft. right-of-way could make it non -conforming when originally
it wasn't. Bobbie Jones said that if it was built after 1970 the setbacks would have
been increased to make allowance for the new right-of-way unless the right-of-way
was increased to more than 80 ft. Mr. House said that he believed the building
to be 16 to 18 years old, and that at the time it was built he was sure the right-
of-way was only 60 ft. Mr. Thompkins stated that according to the Master Street
Plan that right-of-way would now be 80 or 100 ft. Mr. Waldren said that the
highway had been widened in 1972 or 1973 and that new right-of-way was probably
obtained then. Dr. Hays said that according to the drawing, the edge of the
•
Board of Adjustment Meeting
May 5, 1980
Page 3
canopy would be 20 ft. 3 inches from the actual highway.
House asked if there were any further ,questions. There was no one present to
oppose the variance request. The public hearing on the Appeal 80-9 was closed.
At this time Mr. House asked the Board's thinking APPEAL 80-8
on the request of Ralph H. Nesson. Mr. Thompkins said
he felt concern about legitimatizing a non -conforming use, in that an 8 ft. side
yard is appropriate for health, safety and welfare. He was concerned that in the
case of a fire, would the Fire Department be able to get equipment between the two
buildings, and whether their being so close together would contribute to the
spreading of a fire. He stated then that he agreed with the aesthetics, and felt
that the greenhouse would improve the structure, and that he certainly approved of
energy conservation. Mr. Nesson thought that the Board should keep in mind that the
structure is already there.
At this time Mr. Nickles said that the Commission had not alleged any special
conditions or circumstances that the ordinance requires and on that grounds he
would oppose the greenhouse. But in light of the fact that the structure is already
there, he could not see that he was condoning any kind of violation since the Board
was not going to require the existing building to be torn down. He stated that he felt
that the variance should be granted.
Mr. Waldren did not feel that this was a remodeling. He said it appeared to
him that Mr. Nesson was proposing an extension. He also felt that Mr. Nesson would
be encroaching on his neighbor's property. Mr. Nickles said that he understood that
the greenhouse would occupy the same space and area as the existing structure. Both
gentlemen examined the drawings and reached agreement that the greenhouse would not
take up any more space. Mr. Nickles said that all his comments had been based on
the assumption that the remodeled structure and all of its appurtenances would occupy
the same space and area as the existing structure.
Mr. House asked Mr. Nesson how he proposed to overcome the problem of
encroachment onto his neighbor's land. Mr. Nesson said that he would redesign the
wall and make sure that nothing will overhang onto his neighbor's land. He thought
that by shortening the wall, it would bring it towards his own house. Bobbie Jones
wondered if the requested setback was from the wall or from the overhang.
Mr. Nickles moved to grant the variance on the express condition that the new
structure, or the structure as renovated and all of its appurtenances, including
overhang, would in no event exceed the space and area dimensions now occupied by the
existing building. Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 3-2-2 with Smith,
Crittenden and Nickles voting "Aye", Thompkins and Mills voting "Nay" and
House and Waldren abstaining.
Acting Chairman House invited further comments APPEAL NO. 80-9
on Appeal No. 80-9. Mr. Thompkins stated that he was of
the opinion that the proposed canopy would improve the
property, that it would be a convenience; and that he could
not see any problem to health, safety or welfare in terms of approval of this particular
canopy, and that he was in favor of it.
Mrs. Mills was concerned about granting a variance in setback of more than
S0%. Mr. Thompkins said that he did not understand the reason for the 20 ft.
setback on a commercial street when the canopy was not creating any hazards and
would be a convenience. Mrs. Mills did not think that convenience was a reason
to grant a variance. Mr. Thompkins said that he thought of it as improving the
Board of Adjustment Meeting
May 5, 1980
Page 4
community and did not see it as a detriment to the community. Mrs. Mills felt that
the setback variance was a terrific amount simply for convenience. She also said that
she did not feel that a canopy contributed to the community aesthetically. Mr.
Nickles said that he did not feel that convenience was sufficient reason for granting
a variance and said that, as brought out before by Dr. Crittenden, there were setbacks
specifically for gas station canopies. Mr. Thompkins felt that the Board had issued
variances in the past and Mrs. Mills said that it was her understanding that the
Board should not go back and compare with other variances but that the Board was to
determine each case individually upon its own merit.
Mr. Waldren stated that he agreed that this was a large variance but that in
this particular case he could see no reason to oppose this request. Dr. Crittenden
then interjected that he thought that the canopy would make the property more sightly
than it was now with the poles and lights situated as they are.
Mr. Waldren moved that the variance be granted, and Dr. Crittenden seconded,
and it passed 3 -2-2 with Waldren, Crittenden and Thompkins voting "Aye" and
Mills and Nickles voting "Nay", Smith and House abstained.
Thompkins moved to approve the minutes of the
March 3, 1980 minutes and Mills seconded. The minutes
were unanimously approved as mailed.
MINUTES
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:00 P.M.