HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-04-02 MinutesA meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, April 2,
1990, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West
Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas,
MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Dennis Becker, Larry Tompkins,
Gerald Boyd, Robert Davis and Dee Wright
RISQU61
OTHERS PRESENT: Becky Bryant, Elaine Cattaneo, John Merrell, Freeman Wood
and Mildred Gracian
The minutes of the regular meeting on March 19, 1990 were approved as
distributed.
APPEAL NO. BA90-6 - VARIANCE FROM THE BUILDING SETBACKS
MILDRED GRACIAN - 221 E. LAFAYETTE
The second item on the agenda was Appeal No. BA90-6, submitted by Mildred
• Gracian, for property located at 221 E. Lafayette, which is zoned R-1, Low
Density Residential. The request was for a variance .of_the.-.building_ setback on.
the back and east side property lines.
Mildred Gracian stated that, during the heavy storm in May of last year, the roof
on her garage was destroyed, leaving them without a storage area. At this time,
they do not have the funds to build another garage, so they want to put in a
portable storage building. She advised that she did contact the City and was
informed that she wouldn't need a permit to put in the portable storage building.
However, after they started building, someone from the City stopped them. She
noted that the proposed building would be 3' from the side property line and
approximately 10' from the back property line.
In answer to a question from Mr. Davis, Mrs. Gracian stated that the storage
building would just be one story.
Mr. Tompkins stated that the historic district has very small backyards. He
asked what the intent of the historic district was. Mrs. Gracian stated that
she didn't know. She added that she had contacted a man at the Historical
District Commission about four months ago and was told that he would get back
to her, but he didn't.
In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, John Merrell stated that there has
been some discussion by the Historic District Commission for the adoption of
historic district zoning in the historic district which would regulate exterior
architectural renovations, demolition, etc. In fact, the staff has spoken to
isT. Fuller about that. He noted that the Historic District Commission is going
to have a meeting in April to discuss this, but there currently isn't anything
covering the historic district in the zoning ordinance.
\4
• Board of Adjustment
April 2, 1990
Page 2
Mr. Merrell advised that Mrs. Gracian is requesting a 5' variance on the side
yard setback and 10.5 variance on the rear yard setback. He noted that she is
proposing to put up an 8' x 16' storage building to accommodate the exposed
personal items in the yard at this time.
Mr. Merrell stated that there is a section in the ordinance, outside the zoning
ordinance, which addresses buildings in the City. It states that no building
permit shall be required for a portable building with base dimensions not
exceeding 8' x 10'. Generally, the City staff has construed this section to
mean that only one 8' x 10' building is allowed in the rear yard, although the
ordinance doesn't specify only one. The staff's feeling is that, perhaps, two
of those buildings would be one way she could accomplish what she wants to do.
Other than that, the staff doesn't feel that a legal hardship exists under the
zoning ordinance. The staff's preference would be that the variance be denied.
However, if the Board is agreeable to the variance, the staff's recommendation
would be that the rear yard variance be granted and the side yard variance be
denied.
Mrs. Wright advised that the storage building could be turned sideways to fit
within the building setbacks.
• In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mrs. Gracian_stated..that it would not
be a permanent structure.
In answer to
a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr.
Merrell stated that the broad
intent of the rear yard would be to provide
enough space,
as the city is
developed, to
combat congestion of the buildings
on properties
and allow access
for emergency
vehicles. Mr. Tompkins stated that
the intent
is basically to
provide more
open space around the central unit.
Mr. Boyd stated that the Board of Adjustment has puzzled over problems with
previous variance requests involving hugh, beautiful trees that would have to
be knocked down in order to put in a garage legally. It seems that Mrs. Gracian
has room to put at least a temporary building within the setbacks. He added
that the raised beds and the rest of the yard could be put in the setback area.
Mrs. Gracian stated that they could place the building within the setbacks, but
it would be inconvenient. Mr. Boyd advised that an inconvenience isn't really
a hardship.
In answer to a question from Mrs. Wright, Mrs. Gracian stated that they need the
16' length instead of two 8' x 10' buildings because of the size of the items
they want to store.
In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Becky Bryant stated that, in the past,
the interpretation of the ordinance has been that only one 8' x 10' is allowed
per yard. However, Mr. Merrell has stated that the literal reading of the
• ordinance does not limit it to one.
Mr. Boyd asked what she intended as a permanent solution for her storage. Mrs.
`qs
• Board of Adjustment
April 2, 1990
Page 3
Gracian stated that they plan to construct a garage, when they could afford it
in the same location of the old garage. Chairman Mills advised that she would
not be able to construct a new garage where the old garage stood because a new
structure must meet the new setbacks. If a non -conforming building has been
more than 50% destroyed, the standard setbacks will have to be followed when
constructing a new one.
Mrs. Gracian stated that in 1981, they contacted the City when they were
considering taking the garage down. At that time, she was given a letter from
the City that states that replacing the garage exactly where it was before would
be allowed, because it was a historical building. Chairman Mills stated that
the letter is in error.
Freeman Wood, Inspections Superintendent, advised that she would be allowed to
repair a non -conforming structure and keep it maintained, but there has never
been a case that he knows of where someone was allowed to replace one.
The public hearing was concluded.
Mr. Boyd suggested that a new site plan be drawn to scale with the location of
the proposed permanent building noted with the possibility of having some kind
• of adjustment for the permanent building. He stated that he can't make any
decision as to whether there is a hardship by looking,..at._this._drawing because.
it is not to scale.
Mr. Tompkins stated that the intent of the ordinance is to uphold the health,
safety and welfare. He added that he is looking at it in terms of providing
space for access to the rear of the property in case of fire. He noted that
there is adequate space to organize and still meet the temporary needs. He
added that he is inclined to disagree with the request.
Mr. Davis stated that some of the things in the back yard, such as scrap metal,
could be removed to allow more space.
MOTION
Mr. Davis moved to deny the variance, seconded by Tompkins. The motion passed
5-0-0.
Chairman Mills advised Mrs. Gracian to talk with the Planning staff to work out
the best solution to her problem.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
E
ticA o