Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-10-15 Minutes• MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, October 15, 1990, at 3:45 p.m. in Room 111 of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Don Mills, Larry Tompkins, Dennis Becker, Gerald Boyd, Robert Davis, Dee Wright and Robert Waldren OTHERS PRESENT: Becky Bryant, David Kerwin, and Zina Starr MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of October 1, 1990 were approved as distributed. ^/ APPEAL NO. BA90-20 - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE BUILDING SETBACK DAVID KERWIN - 1000 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE The only item was Appeal No. BA90-20 for a request for a variance from the building setback submitted by David Kerwin and Zina Starr for property located at 1000 South College Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residential. The request is to vary the bulk and area requirements (building setbacks). David Kerwin stated that what they are proposing to add an attached greenhouse onto their house with a doorway coming from the house. They are requesting a variance, because the front part of their existing house encroaches into the building setback, and the greenhouse would be built in line with it. Zina Starr stated that they did a visual survey on South College from Jefferson School to 15th Street. They counted 38 houses with only about three of them • complying with the building setback. All of the other properties are either at the same distance from the street as their's or closer. If they set the greenhouse back 8' as the code requires, it would be in the middle of the first set of windows on the house which wouldn't help the solar gain that they are hoping to get from this greenhouse. Also, if the greenhouse isn't big enough, they will be losing more heat than they are actually drawing in. She added that they hope to make it flush with the front of the house. They feel that with a 28' long greenhouse they would be getting solar gain without losing a lot of heat. She added that there is an older woman living on one side of them who has no objections. On the other side is a rental house with minimal upkeep. The house behind them is owner -occupied and isn't concerned with what they do on their property. Therefore, there doesn't seem to be anyone in opposition to this. Mr. Kerwin noted that there are non -conforming businesses along this street. They don't feel that this would be detracting from the neighborhood in any way. Ma. Starr noted that they probably would have located the house differently on the lot had they built it. This is the first house they have owned, so they didn't realize they would be that restricted under the City ordinances. They are only trying to upgrade what they have. She added that the staff report recommends that the greenhouse could be placed farther back from the street connecting with the garage. However, that would conflict with their back stairway and interfere with the utilities. Mr. Tompkins asked what the Master Street Plan indicates for South College Avenue, Ms. Bryant stated that there are no plans to widen the street. Mr. Waldren stated that the plot plan shows a well just to the east of the proposed greenhouse. He asked where the utility meters are in relationship to • the proposed greenhouse. They pointed out the location of the utilities near the well. • Board of Adjustment October 15, 1990 Page 2 While there is an ordinance, this proposed variance doesn't carry much weight in this neighborhood because of the other non -conforming structures. Mr. Waldren stated that it seems to him, if the greenhouse was moved farther back, there would be problems with the well or relocating the utilities. Mr. Tompkins stated that he is interested in exactly what this would look like from the street. Mr. Kerwin stated that it would follow the angle of the roof line of the house. The public hearing was closed. MOTION Mr. Davis moved to grant the variance, seconded by Wright and followed by discussion. Mr. Becker stated that the zoning bulletin of July 1990 had information regarding non -conforming uses. There was a proposed extension on a church similar to this request, and the court upheld the approval of the variance. It was not considered an extension of a non -conformity. The church didn't propose to construct their extension closer than the present building. Also, a lot of Codes recognize an average of the existing houses on setback non -conformity. For instance, if the 25' building setback is not adhered to by the majority of the houses in that area, new construction is not forced to build at 251. They would be allowed to build at the average setback of the existing houses. He noted • that he would argue that the literal interpretation provision is depriving the applicant of the rights that are enjoyed by the others in the neighborhood who are encroaching into the 251. He doesn't think by approving this they would be increasing a non -conformity. Mr. Tompkins agreed that this would not be increasing a non -conforming use, but it would be increasing the longevity of a non -conforming structure. He asked, if the greenhouse was made smaller and one skylight was eliminated, would it create a problem with solar energy. He added that he is concerned about reduction of the front yard. Ms. Bryant stated that there is an obscure clause in the ordinance under the "Non -conforming Lots of Record" that states "In a previously developed subdivision, platted prior to June 29, 1970, and with the approval of the subdivision committee, a new single-family dwelling or an addition or repair to an existing single-family dwelling may be constructed in all residential zones in keeping with the existing standards in the neighborhood so long as the interior side setback is not less than five (5) feet." But that falls under non -conforming lots of record. Mr. Davis noted that they could amend the motion to state that this variance is only for a greenhouse. In answer to a question from Mr. Tompkins, Mr. Kerwin stated that, if they cut off 8.5 of the greenhouse to make it conform, it wouldn't really be large enough. As to the benefit of the solar, Ms. Starr stated that there would be a problem with keeping the heat in the greenhouse. The extra square footage is needed to maintain the storage of the solar heat. The motion passed 5-1-0 with Tompkina, Becker, Davis, Waldren & Wright voting "yes" and Boyd voting "no". • Board of Adjustment •, October 15, 1990 Page 3 Item #1: Rules for Board of Adjustment Chairman Mills asked if they had a chance to review the Rules for the Board of Adjustment. Discussion took place and a few changes were requested. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. 0 •