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
•