Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-10-08 Minutes• The Fayetteville in the Directors Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Ca, io-a7-py MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING Board of Adjustment met at 3:45 P.M., Monday, October 8, 1973, Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Connie Clack, Suzanne Lighton, Carl Yates, Albert Witte. James H. White. Paul Mattke, Mike Watson, Hugh R. Kincaid, Loris Stanton, David McWethy, Warren Seagraves, City Attorney -Jim McCord, Clayton Powell, Bobbie Jones, Virginia Morris, Charles Hight, Chairman Carl Yates called the meeting to order. Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal 73-30, applicant Sam APPEAL 73-30 Robinson, Jr., for Fayetteville Medical Center located on the east side Fayetteville Medical of College Avenue between Baxter Lane and North Street. The property Fen1ter between is located in the R-0 Residential Office district. The applicant has Ler L. & North St. appealed from the administrative decision of the zoning administrator on three: points and if the administrative decision is upheld for a variance in the setback of parking, numbeeraofYpparkkir paces d screening,of arki ad the letter maewith the agenda. The applicant questions three points in the Planning Administrator's interpretation of Ordinance 1747: 1) Manner of computing floor space for parking requirements. 2) Whether setbacks for parking should be figured from the physical street or from the street right-of-way. The Planning Administrator uses the street right-of-way where the ordinance refers to the "street line". 3) Inclusion of the R-0 District in the term "A or R Districts" in the off-street parking requirements. In the eventthe Board of Adjustment rules for the Planning Administrator, the applicant requests the following variances: setback of park- ing £nin street lines a minimum of 9 feet from the new property line along College Ave. and a minimum of 2 feet from the new property line along North Street. 25 feet is the requirement. The applicant also requests a waiver of screening for parking along College Avenue and Baxter Lane and a waiver of the number of parking spaces. The Planning Administrator had figured that 226 parking spaces are needed based on one parking space per each 300 square feet of floor space for all floors excluding the area for parking on the two lower floors. The plan contains 193 parking spaces. Attorney Hugh R. Kincaid and Mike Watson were present to represent the application. Mr. Kincaid said that they had found another complicating aspect to the plan but that he thought it would help to alleviate part,of'.the problem. He said that when the developer initially came in, in the course of plat review and other processing, it was agreed that in order to permit widening of the intersection of College and North Street, the developer would give 10 feet on College Avenue for right-of-way and 18 feet on North Street for right-of-way. He added that subsequently, Paul Mattke the City Engineer had felt they needed four feet for construction of a retaining wall. The developer had thought this would be a temporary easement but it may be necessary to make it a permanent one for maintenance purposes. Mr. Kincaid said this four foot would not be street right-of- way and should not be used in determining setbacks. Mr. Kincaid said there is a problem with the 18 foot, that their property survey places the boundary of the property deeper than what either the City or the highway department had thought it was. He said it seems they already have part of that 18 feet. Miss Lighton asked if everyone is in agreement on that. City Engineer, Paul Mattke, said that he could not really answer this question. He said there is no tie between the highway department survey and the developers survey so there, isn't any direct way to really tell. Chairman Yates asked if there is any dispute as to where the property line would really be on the ground. Mr. Kincaid said he thought the developers and the city were in agreement on that. He said if you compute from their boundary, you get back almost to the parking lot. He said using figures on the basis of the City's map the new curb line will be further north and if what he is saying is true it relieves some of their problem. Miss Lighton asked if this would change the amount of their variance request. Mr. Kincaid 43 Minutes of a Board of Adjustment Meeting Page 2 said the variance request would be changed 10 or 11 feet from what was listed in the form letter considering the difference in locating the property line and also the 4 foot which will not be given as right-of-way but as an easement. Mike Watson said that the parking would be setback about 9 feet from North Street instead of the 2 feet in the form letter. He said the parking lot will come down a grade and will be set below the street level. Miss Lighton asked if this would be an entrance and exit both onto North Street. Mr. Watson said it would be for both entrance and exit and it would be pulled far enough back of the median island to get behind it. Chairman Yates asked if there was any entrance or exit proposed,to North College. Mr. Watson said there would be none and that they would have necessary bumpers to keep cars from rolling off and into North College Avenue. Planning Administrator, Bobbie Jones, told the Board that she had encouraged this applicant to present the question of interpretation. These matters have been questioned in the Planning Office before but no one has ever pursued them. The applicant had prepared a statement dealing with the question of interpretation on the three points listed above. Copies of this statement had been mailed to each Board of Adjustment member prior to the meeting. Mr. Kincaid asked the Board of Adjustment what the parking requirement of one per 300 square feet of floor area means. He said that since the ordinance does not define floor area the applicant feels a reasonable computation is appropriate which would use the traffic generating space. He suggested using the net leasable floor space and would eliminate such things as stairwells, elevator shafts, restrooms, corridors, and mechanical rooms that would.not be. traffic_generating:space. He -suggested it would be appropriate to rely on the standard method of floor measurements for Building Owners and Managers Association International and said this was the basis on which the architect had computed the parking requirement. Albert Witte.asked Mr. Kincaid what would happen if they got a setback variance for •parking but the Board interpreted that floor area means the gross floor area. Mr. Kincaid said that in that instance they would need a variance on the number of parking spaces. Miss Lighton said the Board of Adjustment would almost have to act on the interpretation first. Mr. Kincaid said the architect in setting up this building and floor area requirement had followed what was for them a customary approach of net leaseable floor space. Chairman Yates asked if there was to be parking under the two lower floors. Mike Watson showed him the floor plan layout which showed parking under only a portion of each of the two lower floors. He said there would be five stories on the south of the building and four on the north of the building because of the slope of the lot. Miss Lighton asked if they used the manner of computing parking requirements that they proposed would there be enough parking. Mr. Kincaid said that assuming they get to locate the parking spaces as they have shown them on the plan there would be sufficient parking by their manner of computation. Mr. Kincaid said the second item deals with the interpretation of the minimum setback street lines and asked the Board "what does street line mean"? He said that frequently in the ordinance right-of-way or ROW is used to indicate right-of-way and that their feeling is that this street line refers to the physical street. He said they suggested that it means the physical street where the curb is itself. Miss Lighton asked how much difference that would make. Mr. Kincaid said that on Baxter Street where they have given 5 feet this 5 feet will not be used and that on College Avenue where they have given 10 feet that 10 feet will not be used. He said the setback from right-of-way with what they are giving will be a hardship on them with the curb line staying where it is. He said the developers are giving_ it and the developers do not intend to use it but they do not want the, City to use that to establish the setback line for their parking. Mr. Kincaid also asked the Board what R means in the parking requirements for it refers to "A or R District". Mr. Kincaid said that based on the rest of the ordinance there is no definition of what is R district. He said there are R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts 4'f Minutes of a Board of Adjustment Meeting Page 3 and then there is an R-0 district which is a Professional Office district. Mr. Kincaid said that they were saying that R means R=1, R-2, and R-3 and that R-0 by simple literal definition is not R it is R-0 and that the A or R districts should not be applied in terms of setback of parking. He said frequently it is something you could go any way on. Mr. Kincaid said that he thought the project was a tremendous project, a very fine project which he thought would be of great service to the community. He said they are in process of razing the structures there. He said it was largely because of what they had given in right-of-way that makes it this much of a problem for them and were this not the case it would be somewhat less of a variance. He again stated that a utility room would not be going to generate any traffic. Miss Lighton asked him if he was saying that R-1, R-2, and R-3 residential is what the R means where it refers to A or R district under parking requirement. Mr. Kincaid said that it is. Mrs. Clack asked if there are any private homes around there. Mr. Kincaid said that Consumer's Pharmacy is across the street to the north of this property and there is a rental house to the east of Consumer's Pharmacy. There is vacant.property on the corner across College from this property and offices and rental property also across College. Mr. Witte asked them why they had not had the property rezoned and they told him that they had had it rezoned but did not know about this problem at that time...they had plenty of ground. Miss Lighton asked how large the R-0 district is here and they told her that it only included this property on this particular side of College. Mr. Kincaid and Mr. Watson said there would be a screening fence along the east property line but that they were asking for a waiver d' screening along College Ave. &,along Baxter Street on the extreme east portion of the property where there is R-1 across the street from it. Chairman Yates invited comments from the audience. Warren Seagraves said that he agreed with Mr. Kincaid an the computation of floor areas that utility spaces and normal service areas should not be included in this computation for parking require- ments. Clayton Powell, Street Superintendent, said that from the beginning the applicants have been very cooperative in dedicating right-of-way on three sides. He said the City had an existing 32 -foot right-of-way on North Street which is a collector street and requires 60 -feet of right-of-way. He added that they had dedicated at no cost to the City 18 feet for the full width of their property on North Street, 10 feet an the west side of their property on College, and gave the City a street easement for five feet of width on the south side along Baxter. He said they have been very cooperative and had the City had to go through condemnation proceedings the City could never afford to develop the intersection as it will be in the future. He stated he felt the setback of the parking requirements should be measured from the right-of-way line rather than from the curb line and illustrated the point by saying we have streets designated for collector streets with a 60 -foot width in right-of-way and only 16 feet of pavement width existing. So if you measure the setback from the edge of the pavement it will place the parking back behind the right-of-way. He again said he thought the developers have been very charitable and cooperative with. the City on this very valuable location. Albert Witte asked if there are any serious traffic hazards that would come about from any of these requests or that would be aggravated by the granting of the request. Mr. Watson said the parking spaces along North Street would be down below the street level and that you will barely be able to see the tops of the cars. He said very definitely on the west side of the property you would have a 9 -foot retaining wall which is separation from the street. Chairman Yates asked a question about access. Mr. Powell said that on this plan they do meet the requirements for setbacks from intersections for driveways and that there is adequate separation between the drive- ways. 1.15 __A Minutes of a Board of Adjustment Meeting Page 4. City Engineer, Paul Mattke, said that he did not know about the survey differences at this time he had not had time to investigate it. He also said the developer has been verycooperative and very p pleasant to :work with. He said that if all developers were this cooperative and pleasant to work with it would make his and Mr. Powell's jobs easier to do. He said the developers have been most generous in dedicating property to the City and said that the 4 -foot easement for construction and maintenance of a retaining wall was not meant to count as setback purposes for their parking. It was intended for maintenance of the retaining wall. Mr. Mattke said that on computation of building area for parking, he would have to disagree with the architect knowing what it would take to compute a building of this size and knowing the Planning Administrator's work load that it would be almost a necessity to keep it simple and then allow the Board of Adjustment to waive the requirement if necessary. He said he thought the variance request on the parking spaces with all they have dedicated is certainly a legitimate request. He said he is very concerned about the requirement for screening and said the screening if not very carefully done could result in a very severe traffic hazard. He was reluctant to get into screening and recommended that screening not be required on North Street and on College and on Baxter he would be reluctant to recommend screening. He said he would look at it very carefully first. He referred to problems from something very similar to screening in the old areas of town. Warren Seagraves said that it had been his experience that roughly 30% of a building is taken up in unusable space. Charles Hight, another architect, stated that he agreed with the applicants and with Mr. Seagraves that the parking requirements should not be figured including the restrooms, hallways, and unusable basement areas. He said those areas are not producing any traffic and he did not think they should be used. City Attorney, Jim McCord, stated that he agreed with Mr. Powell that the street line under the parking requirements would have to refer to the street right-of-way. He said that in Sections dealing with setbacks in the various districts the setback lines are quoted or specifies 30 feet from the street right-of-way then further allows that if parking is allowed between the street right-of-way and building the setback should be 50 feet for the building. The City Engineer, Paul Mattke, also recommended the street lines referred to the street right-of-way line. Mr. Kincaid summed up his request for variances and interpretation by stating that: 1) With respect to the computation of the floor area the use of the net leasable area he could see that it would make it harder for the Planning Administrator's office but thought that this would place the burden on the proponent to come in and figure the floor space,2) On the street line question their thinking was that those areas that are using a setback from street right-of-way are really building setbacks rather than parking setbacks. He said that obviously you cannot put parking on street right-of-way so if the computation from the street line places it in the right-of-way you cannot do that. He thought the use of the pavement as the street line was not unreasonable as long as you are not putting the parking in the right-of-way. There were no further questions. The public hearing was concluded. Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal No. 73-31, Orthopedic Clinic Orthopedic Clinic Limited, 1673 North College Avenue, on an Limited_. application to vary setbacks. 1673 North College Ave. Warren Seagraves, architect, was present to represent the application. He said that basically there is already a building on the site and that the doctors want to make an addition on the building adding a second floor on the existing building. He showed a site plan as it now exists, and said that the addition of the second floor for structural reasons would have to come outside the existing structure with a framing system because the existing building was not designed to put a second floor on. He said that this would require that he come four feet closer to t±e street than the existing building but would not come closer than an existing projection on the Sycamore Street side. He added that for aesthetic reasons he Alt _A • • • Minutes of a Board of Adjustment Meeting Page 5 thought he would probably want to overhang the building with a 4 -foot overhang. He said they also proposed to take down a wooden addition on the west side of the old church building. He said the orthopedic building is already nonconforming due to setbacks and repeated that they do not want to come any closer to Sycamore Street than they now are with the existing projection and that they wanted to come four feet closer to College Avenue and the present building. He said there would be no change in the ground floor. He said they anticipated using exposed structural steel for the supports. Miss Lighton asked if this was only for aesthetic reasons and he said no the present building would not support the addition of the second floor as itis;that it could be done,but that this method is much easier. Chairman Yates asked about the three or four parking spaces shown on the east side of the building between the building and College Avenue. Mr. Seagraves said that those could be given up. He said that he planned to turn the entrance of the building around and place the entrance on the southwest or the,.south=of.: the building. Mrs. Clack asked where the cars would enter the lot. Mr. Seagraves said that he would propose that they change the present driveway system and keep only one entry off College Avenue and a couple off Sycamore Street but he did not know if the doctors would agree with that. Mr. Witte asked about the plans and which should come first, the approval of the board or the design of the plans. Mr. Seagraves said that he had assumed that it would be ok for him to get the variance first then draw the plans rather than to have to re -draw the plans if the variance is denied. Mr. Witte asked him how difficult it would be to draw the plans. Mr. Seagraves said it would cost the doctors a couple of thousand doilars;.for him. to prepare the plans and then have the board not approve the variance. He thought it would be better to find out if the Board would approve the variance before he drew the plans. Chairman Yates asked Street Superintendent, Clayton Powell, if the project to extend Sycamore from College Avenue to Leverett would require more right-of-way than what is presently there. He said he notieed they are already working on it. Mr. Powell stated that there would be additional right-of-way required and that the City Attorney has the engineering plans and profiles for the project and also the legal descriptions for the additional property needed. He said that they propose a four -lane intersection with a 60 -foot turn radius and that they have engineering drawings depicting driveway entrances off College Avenue to make it more functional for them. Mr. Powell said that he would like to get together with Mr. Seagraves and the City Attorney the next day and see what progress has been made. He said the Major Street Plan calls for a 60 -foot right-of-way on Sycamore Street but to make the turn radii it will exceed the 60 -foot requirement He said the improvement district is currently under construction from College to Woolsey. He said if the City constructs the 30 -foot standard street and 30 -foot turn radii and then has to go back and tear it out within a five-year period it would be a waste and would draw criticism. He said he anticipated a need for more right-of-way than what is required on the Major Street Plan. Chairman Yates asked Mr. Seagraves if it would present a problem if the Board delayed a decision on this for two weeks. Mr. Seagrates said it did not present a problem for him but he did not know about the doctors and said that he did not feel these were related problems. He said they are asking for a variance and working out the street thing is an altogether separate problem. He added that they are not coming any closer to Sycamore than what the building presently is, and he thinks the doctors will be as cooperative as possible. Clayton Powell told Mr. Seagraves that Sycamore Street would be coming closer to the building. Mrs. Clack told him that the Board might grant a certain amount of variance and then if the street right-of-way moves closer to the building that would not be sufficient. Mr. Seagraves repeated that he would not be coming any farther north than the present projection of the building. But would like to come four feet closer to College Avenue. He said the four feet would be cantilevered /47 Minutes of a Board of Adjustment Meeting Page 6 out so it would not be any more of a hazai:d than the building presently sitting there. Mr. Witte said he thought they were asking for more than four feet. That they are asking presumably to increase the overall size of this building considerably. He said he would feel better if he knew certain things. 1) What they are going to change in the front. 2) They say they have plenty of parking in back but he did not know this. Miss Lighton stated that if the Board of Adjustment grants this variance and he and the planning Office have a problem working out.the parking spaces they might have to come back before the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Seagraves stated that he would make the statement that they would make no exits to College other than the south one and along Sycamore Street they would have to work out the entrances and exits with the City. Miss Lighton asked if he would also include an elimination of the parking along the front and he said he would. She asked if he would comply with the setback of parking entrances and he stated that if he did not comply he would be right back before the Board. Loris Stanton stated that if this is more than one acre it would have to go before the Planning Commission and Board of Directors for approval. Mr. Seagraves stated that he had already gotten approval from the Planning Commission. The public hearing was concluded. Chairman Yates opened the public hearing on Appeal No. 73-32 Mr. Loris Stanton Mr. Loris Stanton for the Northwest National Bank, 3500 Northwest National Bank North College Avenue,on an application to vary setbacks. 3500 North College Ave. Mr. Charles Hight, architect of Coffeyville, Kansas, Loris Stanton and Mrs. Virginia Morris among others were present to represent the bank. Chairman Yates said that the applicant had appeared before the Board of Adjustment previously asking to locate a temporary building south of Millsap Road. Mr. Stanton said they had dropped the request to locate a temporary building on the south side of Millsap Road because it was determined that the controller would not approve a temporary location for the bank unless it was on the same side as the permanent location for the bank. He said that the frontage road or Front Street had been constructed by Arkansas Western Gas to provide access to their development. This street has been dedicated to the City. He said they have already engineered the plans and they have been approved to rebuild Millsap Road into a 30 foot street, flow line to flow line, and the contract for this construction has been let. Mr. Hight showed the Board a site plan of the new proposed bank building and stated that it will meet setback requirements and that they will have access of Millsap Road and back onto Front Street. He said that in order the construction proceed on the permanent building and have temporary facilities on the same site they were proposing that this temporary facility extend pass the setback line only on a temporary basis and that as soon as the permanent building is finished this temporary building will be removed and the parking lot will be finished. He said they would have to provide some sort of fence to keep traffic out of the construction area. He requested permission to locate the temporary building on part of the parking lot for the permanent building and to locate the corner of the structure about 30 feet from the right -of --way of Front Street. He said the bank would be in the temporary structure for one year to eighteen months at a maximum and the permanent structure and the temporary structure have to be on the same side. Chairman Yates asked how soon they anticipate construction to start on the permanent facility. Mr. Hight said within three or four months at least. Al Witte said that he understood there is litigation in process over the charter. He asked if that had been resolved and whether that had any bearing on the temporary facility. He said, "can you operate a temporary bank without a charter". Mr. Stanton told Mr. Witte that there is litigation but added that he could not see how that would have any bearing on variance to start a temporary bank. Mr. Witte asked if they had NJ • • • 1 Minutes of a Board of Adjustment Meeting Page 7 to resolve that question before they could even open a temporary bank. Mrs. Virginia Morris stated that they have received permission from the controller to open a temporary bank. She added that as soon as they received a permit from the City they will set the building in place and said that they have received a preliminary charter. She explained some of the details of the litigation saying that the opposition has been given ten days more or less to submit their briefs. She said they expect this to be cleaned up very shortly and they have been told to go ahead and that the chief executive officer and chief operations officer will all move to Fayetteville in the near future. Mr. Witte said that he would assume they would not start on the permanent building until all this is resolved and he just wanted to know how long this temporary thing would last. He was told that they did not think it would last more than eighteen months. Mr. Witte said he was trying to find some idea of the outer limits of the temporary building. Chairman Yates asked if two years for a temporary building would be adequate. Mr. Stanton told him that two years would be more than adequate Mr. Stanton said that they have agreed to dedicate an additional five feet of right-of-way for Millsap Road and that their setback will be from the new right-of=way. Street Superintendent, Clayton Powell,was present and stated that the developers have been very cooperative in the dedidation of right-of-way and that they proposed to construct Millsap Road from the College Avenue intersection to the east property line. He said that he felt that these facts were very gratifying in that it would cost the City several thousand dollars to acquire that right-of-way and construct the street to minimum street standards if the City did it itself. There was no opposition present and there were no further questions. The public hearing was concluded. Suzanne Lighton moved that Appeal No. 73-32, Loris Stanton for the Northwest National • Bank be granted with a provision that it has a two-year limitation. Connie Clack seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. The board discussed again Appeal No. 73-31, Orthopedic ORTHOPEDIC CLINIC LIMITED Clinic Limited. 1673 North College Avenue Albert Witte said that since he had asked some questions he would like to explain the reason. He added that he had no objection to the idea behind this proposal and that there doesn't seem to be any problem if he understood the discussion correctly. He said he did not know what conditions should be imposed on this but would be happy to impose them if they seemed feasible. He said that what bothers him is about College Avenue and if they could clear up the parking or anything this would be the time to do it and to clear up traffic hazards. Chairman Yates suggested that they might remove the parking between the building and College Avenue and do away with all the accesses onto College Avenue except one. Mr. Witte said that it seemed there ought to be conditions included in approval of this proposal. Suzanne Lighton asked Mr. Seagraves if. hewould be willing to specify where the parking will be. Mr. Seagraves said that he would welcome the Boards imposing the restriction that they do away with the parking spaces between the building and College Avenue. He said that they can extend the parking back in the area where the section of the old building is being removed. He stated that he was not asking for a variance on parking requirement. Chairman Yates told him that if the City and the doctors should come to terms on the additional right -way for Sycamore Street it is-. possible some of the parking would have to go. Mr. Witte commented that he had been a long time patient of the Orthepedic Clinc and that he did not particularly like the parking arrangement out there. Miss Lighton stated that she thought it would be a very good idea to • impose restrictions about the parking on College Avenue side and the one entrance onto College Avenue. Connie Clack stated that she thought there was a very good chance that some of the parking would have to go. She was referring to the improvement of Sycamore Street. Mr. Seagraves said that he did not think this had anything to do with that. Chairman Yates said that he saw nothing wrong with the concept of going up and adding a second story on the building but with the improvement of Sycamore Street 1) Minutes of a Board of Adjustment Meeting Page 8 he quite frankly leaned toward getting that worked out. He added that he hesitated to • hold anybody up. Street Superintendent, Clayton Powell, said that if the City required the additional right-of-way to construct four lanes on Sycamore Street the parking on the north side of the building would be deleted but they do have more than adequate space to replace the parking to the west. He said the worst that could happen would be the removal of the parking spaces along Sycamore Street. Chairman Yates asked him if he anticipated the City needing more than ten feet of right-of-way off the north side of this property. Mr. Powell said that the plans do call for a 60 -foot turn radius on this intersection and that there would be 120 feet from the north end of the turn radius to the south end of the turn radius on College Avenue. This would then transition back to two lanes. Connie Clack moved the variance be granted but to be stated that it would be four- feet to the north of the edge of the main part of the building on the Sycamore Street side or in line with the projection presently existing and an additional four feet to the east of the building on the College Avenue side with a provision that the parking spaces to the east of the building between the building and College Avenue be eliminated and that there be only one entrance and exit on to College Avenue.and that that entrance be to the south end of the property. Albert Witte seconded the motion. Mrs. Clack stated that she thought the parking on the north side of the building would take care of itself. The motion to approve with conditions was approved unanimously. The Board discussed again Appeal No. 73-30, Sam Robinson, Jr. Sam Robinson, Jr. for Fayetteville Medical Center. FAYETTEVILLE MEDICAL CENTER Chairman Yates stated he thought the first thing the between Baxter L. & North St. Board should consider was the ruling of the Planning Administrator's interpretation of the ordinance point by point. • Suzanne Lighton moved that the Board grant the applicant's request for the manner of computing floor space for parking requirements and follow the plan that floor areas means traffic generating spaces. Connie Clack seconded the motion. Albert Witte asked Bobbie Jones, Planning Administrator, why the interpretation was given. She stated that the zoning ordinanx merely says floor space and does not make any exceptions. Mr. Witte asked Hugh Kincaid if he had ever read any cases on this point. He said that he could not remember any regarding the zoning but he did remember some more particularly regarding the building code as to what was floor space. He said the question is different here in that it deals with question of meeting requirements and the people who come to a building in meeting those requirements. Miss Lighton said that was why she had made the motion because of the number of people who go around inside the building. Mr. Witte commented that the Board would be taking a simple process .and. legislating it out into a monster. He said he still was not certain as to why the Board could not reach a solution to this that would not involve that. Hugh Kincaid suggested that in this particular case the Board might grant a variance to give release to reduce the number of parking spaces consistent with the computation of square footage based on the net leasable floor area by the standards presented. He said he did think the matter needs further study before a ruling is given on the interpretation question. Mr. Witte said he did not like to legislate for the future when he didn't know anything about it. Miss Lighton requested permission to withdraw her motion and Miss Clack requested permission to withdraw her second. There was no opposition so the motion and second were permitted to be withdrawn. Chairman Yates asked for a motion to uphold the interpretation of the Planning Administrator. Hugh Kincaid suggested that question be left unanswered. There was no motion brought forward. • Al Witte moved that the applicant be granted a variance in the number of required parking spaces and that that number be the number shown upon the plat presented at this meeting. Suzanne Lighton seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. Suzanne Lighton moved to uphold the Planning Administrator's interpretation that the parking setbacks should be figured from the street right-of-way. Albert Witte seconded 50 • • Minutes of a Board of Adjustment Meeting Page 9 the motion which was approved unanimously. Chairman Yates asked if the R-0 district is included in the R district in the parking requirements. Connie Clack stated that she thought it does mean R-0 because R-0 is just like R-1. Albert Witte stated that he thought it would be better for the Board to use their discretionary authority rather than to set a principle for the future. Chairman Yates said that if the Board takes no action on this point and on the point of the manner of computing floor space, they are in effect upholding the Planning Administrator's interpretation. Albert Witte agreed with him. Mr. Kinhaid,said.it was really more like eleven feet of additional right-of-way that they would be getting on North Street. He said they would have to go out with Street Superintendent, Clayton Powell, and give the City exactly what they wanted. He said they would give the City exactly what the City wanted. Mr. Kincaid suggested that the Board grant a variance to permit the construction of the parking lots as shown upon the exhibit presented to the Board of Adjustment at this meeting, with the amount of the variance to be dependent upon where the street right-of-way ultimately is established to be by the right-of-way instrument. Mr. Witte stated that usually when the Board gives a setback variance they put it in terms of feet and he said it is impossible to do that at this time. Mr. Witte moved that the parking setback requirement be waived for the Fayetteville Medical Center proposal on both College and North consistent with the ultimate street right-of-way lines and consistent with the plot plan presented to the Board of Adjustment on October 8, 1973. Connie Clack seconded the motion which was approved unanimously. Chairman Yates aeked what the Board wished to do on the requirement for screening of parking on College and Baxter. Connie Clack moved that the Board of Adjustment waive the screening of parkin? on College and Baxter. Albert Witte seconded the motion and said that he would like to have it a matter of record that the variance for the screening requirement was granted in reliance on statements to the Board of Adjustment by the City Engineer and the Street Superintendent the variance would improve traffic safety and that the screens increase traffic hazards and in view of the physical topography. The motion was unanimously approved. The minutes of the September 24, 1973 Board of Adjustment meeting were approved as mailed. The meeting was adjourned at 6 P.M. 51