Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-11-26 Minutes• • • 4 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING garzasn.ft 4,7-i9- 23 The Fayetteville Board of Adjustment met on November 26, 1973 at 3:45 P.M. in the Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Members Present: Chairman Carl Yates, Connie Clack, James H. White, Al Witte, Suzanne Lighton. Others Present: Bobbie Jones, Truman Yancey (Attorney for the appellants), Mr. McNair, Hugh Kincaid, Iris Dees. Chairman Carl Yates called the meeting to order. Copies of a letter from the City Attorney in which he gave the Board his opinion on the appeal were passed out to each Board member. They took the time to read the letter before proceeding with the meeting. Chairman Yates stated that the public hearing was closed GOFF-McNAIR from the prior meeting of November 12, 1973 when they Parking Lot met to hear Appeal No. 73-35, in which Mr. Robert C. APPEAL NO. 73-35 Kelly, Mrs. Margaret D. Wooten, and Mrs. J.A. Robinson, made:applicatiofn.to appealfrom the decision of the City Inspector and the Planning Administrator on property at 340 North Highland Street. At the previous meeting the matter was tabled until more study could be made about the situation. Also at the previous meeting, the Building Inspector, Harold Lieberenz, and the Planning Administrator, Bobbie Jones, explained that they had determined this was a permitted use .. Use Unit No 12 does permit "auto parking garage". They considered this would also include auto parking lots, and they did in fact issue to Goff -McNair a Certificate of Occupancy for an auto parking lot. Chairman Yates said since the last meeting he had given this some study and it seemed to him that the Board of Adjustment was faced with this -- the Planning Administrator and the Building Inspector did determine this was a permitted use. Chairman Yates read from the zoning ordinance where use units are mentioned -- Article VI, second paragraph. Chairman Yates said if they had a parking lot listed under any other use unit it could not be -permitted unless parking lot was under Use Unit 12. Chairman Yates said that he didn't find any place in the ordinance where parking lot is listed in the use units — it doesn't appear that the Board of Adjustment is normally permitted to make this determination. Chairman Yates said that in reading the ordinance it didn't appear that the Board had the power to make this determination except that the Planning Administrator had already made the determination; then the Board, in fact, had the power to act upon it. We can make the determination that the Planning Administrator was correct and that this was permitted there. It seems to me, however, that we need to go a little further If we determine that "parking lot" is a proper use for R-0 zones we should look at how the ordinance specifically permits two principal uses on a lot. If we determine thatthis is a proper use then we must look at the bulk and area requirements. It is my understanding that they asked the question whether Goff -McNair should go to the Planning Commission for an interpretation. I=was=told that the letter was read to the Planning Commission. Bobbie Jones said she had delivered a letter to Chairman Roy Clinton of the Planning Commission and he made no comment when he read the letter other than to nod his head. It did not go to the full Commission. Chairman Yates said there is one other possibility that needed to be considered; the ordinance does make provision that if you have a lot of record that is split by a zoning district boundary that the Planning Administrator can grant the extension of district pro- visions not to exceed 50 feet into either district. This use might be permitted under that provision of the ordinance. Along that same line it would seem to me that even though that provision is there if it already has another use it seems to me that the ordinance would not permit us to "steal" some of that property for use in another zone. Mr. Witte said he would like to take issues up one at a time. He said the implication is clear that he doubts the Board's jurisdiction to determine that Use Unit No. 12 includes parking lots. If that decision is made it is not to be made by this Body here -- but -by the Planning Commission, He requested the opinions of the others on this decision. Hugh Kincaid said he thought the Board of Adjustment should review this and thinks that they do have the authority to do this under Article 10, b lf • • 4 Board of Adjustment November 26, 1973 Page Two Section 4-A underPowers and Duties of the Board of Adjustment. He said since there is no other provision in the ordinance authorizing parking lots we know that it was the intention that it be there. Miss Lighton asked Mr. Kincaid if the appellants had asked the Planning Commission to interpret this if they would have contested it. Hugh Kincaid said no, he thought this Body could do it. Chairman Yates said he thought that even though the ordinance was clear, the fact they have made the decision seconded over him. Hugh Kincaid said he didn't think the appellants could turn out the decision that was already made. He thought they were correct in their appeal. Truman Yahcey; Attorney for the appellants, said at the outset he -could have gone to the Planning Commission as far as the interpretation of the use, however, he thought there was more involved than simply the interpretation of the use and in that regard he believed the Planning Administrator exceeded the authority given to her in the ordinance. He said that was the basis of the appeal to the Board of Adjustment because he felt it was at least slightly out of the jurisdiction of the Building Inspector and Planning Administrator. He said if it had simply been inter- pretation of the use,he would have no quarrel with them. Miss Lighton thought the Board of Adjustment was the correct Body to hear this appeal. Al Witte contested this and also questioned what the term parking lot meant and if what Goff -McNair proposed was truly a parking lot. Discussion followed concerning the parking lot and Miss Lighton commented that she thought parking lot and auto parking garage were synonomous and Chairman Yates said this was the assumption the Planning Admini- strator and Building Inspector. Mr. Yancey said he and his clients feel this lot was an accessory to the commercial activity. Hugh Kincaid assured the Board that this was simply a parking lot for employee parking and could not be used to show or park new cars. Miss Lighton asked if this meant that the lot Goff -McNair was on was not the same lot that the parking lot would be on and Mr. Kincaid told her that they were both included on Lot 2, Block 10. Mr. Kincaid asked Bobbie what the minimum lot width was in the R-0 District and she said it would be the same as in the R-3 -- the minimum lot width of 60 feet and area of 6000 square feet. Discussion followed as to whether the bulk and area requirements were met and if the lot was a nonconforming lot or use. Bobbie Jones said the lot is nonconforming in width but the use is not nonconforming. Chairman Yates said it seemed they had two questions to answer. (1) Was the Planning Administrator making the proper determination and is this a permitted use for "parking lot" if the Planning Admini- strator was wrong? (2) If we find this was a proper determination then our second question would be to determine if the bulk and area requirements are met for this lot. If we find it correct in part one, then we have to consider part two. Mr. White said at this point he saw no basis for turning over the Planning Adminir strator's interpretation of parking lot and parking garage. Connie Clack asked if there was a list of the Planning Administrator's power in the ordinance. Bobbie Jones said she didn't believe it gave a list of the whole duties in one section -- it is scattered throughout. Miss Lighton made a motion to deny the appeal and Mr. Witte seconded the motion. Discussion ensued about bulk and area requirements and Miss Lighton amended her motion and moved that they deny the appeal on the condition that the west line of the fence be 25 feet from the rear of the house on 340 North Highland. The amended motion was seconded by Mr. Witte and it passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 P.M. 65