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