HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-12-18 Minutes•
•
•
MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, December 18,
1978, at 3:45 o'clock P.M. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration
Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice -Chairman James White, Chester House, Steve Nickles (re-
placing Richard Osborne upon Mr. Osborne's resignation),
David Newbern, and Larry Smith.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
Chairman Carl Yates, Mrs. Don Mills.
Bobbie Jones, Gail Biswell, Walter Robinson, III, Jim Jackson,
Lyman Hanthorn, Pearl Trowbridge, Katherine Mires, Juanita
Cherry, Orval Sanders, Betha Barrett, Ann Stewart, Kent Clement,
and other unidentified members of the audience.
In the absence of Chairman Carl Yates, Vice -Chairman James White called
the meeting to order.
Vice -Chairman White noted that a reconsid-
eration of Appeal No. 78-30, Shirley Sweetser,
would be held later in the meeting. He noted
that consideration had been tabled at the last
meeting in order to obtain an opinion from the
City Attorney concerning this Board's jurisdic-
tion over waiving Art. 4, Sec. 2 of the Zoning
Ordinance. He stated that an opinion from Mr.
McCord had been received and reconsideration could
be had. A copy of Mr. McCord's opinion is attached
hereto and made a part of the minutes of this meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
The first appeal for public hearing was
Appeal No. 78-33, Uark Federal Credit Union, 940
W. Douglas; Zoning District R-3, High Density
Residential; Application to vary minimum lot
width and minimum lot area requirements. Walter
Robinson, III, was present to represent.
Vice -Chairman White noted that the appli-
cants requested allowance from the required lot
width minimum of 100 feet, as well as from the re-
quired minimum land area of 1 acre (43,560 square
feet) for use of the present building located on
the lot as a professional office. He stated that the lot width was only 56.5
feet, and the lot area only .18 acre (7,966.5 square feet).
Walter Robinson, III, attorney for the applicants, presented the appeal
stating that the Credit Union had purchased this residential house with the in-
tention to use it as an office for its business. He said that the Zoning Ordinance
provides for a professional office use in a residential district on appeal to this
Board and that, since this provision was contained therein, "the drafters (of the
Ordinance) must have envisioned houses used for businesses."
APPEAL NO. 78-30
Shirley Sweetser
101 E. 13th Street
PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL NO. 78-33
Uark Federal Credit Union
940 W. Douglas Street
•
•
Board of Adjustment Meeting
December 18, 1978 - 2
Vice -Chairman White questioned the length of time the Credit Union had
owned the house and Mr. Robinson responded "approximately six months."
Mr. White then questioned whether the Credit Union had been aware of the
restrictions placed upon the house and lot at the time of purchase and Mr. Robin-
son replied affirmatively. Mr. Robinson said, although, that they had felt one
acre parcels to be quite large requirements for small professional office and
hoped the Board would consider waiving the requirements. He said the Credit Union
had no need for such a large lot.
Mr. White questioned Mr. Robinson whether the Credit Union had been before
the Planning Commission recently and Mr. Robinson explained that at the last Plan-
ning Commission meeting they had asked for a Conditional Use for the office and
had been turned down on a 3-3 vote. He said he felt that the Planning Commission
was mainly concerned that parking would be inadequate. He said that the Credit
Union now has plans to resubmit its request using a different parking scheme and
has hopes that it will obtain approval.
David Newbern questioned Mr. Robinson concerning the type of business pro-
posed to be conducted and Mr. Robinson explained that, although the Union was
Federally licensed, it was not an entity of the U of A. He said that it accepts
deposits, pays interest and makes loans to employees of the U of A who are members
thereof.
Mr. Newbern stated that it was this Board's concern to consider bulk and
area requirements and allow adjustments as necessary. He asked Mr. Robinson what
hardship the Union would face if its request were denied.
Mr. Robinson responded that the hardship would be "the impossibility to
change the size of the lot." He stated that the lot was close to the U of A
(which was a major consideration since the union serves U of A employees), that
most of its business was "foot traffic" from U of A employees who already have
parking stickers and, by and large, have found parking spaces before they go to
work.
Mr. Newbern inquired of Bobbie Jones as to the number of parking spaces
which would be required per ordinance. She responded that one for each 300 square
feet is required. Larry Smith noted that only 4 or 5 parking spaces would, therefore,
be required.
Jim Jackson, attorney for the opposing property owners and neighbors, re-
viewed the history of the Credit Union since purchasing this lot. He stated that
in July they had petitioned for rezoning from R-3 to R -o, but had withdrawn their
petition because the large amount of opposition from neighbors. Then this month,
he stated, they had petitioned for the Conditional Use and had been turned down.
Now, he stated, they were asking for waivers from the lot width and size require-
ments. He stated that, according to Art. 10., Sec. 4(B)(1), the applicants would
have to demonstrate the following with their appeal:
1. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are
peculiar to the land, structure or building involved and
which are not applicable to other lands, structures or
buildings in the same district;
2. That literal interpretation of the provisions ... would
deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other
property owners in the same district under the terms of
this ordinance;
3. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result
from the actions of the applicant; and
Board of Adjustment Meeting
December 18, 1978
4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the
applicant any special privilege that is denied by this ordi-
nance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same
district.
Mr. Jackson stated that the applicants do not meet and have not demonstrated
these requirements. He said that to allow the waivers would be detrimental to
the neighborhood, increase traffic,. increase hazards which accompany traffic
problems, encourage more Conditional Uses in the area and make the neighborhood
property owners very unhappy.
Pearl Trowbridge, present in opposition, stated that her property is lo-
cated just across an alley from this lot and that she was afraid the alley would
be constantly blocked and/or full of traffic if the waivers were allowed.
Lyman Hanthorn, also present in opposition, stated that he had lived here
for 30 years and that parking had always been a problem. He said that the street
the lot faces is only 40' wide and is a one-way street with parking along one side.
He said it could not accommodate additional traffic.
Katherine Mires, present in opposition, stated she is a property owner to
the East and that a small distance of only 10' separates her property line from
the house in question.
Juanita Cherry, present in opposition, stated that the traffic and parking
problem was so great that people constantly park in her driveway. Betha Barrett,
another neighbor present in opposition, stated that she could not even park in
front of her own house without getting a ticket and resented the possibility of
a business which would generate even more traffic and parking problems in the area
Walter Robinson stated that he understood the residents' concerns, but
that this petition as only for waivers of lot width and area and had nothing to
do about granting a use permit for the house and lot. He stated that University
oriented businesses and facilities practically surrounded the lot and the neighbor-
hood was not as strictly residential as might be thought.
Vice -Chairman White then asked if there were any further comments or
questions by anyone present, and there being none, the public hearing was declared
closed on this appeal.
The last appeal for public hearing was
Appeal No. 78-34, The Parnell Group, Inc.; 2131
W. Sixth Street, Zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial;
Application to vary setbacks. Kent Clement was
present to represent.
Vice -Chairman White noted that the applicants were requesting a variance
from 20 to 12.5 feet from the centerline of a public easement in order to build
to the easement line. Mr. Clement noted that the easement which the building would
abut is much larger than a normal easement, but had been requested in order to
contain a 24" water line. He said that at the Plat Review Committee Meeting, the
utility companies had discussed the needs of the s hopping center and had agreed
to allow the building to come up to and abut the easement in this one area.
David Newbern questioned why such a large building setback from the center-
line of such an easement is required. Bobbie Jones responded that the main reason
is to allow enough room for repairing and replacing lines should servicing be re-
quired in the future after construction. She stated the extra room would be needed
for backhoes, etc. to work in without disrupting other utility lines, etc.
Mr. White questioned whether it would be possible to change the building
to allow more room between it and the easement. Mr. Clement stated that a pre -
PUBLIC HEARING
APPEAL NO. 78-34
The Parnell Group, Inc.
2131 W. Sixth Street
A
•
•
•
Board of Adjustment Meeting
December 18, 1978 - 3
engineered building was planned for the site, which came in certain standard
units, and that the building could not be moved further north into property
which the shopping center did not own. He said the building could not be moved
further west or it would interfere with the required rows of parking for the
shopping center. Mr. Clement stated that since the utility companies had agreed
to restrict there needs in that one area, he would like the Board of Adjustment
to allow the waiver.
Vice -Chairman White then asked if there were any further comments or ques-
tions by anyone present, and there being none, the public hearing was declared
closed on this appeal.
CONSIDERATIONS:
David Newbern moved to deny the appeal,
stating that the variance requested was "huge"
and he could not "see the owner being denied any
use not commonly given to other buildings in the
area." Chester House seconded the motion, which
passed 4-0-1 with Steve Nickles abstaining from
voting for the reason that he is presently a member
of the Credit Union.
David Newbern moved to approve the appeal,
stating that the unusual shape of the lot was
really the cause of the problem. He said he did
not feel the purpose of the ordinance "would be
subverted" as the utility companies had already
agreed to constricting the easement setback in the
one area. Larry Smith seconded the motion, which
passed 4-1 with Chester House casting the "nay" vote.
David Newbern moved to deny the request,
stating that it was the City Attorney's opinion
that the Board could not waive the Article in
question Larry Smith seconded the motion, which
passed 4-1 with Chester House casting the "nay" vote.
Mr. House stated that he felt the applicants
sincerely had a hardship and that he felt they had
recourse through. the courts.
The minutes of the previous meeting of December
as mailed.
The meeting adjourned at 4:45 o'clock P.M.
CONSIDERATION OF
APPEAL NO. 78-33
Uark Federal Credit Union
940 W. Douglas Street
CONSIDERATION OF
APPEAL NO. 78-34
The Parnell Group, Inc.
2131 W. Sixth Street
CONSIDERATION OF
APPEAL NO. 78-30
Shirley Sweetser
101 E. 13th Street
4, 1978, were approved
6J
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
P. 0. DRAWER F 72701
December 12, 1978
Mr. Carl Yates, Chairman
Fayetteville Board of Adjustment
City Administration Building
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
RE: Authority of Board of Adjustment to grant a variance from Article
IV, Section 2 of the Fayetteville Zoning Ordinance
Dear Mr. Yates:
(501) 521.7700
Pursuant to the request of the Fayetteville Board of Adjustment,
I have considered the issue of whether the Board has the jurisdiction
to grant a variance from Article IV, Section 2 of the City's Zoning
Ordinance. This section prescribes regulations applicable to
non -conforming lots of record and provides in part as follows:
"If two or more lots or combination of lots and portions of
lots with continuous frontage in single ownership are of
record at the time of passage or amendment of this ordinance,
and if all parts of the lots do not meet the requirements
established for lot width and area, the lands involved shall
be considered to be an undivided parcel for the purposes of
this ordinance, and no portion of said parcel shall be used
or sold in a manner which diminishes compliance with lot width
and area requirements established by this ordinance, nor shall
any division of any parcel be made which creates a lot with
width or area below the requirements stated in this ordinance.
The powers and duties of the Board of Adjustment are set out in
Article 2, Section IV of the Zoning Ordinance Paragraph B
authorizes the Board of Adjustment to grant variances from the "bulk
or area regulations" in the ordinance. Area variances involve matters such
as set back lines, frontage requirements, height limitations, lot size
restrictions, district regulations, and yard requirements. Anderson,
American Law of Zoning Slec. 14.07 (1968).
In my opinion, Article 4, Section 2 of the Zoning Ordinance
is not a bulk or area regulation; it is a regulation of the manner
in which nonconforming lots may be developed. As a result, it is my
opinion that the Board of Adjustment does not have the jurisdiction
to vary the requirements of said section.
JNM/kg
RECEIVE()
i is
1 11 197e
:•I;t a Si hLti?Li t
(Mtn( IL‘ ?j9 f& ijj
Sincerely,
CITY ATTORNEY
fiAdy(
N. McCord
66