Loading...
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