HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-12-05 Minutes•
MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
A meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held at 3:45 P.M. on Monday, December
5, 1983 in Room 209 of the Continuing Education Center, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Members Present: Don Mills, Chester House, David Crittenden, Larry Tompkins,
Robert Waldren & Dennis Becker.
Members Absent: Butch Robertson.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Chester House.
With no additions or corrections, the MINUTES
minutes of the November 14, 1983 meeting
were approved, 5-0-1 with Butch Robertson being absent and Dennis Becker
abstaining from vote.
The only item on the agenda was the APPEAL NO. 83-22
public hearing on Appeal No. 83-22, 632 NORTH WHITHAM AVENUE
Richard C. $ Shirley J. Johanson, RICHARD C. $ SHIRLEY J. JOHANSON
632 North Whitham Avenue, application
to vary number of parking spaces, parking setback and landscaping requirements.
Richard C. Johanson, property owner, indicated that the construction of an
8 -unit apartment building had recently been completed on property on which
three units were constructed several years ago. Initially, the layout was
reviewed with the Planning Administrator and indicated 15 parking spaces as
shown by letter dated November 23, 1983 from the Planning Administrator to the
Board of Adjustment. Upon completion of the unit and at the time of paving,
conversation with Mr. Tom Pearson developed which indicated the direction in
which the cars would be parked on the parking lot was the entrance into the
Pearson property. Therefore, Johanson tried to work with the parking with the
cars being parked toward the new 8 -unit building, or to the south, rather than
being parked in a northerly direction. Thus, in making this change, Johanson
stated some parking spaces were lost, thus resulting in 14 spaces. Johanson
stated they owned 35 units up and down Whitham Avenue contained on several
different parcels of property. He stated they rented to students and tried to
rent to primarily one person per unit.
Tompkins stated that the original plan required 17 parking spaces. Johanson
advised that when he and Garland Smith first visited with Bobbie Jones with
regard to the apartments, he was looking at 15 parking spaces or 1-1/2 per new
apartment. Jones advised that she had approved this plat for 15 parking spaces
instead of 17 and passed around a copy of the plan marked "approved". Jones
stated that spaces 4 $ 5 were taken out to put a trash container and two spaces
added on the East end. Tompkins stated he did not quite understand the Pearson
access to the Johanson property. Mills asked what the back portion of the
Pearson property was used for. John Pearson, son of Tom Pearson, Jr., stated
this was their back yard. Tompkins was interested in knowing the width of the
easement which Mr. Pearson was referring to. Johanson stated there was 162' on
each property which had briginally been a street that was vacated. Mills asked
if the center of the easement is where the utility pole is located. Mills stated
she was trying to determine why the Pearson!s want the entire length of Mr.
L. 53
1
•
Board of Adjustment
Page two
December 5, 1983
Johanson's lot left open for their purposes. Pearson stated they would need to
access the back of their lot and also Lot 16 to the East through Mr. Johanson's
lot. Tompkins stated that Pearson was therefore referring to 33'. Johanson
stated that the original plan was to have the cars parking toward the north.
David Crittenden asked if Mr. Johanson knew that the Pearsons had this easement
at the time the plans were drawn. Johanson stated he did not know about the
easement. Mills stated if Johanson was Willing to give up the easement to the
Pearsons, this was not the problem of the Board of Adjustment, but she wanted
to know if Johanson had thought of alternative ideas of parking, and wanted to
know if two parking spaces could be designated to the east of the building, .
accessing through the alley from Taylor Street. Johanson stated this could be
an alternative.
Tompkins asked if R-3 would permit Unit 9 and Unit 10, i.e., one being medium
density, 4-24 families per acre, and Unit 10 being 16-40 dwelling units per
acre. He said Mr. Johanson's ratio would be 30 dwelling units per acre. Jones
advised that in an R-3, Code requirements call for a minimum of 1,000 square feet
of land area per dwelling unit for a one -bedroom unit and 1200 square feet of
total land area per dwelling unit for a two-bedroom unit. Jones stated she used
the parking requirements listed in Use Unit 10 which is greater than those listed
in Use Unit 9.
Waldren asked if there would be any problems with backing into the alley if the
alley were to be used Jones advised it is permissible to back two spaces into
an alley. A'variance would be necessary from this Board to back more than two
spaces into either a street or alley. Mills asked if the front yard areas were
paved or gravelled, wouldn't this give a couple of spaces? Johanson stated
this would be another alternative, but the trees and utility pole would be a
problem. Tompkins stated another alternative would be two (2) rows of 45°
parking with one way access, which would require opening the alley.
B. W. Dykes, owner of 626 Whitham, stated he had never seen the exact location
of the alley being referred to. The alley has been used for two purposes, one
to get into the house on the corner: and access to the Dykes' property. Dykes
stated this had been one ownership property for many, many years and thought
this alley may not be correct as it appears now and may lie to the east. He
stated he felt this access may be the result of many years of use by the private
property owners. Dykes stated that if the alley is, in fact, farther to the east,
there would be a drastic drop-off which would cause a problem in opening the alley.
This drop-off would either have to be filled in to make a complete alley or more
property taken to the west for sufficient width for an alley. Dykes stated there
was currently an approximate '10' width of alley. Jones advised that Mr. Johanson
has had a property survey and the alley should lie east of the survey stake.
Johanson stated his survey stakes were 5' to the east of the current alley.
Mills asked if there was any way to use parking along the North. Tompkins stated
if the entrance were straight -on, two to three more cars could be parked there.
Jones advised there is a 12.5 foot safety zone from side property lines for
driveway access, unless waived by the Planning Commission. Crittenden stated he
talked to one of the tenants who has lived there since the apartments opened in
September. She stated there was not a parking problem. The lot does fill at
night, but she had not seen anyone park on the grass or in any unusual positions
due to lack of space. She said if people needed a place to park, there was
always the street. Crittenden stated he was by there on a Sunday afternoon and
59
Board of Adjustment
Page three
December 5, 1983
there were a few spots still available on the street. There were only three
cars in the apartment's parking lot. The tenant stated there was not a parking
problem as far as she was concerned. Crittenden asked if the apartments were
restricted to have one person living there per unit. Johanson stated they pre-
ferred to have one person, but stated they would deviate from this if necessary.
Jones stated that a property owner called at the time the Johansons started
the paving process and asked that the City be sure the parking was not being
put in the alley. The Inspection Office found the pin, the paving being 5'
west of the pin.
Jones stated she mentioned to the contractor, the possibility of coming in
south of the building with a driveway and stack two spaces, one behind the other
in the southwest corner. This would, however, put the break in the curb too
close to the southwest corner of the property, but the Planning Commission
has the power to reduce that as long as they are keeping 25' between individual
driveways. Jones stated she did not know about the utility easement, however.
Tompkins questioned the possibility of parallel parking as another alternative
to parking. Pearson did not feel this would have given him adequate access to
his property. Tompkins stated he did not understand since access to the Pearson
property was not being denied. Tompkins stated the easement was a private right-
of-way, not a public one. Tompkins stated the street had been vacated. Jones
advised that when a street is vacated, state statutes provide that the property
line moves to the center of the street. She stated it has been more than 13 years
since that street was vacated. Tompkins asked if there was an easement arrange-
ment and Johansan advised there was not. Dennis Becker requested to know if
we were looking toward 15 or 17 spaces. Jones advised we would have to stay at
15 since this is what she had approved initially.
Chairman House stated he did not feel that the emminent power of domain was a
question here. He stated if the property line was supposed to be at a certain
point, then that is where it is. House stated it was strictly in the good nature
of someone in the past who continued to put up with the use of their property
by someone else. He stated he did not see how this Board could justly make a
determination without granting the variance and putting up a barrier on the
property line. House stated he felt like this situation was like someone
wanting something for nothing.
Robert Waldren asked if the alley were to be made usable and the street were
not closed, then Johanson would not need the variance. Johanson stated that was
correct.
Dennis Becker then presented a plan, referring back to the original parking layout,
taking spaces 4 and 5 and pushing one (1) space each directly in front of 4 and
5, thus picking up two (2) tandem spaces. A driveway would not have to be cut.
He would get two tandem spaces that are basically within the original layout, take
away parking space #1 which negates two parts of the three part variance (backing
into the street and landscaping), and we get back to 15 spaces. Waldren advised
that parking would then have to be assigned for at least four (4) spaces and this
SS J
5!4
•
Board of Adjustment
Page four
December 5, 1983
may be a problem as most apartment owners are not willing to assign parking
spaces. Johanson stated they had not assigned spaces in the past, but there
has never been a need. Johanson stated these tandem spaces could be assigned
without problem, i.e., in the situation of a married couple, etc. Waldren
asked if Johanson had any objections. Johanson had no objection.
Crittenden advised that the minutes should indicate that if other property
owners should want a variance in the future, it was through a previous
arrangement that the 15 spaces was agreed upon even though it is an actual
fact that 17 spaces were required.
Chairman House then asked if there was anyone present to speak in favor of or
in objection to th•is:appeal. John Pearson stated that they had no objection
to the variance, but only wished to keep right-of-way to the access.
Crittenden asked to know if Johansan was withdrawing his appeal. Johanson
stated he was and would approach the parking situation as presented by Dennis
Becker.
Motion was made by David Crittenden to MOTION
allow Mr. Johanson to withdraw his appeal.
Motion wascseconded by Mrs. Don Mills. Motion passed 6-0.
Chairman House asked if there was any
further business. There beingno further
business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m.
OTHER BUSINESS