boa_02 14 1984SPECIAL MEETING
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 4, 1984
10:00 A.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum.
A Quorum was present being 7 in number.
II. Minutes of previous meetings were not discussed at
this meeting.
III. Members Present: Ellis Walton
B.L. Murphree
George Wells
Thomas McGowan
Herbert Rideout
Steve Smith
Joe C. Norcross
Members Absent: Richard Yada
(There was one position open.)
NOTE: Reconvened public hearing on Item No. 6
on the agenda of the Board of Adjustment
on January 17, 1984.
February 4, 1984
Item No. 1 - Z-3995
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Dante and Rosalyn Jacuzzi
By: Robert C. Slay
1024 N. University Avenue
Part of the Block 10, Pleasant Hills
Addition
Zoned: "MF-6" Multifamily District
Request: Permission under provisions of
Section 8-101 of the Little Rock Zoning
Ordinance to permit accessory parking
on a residential zone lot to serve an
office use.
JUSTIFICATION
None offered as the issue at hand is a use exception and not
a conventional variance.
Present Use of
the Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of
the Property: Parking Lot with 19 Spaces
Only
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
No adverse comments. However, due to the proposed cut
and fill of the lot and the location of the stream to
the southwest, seeding or sodding is requested to
prevent erosion and sediment damage to the stream.
B. Staff Analysis
This issue was first docketed for a hearing before the
Board on April 18, 1983, at which time the subject
property was owned by Edward K. Willis, et al. There
were several following meetings dealing with this
matter inasmuch as there was significant objection from
abutting property owners. On the last occasion for a
public hearing, staff received a communication from the
applicant stating that they desired an indefinite
deferral of the matter in order to work out their
problems with the neighborhood. Since that deferral,
Mr. Jacuzzi has purchased the lots. The plan last
submitted has been modified to better align the
February 4, 1984
Item No. 1 - Continued
driveway with the drive to the north. Planning staff
views this issue as nearing conclusion since we have
received comment from both sides suggesting a middle
ground can be reached. In fact, it has been suggested
by Mr. Slay that certain items of objection have been
dealt with such as the lighting on the rear of the
building. The staff position is as follows: (1) if
the neighborhood concerns are answered, (2) if the site
is rezoned to "OS and 110-3" to provide permanent
assurance of open space undisturbed, (3) Garfield
Street right-of-way is closed. We will support the
request as now drawn.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (January 17, 1984)
The applicant, Mr. Robert Slay, was present. He offered the
plan amendments accomplished since the last Board review and
additional clarification of the issues. There were
objectors in attendance. Dr. David Hall and several
neighbors were present. They offered much the same
objections as presented before the Board at the last
hearing, except that Dr. Hall offered a list of items as a
compromise. The list of items were as follows: (1) accept
the plan for the drive through and parking lot as proposed
except for elimination of the western nine parking spaces,
(2) 6 to 8-foot fence surrounding the south and western
portions of the parking lot, (3) stakeing out of the lot
prior to excavation with tagging of the trees, (4) placement
of chain or fence across the parking lot entrance after
hours and (5) rezoning of the remainder of "MF-6" to "O-S"
Open Space. Discussion of these points followed resulting
in a motion to deny the variance which failed to receive a
second. Discussion then turned to the possibility of a
meeting on the subject site on a weekend so as to enable all
interested parties to view the site with flagged boundaries
and issues clearly identified. All parties present
expressed approval of such an approach. A motion was then
made to reconvene the hearing on this item on the site on
Saturday, February 4, 1984, at 10:00 a.m. The motion passed
by a vote of 5 ayes, 1 noe, 2 absent and 1 open position.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant was present as were several persons from the
neighborhood. All parties viewed the site noting the
stringline placed on the property indicating the parking lot
perimeter. There were questions raised concerning the
amount of fill or cut involved. It was pointed out that a
cut of approximately 2 feet on the eastern side of the lot
would occur and that some fill in the northwest quadrant of
the parking area would occur. Neighbors questioned whether
the lot would increase water runoff into the adjacent
February 4, 1984
Item No. 1 - Continued
drainage way. Staff noted that past discussion with
engineers indicate a neglible amount of runoff from this
paved surface. The drainage problem appears to be one of
upstream. Screening of the site from the adjacent
residential area was discussed as to whether a board fence
similar to that on the adjacent lot would be erected or
whether plantings would be used. The applicant indicated
that his client would perform the necessary screening as
required by the Board. The question of through traffic
between Evergreen and University Avenue was raised as well
as after hours use of the parking lot. All parties
discussed this issue at length agreeing that some
controlling device would be needed. The matter was then
presented by the chairperson to the Board for a motion. A
motion was made and seconded which recommends approval of
the variance requested with the following requirements:
1. That the parking lot be constructed where marked on the
site outlining the 19 stalls.
2. That a 6-foot opaque wood fence be erected along the
west and south perimeter of the parking lot.
3. A physical barrier consisting of a gate or substantial
chain mechanism be placed across the driveway to
prevent after hours use of the lot for lottering or as
a traffic shortcut.
4. That the earth area exposed by fill outside the fence
be planted with appropriate ground cover.
5. The City Engineer is to approve the plans for water
discharge from the site into the drainage way.
The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent,
1 open position.
February 4, 1984
There being no further business before the Board, the
Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:30 a.m.
Date 2-Z
secrL-t7ary- A�l
Chairman