boa_02 21 1978LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
FEBRUARY 21, 1978
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum.
A quorum was present, being five in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting.
The minutes of the January meeting were approved as mailed.
III. Members Present:
Member Absent:
Jerry Wilcox
Jim Summerlin
Kirby Smith
Ray Fureigh
Robert Shell
Samuel Anderson
M. R. Godwin
Attorney: Riddick Riffel
February 21, 1978
Item No. 1
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Z3139-A
Euel1 Paul
8623 Asher Avenue
Long Legal
"F" Commercial District
Variance: Request permission under the provisions of
Section 43-22-4(-e) to permit a public
garage in a commercial zone (F).
Present Use
of the Property: Retail Sales, Automobiles
Proposed Use
of the Property: A commercial center with two buildings one
of which would contain a garage operation.
Staff. Recommendation:
This property and the adjacent properties along Asher Avenue have a long
history of rezoning activity controversy.- The.result of this activity
is a strip zone along Asher Avenue containing many different kinds of
uses with no -order or plan.
Present owner has combined two ownerships in order to provide better
building site for multiple structured development. Lots as previously
owned were deep and narrow affording little development flexibility.
The proposal as presented has.been reviewed•by the Building Permits and
Engineering.Staff. Permit could be issued for construction of the
buildings, but a privilege license for such use as a garage could not be
approved.
The Zoning Ordinance is very clear as to the Board of Adjustments jurisdiction
in this matter. In the past many similar garage operations have been
approved with conditions.
The only question to answer. is, "Does this garage serve a public need as
required by ordinance?" The staff takes the.same position expressed in
.several previous recommendations on the garage.issue. That is:
1. Mi.xed-commercial uses -in centers where there are operational
.relationships between tenants such as auto sales and repair
..are the -appropriate locations for garages or repair facilities.
2. Treatment of the site in a fashion which presents no exterior
.appearance of junk or salvage operations is imperative.
Item No. 1 continued
3. Adequate permanent type screening of.automobile storage be
provided. .(This would be automobiles:waiting for repair only.)
4.-- Access to the site should -.be limited to an -arterial street.
5. Wal:ls of .the structure should contain no openings on those
:sides adjacent to single family development. This would
.include -doors or windows.
Staff -recommends -approval of.this-request subject:to3.comp-liance by the
owner -with -the five points set -out above.
BOARD ACTION
There were no objectors present.- The owner:was present. After a brief
discussion, the Board -of Adjustment voted -to -approve the request as
recommended,by the staff. The vote: 5 ayes - O-noes - 2 absent.
February 21, 1978
Item No. 2
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Z2994-A
McDonald's Corporation
By Hendrik VonRosseh
120 N. Jackson Street
Part of Block 8, Pfeifers Addition
"B" Residence District and "F" Commercial
District.
Variance: Request permission under the provisions
of Section 43-22-4(-d) to permit a
parking lot in a residential zone for a
commercial purpose with curb cut onto a
side street. ,
Present Use
of the Property:
Proposed Use
of the Property:
Staff .Re.commendati on :
McDonald's Restaurant
Remain the same except with additional
curb cut.
Thi-s property was involved in a request in March of 1976 for permission
to construct the McDonald's Restaurant and parking lot now on the site.
That request was controversial, and several meetings were required
before a -decision was reached on May 17, 1976. The Board of Adjustment
denied the request which was identical to the request on this agenda.
The principal issue debated on that request was provision of access to
Jackson or "A" Street. The owner contended at that time that such an
access was:�a-necessity although this use was finally developed -with no
access other.than-on Markham Street.
After denial of the variance, a legal action was filed in Circuit Court
seeking -a reversal of that decision. The court ruled=in favor of the
applicant but placed certain conditions on.that approval.,
The conditions are those specified in the staff recommendations and set
out in the minute record. The recommendation was:
1. That no.access to -or- from the site be permitted
.Jackson.or "A" Street.
2..-..That..the.parking design along "A" Street be redesigned to
provide some landscaped area along "A" Street between the
property line and the screening fence required.
3. That a four -foot screening fence be -erected along
the Jackson Street side and "A".Street, wheeled stops or inner
ccur-.bs be used.to protect screening.
4. That further thought be given to the location of trash collection
area.
5. That no commercial signs be allowed on the north side or east
side of -the property (group& or bui.lding'.mounted).
6. That.some-provision be made for parking lot lighting screens.
7. That contact be made with Public Works Division to insure that
the.drainage structure under the site is properly handled.
8. Although screening is not normally required between parking
lots, we feel that a treatment of some nature should be used
to -break the surfacing of this parking lot -to the adjacent lot
on the -west. This could be accomplished by,retention of
.existing trees and ground cover along the vest property line.
We would like to -point out that the only reason this request is before
the Board-i.s to obtain a curb cut onto Jackson Street. The City has
removed -the police officer who was providing protection for Markham left
turns, and.the owner- apparently feels the.only way the business can
remain viable -is to obtain additional access.
The principal and Number One Item on -staff. recommendation.was, "...no
additional access." The court addressed this specifically in the order
where,the statement was made that the owner agreed to staff recommendation
showing.no additonal access to Jackson or "A" Street.
We would further point out that the court retained jurisdiction in this
matter for -purposes of enforcing its action. Rather than attempt to
discuss legal.questions here, we will -leave that to the City Attorney;
however., we do have some reservations about the Board Adjustments taking
any action.allowing something to occur which was not allowed by the
Circuit Court.
The staff will, -for -purposes of record and in the interest of consistency,
recommend that the Board disallow access to Jackson or "A" Street.
Further, for the record, it should be pointed out that this development
has..not-provided complete off -site improvements to."A" Street or Jackson
as:normally-provided by commercial development. Should the Board determine
to allow.this access, the staff recommends that:all of these improvements
be -brought up to:City standards.
Item No.. 2.continued
BOARD ,,.ACTT ON
Thera were objectors present, being ten more or less. Seven persons
spoke -against the request. These persons were:
1.
George-Wimberley
2.
T. Black
3.
Jan Wornock
4.
C. Moore
5.
Jeff Wornock
6.
D. Atkinson
7.
D. Es tes
The applicant, Mr. Von Rossen, was present as was his attorney, Christopher
Barrier. A presentation was made.by Mr. Von Rossen.and his attorney
after which-.a,lengthy discussion was_held.i.nvol.ving all -..parties. The
Board thpn.voted.on a -motion -to deny the request .as-.fi-led. The vote: 4
ayes..-.0-noes - 2 absent, 1 absention (Jim Summerli.n). Therequest was
denied as filed.
There being.no further business; the Board adjourned -at 3:20 p.m.
..ATTEST:
ai man
Se&etary