Loading...
boa_09 21 1970LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21,1970 MEMBERS PRESENT L. Dickson Flake, Chairman W. Finley Williams, Vice Chairman Darrell Dover Dave Grundfest, Jr. Spencer Compton MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF PRESENT Don R. Venhaus Louis E. Barber Richard Wood Dorothy Riffel OTHERS PRESENT_ J.�Huddleston, Gazette Reporter Linda Tirey, Democrat Reporter 2:00 P.M. There being a quorum present, the meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 2:00 P.M. Approval of the minutescf the July 20th and August 17th meetings was requested, and a motion was made to this effect, which was seconded and passed. Action was taken as follows: Tract No. 1 - Z-1910 Applicant- B. O. Price and H. G. Frost, Jr. Location: Breckenridge Drive and Converse Road Description: Lot "A" Block 7, Breckenridge Business Addn. Classification: "E®1" Quiet Business District Variance° Requests Variances as follows: (1) From the Main Structure provisions of Section 43-24 5) of the Code of Ordinances to permit more than one main structure on a lot (2) From the Yard Setback Provisions of Section 43-14 of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction in yard space (side and rear) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes September 21,1970 The Staff's recommendations were read as follows: "The Staff recommends approval of the requested Variances. This tract of land is well located for apartment development. The west boundary of this tract is proposed Interstate I-430 right- of-way, the boundary on the south and east a 70 foot easement for Grassy Flat Creek, and on the north by Breckenridge Drive, a collector street. This tract is zoned "E-1" Quiet Business and permits a unit density of 1 to 1200 square feet of land area. The proposed development is 72 units with 2070 square feet per dwelling unit." Mr. Venhaus explained that a proposed commercial and "E-l" development (without detail) was submitted to the Planning Commission at the time the property was zoned October 6, 1966. Now a development plan has been submitted showing 74 units on the "E-1" tract. Last Thursday the applicant, in checking with the Highway Department to be sure of setback lines on I-430 which adjoins the property discovered that additional right-of-way was required, consequently the development plan had to be revised. They now propose to put in 74 units, for a density of about 23 units per acre, for an over-all density of 1860 square feet per unit. Mr. Venhaus said in comparing the original development plan and the revised one, it was discovered that there is platted a 25 foot building line on Converse Drive. The amended proposal shows the structures coming up to within 5 feet of the property and not observing the platted building line. This creates a complication - they would have to amend that building line by plat, or reduce the number of structures and move that northeastern structure back a little bit. Mr. Compton asked if the variance request for side yard was on Converse Drive. Mr. Venhaus replied that under the ordinance they could come within 5 feet of the property line on Converse Drive, but that platted building line would take precedence over the zoning ordinance - the most restrictive would apply - so they would have a 25 foot commitment to either meet or amend the building line by plat. Mr. Flake asked which street is the front yard as it is planned - if Breckenridge is the front yard, then there is a rear yard setback problem. Mr. Venhaus said it appeared to him that what we are dealing with are only rear yards, because if Breckenridge Drive is to be considered front yard then by definition all of these structures to the rear would be encroachments into the rear yard. The variances then are (1) more than one building on the lot, (2) a variance of the rear yard setbacks. Mr. H. Allen Gibson, consulting engineer, was present in the interest of the appli- cation saying that he drew the development plan on this property and would be glad to answer any questions. He was asked why he increased the number of units from 72 to 76, and in reply said they changed some of the two -bedroom units to one -bedroom, and spaced them closer together. Mr. Venhaus added that the side yard is an issue because of the "E-1" zoning. Mr. Flake asked if Converse Drive were designated as front yard would the require- ment be a lot less than would otherwise be required? Mr. Venhaus answered that he thought the significant thing here is the platted building line. Mr. Williams brought up the question of the 70 foot drainage easement - whether one-half (35') could be considered rear yard. Mr. Gibson stated that the distance from the new property line at the Interstate to the building line under the new site plan would be 15 feet. He said he became aware of the Highway Department's require- ment late Friday afternoon and had not had time to check out property lines, etc. The new acquisition of -the Highway Department is not new right-of-way but for the purpose of design; it inv lees only backslope on the fill which was changed from 1+3 to 1+4. -2- Board of Adjustment Minutes September 21,1970 _� Y Mr. Hoyt Thomas, attorney, representing some of the property owners across the creek to the east of the proposed development, was present, stating that he understood that this tract of land is zoned for quiet business such as a dentist office, real estate office, insurance office, etc. with one building on a particular plot as opposed to several units. Under the present zoning, he said, there would be a 25 foot yard in the back and front, and 50 feet on each side of the building. Mr. Venhaus, in clarification, said assuming that this tract were developed with one structure at the present time, there would be a 56 foot side yard requirement both to the northeast and southwest, because of the length of the tract which is about 560 feet long, so if there were one building on it there would be a 56 foot side yard requirement. However, the other point raised, obvious- ly with that kind of requirement they would plat it up into lots and if they wanted to put single structures on it they could do so. Mr. Flake said that he understood that with corner lots, the property owner had the choice of what he called his front yard. If he called Converse Drive the front yard then the side yards would be 10% of the narrower portion which would considerably change that and make the 25 feet on -Converse, and at the southwest side (Interstate side). Mr. Venhaus added that that would leave them with sub- stantial difficulties in developing the rest of the property without a subdivision plat, and in either case the subdivision plat would change the side yard require- ments substantially. Mr. Thomas added that if it were developed under the present zoning, it would be a much more attractive piece of property with yards and shrubbery instead of with apartments which completely eliminated the yard except on the front and leaves nothing for the residents behind the creek except asphalt and brick to look at. He was concerned with such things as play areas for the children, how late the pool would be opened, lighting, fencing, etc. In answer to a question about the service building, Mr. Gibson indicated that it would be an enclosed brick building for laundry facilities and tenant storage, lawnmowers, etc. Mr. Dover explained to Mr. Thomas that the applicant is not asking for permission to use the property for apartments because they don't need that. In view of the zoning they have a legal right to use it for apartments. If they wanted to put these 76 units in one building, they would not even have to come to this Board to ask for a waiver. Mr. Thomas said that if they had one building he doubted there would be as many cars or children, to which Mr. Dover replied that assuming there were the same number of units he would imagine there would be the same number of cars and children. Mr. Compton inquired about screening requirements along the back property line for the parking areas and along the sides and he was told this would be a require- ment under current ordinances. Mr. Flake reminded Mr. Thomas that if theseapartments were built the Board of Adjustment could only act on its development as it affects the ordinance, but as far as the management of it is concerned - the swimming pool operation, etc. they could state their intention, but there is no way this Board could control that. Mr. Thomas repeated that they do not object to quiet business classification as -3- Board of Adjustment Minutes ^_September 21.1970 such but do object to the apartment complex a5 planned, but did not think the property would be utilized for an apartment if the present restrictions are maintained. In an effort to clarify the issue and understand the responsibilities of the Board, Mr. Venhaus said that even though the propertyss zoned "E-1" the ordinance gives them the right to develop apartments on the property as well as offices, at their option, so there is no question of whether they can develop apartments right now. Legally they have a right to do that. The issue comes before the Board of Adjustment because they propose to put more than one structure on the lot. The reason that this provision is in the ordinance is not so that the Board of Adjustment can decide whether or not to let them put one morestructure on the tract m it is to give the Board authority to review the arrangement of the off- street parking, screening, circulation, and setbacks between units. For instance if this Board did choose not to allow them to put more than one structure on a lot, there is nothing to prevent the applicant from filing a subdivision plat dividing this into a series of smaller lot which would allow them to do exactly the same thing they propose to do on the development plan. It would simply be a time expenditure on their property, but they could divide it up into additional lots and put each unit on that particular lot. The Board of Adjustment does not have the right to deny apartment use on the property. If they restrict them to one building on the tract ® then the applicant can simply take a different tack and come back with a subdivision plat. Mr. Thomas said that as far as the property owners are concerned this is an emotional issue as well as an economic one, and they they feel that their property will be depreciated. He asked for a continuation of this matter to give them time for further investigation. He added that they do not want this apartment complex there at all as it is proposed, and that if this is not the proper Board they would have to find the proper Board. Mr. Larry Pritchard, 35 Warwick Road, was present and stated that it is very important to him what goes in behind his house, and he is opposed to the construction of the apartment complex and did not wish to raise his two children in these surroundings. Mr. H. A. Mahfouz, 23 Warwock Road, was present, stating that his being a coach at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, he was aware that a number of students live in apartments off campus and referred to problems that arise from such tenants. He said he would have no objection to family occupancy, but in a lot of cases apartments were occupied by single men and single women, and he would not care for that. Mrs. David Clinton, 33 Warwick Road, was present stating that she not only own property in the neighborhood, but represented McDade, Inc., contractors, who are building three houses in the area, and in her opinion the proposed development would decrease the property values in the neighborhood. Mr. Thomas said that under this plan there seems to be very little area for children to play. With 76 apartments, he would imagine that there would be any= where from 40 to 100 children, and with 124 parking spaces, there probably would be 150 to 175 cars assuming that several families or occupants would have two cars to an apartment, or maybe three, and in his opinion it would be crowding too many people into too small an area. -4- Board of Adjustment Minutes - September 21,1970 Mr. Pritchard said there were 10 property owners presently being affected by this development and there were eight of those people in attendance, and that the Board should consider that there is 90% objection to the proposed complex. Mr. Williams asked if the property, at the time it was platted, was shown as a reserved tract for business of commercial enterprises, or apartments prior to the time any sales were made out there. Mr. Gibson said that this area was designated as commercial and "E-l" Quiet Business in the Bill of Assurance before these lots were for sale, and a commission to approve the plans and design of the structures that were to go into these areas was formed. This is a luxury type apartment complex and would not be subject to the problems mentioned by one of the objectors. Mr. Pritchard suggested that maybe the developers could move the apartment houses back to the property line (the creek) which would be more desirable to them than an asphalt parking area. Mr. Gibson replied that there could be no construction over a sewer easement so consequently this could not be done. A motion was made that we waive the side yard requirements along Interstate I-430 right-of-way to 15 feet; waive the side yard requirements along Converse Drive to 25 feet; waive rear yard requirements to allow the property owner to develop it as shown on the revised site plan, and waive the requirement for a single structure on the platted property. As there was no second to this motion, it failed. Another motion was then made that we approve the multi -buildings on the site, approve a 15 foot setback along Interstate 430, and approve no other setbacks other than what is required, and further if the developer is unable to develop jthe property within these requirements that he present another development plan at the next meeting, and suggest that he go over this plan with the property owners prior to the next meeting so that they would be familiar with it at that time. The motion was seconded and passed. There being no further business, the'meeting was adjourned at 3 P. M. + f� 0 L. AYLOR, Assistant Se retary L. Dickson Flake, Chairman