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