boa_12 21 1970LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES
DECEMBER 21, 1970 2:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
L. Dickson Flake, Chairman
S. Spencer Compton
Darrell D. Dover
MEMBERS ABSENT
W. Finley Williams
Dave Grundfest,.Jr.
STAFF PRESENT
Don R. Venhaus
John L. Taylor
Louis E. Barber
Richard Wood
James Finch
Dorothy Riffel
OTHERS
Perry Whitmore, Asst. City Attorney
J. Huddleston, Gazette Reporter
Brenda Tirey, Democrat Reporter
There being a quorum present, the meeting was called to order by the Chairman at
2:00 P.M. A motion was made for approval of the minutes of the last meeting as
mailed, which was seconded and passed.
Action was taken as follows:
Tract No. 1 - Z-1805
Applicant: Markham House, Inc.
Location: 5119 "A" Street
Description: Lot 3, Block 7, Pfeifer's Addition
Classification: "B"-Residence District
Variance: Requests a Variance from Sec. 43-4 of the
Code of Ordinances to permit a parking lot
in a residential zone
The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "(Approval involving this lot
was originally granted by the Board of Adjustment June 19,1967 with certain
conditions and a requirement that they be acted upon within six months or the
Variance would become null and void. The required action was not fully
completed by the applicant.)
Board of Adjustment Minutes
December 21,1970 _�
The Staff recommends approval of this application provided that entry to this lot
(Lot 3) will not be from "A" Street; that the north 25 'feet of the lot be maintained
as green space; that screening of a type required by,the Zoning Ordinance be
erected on the north and east sides of this lot; and that curb, gutter and sidewalk
be constructed on "A" Street side of the lot."
Mr. Guy Davis, Property Manager of Markham House, Inc., the applicant, was present,
and stated that they would be glad to comply with the requirements as set out.
Mr. George Hart, 5111 "A" Street, was present in opposition, stating that his
property is Lot 5 in this block, and in his opinion parking space is inadequate
for the present structure and the proposed addition.
Mary Powell, 5109 "A" Street appeared in person to protest this application. Her
reasons were the fact that theirs is a residential neighborhood which this would
violate; that it is difficult to know the applicant's exact intention in this
area; and that in her opinion the plan is not consistept with the intent of the
Chapter of the Code having to do with public health, safety and general welfare.
Mr. Venhaus gave some background information stating that the lots in question are
necessary to provide off-street parking in support of the additional construction
and expansion of Markham Inn. Permission had previously been granted by the
Board of Adjustment,he said, to use Lots 1 through 4 for off-street parking in
support of this anticipated development. As/tne six month's limitation, Mr. Venhaus
explained that the minutes were not clear as they stated that the applicant could
use the property for off-street parking if they removed the structure from Lot 3,
but it wasn't entirely clear whether the Board meant that they needed to put the
three lots to use and develop them as parking within the six months, or just to
tear out the structure within the six months. In addition, Lot 4 was originally
included in the application but is not now a part of the site. They were granted
the use of the entire Lot 4 provided parking was not to be permitted on the eastern
side of this lot. They are asking that Lot 3 be used for off-street parking right
to the edge of the property and we thought in view of these problems even though
it could be argued that they had a legitimate right to use the Lots 1 and 2 and 3,
it would be property for them to file an application with this Board particularly
in view of the fact that the adjacent property owners already had expressed an
interest in this matter. We thought it should be clarified for the record and made
a matter of record. In my judgment they have the necessary evidence and indication
that they could use Lots 1, 2, and 3 and support the issuance of a building permit.
Lot 4 has been withdrawn from the petition.
In answer to a question, bar. Hart was told that the total number of units will be
73 (33 in the original application, and 40 for the new structure). Mr. Venhaus
said they would not have sufficient off-street parking under the ordinance if you
retroactively apply the requirement to the original structure. The original
structure, right or wrong, was not considered a motel. The building permit was
issued and signed as an apartment hotel which was a much more reduced parking
requirement. The variance that was granted June 19,1967 was subject to the follow-
ing conditions: "Provided that entry to -these lots will not be from "A" Street and
that parking not be permitted in the north 25 feet of these lots nor against the
east sides of the easternmost lot; that screening of a type required by the Zoning
Ordinance be erected on the north and east sides of these lots where they abut
or are across the street from residential property; that curb, gutter, and sidewalks
-2-
Board of Adjustment Minutes -
December 21,1970
be constructed where not now existing on the "A" Street side of these lots and
that the structures on Lots 21 3, and 4 be removed within six months of the
granting of the requested Variance or before any construction on these lots
is begun - whichever is sooner - or the Variance will become null and void."
Miss Powell complained that these requirements had not been complied with.
Mr. Davis said he was not aware of these qualifications until today as he was a
new owner since that time, but that he would comply with whatever provisions had
been required by the Board of Adjustment.
Mrs. George Hart was also present and stated that Lots 2 and 3 had been used
for garbage pickup and that the screening on Lot 1 on the "A"' Street side was very
inadequate.
Mrs. Orville L. Woods, 5115 "A" Street, was present, inquiring about Markham
Inn being described as an apartment hotel when there were no kitchenettes in
it, and that in fact it is a motel operation.
stated
Mr. Venhaus/in the judgment of the Staff there is sufficient off-street parking
available assuming that they could use Lots 1, 2, and 3, and the issue before
the Board is the use of Lot 3 as actual off-street parking.
Mr. Dover made a motion that the application be approved subject to compliance
with all of the 1967 conditions applicable to Lots 1, 2 and 3 (Lot 4 with its
conditions omitted) be applied as well as the current conditions in the current
Staff recommendations which are that entry to this Lot (Lot 3) will not be
from "A" Street; that the north 25 feet of the lot be maintained as green space;
that screening of a type required by the Zoning Ordinance be erected on the north
and east sides of this lot; and that curb, gutter, and sidewalk be constructed
on "A" Street side of the lot; that no certificate of occupancy be issued until
all of these conditions have been complied with. The motion was seconded and
passed.
IV. OTHER MATTERS
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-l" Quiet Business District
Variance: From the Yard Setback Provisions of Section
43714 of the Code of Ordinances to permit
construction in side yard space
The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "(This case was considered
previously by the Commission September 21, 1970. Approval was given on the
Development Plan provided hammerheads be constructed at the end of the eastern-
most and easternmost parking areas (and marked "Fire Lane") to permit fire trucks
I to turn around. Subsequently a Development Plan was received showing 72 apartment
units thereon, and negotiations were in process to obtain quitclaim deed on
Grassy Flat Creek for the length of the property on its southern and eastern sides.
-3-
Board of Adjustment Minutes -
December 21,1970
Since September 21, 1970 it has developed that the applicant could not --'obtain a
deed on the northern portion thereof adjacent to his property.)
The Staff and the Fire Chief have reviewed the Development Plan received on
December 11, 1970 which contains 88 apartment units and recommends approval of
the Development Plan provided:
a. a hammerhead for turn -around for fire fighting equipment be
provided in the westernmost parking area by deleting three
parking stalls as shown on the Development Plan and the area be
marked "Fire Lane"
b. a drive at least 12 feet wide be constructed connecting the eastern-
most parking area and the one to the west and be marked "Fire Lane"
c. the easternmost apartment unit in the structure containing the "General
Purpose Building" be deleted and the entire structure be adjusted to
provide a minimum of 15 feet space between the patio areas and the
adjacent structures
It was explained to the Board that a new development plan had just been presented
and Mr. Venhaus said there were three points that were at issue (1) increase in
density by 16 units; (2) separation between the structures; (3) their inability
to provide more than 5 foot rear yard along Interstate 430 on the western edge
of the development. The original rear yard requirement was established at 15 feet.
Mr. H. Allen Gibson, consulting engineer for the project, representing the
applicants, said that the request for a 5 foot rear yard was the result of the
Highway Department re -appraising its need for right-of-way at this point; that
he was furnished with a 1969 survey from which plans were drawn for the apartment
complex, and this necessitated a change in the original development plan and their
request for a 5 foot rear yard.
Mr. Compton said in his opinion the stipulation of a 15 foot rear yard required
originally should still stand; that it would be against the wishes of the Board
as one of the Board members was specifically interested that this remain part
of the stipulation. "The feeling at the time was that certain limits were set
inside of which you could work this thing out, and my feeling is that these limits
should still stand."
The Chairman asked the Board if the matter should be recalled for hearing, to
which Mr. Compton replied that the stipulations were made in the first review
and they should stand and he was not interested in a review at this time.
The Chairman then announced that it was the sense of the Board not to recall or
either to even determine whether or not it would be legal for us to recall and
reconsider without a new application and a new advertising. "We are saying that
had you come in with the 15 foot on the rear yard there would not be any issue
before this Board."
Mr. Gibson indicated agreement to amending the development plan to provide:
(1) a minimum of 15 foot spacing between the structure containing the
"general purpose building" and the adjacent building on each end thereof
(2) deleting 3 parking spaces in the westernmost parking area to create a
hammerhead
(3) construction of a 12 foot wide drive between th eeasternmost parking areas
and marking the drive a "fire lane"
Board of Adjustment Minutes
December 21,1970
2. Adoption of 1971 calendar -meeting dates
A motion was made for approval of the calendar as presented Ly the Staff of
meeting dates for 1971, which was seconded and passed.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:15 P.M.
L. Dickson Flake, Chairman
-5-
Don R. Venhaus,
Secretary