Loading...
boa_06 29 1965LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 29, 1965 MEMBERS PRESENT Mr. Scott Farrell W. R. Meeks, Acting Maxwell Lyons, II Cecil Kuehnert MEMBERS ABSENT W. H. Marak STAFF PRESENT Henry M. de Noble John L. Taylor Louis E. Barber Dorothy Riffel OTHERS PRESENT Chairman Perry Whitmore,•Asst. City Attorney Jerry Dhonau, Gazette Reporter Z-1846 2:00 P. M. Applicant: Elbert Fausett and Company Location: 7800 Choctaw Drive Description: All of Tract "D"-Briarwood Subdivision Classification: "D"-Apartment District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Yard Area Provisions of Sec. 43-13 of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction of apartment buildings - Also from the Main Structure Provisions of Section 43-2-(5) of Code of Ordinances to permit more than one main structure on a lot Due to the confusion and misunderstanding of the issues involved in this case which existed at the previous meeting, June 21, 1965, the Board directed that a special meeting be called at 2:00 P. M. Tuesday, June 29, 1965 to clarify the matter for all concerned. All interested parties were contacted by telephone except Mr. Dan W. Dearasaugh from whom a previous notification return receipt was not returned. The meeting was called to order at 2:00 P. M. by W. R. Meeks, Acting Chairman, after Scott Farrell, Chairman, disqualified himself from actin -g in that.capacity or voting inasmuch as he is the architect for the apartment development proposed to be" constructed by Fausett and Company, realtors. The Acting Chairman asked those present Board of Adjustment Special Meeting Minutes - 6-29-65 -2-- that inasmuch as Mr. Scott Farrell had disqualified himself as a Board member if there were any objections to his presentation for clarification of certain facts in the case as the architect for the development in question. There were no objections. Mr. A. B. Speights, representing the realty company repeated his remarks made at the June 21, 1965 meeting when the question of the clarification of property lines was asked for by Mr. Jan Carter between property owners in Markham Manor Subdivision and the apartment complex development. He stated. that if the Variance of the rear yard requirements are granted (reduced from 25 feet to 15 feet) numerous large trees could be saved which would have to be sacrificed if the 25 foot setback was maintained. He stated that in Mr. Fausett's opinion, the salvaging of the trees would enhance the beauty of the development which in turn would be an asset to adjacent property as well. Mr. William Graham, consulting engineer for the project was present who said that he had made a survey of the property and had written a letter of clarification regarding this matter. Mr. Jan Carter, an adjacent property owner, who said that he was not a spokesman for the group who were present in opposition, filed a petition having 13 signatures who were in opposition because in their opinion property values would be decreased and privacy be infringed upon. They also objected to the swimming pool area being too close to the north residential property. Mr. Scott Farrell, architect, made a statement as to the reasons why they thought it important to locate the buildings 15 feet from the building line which would save the large trees, and would act somewhat as a shield for the garden -type apartment buildings, and more so for the high rise structures. Aesthetically speaking, moving the building line to 25 feet would make little difference to the adjacent property owners as far as the view of the garden -type apartments is concerned, but the 15 foot distance would definitely improve the screening of the high rise particularly. Mr. Farrell stated that the "D" -Apartment area would support 62 units of garden -type apart- ments, but that only 40 units would be constructed in order to keep down the density, and allow more open space; that trash collection, meters, garbage, etc. will be located in spots that are not visible from the residential area and that all parking would be on the far side of the structures as will be the swimming pool and recreation area. Mr. Farrell said that this development plan for Phase 1 had been under study for eight months and many revisions had been made in an effort to save the trees, which as Mr. de Noble pointed out are some of the most beautiful in the City. In his opinion, Mr. Farrell stated if the waiver of rear yard space is granted and they are allowed to construct the buildings with the 15 foot rear yard space, the neighbors would in time appreciate it more than if the waiver were denied making it necessary to cut the trees and expose the high rise structures more to view of the complaining property owners present. Those present in opposition were Mrs. Jan Carter, Mrs. Roy Beleu, Mrs. Doyle Hines, Mrs. Ralph Bowen, and Mr. W. E. 'Easterling, all property owners on Apache Road. Mr. Warren Baldwin was present representing the Catholic Diocese who own adjacent property across the street. He expressed an opinion that it was a good development for the area. Board of Adjustment Special Meeting - Minutes 6-29 -65 In Executive Session, a motion was made for aa2proval of the development plan for Phase #1 provided that minimum of 15 feet be maintained as rear yard space; that there be no driveway between the building line and the north property line; that there be no above -ground garbage, trash or storage between the building and the north property line; and provided that the apartment complex be shielded on the north property line by appropriate planting which plan of landscaping requires the approval of the Board of Adjustment prior to issuance of a building permit. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:15 P. M. A -EN$ de NCBreta ry R. Leeks, Vice Chairman.