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.