Loading...
boa_06 17 1968LITTLE ROCK' BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JUNE 17,1968 MEMBERS PRESENT Darrell Dover, Chairman Scott Farrell L. Dickson Flake W, Finley Williams Dave Grundfest, Jr. MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF PRESENT Henry M. de Robles John L.Taylor Louis E. Barber Dorothy Riffel OTHERS PRESENT Perry Whitmore, Asst. City Attorney Jimmy Jones, Gazette Reporter Linwood Davis, 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* A motion was made for approval of the minutes of the special meeting of June 3rd as mailed, which was seconded and passed. Another motion was made for approval of the minutes of the regular meeting on May 20,1968 which was seconded and passed. Action was taken as follows: Tract No.l - Z-2199 Applicant: Will B. Erwin Company Location: 1100 West Markham Street Description: The South 8.1 feet of Lots 11 and 12, Block 296, Original City Classification: "G-l" Commercial District Variance: Requests Variance (1) from the off-street parking requirements of Section 43-617 of the Code of Ordinances to permit addition to existing structure, (2)from the front yard area setback provisions of Section 43-16 of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction in yard space (continued on next page) Board of Adjustment Minutes - June 17,1968_ w_ Mr. Howard Cockrill, attorney, representing the applicant, was present. He stated that the applicant had operated a building specialty business on the corner of Markham and Chester Streets for a number of years in a rented building, When the bank foreclosed for the debt, Mr,, Erwin bought the building and now intends to improve the property by adding an office building on the front and converting the old building to a warehouse for his business. There are no parking problems, said Mr. Cockrilla as there is room for 10 to 12 cars to be parked in the space available. A motion that the application for variance be approved subject to providing new curb and gutter on Markham Street side of the property and curb cut closed, and further provided a standard 20 foot curb cut is constructed on the Ringo Street side of the property. The motion was seconded and passed. Tract No, 2 - Z-2198 Applicant.- West Markham Development Corporation Location-. 5300 Block ""A"° Street Descriptions hots 4 and 5, Block 9, Pfeifer"s Addn. Classifications "E-l" Quiet Business District Variances Requests Variance (1) from the rear and side yard setback requrements of Section 43-14, (2) and (3) of the Code of Ordi- nances to permit construction in yard space® (2) from the open space provisions of Section 43-14 to permit parking in front yard Mr, Edward Lester, Attorney, representing the applicant, was present. He stated that the development plan submitted was self-explanatory, The proposed 6 foot setback on the east side is consistent with buildings already on the property. A motion was made to approve the a oplication subject to no parking being permitted in the front yard space, and provided further that the north side of the parking area have proper screening in accordance with the zoning ordinance, Tract Nos 3 - Z-1429 - Applicant: Communicare, Inc., by Edward Lester, Agent Locations 1000 Block of forth University Avenue Descriptions All of Block 9, Pleasant Hills Addition, and one-half of formerly °"I" Street except the east 10 feet thereof Classifications ""E-1"" Quiet Business District (East 1/2) "D"-Apartment District (West 1/2) Variances Requests Variances as followss (1) from the use provisions of Sec. 43-5 and 6 of the Code of Ordinances to permit hospital in a residential zone (2) (continued on next page) Page -2- Board of Adjustment Minutes June 17,1968 _ (2) from the open space provisions of Section 43-20 (2-f) of the Code of Ordinances to permit parking in front yard (3) from the side yard provisions of Section 43-13-14 of the Code of Ordi= nances to permit construction in required side yard Mr. Edward Lester, attorney, was present, representing the applicant. He said, "I think all of the members of the Board are familiar with this particular piece of property. It went through almost two years of litigations and zoning was finally determined by the Supreme Court of Arkansas. The proposed use as shown on the plot plan is for the construction of a four-story building o actually it will really be three stories above the land o one story is almost a basement which will be the entrance. It will not exceed 45 feet in height and is a hospital within the definition of the ordinances of the City of Little Rock. By that I mean it is not an "E-1-A" use in the sense of a convalescent home, and will be under the care of a licensed physician which makes that a hospital within the definition of the ordinance. We went through this same problem for International Intermed. This proposed use is for an intermediate care hospital facility, and I think we are familiar with that term, but basically it is a hospital without the expensive intensive care units, or surgical units. It is not a convalescent home in that m m my client operates a facility like this in Boston, Massachusetts. They have an average hospital stay of approximately 31 days. A typical case that it would be designed to care for would be an elderly person with a broken hip who would not require intensive care, but would require hospital facilities with a stay in the hospital of perhaps 6 or 7 weeks. The cost of this facility is approximately 7576 of the per room cost of a general hospital. I think the location is rather obvious in that it would be between the St Vincent Hospital and the new Baptist Hospital. We are appearing before the Board of Adjustment asking for a variance to allow the construction of a hospital on that entire tract and the development of the entire tract for use of parking for the hospital. The building could be constructed only on the '°E=1" area (ed: this is in error. Major portion of the hospital will be built on the °°D"=Apartment tract), and we have a letter dated October loth of last year saying that the zoning is permitted for that, but we appear because we feel that it should be developed as a unit, and we are asking for a variance to allow the entire block because of parking, a variance to construct a hospital.. I believe the plan is self-explanatory with respect to the traffic. My client proposes a deceleration lane coming off of University and the only exit shown is an exit off to Garfield Street. There is a problem on the Baptist Church property next to it, and this hasn't been solved exactly as to how the exit may or may not be, but the plan that we are proposing, or requesting be approved, has access to Garfield Street o not to the north." Darrell Dover: That is for an exit - is it not? Lester: Yes - exit only. Entrance is off of University through a deceleration lame. The height requirements are within the "E-1" classification of 45 feet. Page -3- Board of Adjustment Minutes .Tune 17„ 195$ Dover° Is there anyone here in opposition to this application? Mr. Ben Allen, Attorney, 1100 Boyle Building, was present in opposition stating that [� he was attorney for the 2300 members of the First Baptist Church, who if the application cFV_ is granted, will have property values of $2509000. virtually destroyed. The First 6& Baptist Church has acquired the property - the two blocks immediately north of subject Ld property facing on Evergreen and University. There was an application filed, and there U) is an application pending before the Planning Commission for the purpose of closing < Garfield Street. You will observe this is the street .unmediately west of subject [L property and intersects or cuts in two the two blocks owned by the Church to the north of subject property. The Church has an offer and accepted a contract to purchase three lots immediately west of subject lands. That is Lots A, B, and C o perhaps Lots A and B only - but in any event, the two properties immediately behind on the west of Cy subject lands. 0 Now, to give the Board some small history, it is my understanding that this property was acquired and the property rezoned under a filed development plan which would provide entrance and exit on University with respect to the easternmost property, and eras I believe this was the development plan that/ on file when the property was acquired the First Baptist Church property acquisition m on the two blocks to the north. Now, we would object very strenously to the variance in that there is no provision for the closing of Garfield Street between the two blocks owned by the Church. We submit that it would be a relatively simple process with respect to this property to provide for a development plan whereby there would be an entrance as suggested by the applicants in this case off University and thence exit to the south off Garfield Street so as not to be destructive of the value of the property held by the Church. Let me say that this should come as no surprise to the applicants in this case in that the applicant acquired this property subsequent to the filing of the application to the Planning Commission to close Garfield Street, and if I may I might add that this property was owned up until just a short time ago by American Pioneer Life Insurance Company, and it has now sold the property (or is in the process of selling the property) to Communicare, Inc., and they bought it without any conditions attached and they were aware of their predecessors were aware of the matter pending before the Planning Commission, and I believe that Mr. Taylor and Mro de Noble will point out to you that � we have been instructed to get with the owners of the property so as to work out a plan of access along with Mr. Taylor or his representative so as to provide an access to this property in some manner so as to present a plan. While it was pending, the title to the property changed hands, and this application is before you6 We would hope that you ;t would at least delay a decision so as to give us an opportunity to negotiate with the Vf' present property owners to talk about a development plan so as to permit the closing I of Garfield Street. Our architect has been out of town and was when this particular Lj application was filed, and continues to be out of town but will be back this next V) week, and we can start working out a plan. We have already had tentative plans and we E't have already worked out something with the other property owners so as to provide an. CM, arrangement whereby access will be available, but at the present time the affirmative action on this application would destroy that possibility and destroy the value of the property owned by the Church and deprive 2300 parishioners of the First Baptist Church of their property rights, and we don't think it is too much to ask that we be permitted additional time to negotiate on this subject and see if we can work out an acceptable 0 plan. 0 -4- Board of Adjustment Minutes June 17,1968 _ Dover: Did I understand you to say that Garfield Street severs the property owned by your client? Allen: Yes sir. There are two blocks owed by the Church. Taylor: They are the two blocks immediately north; that is, one block immediately north and one block west of that. Allen: Two blocks that have 600 feet on Evergreen, and 300 feet on University Avenue. Dover: Did you say that there had been a development plan filed on this piece of property? Allen: It is my understanding m and correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Taylor m that originally when the application was filed for rezoning, a development plan was filed reflecting ingress and egress on University. Dover: Who filed that? Allen: I believe that it was the predecessor owner prior to the American Pioneer Life Insurance Company. Dover: And you would suggest the same thing that was shown on that plan ® entrance and exit? Allen: Well, certainly that would be one solution to the things It creates a little problem with respect to traffic on University as you can appreciate, and we would be hopeful of working out something else. Grundfest: Do I understand you to say that your objection is completely wrapped up in the egress and ingress from University Avenue for the property presently owned by the Baptist Church? Allen: Essentially that, Mr. Grundfest. I might add that this, of course, is entwined in the utilization of the property as a hospital and other factors. Yes, but this is our ultimate concern. Farrell: Did you say your client owns two lots immediately to the west? Allen: I have said that they have contracted to purchase these two lots that were owned byMr. Greens Farrell: Is it presently under option? Allen: Not option m contract to purchase m a firm agreement from the owner to purchase and if we can work this problem out then it will be purchased. Dover: These lots are west of this property and how do they tie in with the rest of your property? Allen: They are immediately across the street, and would be available for parking to the Church in that area. It would be west of the subject lands and would be on the southwest corner of Garfield and "J" if they were open.. Psge -5- Board of Adjustment Minutes - June 17,1963 Farrello Are you also objecting to the closing of Garfield on the west of this subject property? Allen: We really have no objection to closing Garfield at that point, but I believe that it is not the issue at this time in this proceeding_ Dover.- Is it your feeling that the portion of Garfield that you want closed cannot be closed if this portion of Garfield is left open? Allen: No = I am suggesting that if this structure is built, Garfield will never be closed from a practical. standpoint,, Farrell.- What do you base that on? Allen: Because of my negotiations with the present property owner. Dover: Which present property owner? Allen.- Communicare, Inc. Dover: I am still at a loss as to how that affects youz Allen: Well, the way it affects me is this: There is presently pending before the Planning Commission an application to close Garfield Street from "J" to Evergreen: Now, the Planning Commission has directed the predecessor owner of this property = Now, a hearing was held and there was concern on the part of the Planning Commission with respect to providing access to this subject land, ovjned at that time by the American Pioneer and the Planning Commission said to both us "you all go out and negotiate and try to work out a plan whereby access would be provided to the subject property - that is, the property now held by Cormunicare, Inc. and come back to us and then = and only then - will we consider the closing of Garfield Street," This won't be held until next month: Now if this plan is approved, this will be destructive of the opportunity to work out an access or another plan for access to this property because they will say we "already have access to Gar -field" Dover.- Well, that goes back to the question I asked a while ago. Would you tie the two portions of Garfield together then? You think that it all should be closed - or none? Allen- No, I am really not concerned with Garfield Street as between "J" and "IB0 per se, except as it relates to the possibility of providing additional access to this property so that the Planning Commission will close Garfield between "I" and "J°". This is all tied in because the Planning Commission directed us to do this, That is, to try to work out a feasible access situation, Farrell.- Would you still retain access from Evergreen? Allen.- To the two blocks, but you will understand that a church couldn't be built on one block that will house 2300 parishioners: It is not adequate it has to be tied together, Page =6= Board of Adjustment Minutes June 17,1968 Allen: Let me say in conclusion m let me plead and implore with you o do not take any action or turn it down if you have to reach a decision today, because it will be totally destructive, and I am not just talking lawyer talk o I am pleading on behalf of this church to give us some time to work this out because it can be h}orked out, I am confident, but we plead with you don't destroy the value of this church property today without further opportunity for us to negotiate. I don't think thirty days or your next meeting date m - we can work something out, I am sure, but we plead with you not to take any action today on this thing, so as to destroy the possibility of ever utilizing this property for church property. Lester: I fully recognize the odds are a little unequal. I am appearing for a Boston group against a church with 2300 members, but I sincerely believe we are not talking about destroying their property value. Now, in the first place, time is of the essence in this transaction for my client because of a contractual arrangement. We believe we have submitted a reasonable request. If you look at our plate we have done exactly what Mr. Allen has requested be done. In the first place, it is true there is only one entrance on University, but University at this point is a divided highway. There is no point in having two entrances. We could put one in but you can only come out one way on University o I mean o go in University o no point in having two entrances because it is a divided highway. I don't recall another plan. I am sure one was filed, but I can't see the point in making two entrances on University just to take up that much more deceleration lane when it is one-way anyway. In the upper lefthand corner of the plan, we have provided exactly what they are talking about m an exit on to Garfield o and we show no connection to the north at all. Now this is a block of land and the whole thing Mr. Allen is pleading for. I can't see how this would have any effect on whether or not the Planning Commission elects to accommodate the Church by closing a street, and true the Church property is more valuable if there were two blocks without a street, but they bought it with the street platted and my clients have some rights, and this is before the Planning Commission not before the Board of Adjustment - to have some access to the north. There is no access to the north or University. We don't show it on this plan. We are not trying to trick anybody e any access to the north - and we submit that this is a question for the Planning Commission on whether or not they want to close Garfield. If they elected to close Garfield, this would be a perfectly adequate plan because the exit is shown to the south onto Garfield. Now, it may be that my clients will contend that Garfield should not be closed - that they should be given some access to Evergreen, but that is not before this body today. We have a plot plan that is completely consistent with the Church if the Planning Commission elected to close Garfield and give two square blocks in one unit. As far as negotiating between my clients and the Church m in all candor the fact that they are opposing the legitimate construction of a hospital simply to protect their property values at the cost of my client, isn't going to aid negotia- tions. But I can state that my clients are prepared to negotiate on some relocation of Garfield, or private drive or some other way, and the plan we have submitted is completely consistent with that. If you will note in the upper righthand corner, we show no access to the north at all. I mean we just left it open. Farrell: Have you made any attempt to meet with the Church to negotiate this? Lester: Yes, I understand Mr. Mark Block and the Church have negotiated, and are still negotiating, and will continue to negotiate as far as o o the problem is to allow this land some access to the north to Evergreen. Page -7- 0 0 C§oard of Adjustment Minutes. June 17, 1968 Varrell: Did you say that whether Garfield is closed or left open - it will not affect this property one way or the other? Lester: This particular development plan that we have shown - would be much more desirable to have access to Evergreen, but we show no particular access - it could be where Garfield is presently located or further to the north, or some other location. We did this deliberately. We are not trying to prejudice the Church°s right or claim that Garfield should be closed, and if this were adopted it would not be, and I can see no prejudice to their rights. It may be that they are not entitled to have Garfield closed - I am not passing on that - it is before the Planning Commission. The adoption of this plan or any other development no matter if it is a hospital or what m we submit whoever owns this Block 9 is going to want some access to the north to Evergreen, but that is before the Planning Commission, as I see it. rundfest: Mr. Lester, these 19 parking spaces immediately to the south of the 'ospital - as I understand, this drive is one-way to the north. "J" Street is one - ay to the south. How would these people be able to leave the parking lot under the plan as you have? %11 Graham: I am an engineer on the project. The thought was that people could ame in and go north and park in that direction. Upon leaving the premises you would come back and go east and come through the parking lot which would have adequate access a the parking lot - go back to the south and then to the west and then back out at the intersection of Garfield and "I" Street, Grundfest: Go east on "J" Street? Is this correct? graham: Yes, and then back south to the parking lot, and back west to the new driveway. 21f this negotitation proves satisfactory back to the north, they could come back and go -north to Evergreen. r rundfest: This was the area we were concerned about when we discussed the area. If (Mou have traffic coming eastbound on "J" Street turning back into the parking lot that traffic will be interfering with the traffic coming off the deceleration lane south off University into the parking lot. Is this correct? Graham: Let me cornet you,Mr. Grundfest. That will be a 27 foot street in there which would allow two-way traffic. I might call one other thing to your attention. You see at "J" Street we propose to pave both sides back to where the entrance goes in there - so this would not bother us one way or the other. If the people on the north side didn't want to pave the street, we would still have the circulation. Lester: This demonstrates what I am talking about. Regardless of whether Garfield up there is closed, we have provided for circulation around the building where people can get out if Garfield were closed. I mean this would be the plan we would submit. Farrell: Mr. Allen, your clients' prime objection is the entrance off of University or the location of the entrance off of University? Allen: No, our prime concern, and our only concern - only ultimate concern - is to flose Garfield so that the two blocks can be utilized as one property. Otherwise it is Destructive of the value as it relates to the First Baptist Church, and totally Vdestructive - I am not just talking - just totally destructive of the value of the kr,row, operty as it relates to my client. They might sell it to someone else - I don°t but if they are to build a church on it they have got to have Garfield Street used, between "J" and Evergreens �' page -8- Board of Adjustment Minutes ,June 17, 1968 Farrells This application apparently precludes that maybe Garfield will be closed. Allens That is right and that is the point I am making. If the Board will just give me a little time as the Planning Commission has suggested that we do, I am sure we can work it out, but I don't want to try to work out a plan here on the floor. We are in negotiations right now, and I suggest and urge the Board to just give us a little time to negotiate. Farrell: You made a statement prior that if the hospital goes in that you may not be able to purchase those two pieces of property behind the hospital? Allen: No, no m we can buy that one way or the other. It is our option right now. Williams: What is the Church's plan in regard to "J" Street. Is it their wish that that street be retained open throughout the entire length of their holding? Allen: We can go either way on that and we could o whatever is most convenient - the best planning and whatever m we can accommodate any one with respect to '77 Street. This is not particularly meaningful. Williams: You have no concern then about separation between the block at the northwest corner of Garfield and "J" in relation to the one at the southwest corner? Allen: You are correct - that is right. Our building plans call for construction over Garfield, and if we don't have this, it is just totally impossible to build a church. Now if you can just give us some time m m Dover: Ben, my problem is that I don't understand your problem? I may be dense. But I don't understand m has someone told you m has the Planning Commission or some one told you they are not going to close the portion of Garfield you want closed unless it is all closed? Allen: The Planning Commission m correct me if I'm wrong- Mr. Taylor and Mr. de Noble were both present at the meeting = t-«ld us that they at least are not going to make a decision until we had.sat down and talked and attempted to work out an access arrange® ment exclusive of Garfield with the American Pioneer and Mr. Green who then owned the property. Now, we have since that time - the new owners of this particular property who have taken the place of American Pioneer = we have not had adequate time to sit down and do what the Planning Commission told us, and if we don't do this I don't think they are going to close Garfield Street. Dover: They have told you that you have got to work out access to this property? Allens Yes. You see these people were protestants in the proposed closing of Garfield Street. Dover: What is involved in the petition now before the Planning Commission? What portion of Garfield o just between "J" and Evergreen? Allens Yes, the north boundary line of "J" Street to the south boundary line of Evergreen. I can't see how a little time would be destructive to orderly planning ® orderly growth in this portion of the city. We have to understand that these people just bought this Page -9- Board of Adjustment Minutes June_.17,1968 thing within the last thirty days and they knew this matter was before the Planning Commission. I am sure they did. Farrell: The applicant states that they could care less whether the street is open or closed. Allen: I£ they will agree to s - now, is this true? Farrell. Is that right Mr. Lester? Allen. If we have an understanding with the applicant now that they don't care whether it is closed or open, this will resolve the problem. Lester: Obviously we don't care about Garfield. We want access to Evergreen - across there and are prepared to negotiate. But I submit, Mr. Allen is asking for more time. I can tell you in all candor this delay in what we feel is a reasonable petition will cost my client thousands and thousands of dollars. He put his finger on it. I could stand up here right now and say we won't oppose Garfield closing and Mr. Allen - I believe would tell you - he would withdraw his objection. So they are using the Board of Adjustment to try and force my client to agree to something that is really a valuable right, or at least a right to be held. Farrell. Excuse me - nobody is going to use the Board of Adjustment. Let's be very clear on that point right now. Lester: Well, that is the only objection they are making to it, if we just consent to closing of Garfield Street. The Board of Adjustment has no power to close or not close Garfield Street. That is the only objection we are facing, and I can state publicly and Mr. Block is ready right now and willing to negotiate on something as the Planning Commission directed and is prepared to negotiate with Mr. Allen on some other access to Evergreen. They would fall in with the Church plan m whatever that might be. We are not prepared to say that we are willing to give up what we think we are entitled to any way - the valuable right and the potential right for access t9 Evergreen to this property, but we didn't set it out in our plot plan. The plan we are submitting to you now takes care of the eventuality that the Planning Commission will elect to close it. Farrell. If this plan as submitted solves your problem, can you or your client submit that you would waive the closing? Lester: No, no - we would say we would negotiate on some other - m not just down Garfield Street - just as long as we have access to Evergreen. We are prepared to negotiate on that. We feel that -we are entitled to pass our argument to the Planning Commission on that. Our argument is that the only opposition to the Board of Adjustment is the closing of Garfield, and we don't think we should be clubbed into waiving what we think is a valuable right in order to get a reasonable petition across, particularly when we have taken care of "if Garfield is closed". Farrell: Have you and your client gotten with the other clients at any time to date on this problem? Lester. I understand that Mr. Block has. Is this correct? Page =10= Board of Adjustment Minutes June 17,1968 Mark Blocks I have had several conversations with representatives of their group and have offered to be with their group, and have made several suggestions that I thought were in keeping with what they wanted to do, and thought they were following these suggested plans. The point is, gentlemen, we can't stand the delay to go through some long negotiations with these people. We are willing to negotiate, but as Ed (Lester) said we shouldn't have a club held over our heads to make us negotiate the way they want us to negotiate, or we won't sit here and oppose what you want to do if our proposal is legitimate. We are certainly willing to negotiate and have been doing so to the best of our ability,and will continue to do so to satisfy their needs as well as our own, and that would be up to the Planning Commission who have asked that the predecessor is entitled to negotiate with the Church and try to work out something that was agreeable to both of them, and I think+ve have a plan before us - both groups- that will ultimately be agreeable to both of them; that is, our client, and the Church o and I think they will tell you that they have had this plan presented at my suggestion and it could probably work out, and I think it will ultimately work out that way. But don't delay us until we work out our problems. This is in the form of a private negotiation between two individuals, or two groups of individuals that has nothing to do with the plot plan that has been presented for approval here. Farrells Let me ask one more question, Mr. Block. If Garfield Street is closed from "I"° to Evergreen, would this affect your project in any, shape or form? Blocks I think it could be done that way although the negotiations that are taking place right now don't call for it to be done that way. Farrell: Would it affect your project? Blocks I think it could be worked out that way or with portions of Garfield open ® if it were closed from "I" all the way to Evergreen ® I don't think that I could, on the part of my client, agree to this, if that is what you are asking. I think it could be worked out that way, but I cannot agree to this on the part of my client without their permission to agree to it because something else would have to be worked out to give them access in order to do this, and the plan we are working on right now with the Church does not call for that either. Williams: I have a question for the Staff. Has there been a development plan that can be obtained for the Board submitted on the Church property in connection with the rezoning application's Has there been any study as to the circulation patterns that may be developed in this area on "ill Street to the west of Garfield? Is there any topographical reason why that street could not be opened, or would not be required to be opened in keeping with the plat that Mr. Allen is talking about. Block: I would like to bring out one more point that I don't think has been brought out. The present development plan calls For ingress to the property from University but no exit, so we wouldn't be creating a traffic problem on University Avenue at that inter= section. They have a deceleration lane that will be extended and you will have ingress to this piece of property from the deceleration lane, and no exit on to University Avenue. The design would keep them from exiting on to University Avenue. Mr. Taylor exhibited a rough map showing the properties involved as they relate to each other, "J" and "I"" Streets, Garfield and Evergreen Streets, and the traffic patterns. Pagemll- Board of Adjustment Minutes W illiamss Is there an overall plan on all the projections for closing streets in this immediate area, or are these simply the ones that have been petitioned to be closed? Taylor: Just the ones petitioned to be closed. Lester: Our clients have no objection to talking about a different relocation of Garfield as long as they have access, but we again submit we want our petition to stand on its own bottom here without this lateral thing which is not before the Board of Adjustment, but the Planning Commission. Allen: We are not trying to use this Board of Adjustment as a spring board. We are trying to ask the Board not to destroy the negotiations so as to make them ineffective as the Planning Commission asked us to enter into. This is all we are talking about. Just give us a little time o we are not asking that it be denied or (ultimately I guess we are), but if we can just delay this for a little while - - Block: For -the benefit of Mr. Allen, whether this Board delays this application or not will not in any way affect the negotiations that are going on between my client and the Church. There are still the same problems that will be presented whether this is granted or delayed, and they will still come out the same way and I am sure it can be worked out to everybody's satisfaction. We are trying our best to do that, so I don't believe it will affect it one way or the other. Mr. Gayle Windsor, Jr., 1010 North Arthur Street, a half block north of subject property, said that the proposed facility would infringe on the privacy of his and other residences in the area and will be the start of the commercialization of the whole area around it. He urged that the application be denied. Mr. John D. Martin, 6221 °"I" Street submitted a petition with 12 signatures of adjacent property owners in the area in opposition.' Mr. Herbert W. Hollingsworth,representing the First Baptist Church which has 2500 members, expressed the desirability of having a meeting of all concerned in order to get the sentiment of the church membership concerning the dividing of their property if Garfield Street is not closed. Mr., Bill Stathakis, 6201 " 1" Street ( corner of Garfield Street and "I°9 Street) was present stating that "I"° Street is a narrow street and if that is the only exit from subject property, it will be a traffic "mess °"I" Street is closed from University to Garfield. Mrs Theo Mashburn, 923 N. Cleveland Street, was present in opposition, stating they would like the neighborhood to be left as it is, and not commercialized; that it would be a traffic bottleneck and ruin values in the area. A motion was made that the application be approved with a provision that a lane be provided along University Avenue, along the entire length of the property between "J" Street and "I°" Street having setback to provide three lanes on the west side of University and that the entrance on "J" Street be altered (and approved by the Staff) in such a way as not to create any traffic hazard at that point; that the final plan regarding the grading, turn radius and vertical curves be approved by the Fire Department for access of trucks into this area. The motion was seconded and passed. Messrs. Dickson Flake and Dave Grundfest voted in the negative. Page -12- v Board of Adjustment Minutes June 1791968 Tract No. 4 - Z-1706 Applicants Location-. Description-. Classification. - Variance: West Markham Street Baptist Church 9709 West Markham Street A tract of land described as the north 200 feet of the west 150 feet of Lot 6, West Markham Street Subdivision "A"- One -family District Requests a Variance from the Yard Area Requirements of Section 43-1.2 of the Code of Ordinances to permit addition to existing church building Mr. Raymond Branton, Architect, was present to represent the applicant. He stated that this Variance was requested in order to build the final stage of the proposed building program that was begun a number of years ago. The plan calls for a 60' X 12W sanctuary addition. He said they are not asking for any side yard Variances, either front or back, and that they will remove two existing structures that are in the location of the new structure. A parking lot is located across Markham Street which will park 100 cars, and they have another parking lot across the street to the west which will park 60 cars, and also have a permanent lease with a shopping center 1/2 block down the street to take care of overflow parking. The proposed addition will increase the present seating capacity of the Church by about 200 people. A motion was made that the application be approved. which was seconded and passed. Mr. de Noble said that a new Secretary of the Board of Adjustment should be appointed occasioned by his resignation. Mr. John L. Taylor was elected by acclamation. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3030 P.M. Darrell D. Dover, Chairman Page -13- Taylor, , 617 � ng Secretary.I.�+-