boa_05 21 1979LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
May 21, 1979 "-
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present, being six in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes of the May regular meeting were approved
unanimously as mailed out, and the minutes of the
special meeting in April were also approved as mailed
out. The vote on both motions was: 6 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
III. Members present: Samuel Anderson
Jack Taylor
Marcelline Giroir
Jerry Wilcox
Ray Fureigh
James Summerlin
Members absent: Kirby Smith
Attorney Present: R. Jack Magruder
May 21, 1979
Item No. 1 - Z-3341
Owner:
Address:
Copar Inc.
By: William L. Terry
212 N. McKinley
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "A" One Family
Variance: Request permission under the provisions
of Section 43-22 (4) (d) to establish
a day-care facility in a residential
district.
Present Use Of
Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use
of Property: Day-care and Kindergarten
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This property has a long history of attempts to convert it
from residential to nonresidential use. The proximity to
fairly heavy automobile traffic during peak hours and to an
expanding shopping facility diminishes its desirability for
single family use. However, its relationship to the single
family subdivision to the west does not support major
commercial either.
The present request seems to permit a bringing to balance of
the two conflicting issues.
A day-care/kindergarten would seem to permit relief to the
owner from the problems associated with the commercial
activities east of McKinley Street; but at the same time,
this use should not adversely effect neighboring residential
uses.
Staff recommends approval.
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant was present and made a brief presentation to
the Board. He spoke about the importance of the neighbors
being aware of the difference between zoning changes and a
zoning variance. He also provided the Board and the
neighbors who were there to object, a background description
on Gus Brady, the owner of Copar, Inc., and the man who runs
the day-care operation. He talked of Mr. Brady's experience
May 21, 1979
Item No. 1 - Continued
in the field and his qualifications. He also presented
information to the Board on the regulations set forth by the
state government on day-care operations, and talked briefly
about the relationship between the property that his client
owns and the subdivision from which the opponents had come.
He then introduced Mr. Brady, who gave a brief presentation
of the method by which he operates his present day-care
centers, one of which is located in Little Rock and the
others in North Little Rock. He also talked about state
regulations and spoke of the method by which the "recess" at
his day-care centers is handled and told the audience that
the children under their care are generally discharged for
recess in small groups and further that only about 40
percent of the total population of his day-care centers were
allowed to go outside for recess at all because they
are below school age and not capable of taking care of
themselves. He said that he had found that most neighbors
objected to the noise potential of day-care operations and
wanted to make clear that he felt his operation would not
produce an excess amount of noise.
Speaking for the objectors, Dr. C. Ray Williams, of #6
Riviera Circle, presented to the Board a petition containing
ten signatures of neighbors who live in the subdivision
immediately west of this property. The petition stated
their objections to the zoninq variance requested on the
basis of the perceived devaluation of their own properties,
what they thought to be excess traffic potential on McKinley
Street, the noise level, and finally they stated they felt
that the property in question even though it was not
actually a part of Plaza Heights Subdivision, should be
considered a part of that subdivision, at least in terms of
the bill of assurance procedures. Dr. Williams also spoke
of the long history of zoning activities relating to this
particular property and the one neighboring property to the
north. He expressed the neighborhood's concern over what he
called "the foot in the door proposition," meaning that they
felt that this variance could also lead to a rezoning of the
property at some later date and asked that McKinley Street
be maintained as a barrier between their residential
neighborhood and the commercial development to the east.
Mr. Terry, given an opportunity to rebut, introduced letters
from several neighbors of two other day-care operations
operated by Mr. Brady. All of the letters stated that no
problems had been found by them relating to the existing
day-care facilities. He also introduced a letter from the
Arkansas Social Services Department which gave accolades to
the operations owned by Mr. Brady. He then restated the
May 21, 1979
Item No. 1 - Continued
importance of remembering the difference between a variance
and a rezoning.
The Board, after two or three questions regarding the number
of children to be cared for at the site and the potential
for screening the property and some of the past history of
the property, moved to approve the application with the
condition that a six foot high solid wood fence be erected
on the north, south and west property lines to screen the
day-care facility from the residences. The motion passed:
6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent.
May 21, 1979
Item No. 2 - Z-3351
Owner: Glenn Cunningham
Address: 409 E. 6th Street
Description: East 50' of Lot 1 and the East 50'
of the North 35' of Lot 2, Block 151,
Original City
Zoned: "HR" High Density Residential
Variance: Request permission under the provisions
of Section 43-35 (2) (d) to establish
a professional office in the "HR"
District.
Present Use Of
Property: Single Family Residence
Proposed Use
of Property: Advertising Agency
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The 6th Street Corridor seems committed to office uses in
conjunction with the redevelopment process. Staff sees no
problems to be associated with this conversion.
Staff recommends approval.
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant was present, and there were no objectors.
Upon questioning from the Board, the applicant stated that
it would be possible to park seven vehicles in the rear of
the property and meet the required parking for his
operation. After a brief discussion, the Board moved to
approve the application. The motion passed: 6 ayes, 0
noes, 1 absent.
May 21, 1979
Item No. 3 Z-1801-A
Owner:
Address:
Leland M. Robbins and Otto Bohn
By: Lynetta Robbins
212 S. Rodney Parham
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "E-l" Quiet Business
Variance: Request variance from Section 43-21
to permit a waiver of parking lot
paving requirements.
Present Use Of
Property: Beauty Shop
Proposed Use
of Property: Same
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff sees no demonstration of hardship or other reason for
granting such a waiver. The applicant has apparently sought
to expand a paved parking area but to reduce costs.
Staff recommends denial.
BOARD ACTION:
The applicant was present, and there were no objectors. The
Board questioned the applicant regarding the need for this
additional parking. The applicant stated that his existing
paved parking met requirements of the ordinance regarding
his type of business and stated that he really wanted the
additional parking only for employees. The Board discussed
this issue with the applicant at length and finally moved to
deny the application. The motion passed: 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1
absent.
May 21, 1979
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned
at 2:40 p.m. 1
C
airman' Secr t ry