boa_02 17 1976CTTMMARV OV
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MUTING
FEBRUARY 17, 1976
2:OD p.m.
There was a quorum present and the minutes of the
previous meeting were approved.
Members present: William L. Moore, Chairman
Robert Shell
Jerry C. Wilcox
Riddick Riffel - City Attorney
Members absent: Samuel W. Anderson
M. R. Godwin
2-17-76
Item No. 1 - NEW MATTERS
Case Number:
Applicant:
Location:
Description:
Present Classification:
Z-2986
Charles Anderson, Jr.
7300 W. 12th Street
Long legal
"F" Commercial District
Variance: Requests a variance from main
structure provisions of Sec. 43
of the Code of Ordinances to
permit an addition to the existing
building (drive-in restaurant)
Requests a variance from the setback
provisions of Sec. 43 of the Code of
Ord. to permit less than required
setback
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: AFTER MUCH DISCUSSION, THE BOARD
VOTED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS FILED. (3 ayes - 0 noes -
2 absent)
Staff Recommendation: This application is before the Board
primarily because of 2 main uses in 2 main structures with
orientation toward separate streets. The ordinance would
require one street to be the front yard and in this case both
existing buildings are closer to the property line than per-
mitted. As shown on the plan, the proposed additions would
reduce the building setback along Rodney Parham to 4 ft. from
about 9 ft. + existing. In order to provide protection for
any future right-of-way taking needed on Rodney Parham Road, we
feel that a redesign of the additions to the west would be more
appropriate. This may or may not change the basic walk-up
design but as of this writing, we have no evidence that redesign
will adversely affect the building's use.
The staff would recommend approval of the variance request to
make the proposed additions in line with the above comments.
There were no letters of objection and no objectors present.
Mr. Anderson was present and stated that after his meeting with
the staff, he had consulted with his architect and they could not
move the addition further west without losing the walk-up window
which was most of his business.
- 1 -
2-17-76
Item No. 2 - NEW MATTERS
Case Number:
Applicant:
Location:
Description:
Present Classification:
z-2988
Buddy Finkbeiner
2305 North Spruce Street
Lots 17 and 18, Block 9,
Country Club Heights Addition
"A" One -family District
Variance: Requests a variance from rear yard
provisions of Sec. 43 of the Code
of Ord. to permit extension of
existing structure into rear yard
and permit retention of an existing
accessory building for a period of
time to be agreed upon by owner and
Board
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
WITH A REQUIREMENT THAT THE
ONE YEAR FROM THIS APPROVAL
(3 ayes - 0 noes - 2 absent)
THE BOARD VOTED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST
ACCESSORY BUILDING BE REMOVED WITHIN
(WHICH WAS ACCEPTABLE TO THE APPLICANT).
Staff Recommendation: A site inspection suggests to the staff that
the requested variance is in fact a design problem and is not a
recognizable hardship. The ordinance requires a 25 ft. rear yard
setback and with the sizeable yard area to the sides of this resi-
dence, it appears that the requirement could be met. The applicant
indicated that the proposed addition would be temporarily tied to
the existing garage/accessory building. The staff feels that once
tied together it could be difficult to require removal of the
structure. If the applicant proposed no tie between the structures
and keeps the accessory building, then a total of 28 ft. of rear
yard will be needed inasmuch as the building code requires 6 ft.
separation between structures. Without further supportive informa-
tion, the staff can not recommend the requested variance as pro-
posed. We would recommend that the Board at this time either deny
the request or suggest to the applicant that a deferral for further
design consideration be requested by him.
There were no objectors present and no letters of objection. The
applicant was present and stated that although he proposed future
removal of the accessory building, he desired to keep it at this
time for storage but not physically tie the new addition to it.
- 2 -
2-17-76
Item No. 3 - NEW MATTERS
Case Number:
Applicant:
Location:
Z-2991
Arkansas Waffles, Inc.
911 McAlmont Street
Description: Lot 15, NZ of Lot 14, all of
Lots 4 and 5, lying west of
Int. #30, and all of 20 ft.
alley adjacent, Block 4,
Masonic Addition
Present Classification: "HR" High Density Residential
Variance: Requests a conditional use permit
to permit a restaurant - non
drive-in
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: AFTER MUCH DISCUSSION FROM BOTH SIDES
AND THE BOARD, THE BOARD VOTED TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING BE ACCOMPLISHED:
1. Construct from same brick as the building, a 4 ft. high solid
brick wall along a line 9 ft. east of the west property line except
for driveway (from north to south property line).
2. The 9 ft. area -between the 4 ft. wall and McAlmont Street be
landscaped and the Planning Staff to review and approve the plan for
such landscaping prior to installation.
3. A 4 ft. screening fence of wood or other opaque material be
provided along the south property line between parking areas and
adjacent property.
4. The dumpster to be relocated to a position adjacent to the
west side of the building and service area (removed from property
line on McAlmont).
5. The building to be face brick on all areas not proposed for glass.
6. No signs be allowed on McAlmont side of property (building or
ground mounted)
(3 ayes - 0 noes - 2 absent)
Staff Recommendation: The obvious intent of the "HR" District is that
those uses permitted conditionally be required to harmonize with the
character of the area. A restaurant of this type is highly dependent
upon highway -transient trade and upon its visibility. Both of these
characteristics would have negative impact on adjacent property which
could redevelop in a conforming manner and on MacArthur Park. The
staff recommends denial of the plan submitted and that further thought
be given to design characteristics more in keeping with the area.
There were no -letters of objection. There were 6 persons present in
objection. Mrs. Athalee Walrod and Mrs. Bailey spoke for the group.
The applicant was represented by W. M. Putnam.
- 3 -
2-17-76
Item No. 4 - DEFERRED MATTERS
Case Number: Z-2976-
Applicant: Kenneth Hudspeth
Location: #19 Cinderella Circle
Desciption: Lot 17, Storybook Village
Present Classification: "A" One -family District
Variance: Requests a variance from the fence
height provisions of Sec. 43-21 of
the Code of Ord. to permit a fence
in excess of 6 ft. tall
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: AFTER LENGTHY DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE,
WITH PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE METHOD OF MEASURING THE HEIGHT OF
THE FENCE GIVEN THE CHANGING GRADES INVOLVED, THE BOARD VOTED TO
DENY THE VARIANCE REQUESTED AND DIRECTED THE APPLICANT TO LOWER
THE FENCE TO 6 FEET IN HEIGHT SO AS TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE.
SINCE THE QUESTION OF "METHOD" FOR MEASURING THE EXACT HEIGHT OF
THE FENCE HAD NOT BEEN RESOLVED, THE STAFF ASKED FOR FURTHER
INDICATION FROM THE BOARD AS TO THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT THAT THE
FENCE WAS TO BE LOWERED. AFTER MORE DISCUSSION, THE BOARD
SUGGESTED THAT AN ON -SITE MEETING BETWEEN A PLANNING STAFF REPRE-
SENTATIVE, PROPERTY OWNER, AND NEIGHBORS MIGHT RESULT IN AN
AGREEABLE "METHOD". STAFF AGREED BUT INDICATED FOR THE RECORD
THAT IN CASE OF FURTHER DISAGREEMENT, THE STAFF WOULD DECIDE.
(3 ayes - 0 noes = 2 absent)
Staff Recommendation: This issue was deferred at the January 1976
meeting. The staff restates its previous recommendation as we
find no changes since that time. This issue comes to the Board as
the result of a violation investigation. It appeared to the
investigating officer that the fence did not comply and the owner
was notified of his alternatives. There is a question in the minds
of all staff personnel involved in this issue as to the proper
method of measuring the fence height. The ordinance is not clear
and leaves the subject to interpretation. The staff can not, after
review of the history of this case, find reason for the fence to
exceed the permitted height of 6 ft. above adjacent ground grade
(yard to the west). The fence as it is located is greatly in
excess of the permitted height on the owner side of the fence.
This is due to the fence being located on top of a retaining wall.
The wall is 25 inches _+ tall on the east side and the board fence
is 612" tall for a total of 813". If measured from the neighbor's
yard elevation to the west, the fence is at the most 7'4" as the
retaining wall is generally higher than that yard and variable.
- 4 -
2-17-76
Item No. 4 - Z-2976 (Continued
There is a small space between the board fence and the adjacent
chain link fence, + 2 ft. The staff feels that if no height
difference existed_on the west 4ide of the wall between the
adjacent yard and top of wall,'the owner. would be permitted
6 ft. of fence. The only iss"'the staff :finds then is: do
you remove portions of the fenb&4W back fill the wall to
make the fence comply, or waive A&t #et6t as requested. The
staff recommends denial of the requested variance and the removal
of sufficient dimension to bring the fence into conformance. In
order to back fill the retaining wall the neighbor's property
would most likely be involved. We would further recommend the
lowering of the fences between the applicant's residence and his
neighbors. These fence sections on both sides of his residence
are in excess of 7 ft. in height.
Mrs. William Thompson was present in opposition.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at
4:00 p.m.
Ames A. Finch, Secretary
Owlic
Z-2991 - Arkansas Waffles, Inc.
Location: 911 McAlmont Street
Mr. Bill Putnam was present to represent the applicant. Since there were only
three Board members present, he asked Mr. Riffel, City Attorney, about
parlimentary procedures. He said that he may want to defer the matter until
next month when perhaps more of the members could be present. However, time
was somewhat of an essence.
Mr. Moore: I have not made up my mind. I would like to hear all the evidence.
Mr. Riffel: Mr. Putnam you may proceed. You may ask for a negative vote;
if you get one, you may ask for a deferral.
Mr. Wilcox: Mr. Putnam, if you are asking for a negative comment, based on
the plan I see in front of me as presented, I would vote "No".
Mr. Putnam: May I ask, on design, or layout?
Mr. Wilcox: The lack of adequate screening for the park itself. I am not
against the Waffle House or the proposal, but just the lack of thought about
the screening. I think there could be a compromise.
Mr. Putnam: We have no objection to what is adequate and proper screening.
We have discussed moving the location of the trash bin and have agreed (submit
in writing) on putting some sort of screening around it. The building is to
be brick, 22 x 80 ft., with glass on most of the area. It will be oriented
toward the service road, being 66 €t. away from the property line to the front
edge of the building. It will be a 24-hour facility which should be a help
to the security in the area. Being an eating place, the premises will have to
be kept clean and inspected by the City. We will shrub it, fence it, or
whatever.
Mr. Putnam related the history of the area from 1955 when the Highway Dept.
started appraisals and condemnation for construction of the freeway. There
were several property owners involved. Requested zoning was denied by the
Planning Commission and Board of Directors and appealed through the courts.
The area was zoned commercial by the Supreme Court. Service stations built
on the corners. The Central Little Rock Plan became involved through the
Little Rock Housing Authority and the property was zoned for high -density
residential.
Mr. Wilcox: Would you agree to put a 4 ft. high solid brick wall to match
the building across the western side except for a driveway and set back 2 ft.
for landscaping?
Mr. Putnam: I,would say "yes"
923 McAlmont Street,
Mrs. Athalee Walrod/spoke in opposition: (She read a letter from the
St. Edwards Catholic School commenting on the traffic hazard this establish-
ment would create for the children playing in the park). (She also read a
letter from MacArthur Park Neighborhood Association, see attached copy).
She has lived in the area since 1937. She feels that the property should
be residential or left as a buffer zone for the park. Mr. Saunders has not
kept his property up.
Mrs. Bailey spoke in opposition: She wanted the area to be residential.
Mr. Shell: Do you realize the property is already zoned for a restaurant?
We can not do anything about that.
Mr. Putnam: We will pull traffic in from freeway.
Mr. Wilcox: If that is the case, then the driveway on McAlmont will be
used as a service entrance? You will not want a sign on McAlmont.
What about screening on the south side?
Mr. Putnam agreed.
THE BOARD VOTED TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROVIDED
THE FOLLOWING BE ACCOMPLISHED: (3 ayes - 0 noes - 2 absent)
1. Construct from same brick as the building, a 4 ft. high solid brick
wall along a line 9 ft. east of the west property line except for driveway
(from north to south property line).
2. The 9 ft. area between the 4 ft. wall and McAlmont Street be landscaped
and the Planning Staff to review and approve the plan for such landscaping
prior to installation.
3. A 4 ft. screening fence of wood or other opaque material be provided
along the south property line between parking areas and adjacent property.
j 4. The dumpster to be relocated to a position adjacent to the west side
of the building and service area (removed from property line on McAlmont).
5. The building to be face brick on all areas not proposed for glass.
6. No signs be allowed on McAlmont side of property (building or ground
mounted).
N
8te►te t tdr. ti:h Boa nL„ 2, - , 110- j nt�
Febua ry 17 , 1970
Ply wa w@ is Athfal.laas Waiklrod. I am aaa r4 w bar of the Mac Arthur park
Nsighborhood association which In s V=t (If A00RN, Miff JQdZ Nsmpnsr
aid I live at 923} Md&lmmntr in the a;aa j 1-1 )ok with this land owned by
Mro gaanders. once &Wan r we are here st • t i bidding of Kr. V. At Uunder$
for the resoning of hill proapertyo We have b-.ion hers so aaaamy tikes
that I lost count save yeaw.ra a goo,
t+
If fir. Saunders lured in Our b110a .�a t ould chose his aslghborh
more oagrtfully. since this is not the arise 411 ho can think about is
who oan he moll his mparty to in order to xva over this pr*poatexous
0
prices he pal.d for these lotse is 0=0 hsifs t;rYing to m"s & 9004 profit
item his Investment as ersll. But if Mr, dsunders lived in our Haab Arthur
PaA neighborhoodr he would consider the im t of his plaza on our P&Ak
aced on the future development of our entiro neighborhood, T1w last
tiro we were hers Kr• Ssut<WAraa got pormission to mover this land with
at 4 story motfal which Mired %,l&xgs parking log and a swimming pools
What ever h.--p a d to that? k1l, we can do J.a wander what plans he harm
this time and whist will follow for the rs inUW lots on this block.
623 W. 15th Street Little Roark, Arksnsa a 722C12 375.7161
AfflftSSB vvq FowvW Gf tho A& Wiillan 9f 00i;, -A ArtV CVL"V-w 10M, for rkitliD M Now
.-Waw "
The rewta umnt Mr. S&und6raa uoW desailbes wrAad ra quire 'big -mi t s_&" rely
hosyily on its ability to pol in tLsfflo from the froswa y, The Maw Arthur
paaic Neighborhood Assooiation frelro that this* features rm aright aa&ihst
what is good for out psA AMd'--00ighbnrhuod. people of L11 sgos 0000 to
the park its a rotreat4 They oovis to sit auxd play afty from cars auA sig*o•
Highly visible oaaameroial uvhiteature wA idanar alvarl.y do not gn along
with the nature of a pa ko Although Mr. Saunders says this is not a►
"drive-in"y we all know that everyow drives to wherev+ar 'they aecss go?".
Ina easing traffic will cake the panic IL less "go plaoao for ohildron to
ple.y anti otiwyrs to walk, In fact, we noti"d La the plans of the rest4u-
neat that tr0fla will be coming xud going YOZY aeAr onaa Of thaw patra s
playgrounds.
Finally our neighborhood asa 0aidtiob is oaaaos=etd thAt WS will. 04d
to the development of & Con"Voija strip on this block, Phis blook is
the only `t►uffor that exists between the Vol* arsd 00 fT0&w&Ya If you allow
dais sort of thing to be built# a oomeraifil rtrip will ja*vitably follow
as this areab-00*s lose attftative to MW fasts Of resideutiaa usem Soon
this buffer son* will be destroy"and our, i will tram 14to A shoppdft
mall*
over tib* past yeas out neighbo-Atood has been revitali. . Zia feel
that,one of the things that has mWe this possible has 'bean the park%
Young fa►railies hAve moved baoic into this nei.ghbas sd buaduss of it -
The older residents of t-Wld.ings around her* *once out of their
awt-monts because the }park is such a nice ylxoe to walk, Miss Krapner
and I have Jived besids the park for over 99 dears, The house we live
to presently ws built ouriwIves. This winter people in this neighborhood
forced the Mao Arthur Park Meighbortg" Assoolatlon as a part of AQORX
bsoause we a+ant to imIntain o%W neighbortroad from specule.tors such as
Mxe R4unors, We are also working on other problass in the neighborhood,
such as trying to get a w&Ik light at 9th and Rook. This ie the firaot
time I hova participated in thsoo hearings with the backing of ouch a
�r group. As somb2ro of Ail TWI auIng the atrongth of nuabsrst we will
con��nve to work for the betternsut grid integrity of our neighborhood•