Loading...
boa_02 19 1973LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT M I N U T E S FEBRUARY 19, 1973 MEMBERS PRESENT S. Spencer Compton, Vice Chairman L. Dickson Flake Lawrence S. Woolsey Walter E. Vroman M. R. Godwin MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF PRESENT Don X. Vennaus John L. Taylor Louis E. Barber Richard Wood James Finch Dorothy Light OTHERS PRESENT Perry V. Whitmore, City Attorney D. Gage, Gazette Reporter •R. Armbrust, Democrat Reporter 2:00 P.M. There being a quorum present, the meeting was called to order by Mr. Whitmore, Acting Chairman, at 2:00 p.m. A motion was made for approval of the minutes of the last meeting as mailed, which was seconded and passed. The following officers for the new year were elected: Lawrence S. Woolsey - Chairman L. Dickson Flake - Vice Chairman Action was taken on the following. advertised items: Tract No. 1 - Z-2570 Applicant: Jerry D. Jewell Location: 700 Block East 21st Street Description: Long legal Present Classification: "C" Two-family, 'IF1° Commercial and "E-1-A" Nursing Home, Lodging and Undertaking Districts Variance: Requests a Variance from the Height and Area provisions of Section 43-14.1 & 43-15 of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction of motel in excess of permitted height Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes February 19. 1973 Requests permission under the provisions of Section 43-22-(4)-(d) of the Code of Ordinances to permit parking lot in a residential zone The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "'Me Staff recommends approval of height, setback and parking waivers as requested. The design of this development leaves several problem areas, such as mini- mum parking requirement, street separation of parking areas. The Staff feels that such latitude as necessary should be given the Staff to deal with landscaping, screening, etc. in order to minimize the effect of this development on the adjacent area." The applicant was present to answer any questions. There were no objectors present. Mr. Venhaus stated that the Staff was not specifying any particular setback. They will be working with the architect who will be develop- ing the site to provide landscaping and screening to protect the adjacent properties and save as many of the existing trees as possible. Dr. Jewell, the applicant, said they would be most happy to comply. A motion was made to approve the Staff recommendations with the addi- tional provision that the setback and screening requirements from the parking areas be subject to Staff approval, which was seconded and passed. Mr. Godwin abstained. Tract No, 2 - 2-2686 Applicant: J. T. Laman by E. C. Smith Location: 2800 Kavanaugh Boulevard Description: Lots 4 and 5, Block 52, Pulaski Heights Addition Present Classification: 1°F" Commercial District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Setback pro- visions of Section 43-15 of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction in front yard space The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends denial of requested variance as there are several alternatives to the proposed plan which would eliminate the requirement of a variance and provide about the same floor area. Should the Board deny the requested variance, it is suggested that the 4 ft. side yard setback along the north property line be waived in that it serves no practical purpose with the existing change of elevation." - 2 - Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes February 19, 1973 Mr. Bill Haught was present to represent Mr. Smith. He said that this property was located at the corner of Beechwood and Kavanaugh Boulevard. This application is to request a front yard setback reduction approxi- mately 8 ft. from Beechwood. The hardship created is that the lot is irregular in shape and it is impossible to construct the proposed rectangular building. In order to utilize the lot in the most econom- ical and feasible way, it is necessary that one corner of the proposed building come within 8 ft, of the east property line. The building will include three retail outlets, a convenient store, laundromat and liquor store. Two of these facilities require a rectangular floor space. The alternative designs discussed with the Staff will not solve the problem. The applicant has no objection to the waiver of the 4 ft. setback as far as the side yard is concerned but this still does not alleviate the need for a variance on the front yard depth. Mr. Compton asked if anything had been done to analyze the grade problems in coming off of Beechwood. Mr. Haught said that there is a faigly steep grade coming in off of Beechwood. Mr. E. C. Smith was present as agent for the applicant. He said that they have consulted with an engineer and feel that they can work out the grade problem. Belle Spatz was present to represent the neighboring property owners. She asked the following questions: (1) The grade -- how do they intend to handle the change of -grade (2) Curb cuts -- how do they intend -to handle the drainage flow which is considerable coming down Beechwood (3) Traffic congestion -- because of the entrances, what will the increase load be at Kavanaugh. and Beechwood (4) The ratio of off-street parking -- is this satisfied to the square footage of the building (5) Loading factor -- do they intend to service these stores from the front or from the rear. She further stated that with these curb .cuts, parking spaces that have been used for the benefit of the entire area will now be diminished. The Chairman stated that the off-street parking requirement is satis- fied. Mr. Venhaus said that the access to and from the property and the drainage are not under issue for this Board. Mr. Smith said .that the ratio of off-street parking has been satisfied. He understands that they will be allowed two curb cuts. They are not doing -anything to change .the drainage from what it is now. The building will be built on the same grade as the existing building. The proposed building will be serviced from the front. - 3 - Little Rock -Board of Adjustment Minutes February 19, 1973 Mrs. Lois Ruple was present and stated that she lives across the street from the subject property on the corner of Kavanaugh and Beechwood. She has a business in her residence. She was concerned about the park- ing being eliminated on the street in front of her house. At the present, they can only park on one side of the street and this proposal would eliminate all parking on the street. Mr. James Dowell, 38 Pamela Drive, was present and stated that parking facilities to the north and west of the subject property that has been used as a community parking area will not be available for this pro- posed building,. jA motion was made that a waiver be .granted such that.a building be constructed 15 ft. from the east property line at the north property t line. That the east building line would have to be at right angle or perpendicular to the .north property line. That there be no vehicular °. access or curb cut on Beechwood, and that the 4 ft, side yard be waived, which was seconded and passed. :3. Tract No, 3. - Z-2668 Applicant• Medicenters of America, Inc. Location: 5720 West Markham Street Description: Long legal Present Classification: "E-11° Quiet Business District Variance• Requests permission under the provisions of Section 43-22 (4)-(d) of the Code of Ordinances to permit a hospital in an "E-11° zoning district. The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends .approval of requested variance. The applicant has made provision for sufficient off-street parking to meet city ordinance. The applicant proposes a two-story operating wing on the existing building in order to convert the existing building to hospital use.1° Mr. Dan Godwin was present to represent Medicenters of America, Inc, There were no objectors present. A motion was made to approve the variance requested, which was seconded and passed, Tract No. 4--Z-2678 Applicant: Location: Description: Pat Riley 2309 Beechwood Long legal - 4 - z Kittle Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes February 19 1973 Present Classification: "A" One -family District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Side Yard Setback provisions of Section 43-12 of the Code of Ordinances to permit .an addition to existing residence The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends denial of variance as requested. The favorable terrain of this property, and several alternate building locations indicate no hard- ship exists, but is a.matter of owner's preference. The residence -lying adjacent on the south has an 8.3 ft. side yard with about 3 ft. of eave projection. The proposed addition would leave 8 ft. _+ between eave .lines, whereas ordinance minimum would be 12 ft. It appears that few houses in this area have less than 15 ft. side yards on wide lots." Mr. Pat Riley, the applicant, was present. He stated that they pro- pose to build a .garage along the south side of their house. They retained an architect to draw .up the plans and came to the conclusion that this was the best place to put the garage. .If they could set 5 ft. off the property line, it would .give them a structure with a 22'k ft. interior. The garage would be 2 stories with a bedroom up- stairs .and storage area downstairs. The have no objection from the neighbors. The -Chairman said that this was a slight discrepancy in that the appli- cation -showed .the:garage to be 24 ft. and 4.22 ft. at the closest point to the property line rather than 5 ft. Mr. Riley said that they sought to ..gain 24 ft. but when the Staff disapproved, they felt that it would be appropriate to ask for the 5 ft. The Chairman asked if this altered his application. Mr. Whitmore replied "yes" and that this was permissible by oral statement in the meeting as long as he was modifying downward, but he could not expand it. Mr. Compton asked if the trees would be disturbed. Mr. Riley replied that they belonged to his neighbor and some branches may need to be trimmed on two of them. A.motion was made to grant a variance of a minimum 5 ft. side yard clearance, which was seconded and passed. Tract No. 5 - Z-2677 Applicant: Joe D. White Location: 1002 Loretta Lane Description: Lot 106, Leawood Heights Addition - 5 - e tittle Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes `"February 19, 1973 W�I Present Classification: "A" One -family District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Side Yard Setback provisions of Section 43-12 of the Code of Ordinances to permit an addition to existing residence The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends .9 rp oval of requested variance. This lot has two large easements crossing the rear half which create problems in expansion of the exist- ing residence. The owner indicated approval.has been granted by the Water Department for use of the 50 ft. strip for drive purposes." Mr. Taylor said that the applicant needed to secure approval from the utility company that is using the 20 ft. easement. Mr. Joe White, the applicant, was present and stated that he had secured approval from the Sewer Department and the Water Department of the plan submitted. There were no objectors present. A motionwasmade for .approval of the variance, applicant must submit written approval from utility companies prior to issuance of a building {` permit. Motion was seconded and passed. Tract No. 6-.Z-2587 6a. b Applicant: T.G.W., Inc. Location: 11800 Block Maralynn Road Description: All of Lots 1 through 86, Markham Mesa West Present Classification: "MF 24" Multi -family District Variance: Requests .a.Variance from the Interior Yard �;. Setback provisions of Section 43-4.5 (2) - (c) of the Code of Ordinances to permit fixed 10 $, side yards on the lots The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends denial of requested variances. The Staff takes a position of objection to this and future waivers of yard requirements in the Multi -family districts as proposed. Establishing precedents of this nature would render these districts ineffectual for their designed purpose." There were no objectors present. Mr. Robert M. Wilson was present to represent the applicant. He stated that they have tentatively laid out the 20 acres in lots averaging 70' x 105' and propose to restrict these lots to 4 units per lot. This will Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes February 19. 1973 decrease the density in the area by 100 units. The overall 20 acres will meet with the "MF 24" requirement which means -that the side yards and -the front and back yard, iftaken as a whole, would meet the requirement of "MF 24". Our problem comes -when we separate this into smaller lots and diversify the ownership. We think you ought to consider this as an overall development of an apartment complex so that we can look at the side yards on the overall .plan. First, the terrain is such that if we adhere to the "MF 24" setback of being as far from the interior..lot as we are height of the building, it seriously curtails the design of the buildings that might go in there. It would limit what we could architecturally propose. We would be talking about flat roofs on all the buildings and the situation would be improved by allowing, us to go to the 10 ft. side yard clearance. He further stated, There has already been one subdivision that has been granted a waiver so I don't think this.is a precedent setting request. Besides limiting the lot in the Bill of Assurance which we will be glad to do to no more than 4 units per lot, .we will also dedicate some 12 acres to a community project which would encompass swimming pool, tennis court, etc. I don't believe that it in any way relinquishes the requirement set up in "MF 24" if you take the unit as a whole." They had no objections from any neighbors. Mr. Venhaus said, "We are talking .about utilizing radically less than what the ordinance would authorize in terms of total density. We have a 20 acre site, and under "MF 24" they could build a total of 480 units. However, if you take out the street dedications which we always do in computing.densi.ty assuming you have about 20% .loss of the site in street dedications which I think would he reasonable as I have not computed -it completely, your total density allowance would be 384 units. They are proposing .to build 344 units. So by this format, they_ar_e actually putting in 40 less .units than the total density would allow under the maximum t°MF 2411. A motion was made for denial of the application, which was seconded and passed. Mr. Godwin abstained. Tract No. 7 - Z-2685 Applicant: James Company by E. C. Smith Location: -4701 Westwood Avenue Description: Lot 1, Block 41, Westwood Addition Present Classification: "F" Commercial District - 7 - L:_ttle Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes February 19. 1973 Variance: Requests a Variance from the Rear Yard Setback provisions of Section 43-15 of the Code of Ordinances to permit con- struction in rear yard space The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: 1°The Staff recommends denial of requested variance. This developer has several alternatives to the proposed plan which would eliminate the requirement of a variance." Mr. Bill Haught was present representing Mr. E. C. Smith. He said that basically the hardship that we feel would justify a variance in this case is two -fold. It is proposed that a reduction.in the rear yard setback of LO ft. would permit additional front yard depth from Asher Avenue property line to the northandwould afford additional front yard depth which is essential for parking and for the gasoline pump operations contemplated by the applicant which would be particularly critical in the event Asher Avenue is widened in the future. The second consideration is that we understand a shopping center development is to be constructed to the east of this location which will in effect require additional setback for sufficient parking space. Our proposed develop- ment, .a G-Whiz store and rental office space, we feel should be set back in line consistent with this proposed development to the east so it gives the appearance of uniformity and does not have the .effect of our particular -proposed structure closer to Asher than the structure to the east. We.feel the justification of the application -is the anticipation of these two developments -- Asher Avenue being widened .and the develop- ment of a shopping center complex to the east.-- which would make it extremely important to have additional front yard depth. We see no hardship to the adjacent property to the south of the subject property. This property is of considerable higher elevation going up Westwood Avenue. We feel that a 10 ft. setback in this instance would not create any problems or disadvantages to the property owners adjacent on the south. Mr. Elmo Dodd, 4703 Westwood Avenue, was present in opposition. He stated that he owns property 597 ft. long adjacent to the south of this property. This proposed building is in front of my house. I know it is zoned commercial. I want to know what type of building they are going to build and what they are going to use it -for other than the G-Whiz Store. I understand the variance is suppose to be 25 ft. The Chairman asked the applicant what operations are going to be in the G-Whiz Store and what type of tenants in the office space? Mr. Smith said they hoped to have something like a real estate or insurance office directly behind the G-Whiz Store. They don't have it rented at the present time. Their company does not plan to have an administrative office at the location. They do not have the facilities for a laundromat or liquor store. Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes February 19. 1973 Mr. Venhaus said in response to the applicant's remarks for the basis for this variance that it is not the fault of this Board, the Staff, or the applicant that the property is zoned in the fashion that it is presently zoned. However, .it does represent a rather intensive pene- tration o.ff of .Asher Avenue into a single family residential area. I would -suggest to you that the re.lationships.along the south property line are much more critical and are more deserving of attention than any proposed alignment along the frontage of Asher Avenue in terms of shopping facility to shopping facility. Therefore, we would certainly suggest consideration be given. Under "F" zoning there are approxi- mately 300 uses that could be put to use on the rear of this site and there are at least 100 of these uses that could be extremely objec- tionable to the adjacent single family residents. We would certainly urge that you give the residents of the area the full benefit of the setback that the ordinance requires. The Chairman asked what the ordinance requirement was in this case. Mr. Venhaus replied that it was 25 ft. A motion was made to deny the application, which was seconded and passed. Mr. Godwin abstained. The Chairman welcomed Mr. Godwin and Mr. Vroman as new members of the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Flake expressed the Board's thanks to Mr. Barber for his services and help that he .has given to them in the past. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:07 p.m. L 7bnce S. Woolsey, Uftatrma.n 0., P � )_�O, "J- Z � � -, Don R. Venhaus, Secretary - 9 -