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 -