boa_03 19 1973LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
M I N U T E S
MARCH 19, 1973 2:.00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Lawrence S. Woolsey, Chairman
L. Dickson Flake, Vice Chairman
S, Spencer Compton
M. R. Godwin
MEMBERS ABSENT
Walter E. Vroman
STAFF PRESENT
Don R. Venhaus
John L. Taylor
James A. Finch
Richard W. Wood
Dorothy Light
OTHERS PRESENT
Perry V. Whitmore, City Attorney
D. Gage, Gazette Reporter
R. Armbrust, Democrat Reporter
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 last meeting as
mailed, which was seconded and passed.
Action was taken on the following advertised items:
Tract No. 1 - Z-7
Applicant: Cliff Peck Inc.
Location: 6700 South University Avenue
Description: All of Lots 39 through 42, Graceland Acres Subdivision
Present Classification: "G-l" Commercial and "A" One -family Districts
Variance: Requests permission under the provisions of Section
43-22 (4)-(d) of the Code of Ordinances to permit
parking lot in a residential zone
Requests a variance from the Front Yard Open Space
provisions of Section 43-20 of the Code of Ordinances
to permit parking in front yard of residential zone
The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends approval
of parking waiver to allow applicant to use all but a 10 ft. strip along
Mabelvale Pike. It is recommended that an appropriate screening and heavy
landscaping be provided along Mabelvale Pike and that Staff be granted such
-� latitude as necessary to insure compliance with this requirement. The Staff
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
March 19, 1973
is rat opposed to the use of existing buildings in the area provided that
before any use is made of tract 42 structures, that an application for
rezoning be filed on all but the west 120 ft. thereof. Rezoning recom-
mendation to be conditioned on compliance with screening and landscaping
requirement. It is also recommended that before any use is made of the
storage area all surfacing and landscaping within the area be completed."
Mr. Bill Hodge was present to represent the applicant. He said that they
felt that the request they were making to put this screen and landscap-
ing along the Mabelvale Pike side of the subject property will result in
a much more attractive neighborhood because the present set-up involves
some property that is zoned "G-1" up to within about 120 ft. of the Pike,
the east side of Mabelvale Pike, and a strip of about 120 ft. along the
Pike is currently zoned 1°A" One -family residential. The property now
contains a few scattered structures, one of which will continue to be
occupied by a night watchman employed by Mr. Peck. The proposal essen-
tially involves moving a screen of 6 ft. in height or higher, if the
Board felt that such was necessary, within 10 ft. of the edge of Mabel -
vale Pike and then placing landscaping shrubs along the Mabelvale Pike
side of that screen. By screen, I refer to something along the nature
of a cyclone fence with cedar slats through the linkage. ,
Mrs. H. B. Zachery, Jr., 67.16 Mabelvale Pike, was present in opposition.
She lives directly behind subject property. She stated that she was very
pleased that the Board saw fit to ask, or Mr. Peck is understanding enough
to desire, to landscape this property which has not been landscaped. I
would like to ask if he plans to landscape the area all along the Pike
where it is presently screened?
Mr. Hodge said the plans call for screening and landscaping along the
entire frontage of the four tracts that Mr. Peck owns all along Mabel -
vale Pike.
Mrs. Zachery asked if the present screening is the type of screening they
plan to use.
Mr. Hodge replied that it was.
Mrs. Zachery further stated that there is another thing she would like
for the Board and Mr. Peck to take into consideration. Our property is
such that if Mr. Peck fills in this area, and it is my understanding •that
he plans to fill in the area north of his present parking area, that this
will build up to such a degree that our land will be flooded. Our entire
front yard, which is almost an acre, at the present time the flow of water
has been obstructed to such a degree with the rains we have had keeps our
front yard covered in a lake of water most continuously, and this has been
brought about by the fact that Mr. Peck's present paving on University and
his cutting down trees most recently has obstructed this flow of water.
This backs the water up. There is a culvert that goes under the street
between our property and the property next door and the water gathers and
flows under this culvert and is going down on Mr. Peck's property. I ask
f that the Board and Mr. Peck take into consideration whatever is necessary
- 2 -
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
March 19. 1973
in the way of a ditch or something that will allow this water to complete
its flow on down beyond his property. Perhaps this isn't your considera-
tion but it makes a whole lot of difference to our property.
Mr. Hodge stated that the drainage problem that Mrs. Zachery is referring
to is one that.may have resulted from increasing the grade at the back of
the Peck property to cause it to drain onto University from the back to
the front. We do not have any special plans to construct any special
drainage.system at the present.
Mr. Peck, the applicant, said that they have a situation out there that is
a little bad. This property is very flat and very soft. We built up a
little bit in the back --just enough to get a gradual flow to the front
where we have a drainage ditch on University. There are no ditches on
the back to carry the water off. There is a pipe underneath the street
that empties right out onto the property I just acquired and there is a
lake standing there now. We do plan on taking the trees off of that
property. We do plan on putting some base rock down to hold it because
just gravel or dirt will not hold. We will pick it up far enough for our
water to drain off into the sewer in the front. We do not intend for the
water to drain on someone else. The situation that Mrs. Zachery is talking
about is bad. Her property is low. There is a small drainage ditch in
front of her house. There is nothing on our side of the road. I think it
is more of a situation for the street department than it is ours. As far
as our causing any more of a problem, I was not aware that we were causing
any problem. It is quite expensive to fool with it.
Fonda Lyle, 6903 Mabelvale Pike, was present in opposition. She stated
that she md her father own property adjacent on the south of subject
property. I have a driveway easement up the boundary line. Because this
is all resid-ential property and it is 39.8..6 ft. from the Pike down to the
corner of my property, I would like to know if Mr. Peck intends to screen
his cars away from my residence.
Mr. Venhaus replied that it would be necessary for the applicant to screen
his property adjacent to the entire length of her property as required by
Board of Adjustment. The Staff recommendation would be that the same
screening of a 6 ft. solid fence plus landscaping be applied in relation-
ship to her property the same as it is on Mabelvale Pike.
Access to Mabelvale Pike to remain limited to one entry as is now.
Mr. Taylor recommended that the Public Works Department look into the
drainage problem.
A motion was made for _approval of the requested variance subject to the
following conditions, which was seconded and passed:
1. That all areas used for storage of cars, parking or drives be paved
in accordance with City Ordinance.
2. A 6 ft. opaque fence of redwood or other permanent type wood con-
struction (not chain link with slats) be erected along Mabelvale
- 3 -
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
March 19. 1973
Pike 10 ft. from and parallel to street right-of-way. Also construct
the 6 ft. fence requirement along the north property line east a
distance of 120 ft. from Mabelvale Pike -right-of-way and along •the
south property line east a distance of 398.6 feet. The remainder of
north property line to be screened in accordance with Ordinance
requirement (4 ft. opaque fence).
3—The 10 ft. strip of land lying along the Mabel.vale Pike property line
and outside the 6 ft. fence requirement to be landscaped.. A plan for
•this landscaping and all fencing to be submitted for Staff review and
approval.
4. Before any use is made of the structures on Tract 42, an application
be filed to rezone all but the west 120 ft. thereof. Recommendation
on rezoning conditioned on satisfactory completion of screening,
landscaping and paving requirement on entire site.
5. Public Works Department to investigate site drainage problems and make
recommendations. These recommendations to be complied with by appli-
cant in the filling or paging of this site.
:Tract No. 2 - Z-2691
Applicant- Drew Agar
Location: 5209 Sherwood Road
Description: Lot 80, Prospect Terrace Addition
Present Classification: `OA" One -family District
Variance: Requests a variance from the Side Yard provisions
of Section 43-12 of the Code of Ordinances to
permit construction in side yard
The Staff's recommendation •was read as follows: "The Staff recommends
approval of variance request. The existing building encroaches into the
side yard more than the proposed addition. The average setback on the
addition is + 4.7 ft. The required setback is 6a6 feet.B7
Mr. Jim Hathaway was present and said that he has a contract with the appli-
cant to purchase this property as his personal residence. My contract to
purchase the property is conditional upon my constructing rather significant
improvements to this property, among which is an extension of the kitchen
and a breakfast room area. After careful consideration of the various ways
of doing it, the most economical way I could see to accomplish this •was with
an extension on the east side of the house.
Dr. John Harrell was present in opposition to represent the residents of
5201 Sherwood Road adjacent to the subject property. He stated that •the
proposed structure would obscure light and ventilation. The closeness to
the adjacent property would detract from the general appearance. It would
be a fire hazard and will depreciate •the value of the adjacent property.
- 4 -
0
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
March 19, 1973
Mr. Compton asked how close was the house to the property line.
Dr. Harrell stated that it was about 5 feet.
Letters of objection were received from:
Mr. and Mrs. James B. Rasco, 5236 Sherwood Road
Mr. and Mrs. Fred Breitzke, 5231 Sherwood Road
Mr. Robert Lindsey, 5206 Sherwood Road, was present in opposition.
Mr. Hathaway said that he could cut one foot off which would increase
the side yard situation at the southeast corner to 4.5 ft. This would
make his proposed structure 8'xl8' instead of 9'x18' as requested.
A motion was made for approval of the amended application, which was
seconded and passed.
Tract No. 3 - Z-2299
Applicant:
Fred Selz, Agent
Location:
400 South Rodney Parham Road
Description:
Lot 2, Parham Place Addition
Present Classification:
"E-1-A" Nursing, Lodging, Undertaking District
Variance:
Requests a variance from the H.�.Light and Area
provisions of Section 43-14 of the Code of
Ordinances to permit construction of apartment
building in excess of permitted. height
(proposed 180' or 15 story)
Requests a variance from the (Density) Lot Area
Per Family provisions of Section 43-14 of the
Code of Ordinances to permit greater density
than permitted by 0-rdinance (147 by ordinance)
(proposed 155)
The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends
approval of height waiver as requested but denial of the density waiver
to allow more units per acre than permitted. It is recommended that the
height waiver be conditioned on setback from property line as per ordinance
requirement if extended beyond permitted maximum of 75' (a -ratio of 1 ft.
in height to 1 ft. setback above 45 ft.)."
Mr. Roger Thurmond was present to represent the applicant. He stated
that they propose to construct a high-rise apartment which would allow
more green space than a garden -type project. We proceeded to contact
all of the required neighborhood and the residents were in favor of the
project. We ask for a density waiver. I think, depending on how you
figure the square footage of the tract before or after the street
- 5 -
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
March 19, 1973
dedication of 10 ft. on Rodney Parham Road, we could put between 148
and 151 units. We made application to FHA and have done a considerable
amount of design work and have reached a module that is economically
feasible for 155 units, including the manager's apartment. We felt that
because of the economics of high-rise construction we do need the 155
units as requested.
In regard to the setback waiver, we were required to give an additional
dedication of 10 ft. along Rodney Parham Road. We would like to
orientate the building to the major street even though it does require
some what of a setback waiver. The mechanical system operation we found
works much better with our orientation of the building with the length
running_ north and south.
The proposed building is for 14 stories with eleven units per floor.
The .ground floor will be occupied by office and convenient type outlets
for the tenants, such as drug, beauty and barber shop. We are planning
no commercial on any other floors.
There were no objectors present.
A motion was made that the density waiver be denied. Waive setback
requirements to allow them to place the structure as it is now shown
on the lot. Allow the height waiver. Motion was seconded and passed.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
Lawrence S. Woolsey, Chairman
Don R. Venhaus, Secretary
- 6 --