Loading...
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 --