boa_05 21 1973LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
M I N U T E S
MAY 21, 1973
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
W. Mike Dooley
Dorothy Light
OTHERS PRESENT
Perry V. Whitmore, City Attorney
D. Gage, Gazette Reporter
R. Armbrust, Democrat Reporter
9.nn 'P M
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,
which was seconded and passed.
Action was taken on the following advertised items:
Tract No. 1 - Z-1747
Applicant: Arkansas Childrens Hospital
Location: 800 Block Battery Street (west side)
Description: Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, Block 4, Marshall and
Wolfe's Addition and Lots 11 and 12,
Block 4, Fausts Addition
Present Classification: "C" Two-family District
Variance: Requests permission under the provisions
of Section 43-22 (4)-(d) of the Code of
Ordinances to permit parking lot in
residential zone (without_ required
improvements)
The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends
gpproval of variance request for a period of one year, to be reviewed
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
Mav 21. 1973
Page 2.
annually until disposition of I-630 right-of-way and/or hospital relocation.
The Staff recommends that applicant be required to contact traffic depart-
ment about the possibility of providing some means of access control to this
site due to improper curb cuts and drives."
Mr. Bill Meeks was present to represent the applicant. He said that there
had been no changes since the last meeting.
There were no objectors present.
A motion was made to approve the Staff recommendation, which was seconded
and passed.
Tract No. 2 - Z-2705
Applicant: Pulaski Heights United Methodist Church
Location: 600 North Spruce Street
Description: Lot 6, Block 34, Pulaski Heights Addition
Present Classification: "A" One -family District
Variance: Requests permission under the provisions of
Section 43-22 (4)-(d) of the Code of Ordi-
nances to permit parking lot in a residential
zone
Requests a variance from the Front Yard
Open Space provisions of Section 43-20 (2)-
(f)
The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends
approval of variance request for parking lot use subject to the applicant's
compliance with the previous Board of Adjustment variance on the lot
immediately west across the alley. The Board required on that lot a 4 ft.
screen fence of redwood construction and retention of all trees necessary.
A site inspection indicates the screening has either been removed or was
not erected previously. The same screening should be located along the
north and east sides of the lot at issue. The Staff recommends denial of
the request to park in front yard setback and recommends that it be main-
tained as green space. All possible steps should be taken to insure saving
as many of the existing trees on this site as possible. The installation
of sidewalks along Woodlawn should be required and located in such a manner
as would not damage the trees in this area. The improvements on this lot
should not be permitted until such time as the screening requirements of
the previous variance are complied with."
Mr. C. Allon Clift, 30 Pine Manor Drive, Chairman of the Board of Trustees,
was present to represent the applicant. He stated that the church desired
to tear down the residence on the subject lot. In keeping with the City
ordinances and requirements, we want to improve the lot by paving it and
making additional parking space. Our church is still growing with a
membership of approximately 4,000. We are in need of additional parking
space and are trying to develop that parking space in accordance with a
request of the Board some 12 years ago when we came before the Board and
Mr. Bruce Anderson was chairman. I was present then and it is true that
the wall on the lot referred to by your Staff is not of wood construction.
The City records may show that it was approved for a redwood fence. The
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
Mav 21. 1973
Page 3.
resident immediately north of this parking lot, which is in front of
our sanctuary, objected strongly to the tall 4 ft. redwood fence,
and again we appeared before the Board, and Mr. Anderson came up with
the suggestion that cost us even more money by putting in the rock
wall. We built this type of lower wall which was more satisfactory
to the resident to the immediate north of us. It was installed and
we curbed around the trees hoping to keep all the trees that we could.
One tree has since died and we had it removed. That explains the wall
constructed 12 years ago. Immediately after we developed this parking
lot, we had the possibility of buying the property at 600 North Spruce
Street. We did buy it and have been renting it hoping to get it paid
out so we might tear the structure down and have additional parking
space. This lot is immediately in front of our Youth Building. The
sanctuary faces Woodlawn and connected to it to the east is our Youth.
Building that faces this lot in question at 600 North Spruce Street.
The recommendation of the Staff, although it may be in accordance with
their feeling about it and the requirements of certain ordinances, is
not acceptable to us. We intend to tear down the building and leave the
lot unimproved before we go this expenditure for a few parking spaces
we would have if we offset the 25 ft. This means that we would lose
four parking spaces when we only have 18 as it is. We lose two in
front of 600 North Spruce -- the people are now parking in front of
this residence, so that would give us a net of 16 spaces. If we lose
four of the 18 spaces and the two in front, that leaves a net of 14.
We can't live with that.
Further recommendation of the Staff is that the sidewalks be required
along Woodlawn along this property. In_,meferring to the drawing,
please note the trees where the sidewalks would be. I have had some
experience with paving and denying trees of proper moisture. We do
not feel that we should be required to provide sidewalks along Woodlawn
Street. We will have to remove two trees under our plan which are
located in the center of the lot. One is where we propose to make the
entrance into the lot off of Spruce Street. We propose to go right on
through across the alley, using the alley as an exit, or going on
through our existing parking lot and coming out with the exit as it
now exists in our present parking lot immediately in front of the
sanctuary. We propose to tear down the present structure. It is per-
haps 60 years old and we would have to spend from $3,000 to $5,000 on
it to still maintain it as rental property. We have finally paid for
this property and feel that we can do what we want to with it, so we
have decided to tear the building down. The property owner to the
immediate north is perfectly satisfied with what we propose to do.
If you want a redwood fence, we will put one as proposed but we do not
propose to put one on top of the rock wall in the other parking lot
which has been there for 12 years and everybody is satisfied with. Mr.
Goode Stewart who is present today has called personally upon the people
in the area.
Mr. Goode Stewart stated that in regards to the fence on the east side
of this lot that is required according to the Staff recommendation,
there are no other fences along Spruce Street, and to bring this fence
around to the front part of this lot would probably obstruct the view
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
May 21. 1973
Page 4.
and make it more hazardous entering into the lot or entering onto
Woodlawn Street. I have contacted every one of the property
owners and had them sign the notices, and did not get any objec-
tion from anyone to our proposed plan.
The Chairman asked if screening would be required along Woodlawn.
Mr. Venhaus replied that the Staff would be happy to contact the
property owner on the original parking lot and if it is the
r
original owner's desire not to have any screening over and above
the rock retaining wall, certainly from the Staff's standpoint,
we would want to honor that. With respect to screening along
Woodlawn, since the church is the property owner and the property
we would be screening would be the church, and the church
obviously has no desire in screening their own parking lot from
themselves, we would suggest a waiver of that screen requirement.
iy
With respect to Spruce Street, we are concerned with saving the
trees and putting an attractive front area to the parking lot
that is consistent with the neighborhood on Spruce Street, and
that is the reason we suggested no access on Spruce Street.
The Chairman asked if the Staff wanted to comment on the sidewalk
issue.
Mr. Venhaus stated that the Staff thinks that the sidewalk is a
-.
normal and reasonable requirement. It is our intent that if the
sidewalk is to be built that it be curved around the trees so it
would not harm them.
Mr. Clift asked for a 30 day deferral.
There were no objectors present.
A motion was made to defer this matter for 30 days until the June
18th meeting, which was seconded and passed.
Tract No. 3 - Z-2707
Applicant: Harrison Enterprises, Inc.
Location: 2419 Vance Street
Description: Lot 5, Block 38, Braggs 2nd Addition
Present Classification: "C" Two-family District
Variance: Requests permission under the provisions
of Section 43-22 (4)-(d) of the Code of
Ordinances to permit parking lot in a
J residential zone
r,
Requests a variance from the Front Yard
Open Space provisions of Section 43-20
(2)-(f) of that ordinance to permit parking
s,; in front yard setback
y The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends
approval of variance request subject to applicant complying with all
r
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
Mav 21. 1973
Page 5.
provisions of off-street parking section of zoning ordinance. The
Staff recommends that street improvements be installed along Vance
Street and all steps taken to insure saving as many of the trees
on this site as possible."
The applicant, Mr. Dick Harrison, was present and stated that this
request is for parking for their employees, not the public, with
entrance on Vance Street which is at present unimproved as far as
curb, gutter and sidewalk.
Mr. Venhaus asked the applicant if he understood the Staff recom-
mendation on this matter.
Mr. Harrison asked, "When you say improvements -- are you saying
street improvements on Vance Street?"
Mr. Venhaus answered that what we had reference to is curb and
gutter on Vance Street from the north property line down to East
Roosevelt Road.
Mr. Harrison said that he would object to that because there is
nothing on the street all the way up. I would think if you im-
prove the street, we should then pay for our part of it and
install it, but I see no reason why we should put something up
there when no other lot has any improvements such as that.
Mr. Venhaus said that the requirement is that if the area re-
develops north of you, they would be required to build curb and
gutter in connection with their building permit. I don't under-
stand how your building was built without the requirement that
you build curb and gutter in connection with it. If we do not
get the curb and guttering on your property, it would be extremely
difficul to ask the property owners to the north when that area
redevelops to build curb and gutters.
Mr. Harrison said that if it was improved we would naturally like
to go along. We built the sidewalk out in front which was not a
requirement at that time, but we did it on our own. We are
interested in beautifying the property and seeing that it is in
the best shape. It seems to me that until the ditches are put in
and proper underground drainage, it would be a waste of money to
put something there now azd have it torn up later.
Mr. Venhaus said that the City would not be redeveloping Vance
Street. If curb and gutters are built on Vance Street, it will be
by the private property owners as the property redevelops.
Mr. Harrison said that if we have to do it, we will. It will look
a little odd for us to be the only ones to do this improvement.
There were no objectors present.
A motion was made to approve the Staff recommendation with pro-
vision that the curb and gutter requirements on the area already
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
Ma.v 21. 1973
Page 6.
developed be deferred for one year pending any development on the
west side of Vance Street or east side of Vance Street to the
north and that they be required at that time. At the end of the
one year period the Board can take another look at the matter for
deferral if necessary, which was seconded and passed.
Tract No. 4 - Z-2708
Applicant: Pleasant Valley Property Owners Assn.
by Fred Selz
Location: 2220 Hidden Valley Drive
Description: Long legal
Present Classification: "A" One -family District
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
Mr. Fred Selz was present to represent the applicant. He stated
that they own the building south of the proposed parking lot. We
needed extra parking so we entered into a lease with the Pleasant
Valley Property Owners Association. We have approximately 98 x
124 ft. In that lease, we agreed to screen out the park from the
proposed parking lot with a reasonable green space. There is one
entrance off of Hidden Valley Drive. We may do away with the
middle entrance.
Mr. Venhaus stated that there were two points to be considered in
regards to the Staff recommendation:
1) The technical aspects of converting this 13,000 sq. ft. of
parkway into off-street parking in connection with the existing
office building.
2) The principal involved in the conversion of the open space that
is part of the Pleasant Valley open space system.
With regard to the technical aspects of extending the off-street
parking, in our judgment, it is not much of an issue. We are only
talking about 13,000 sq. ft. out of a continuous five acre tract.
In this neighborhood, it would be possible and I think preferable
from the Staff's standpoint to extend the parking without creating
any additional access on Hidden Valley Drive but use the single
existing access point to gain entrance to this property -- no more
cuts on Hidden Valley Drive -- simply extend the green space in
front of the building to the north. We think from the design stand-
point and from the standpoint of integrating the use into this
building that it would be appropriate compatible and, in our
opinion, would not do any violence to adjacent uses. That is the
land use aspect.
The other side of the issue is the principal and perhaps the policy
of utilizing this dedicated platted planned area open space system
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
Mav 21. 1973
Page 7.
for private development for uses other than permanent open space,
and on this score as we evaluate it, and here we get into a
little bit of the policies of the Pleasant Valley Board that
represents the homeowners association. We object substantially
to the conversion of this open space which was included originally
as a part of an open space system to separate uses, to create open
vistas, to create open green areas and areas of non use. We
object substantially to the principal of converting these to
structural and off-street parking use. Not so much to the par-
ticular use in question but there is no doubt in our mind that
in the future there is going to be other opportunities, other
situations arise, where it will be proposed to convert this land
to some purpose other than permanent open space. We want to go on
record as objecting to this kind of conversion of open space.
Mr. Bill Hodge was present to represent several property owners in
Pleasant Valley who oppose the granting of this particular variance.
He stated that the building that would be served by this parking lot
was not a part of the original Pleasant Valley plat. It was
separate from the plat which included parkway space, part of which
would be taken up by this parking lot and the._remainder of which was
single family residences. These property owners feel that to grant
a variance to take away part of that parkway would unnecessarily
and unduly encroach upon that open green space that has been there
since they bought their homes and was certainly a factor in lending
to the desirability of that area. The Pleasant Valley Property
Owners Association Board of Directors has entered into a lease with
the applicant for this particular property necessary for this park-
ing lot in question. This action by the Board was taken before the
Pleasant Valley property owners knew about the development plans.
Petitions have been circulated throughout the area. They contain
200 signatures. They are asking that their Board voluntarily
terminate the lease and not allow the use of this area for a park-
ing lot.
I have looked at the Bill of Assurance in conjunction with another
attorney who represents the property owners in question. There is
a definite legal question about the authority of the Board of
Directors of the property owners association under the articles of
that association and under that Bill of Assurance to have entered
into a lease of this type; and it is my understanding that litiga-
tion to revoke that action is definitely planned and will be the
only recourse that these property owners have if this Board does
grant the variance. What I am saying is the property owners feel
that after a review of the Bill of Assurance and the articles of
the association that the Board of Directors acted without proper
authority and they plan litigation to revoke that action if this
variance is granted.
Mr. Selz stated that the lot that the building sits on is zoned
"E-1". We paid for a ten year lease in advance on June 162 1972.
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 8.
May 21, 1973
A motion was made for approval of the application, which was
seconded but failed for lack of affirmative votes, thereby
constituting denial of the application.
Tract No. 5 - Z-2711
Applicant:
Location:
Description:
Present Classification:
Rosedale Optimist Club
8616 Asher Avenue
Long legal
"B" Residence District
Variance: Requests permission under the provisions
of Section 43-22 (4)-(d) of the Code of
Ordinances to permit the expansion of a
community center
The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends
approval of requested variance subject to compliance with the off-
street parking section of the zoning ordinance and improvement of
driveways. Street improvements should be required along Asher Ave.;
" however, the Staff feels a one year deferral period should be pro-
vided to determine if the State Highway Dept. will initiate
�} improvement on Asher Avenue. If such action was not initiated by the
State then applicant be allowed six months to install the improve-
ments."
'3
J Mr. Orson Jewell was present to represent the applicant. He stated
' that they would request waiver of the street improvement require-
ments. Our only means of getting funds is through our Christmas
tree sales each year and we spent all our money for the baseball
program and other youth programs on the site. Is the Staff familiar
with what the State does plan to do on Asher Avenue?
Mr. Taylor answered, "I understand that they are looking into the
possibility of widening Asher Avenue from University Avenue to Stage-
coach Road. I don't know what kind of time schedule, I know it is in
the five year improvement program, but I think they are looking at it as
a '73 or early '74 project. That is the reason we put the stipulation
"not required" if they are actively engaged in going ahead with the
widening of Asher, but if it does fall through, we feel it should be
put in."
Mr. Jewell said that would be 12 years. In this particular request
we are not improving the property, we are only putting in one small
building along with what we already have on the site. We are not
changing the use of the property. This is the reason I am concerned
that we are required to put the improvements in, which would be a
large expense for such a small site improvement that we had planned.
The improvement we have planned for this building is again part of
the community service and we don't want to get tied up with a large
expense for curb and guttering.
The Chairman asked what the group of structures were near the center
of the tract and what were they used for.
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 9.
Mav 21. 1973
Mr. Jewell replied they consist of a concession stand, restrooms,
storage and ball stadium.
Mr. Compton asked if they were inside the city at the time these
structures were built.
Mr. Jewell replied it was prior to the annexation. The Club
originated 15 years ago.
A motion was made to approve the application, which was seconded
and passed as follows: The Board voted to approve the request
subject to installation of street improvements along Asher Ave.
The Board waived installation of street improvements for a period
of one year in order to determine if the State Highway Dept. has
plans to improve the street. If the Highway Dept. does not
develop plans within the year then the applicant would have six
months to do so.
OTHER MATTERS
Item No. 1 - Z-1556
Applicant: Marvin Scherz
Location: Scenic Drive & Blue Ridge Circle
Description: Long legal
Present Classification: "A" One -family District
Variance: Requests extension of previously granted
variance (granted February 17, 1964)
The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "This item is placed
before the Board for an extension of time on the variance granted to
owner previously. The Staff feels that the proposal has not been
changed nor have circumstances in the immediate neighborhood to the
extent that would warrant a new application. The history of this
site is too involved to attempt explanation in this recommendation;
however, considerable opposition developed from the area. It was
determined by the Staff that this action was the proper route and
asked the applicant to renotify property owners. ( This has been
done.)"
Mr. Marvin Scherz, the applicant, was present and he stated that he
notified all required adjacent property owners and got only two
objectors. They said my house would block their view. The address
is Scenic Boulevard instead of Scenic Drive.
There were no objectors present.
A motion was made to approve the application, which was seconded and
passed as follows: The Board voted to approve the request with the
provision that it be understood that the Board's action did not and
could not set aside or resend any Bill of Assurance provision which
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 10.
Ma 21 1973
may exist.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
041A
Don R. Venhaus, Secretary
ence S. Woolsey, Chairman
7