boa_07 17 1972LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
M I N U T E S
July 17, 1972
MEMBERS PRESENT
S. Sp4r,cer Compton, Vice Chairman
L. Dickson Flake
Capp Shanks
Lawrence Woolsey
MEMBERS ABSENT
Darrell Dover, Chairman
STAFF PRESENT
Don R. Venhaus
John L. Taylor
Richard Wood
James Finch
Dorothy Riffel
Dorothy Light
OTHERS PRESENT
J. Huddl.eston, Gazette Reporter
R. Armbrust, Democrat Reporter
2:00 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 as
mailed, which was seconded and passed.
Action was taken on the following advertised items:
Tract No. 1 - Z-2510-A
Applicant: Little Rock Housing Authority
Location: 1000 Block between Battery and Wolfe
Streets
Description: All of Lots 1 through 12, Block 13,
Marshall and Wolfe's Addition
Classification: "E"-Apartment District
Variance: Requests a Variance from the Area
Provisions of Sec. 43-13-(5) of the
Code of Ordinances to permit lot area
per family less than permitted (500
square feet)
Little Rock Board of Adjustment
Minutes
Julv 17. 1972
Requests a Variance from the Parking
Provisions of Sec. 43-21 of Code of
Ordinances to permit less than
required number of spaces. (50% of
those required)
The Staff's recommendation was read as follows:
"The Staff recommends approval of the application. The variances are similar
to those granted for the Housing Authority's elderly housing unit located on
Broadway and were approved for the following reasons:
(1) Present ordinance requires 600 square feet of lot area per family.
However 500 square feet was granted for Broadway project. As 59%
of the dwelling units are efficiency apartments, it is felt a
variance from the current 600 square feet provision is a reasonable
request. Furthermore, as the tenancy of this type of development is
assured for 40 years, a lesser lot area per family unit would not
appear to jeopardize the useful life of the structure.
(2) Due to the fact thIt tenants will be over 62 years of age, a parking
requirement of one space per dwelling unit would appear excessive.
(Apartment structure contains 169 units of which 100 are efficiency
units, 63 are one -bedroom units and 6 are two -bedroom units. 85
parking spaces are provided.)
Mr. Cliff Giles, representing the Little Rock Housing Authority, stated that
they were asking for two variances similar to those on Broadway. They plan
to build a high rise building for the elderly 62 years of age or older, 8
stories high and containing 169 apartments. He presented copies of a
brochure, "Elderly Housing Study - Density, Age, Parking," in eight nearby
cities. They are asking a waiver down to 50% of the normal parking require-
ments, or 85 spaces for the 169 apartments. Also, they are asking a waiver
to the density requirements. The building will face toward loth and Wolfe
or to the northeast, parking would be on llth Street along Battery Street.
Entrances would be'off loth Street. They propose to utilize the doctor's
clinic that is presently on the property for a community center. This
facility would also be open to people in the general neighborhood. They do
not anticipate drawing any people from any distance. They have talked to
people in the immediate area and they are all in favor of this project.
There will be no retaining walls around the parking -lot which would change
the character of the neighborhood, or cause the neighbors concern. He
anticipated no real problem for visitors parking. There is street parking
on Wolfe and 10th Streets.
Mr. Venhaus asked how many inquiries they had received from people interested
in this type of housing.
- 2 -
Little Rock Board of Adjustment
Minutes
Julv 17. 1972
Mr. Giles stated they had already received over 800 applications. He also
stated they plan to build 3 projects for the elderly in the city.
There were no objectors present.
A motion was made for approval of the application, which was seconded and
passed. Mr. Flake abstained.
Tract No. 2 - Z-2607
Applicant:
Location:
Description:
Classification:
Variance:
Asbury Methodist Church
1214 Summit Street
The north half of Lot 9, Block 7,
Aiken's Subdivision
"C"-Two-family District
Requests a Variance from the Use
Provisions of Sec. 43-22-(4)-(d)
of the Code of Ordinances to permit
parking in residential zone
Requests a Variance from the Yard
Open Space Provisions of 43-20(2)-
(f) of the Code of Ordinances to
permit parking in front yard set-
back
The Staff's recommendation was read as follows:
10The Staff recommends approval of the application. On November 18, 1968 the
Board granted approval of the use of a lot adjacent to subject property for
offstreet parking. It is recommended that the following requirements be a
condition of the approval of this application:
(1) A front yard space be maintained in alignment with the parking lot
adjacent on the south (approximately 23 feet).
(2) Only one curb cut be made as access to subject parking lot.
(3) Sidewalk be replaced where defective.
(4) The north side of this property and the south side of the adjacent
parking lot on the south be,screened as required by ordinance.
Mr. Roland Shelton was present representing the -applicant and stated they
were asking change in this classification to provide more parking spaces.
They need about 150 parking spaces for a membership of 1,300. He agreed to
comply will all conditions set forth by the Staff regarding landscaping and
saving all trees possible.
There were no objectors present.
A motion was made for approval of the Staff recommendations, which was
seconded and passed.
- 3 -
Little Rock Board of
Minutes
Julv 17. 1972
Tract No. 3 - Z-2599
Applicant:
Location:
Description:
Classification:
Variance:
Adjustment
Arnold Duffey
900 Scott Street
E110 feet of Lot 121 and N13 feet of
E110 feet of Lot 11, Block 10, Original
City
Neighborhood. Commercial District
Requests Variance (1) from Floor Area
Ratio Provisions of Neighborhood
Commercial District (2) from Front
Yard Provisions of Neighborhood
Commercial District (3) from off-street
parking,provisions of Neighborhood
Commercial District
The Staff's recommendation was read as follows:
"The Staff recommends denial of the application. The floor area ratio permits
a structure with only 2970 feet of floor area (0.5 x lot area 5940 square
feet) whereas the proposed structure has 4000 square feet (50' x 80'). A
dimension of 50' x 45' would be the maximum allowed and would provide the
required 25 feet front yard space. No side yards are required in this instance
but the requirement of off-street parking at 1 to 200 square feet requires 14
parking spaces which would be impractical for the intended use and would, we
feel, warrant some consideration, The Board of Adjustment could authorize the
use of this property for a telegraph transmitting and receiving station as a
Group 10A" Community Facility. This would then require only one parking space
per employee, but it would not take care of customer parking.
It is strongly recommended that the Board not grant the requested Variances.
To do so would establish a precedent involving the standards for the newly
designed Central Little Rock Project which was just adopted this month."
Mr. Gene Lewis, realtor, was present representing the applicant. He stated
that the proposed telegraph office needed to be within 4 mile from the tele-
phone building for economical reasons. They rarely have anyone to come to the
office because most all business is done by phone. One of the objections is
of course the parking requirement. There is a limited amount of parking,on
this lot. A -letter was received from the George Donaghey Foundation stating
they owned the block on Main Street between 8th and 9th Streets which is used
for parking and has parking available if they so desire. As to the number of
employees, they will have 4 employees during the normal working hours and
possibly never more than 6 or 7 using the building. The bulk area require-
ment, they are acquiring some 6950 sq. ft. which should allow a bulk area of
about 3410 feet of office space. The building fronts on 9th Street. They
made an intensive study of surrounding areas which would be suitable and this
was the only property available close to the telephone company.
Mr. Shanks asked if it were possible to move this office into another building
in the downtown area.
- 4 -
L
Little Rock Board of Adjustment
Minutes
July 17. 1972
Mr. Lewis replied that it is hard to take a space that has been built one
way and adapt their equipment to it. He had already discussed this with
the Donaghey Foundation.
Mr. Venhaus asked if it was possible to put the equipment underground.
Mr. 'Lewis said he did not know, but he would be glad to have a representa-
tive from the company to talk to the Staff about their needs. He asked
for this matter to be placed on the next agenda.
The Chairman asked that in regard to the postponement if there were
certain aspects of the variances that the Staff would oppose that Mr.
Lewis should know about at this time.
Mr. Venhaus stated that parking is an area they can pursue and discuss
with a chance of working out an agreement. The 25 ft. front yard waiver,
the Staff is not going to agree with now or at the next meeting. The
Staff would also be opposed to a waiver in the bulk and area requirements
except that if it were possible to locate some of the equipment under-
ground then whatever extent of square footage would be required to put it
underground without expanding the surface size of the structure would be
an area for discussion.
Mr. Yandell Johnson, owner of adjacent property on 9th Street, was present.
"If we are talking about 25 ft. from Scott Street, this will give you 2
parking spaces in the front yard if you are talking about parking spaces
In the front yard. If the building is 80 ft..long and set back 25 ft.
from the front, it would place it 5 ft. from the rear of the property line
and would cover part of the easement which exists now. The easement is
described in the abstract as the present brick pavement. There is a plat
that shows the brick pavement that should be on file. The brick pavement
varies, it varies in direction and in width, part of it cuts across the
rear of this property; so that if the building were built to the rear of the
property, or even within 5 feet of the property line, it would be on the
easement. I am really worried more about parking on this land than any-
thing else. Parking would be a real problem. I can see only an area for
two parking spaces no matter how you do it. I know they will have more
than two employees. If you assume they will some time have 6 or 7, there
are not 6 or 7 parking spots available on this land. I am sympathetic
with Western Union, but I don't know why they would pick out a feasible
lot to build on and then object to it being too small. I think that from
my own standpoint that building a building anywhere near this size on this
lot will reduce the number of parking spots, will cause me a very difficult
time in maintaining this easement or right of access over this brick pave-
ment as called for by the deed.. Since you have already stated you would
not want the building all the way up to Scott Street, I would highly agree
with that. My only objection is that there is no parking and the people
who will want parking are going to park on my property on the easement and
it will no longer be an easement or right-of-way."
- 5 -
Little Rock Board of Adjustment
Minutes
Julv 17. 1972
A motion was made to defer the matter to the August 21 meeting, which was
seconded and passed.
Mr. Venhaus asked the Board if they would be interested in having a special
presentationof the Central Little Rock Plan. He would work with Mr.
Compton on a.suitable_date. The meeting.would probably last 1Z hours.
The -Board was in agreement with this idea.
There being no further business, the meeting:was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
4S.Sncer Compton, aVXceChairman
�O
- 6 -