boa_10 16 1972LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
M I N U T E S
OCTOBER 16, 1972
MEMBERS PRESENT
Darrell D. Dover, Chairman
S. Spencer Compton, Vice Chairman
L. Dickson Flake
Capp Shanks, Jr.
Lawrence S. Woolsey
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
STAFF PRESENT
John L. Taylor
Louis E. Barber
Richard Wood
James Finch
Dorothy Light
OTHERS PRESENT
Perry V. Whitmore, City Attorney
J. Ruddleston, Gazette 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-2641
Applicant: George Bilheimer
Location•108 South Pine Street
Description: Lot 3, Block 3, Plateau Addition
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 in resit,
dential zone
The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends denial
of requested variances for this one lot. The intrusion of this access to
Pine Street and off -set parking in the middle of this block would seriously
adversely affect adjacent properties. The.immediate area is developed with
well maintained single family homes. The granting of this request would
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
October 16. 1972
leave the adjacent two lots to the north vulnerable for commercial
development which would be highly undesirable at this Pine -Markham
Street intersection. As the required parking for the proposed motel
has been satisfied by space provided on -site and across Cedar Street
the parking on subject property at issue is above that required."
Mr. George Bilheimer, the applicant, stated that where he has ample off-
street parking for tle motel on the other side of Cedar Street, he felt
that this access to Pine Street would be a safety factor. He said the
traffic pattern to and from the motel would cause congestion on Cedar
and Markham Streets if this was not done. He further stated that the
southeast corner of Markham and Pine is zoned "E-l" Quiet Business.
Mr. Chris Polychron was present representing his mother, Mrs. Bilheimer
of 117 South Pine and Mr. and Mrs. Richard Howell of 119 South Pine.
His mother owns Lots 2, 4, 5 and 6 (4 lots) and resides at 112 South
Pine Street. He stated that they felt 'that this was breaking up the
residential area by going through the middle of it. They opposed the
rezoning of the southeast corner of Pine and Markham until they found
out it was going to be "E-l" Quiet Business. It will probably be a
much more attractive looking corner when the building is completed.
Since ample parking has been met with approval of parking on the west
side of Cedar Street, they don't see how it would be a safety factor
to have this exit off of Pine Street.
He read a letter of opposition from Mr. and Mrs. Richard Howell, 119
South Pine Street.
Mr. Bilheimer stated that Mr. Polychorn made the remark how much better
the southeast corner of Pine would be with an improvement on it. Mr.
Bilheimer further said that the property at 100 South Pine is a disgrace
to the neighborhood. He explained how this Pine Street exit would be
considered a safety factor.
Mr. Polychorn said that the resident of 100 South Pine is bedfast.
He stated that he understood more clearly what Mr. Bilheimer meant, but
it still looked to him as if he wants another street right in between
two houses. He said, "Would it not create a safety problem with the
traffic turning left in there, too?"
A motion was made for denial of the application, which was seconded and
passed.
Tract No. 2 - Z-2619
Applicant: Westmark Associates
Location: 41213, 4125 and 4207 "A" Street
Description: Lots 6, 7, 8, Block 4, Pinehurst
Addition
Classification: "C" Two-family District
2 -
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
October 16. 1972
Variance: Requests permission under the
provisions of Section 43-22
(4) - (d) of the Code of
Ordinances to permit parking
in residential zone
The Staff's recommendation was read as follows:
"The Staff recommends approval of use variance on these three lots
to permit off-street parking provided (1) that the structures on
these lots be removed so as to preclude mixed use of subject
property (2) the front 25' of lots, or average front yard, is
maintained as landscaped open space (3) vehicle access to "A"
Street be denied, and (4) screening be provided on north, east'
and west sides of property as required by ordinance."
Mr. Charles Mott, the applicant, and Mr. Jim Hatcher, his associate,
were present.
Mr. Mott stated that in reference to the setback yard requirement
suggested by the Board, there should be an average based upon 40%
of the structures in that block which is less than 25 ft.
Mr. Taylor explained that the houses on that street were closer than
the 25 ft. The zoning ordinance permits you to build another
structure on this average front yard line.
Mr. Mott said that he had a survey that indicated what that distance
was along there. The surface there is 16 or 20 ft. and the right-of-
way extends back 8 ft. into the front yard space. The houses are built
very close to that right-of-way line. With regard to the removal of
all 3 structures, the house to the extreme west is the farthest from
the property, there is a structure east of the properties which they
are asking the variance on that is immediately behind the office build-
ing. They would like permission not to remove the westernmost house
immediately. Not use it until they determine if they are going to get
the house immediately behind the structure which is east of the property.
Mr. Compton asked if he could conform with the parking requirements on
two lots.
Mr. Mott stated that the house immediately behind the structure would
be more desirable to remove. The owners of the property indicated they
would be willing to sell shortly. He further stated that they proposed
to include this lot in the parking area.
Mr. Shanks asked Mr. Mott if they owned the third lot at the present
time.
Mr. Mott replied that he had the owner's permission to include this lot
in the application. They have been negotiating with the owners, and it
is just a matter of when she wants to vacate. He further stated that
they would like to have egress and ingress from "A" Street. This would
- 3 -
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
October 16. 1972
provide a more orderly flow of traffic rather than having just the
alley access. The alley is not marked for either direction, it is
narrow -- 16 ft. rather than 20 ft. All the houses along that area
have driveways anyway and they would not be altering the curb. We
would be improving the area and also providing parking for other
commercial offices in the area that do not now have parking -- there
would be less parking along "A" Street. This would make the entire
area more attractive.
Mr. Compton asked if they had any topographical information about the
change of grade between "A" Street and,.this alley.
Mr. Mott replied that the grade there on "A" Street is somewhat uniform
from the surface back about 8 or 10 ft. and then it starts sloping.
It is their intention to put a retaining wall and maintain that grade
approximately as it is along "A" Street. There would be a slight
amount of grading because of the low southwest corner, but other than
that, it would be maintained pretty much as it now exists.
Mr. Woolsey asked if they did that would it not cause difficulty
getting a vehicle from the lower level upon "A" Street because of this
retaining wall?
Mr. Hatcher answered that there is an actual grade over the entire lot
of 6 or 7% grade. This would be no real problem to work out. There
would be no entry from "A" Street -- only be used as an exit. They intend
to put screening on the north, east and west and provide the necessary
maintenance. They have agreed to use a screening that would be compatible
with the adjacent property owners.
A motion was made to approve the Staff's recommendation with the addition
that the screening required on the north, east and west be constructed
of wood, brick, or combination thereof, which was seconded and passed.
Tract No. 3 - Z-2530
Applicant: Terra Properties, Inc
Location: 2600 Block N. I-430
Description: Long legal
Classification: "MF 18" Multi -family District
Variance: Requests a Variance from the
interior yard provisions of
Section 43-4.5 (2)-(c) of the
Code of Ordinances to permit
construction of 4-unit apart-
ment buildings closer than
permitted to side lot lines
(2 story buildings)
- 4 -
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
October 16. 1972
The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends
denial of the requested variance. To allow the development of this
"MF" District as proposed would destroy the character intended of the
"MF" District with its expanse of green livability area. Whereas, in
the "MF District side yards to the property line are equal to the height
of the structure. The request and proposed design in this instance
reduces the distance between structures, not property lines, to 25 ft.
which is considerably below that required in an "MF" District. As this
area is rapidly being developed with single family homes of substantial
character on rather large lots, it is felt that the adjacent multi -family
development should be substantially of the same open space character."
Mr. Venable, 312 Louisiana Street, representing the applicant, stated
that at the present time this is under the existing zoning of "MF 18"
of which we are concerned with the southernmost point .of 3.8 acres.
Under the "MF 18" there can be approximately 68 units designed and
built thereon. According to the proposed plat you have in front of you,
the southernmost 12 lots are the lots we are talking about. We have
looked at this property in connection with developing on it a cluster
concept, and because of its long and narrowness, we feel as though the
cluster concept can not be very easily designed at this points As a
result, we have asked for a variance that will permit us to build units
on these various lots -- between 4 and 6 units. Most of them are 4 units
and 3 are rather large under the "MF" zoning, that you can obtain 6 units
on these 3 lots -- the most southern lots and the 2 lots toward the north
are rather large. Now this would provide 54 units as compared to 68
units under the existing zoning. So we are reducing about 14 units.
According to our request, we are asking for a 25 ft. green area between
each dwelling -- a 10 ft. side yard on 1 side, a 15 ft. on the other.
There is a purpose for this difference. One is to provide a driveway on
the larger side, eliminating 2 driveways side by side in this proposed
development. Secondly, we are not permitting any parking in the front.
Therefore, there would be no parking in the front area, so it would be
green, plus the driveway. In listening to the Staff's recommendation of
denial, I can't help but wonder when they say we are going to increase the,
or reduce the density, or reduce the green space between the buildings.
This, I can not understand why that statement has been made because as most
of you know, under the "MF 18" the side yard requirements are of equal to
the height of building, all right that is approximately 20 ft. If we only
had one lot for this area, we could put units within 10 ft. apart. So, we
could, under existing zoning as it is today, line up buildings 10 ft.
apart along this whole 1300 ft. In our opinion, this is bad design and
bad development. We propose 25 ft. between each building, giving more
green area than it possibly could be developed under regulations as it is
now.
- 5 -
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
October 16, 1972 _
The Chairman said, "You are speaking of distance between the structures.
Whereas, the Code speaks of distance from the structure to lot line."
Mr. Venable said that under existing zoning right now the side yard on
a building is equal to the height of the building. If there was not
division here, you would only have one lot 1300 ft. long.
Mr. Compton said to get the Planning Commission to accept a replat.
Mr. Venable said that if they would accept the layout design you can
have buildings within 10 ft. apart.
Mr. Shanks asked if you would not wind up with a bunch of green space
on one end or the other if you did that? If you start putting them in
there 10 ft. apart, assuming they approve this change, and let this be
one big lot, somewhere down the line you would run up to the maximum
occupancy and you would have a 300 x 300 ft. piece of green space. In
other words, you would have a.mini-park at the end.
Mr. Venable stated that at that rate we could get 68 units as it calls
for now, but we don't want to do it that way. We think it is bad. We
think 4 to 6 unit complexes is more adaptable to the neighborhood, to
the area. Of course, all these plans have to be approved by Pleasant
Valley-- no parking in front. In our opinion, the development of this
property on 85 ft. lots with 25 ft. between each building is much more
adaptable to the residential housing across the street than what it
could be in a cluster concept.
Mr. Shanks stated that as he understood this, the'citizens would get
more green space square foot area from this 3.9 or 3.7 acres by allow-
ing 68 units to be built under the zoning than the citizens would get
in allowing 54 units to be built. "Are the units going to be bigger?
I don't understand how you can arrive at that."
Mr. Taylor explained that in the Staff's opinion, you are looking at
a 25 ft. strip between each building and the intent of "MV District to
cluster these buildings. That is the reason we allowed them to -go
within 10 ft. of each other. You might make 8 units to a building and
you would end up eventually with 14 additional units. You would end up
with some of these areas that would be larger rather than just a 10 ft.
green strip and the other 15 ft. for driveway. That would give you
larger open area where there is open area.
Mr. Shanks stated that you might have 3 of these units and you might
have 75 ft. of green space and 4 more is what you are saying instead
of cutting it up like a pie?
Mr. Taylor replied that was right.
- 6 -
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
October 16, 1972
Mr. Venable stated that they had the property directly north of this
property which will be put in the condominium concept. Therefore, we
are retaining these 3 lots for private entrance into this northern
property. We are retaining that to have separate identity going into
the project. In our opinion, there would be just as much green area, if
not more, in what we propose to do than under the existing zoning now.
Mr. Shanks said that was not the answer he got.
Mr. Taylor stated that he didn't know what size buildings they were
planning but if they were to make 8 unit buildings, they would end
up with more green space on the total end of at least 60 or 70 ft.
wide. At least you would have something more than just one little
narrow green grass strip in between each building. Somewhere along
the line either at one end or both ends or in the middle, you would
have some large green area, plus the 25 along the front.
Mr. Venable stated that if you take 14 units out of there you are
adding a lot more green space to the area.
Mr. Taylor said that if you make 8 or 12 units to the building you
still are going to have just one driveway.
Mr. Venable said, "If you were living across the street, would you
rather have a 12 unit building in front of you, or would you rather
have -a unit with 4 plexes looking real nice? If you get into 8 units
in one building, you are getting into a long building in front of you.
Now, we were trying to develop this thing in context with the develop-
ment across the street. We felt like 4 units would be much more in
context than a long large building."
The Chairman asked if this was one tract or was it actually 10 or 12
lots?
Mr. Venable replied that at the present time it is one -tract of land
15.6 acres. The tract that you are looking at now is the southern
part of this 15.6 acres. We have taken the southern part where it is
long and narrow and put it on the plan here showing the 12 most
southern lots and what we would like to do with it. So,they could be
sold and developed into this type of development.
Mr. Shanks asked, "You mean individuals will build these things instead
of one developer? If I owned a $60,000 house across the street, it would
concern me that anybody could come in and build a 4 plex on a lot --
there could be a brick one, cardboard one, etc. Is there somebody guard-
ing against this?"
Mr. Venable said that they had very strict regulations on this property.
to make sure that they are of ample size, will meet the architectural
design and approval of the whole area. They are very strict.
- 7 -
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
October 16. 1972
Mr. Shanks asked, "Who is:they?"
Mr. Venable replied, 1°Pleasant Valley, Mr. Sam Reynolds. He is here to
answer on this particular point."
Mr. Sam Reynolds, Agent for Pleasant Valley, stated that they did make
the sale to these developers. Pleasant Valley was extremely happy with
this change in plans. The reduction in the number of units, plus the
fact that we are going to control the architect of everyone of these
units. We felt that they were trying to give the residents out there a
much more residential view. We are going to see that these structures are
attractive. We felt that the residents would rather have a multi-plexity
of design rather than have one long row of houses or one large group of
houses. That was Pleasant Valley's attitude when Mr. Venable came to
Pleasant Valley with this proposal. The builders we talked to were very
happy.
Mr. Woolsey asked, "You represent the original developers of Pleasant
Valley, is that correct? Do you represent the Pleasant Valley Property
Owners Association?"
Mr. Reynolds replied, "No, I do not represent the Pleasant Valley
Property Owners Association. This particular group of lots at the
present time, I would say in excess of 90% of these lots, are still
owned by contractors. These lots in this particular area (across the
street); all of our plats, all of our drawings, all of our publicity,
have clearly shown this strip as being for apartments, and when we sold
these lots, we made sure that everybody had a plat and apartments were
written all over that plat."
The Chairman asked, "Do I understand that you have possibly as many as
12 or 14 different contractors, or developers, who will ultimately build
these apartments?"
Mr. Venable replied that he is in the finance business and has handpicked
4 builders. They said that if he could work it out, they would buy and
build. They are considered very good builders.
The Chairman asked, "Are you aware that our variances are only good for
90 days? Is this going to present a problem to you? If we granted this
variance today, as I understand it, it runs out 90 days hence."
Mr. Taylor said, "Six months."
Mr. Flake said, "To my knowledge for the past 3 or 4 years, this is the
first time we have had a request for variance for something that is not
yet platted. Normally, it is my understanding, that this is covered
through the Subdivision Committee or the Planning Commission where
deviations from ordinance specifications are covered at the same time
that the Subdivision Committee covers it. Is this not true?"
- 8 -
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
October 16. 1972
Mr. Taylor replied, "What you consider here is a proposed subdivision.
The Planning Commission normally plat the building lines along the
street property line. I don't know of any place where the Planning
Commission ever waived the side yards which in effect is what you are
getting into in this. Normally, it complies to the zoning ordinance on
the side yard. I can't recall a request for waiver on a side setback
line. Normally, in a residential you have a 25 ft. front yard require-
ment. They are waived due to terrain or grade, or something like that,
but I can't remember a rear yard or a side yard waiver."
Mr. Flake stated, "It just now occurred to me. I never have come into
this procedure before. Normally, a lot is already platted when the
variance is requested."
Mr. Taylor explained, "That would be your normal procedure. What they
want on this -- this is all one tract. This is the portion under
question at this time. If they are required to comply to the side yards,
then I wouldn't think they would want these lots platted -- say at 80 ft.
If they have to comply to the side yard to the height of the building,
they may want to make these 100 ft. lots-- if they want to sell them off
as lots. They are trying to get this waiver of the Board of Adjustment
prior to the platting of the lots; otherwise, it would have to go back
and replat it into one large tract."
Mr. Compton stated, "I feel that there is some justification in certain
cases where you can waive one of the side yard requirements in order to
get a greater open space between the next adjacent building. This has
been used in planning various different other places around the country,
but I am a little bit reluctant -- you are not really gaining in this
particular case -- in other words, you don't squeeze some together to
gain some here. This is just a matter of squeezing everything together
in order to get this:type of construction on this particular piece of
property. You point out the fact that you could develop some giant con-
struction, long and ugly. Certainly this would be possible. I am really
reluctant to get into a situation where we set up some kind of precedence
beginning to squeeze down the requirements for the open space between
individual units."
Mr. Venable asked, "Why?"
Mr. Compton stated, "My feeling is that when they set up the "MF" zoning
that we are dealing with here they certainly had in mind all the possi-
bilities for which you would develop, and I don't think it is our job to
sit here and choose up sides between all the alternatives you might have
and say, "Yes, we would be better off -in letting this go by with a waiver
than seeing a long narrow unit there." I am not sure that is our job. I
am not reluctant to give a waiver if you are going to squeeze some up
between two buildings in order to gain more space between the other two
adjacent buildings. That doesn't bother me.' BLIt to squeeze them all up,
that bothers me. That is my personal opinion."
- 9 -
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
October 16. 1972
Mr. Venable asked if they realized that they were reducing the density
from 68 to 54?
Mr. Compton replied, 1°Yes, I do."
Mr. Shanks stated, "Which increases the square feet of green space. I
don't know how that works out but that is what they tell me. In other
words, you can put 68 units in "X" number of square feet of green space.
If you put 54 units, if we approve this thing, then you are going to
reduce the amount of green space. Reduce units -- reduce green space.
I don't know how that works out on paper, but that's what they are
telling us."
The Chairman asked what would be the height of these buildings?
Mr. Venable replied they would be 22 ft.
The Chairman stated that would mean that the structures would have to
be 44 ft. apart.
Mr. Shanks asked, "Who originally requested the zoning?"
Mr. Reynolds replied, "The original request for "MF 24" zoning was made
by Mr. Ted Sternberg who had an option to purchase from Pleasant Valley.
The Staff recommended "MF 18" which was granted by the Planning Com-
mission. At a later date, Mr. Venable purchased the option from Mr.
Sternberg."
The Chairman asked for a motion.
A motion was made to approve the reduced side yard on one side only;
therefore, on alternate sides leaving it the ordinance requirement which
would probably give an average of 32 ft. instead of either 44 ft. or
the reduced as in the application.
Mr. Barber asked, "What would be the reduction? If you reduce one side
yard -- what would be the remaining side yard?"
Mr. Flake replied, "It would be the ordinance requirement."
Mr. Barber stated, "Side yard in "MF" District is equal to height of
building. If you reduce to one-half on one side, then leave the other
side full?"
Mr. Flake said, "It would be the full height on the other side."
The Chairman asked what would it be on the reduced side?
=WE
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
October 16, 1972
Mr. Flake'said, "It would be the 10 ft. requested on the reduced side.
As long as these are required to be alternated (in the plat) that would
give you the combination of 10 ft. plus the height in between every
structure."
The Chairman asked for a second to the motion.
The motion to approve the reduced side yard on one side only; there-
fore, on alternate sides leaving it the ordinance requirement which
would probably give an average of 32 ft. instead of either 44 ft, or
the reduced distance as applied for, was seconded and passed by 3 ayes
and 2 noes.
DEFERRED MATTERS
Item No. 1 - Z-1915-A
Applicant: Putnam Realty and Associates
Location: 6320 Baseline Road
Description: The south 170' of the west 140'
of Tract 16, Arnolds Highland
Acres
Classification: "E-l" Quiet Business District
Variance: Requests a Variance from the
area provisions of Section 43-6
of the Code of Ordinances to
permit erection of sign in excess
of permitted 144 sq. ft. (four
6'x6' faces)
The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "This case was deferred
at the last meeting at the request of the applicant after much discussion
of the case. The Staff restates its previous recommendation which was
"denial of the application as submitted and recommends instead approval
of a non -rotating sign, single pole mount with facings either a double
faced sign 6'x6' on each side for a total of 72 sq. ft., or a box type
sign limited to 4'x4' panels for a total of 64 sq. ft."
Mr. Dover asked Mr. Compton, Vice Chairman, to preside.
Mr. Tom Lovett was present to represent the applicant. He brought several
photographs of signs and explained where each was located and how they
were zoned. He said the subject property was located in a fast growing
commercial area. They had no objection to lowering the sign 15 ft. as was
suggested at the previous meeting. They have had no objection from
adjacent neighbors.
Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes
October 16, 1972
They will compromise for a V x5' sign. The proposed building will be
between 12 and 16 ft. in height.
Mr. Shanks made the motion that the variance be granted on two,condi-
tions (1) that the sign be placed on a.single pedestal from the ground
as it lays now. (2) that the top of the pedestal be 15 ft.
The Chairman asked if there were any objectors present. There were none.
Mr. Flake said, "I would second the motion for the purpose of offering
an amendment -- the total height of the sign should not exceed 15 ft.
and the size be four 5'x5' faces."
The Chairman said, Ve have a motion and a second if an amendment to
the motion is acceptable; otherwise, we don't have a second."
Mr. Shanks asked to rephrase his motion that the variance be granted with
these exceptions: that the sign be 4 sides 5'x5', rotating, and the
height of the sign from its place of location not exceed the elevation of
the building.
The Chairman asked for a second to the motion.
Mr. Taylor asked if he wanted to include the single pedestal as stated
in his first motion.
Mr. Shanks decided to rephrase his motion as follows: Approve the variance
1. That the face be 5'xV on four sides
2. That the sign be allowed to rotate
3. That the top of the sign not exceed the elevation of the building
This third motion was seconded and passed.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
e40
Darrell D. Dover, Chairman
- 12 -