Loading...
boa_11 20 1972LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT M I N U T E S NOVEMBER 20 1972 MEMBERS PRESENT Darrell D. Dover, Chairman S. Spencer Compton, Vice Chairman Lawrence S. Woolsey MEMBERS ABSENT L. Dickson Flake Capp Shanks, Jr. STAFF PRESENT Don R. Venhaus Louis E. Barber Richard Wood James Finch Dorothy Light OTHERS PRESENT Perry V. Whitmore, City 4ttorney 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 followipS advertised items: CONDITIONAL USE -PERMITS Tract No. 1 - Z-2463-A Applicant•. W. A. Saunders and others Location:924 I-30 Description: All of Lots 5 through 9 except that portion in I-30 R/W and all of Lots 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, all in Block 4, Masonic Addition Classification: "HR" High Density Residential District Variance: Requests a conditional use permit be granted to,allow a motel as a permitted use of property, The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends approval of this application and allow in the "HR" District a motel and such accessory uses which are normal to a motel operation provided sufficient off-street parking is furnished on subject property and provided the "narrative descrip- tion of proposed motel building: submitted by the applicant be accepted and made a part of the application to be complied with. The sign approval to be Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes November 20. 1972 withheld pending submission of specific plans and details involving signs." Mr. Lynn Wassell, Architect, was present to represent the applicant. He gave.a. brief supmary of the history of subject property prior to the adoption of the Central Little Rock Plan, and presented a narrative description of the proposed project. He stated that they were asking permission to build a motel type high density residential as opposed to the normal apartment house type residential. They propose a 4 story building with 80 units, an office, lobby, coffee shop, laundry facilities and swimming pool. All of these facilities will be oriented to face east toward the freeway. There will be a 10 it. green strip along the front yard setback. Also, there will be screening along the parking area on the ground level. Approximately one- half of the parking will be underground, Mr. Compton asked where the garbage facility would be located. Mr. Wassell replied that it would be located on the east side of the building -toward the alley. "IMr4 Compton asked where the underground parking would be. Mr. Wassell said that would be at the south end of the building and would be properly screened from Lot 11 that is:not included in this project. The screening would be either of opaque wood or masonry, and 6-ft. in height if that would be acceptable. Mr. Compton asked how large were the directional signs going to be. Mr. Wassell stated they would be of small lettering, just large enough for the driver to see --perhaps 6 inch lettering. He further stated that they were going to save as many trees as possible and do special landscaping in some areas. Athalea Walrod, 9232 McAlmont Street, was present in opposition. She is adjacent to the subject property. She stated that this area was too small for the proposed project. She would like a 2 ft. concrete wall to protect her property from the driveways. Also, she would like to have some kind of cover for the swimming pool area. She said there would be noise from trucks and air conditioning units. She understood that they proposed to close the alley. Mr. Wassell said that (1) there will be concrete walls built to protect her property from the automobiles (2) the swimming pool will be enclosed, (3) the air-conditioning units will be placed on top of the building as far away from her property as possible (4) the present plans do not include closing the alley. In fact, they need the alley. Mrs. W. R. Tate, 615 East Capitol, was present in opposition. She said the - 2 - Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes November 20. 1972 motel would cause more traffic around the schools and park in the area. She further stated that there were churches close to the area and she was wondering if the motel would have a liquor store in it. Mr. Wassell stated that there was no "bar" included in the present plans. Mrs. John Vogler, 512 East 9th Street, was present in opposition. She read a petition of opposition signed by 100 residents. She was objecting to more commercial in the neighborhood. Mrs. Dewey Earle, 1016 Commerce Street, was present in opposition. She was concerned about whether or not there would be a "bar" in the building. Mr. David Dennis, 308 East 8th Street, was present in opposition. He gave an account of the number of hotel and motel units already in operation in the area. He said that this proposed project would make a total of 500 such units on the east side of Main Street. He stated that perhaps this property could be as profitable with some other type of endeavor. There were four letters of objection: 1. Miss Hazel Shillcutt 2. Stella M. Fleming 3. Mrs. W. C. Erfurth 4. Mrs. J. K. Davis Mr. Ronald A. May, 4014 South Lookout Street, said that he thought Mr. Saunders had come up with a useful compromise. A motion was made to approve the staff recommendation with the provisions that the narrative description submitted be made part of the record. The screening walls between both pieces of property and Mrs. Walrod's property be masonry or concrete. The garbage and trash storage facilities that are outside of the building be excluded from the McAlmont side of the building. The motion was seconded and passed. Mr. Venhaus made the recommendation that the applicant be given a 60 day deferral to bring a.sign proposal before the Board. The Chairman said to let the record show that the motion was adopted and that Mr. Venhaus' sign stipulation be made a part of the record also. Tract No. 2 - Z-1546-A Applicant: The Pioneer Corporation Location:East 8th and Ferry Streets Description: Lots 1 through 6, Block 1 and Lots 1 through 7 and 13 through 16 of Block 2, all in Johnson's Addition Classification: "HR" High Density Residential District Variance: Requests a conditional use permit be - 3 - Little Rock Hoard of Adjustment Minutes November 20, 1972 granted for use of 1st and 2nd floors of building -for offices The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends approval of this application and allow office uses on the 1st and 2nd floors of the apartment structure located in an "HR" District provided off-street parking is sufficient to accommodate the total requirement of the proposed mixed land -use and further provided that office uses above the 2nd floor be vacated prior to January 1, 1973." Mr. Don West, Attorney, was present to -represent the applicant. He said he would like an opportunity to answer questions. Mr. Compton asked if he felt that they could meet the parking require- ments. Mr. West replied that they would have plenty of parking.spaces. He related the number of apartments in relation to those that did or did not have cars. He also pointed out that the -proposed businesses would close by evening and that would make more parking places available when the tenants would return in the evening. He did not know of any com- plaints about the parking. Mr. Compton asked if they intended to phase out all residential occupancy on the second floor. Mr. West said "Yes, we are hoping that businesses will move in and the present tenants will more to another floor and bring the second floor to a total office use situation. We are not going to pressure the people to get off the second floor." Mrs. Jenkins, Quapaw Towers, was present in opposition. She and her husband have been residents of the Towers for 5 years. They selected the Towers for their permanent home. They understood there would be no businesses except on the first floor. She believes that it would be a security factor to have businesses on the second floor also. There have been many complaints about the parking facilities. Mr. West stated that they desired the businesses to be on these first two floors rather than scattered over the building. He said this would keep people from roaming all over the building hunting these businesses. A motion was made to approve the Staff's recommendation, which was seconded and passed. VARIANCES 'tract No. 1 - Z-2578 Applicant: John Schlereth and Jay Yates Location: 901 East Roosevelt Road Description: Long legal Classification: "F" Commercial District - 4 - Little Rock Broad of Adjustment Minutes November 20 1972 Variance: Requests a Variance from the setback provisions of Section 43-15 of the Code of Ordinances to permit con- struction of commercial building with 6 ft. front yard and 5 ft. rear yard The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends approval of this application to the extent of permitting the structure to be.located on the rear lot line -thereby increasing the front yard depth by that same distance." Mr. Pat Boyd, 303 Center, was present to represent the applicant. He stated that they had no objection to,moving the building back. The proposed project is a barbecue restaurant. Mr. Compton asked if he would be able to provide some kind of connec- tion between the two asphalt parking areas so that customers would not have to go back out on Roosevelt Road in case they came into one parking:lot and needed to go into the other lot. Mr. Boyd replied that there is not enough room unless you used the Roosevelt Road right-of-way. There is ll ft. in front of the building. Mr. Venhaus said that it may be possible to,come out of the parking area through the adjacent property on the south which is presently zoned "F" Commercial. Mr. Boyd said that this property is owned by Warehouse Corporation. Mrs. E. W. Martineau, representing a property owner southeast of this tract, stated that she understood this would be a 38 x 38 ft. drive-in restaurant. She would like to know whether the building would be to the east or west end of this 186 ft. tract and also would like to know a little more about the.cars going in and out. Mr. Boyd said the proposed plan shows the building will be located in the middle of the property with entrances on the east and west. Mrs. Martineau asked how far was this line from Barber Street. Mr. Venhaus replied that it was about 380 ft. west of Barber Street. Mrs. Martineau said, "In that case, I would have no objections." A motion was made to approve the Staff's recommendation, which was seconded and passed. Tract No. 2 - Z-2655 Applicant• Arkansas Blue Cross & Blue Shield - 5 - Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes November 20, 1972 Location: 620 West 7th Street Description: Lots 4 through 9, Block 128, original City Classification: "H" Business District Variance: Requests a Variance from the height provisions of Section 43 - (19) of the Code of Ordinances to -permit construction of building in excess of permitted height (12 stories or 165.5 feet) The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "(Subject property is zoned "H" Business which permits a height in excess of 100 ft. provided the -structure is set back one foot on all sides of property for each 3 ft. in excess of 100 ft. For the intended height this would require a -setback of 22 ft. on at least the west and south side of the pro- posed structure.) The Staff would recommend approval of the west side yard equal to the same yard space as the existing building.and to permit the structure to be located on the south lot line provided that sufficient off-street parking be furnished to accommodate at least the requirements of the new 12 story structure and that maximum effort be made to carry out landscaping on the west side as presently exists." Mr. Ronald May, Attorney, was present to represent the applicant. He asked for a deferral to the December meeting. A motion was made to defer this matter to the December 18th meeting, which was seconded and passed. Tract No. 3 - Z-2654 Applicant: Fairview Baptist Church Location: 5420 West 35th Street Description; Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, Block 7, Ruebel and Leymer's Addition Classification: "B" Residence District Variance: Requests a Variance from the setback provisions of Section 43-12 of the Code of Ordinances to permit addition to existing non -conforming church structure The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends approval of the application which will permit an addition to the exist- ing church provided a dedication of 10 ft. on the east side of the property be effected by deed prior to obtaining building permit. Granting of the requested variances will not adversely affect adjacent properties." - 6 - t:i-ttle Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes November 20, 1972 _ Mr. James Farrior was present to represent the applicant. He stated that they have an existing building that was built prior to this area being annexed to the city. They have been under the assumption that as they grew they could build their sanctuary out on the main street and the problem occurred with the widening of the right-6f-way of the street, and the building design follows the original setback require- ments. The space is so tight it is not possible to squeeze this thing in and take care of the extra 10 ft. required. We substantiated there that what we are proposing to build is within the normal setback requirements on that block. The Chairman asked if he and the church understood that they will be required to dedicate 10 additional feet for the right-of-way of Mabelvale Pike. Mr. Farrior replied that they were prepared to do that. There were no objectors present. A motion was made to approve the Staff's recommendation, which was seconded and passed. Tract No. 4 - Z-1805 Applicant: Markham House, Inc. Location: 5120 West Markham Street Description: Lots 13, 14, 15, 16, Block 7, Pfeifer's Addition Classification: "E-l" Quiet Business District Variance: Requests a Variance from the area provisions of Section 43-6 (9) of the Code of Ordinances to permit erection of a sign larger in area than permitted (70 sq. ft. _+) per face and double face The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: The Staff recommends ;approval of the application provided sign area does not exceed 60 sq. ft. (each face) and height not to exceed 15 ft. and approval of loca- tion as shown on site plan." The applicant, Mr. Guy Davis, 5120 West Markham, stated that the primary purpose of this variance is to not use a large sign at the restaurant and also allow them to tear down a rather unsightly sign that now exists and make one more architecturally fitting for the existing building. Mr. Venhaus stated that the present potential for the two properties considering the "E-l" motel and the "F" Commercial would without any variance requirement at all have the opportunity to utilize 8 sq. ft. for the sign in the "E-l" portion and would have unlimited bulk and area requirements on the "F" Commercial portion. - 7 - Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes November 20. 1972 There were no objectors present. A.motion was made for approval of the Staff's recommendation, which was seconded and passed. Tract No. 5 - Z-2568 Applicant: Gloria Crofton and Cotsy Chenault Location: 7419 Ohio Street Description: Lots 4, 5, 6, Block 4, Riffel and Rhoton's Forest Park Highlands Addition Classification: "C" Two-family District Variance: Requests a Variance from the main structure provisions of Section 43-2 (5) of the Code of Ordinances to permit more than one main structure per lot The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends approval of the application. The proposed development of these 3 lots zoned "C" would be an attractive, and uniquely designed two-family complex with sufficient parking well located. It would provide more usable yard space than one structure on each of the lots." Mrs. Alice White, 7575 Cantrell Road, was present in opposition, and stated that she owns two lots directly south behind the subject property. She is at present building a duplex on this property and plans to live on one side. Across the back are 8 large plateglass windows and on each end a sundeck. This proposed project adjacent to her property will provide two unsightly parking lots 26 ft. from the rear property line. She checked at several similar apartment complexes and they have provided a 6 to 10 ft. board screen. She understands there is an ordinance that requires a 4 ft. screening around the park- ing area but this would be inadequate under the circumstances. She asked if an 8 ft. board screen be provided across the south rear property line. The applicant, Mrs. Gloria Crofton, stated that the parking area would be 26 ft. from the,rear property line and the 2 story buildings would be 37 ft. from the property line. She further stated that no matter how high the screen would be, the tenants could still look down on Mrs. White's property because her duplex is a one-story building. She said they would certainly comply with the ordinance concerning the height and type of screening required but objected to an 8 ft. privacy screen. Mr. J. R. Alexander, 7408 Indiana Street, was present in opposition. His property joins Mrs. White's property and the subject property. He Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes November 20, 1972 requested a 6 ft. or taller fence. A motion was made to approve the Staff's recommendation, which was seconded and passed. Tract No. 6 - Z-2515 Applicant: Dr. J. N. Luten, Jr. Location: 6600 Baseline Road Description: Lots 1-R and 2-R of Tract 23, Arnold's Highland Acros Classification• "E-1" Quiet Business District Variance• Requests a Variance from the sign area provisions of Section 43 - (6)-(9) of the Code of Ordinances to permit erection of sign in excess of permitted The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends denial of the application as submitted and recommends this:case be deferred pending the applicant submitting.preferably a.low profile type of sign which would be more compatible with the present structure and adjacent residential uses." The Chairman advised Mr. Don Fitts, who was -present representing the applicant, that proof of notification of adjacent property owners had not been received so the case would be deferred to the December 18th meeting. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 P.M. aevf4ll allo. Darrell D. Dover, Chairman Don R. Venhaus, Secretary - 9 -