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 -