Loading...
boa_07 20 1970LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JULY 20,1970 MEMBERS PRESENT L. Dickson Flake, Chairman Wm. Finley W illiams,Vice Chairman S. Spencer Compton Dave Grundfest, Jr. MEMBER ABSENT Darrell Dover STAFF PRESENT Don R. 'Venhaus John L. Taylor Richard Wood Jim Finch OTHERS PRESENT Perry Whitmore, Asst. City Attorney J. Huddleston, 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 as follows: Tract No. 1 - Z-2375 Applicant: Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, by William L. Terry Location: 1100 Block West Capitol Avenue Description: All of Block 291, Original City of Little Rock Present Classification: "H"-Business District Variance: Requests Variances as follows: (1) From the Height Provisions of Sec. 43-19-(1) of the Code of Ordinances to permit a height of 10 floors or 185 feet and future addition of 10 floors to a total height of 320 feet above ground floor level (2) From the Parking Provisions of Sec. 43-21-(G) (d) of the Code of Ordinances to permit less than required number of parking spaces on tract on which building is to be constructed Mr. Taylor stated that the Staff did recommend approval of the Variance for the Board of Adjustment Minutes July 20,1970 ten stories at this time. However, it did not recommend approval of the additional ten floors. With reference to the parking requirements the Staff would like for the Board to interpret this Section whereby if 500 spaces were provided within 600 feet for public parking m whether this public parking - in and out type parking or as monthly parking m would suffice to meet this requirement of 500 spaces within 600 feet. Mr. William Terry, attorney for the applicant, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, was present who stated that this application has to do with the construction of their proposed new office building which has recently been announced in the press to be located on West Capitol Avenue, across the street and approximately 1g blocks west of the present location at 900 west Capitol Avenue. He submitted a copy of the publication by the Chamber of Commerce which had a drawing of the proposed building and architect's rendering, and other information of interest. Mr. Terry explained that the entire operation at 900 West Capitol will be moved to the new building when it is occupied and 900 West Capitol will be vacated and all employees moved to the new building. There will be no new people other than those presently occuping the building at 900 West Capitol with whatever normal growth they have. Also present representing the Telephone Company were Warren Gandl and Bill Green. Mr. Larry Leggett, representing the architects, also was present. Mr. Arthur Kelly of the staff of the architectural firm has personally made a study of the parking in the area, was present, as was C. V. Barnes, a local realtor who personally handled the acquisition of these lands and is familiar with the entire area - the property owners in the area, etc. Mr. Terry said there were two waivers to be considered, (1) the height waiver which in an "H"-Business District is limited to 100 feet or 8 stories. The proposed structure will have 10 stories above ground level extending to a height of 185 feet which includes an elevator tower on top of the building somewhat similar to the Worthen Bank tower. Also the Company is placing additional strength in the footings and columns to accommodate an additional ten stories later on which may or may not ever be constructed. This structure would be some 3 stories less than the height of the Worthen Bank and the Union National Bank buildings. The additional strength will cost approximately $175,000. additional investment because of the additional footings and columns, and they feel that some protection is necessary for this additional investment, and he said this Board did have precedent foridoing this. He reminded the Board that a height waiver for future construction was granted to the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company for its building at 7th and Louisiana across from the City Library building, and in that application filed November 2,1967 an application was approved by this Board for future addition of 12 floors above the present 8 floors to reach 401.2 feet above street line. Iie submitted a copy of this application indicating approval for the Board's information, (2) in connection with the parking waiver, there does seem to be some question as to whether or not a waiver by this Board is required under the ordinance, but for reasons of precaution as well as following the suggestion of the Staff, Mr. Terry said they have made an application and requested a ruling on this point, for the reason that there will be no problems later on in the issuance of a building permit when an application is made for same. It is anticipated that construction will start somewhere around November of this year but they desire a determination to be made as to the required 500 spaces within 600 feet of the property as required by the Code. There are some 334 spaces required for this size building, and the layout which Mr. Leggett will explain provides on -site parking of 146 spaces. The site is an entire block, over half of 6A5 Board of Adjustment Minutes July 20 ,1970 which has been devoted to parking. A thorough study of the area has been made property owners have been contracted m and they have attempted to eliminate any parking spaces which are devoted to other buildings such as the Whitbeck Building and there is a quarter of a block especially devoted to that building. Mr. Terry said a drive around this area would demonstrate the great amount of vacant space within two blocks of this area, some of which is "parking" now, some of which is simply vacant land. He also indicated that this is not a bank building or a commercial building with people in and out throughout the day and there will be no large amount of customers, visitors, etc. as this is an office building for this one Company. Finally he said he would like to point out the matter of the location of the alley within this block as shown by the drawing which is part of the agenda, and a good representation of this situation. This is an east -west alley presently in existence in this block. On July 2nd the City Planning Commission, on application of the Telephone Company, voted to recommend the closing of this alley to the City Board. A hearing is set for August 3rd at which time the formal action will be taken by the Board. No protests have been made by any property owners to the proposed waivers, and in Mr. Terry's opinion this will be a great credit to the City and will enhance the overall beauty of the State Capitol and the entire downtown area. Mr. Warren Gandl, a representative of the Telephone Company, who is the architectural engineer for the Arkansas area, said that the construction of this new building will be under him and his Staff, and will replace the present State area headquarters building which are the leased quarters at 900 West Capitol Avenue. He said they were tremendously overcrowded at that location with only 91,000 square feet. At present they have just under 600 employees in that building, and at the end of two years when they expect to -have the new building completed they will have slightly over 600 people. He said this construction was intended to take care of their needs until 1985 or beyond based on the present load anticipated. The only people who will occupy this new building will be those in the State headquarters building at 900 West Capitol and those are basically the engineering department that engineers the building, dial equipment, and outside plant for the State of Arkansas; the staff that oversees the business office operation, compiles the telephone directories, and makes growth studies for future planning, also small specialized departments, personnel, legal and treasury departments. Also the accounting center including computers required for billing and handling all employee payrolls for the entire State will also be housed in this building. Mr. Gandl said he personally made an investigation of the number of employees that are presently parking within the area within 600 feet of the new site, and submitted a letter with this information to the Board. Mr. Larry Leggett brought a model of the building for the Board's examination and stated that the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company acquired a full city block at an acquisition cost of something like 3/4 of a million dollars. Realizing that West Capitol Avenue is the main auxiliary flow from downtown Little Rock to the State Capitol building, and in the interest of the human environment as well as City beautification, they elected to set back from the property line some 22 feet, and within this area to develop a plaza area which would be available to the general public for strolling through, to enjoy the plantings, and at the termination of this axis a large waterfall type fountain for the use of the public as well as for the enjoyment of their own employees. There are 116 spaces around the building, and 30 spaces beneath the building. He said that they as architects feel that the plaza area will be a welcome addition to the City and downtown crowded Tittle Rock. -3- Board of Adjustment Minutes July 20e 1970 Mr. C. V. Barnes, who made an analysis of the parking situation and filed it with the Board and the Staff, presented a map indicating the parking as was surveyed b y the Staff of the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and by the architect. There is attached on that drawing a schedule of parking data which reflects that based on the first phase of construction which is the ten story building, the ordinance requirements would be 338 parking spaces with an additional 311 spaces requested for future ten stories which are proposed later on. A detailed analysis of the parking in the area indicated 467 existing off -site parking spaces existing within 600 feet, and he obtained a letter from property owners whose property is not currently devoted to parking, committing that to a parking use to cover an additional 190 spaces which is a total of 657 spaces. He said this commitment of other properties owners was not exhausted because there are some three or four other properties that could be included in that survey. Of the 467 spaces that are currently in use as off -site parking spaces, 338 of these are currently occupied by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company personnel on a monthly rental basis. If you add to the 657 potential off -site shaces as shown in our schedule, the 146 spaces provided on -site, we have a total of 803 parking spaces that would be available to th".s building. He was asked what he meant by having a commit- ment to the use for off-street parking, whether the people are agreeable to developing this off-street parking, or agreeable to leaving it as such if developed. Mr. Barnes replied that he had a letter from the property owners or their agents, but there is no clear-cut pattern. "We don't want to say that we have gotten these people tosay 'we are going to devote our property to parking, and we are going to put so many spaces there.' It varies from property owner to property owner as to their statement, but what they have said is that they are agreeable to devoting this property to parking - that they will either make it available themselves or we will lease it to someone who can devote it to parking, and in turn operate parking spaces on it. Mr. Barnes added that there is no permanent commitment for any length of time." Mr. Terry added that this is an area in situation and that this is not a retail "What we are talking about is the month that Mr. Barnes is talking about. which month to month parking is the area where there are people in and out. to month situation which is the situation When asked if the Telephone Company had the local purchasing office in this building Mr. Gandl said "only so far as it is presently at 900 West Capitol, but they do not have a purchasing department as such m no salesmen coming in except those who come in to see me in connection with building products in connection with construction. The bulk of the forms used are obtained through Western Electric Company which are standard forms used by Southwestern Bell." Mr. Venhaus was asked to read that portion of the ordinance which applied to parking requirements. He quoted Section (G) from the Parking Section of the Zoning Ordinance "Requirements Waived" Subsection (d) which reads as follows: 'The requirements set forth in Classes 1 (c), 2, 4, 5, 6 (a) and F, shall be waived by the traffic engineer and the building commissioner, acting jointly upon their determination that° (a), (b), (c), (d) a building is being constructed on a lot within six hundred feet of which there already exists and are available to the general public five hundred or more off-street parking spaces in parking areas that are not requirements as established by other provisions of this Chapter.' He said "there is no clarity here at all with respect to the question of what kind of parking spaces.Almost the single limiting factor in this statement is that if the parking was provided as a requirement of the ordinance in connection with the construction of a building, it cannot be claimed as parking for the m4® Board of Adjustment Minutes July 20,1970 subject building. It does not address itself to parking that is rented by the month, by the day, by the minute, by the hour, or by the year. It simply says parking that is available to the general public - whatever that means. It seems to me that the question before the Board is how broad is the statement m if it includes any parking spaces that presumably are not restricted by another business - is it available to be counted as parking. They have already pointed out that 338 are leased on some basis by -their own employees. There are a number of other spaces which might or might not be leased at the present time, and might or might not be available, but they are parking spaces presumably available to the general public." Mr. Flake asked "when a variance is granted, does it not automatically expire at the end, of one year if a building permit is not appl; ed for to exercise the use of the variance?" Mr. Venhaus said according to the Board of Adjustment by-laws the permit has to be acquired within 90 days and construction has to be completed within 6 months, but the Board can grant an extension. Mr. Flake asked "does that take, then, affirmative action on the part of the Board when these expirations occur?" Mr. Venhaus replied "I would assume that the way the procedure ought to operate is anyone having received a variance if they do not get a permit within 90 days they should be contacted by the staff and advised that their time is growing short to take out a permit and they need to be advised also that if they do not prosecute construction within six months that their grant is no longer valid. I don't think this Board (Mr. Whitmore might not agree with me) could consider a prospective question of this type. He may not be on the Board at the time they get ready to put ten stories on the building m there may be two or three changes in the zoning ordinance by the time they decide to put additional stories on the building. I don't think that this Board is constituted in such a way that you could deal with a question that is entirely speculative like granting waivers on the basis of the nztion that they might wzsnt to expand in the future. I don't think you could deal with that." Mr. Flake commented that technically you would be talking about a waiver and renewal every 90 days until 1985, to which Mr. Venhaus replied "yes sir" m certainly under your by-laws it would not do any good to grant this unless they came in and asked for and received an extension of both the period of time in which they need to get a building permit and the construction time. They would have to renew this every 90 days on the permit, and every 6 months on the construction time. That is the very minimum or it automatically would lapse under your bylaws." Mr. Leggett was asked they had given any thought to providing a parking deck on the site, but his reply was inaudible. A motion was made that the variance be granted for the 10 story building; as present- ly drawn and constituted, and that the waiver for the height variance and off-street parkiis for the presently planned structure be approved, which was seconded and passed. Mr. Flake repeated that the application is approved for the present structure. Mr. Terry asked if that included both the height and parking variance requested except for the future ten stories on the height. Mr. Flake corrected his state- ment to include the future ten stories on the height and parking. Mr. Terry said he did not understand and Mr. Flake repeated "to any extent that a parking waiver would be required for the future ten stories = it is not included." Mr. Terry confirmed tliat "we c°an build that now height -and -parking -wise." -5- Board of Adjustment Minutes July 20,1970 Mr. Venhaus added that "I assume the action of the Board was not address itself to the question of what constituted the parking, but rather waived the parking require- ments. You waived the 188 spaces that the applicants are short of in meeting their parking requirements." Mr. Grundfest replied that that was the intention of his motion - a waiver of the parking. Tract No. 2 m Z-2379 Applicant° Walter E. Vroman Location. 4321 Country Club Road Description. The Wig of Lots 8 and 92 Block 3, Country Club Heights Addition Present Classification. "A"-Cnemfamily District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Rear Yard Setback Provisions of Section 43-12 of the Code of Ordinances to permit addition to existing residence The Staff recommendation was read as follows. "The Staff recommends denial of the application. The granting of this Variance would reduce the rear yard space to 10 feet and would adversely affect the residence adjacent on the south." Mr. Walter E. Vroman, the applicant, was present stating that his family needs additional bedroom space. He said they explored various ways to do this, but none seemed possible except to go back 10 feet. The living area is about 8 feet above ground level. He stated that he proposed an extension of 10' X 22', supported by columzisto create adequate bedroom space. The only alternative would appear to be that he could provide an outbuilding on the property line of suitable construction meeting all fire codes, etc., but would have to be for storage spaces which would allow the garage area underneath the house to be used for living space, and in his opinion this would be less desirable than that he proposes. He solicited the Board's favorable consideration despite the Staff's recommendations Mr. Flake questioned Mr. Vroman if he was aware of a telephone call received by the Staff from an objecting party whose house is back of this property. Mrs Venhaus stated that in an instance like this where we have a telephone call, and that what transpired during the call was entirely speculative since the gentleman who took the call was not present, in his opinion it was not a sincere and earnest protest and should not be considered as though it were a protest advanced on the application. A motion was made that the application for variance be denied, which was seconded and passed. Tract No. 3 m Z-2380 Applicant: Leonard Johnson Location- 1913 Lewis Street Description-. Lot 6, and the V12 of Lot S, Block 28, S. J. Johnson's Addition Present classification. "B"-Residence District Variance- Requests a Variance from the Rear Yard Provisions of Section 43-12 of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction of residence projecting two feet into rear yard space Board of Adjustment Minutes July 20,1970 This case was withdrawn from the agenda by the Staff as it was not necessary for Board of Adj-�5tment consideration and no action need be taken on it. Tract No. 4 - Z-2377 Applicant.- Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, by C. V. Barnes Location.- 5600 and 5700 Blocks of West 65th Street (south side) Description. Long legal Present Classification.- "A" -One -family District Variance.- Requests Variance in accordance with the provisions of Section 43-22 of the Code of Ordinances to permit location of utility in residential zone The Staff recommendation was read as follows. "The Staff recommends approval of the application subject to appropriate screening as required by the Zoning Ordi- nance. Off-street parking provided appears adequate." Mr. C. V. Barnes, representing the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, was present and stated the property was an "LB1 shaped tract of land located on the south side of 65th Street and lies a little east of the present Locust Exchange of South- western Bell Telephone Company. There is an intervening property. This tract has a 300 foot frontage on 65th Street, and contains approximately 5 acres. It is to be developed with a two-story and basement office building for use by the Telephone Company for .its long distance lines and toll operation. The development proposes the building, together with the necessary off-street parking requirement, and will have approximately half of the land left for future development. It will house office personnel together with what you think of as long distince operator personnel. There will be less than 100 people per shift. When questioned about storage or maintenance of vehicles or equipment, Mr. Barnes said it was not contemplated; that it is just an office building except that it will be differentiated in that it will have toll line facilities in it. A property owner who owns property adjoining at the rear, was present, stating that he lived south of 65th Street on 1'Iel_; `nr°d Drive, and would like to have some informa- tion about the project o where the entrance would be, where the parking lot would be, and how close to his property the development would be. These questions were answered by Mr. Barnes, but were inaudible. Mr. Eugene Pfeifer, III, was present stating that he represented the owner of the 10 acres immediately east of subject tract, and asked what geographical area would be served by the facilities within this proposed building. Mr. Barnes replied that basically, the State of Arkansas, the United States and the world. It will be a billing office for toll line operations m and basically it is an Arkansas operation. Mr. Pfeifer asked that the applicable portion of the ordinance giving this Board jurisdiction over this case be read. Mr. Venhaus read Subsection 4 dealing with the jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment as follows. (i)' to permit public utility or public service uses and structures in any district when found to be necessary for the public health, convenience, or welfare." Mr. Pfeifer said the case as stated by the Telephone Company, as nearly as he could -7- Board of Adjustment Minutes July 2021970� determine failed to show any manner in which the public healths convenience, or welfare necessitated this building being located in this particular location. "It would seem to me that the intent back of this particular portion of the Code was probably put there to permit water towers to be placed on top of hills, or electric transformer stations to be placed in particular neighborhoods where it was necessary to serve that neighborhood, or for the Telephone Company, as in the instance of the nearby building to serve the particular exchange. Inasmuch as this building .is being placed here to serve Little Rock, Arkansas, and the United Stated as was stated, it would seem to me that their site selection could have included a broader area. and it has failed to be shown necessary that it be placed in this "A" District. On that basis I request that the Telephone Company be made subject to the normal zoning regulations of the City of Little Rock for this facility which is merely an office building, and not tied to a particular technological location requirement and I request that you turn down this request for variance under this Code and refer the matter as a normal zoning matter to the Planning Commission." Mr. Flake asked Mr. Pfeifer if he objected to this use of the property adjoining his property to which he answered "none whatsoever" Mr. V1ake asked "=.s it not right that the answer was that a utility must have a variance no matter what zone it goes in for any use?" Mr. Venhaus replied "for any use it must be approved by this Doard regardless of its location o "K" Industrial or "A"=Single-family." Mr. Venhaus said he might point out that as far as he could determine the use of this provision of the ordinance has never been limited in the fashion that Mr. Pfeifer suggests. "That might be desirable. However, I don't think we are deal- ing with whether or not the ordinance is a good idea the way it is presently written. We are dealing with it the way it is written m probably to some extent to the way it is being used, and I would suggest to you the language "public health, convenience and welfare" is extremely broad, and I should think it would be a little difficult to prove that that isn't a convenient location. Obviously it is convenient for the Telephone Company, and I don't know of anything to indicate that it is not convenient to the public, or that it would be more convenient for the public if it were located somewhere else.. I fail to see the license to require them to rezone the property inasmuch as they are going to have to come before this Board anyway." When asked for some examples, where this application has been made of the ordinance, Mr. Taylor said this Locust Exchange which is some 200 feet to the west of this property, has been before the Board of Adjustment two times. The Exchange on Woodlawn and Elm has been before the Board of Adjustment for variances, as has the Arkansas Power & Light Company on its transformer stations. It is common practice to allow this procedure by this type of waiver rather than changing the zoning. Also the Arkansas Power & Light Company has located a substation on West Markham in an area that is all residentially zoned property, and this was approved by the Board of Adjustment. 1r. Venhaus explained that the intent of this provision and the reason it appears in this ordinance and a number of others throughout the country is so utility companies can locate their facilities without committing that particular location J to a commercial land use pattern, or to a professional office land -use pattern - so that they can locate these facilities without the public having to commit a zoning pattern. It is a stopgap kind of measure to accomplish a purpose, presum- ably in the public interest without having to forfeit an entire zoning pattern in the process." og m BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES July 20,1970 - Mr. Barnes said "certainly Southwestern Bell Telephone Company was interested in it from the standpoint of their own conveniences but I think they also looked into matters that are a matter of public interest and convenience. For example one reason that this location was chosen on 65th Street was with respect to the traffic that this facility would create by their employees coming to and from this facility. Another reason that this location was chosen was because it had an excellent loca- tion with respect to where the existing cables are located. Also they tried to select an area where the use would be compatible with the existing uses." Mr. Venhaus added that the grant of authority in the ordinance clearly permits the Board of Adjustment to look into the character of an area, and the locational aspects of an area. "The reason we are not dealing at great length with vindication and jus- tification for this location is that the site seems to be adapted to the purpose they want to make of it. If we were sitting in the middle of an intensely developed single-family area, then I am sure there would be all kinds of issues that we would discuss like alternate locations, traffic patterns, screening, setbacks, etc but the fact is that the nature and character of development surrounding this property is of such a low density, and the amount of open space so great relative to the structure, and the major street locations are such that there really are not any of these issues to deal with so far as the Staff is concerned. Certainly it is within the province of this Board to take these things into consideration. Obvious- ly you have a right to locate a facility like this in an "A" -Single-family District, and I suggest that this location in this "A"" -District, there are very few issues of this type worthwhile pursuing." A motion was made that the applicati®n be approved as submitted which was seconded and passed. DEFERRED ITEM 1. Z=2366 Applicant. John B. May Location.- 1323 Main Street Description.- Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Block 14, Original City Present Classification: "I"° Light Industrial District and "E"-Apartment District Variance: Requests Variancesg (1) from the Height Provisions of Seca 43-13 and 43-16 of that ordinance to permit construction of apartment building in excess of permitted height (144 feet exclusive of 10 foot elevator tower) (2) from the Lot Area Per Family Provisions of Sec. 43-13 and 43-16 of that ordinance to permit less than required lot area per unit (389 square feet +) Mr. Taylor explained that this matter was heard by the Board of Adjustment at its last meeting and that there were some problems with reference to the closing or encroachment within an existing and dedicated alley which was referred W Board of Adjustment Minutes July 20,1970 to the Board of Directors for its closing. Since that time the applicant indicated he would move the building, and probably add another floor to the top of the building but clear the alley , a problem which is the reason they are back before the Board at this time. Mr. Edward Brueggeman was present, stating he has asked for a waiver of density requirement. The aces is in a location where it is not probable that there be a heavy density of residential buildings in that on the west you have a large cemetery, on the east there is a park some 5 blocks away from the property. "I am speaking in terms of the general area, he said. There is a 200 foot right-of-way going through two blocks on the north for the East-West Expressway, and immediately adjoining the property on t�e east is the Quapaw Section where it is hoped that they will never tear down the old homes and build any large apartments, so we feel that we have a little different situation than if you were going out in the residential area or a heavily populated apartment area. We don't feel like very many of these structures will be built in the near downtown, and of course a building in the downtown location without a waiver of density you can hardly make a project feasible from the standpoint of financing. These apartments are primarily one -bedroom apartments and there are 29 two -bedroom units in the project, but if we built 120 units we might possibly make that a feasible project by making them all three -bedroom 2-bathroom units which would increase the density possibly twice as far as population is concerned to what the one -bedroom units would produce in the same area and we would still be within density require- ments. A little consideration should be given to the fact that it will help the downtown area that is now being moved away from it. This has been done in other cities. In St. Louis they have completely changed the downtown picture by build- ing highrise apartments along the river front, and I think we need more in down- town Little Rock to revitalize it. However, the project is'being built as an investment which will pay for itself over a period of time, and it has to take care of a large land cost that can't be avoided in the downtown area. This is the reason we are asking for the waiver." Mr. Flake asked if there had been any variation in the Staff°s recommendation. Mr. Venhaus said the Staff had hoped to submit a memorandum to the Board members setting forth various rational and scientific types of discussion of the relationship between square footage per unit and total site area."Unfortunately our research did not reveal very much, nor did Metroplan. What we did do was a lot of comparison in terms of our ordinances and other ordinances, but we discovered no maximum density requirements in any ordinance that we examined in other cities over. 100,000 population that allowed anything even approximating 388 square feet per dwelling unit. The lowest we found was 450 square feet per living unit. The highest was somewhere around 700 square feet. The usual maxi- mum density allowance per square footage allowance under the ordinances was somewhere around 500 to 600 square feet which we already knew. I did some research in the Urban Land Institute°s Home Builders Handbook, which is a document that I respect very much as a development guide, and as a basic indicator of density and development standards, and the highest maximum density they recommended for high-rise structures was 520 square feet per dwelling unit. Again the Staff thinks that we are creating a very serious precedent when we virtually half the square footage requirements of our existing ordinance. We think the concept that the density ought to be based on the dollar yield per square foot of ground is a very dangerous one. We are talking about'a situation that is pretty much analogous to front yards. It is easy enough to defend the necessity of front =10- Board of Adjustment Minutes Jul 2�r 0,1970�_ yards in a given situation. It is very difficult to defend whether they ought to be 25 feet, or 23 feet, or 26 feet. Certainly there is an arbitrary point there° but the fact that front yards are desirable is one that can be defended well. We are talking about the same thing here. Obviously there is a relationship between the number of units and the total site area. The more of that site area that you devote to off=street parking and living units the less area you have for such basic considerations as sidewalks, and "people -area" o the green space o the areas that provide some kind of amenities to the livability of the site, and one thing we did that -provided any kind of anchor figures, we applied the FHA concept of land use intensity to this property, and kind of ran it out based on the amount of square ftge. We discovered there was some 11,600 square feet under the allowable floor area that they did not utilize which they could have utilized, so in effect a less intensity than this ratio would have permitted. We found the total open space to be some 11,700 square feet. This is significant because of the amount of off-street parking. They have provided a lot of parking, a lot of units, and they have a one-to-one parking ratio, so a great deal of area is taken up in parking. The critical area was in livability space. Livability space is construed as those areas of the site that are green areas, planting areas, walk areas, areas of the site that in some way tend to support the environment and livability of the site for the residents that live there, and what they provide on their plan is 4100 square feet and the liva- bility ratio would require some 23,653 square feet which indicates how much of the site is being devoted to parking." Mr. Flake asked Mr. Venhaus to repeat this statement which he did. "'The livability space that would be required by the land - use intensity ratio is 23,653 square feet. What they have actually provided is 4140 square feet. This is where it shows up. This is where the intensity of the use of the site shows up the most. I don't suggest that there is concrete evidence that this is a bad thing. I do suggest though that it is evidence that you do compensate - that you do pay for what you take up in higher density even if you provide the off- street parking. It seems to me that this is an area something like side yards, something like height requirements that are desirable kind of standards and unless there is an exceptional reason to vary that standard it ought to be adhered to. Since this Board has granted a variance in the past basedon a very specialized use of 500 square feet per dwelling unit, we would suggest that a variance to this effect be granted here of 500 square feet per dwelling unit. We strongly recommend that you not reduce the square footage per dwelling unit below that figure." Mr. Venhaus said he should have also added "that the Staff would recommend a provision of a 25 foot green area setback on the east side of the property in deference to the lines that are already established on both sides of the street." A statement by an unidentified person was inaudible at this point. Mr. Brueggeman added that they are looking at it from the owners' standpoint. We have to ask 'is it feasible for him to build a building on that land or isn't itV The only other out would be a super market or some similar structure where there would be no greenery, where there would be all solid parking and a commercial build- ing and the questionof whether that land use was feasible under those conditions where they do not have people in the area is a question, too. We are trying to give the owner something that we feel will justify his investment for his land and this just about does it. We think that possibly by going to three bedroom two -bath units we could create a market for that type of building and make it feasible by having fewer apartments but we feel like it would be a lot more people in the area. We would be able to reduce the parking because we wouldn't have as many apartments, but we would have more outdoor living areas on the site proper. But you have a Board of Adjustment Minutes July 20,1970 whole lot more people using that same facility, whereas in the one bedroom units we feel that most of these people are going to be working downtown and some of them walking, and they are not going to be dependent on site entertainment or recreation. Our project would not justify a swimming pool. The amount of rent for the units would not justify any expenditure on the site other than living and parking unless we have enough ground to provide a park area, -so it is a question of having to make a restudy on the basis of threebedroom units m limiting the number of units,but considerably more density of population, or else to abandon the project. We are faced with one of these two things. If we can't build say 120 one and two bedroom units and make the project pay because of excessive land cost you can't build apartments in downtown Little Rock at the present prices and present interest rates and stay with the density requirements. If someone wanted to build 300 or 400 unit apartments on some of the urban renewal land downtown you could not do it and adhere to the density. There is no way and pay the price of the land. The question is 'are we going to have downtown apartments, or aren't we going to have downtown apartments?' I am trying to utilize the fact that there are areas in the total area that are going to be permanently green areas, or permanently uninhabitable areas which is my answer to the problem of density." The ensuing statement by an unidentified person was not audible. Mr. Brueggeman said that in many cases the PHA has given credit for adjoining parks or close -by parks in their density determination in garden type apartments. They want 16 apartments to the acre and if they have a large open area around there they will let them go as high as 20, and in the downtown area of St. Louis they credited the entire area between the apartments at each end of that mall to the apartment unit as part of the density requirements. (The following statement made by an unidentified person was inaudible.) Mr. Brueggeman added that anything the Board does for this project is going to put it in the position of having to treat similar projects as separate and distinct cases. "If you make a waiver on this particular project you will be faced with waiver requests again" (The statement which followed was inaudible.) He also said that since they had cut the building back and not taken in the alley, they might add a 10 foot strip on their property so that from curb to parking lot "we could probably have 25 feet and agree to plant that area with the exception of the two driveways that go through." Mr. Venhaus stated that he would like to point out that•"the Staff participated heavily with the development of the Central Little Rock Urban Renewal Plan, and in effect in the plan we wrote a new land use regulation for Central Little Rock. One of the subjects of discussion was apartment densities in the CLR area and the recommendation of the Housing Authority's consultant and what the Housing Authority is favoring in terms of highrise density is 500 square feet per dwelling unit. Of course, as Mr. Compton has pointed out there are literally hundreds of cities across this country with maximum density of 500 to 600 square feet per unit that have undertaken substantial downtown redevelopment. Certainly we have already had apartments redeveloped in this area although not highrise. We have existing apartment developments in "D" Districts in this general area and near the subject site. To suggest that the issue is whether or not we will have apartments in the downtown area is a mistake. Other cities have accomplished such development at densities of 500 square feet per unit and above and it can be done in Little Rocks" A motion was made to §Eant the height restrictive waiver, but limit the lot area per _12- Board of Adjustment Minutes July 20,1970 family unit to 500 sz�uare feet. require full 25 foot aeen area from the property lime back on Scott StreetL which was seconded and passed. ���m_� Mr. Flake interpreted the motion as "to approve the application with the restriction of 500 square feet per unit, andJ. with a 25 foot rear yard setback on Scott Street." There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. L41-enIS4,e-I�rde- tary NI L. Dickson Flake, Chairman