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