Loading...
boa_03 21 1966LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES MARCH 21, 1966 MEMBERS PRESENT W. R. Meeks, Acting Chairman Dave Grundfest, Jr. Scott Farrell Finley Williams MEMBERS ABSENT Cecil Kuehnert STAFF PRESENT Henry M. de Noble John L. Taylor - Louis E. Barber Dorothy Riffel OTHERS PRESENT Perry Whitmore, Asst. City Attorney Doug Smith, Gazette Reporter 2:00 P. M. There being a quorum present, the meeting was called to order at 2:00 P. M. by the Acting Chairman. A motion was made for approval of the minutes as mailed which was seconded and passed unanimously. Action was taken as follows: - Tract No. 1 - Z-1961 Applicant: Location: Description: Classification: Variance: J. Wythe Walker 2301 Scott Street Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, Block 2, Fulk's Subdivision'of Blocks 14, 15 and 16, of Raplay's Estates "D"-Apartment District Requests a Variance from the Main Structure Provisions of Section 43-2-(5) and Front Yard Setback Provisions of Section 43-13; and the Use Provisions of Section 43-21-(H-b) of Code,of Ordinances to permit construction of apartment complex Mr. Walker was present in the interest of this application. Mr. Farrell questioned Mr. Walker as to the desirability of moving the south and north units to the east 5 feet to make an additional 5 feet -available for parking in the front yard area (Scott Street side). Mr. Walker indicated that this arrangement would create some difficult problems as the back of the property drops off about 14 or 15 feet. The Board of Adjustment Mi n.utes,- March 21. 1966 &a swimming pool, he said, would be 20' x 40' and would make use of a cantilever type of construction, with some of the pool equipment being placed underneath. 24 units will be constructed on this property which is 300' X 150'. Mr. M. V. Moody, 2124 Main Street, who owns property immediately to the south of the applicant's property, was present -for the purpose of examining the plans for the development. He stated that he had no objection to theproposed apartment complex and in his opinion it would be an asset to that part of town. A motion for approval of the application was made subject to approval of any easement requirements, and that the plans comply with parking lot regulations; and that retaining wall or walls that might be required for retaining all ground east of -the parking lots and pool equipment -be included in the approval. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Tract No. 2 - Z-1971 Applicant: Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Location: 1111 Louisiana Street Description: Lots 3, 4; and 5 of Block 68, Original City Classification: "E"-Apartment District Variance: Requests a Variance from theUse Provisions of Section 43-5 of Code of Ordinances to permit public utility in residential zone Mr. Bill Green was present to represent the petitioner. He stated that this property is for the use of the Telephone Company for the storing of materials and equipment to be used in the construction of the new building at 8th and Louisiana. They desire its use for a period of only 18 months at which time it will revert to its present status. There will be no.bui.10ing constructed on this site - only a fence which will be removed when the use is terminated. A motion was made that the application be approved, which was seconded and passed unanimously. Tract No. 3 - Z-1937 Applicant: West Twelfth Street Baptist Church Location: 3100 West 12th Street Description: Lots 21 and 22, Block 5, Jones & Worthen Ad.dn. Classification: "B"-Residence District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Use Provisions of Section 43.21-(H-b) of Code of Ordinances to permit parking in front yard space Mr. James Phillips, Pastor of the Church, was present. He stated that when his request for Variances was granted by the Board of Adjustment on January 17,1967 it provided that no parking be permitted in the front yard space, but after further study and to make a suitable arrangement, they would like to have the use of 7 feet of the front yard space for parking which would permit another row of parking. A motion was made for approval of the application, which was seconded and passed unanimously. Board of Adjustment Minutes - March 21, 1966 _ _ _3- Tract No. 4 - Z-1960 Applicant: W. C. Allsopp, Jr. Location: 42 Beverly Place Description: -The South 106 feet of Lots 1, 2, and 3, .Block 4, Newton's Addition Classification: "A" -One -family District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Yard Area Setback Provisions of Section 43-12 of Code of Ordinances to permit addition to existing residential structure Mr. and Mrs. W. C. Allsopp, Jr., were present. Mr. Farrell questioned Mr. Allsopp about the location of the proposed addition as to the desirability of locating it to the west and north. They had an architect draw the plans for this addition of a bedroom and bath, he said, and after much consideration made the decision to place the addition on the south side. Mr. Allsopp stated that there has been no opposition from any of the neighbors. A motion for approval_ of the Variance requested as shown on the diagram was made, seconded and passed. Mr: Will1ams dissented. Tract No. 5 - Z-1830 Applicant: Location: Description: Classification: Variance: J. Weingarten, Inc. 1700 Block North Coolidge Street Long Legal "D'.'-Apartment and "F"-Commercial Districts Requests approval of residential development plan under Provisions of Section 43-20 of Code of Ordinances Mr. Richard Crockett, Attorney, was present representing the petitioner, who stated that a residential development plan for 82 units had been submitted for consideration at this meeting. He said that in November, 1965, the property on the east end of this tract fronting,on Coolidge Street was before the Planning Commission for rezoning to "D,'-Apartment which was approved. ('Ed. -this date is in error as the action was taken at the Planning Commission meeting June 17, 1965.) Everything to the west of the two blocks fronting on Coolidge Street is already zoned "F" Commercial. Coolidge Street deadends about 98 feet from the south boundary of the property. That portion of Coolidge Street was closed by the Board of Directors about a month or so ago, he said. Then the rezoning petition was presented to the Planning Commission, we submitted a sketch showing the layout of the apart- ments and what the apartments would look like. I have handed to you a schematic of the apartments showing what the exterior would look like. The exterior has not been changed - just the layout on the site that we are proposing to change by this hearing. (Discussion inaudible._) Dr. Smith suggested that the drive that shows on the north side of the development plan be placed on the south boundary, and. the whole project flip-flopped. That was studied and we agreed with the Planning Commission to dothis if it could be done - if it was feasible. That was studied Board of Adjustment Minutes - March 21 1966 -4- along with other matters and the number of units was cut down from 90 to 82 and this is the present proposal for the development. Now, the problem with that particular layout which was approved by the.Planning Commission is that the slope of the ground is such that it would cost $160,000 more and that price becomes a tittle unfeasible -ta consider that type of develop- ment. The difference is in the retaini-ng walls and foundation necessitated by the slope of the ground. We generally try to follow the contour in placing the buildings. Dr. Smith owns all the property to the south of this development from Bryant Street on 100 feet past our eastern boundary, all the way down to Hughes Street, from the east end of this property 330' depth on the west end 3601. He did not need this road on the south side of our property to develop his. Mr. Farrell: "This road that he is requesting is not for his own development. "I thought it was to be used in coniunction with his development - he would dedicate half of it and the Weingarten people would dedicate the other half,said Mr.Cr4Dckett. Mr. Farrell read the motion made by the Planning Commission on June 17,1965 that "the application be approved as the apartment development would act as a buffer between the commercial activity adjacent on the north and the residential area to the south. Also because of the nature of the terrain, apartment usage of the land would be the best development of the property. (The applicant will revise develop- ment plan to conform with that submitted by Dr. James L. Smith) Mr. Crockett: "To revise it that way would cost $150,000. for additional construction. Mr. Gross is here to answer questions that the Board might have on cost of construction. Mr. Norman Gross stated that he would like to reinforce what Mr. Crockett had said about this plan. "We actually ended up with a complete set of working drawings with this street to the south and with these buildings running across the contour lines, and then after we got into the engineering work on it it became obvious that the retaining wall and earth -moving work just got completely out of hand. What started out to be a $40,000. or $50,000. estimate for our original budgeting, ended up about a $200,000. item. The layout which we have arranged here has a difference in excess of $150,000. on the actual retaining -wall acid earth -work and support -work for the buildings. Even with the additional land we picked up from closing Coolidge Street, we cut down the number of units on the property from the originally approved 90 to 82." Dr. James L. Smith said he did appear on June 17th of last year and did submit at that time a flip-flop of their original plan suggesting that 6 private street that they had placed very nearly under the dump be replaced and put on the south boundary, and then they also agreed to running a fence along, which would actually prohibit his using their street to develop his property. The property immediately to the south of this thing, he said, is actually three square blocks running along which would make it my task -to act as a buffer zone between the apartment complex and the very nice Hall Cove Area. "I think", he said, if these people - if they would merely stay with the covenant they made with the City Planning Board and me and with the residents of Hall Cove - area and merely put their street along the south boundary, back their apartments back up to the large earthern dump so as to help camouflage that thing and give us a little bit of help - then we can go ahead and develop this other vacant proper.ty.that we have. On the strength of the covenant that they made with the City Planning Commission, with me, and the people in Hall Cove, within a month after the meeting on June 17,1965, I let a contract and have now built a home in excess of $100,000. within a stone's throw of this property Board of Adjustment Minutes - March 21, 1966 -5- where Mr. Crockett now proposed to put his complex of 6 and 4 (apartments) and then back the washateria and mechanical building up to the line where he proposed on the other plan to have for a street and parking along this side. I would really like for him to drop back up and help camouflage the dump that made the Weingarten store possible, place the apartment buildings to the south and make themnDre aesthetically acceptable and at least give us a distance of a street and a nice fence between this commercial development and the residential area below. I have about 8 lots there which I hope to develop with equally as fine homes as the one I have just completed." Howard Douglas, Route #5, Box 393, was present who stated that he had a lot on the west side of the applicant's property facing on Bryant Street, and that he would like to know what it would have to do with his property. He was told that this matter concerned the apartment layout and not any rezoning. Lillie Mae Dixon, 7116 Indiana Street, was present who stated that she lived back down the hill from Weingarten's store, but that she sold her property to D. H. Garner who had contracted to buy her another lot and move her house, but that he died before he completed the contract. She was told that this hearing did not affect the title to her property in any way. L Mr. Crockett said that Dr. Smith's house is at the east end of this property in question. The plan that was originally submitted by him showed an apartment building coming down within about 5' of the property line on the east end. We are, of course, willing, he said, to put a fence and plant a screen along the south boundary of this property s-o it will be screened off. The development plan calls for some plantings on what is referred to as the "dump" - this is the fill - work that was put in for the Weingarten store so that eventually it will be -more beautiful than it is now. Now,:the buffer zone in question,he said, is this apartment development plan we are talking about. The property on the west is "F', Commercial and any "F"-commercial usage can go in there withthe "F"-commercial setbacks, etc. And, I really think, said Mr. Crockett, that this development plan - the one before the Board right now - is the only economically feasible development plan for that property. The "wash house" as shown on the plan can be moved up toward the north end of the development, he said. After considerable discussion between the Board members, a motion was made that the application be denied, which was seconded and passed unanimously. Tract No. 6 - Z-1972 Applicant: Harvey Cowling Location: 5305 'L,arch Road Description: Lot 2, Gum SpringsSubdivision Classification: "A" -One -family District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Side Yard Provisions of Section 43-12 of Code of Ordinances to permit addition to residence (carport) Mr. Cowling, the petitioner, was present and explained that he requested this Board of Adjustment Minutes - March 21,1966 112 Variance in order that he might build a carport large enough to accommodate both of his automobiles, a small one, and a regular size one. There would still be 5 feet 10 inches to the property line from the carport. A motion was made for approval providing the applicant will furnish a letter from his attorney to the building permit clerk stating that this Variance would not violate the Bill of Assurance of the Gum Springs Subdivision. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at-3:15 P. M. Henry M. de Noble, Secretary. W. R. Meeks, Acting Chai rman