Loading...
boa_02 15 1960S LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES FEBRUARY 15, 1960 - 2:00 P. M. The Little Rock Board of Adjustment met in the Chamber of the Board of Directors on February 15, 1960 at 2:00 P. M..The following members were present: Miss Emily Penton, Mr. Bruce Anderson Chairman Mr. Wm. R. Meeks, Jr. A public hearlag was held on the following dockets. Docket No. 1-60 - W. L' Harris, 608 Reichardt, being lot 7, Mock 299 C. L. Schaffer's Subdivision of Garlandts Addition, zoned "C" Two-family District, requesting a variance from the area requirements of Section 11 of that ordinance to permit construct- tion of a house on a lot which through an error tke house located on the adjacent lot was constructed on a portion of the lot in question. Mr. Breckling explained that this had been held since the last meeting because one of the adjacent property owners had not been notified. Mr. Harris was present and said he had no further comments than he had made at the previous meeting. In executive session Mr. Meeks said a man called just before -the meeting to say he had not been notified of the meeting. Mr. Breckling Checked the notice of hearing and the man's name did not appear on St. then he checked the map to determine if his property is within 140 fe*t of Mr. Harris' property line. It was found that it is, too refore, no action was taken on the application. Docket No. 4-60 - Jim Dismuke, 1613 Mc Gowen Street, being lot 10, block 30,. Masonic Addition, zoned "C" Two-family District, requesting a variance from the area requirements of Station 11 of that ordinance to permit construction of a single family house. No one was present concerning this request. In executive session, Mr. Breokling presented the plat and explained it. Mr. Meeks moved it be approved, Mr. Anderson seconded and the motion carried unanimously. 2-12-60 page 2 of 5 Dock No. 5-60 - O. R. Pollock, 1201 Rock Street, being lot 1, block 56, Original City, zoned "C" Two-family District, requesting a variance from all applicable prov3.siOns of Section 13 of that ordinance to permit construction of bath rooms in five houses. Mr. Pollock was present and Mr. Breekling explained his request. Mrs. Anna Schmelzer and Will Waters were present and strenously ob- jected to anything being added to the five houses on this one lot and to the fact that one of the houses extends into the alley. They also objected to the health hazard caused by the outdoor privies on this lot. Mr. Pollock said the houses had been there for forty years and that he only wanted to make them more modern and that he intended to move the house further onto the lot and off the alley. Mrs. Schmelzer doubted if he would have room on the lot to move the house out of the alley. Mr. Breckling pointed out that only one house is allowed on a lot by the zoning ordinance. Mr. Pollock said this sort of thing was allowed when the houses were built. In executive session Mr. Anderson moved that it be denied, Mr. Meeks seconded and the motion carried unaninouSX7- Dc kgt Na 6-60 - S. A. Godley, 1817 Bishop Street, being the south 7J feet of lot 4 and all of lot 5, block 40, Centennial Addition, zoned "C" Two-family and "F" Commercial Diotrictg requesting a variance from all applicable provisions of Section 11 and 13 of that ordinance to permit construction of a bedroom to existing house. The applicant was not present. In executive session it was found that all of the property owners within 140 feet had not been notifieds Mr. Meeks moved that it be deniedg Mr. Anderson seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Docket No. 7-6D - Leslie P. Northern, 2106 Vance Street, being a part of lot 10, block 27, Bragg's Addition, zoned "B" Resi- dence District, requesting a variance from the front yard pro- visions of Section it of that ordinance to permit the remodeling of existing single family residence. Mr. Northern was present. Mr. Breokling said there are houses in the block closer to the line than he is. He is 15 feet from the access road. He would have more than 5s000 square feet and could move his house back, but he chose to tear off the front porch. The right-of-way line will come right to his property line. Mr. Northern said the front of his house is brick veneer - split level and he felt he would lose part of it if he tried to move it. Page 3 of 5 Mr. Meeks asked hire Northern if he had settled vid th the High- vay Department? He answered no, that what they would do depended on whether or not he could move his house or tear off part of it. In executive session Mr. De Noble said he thought he should move the whole building back. Mr. Meeks explained that it was brick Veneer with a concrete foundation. Mr. Breckling suggested that he tear off part of the building to a load bearing wall. Mr. Anderson said he did not believe any building should be right on the right-of-way line. Mr, Anderson asked Mr. no Noble if the Highway Department had a minimum setback for the highway? Mr. De Noble answered no, just so they could get access - should be at least 15 feet and Mr, Northern has plenty of room to move back. Mr. Meeks felt that he would come out better in the long run to move it back, if he ever wants to sell It. Docket No. 8 0O _4. - Flnis:•'ld740100' 815 N. -Polk 8trcet j'•bsiAf 16t 5, and the north one-half of 6, block 2, Lincoln Park Addition, aoned "B" Residence District, requesting a variance from all applicable provisions of Section 11 of that ordinance to permit construction of a carport and enclosing porch. Mr. Taylor was present. He explained what he wanted to do and said he had beard no objections. He had notified all the property owners except the two churches and he felt that they would would not be laterested. bir. Breckling asked him if he w uld object to moving the pro- posed carport back some? He answered if he did he would run into a 3 foot drop in grade and would have to fill it in. Mr. De Noble asked if the floor of the carport`would be below the foundation of the house? Mr. Taylor answered that it would. In executive session Mr. Breckling said he thought it would be wise to set the carport back some, then he would have room for two cars. Mr. Anderson moved that it be denied as presented, but if he placed the carport 25 feet from the front property line he would move that it be approved, Mr. Meeks seconded and the motion carried Unanimously, Docket No. 9-60 - Reverand 1. R. Rodgers# 501 Be 16th Street, being the We 90' of lots 1 & 2, block 63, Original City, zoned "C" Two-family District, requesting a variance from the front and rear yard provisions of Section 11 of that ordinance to permit a•aajor repair in order to pegult more off-street parking. Page 4 of g Mr. Drdbkling presented the plat and explained the plans of the church. Rev. 1, R. Rodgers was present. 'airs. Townsend, an adjoining property owner, was present to pro- test. She felt that it would lower the value of her rental property wince the proposed building would be close to the kitchen and bed- room of apartments she owns . She said the only reason she and the other property ovrners within 140 feet signed the notice of hearing was because they had been told it ►vas to be sold for a colored "beer joint" and they would rather have the church than that. she said her tenants objected to the noise the church makes and they had told her 3f this request was granted they would.moVe• Mr. Rodgers said the church has owned the property about four years. They want to tear off one wing of the building and build another. They will have about 1$0 square feet of floor space less than they have now. The building will be 14 feet from for rearaboupro- perty line. He said they will have off-street parking or 15 cars and there is available angle parking on the east side. The auditorium will seat approximately 150w Mr. Rodgers said the church dial not feel that it would interfere with anyone and as far as their planning to sell to colored people that was wrong. Mr, Higginsg agent for MrS. Lloyd England, at 1621 Commerce St., said if the waiver did not apply to her lot also, she had no object- ions, but if it did efidet her lot she would object. He said as far as the decrease ln.the value of her property, he felt it would in- crease It Instead of decreaping it.- Mrs. Townsend said it had already decreased the value of her property and that she had had to lower her rent $5.00 on each apartment. Mr. De Noble said the church would have to comply with the ordi- tianee in making their parking loth which meant paving, etc. Mr. Anderson said he believed if the church made too much noise It could be reported to the proper authorities since it would not be under the jurisdiction of this board. In executive session it was agreed that the church needed more land. The Board did not feel that it would lower the value tof the property anymore than other property is already end of town, and in other areas also. They felt it would improve the looks of the property and that the church has a right to be here, since it is an established church of long standing• They also felt that the church would not m4kA OCOugh noise to offend anyone and the brick wall would deaden some of the noise. page 5 of 5 There was discussion about ingress and egress, after which Mr. Anderson moved it, be postpone until Mr. Breckling and Mr. De Noble could Make a study of 'the grades, etc. and recommend what should be done about this matter, Mr. Meeks seconded the the :notion carried unanimou4ty• Docket No.,10-60 - John Matthews Company, 1824 McAlmont, being lot 5, block "B", Oak Glen Addition, zoned "C" Two-family District, requesting a variance from the area and front yard provisions of Section 11 of that ordinance to permit moving of existing house to the rear of the ldt. Mr. Lee Tucker_ represented Mr. Davis, Mr. Nelson, and Mrs. Chandler, If this request is granted the square footage re- maining would be below the minimum of 5,000 square feet, making it a substandard lot and decrease the Value of their property. In executive session the Board felt that this would work out pretty well and the staff said they felt he had done the best he 0ould with what he has. Mr. Meeks moved it be approved, Mr. ABderoon Seconded and the motion carried unanimouSAV9 The meeting adjourned at 3:30. Mrs. Melba Lawing, Secretary Approved: � v, Miss EmJ11y Penton, Chairman UL:pk