HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_02 23 1953(copy)MINUTES OF TH., MEETING e.p(
OF THE
BOARD OF ARrITSTMEN1'
The Board of ° d justtaent met in the Council. Chambers, City Hall,
Monday, February 23, 1953, at 2sOO p.m,$ with the following mombsrs
pre sent t
Y1r. Warren Baldwin, chairman
Mr. 14. H. Marek
Mr. Paul Parks
Docket No. 5-53 - J. J. Hocott, the northeast corner of
North Lookout and Kavanaugh along the east side of
Kavanaugh, described as a plot of land bounded. by Kavanaugh
Blyd., North Lookout . and Rocott Perk Subdivision, zone)
"F Commercial District; requesting a waiver of front
yard space from 'yule Bldg. 21' north slang eaet side of
Kavanaugh.
The members voted to approve this petition.
Docket No. 6-53 - W. F, 1303 Welch Street,
described as Lot 11, Bloch: 17, Masonic 1.ddition, zoned
"CR Two -Family- District; r nue sting a waiver of side
yard space in order to constant a duplex.
Mr. Carpenter was present to represent this petition, He
stated that he was requesting a waiver of 8 inches on each aide of the
lot. In ether words, he explained, he would be constructing the build-
ing within 4 feet and 4 inches on each side of the property. There
were no objections. He also stated that he dial not feel It would
decrease the r-:? ue of any of the varrounding }property,
Th�-� mbers voted to approve this petition.
Docket No. 7-53 - W. F, Simmons, 4700 Wiest 12th Street,
described r r: L,nt 6, Block 29, Cunnln�,baxa) s Addition,
zo,;,od "F x)mnnrci&l; requesting a of two Mtn
structures on one lot with a waiver of yard space.
Mr. Simmons was present and stated that at the present time,
a four unit apartment building existed, on the front of his lot. fie
proposes to construct an office building on the rear of this lot. There
were no objections.
The members vested to approve this application.
-2-
Docket No. 8-53 - Block Realty Company,, 224 West 16th,
described as Lots 6 & the south half of Lot 5, Block
187, Original City of Little Dock, zoned I'D" Apartment
District; requesting a, waiver of rear yard' space require-
ments and two main structures on a lot in order to con-
struct an apartment.
There wasn't anyone present to represent this petition and
there wss•ndt a plot plan attached to it for them to sutdy, therefore,
the memberz.voted to hold it over until next months meeting,
When notified of this action, Block Realty Company withdrew
the application.
Docket No. 9-53 - Central Assembly of God Church, 1916 -
1924 Broadway, described as Lots 7, 8, & 9, Block 8,
Fultonts Addition, zoned "C" Two -Family District; request-
ing a waiver of yard space and two structures on one lot
In order to construct a. church.
The Rev. Sellers was present Find stated that he plans to build
the educational building on the third lot from the corner now. Then
the church proposes to add onto the rear of the educational building
and also build additions to it on the other lots; thus forming an "L"
shape on the other lots. Their church will. facr Broadway. The Rev.
Sellers explained that a house exists on the center loth the present
and will remain there until all of the church is completed. He was
asked when all of the church would be completed and Rev. Sellers
answered that it was indefinite as to when they would be able to add
onto the educational building, therefore, the house which now exists
on the middle lot will remain there indefinatelye The building which
the church proposes to construct immediately will be 40' x 1001 in
site. Several protestants asked the Rev. Sellers about the amount of
yard space which he will need waived upon tho completion of the church.
Rev.--ellers began to explain how close to the property line that the.
church would be built, however, he was interrupted by the protestants
so Mr. Stephens got the floor and explained to everyone that the plot
plan showed the church would be built within 81 of the east line, within
101 of the south property line, 5' within the west (or rear) property
line, and 5' on the north line. Thus, he explained to the protestants
that the church was actually having to request a waiver of front and
rear yard space requirements. Rev. Sellers also explained that the
church wanted to dedicate 51 as an easement to an alley or drive at the
rear of the church, however, representatives from the "resbyterian,
which is located directly behind the proposed Assembly of God Church,
stated that their church was built up to their property line and there-
fore they would be unable to dedicate 51 of their property fbr a -,drive
on the rear of the lot. It was brought out that the Assembly of God
Church would have to dedicate more than 51 for a drive if they wanted
an alley between the two churches. The Rev. Sellers was asked if this
building would actually be completed and not left just half bu31t -s
the church located at 9th and Louisiana, now. Rev. Sellers replied
that this church will be completed. The protestants brought out the
fact that the property at 20th and Broadway is actually in the Rev.
Sellers nam and not In the churches name. They felt that this would
present a legal problem as to whether the church could actually be
built on the property when the lots are in the Rev. Sellers name.
-3—
The prote stant s also Baked the Rev. Sellers if he had investigated
the property re arding the zoning rules and regulations before he pur-
chased the three lots. Rev. Sellers replied that he had not. Judge
Bodge objected t-^ the church building on the lots became o3 tkae traffic
problem at 20th K: Broadway. He also stated that he didn't feel it would
be a ncod location for t! Church because Droadwpv is a ver;l busy hithwaay
and trucks would be passing by making a louu no'sa. _since t?lera zos no
parking allowed on Broadway, 4adge Lodge stated that he felt the church
should provide for off-street parking. The Rev. Sellers answered that
the church wanted to buy as lot near -by to use for .parking facilities.
A protestant stated that he didn't know where the church would find a
vacant lot in that vacinity for parking purposes. Judge Dodge stated
that he felt a church wot>a..d decrease the value of the surrounding pro-
perty. Ths Rev. :: e? 1 ers stated that his acrhitect vm,: drawing up the
plans for the building naw ons that the buildin,- woul : be constructed
of brick cn_i the walls would be 12 inchas thick,
Mr; Granger Williams objected to the granting of as waiver of
ye.x-i sr+r-�ce for the church. Ile represented the Presbyterian Church and
Aated that he had no objection to the Assehbly of Goc! Mhxrch. r:r.
Williams stated that he objected to the waiver of rep r yaxrl apace be—
cause t?,e two churches would be constructed entirely too clooe to each
other which would create a fire hazard and, would also mean higher
insurance rates for the churches. He told the members that he was a
fire insurance salesman and knew what it would man. Mr. Williams
stated that the Presbyterian church had tried to purchase the three
lots which the Assebbly of God Church had purchased but that the lots
were too expensive. The Presbyterian Church had planned to use the
lots for parking purposes.
Mr. Ben Dees protested in behalf of the Presbyterian Church
because there is a severe parking problem in that area now and he felt
another church would create an oven worse problem. He also objected
because of the traffic hazard at 20th cared.{ Broadway.
'fir. Willis Holmes of 2017 Arch Street felt that there were
enougia churches in that vaacinity now. He said that 2nc,ther church
would create as safety hazard especially since it will be located on
Broadway. He mentioned the fact that a church is us -a lly dark :.verfal
nights a week and he was of the opinion that it would be dangerous for
passer -bye wher this corner is- dark. Mr. Holmo,s also ;��Yqpregaed h-is
fear of the b:iflding not being completed as t:n a structure Started at
9th & Louisiana. Ile told the members that building at 9th ''- Louisiana
is aa. sore sight to the public. MX. Holmes crated that it is hard to
cross Broadway at 20th Street now and he felt it would create a traffic
hazard.
Mr.'John Healey, Jr., of 1923 Broadway stated that he lived
across the street .from the proposed church. Mr. Healey stated that he
was apposed to the granting of yard waivers of any kind. He was of
trsa opinion that the zoning regulations had been -made for a rurpo:=e and
iaculd be abided by. He also mcxlained that the raarkin�.- --rpblem w 0
bad now and another church in that aroa would add to tha problem.
Mr, Tom Morgan objected to the added parkin- problem and
traffic hazard which the proposed church would date.
Mr. rune of 1700 Broadway was present to object. He objected
to the trOfia hazard which would be Increased If the church is located
on 20th & Broadway since It is a highway through Little Rock*
Mr. John Davis expreased his fear of the building lot being
completed like the one started at 9th & Louisiana. He said that he
didn r% think a waiver of yard space should be granted if the church
would not be completed.
-4-•
Mr Wilkerson of 20th & Broadway objected to the increased
traffic hazard which w-)uldl be created at thr:t location. She also
;mentioned the children cominf home from school which right be affected.
Mrs. Wilkerson objected to the p;.rking rroblem also.
Mr. Davis of 2001 Arch objected to parking problems which
would ? increased if the church Is eonFtraoted there.
Miss 'ii.aude Haynes of 19th an-1 Broadway stated th- t she felt
the vicinity should be kept looking nice since so many people passing
throe oh Little dock go down Broadway and there are so many nice homes
in that area now.
;r. R. LE. Hill of the assembly of Cod Church told the members
that he didn't think the hazard is as great in that area as the pro-
testants were building it up to be. lie also stated that the Presbyterian
Church had ana)roached tl.em to buy there church bui ldin;. ire felt that
might be one reason that -the Presbyterian Church was objedting to bhe
application.
''r. Pees of the Presbyterian Church asked for the floor and
told the marbers that thsy needed a 1;:;r _er church but cool' not afford
to build one now. For t�.at reason they thought the Assembly of Cod
Church might buy their building which would mean they could afford
a larger church then. Othe wise, he explained Vint the 7resbyterian
Church would be unable to move.
The members voted to disapprove this application on the basis
that it would be detrimental to the neighborhood and be ra. traffic hazard.
Docket No. 10-53 - E. L. Robertson, 22.23 Wright Avenue,
described as Lots 1 & 2, Block 2, Adams Addition, zoned
'IF" Commercil- 1 District, requesting a waniver of front
yrrd spnee in order to enclose canopy.
Mr. Robertson was rre sent and stated th;-t he owned a wholesale
meat company. The building was a filling stp-tion and he plan3 to enclose
the canopy which would �-.-ive him more spare. Mr. Robertson c:3tated that
there were 44 inches from the post to thes curb. Yr. Baldwin was under
the impression that there was not th!it much room, in fact, he thought
the posts were up on the curb. 11fr. Baldwin was of the opiAlon that this
might create a blind corner and also that, since the other lots in the
block had not built ur. yet then it mi ht effect the building lines of
the houses when they -are constructed.
The members voted- to disapprove this application. However,
after reconsideration of the application of ''r. E. L. Robertson at 2223
Bright Avenue and rep -submission of facts to the members who were pre-
sent at their last meeting, the board decided to change their vote and
approve Yr. Robertson's application as shown on this sketch with the
necessary yard .space waivers.
The meeting then adjourned.
Board of Adjustmant
Little Rock, Arkansas