Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_02 23 1953MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The Board of Adjustment met in the Council Chambers, City Hall, Monday, February 23, 1953, at 2:00 p.m., with the following members present: Mr. Warren Baldwin, chairman Mr. W. H. Marak 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 Blvd., North Lookout and Hocott Park Subdivision, zoned "FII Commercial District; requesting a waiver of front yard space from Tule Bldg. 21' north along east side of Kavanaugh. The members voted to approve this petition. Docket No. 6-53 - W. F. Graupner, 1303 Welch Street, described as Lot 11, Block 17, Masonic Addition, zoned "C1 Two -Family District; requesting a waiver of side yard space in order to construct a duplex. Mr. Carpenter was present to represent this petition. He stated that he was requesting a waiver of S inches on each side of the lot. In other 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 did not feel it would decrease the value of any of the surrounding property. The members voted to approve this petition. Docket No. 7-53 - W. F. Simmons, 4700 West 12th Street, described as Lot 6, Block 29, Cunningham's Addition, zoned "F" Commercial; requesting a waiver of two main 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. He proposes to construct an office building on the rear of this lot. There were no objections. The members voted 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 Rock, zoned "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 was not a plot plan attached to it for them to sutdy, therefore, the members 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 Cod Church, 1916 - 1924 Broadway, described as Lots 7, 81 & 9, Block 8, Fulton's Addition, zoned IT" 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 and 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 lot at 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 indefinate 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 indef inately. The building which the church proposes to construct immediately will be 40' x 100' in size. Several protestants asked the Rev. Sellers about the amount of yard space which he will need waived upon the completion of the church. Rev. Sellers 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 8' of the east line, within 10' 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 5' as an easement to an alley or drive at the rear of the church, however, representatives from the Presbyterian, 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 5' of their property for a drive on the rear of the lot. It was brought out that the Assembly of God Church would have to dedicate more than 5' 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 built as 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 name 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 protestants also asked the Rev. Sellers if he had investigated the property regarding the zoning rules and regulations before he pur- chased the three lots. Rev. Sellers replied that he had not. Judge Dodge objected to the church building on the lots because of the traffic problem at 20th & Broadway. He also stated that he didn't feel it would be a good location for a church because Broadway is a very busy highway and trucks would be passing by making a loud noise. Since there is no parking allowed on Broadway, judge Dodge stated that he felt the church should provide for off-street parking. The Rev. Sellers answered that the church wanted to buy a 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 would decrease the value of the surrounding pro- perty. The Rev. Sellers stated that his aerhitect was drawing up the plans for the building now ans that the building would be constructed of brick and the walls would be 12 inches thick. Mrl Granger Williams objected to the granting of a waiver of yard space for the church. He represented the Presbyterian Church and stated that he had no objection to the Asseimbly of God church. Mr. Williams stated that he objected to the waiver of rear yard spade be- cause the two churches would be constructed entirely too close 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 mean. Mr. Williams stated that the Presbyterian church had tried to purchase the three lots which the Assehbly 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 even worse problem. He also objected because of the traffic hazard at 20th and Broadway. Mr. Willis Holmes of 2017 Arch Street felt that there were enough churches -in that vacinity now. He said that another church would create a safety hazard especially since it will be located on Broadway. He mentioned the fact that a church is usually dark several ---- nights a week and he was of the opinion that it would be dangerous for passer-bys when this corner i6s dark. Mr. Holmes also expressed his fear of the building not being completed as the structure started at 9th & Louisiana. He told the members that the building at 9th & Louisiana is a sore sight to the public. Mr. Holmes stated 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 the opinion that the zoning regulations had been made for a purpose and should be abided by. He also explained that the parking problem was bad now and another church in that area would add to the problem. Mr. Tom Morgan objected to the added parking problem and traffic hazard which the proposed church would create. Mr. Tune of 1700 Broadway $as present to object. He objected to the traffic hazard which would be increased if the church is located on 20th & Broadway since it is a highway through Little Pock. Mr. John Davis expressed his fear of the building shot being completed like the one started at 9th & Louisiana. He said that he didn't think a waiver of yard space should be granted if the church would not be completed. -4- Mrs. Wilkerson of 20th & Broadway objected to the increased traffic hazard which would be created at that location. She also mentioned the children coming home from school which might be effected. Mrs. Wilkerson objected to the parking problem also. Mr. Davis of 2001 Arch objected to parking problems which would be increased if the church is constructed there. Miss Maude Haynes of 19th and Broadway stated that she felt the vicinity should be kept looking nice since so many people passing through Little Rock go down Broadway and there are iso many nice homes in that area now. Mr. R. E. Hill of the Assembly of God 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. He also stated that the Presbyterian Church had approached them to buy there (hunch building. He felt that might be one reason that the Presbyterian Church was objecting to bhe application. Mr. Dees of the Presbyterian Church asked for the floor and told the members that they needed a larger church but could not afford to build one now. For that reason they thought the Assembly of God Church might buy their building which would mean they could afford a larger church then. Othe wise, he explained that the Presbyterian 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 a traffic hazard. Docket No. 10-53 - E. L. Robertson, 2223 Wright Avenue, described as Lots 1 & 2, Block 2, Adams Addition, zoned 'IF" Commercial District; requesting a waiver of front yard space in order to enclose canopy. Mr. Robertson was present and stated that he owned a wholesale meat company. The building was a filling station and he plans to enclose the canopy which would give him more space. Mr. Robertson stated that there were /4 inches from the post to the curb. Mr. Baldwin was under the impression that there was not that much room, in fact, he thought the posts were up on the curb. Mr. Baldwin was of the opinion that this might create a blind corner and also that since the other lots in the block had not built uo yet then it might 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 Mr. E. L. Robertson at 2223 Wright Avenue and re -submission of facts to the members who were pre- sent at their last meeting, the board decided to change their vote and approve Mr. Robertson's application as shown on the sketch with the necessary yard space waivers. The meeting then adjourned. Board of Adjustment Little Rock, Arkansas