boa_07 15 1974MINUTES OF
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
meeting
JULY 15, 1974
2:00 P.M.
There was a quorum present and minutes of the
previous meeting were approved.
Members resent: L. Dickson Flake
S. Spencer Compton
M. R. Godwin
Walter E. Vroman
William L. Moore
David Henry, City Attorney
Members absent: None
j
T.
Ttam Mn_ 1
Case Number:
Applicant:
Location:
Z-2866
Laurence Schulte
2317 Wright Avenue
Description: Lot 191, Adams Replat #1,
Little Rock, Ark. and the
S25 ft. of Lot 190, Adams
Replat #1
Present Classification: "F" Commercial District
Variance: Requests permission under the
Nonconforming Use provisions
of Sec. 43-11 (G) of the Code
of Ordinances to permit recon-
struction and expansion of a
nonconforming structure and
use
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: THE BOARD VOTED TO APPROVE THE
REQUEST SUBJECT TO APPLICANT'S COMPLIANCE WITH STAFF RECOM-
MENDATION, PLUS THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT NO OUTSIDE
STORAGE BE PERMITTED. (5 ayes - 0 noes - 0 absent)
Staff Recommendation!: This application is the result of a
fire loss on this nonconforming use and discussion with the
Building Permit office. The building inspector has deter-
mined that the structure was damaged less than 75% of its
value; therefore, the owner is permitted to rebuild and
restore the building as it existed before the fire. The
owner has indicated that he would prefer to reconstruct
the building with more floor space than before. A site
inspection suggests that a relocation to the west would
improve an existing poor parking and drive situation. The
Staff would recommend the granting of the requested variance
and use exception subject to the applicant providing the
following:
1. Pave all drive and parking surface as required by
ordinance.
2. If feasible, provide an additional access point to the
site, utilizing the vacant parcel fronting on Rice St.
3. Provide screening on perimeter of parking area where
adjacent to residential zoning.
4. Some exterior treatment be applied to frame buildings
on front of lot as they are presently in a state of
disrepair.
There were objectors present and two letters of protest filed.
- 1 -
There was considerable discussion concerning the applicant's
use of adjacent property for access. The objectors were
told that they should pursue that issue privately, that such
was not the issue before the Board and not within their
jurisdiction.
_2-
Ttam Nn_ i
Case Number: Z-2010-A
Applicant: Dixie Bearings Inc. and
A.M.P.I.
Location: 1000 Ringo Street
Description: Lots 10, :1.1 and 12, Block
286, Original City
Present Classification: "F" Commercial District
Variance: Requests a variance from the
Yard Setback provisions of
the Code of Ordinances,
Sec. 43-15, to permit retail
building located 8 ft. from
rear property line
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: THE BOARD VOTED TO APPROVE THE
REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT'S COMPLYING WITH THE STAFF
RECOMMENDATIONS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ADDITIONAL SETBACK TO
SAVE 'THE LARGE TREE IN REAR. (5 ayes - 0 noes - 0 absent)
Staff Recommendation: The Staff recommends approval of
requested variance in part. An expansion of this use as
proposed would, we think, extend this use beyond that point
where it could reasonably be called a retail use only. As
the use of the addition is to be primarily warehouse, the
Staff suggests that the Board place specific use limita-
tions on this business. We would recommend that the opera-
tion be limited to sales and storage of items sold on the
premises and no mechanical or machinery operations be
allowed on site. The proposed building as shown on the
plan would require the removal of a large tree which has
potential as a screening device to the residential area on
the south and west. We would recommend that subject tree
be located on the survey and the building adjusted accordingly.
This would leave a rear yard of 12 to 15 feet which could be
utilized for trash bins, etc. This site being across from "F"
zoning on the north and east precluded the requirement for
screening on Ringo and loth Street; therefore, we would suggest
that some landscaping, planter boxes, etc. be required. A
previous variance on this site allowing the 8 ft. rear yard
that exists, required a screen along the south boundary. It
was installed and the Staff feels it should be extended to the
alley.
ems
The applicant should be aware of a parking problem
which will exist if the parking stalls are extended as
shown along 10th Street. The dimension is too shallow
for 90' parking and should be changed to 60°, utilizing
the alley for exit. Subject alley should also be paved
to provide adequate access. The paving to be that required
for access south off 10th Street.
There were no objectors present.
IMM
i
Item No. 3
Case Number:
Applicant:
Location:
Description:
Present Classification:
2-2391-A
Baptist Medical Center
9600 Kanis Road
Lots 1, 1A and 2, Baptist
Medical Center Development
Subdivision
"C" Two-family District
Variance: Requests a variance from the
Sign Area provisions of Sec.
43-4 (7) of the Code of Ord.
to permit signs in excess of
permitted., and to provide for
a sign, plan for the complex
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVED
THE APPLICATION AS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF EXCEPT:
1. Directory sign 15' in height.
2. Only uses in hospital and medical tower are allowed to
advertise on directory on Kanis Road except that any
other uses in the complex (± 230 a.c..) that will commit
themselves by letter to wall signs only may be allowed
to advertise on the directory on Kanis Road.
3. This action shall be reviewed by the City Attorney's
office as to the legality of allowing off premise com-
mercial advertising in a "C" zone.
NOTE: City Attorney finds that it is not within the power
of the Board of Adjustments to allow off premise commercial
advertising in a "C" zone. However, the Board of Adjustment
might allow off premise advertising for public service uses,
and therefore allow the "hospital" and "medical tower" (not
individual uses within these two) to advertise on the "C"
zoned property.
Staff Recommendation: This application is the result of an
investigation by the zoning enforcement section after several
off premise commercial signs were erected on the hospital
property. The Staff, after making a site inspection, has
determined that all of the signs on the property are not
included on the plan. Not shown on the plan are:
- 5 -
1. On the main hospital building there is a large sign
approximately 1 ft. in height and 20 ft. + in length
(letters on face of building).
2. On the medical tower 5 signs of like kind approximately
72 sq. ft. total.
3. One free standing sign at drive entrance to Union National
Bank at 4 sq. ft.
4. One sign on emergency entrance (building mounted) lx8 ft.
5. The plan contains several errors that should be corrected
as to sign location and type.
The Staff feels that the overall sign plan for the hospital
is acceptable in that the signs are well designed and com-
patible with the area. The one exception the Staff would
point out is the proposed directory sign at the west entrance
which is to be 12 ft. wide and 30 ft. in height. We feel that
the sign is not only too large in area but too tall. The height
of the other signs is generally under 10 ft. and 8 ft. in width.
It should further be noted that two large construction signs
remain in a deteriorating state.. The Staff would suggest imme-
diate removal as the building has been occupied several months.
The Staff recommendation overall would be:
1. Remove existing construction signs immediately.
2. Identify on plan all signs for hospital and medical tower,
ground and building mounted.
3. Delete from sign plan any reference to businesses not within
boundary of plan (Z.R. :Diagnostic Clinic, etc.).
4. Provide redesign of directory sign more in keeping with the
residential area and in line with other signing now existing
at about 10 ft. in height.
5. It should be clearly understood that this variance does not
deal with signs on adjacent parcels. Sign plans for such
uses or developments should be submitted and reviewed
separately or a revised plan of this site submitted including
all signs proposed.
There were no objectors present.
There was one interested person present.
MI:M
OTHER MATTERS
Item No. I
Case Number:
Applicant:
Location:
Description:
Present Classification:
Z-2870
Pruitt Hide and Fur Company
East 2nd at Industrial Drive
Located on north side of East 2nd
Street between CRI&P Railroad and
Industrial Drive
"K" Heavy Industrial District
Variance: Applicant requests Board of
Adjustment determination as to
whether this use is permitted by
right in the Heavy Industrial zone
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: AFTER A LENGTHY DISCUSSION, THE
BOARD VOTED TO INTERPRET THE "K" INDUSTRIAL USE SECTION OF
THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS PERMITTING BY RIGHT THE OPERATION OF
PRUITT HIDE AND FUR COMPANY. (3 ayes - 2 noes - 0 absent)
Staff Recommendation: This issue is before the Board for an
interpretation of Section 43-9 of the zoning ordinance, which
section is the "K." Heavy Industrial use regula•t:ions. The
issue involves whether Pruitt Hide & Fur Companyos operation
is permitted in "K" zoning by right or would require filing
for Board of Adjustment review. The applicant has requested
an opinion as to whether he would be required to file a formal
application, if the Board rules that it must review the issue.
The Staff position on this issue is that the broad terms used
in setting forth the permitted uses does in fact address to the
type of use rather than a specific case. We feel that the term
fat rendering, offal reduction, and tannery adequately cover the
type of use proposed. It should further be noted that the State
Dept. of Pollution Control is interested in this case and they
recommend that, if the Board of Adjustment rules a public review
is required, that the applicant be required to submit engineer-
ing reports. These reports should deal with water, air and
solid waste disposal problems and solutions and should be sub-
mitted to the appropriate public agencies.
There were no objectors present.
- 7 -
Mr. DeMatt Henderson was present to represent the applicant.
In a lengthy presentation Mr. Henderson outlined the
industrial use sections of the zoning ordinance and his
interpretation of their intent. The issue of specific "use"
rather than "business" was discussed, with the City Attorney
and Staff pointing out that the ordinance addressed to "uses".
The Board's opinion and ruling was that the ordinance did in
fact provide for the proposed "business" as permitted by right
in "K" zoning.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at
4:25 P.M.
L. Dickson Flake
Chairman
W:M
amen
Secretary