Loading...
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