Loading...
boa_05 21 1973LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT M I N U T E S MAY 21, 1973 MEMBERS PRESENT Lawrence S. Woolsey, Chairman L. Dickson Flake, Vice Chairman S. Spencer Compton M. R. Godwin MEMBERS ABSENT Walter E. Vroman STAFF PRESENT Don R. Venhaus John L. Taylor James A. Finch Richard W. Wood W. Mike Dooley Dorothy Light OTHERS PRESENT Perry V. Whitmore, City Attorney D. Gage, Gazette Reporter R. Armbrust, Democrat Reporter 9.nn 'P M There being a quorum present, the meeting was called to order by the chairman at 2:00 p.m. A motion was made for approval of the minutes of the last meeting, which was seconded and passed. Action was taken on the following advertised items: Tract No. 1 - Z-1747 Applicant: Arkansas Childrens Hospital Location: 800 Block Battery Street (west side) Description: Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, Block 4, Marshall and Wolfe's Addition and Lots 11 and 12, Block 4, Fausts Addition Present Classification: "C" Two-family District Variance: Requests permission under the provisions of Section 43-22 (4)-(d) of the Code of Ordinances to permit parking lot in residential zone (without_ required improvements) The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends gpproval of variance request for a period of one year, to be reviewed Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes Mav 21. 1973 Page 2. annually until disposition of I-630 right-of-way and/or hospital relocation. The Staff recommends that applicant be required to contact traffic depart- ment about the possibility of providing some means of access control to this site due to improper curb cuts and drives." Mr. Bill Meeks was present to represent the applicant. He said that there had been no changes since the last meeting. There were no objectors present. A motion was made to approve the Staff recommendation, which was seconded and passed. Tract No. 2 - Z-2705 Applicant: Pulaski Heights United Methodist Church Location: 600 North Spruce Street Description: Lot 6, Block 34, Pulaski Heights Addition Present Classification: "A" One -family District Variance: Requests permission under the provisions of Section 43-22 (4)-(d) of the Code of Ordi- nances to permit parking lot in a residential zone Requests a variance from the Front Yard Open Space provisions of Section 43-20 (2)- (f) The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends approval of variance request for parking lot use subject to the applicant's compliance with the previous Board of Adjustment variance on the lot immediately west across the alley. The Board required on that lot a 4 ft. screen fence of redwood construction and retention of all trees necessary. A site inspection indicates the screening has either been removed or was not erected previously. The same screening should be located along the north and east sides of the lot at issue. The Staff recommends denial of the request to park in front yard setback and recommends that it be main- tained as green space. All possible steps should be taken to insure saving as many of the existing trees on this site as possible. The installation of sidewalks along Woodlawn should be required and located in such a manner as would not damage the trees in this area. The improvements on this lot should not be permitted until such time as the screening requirements of the previous variance are complied with." Mr. C. Allon Clift, 30 Pine Manor Drive, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, was present to represent the applicant. He stated that the church desired to tear down the residence on the subject lot. In keeping with the City ordinances and requirements, we want to improve the lot by paving it and making additional parking space. Our church is still growing with a membership of approximately 4,000. We are in need of additional parking space and are trying to develop that parking space in accordance with a request of the Board some 12 years ago when we came before the Board and Mr. Bruce Anderson was chairman. I was present then and it is true that the wall on the lot referred to by your Staff is not of wood construction. The City records may show that it was approved for a redwood fence. The Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes Mav 21. 1973 Page 3. resident immediately north of this parking lot, which is in front of our sanctuary, objected strongly to the tall 4 ft. redwood fence, and again we appeared before the Board, and Mr. Anderson came up with the suggestion that cost us even more money by putting in the rock wall. We built this type of lower wall which was more satisfactory to the resident to the immediate north of us. It was installed and we curbed around the trees hoping to keep all the trees that we could. One tree has since died and we had it removed. That explains the wall constructed 12 years ago. Immediately after we developed this parking lot, we had the possibility of buying the property at 600 North Spruce Street. We did buy it and have been renting it hoping to get it paid out so we might tear the structure down and have additional parking space. This lot is immediately in front of our Youth Building. The sanctuary faces Woodlawn and connected to it to the east is our Youth. Building that faces this lot in question at 600 North Spruce Street. The recommendation of the Staff, although it may be in accordance with their feeling about it and the requirements of certain ordinances, is not acceptable to us. We intend to tear down the building and leave the lot unimproved before we go this expenditure for a few parking spaces we would have if we offset the 25 ft. This means that we would lose four parking spaces when we only have 18 as it is. We lose two in front of 600 North Spruce -- the people are now parking in front of this residence, so that would give us a net of 16 spaces. If we lose four of the 18 spaces and the two in front, that leaves a net of 14. We can't live with that. Further recommendation of the Staff is that the sidewalks be required along Woodlawn along this property. In_,meferring to the drawing, please note the trees where the sidewalks would be. I have had some experience with paving and denying trees of proper moisture. We do not feel that we should be required to provide sidewalks along Woodlawn Street. We will have to remove two trees under our plan which are located in the center of the lot. One is where we propose to make the entrance into the lot off of Spruce Street. We propose to go right on through across the alley, using the alley as an exit, or going on through our existing parking lot and coming out with the exit as it now exists in our present parking lot immediately in front of the sanctuary. We propose to tear down the present structure. It is per- haps 60 years old and we would have to spend from $3,000 to $5,000 on it to still maintain it as rental property. We have finally paid for this property and feel that we can do what we want to with it, so we have decided to tear the building down. The property owner to the immediate north is perfectly satisfied with what we propose to do. If you want a redwood fence, we will put one as proposed but we do not propose to put one on top of the rock wall in the other parking lot which has been there for 12 years and everybody is satisfied with. Mr. Goode Stewart who is present today has called personally upon the people in the area. Mr. Goode Stewart stated that in regards to the fence on the east side of this lot that is required according to the Staff recommendation, there are no other fences along Spruce Street, and to bring this fence around to the front part of this lot would probably obstruct the view Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes May 21. 1973 Page 4. and make it more hazardous entering into the lot or entering onto Woodlawn Street. I have contacted every one of the property owners and had them sign the notices, and did not get any objec- tion from anyone to our proposed plan. The Chairman asked if screening would be required along Woodlawn. Mr. Venhaus replied that the Staff would be happy to contact the property owner on the original parking lot and if it is the r original owner's desire not to have any screening over and above the rock retaining wall, certainly from the Staff's standpoint, we would want to honor that. With respect to screening along Woodlawn, since the church is the property owner and the property we would be screening would be the church, and the church obviously has no desire in screening their own parking lot from themselves, we would suggest a waiver of that screen requirement. iy With respect to Spruce Street, we are concerned with saving the trees and putting an attractive front area to the parking lot that is consistent with the neighborhood on Spruce Street, and that is the reason we suggested no access on Spruce Street. The Chairman asked if the Staff wanted to comment on the sidewalk issue. Mr. Venhaus stated that the Staff thinks that the sidewalk is a -. normal and reasonable requirement. It is our intent that if the sidewalk is to be built that it be curved around the trees so it would not harm them. Mr. Clift asked for a 30 day deferral. There were no objectors present. A motion was made to defer this matter for 30 days until the June 18th meeting, which was seconded and passed. Tract No. 3 - Z-2707 Applicant: Harrison Enterprises, Inc. Location: 2419 Vance Street Description: Lot 5, Block 38, Braggs 2nd Addition Present Classification: "C" Two-family District Variance: Requests permission under the provisions of Section 43-22 (4)-(d) of the Code of Ordinances to permit parking lot in a J residential zone r, Requests a variance from the Front Yard Open Space provisions of Section 43-20 (2)-(f) of that ordinance to permit parking s,; in front yard setback y The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends approval of variance request subject to applicant complying with all r Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes Mav 21. 1973 Page 5. provisions of off-street parking section of zoning ordinance. The Staff recommends that street improvements be installed along Vance Street and all steps taken to insure saving as many of the trees on this site as possible." The applicant, Mr. Dick Harrison, was present and stated that this request is for parking for their employees, not the public, with entrance on Vance Street which is at present unimproved as far as curb, gutter and sidewalk. Mr. Venhaus asked the applicant if he understood the Staff recom- mendation on this matter. Mr. Harrison asked, "When you say improvements -- are you saying street improvements on Vance Street?" Mr. Venhaus answered that what we had reference to is curb and gutter on Vance Street from the north property line down to East Roosevelt Road. Mr. Harrison said that he would object to that because there is nothing on the street all the way up. I would think if you im- prove the street, we should then pay for our part of it and install it, but I see no reason why we should put something up there when no other lot has any improvements such as that. Mr. Venhaus said that the requirement is that if the area re- develops north of you, they would be required to build curb and gutter in connection with their building permit. I don't under- stand how your building was built without the requirement that you build curb and gutter in connection with it. If we do not get the curb and guttering on your property, it would be extremely difficul to ask the property owners to the north when that area redevelops to build curb and gutters. Mr. Harrison said that if it was improved we would naturally like to go along. We built the sidewalk out in front which was not a requirement at that time, but we did it on our own. We are interested in beautifying the property and seeing that it is in the best shape. It seems to me that until the ditches are put in and proper underground drainage, it would be a waste of money to put something there now azd have it torn up later. Mr. Venhaus said that the City would not be redeveloping Vance Street. If curb and gutters are built on Vance Street, it will be by the private property owners as the property redevelops. Mr. Harrison said that if we have to do it, we will. It will look a little odd for us to be the only ones to do this improvement. There were no objectors present. A motion was made to approve the Staff recommendation with pro- vision that the curb and gutter requirements on the area already Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes Ma.v 21. 1973 Page 6. developed be deferred for one year pending any development on the west side of Vance Street or east side of Vance Street to the north and that they be required at that time. At the end of the one year period the Board can take another look at the matter for deferral if necessary, which was seconded and passed. Tract No. 4 - Z-2708 Applicant: Pleasant Valley Property Owners Assn. by Fred Selz Location: 2220 Hidden Valley Drive Description: Long legal Present Classification: "A" One -family District Variance: Requests permission under the provisions of Section 43-22 (4)-(d) of the Code of Ordinances to permit parking lot in a residential zone Mr. Fred Selz was present to represent the applicant. He stated that they own the building south of the proposed parking lot. We needed extra parking so we entered into a lease with the Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association. We have approximately 98 x 124 ft. In that lease, we agreed to screen out the park from the proposed parking lot with a reasonable green space. There is one entrance off of Hidden Valley Drive. We may do away with the middle entrance. Mr. Venhaus stated that there were two points to be considered in regards to the Staff recommendation: 1) The technical aspects of converting this 13,000 sq. ft. of parkway into off-street parking in connection with the existing office building. 2) The principal involved in the conversion of the open space that is part of the Pleasant Valley open space system. With regard to the technical aspects of extending the off-street parking, in our judgment, it is not much of an issue. We are only talking about 13,000 sq. ft. out of a continuous five acre tract. In this neighborhood, it would be possible and I think preferable from the Staff's standpoint to extend the parking without creating any additional access on Hidden Valley Drive but use the single existing access point to gain entrance to this property -- no more cuts on Hidden Valley Drive -- simply extend the green space in front of the building to the north. We think from the design stand- point and from the standpoint of integrating the use into this building that it would be appropriate compatible and, in our opinion, would not do any violence to adjacent uses. That is the land use aspect. The other side of the issue is the principal and perhaps the policy of utilizing this dedicated platted planned area open space system Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes Mav 21. 1973 Page 7. for private development for uses other than permanent open space, and on this score as we evaluate it, and here we get into a little bit of the policies of the Pleasant Valley Board that represents the homeowners association. We object substantially to the conversion of this open space which was included originally as a part of an open space system to separate uses, to create open vistas, to create open green areas and areas of non use. We object substantially to the principal of converting these to structural and off-street parking use. Not so much to the par- ticular use in question but there is no doubt in our mind that in the future there is going to be other opportunities, other situations arise, where it will be proposed to convert this land to some purpose other than permanent open space. We want to go on record as objecting to this kind of conversion of open space. Mr. Bill Hodge was present to represent several property owners in Pleasant Valley who oppose the granting of this particular variance. He stated that the building that would be served by this parking lot was not a part of the original Pleasant Valley plat. It was separate from the plat which included parkway space, part of which would be taken up by this parking lot and the._remainder of which was single family residences. These property owners feel that to grant a variance to take away part of that parkway would unnecessarily and unduly encroach upon that open green space that has been there since they bought their homes and was certainly a factor in lending to the desirability of that area. The Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association Board of Directors has entered into a lease with the applicant for this particular property necessary for this park- ing lot in question. This action by the Board was taken before the Pleasant Valley property owners knew about the development plans. Petitions have been circulated throughout the area. They contain 200 signatures. They are asking that their Board voluntarily terminate the lease and not allow the use of this area for a park- ing lot. I have looked at the Bill of Assurance in conjunction with another attorney who represents the property owners in question. There is a definite legal question about the authority of the Board of Directors of the property owners association under the articles of that association and under that Bill of Assurance to have entered into a lease of this type; and it is my understanding that litiga- tion to revoke that action is definitely planned and will be the only recourse that these property owners have if this Board does grant the variance. What I am saying is the property owners feel that after a review of the Bill of Assurance and the articles of the association that the Board of Directors acted without proper authority and they plan litigation to revoke that action if this variance is granted. Mr. Selz stated that the lot that the building sits on is zoned "E-1". We paid for a ten year lease in advance on June 162 1972. Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 8. May 21, 1973 A motion was made for approval of the application, which was seconded but failed for lack of affirmative votes, thereby constituting denial of the application. Tract No. 5 - Z-2711 Applicant: Location: Description: Present Classification: Rosedale Optimist Club 8616 Asher Avenue Long legal "B" Residence District Variance: Requests permission under the provisions of Section 43-22 (4)-(d) of the Code of Ordinances to permit the expansion of a community center The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends approval of requested variance subject to compliance with the off- street parking section of the zoning ordinance and improvement of driveways. Street improvements should be required along Asher Ave.; " however, the Staff feels a one year deferral period should be pro- vided to determine if the State Highway Dept. will initiate �} improvement on Asher Avenue. If such action was not initiated by the State then applicant be allowed six months to install the improve- ments." '3 J Mr. Orson Jewell was present to represent the applicant. He stated ' that they would request waiver of the street improvement require- ments. Our only means of getting funds is through our Christmas tree sales each year and we spent all our money for the baseball program and other youth programs on the site. Is the Staff familiar with what the State does plan to do on Asher Avenue? Mr. Taylor answered, "I understand that they are looking into the possibility of widening Asher Avenue from University Avenue to Stage- coach Road. I don't know what kind of time schedule, I know it is in the five year improvement program, but I think they are looking at it as a '73 or early '74 project. That is the reason we put the stipulation "not required" if they are actively engaged in going ahead with the widening of Asher, but if it does fall through, we feel it should be put in." Mr. Jewell said that would be 12 years. In this particular request we are not improving the property, we are only putting in one small building along with what we already have on the site. We are not changing the use of the property. This is the reason I am concerned that we are required to put the improvements in, which would be a large expense for such a small site improvement that we had planned. The improvement we have planned for this building is again part of the community service and we don't want to get tied up with a large expense for curb and guttering. The Chairman asked what the group of structures were near the center of the tract and what were they used for. Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 9. Mav 21. 1973 Mr. Jewell replied they consist of a concession stand, restrooms, storage and ball stadium. Mr. Compton asked if they were inside the city at the time these structures were built. Mr. Jewell replied it was prior to the annexation. The Club originated 15 years ago. A motion was made to approve the application, which was seconded and passed as follows: The Board voted to approve the request subject to installation of street improvements along Asher Ave. The Board waived installation of street improvements for a period of one year in order to determine if the State Highway Dept. has plans to improve the street. If the Highway Dept. does not develop plans within the year then the applicant would have six months to do so. OTHER MATTERS Item No. 1 - Z-1556 Applicant: Marvin Scherz Location: Scenic Drive & Blue Ridge Circle Description: Long legal Present Classification: "A" One -family District Variance: Requests extension of previously granted variance (granted February 17, 1964) The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "This item is placed before the Board for an extension of time on the variance granted to owner previously. The Staff feels that the proposal has not been changed nor have circumstances in the immediate neighborhood to the extent that would warrant a new application. The history of this site is too involved to attempt explanation in this recommendation; however, considerable opposition developed from the area. It was determined by the Staff that this action was the proper route and asked the applicant to renotify property owners. ( This has been done.)" Mr. Marvin Scherz, the applicant, was present and he stated that he notified all required adjacent property owners and got only two objectors. They said my house would block their view. The address is Scenic Boulevard instead of Scenic Drive. There were no objectors present. A motion was made to approve the application, which was seconded and passed as follows: The Board voted to approve the request with the provision that it be understood that the Board's action did not and could not set aside or resend any Bill of Assurance provision which Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes Page 10. Ma 21 1973 may exist. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:40 p.m. 041A Don R. Venhaus, Secretary ence S. Woolsey, Chairman 7