Loading...
boa_02 21 1972FEBRUARY 21, 1972 MEMBERS PRESENT S. Spencer Compton, L. Dickson Flake Capp Shanks, Jr. .Lawrence Woolsey MEMBER ABSENT Darrell Dover STAFF'PRESENT Don R. Venhaus John L. Taylor Louis E. Barber Richard Wood James Finch Dorothy Riffel LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Vice Chairman M I N U T E S OTHERS Perry V. Whitmore, Asst. City Attorney J. Huddleston, Gazette Reporter Brenda Tirey, Democrat Reporter 2:00 P.M. There being a quorum present, the meeting was called to order by the Vice Chairman at 2:00 P.M. A motion wasmade for approval of the minutes of the last meeting as mailed, which was seconded and passed. The following action was taken on advertised matters Tract No. 1 - Z-2499 Applicant: First Baptist Church Location: 6100 Block Evergreen Drive Description: Block 7, Pleasant Hills Addition Classification: "MF 6" Multi -family District Variance: Requests Variance from Use and Front Yard Provisions of Section 43 of the Code of Ordinances to permit a parking lot in a residential zone, and in the Front Yard Space The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends approval of this application provided the parking areas across the street from or adjacent to residential properties be heavily screened and landscaped. The requested Variance will permit using residential zoned property for off-street parking for an adjacent office,complex." Mr. Robert H. Wickard, realtor, was present representing the applicant, stating that he was the prospective purchaser of the property under consideration. The -1- Board of' Adjustment Minutes February 21 1972 property is comprised of two blocks - one at University and Evergreen, which is zoned 1'E-1", and the second being the block down Evergreen which is zoned "MF 6" Multi -family which zoning was granted by the Board of Directors, on September 20, 1971. Mr. Wickard indicated that a waiver is being requested on the "MF 6" parcel to permit its use for parking purposes. They propose to follow the contour of the land, screen it from resi- dential properties across the street, and will construct two lanes on Evergreen with curb and gutter and sidewalks as Evergreen is designated as a collector street, and landscape this property very heavily. The project is a $1,500,000. installation with two office buildings (one one-story, and one one and one-half stories), for which development plans are definite, preliminary financing has been received and construction hopefully will commence in about thirty days if the Variance is granted. Mr. Venhaus said the Staff has reviewed the parking provided on the "E-1" site and there is enough off-street parking provided for the office structures, and the parking and structures on the "E-1" site could stand independent of the proposed parking of the tract under consideration, and suggested that the additional 168 spaces on the "MF 6" tract be utilized as additional parking, and not provide required parking for any future addition to the site in question _ if there were additions proposed, adding to the bulk of the "E-l" site, the Board of Adjustment would have to authorize it or the tract would have to be rezoned. There were approximately fourteen objectors in attendance who were represented by Mr. Gayle Windsor, an attorney, and resident of the neighborhood. He filed a petition signed by approximately 40 families in the vicinity, and he said that everyone who is within any close proximity to this property objects to the Variance. The prime objection was that the proposed parking area would cause undue and unreasonable loss of property values and its use and enjoyment. Mr. Windsor said they were a little bit skeptical about promised landscaping - the nature,' -type and extend of it. He recalled that last summer the property owners concerned were presented with an acceptable plan for the construction of a high type apartment project which was approved by the Planning Commission for "MF 6" and "E-l" zoning based on the plan submitted. Less than a year later, he said, the area is now to be asphalted which will increase the drainage problems which now exist, and worsen the traffic problem. In his opinion there should be a buffer between the "E-1" property and the residential area, and the parking lot would not provide that. Dr. William E. Jaques, 6104 Evergreen.Street, was present, also in opposition. He stated they were approached in 1971 in good faith and.they were.favorably impressed with the architect's design for an apartment development. He objects to the "asphalt jungle", the cutting of trees, increased traffic, and challenged the integrity of the realtor who stated that the neighbors were in favor of it, which was not true. Mr. Venhaus commented that the Staff considers off-street parking to be a very good and useful kind of device to provide buffer areas. Landscaping is the key element in this particular instance, and in his opinion there would be a less intense use and have,a. great deal less impact on the neighborhood than an apartment complex, he said. Mr. Windsor added that they would like to have a firm commitment as to exactly what they are going to do- something tangible - and to know what is going to be approved, the nature of the landscaping and extent, how many trees will be left, etc. Mr. Venhaus replied that he would like to comment on two of the objections raised, which were drainage in the area, and increased traffic. There is a serious drainage problem in the area but it has no kelation to the application.before the Board of Adjustment, and the land use of this property is not going to relate to the drainage -2- Board of Adjustment Minutes February 21, 1972 problem. As to the traffic problem the number of vehicles will be fewer than if the property were developed for apartments. Mr. Tbolsey added that the same situa- tion would -exist with apartments or a parking lot as far as drainage is concerned. A motion was made that the application be approved subject to (1) Staff formal approval of a detailed landscape plan; (2) Staff approval of a drainage plan; (3) that the parking on this tract of ground under consideration not be used in any way to meet the minimum parking requirements for the development of the tract to the east or any other adjacent tract. The motion was seconded and passed. This is with the understanding that what is agreed to by the Staff and the developer will be what is to be built on the site. Mr. Windsor requested a thirty day deferral so that the matter could be brought back for review of the landscape plan and at that time make a final determination on the application. A motion was then made that the application be deferred until such a landscape plan has been presented. The motion was seconded.It was suggested that the Board should limit reconsideration to approval of the landscaping plan - not to what was voted on today. Another motion was then made that we defer final approval of the Variance until such time as the landscape plans have been submitted to this Board for approval, and that the matter be limited only to the landscaping itself and not to the other matters covered in the previous motion. Notice of the rehearing regarding the landscape plan be delivered to Gayle Windsor in lieu of the regular advertise- ment. The motion was seconded and passed. Tract No. 2 - Z-2557 Applicant: Arkansas Travelers Motel, Inc. Location: 5600 New Benton Highway Description: Long legal Classification: "F"-Commercial District Variance: Requests Variance from Height Provisions of Section 43 of the Code of Ordinances to permit erection of a sign to a height of 41 feet The Staff recommended denial. By way of explanation, Mr. Venhaus said at the present time the height restriction in an "F"-Commercial District is 35 feet. The appli- cant is requesting an additional 6 feet of height to restore the sign after it is re -located. He added that the City of Little Rock Ls in the throes of develop- ing a new sign ordinance and will present this to the Planning Commission in April. The staff objects to a variance which extends the height potential of signs on a major street and collector streets, and we don't think any significant showing of need has been brought to the Staff at this point. Mr. Parker Johnston, one of the owners of the Arkansas Travelers Motel was present, and indicated his surprise at the Staff's recommendation of denial. He said they designed this sign not knowing there was a height ordinance because up and down University there are signs higher than 35 feet. The sign company notified him that he could not go over 35 feet, and he said he was asking for 41 feet because of the design of the sign plus the fact that the motel is below the highway level. 599 Boar. of Adjustment Minutes February 21, 1972 The sign, he said, would not be more than 2 or 3 feet higher than the present sign, because of the drop-off of the road. The reason for the sign is to attract attention to the Motel. Mr. Compton said it has been demonstrated that some limitation to signs inside the City limits is justified and the limitation is a matter of degree. "Our problem is that we don't want to put Ourselves in the position to say where the degree begins and ends - we would rather the ordinance do this, which it does in the 35 foot requirement." 'there were no objectors. Mr. Venhaus commented that there is a difference between asking for a height variance and the difference between asking for a variance due to topography. "Whatever action you take I think you should give some thought to any action in terms of a precedent. If you feel that you can.reagonably defend the variance on this property and deny a similar request on adjacent property by virtue of a different set of circumstances, that is one thing. In the Staff's opinion, we think that 35 feet is a very generous height allowance in an "F"-Commercial District -topography notwithstanding, and we are opposed to the variance." A motion was made that the Variance be denied, which was seconded and passed. Tract No. 3 - Z-2555 Applicant: Ritz Motel, Inc. Location: 5300 Asher Avenue Description: Lot 10 Toska and Leymer Addition, and WZ of Jane Street (closed) adjacent to Lot 10 Classification: "F"-Commercial District Variance: Requests a Variance from Rear Yard Provisions of Section 43 of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction in the Rear Yard Space The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends approval of the application except for the easternmost 8 foot portion of the tract (formerly Jane Street now closed by ordinance) to accommodate an 8 foot easement, and provided a reinforced concrete channel be built from Asher Avenue to-33rd Street subject to approval of the Public Works Department plans for the drainage. Mr. James Sawyer, co-owner of the Ritz Motel was present, stating that they agreed with the recommendation of the Staff. The building does not involve the sanitary sewer, he said. They know it is there and will take the necessary precautions. Mr. Byron Smith, attorney representing the Besser heirs, was present. His clients own property on Asher Avenue east of Jane Street, and they would have -no objections if this channel is going to be covered as is shown in the drawing that was fi-led.,on February 17th with the Public Works Department. In talking with Mr. Carroll Ball' of the Public Works Department, he could not tell them whether they plan to cover it. If they do plan to cover it there Mould be a 3' X b' channel with a cement reinforced top on it, and whether or not they would object to the approval of the Variance would depend on whether or not it is to be the requirement. of the Public Works Department to place that cover on it - only the -north 150 feet.4 -4- Board of Adjustment Minutes February 21, 1972 Mr. Venhaus said he would question whether the adjacent property owners would have any kind of a vested interest in this drainage easement. This is a public drainage facility and so long as it meets the public requirements in terms of the disposition of the ditch, I would not think the applicant would have any vested interest in the disposition of the ditch. Mr. Bryon Smith replied they feel that the validity of the ordinance abandoning Jane Street is vulnerable. Mr. Venhaus replied that the closing of the street is the authority of the Board of Directors. A motion was made for approval of the application subject to approval by the Public Works Department of the construction in the 8 foot easement. The motion was seconded and passed. Tract No. 4 - Z-2559 Applicant: Little Rock School District Location: 14th and Marshall Streets Description: Block 10, Centennial Addition Classification: "C"-Two-family District Variance: Requests permission under the Provisions of Section 43-22-(4)-(d) of the Code of Ordinances to permit a Job Corps Center, an institution of educational nature, in a residential district The Staff°s recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends approval of this application. A use of the type proposed should not adversely affect adjacent residential properties. The proposed use will not require additional parking. Appli- cation is made to the Board to authorize an institution of educational nature in a residential district which under the provisions of para (4) (d) Section 43-22 the Board has the authority to do." Mr, William L. Terry, attorney for the Little Rock School District, was present as was Mr. Floyd Langston, Vice President for Business for the School District, and Mr. Allen Hazen, of the Federal Labor Department in Washington. Mr. Edwin Fultz representing the State Employment Service was also present. Mr. Terry stated that this application involves the old West Side. Junior High School which has been vacant since June, 1971, which property would be leased to the Federal Government for $25,000. a year on a two year basis -renewal for ten years —Mr. Terry said they felt that there was no need for rezoning the property as a "C"-Two-family classification would permit an institution of an educational nature, and also other residential classifications provide for the inclusion of public schools and other educational institutions, and the only question here is the fact that the 175 students would be housed on the premi3es. The top floor would be converted for residential facilities. The lease would commence March 1st for a Job Corps Center. Mr. Allen Hazen representing the Federal Labor Department stated that the plan is to utilize the entire building, to completely remodel it for the 175 male students who would live in the building and receive their vocational and educational training on the site within the facility. There would be recreation rooms, medical and dental facilities, food service, etc. The residents would have Z4 hour supervision with a 3 to 1 ratio of students to staff. There would be security personnel who would also live in the facility. The students range in age from 16 years to. 21 years from within the Little Rock environs and would be placed in the labor market of Central Arkansas. -5- Board of Adjustment Minutes February 21, 1972 The students will have no automobiles and would be chaperoned upon leaving the building. (This is necessary because they are minors.) Mr. Paul Johnston, attorney, representing Dr. and Mrs. Bryant Pake, was present in opposition. They have an office across the street from this property. He stated that this Variance should not be before the Board of Adjustment, but before the Planning Commission for rezoning to a classification which would allow this use. He cited a case (Arkansas Guidance Foundation vs Hummel) in which the Supreme'Court made a decision that any type of institution which deal with the rehabilitation or vocational status of a person was not such as was contemplated by the ordinance, as enacted by the City of Little Rock. The Arkansas Guidance Foundation had no guards, and was supported by State funds, but the Job Corps Center would be run by private enterprise which will be guarded which is more of an argument to substantiate what the Supreme Court said than the case'at hand. He said his clients have a vested interest in this as they operate a business directly across the street and feel that the danger to their business is great by the operation of this Center, especially a Center which would require such close security as this one does: Mr. Venhaus said Mr. Johnson is arguing that under the Supreme Court's decision that he referred to, the facility in question is not an educational facility of the type which enjoys the protection of the ordinance in terms of going in a residential area. If this is the case, the only zoning that would afford relief necessary, assuming it is not an educational institution as defined by the Supreme Court, it would require "F"-Commercial zoning because in a'"D" zoning District you have exactly the same kind of issue. So the issue is if this proposed facility educational in nature is as contemplated by the ordinance. The Board of Adjustment is constituted for the purpose of rendering a judgment in cases where it is not clear in the ordinance, "and I would not be too intimidated by the other decisions unless the stipulations were so clear that they applied to the instance at hand." The issue that ought to be dealt with, which is within the province of this Board, is the boarding issue. The ordinance as it related to institutions of an educational nature is entirely silent on the boarding issue, and that use is not allowed until you get into the "D" District - that is the variance issue before the Board." Mr. Whitmore,commented that dormitory facilities for student nurses were permitted under interpretation of the City ordinance, and the issue apparently would be whether the housing would be directly related to the job training at the facility. Mr. Terry added that this is not a rehabilitation institution` The students do not have prior records at all, but are from "poverty families". Mr. Whitmore reminded the Board that the issue is the use being made of the property and not the character of the people who will use it. This is a question of the broad definition for education which could include relating a person to society as opposed to the usual three R's. Mr. Edwin Fultz, representing the Employment Service, said these students would be from the Little Rock area and from families who could not give them a chance; that they: -rill be screened by counselors of the Service; that they will be trained in skills which hopefully are.consumable in the Arkansas labor market, and expressed the hope that the Job Corps Center would be approved. Mr. Whitmore stated that the Board does have the responsibility of determining whether or not this application has merit. The first thing that must be determined is if the =2 Board of Adjustment Minutes February 21, 1972 institution is intended to be an "educational type" institution. If it is then your opinion that this is an appropriate use for this particular piece of property, then it should be permitted. "I personally think it is educational as intended by the ordinance." Mr. Terry Lynn, Assistant to the Medical Director of the Baptist Medical Center, was present not in opposition but to get some information as to the nature of the project. The Medical Center is across the street from the proposed facility and was concerned that it might increase the public's fears of visiting the Center at night. He added that the area around the Center is "as safe as any part of town" but what the facts are and what the people want to believe are two different things." A motion was made for approval of the requested Variance, which was seconded and passed. Mr. Capp Shanks abstained. Tract No. 5 - Z-2560 Applicant: Lee Stephens Location: Durwood Road and Kingsrow Drive Description: Lots 68 and 69, Queen Manor Addn. Classification: "C1°-Two-family District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Front Yard Provisions of Section 43 of the Code of Ordinances to permit parking in the Front Yard Space The Staff recommended approval of this application. The terrain of these lots make conventional construction and yard space difficult. The parking stalls although in the front yard will most likely be well screened by the elevation of the lot being considerably below the level of the curb line." Mr. Guy Amsler, attorney for the applicant, was present and stated that a larger parking area is needed than is allowed in a duplex zone which accounts for the variance. A motion was made for approval, which was seconded and passed. DEFERRED MATTER Z-2342 Applicant: J. H. Baird Estate Location: 800 North University Avenue Description: Lots 1 through 10, Block 8, Lincoln Park Addti. Classification: "E-1" Quiet Business District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Area Provisions of Section 43 of the Code of Ordinances to permit a sign larger than allowed (this concerns a sign for the Cosmopolitan Spa) The Staff°s recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends approval of this application. It was considered by the Board on December 20,1971. At that time the Staff recommended against the proposed pole sign of 100 square feet. The applicant -7- Board of Adjustment Minutes February 21,1972 has re -designed this sign and made it part of the structure. The sign as now proposed is mounted flush on two faces of the building (the south and west), each sign to be 35 square feet. The minutes reflect the requirement of bringing this matter back to the Board. The applicant has been advised to re -notify adjacent property owners." Mr. Gene Lewis, representing the applicant, was present and requested the acceptance of the Staff's recommendation. He stated there would be no flood lighting per se on the sign although there would be lighting around the perimeter of the structure. He said his understanding was that the matter would not have to be brought back to the Board if the Staff felt that the sign would be considered architecturally compatible with the building, and if they felt that it was not, then a Variance would be required. The question before the Board, he said, is whether or not this sign is architecturally compatible with the building amd if not they are requesting a waiver. Mr. Joseph Kaufman who owns property on "H" Street to the east, was present in opposition stating that the signs will comprise an area of approximately 70 square feet, and questioned why the waiver was necessary. In his opinion this piece of property should never have been granted use for acommercial activity in an "E-l" zone, and was opposed to any further commercial usage. He said he could see no difference in this Spa and the others around the City and saw no need for this large sign since the building itself would stand out for miles around with its arches and other items put there. Mr. Peyton Rice, who also owns property east of the building which is under construction, was present in opposition stating he felt that the applicant should comply with the requirements of an "E-l" District which allows a sign 8 square feet. Also he 'said this operation would be detrimental to his property values which is "D"-Apartment and could adversely affect his rentals and future development on another 120 feet on which he could build some additional apartments. Mr. Compton said there had been an effort to preserve the quiet business characteristic of the -area and the Board would be reluctant to do anything that would jeopardize that. Mr. Venhaus defended the Staff's recommendation of approval saying they did not feel that this sign would detract at all and felt that it was an attractive integration to the structure itself and seemed appropriate. He added the Staff is concerned about an apparent commercial use located on this corner, and they did not approach this situation with any great hope of aiding and abetting a commercial enterprise on that corner. Mr. Lewis added, with respect to the lighting of the building and sign, that they would not do any additional lighting over and above what was originally planned for the sheer purpose of illuminating these letters. It is not our intention to turn the building into a billboard, he said. A motion was made that this application be denied, and that the applicant provide the standard 8 square foot sign in keeping with the "E-l" District. The motion was seconded and passed. Mr. Compton addressed Mr. Lewis as to the position of the Board on the waivers requested on this property. He said when this application first came to the Board to be asked to be allowed in an "E-l" zone, it should have come to our attention at that time - the applicant was coming to us and saying 'we will accept the restrictions that "E-l" imposes' and the idea of getting "E_-l" through, some kind of waiver and thencoming bank and further changing this -- I think it was the feeling of the Board that this should have come to light in the first consideration. It should have been assumed that you could live with the regulations of the "E-1" zone, and the Board Board of Adjustment Minutes February 21.1972 has denied it mainly on that basis." After the public hearing, discussion ensued pertaining to the creation of a zoning district to accommodate educational institutions having dormitory facilities. It was decided that no specific action be taken in this regard at this time. Mr. Venhaus pointed out to the Board that the Planning Division was experiencing difficulty in getting proof to adjacent property owners returned in sufficient time for verification prior to the meeting, and further pointed out that our instructions to the applicant is that they shall be returned no later than four calendar days prior to :the meeting. The Board indicated its desire that the four day provision be observed, and such cases be withdrawn from the agenda where they fail to submit proof of notification on time. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 P. M. J"C Z ':'k S. Spenc Compton, Vice airman -9- Don R. 1knhaus, Secretary