Loading...
boa_03 20 1972LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT M I N U T E S MARCH 20, 1972 MEMBERS PRESENT Darrell Dover, Chairman S. Spencer Compton, Vice Chairman L. Dickson Flake Capp Shanks, Jr. MEMBERS ABSENT Lawrence Woolsey STAFF PRESENT Don R. %nhaus John L.Taylor Louis E. Barber Richard Wood James Finch Floyd '.Villines Dorothy Riffel OTHERS Perry'V. %itmore, 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 Chairman at 2:00 P.M. A motion was made for the approval of the minutes of the last meeting as mailed which was seconded and passed. Action was taken as follows on advertised and other matters: Tract No. 1 - Z-2377 Applicant: Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Location:5713 West 65th Street Description: Long legal 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 The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "This application is the result of a notice of violation issued to the applicant February 22,1972 concerning failure to construct an off-street parking area according to Section 43-21-H-(a) and (e) of the Code of Ordinances. This property was involved in an application for Use Variance which the Board of Adjustment approved on ,July 20,1970, for location of a public utility in an "A" Residential District." The applicant has not as of this date made application for a building permit and according to the 90 day provision of the Board of Adjustment by-laws, the granted Variance is now void. However, the proposed parking area which is now in use Board of Adjustment minutes - March 20.1972 occupies a portion of the tract which was to be used for parking on development of the property. The Staff recommends approval of an extension of the original granted Variance for a period of 12 months with the requirement that the area presently used for off- street parking be constructed according to the requirements established in Section 43-21-H (a) and (e) of the Zoning Ordinance." Mr. Ibnald King,attorney for Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, the applicant, was present as was Mr. Cecil Boaz, Jr., who is building and equipment engineer for the Telephone Company. Mr. Boaz said the request concerns the property listed as 5713 65th Street and encompasses the 5600 and 5700 blocks. A Variance was granted for another purpose in July, 1970. Their property is roughly 301 feet fronting 65th Street and to the south of 65th Street which consists of a total of about 5 acres. It is separated from and east of the existing property at 5805 West 65th Street by 175 feet. They propose with the granting of the Variance, to construct a parking lot for 40 vehicles to provide additional parking space for company vehicles and for employee parking for persons and vehicles located at 5805 West 65th Street, and this is necessary because of congested parking at that location. Construction of the parking lot will proceed if the Variance is granted. Budget problems were responsible for their plans to be deferred until March, 1974. It was planned that this would be parking space for the new facility when it is built so it will continue in use as planned here and for the future. A motion was made that the application be approved, which was seconded and passed. Mr. Flake did not participate in the discussion or voting. Tract No. 2 - Z-2565 Applicant: Location: Description: Classification: Joiner Construction Company 909 Carson Street Lot 4, Block 51, Industrial Park Addition "A" -One -family District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Main Structure Provisions of Section 43-2-(5) of the Code of Ordinances to permit more than one Main Structure on a lot. The Staffs recommendation was read as follows: "The application states on the applica- tion 'owner bought lot on approval of FHA. Approval which was granted and construction loan and permanent loan has been made to buyer." The Staff is reluctant to recommend favorable consideration of this application inas- much as the encroachment effects a cloud on the warranty deed involving this lot. The City has no authority to legally deny this application except for the provision of the Zoning Ordinance prohibiting more than one building on a lot. It is felt that this case of partial encroachment does not fully equate with the "more than one building" prohibition, and that the end result of granting the requested Variance will rest with the owner when he proposes to dispose of subject property." Mr. George Littles, the owner of the property, was present. He proposes to build a residence for his family on subject property -which is a vacant lot. Title to the land is in Joiner Construction Company who will sell to Mr. Littles. Mr. Joiner will build the structure and he will deed the property back to Mr. Littles. A motion for approval of the Variance was made, which was seconded and passed. -2- Board of Adjustment Minutes - March 20.1972 Tract No. 3 -- Z-2561 Applicant: Lewis S. Rauton Location: 9p1 South University Avenue Description: Long legal Classification: "F"-Commercial District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Height Provisions of Section 43-15 of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction of a 16 story building plus elevator penthouse, tower mounted signs, and TV antenna of 50 feet for total height of 250 feet The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends approval of requested Variance as the proposed structure height should in no way affect adjacent properties. A check of the site plan indicated compliance with proper setbacks and adequate parking. As property is zoned "F"-Commercial a Variance on -height was required." Mr. Rauton, the applicant, was present and stated that this will be the most luxurious development in the State of Arkansas, which will be occuped by the Sheraton Hotel with 400 parking spaces. The other three buildingsscontemplated are in the preliminary planning stage and it is intended that adequate parking will be provided for each one. A motion was made for approval of the Variance which was seconded and passed. Tract No. 4 - Z-2571 Applicant: Industrial Development Company Location:3101 West 60th Street Description: Long legal Classification: "I" Light Industrial District Variance: Requests consideration of location of concrete batch plant in zone in which it is normally.prohibited. This application was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting. OTHER MATTERS 1. Reconsideration of Case Z-2342 - Cosmopolitan Spa Sign - 800 Block N. University_ Mrs. Betty Baird, representing the J.H. Baird Estate, the owner of the property, was present to ask for reconsideration of the Board's denial of the Variance at the last meeting. She -said there was some misunderstanding along the line - the people who pare building this health spa are from Nashville, Tennessee and they were under the impression that the Staff's recommendation of approval for the sign size was a routine matter going to the Board of Adjustment. Her company ordered the letters for this building and then the Board of Adjustment disapproved the Variance and the sign. "It is my idea that the sign does need to be larger to identify the building and I would like to ask for your reconsideration." -3- Board of Adjustment Minutes March 20,1972 Mrs. Baird was asked where the misunderstanding originated and she said the owners of the health spa had not come up against this in other cities and were under the impression that with the Staffs approval it was approved and for that reason they went ahead and ordered the letters. They are bronze 18" high to be placed flat against the building. Mr. John Schlereth of the Baird Advertising Company,was present and was asked by Mrs. Baird to enlarge on the issue. Mr. Venhaus at this point stated that the Board when they initially dealt with the sign variance, it was a free standing pole sign which the Staff recommended denial on and the Board of Adjustment did the same." They then directed that the Staff work with the health spa people on a flush building mounted sign which would be a simple identification sign. I presume that if there was a misunderstanding it was at this point that they believed that if they satisfied the Staff from the standpoint of the creation of such a sign that they were "home free". I would point out that the person we deal with, if he is not sophisticated now in matters of this kind - if he doesn't understand that the Staff might occasionally hold to one opinion and the Board another, I don't guess he ever will. I don't see how there could be a misunder- standing because he has worked for a good long time with these kinds of issues and knows that simply because we approve something doesn:'.t mean that you, the Planning Commission, or the Board of Directors is going to be of the same opinion. That is undoubtedly where the misunderstanding occurred. The minutes reflect that the matter be brought back before the Board of Adjustment for approval." Mr. Schlereth said that the problem lies in the fact that the Nashville people were represented by a local real estate man and there was some lack of communication between the two of them. When I talked with the owners in Nashville, they were under the impression that everything had been worked out and placed the order for the letters. The building is nearing completion - they anticipate completion some- time in May." Mr. Dover asked him at what time did he understand that it had been worked out.He said it was after the Board had originally turned down the first sign and requested that theCity and the architect get together and work something out that was compatible. They submitted the design for the cast bronze letters to be mounted flush against the wall which they thought was the minimum required for this sign. At that time the loca`1 real estate man definitely inferred that it was a matter of going back before the Board and getting its approval. He anticipated no diffi- culty. They were probably a little premature in ordering the letters before the last month's meeting of the Board of Adjustment. he said. Mr. Dover said that it was his understanding that new evidence not presented to the Board at the original meeting needs to be presented -for reconsideration. Mr. Whitmore verified this fact. Mr. Venhaus added that he would like to remind the Board that the Staff, as the Board directed, worked with them in the development of the sign. "We did feel that the sign was appropriate and continue to take that posture. The last sign submitted we felt was appropriate for the structure." Mr. Compton added that this matter, through more than one request for a waiver before the Board of Adjustment, has been thoroughly thrashed out. "I don't believe that IVE Board of Adjustment Minutes - March 20.1972 I would be in favor of going through that process again. We have heard everything we would probably hear again." Mr. Schlereth asked what the reason was for turning it down. Mr. Dover said it was a matter of public record, and the minutes of the meetings could be made available to him and Mrs. Baird, and in the absence of new evidence, the Board of Adjustment by-laws do not permit the Board to grant a re -consideration. "It not only must be new and not presented last time, but wasn't reasonably -available to be presented. In other words it is not something that was available and that you could have told us and just failed to do so. It has got to be something new that would presumably change the outlook of the Board." Mr. Schlereth said he did not really know what was presented before. "When they asked us what we would recommend as minimum identification for this site, we felt that something non -illuminating, non -revolving, something flush mounted against the wall and something that could be read at a distance of approximately 600 to 700 feet." He was asked why this was necessary. He replied that considering the location on University with its high traffic pattern - according to "E-l" zoning 8 square feet is a maximum sign requirement under this zoning." Mr. Dover asked if this is not a private club. Mr. Compton asked if he had been through the presentation for the first waiver in which the description of this particular facility was discussed. Mr. Dover recounted "it is my memory that we were informed that it was a private club - a private health club, and the Board was asked to construe the ordinance and it finally did construe the ordinance to bring this within the meaning of a clinic - that it was a non-commercial medically oriented private club. This is the way it was presented to us originally." Mr. mmpton added "our feeling on the sign was that based on what was presented to us before, there seems to be no reason for such a large sign on that type of facility. If all of a sudden the nature of the facility has been changed, then this Board has been misled and possibly we ought to reconsider the whole case." Mr. Dover said "in fact if it is a commercial enterprise, I would have personal reservations about the propriety of it being in the zone it is in." Mr. Compton at this point quoted the following from the minutes of the last meeting on February 21,1972. "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 then coming back and further changing this -- I think it was the feel- ing 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-l" zone, and the Board has denied it mainly on that basis." In other words, this is like a creeping thing. I really don't think it is fair to come before the Board time and time again and eat away at these restrictions when they really should have been presented all in one package so that the Board would have a fair evaluation of what is going to go on that corner. It is the position of this Board that it is not our duty to decide whether or not it is an appropriate use - appropriate in this zone - it was zoned by the Planning Commission for "E-1". The only thing we are trying to do is to make sure that what was put on that property was in keeping with "E-1" zoning requirements." -5- Board of Adjustment Minutes March 20,1972 Mr. Schlereth explained his position saying that the health spa people were looking for a site for their facility and were interested in this site knowing it was:zoned "E-1". The real estate agent approached us with the idea and we accepted the premise that "E-l" zoning was applicable for health spas. We understood they had come before the Board toget a particular ruling on this particular site. If you were misled that it was primarily a health clinic, it is very regretable because frankly in their discussion with us they never led us to believe that it was to be a health clinic at all. As part of their operation they will appeal to orthopedics and people of this nature for some plysical therapy in their structure. I honestly can't say that it is going to be the primary use of the structure, and I really don't think they would tell you that." Mr. Venhaus said that Mr. Gene Lewis of Rector -Phillips -Morse, Inc., appeared on behalf of the applicant at the last meeting and presented the sign and detailed layout and discussed the size of the letters in relation to the structure. Mr. Compton said that the Board had to assume that what was presented to it was the function that was intended because otherwise "we are all in some kind of violation". He added that regardless of the words that were used, there is no doubt in the Board members' minds that the intention was to lead us to believe that this would be a low- key non-commercial type of situation and not something very commercial in nature. Mr. Schlereth said "really when you get down to it that is the minimum sign for any structure. Mr. Dover said "not according to the ordinance - it may be the minimum for commercial, but it is not for."E-1". That is the distinction. If it is a commer- cial enterprise perhaps the sign does need to be visible for 600 to 700 feet, but if it is a private club presumably the members of the club know where their club facili- ties are and don't need a great big sign to tell them about it." Mr. Schlereth said they need some identification that can be reasonably seen - 8 square feet divided into two sides of the building is 4 square feet, and you can't even spell Cosmopolitan in 4 square feet - it is not possible. Mr. Dover said this is not the problem of the Board - that it is the problem created by the ordinance. Mr. Dover again asked Mr. Schlereth if he had any new evidence that he would like to present, and in the absence of new evidence, the Board could not entertain the reconsideration of this matter. Mr. Schlereth said not knowing what was presented before he could not offer any new evidence. The Chairman called for a motion, but none was forthcoming. Mr. Dover informed Mr. Schlereth that the Board could not reconsider the matter, He then asked in the event that the people would consent to cutting down again on the size of the letters - if we went to 10" or 12" letters - would this constitute a "new ball game", or would they have to wait a year to resubmit the matter. Mr. Venhaus added that "the Staff is on record as being in favor of the sign as requested because from the very inception of this project there has not been the slightest doubt in our mind what this use was. Very cynically we sat back and felt that it would be just exactly what it turned out to be in terms of use. With that decision made we felt that the sign was not inappropriate. But I want to point out with reference to the limited kind of sign that can be built with 8 square feet, the record ought to show the extent to which the professional office development in this area has utilized the 8 square feet, and in some cases less than 8 square feet. M Board of Adjustment Minutes Larch 20. 1972 That is not very much sign area, but on the other hand you will find some buildings that do not even use 8 square feet. Mr. Dover suggested to Mr. Schlereth that he and Mrs. Baird, if she desires, review the minutes of the case and if it is felt that there is something new that can be presented to the Board, it could be brought back at next month's meeting and the Board would entertain any reasonable proposal so long as it is not a reconsideration of what has already been before the Board. 2. _Board of Adjustment approval of landscaping plan for Case Z-2499 - 6100 Block of Evergreen Road. Mr. Venhaus explained that the Board of Adjustment's directive at its last meeting was that Mr. Wickard develop a landscaping plan on his own initiative, and no time limit was established. Mr. Wickard has reviewed this plan with the Staff, contacted the people who were in attendance in opposition at the last meeting, and then the matter could be brought before the Board of Adjustment again. The Board of Adjust- ment made it clear at the last meeting that it had approved the use of this property for off-street parking purposes, so all that remained was the approval of the land- scape plan. The Staff concurs with the plan and believes it to be a very nice land- scaping of the lot. Mr. Gayle Windsor has been contacted as directed by the Board at its last meeting. Mr, Robert Wickard, one of the owners of this property, and Mr. James E. Mauney, landscape architect, were present to explain the plan that has been developed. Mr. Mauney said they propose to screen out the parking completely from Evergreen Road by using slash pine rrees and a 4 foot wall. The parking area is sunken from the street level so the parking area could not be seen. Within the parking lot are willow trees in islands. Additional dedication for right-of-way on Evergreen Road will be made by Mr. Wickard and his associates. Mr. Gayle Windsor, 1010 N. Arthur, was present inquiring about the kind of trees and how they would be maintained. He indicated that he had examined the plan and satis- fied himself. Mrs. William E. Jaques, 6104 Evergreen, was also present in opposition. She stated that her house is 8 feet above this structure. A petition having 25 signatures was filed objecting to the project. Mrs. Mildred Rice, 6301 Evergreen, was present, stating that her property was directly west of the area involved, and was concerned about the drainage problem which this parking lot would cause. Mr. Venhaus agreed -with h6r that the -'-drainage problem is'serious and complicated, and would continue to be whether the improvements proposed are there or not. Mrs. Fred Morrow, 1100 North Arthur Street, was present in opposition and asked numerous questions of Mr. Wickard about his plan, and wanted to know what assurance the adjacent property owners would have that Mr. Wickard's plan would actually materialize and become a reality. She was told that the City has regulatory powers which would insure his performance, such as a covenant or Certificate of Occupancy before he could utilize this property. 5C Board of Adjustment Minutes - March 20, 1972 Mrs. Kenny Schollmier, 6112 Evergreen, was also present and was concerned about the exit at the northwest corner of the property,'.at Ranch Valley and Arthur Street.. A motion was made for approval of the lansca a plan with a rQvision in the approval that nothing in this be construed to mean the waiving of anything in the ordinance with regard to screening. The motion was seconded and passed. Mr. Venhaus made a report to the Board on the deletion of "beauty shop" from the zoning ordinance "E-1" Quiet Business District which had been suggested by the Board. He said sometime ago we were placed in the uncomfortable position when a .gentleman brought in an application to the Board of Adjustment requesting that barber shops be allowed to locate in an "E-l" District as well as beauty shops. The Board's reaction was "yes - but we think a better way to handle.this would be to amend the existing zoningordinance and require that both have "VI -Commercial zoning." We did prepare such an amendment to the ordinance, sent it to the Planning Commission for its consideration. They recommended approval of.it. .The matter is now on the Board of Directors' Agenda for theApril 4th meeting, and they are inclined to be favorable to the item. It does appear that we are going.to get there with the ordinance. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 P. M. d� Don R. Venhaus, Secretary Darrell Dover, Chairman M