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