Loading...
boa_10 16 1972LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT M I N U T E S OCTOBER 16, 1972 MEMBERS PRESENT Darrell D. Dover, Chairman S. Spencer Compton, Vice Chairman L. Dickson Flake Capp Shanks, Jr. Lawrence S. Woolsey MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF PRESENT John L. Taylor Louis E. Barber Richard Wood James Finch Dorothy Light OTHERS PRESENT Perry V. Whitmore, City Attorney J. Ruddleston, Gazette 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 approval of the minutes of the last meeting as mailed, which was seconded and passed. Action was taken on the following advertised items: Tract No. 1 - Z-2641 Applicant: George Bilheimer Location•108 South Pine Street Description: Lot 3, Block 3, Plateau 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 parking in resit, dential zone The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends denial of requested variances for this one lot. The intrusion of this access to Pine Street and off -set parking in the middle of this block would seriously adversely affect adjacent properties. The.immediate area is developed with well maintained single family homes. The granting of this request would Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes October 16. 1972 leave the adjacent two lots to the north vulnerable for commercial development which would be highly undesirable at this Pine -Markham Street intersection. As the required parking for the proposed motel has been satisfied by space provided on -site and across Cedar Street the parking on subject property at issue is above that required." Mr. George Bilheimer, the applicant, stated that where he has ample off- street parking for tle motel on the other side of Cedar Street, he felt that this access to Pine Street would be a safety factor. He said the traffic pattern to and from the motel would cause congestion on Cedar and Markham Streets if this was not done. He further stated that the southeast corner of Markham and Pine is zoned "E-l" Quiet Business. Mr. Chris Polychron was present representing his mother, Mrs. Bilheimer of 117 South Pine and Mr. and Mrs. Richard Howell of 119 South Pine. His mother owns Lots 2, 4, 5 and 6 (4 lots) and resides at 112 South Pine Street. He stated that they felt 'that this was breaking up the residential area by going through the middle of it. They opposed the rezoning of the southeast corner of Pine and Markham until they found out it was going to be "E-l" Quiet Business. It will probably be a much more attractive looking corner when the building is completed. Since ample parking has been met with approval of parking on the west side of Cedar Street, they don't see how it would be a safety factor to have this exit off of Pine Street. He read a letter of opposition from Mr. and Mrs. Richard Howell, 119 South Pine Street. Mr. Bilheimer stated that Mr. Polychorn made the remark how much better the southeast corner of Pine would be with an improvement on it. Mr. Bilheimer further said that the property at 100 South Pine is a disgrace to the neighborhood. He explained how this Pine Street exit would be considered a safety factor. Mr. Polychorn said that the resident of 100 South Pine is bedfast. He stated that he understood more clearly what Mr. Bilheimer meant, but it still looked to him as if he wants another street right in between two houses. He said, "Would it not create a safety problem with the traffic turning left in there, too?" A motion was made for denial of the application, which was seconded and passed. Tract No. 2 - Z-2619 Applicant: Westmark Associates Location: 41213, 4125 and 4207 "A" Street Description: Lots 6, 7, 8, Block 4, Pinehurst Addition Classification: "C" Two-family District 2 - Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes October 16. 1972 Variance: Requests permission under the provisions of Section 43-22 (4) - (d) of the Code of Ordinances to permit parking in residential zone The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends approval of use variance on these three lots to permit off-street parking provided (1) that the structures on these lots be removed so as to preclude mixed use of subject property (2) the front 25' of lots, or average front yard, is maintained as landscaped open space (3) vehicle access to "A" Street be denied, and (4) screening be provided on north, east' and west sides of property as required by ordinance." Mr. Charles Mott, the applicant, and Mr. Jim Hatcher, his associate, were present. Mr. Mott stated that in reference to the setback yard requirement suggested by the Board, there should be an average based upon 40% of the structures in that block which is less than 25 ft. Mr. Taylor explained that the houses on that street were closer than the 25 ft. The zoning ordinance permits you to build another structure on this average front yard line. Mr. Mott said that he had a survey that indicated what that distance was along there. The surface there is 16 or 20 ft. and the right-of- way extends back 8 ft. into the front yard space. The houses are built very close to that right-of-way line. With regard to the removal of all 3 structures, the house to the extreme west is the farthest from the property, there is a structure east of the properties which they are asking the variance on that is immediately behind the office build- ing. They would like permission not to remove the westernmost house immediately. Not use it until they determine if they are going to get the house immediately behind the structure which is east of the property. Mr. Compton asked if he could conform with the parking requirements on two lots. Mr. Mott stated that the house immediately behind the structure would be more desirable to remove. The owners of the property indicated they would be willing to sell shortly. He further stated that they proposed to include this lot in the parking area. Mr. Shanks asked Mr. Mott if they owned the third lot at the present time. Mr. Mott replied that he had the owner's permission to include this lot in the application. They have been negotiating with the owners, and it is just a matter of when she wants to vacate. He further stated that they would like to have egress and ingress from "A" Street. This would - 3 - Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes October 16. 1972 provide a more orderly flow of traffic rather than having just the alley access. The alley is not marked for either direction, it is narrow -- 16 ft. rather than 20 ft. All the houses along that area have driveways anyway and they would not be altering the curb. We would be improving the area and also providing parking for other commercial offices in the area that do not now have parking -- there would be less parking along "A" Street. This would make the entire area more attractive. Mr. Compton asked if they had any topographical information about the change of grade between "A" Street and,.this alley. Mr. Mott replied that the grade there on "A" Street is somewhat uniform from the surface back about 8 or 10 ft. and then it starts sloping. It is their intention to put a retaining wall and maintain that grade approximately as it is along "A" Street. There would be a slight amount of grading because of the low southwest corner, but other than that, it would be maintained pretty much as it now exists. Mr. Woolsey asked if they did that would it not cause difficulty getting a vehicle from the lower level upon "A" Street because of this retaining wall? Mr. Hatcher answered that there is an actual grade over the entire lot of 6 or 7% grade. This would be no real problem to work out. There would be no entry from "A" Street -- only be used as an exit. They intend to put screening on the north, east and west and provide the necessary maintenance. They have agreed to use a screening that would be compatible with the adjacent property owners. A motion was made to approve the Staff's recommendation with the addition that the screening required on the north, east and west be constructed of wood, brick, or combination thereof, which was seconded and passed. Tract No. 3 - Z-2530 Applicant: Terra Properties, Inc Location: 2600 Block N. I-430 Description: Long legal Classification: "MF 18" Multi -family District Variance: Requests a Variance from the interior yard provisions of Section 43-4.5 (2)-(c) of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction of 4-unit apart- ment buildings closer than permitted to side lot lines (2 story buildings) - 4 - Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes October 16. 1972 The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends denial of the requested variance. To allow the development of this "MF" District as proposed would destroy the character intended of the "MF" District with its expanse of green livability area. Whereas, in the "MF District side yards to the property line are equal to the height of the structure. The request and proposed design in this instance reduces the distance between structures, not property lines, to 25 ft. which is considerably below that required in an "MF" District. As this area is rapidly being developed with single family homes of substantial character on rather large lots, it is felt that the adjacent multi -family development should be substantially of the same open space character." Mr. Venable, 312 Louisiana Street, representing the applicant, stated that at the present time this is under the existing zoning of "MF 18" of which we are concerned with the southernmost point .of 3.8 acres. Under the "MF 18" there can be approximately 68 units designed and built thereon. According to the proposed plat you have in front of you, the southernmost 12 lots are the lots we are talking about. We have looked at this property in connection with developing on it a cluster concept, and because of its long and narrowness, we feel as though the cluster concept can not be very easily designed at this points As a result, we have asked for a variance that will permit us to build units on these various lots -- between 4 and 6 units. Most of them are 4 units and 3 are rather large under the "MF" zoning, that you can obtain 6 units on these 3 lots -- the most southern lots and the 2 lots toward the north are rather large. Now this would provide 54 units as compared to 68 units under the existing zoning. So we are reducing about 14 units. According to our request, we are asking for a 25 ft. green area between each dwelling -- a 10 ft. side yard on 1 side, a 15 ft. on the other. There is a purpose for this difference. One is to provide a driveway on the larger side, eliminating 2 driveways side by side in this proposed development. Secondly, we are not permitting any parking in the front. Therefore, there would be no parking in the front area, so it would be green, plus the driveway. In listening to the Staff's recommendation of denial, I can't help but wonder when they say we are going to increase the, or reduce the density, or reduce the green space between the buildings. This, I can not understand why that statement has been made because as most of you know, under the "MF 18" the side yard requirements are of equal to the height of building, all right that is approximately 20 ft. If we only had one lot for this area, we could put units within 10 ft. apart. So, we could, under existing zoning as it is today, line up buildings 10 ft. apart along this whole 1300 ft. In our opinion, this is bad design and bad development. We propose 25 ft. between each building, giving more green area than it possibly could be developed under regulations as it is now. - 5 - Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes October 16, 1972 _ The Chairman said, "You are speaking of distance between the structures. Whereas, the Code speaks of distance from the structure to lot line." Mr. Venable said that under existing zoning right now the side yard on a building is equal to the height of the building. If there was not division here, you would only have one lot 1300 ft. long. Mr. Compton said to get the Planning Commission to accept a replat. Mr. Venable said that if they would accept the layout design you can have buildings within 10 ft. apart. Mr. Shanks asked if you would not wind up with a bunch of green space on one end or the other if you did that? If you start putting them in there 10 ft. apart, assuming they approve this change, and let this be one big lot, somewhere down the line you would run up to the maximum occupancy and you would have a 300 x 300 ft. piece of green space. In other words, you would have a.mini-park at the end. Mr. Venable stated that at that rate we could get 68 units as it calls for now, but we don't want to do it that way. We think it is bad. We think 4 to 6 unit complexes is more adaptable to the neighborhood, to the area. Of course, all these plans have to be approved by Pleasant Valley-- no parking in front. In our opinion, the development of this property on 85 ft. lots with 25 ft. between each building is much more adaptable to the residential housing across the street than what it could be in a cluster concept. Mr. Shanks stated that as he understood this, the'citizens would get more green space square foot area from this 3.9 or 3.7 acres by allow- ing 68 units to be built under the zoning than the citizens would get in allowing 54 units to be built. "Are the units going to be bigger? I don't understand how you can arrive at that." Mr. Taylor explained that in the Staff's opinion, you are looking at a 25 ft. strip between each building and the intent of "MV District to cluster these buildings. That is the reason we allowed them to -go within 10 ft. of each other. You might make 8 units to a building and you would end up eventually with 14 additional units. You would end up with some of these areas that would be larger rather than just a 10 ft. green strip and the other 15 ft. for driveway. That would give you larger open area where there is open area. Mr. Shanks stated that you might have 3 of these units and you might have 75 ft. of green space and 4 more is what you are saying instead of cutting it up like a pie? Mr. Taylor replied that was right. - 6 - Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes October 16, 1972 Mr. Venable stated that they had the property directly north of this property which will be put in the condominium concept. Therefore, we are retaining these 3 lots for private entrance into this northern property. We are retaining that to have separate identity going into the project. In our opinion, there would be just as much green area, if not more, in what we propose to do than under the existing zoning now. Mr. Shanks said that was not the answer he got. Mr. Taylor stated that he didn't know what size buildings they were planning but if they were to make 8 unit buildings, they would end up with more green space on the total end of at least 60 or 70 ft. wide. At least you would have something more than just one little narrow green grass strip in between each building. Somewhere along the line either at one end or both ends or in the middle, you would have some large green area, plus the 25 along the front. Mr. Venable stated that if you take 14 units out of there you are adding a lot more green space to the area. Mr. Taylor said that if you make 8 or 12 units to the building you still are going to have just one driveway. Mr. Venable said, "If you were living across the street, would you rather have a 12 unit building in front of you, or would you rather have -a unit with 4 plexes looking real nice? If you get into 8 units in one building, you are getting into a long building in front of you. Now, we were trying to develop this thing in context with the develop- ment across the street. We felt like 4 units would be much more in context than a long large building." The Chairman asked if this was one tract or was it actually 10 or 12 lots? Mr. Venable replied that at the present time it is one -tract of land 15.6 acres. The tract that you are looking at now is the southern part of this 15.6 acres. We have taken the southern part where it is long and narrow and put it on the plan here showing the 12 most southern lots and what we would like to do with it. So,they could be sold and developed into this type of development. Mr. Shanks asked, "You mean individuals will build these things instead of one developer? If I owned a $60,000 house across the street, it would concern me that anybody could come in and build a 4 plex on a lot -- there could be a brick one, cardboard one, etc. Is there somebody guard- ing against this?" Mr. Venable said that they had very strict regulations on this property. to make sure that they are of ample size, will meet the architectural design and approval of the whole area. They are very strict. - 7 - Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes October 16. 1972 Mr. Shanks asked, "Who is:they?" Mr. Venable replied, 1°Pleasant Valley, Mr. Sam Reynolds. He is here to answer on this particular point." Mr. Sam Reynolds, Agent for Pleasant Valley, stated that they did make the sale to these developers. Pleasant Valley was extremely happy with this change in plans. The reduction in the number of units, plus the fact that we are going to control the architect of everyone of these units. We felt that they were trying to give the residents out there a much more residential view. We are going to see that these structures are attractive. We felt that the residents would rather have a multi-plexity of design rather than have one long row of houses or one large group of houses. That was Pleasant Valley's attitude when Mr. Venable came to Pleasant Valley with this proposal. The builders we talked to were very happy. Mr. Woolsey asked, "You represent the original developers of Pleasant Valley, is that correct? Do you represent the Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association?" Mr. Reynolds replied, "No, I do not represent the Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association. This particular group of lots at the present time, I would say in excess of 90% of these lots, are still owned by contractors. These lots in this particular area (across the street); all of our plats, all of our drawings, all of our publicity, have clearly shown this strip as being for apartments, and when we sold these lots, we made sure that everybody had a plat and apartments were written all over that plat." The Chairman asked, "Do I understand that you have possibly as many as 12 or 14 different contractors, or developers, who will ultimately build these apartments?" Mr. Venable replied that he is in the finance business and has handpicked 4 builders. They said that if he could work it out, they would buy and build. They are considered very good builders. The Chairman asked, "Are you aware that our variances are only good for 90 days? Is this going to present a problem to you? If we granted this variance today, as I understand it, it runs out 90 days hence." Mr. Taylor said, "Six months." Mr. Flake said, "To my knowledge for the past 3 or 4 years, this is the first time we have had a request for variance for something that is not yet platted. Normally, it is my understanding, that this is covered through the Subdivision Committee or the Planning Commission where deviations from ordinance specifications are covered at the same time that the Subdivision Committee covers it. Is this not true?" - 8 - Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes October 16. 1972 Mr. Taylor replied, "What you consider here is a proposed subdivision. The Planning Commission normally plat the building lines along the street property line. I don't know of any place where the Planning Commission ever waived the side yards which in effect is what you are getting into in this. Normally, it complies to the zoning ordinance on the side yard. I can't recall a request for waiver on a side setback line. Normally, in a residential you have a 25 ft. front yard require- ment. They are waived due to terrain or grade, or something like that, but I can't remember a rear yard or a side yard waiver." Mr. Flake stated, "It just now occurred to me. I never have come into this procedure before. Normally, a lot is already platted when the variance is requested." Mr. Taylor explained, "That would be your normal procedure. What they want on this -- this is all one tract. This is the portion under question at this time. If they are required to comply to the side yards, then I wouldn't think they would want these lots platted -- say at 80 ft. If they have to comply to the side yard to the height of the building, they may want to make these 100 ft. lots-- if they want to sell them off as lots. They are trying to get this waiver of the Board of Adjustment prior to the platting of the lots; otherwise, it would have to go back and replat it into one large tract." Mr. Compton stated, "I feel that there is some justification in certain cases where you can waive one of the side yard requirements in order to get a greater open space between the next adjacent building. This has been used in planning various different other places around the country, but I am a little bit reluctant -- you are not really gaining in this particular case -- in other words, you don't squeeze some together to gain some here. This is just a matter of squeezing everything together in order to get this:type of construction on this particular piece of property. You point out the fact that you could develop some giant con- struction, long and ugly. Certainly this would be possible. I am really reluctant to get into a situation where we set up some kind of precedence beginning to squeeze down the requirements for the open space between individual units." Mr. Venable asked, "Why?" Mr. Compton stated, "My feeling is that when they set up the "MF" zoning that we are dealing with here they certainly had in mind all the possi- bilities for which you would develop, and I don't think it is our job to sit here and choose up sides between all the alternatives you might have and say, "Yes, we would be better off -in letting this go by with a waiver than seeing a long narrow unit there." I am not sure that is our job. I am not reluctant to give a waiver if you are going to squeeze some up between two buildings in order to gain more space between the other two adjacent buildings. That doesn't bother me.' BLIt to squeeze them all up, that bothers me. That is my personal opinion." - 9 - Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes October 16. 1972 Mr. Venable asked if they realized that they were reducing the density from 68 to 54? Mr. Compton replied, 1°Yes, I do." Mr. Shanks stated, "Which increases the square feet of green space. I don't know how that works out but that is what they tell me. In other words, you can put 68 units in "X" number of square feet of green space. If you put 54 units, if we approve this thing, then you are going to reduce the amount of green space. Reduce units -- reduce green space. I don't know how that works out on paper, but that's what they are telling us." The Chairman asked what would be the height of these buildings? Mr. Venable replied they would be 22 ft. The Chairman stated that would mean that the structures would have to be 44 ft. apart. Mr. Shanks asked, "Who originally requested the zoning?" Mr. Reynolds replied, "The original request for "MF 24" zoning was made by Mr. Ted Sternberg who had an option to purchase from Pleasant Valley. The Staff recommended "MF 18" which was granted by the Planning Com- mission. At a later date, Mr. Venable purchased the option from Mr. Sternberg." The Chairman asked for a motion. A motion was made to approve the reduced side yard on one side only; therefore, on alternate sides leaving it the ordinance requirement which would probably give an average of 32 ft. instead of either 44 ft. or the reduced as in the application. Mr. Barber asked, "What would be the reduction? If you reduce one side yard -- what would be the remaining side yard?" Mr. Flake replied, "It would be the ordinance requirement." Mr. Barber stated, "Side yard in "MF" District is equal to height of building. If you reduce to one-half on one side, then leave the other side full?" Mr. Flake said, "It would be the full height on the other side." The Chairman asked what would it be on the reduced side? =WE Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes October 16, 1972 Mr. Flake'said, "It would be the 10 ft. requested on the reduced side. As long as these are required to be alternated (in the plat) that would give you the combination of 10 ft. plus the height in between every structure." The Chairman asked for a second to the motion. The motion to approve the reduced side yard on one side only; there- fore, on alternate sides leaving it the ordinance requirement which would probably give an average of 32 ft. instead of either 44 ft, or the reduced distance as applied for, was seconded and passed by 3 ayes and 2 noes. DEFERRED MATTERS Item No. 1 - Z-1915-A Applicant: Putnam Realty and Associates Location: 6320 Baseline Road Description: The south 170' of the west 140' of Tract 16, Arnolds Highland Acres Classification: "E-l" Quiet Business District Variance: Requests a Variance from the area provisions of Section 43-6 of the Code of Ordinances to permit erection of sign in excess of permitted 144 sq. ft. (four 6'x6' faces) The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "This case was deferred at the last meeting at the request of the applicant after much discussion of the case. The Staff restates its previous recommendation which was "denial of the application as submitted and recommends instead approval of a non -rotating sign, single pole mount with facings either a double faced sign 6'x6' on each side for a total of 72 sq. ft., or a box type sign limited to 4'x4' panels for a total of 64 sq. ft." Mr. Dover asked Mr. Compton, Vice Chairman, to preside. Mr. Tom Lovett was present to represent the applicant. He brought several photographs of signs and explained where each was located and how they were zoned. He said the subject property was located in a fast growing commercial area. They had no objection to lowering the sign 15 ft. as was suggested at the previous meeting. They have had no objection from adjacent neighbors. Little Rock Board of Adjustment Minutes October 16, 1972 They will compromise for a V x5' sign. The proposed building will be between 12 and 16 ft. in height. Mr. Shanks made the motion that the variance be granted on two,condi- tions (1) that the sign be placed on a.single pedestal from the ground as it lays now. (2) that the top of the pedestal be 15 ft. The Chairman asked if there were any objectors present. There were none. Mr. Flake said, "I would second the motion for the purpose of offering an amendment -- the total height of the sign should not exceed 15 ft. and the size be four 5'x5' faces." The Chairman said, Ve have a motion and a second if an amendment to the motion is acceptable; otherwise, we don't have a second." Mr. Shanks asked to rephrase his motion that the variance be granted with these exceptions: that the sign be 4 sides 5'x5', rotating, and the height of the sign from its place of location not exceed the elevation of the building. The Chairman asked for a second to the motion. Mr. Taylor asked if he wanted to include the single pedestal as stated in his first motion. Mr. Shanks decided to rephrase his motion as follows: Approve the variance 1. That the face be 5'xV on four sides 2. That the sign be allowed to rotate 3. That the top of the sign not exceed the elevation of the building This third motion was seconded and passed. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m. e40 Darrell D. Dover, Chairman - 12 -