Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_04 17 1972LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT M I N U T E S APRIL 17,1972 MEMBERS PRESENT Darrell Dover, Chairman S. Spencer Qbmpton, Vice Chairman L. Dickson Flake Lawrence Woolsey Capp Shanks, Jr. MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF PRESENT Don R. Venhaus John. L. Taylor Louis E. Barber Richard Wood James Finch Floyd Villines Dorothy Riffel OTHERS Perry Whitmore, Asst. City Attorney J. Huddleston, Gazette Reporter To may Jordan, Democrat Reporter 2:00 P.M. There being a quorum present, the meeting.was c alled to order by the Chairman at 2:00 P.M. A motion was made for approval of the minutes of the last meeting which was seconded and passed. Action was taken on new matters advertised for public hearing: Tract No. 1 - Z.-2579 Applicant: B. C. Corporation and Fairmont, Inc. Location: 724 Bishop Street Description: E'k of Lots 7 and. 8, and all of east 125 feet of Lot 9, in Block 12, Faust's Addition Classification: "D"-Apartment District Variance: Requests (1) permission under the Provisions of Section 43.22(4)(d) of the Code of Ordinances to permit a parking lot in a residential zone; (2) requests a Variance from the Front Yard Open Space Provisions of Section 43.20(2)(f) of the Code of Ordinances to permit parking in the Front Yard Space -l- Board of Adjustment Minutes April 17,1972 The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: (This Variance request is the result of a zoning violation investigation.) A Variance to permit parking was suggested to the applicant rather than rezoning due to this site being located within the proposed Mills Freeway right-of-way. i The Staff recommends deferral of this matter -for a period of one year for purpose of determining status of acquisition of property by'H ghway Department." Mr. Taylor explained the recommendati.on'saying this would allow the applicant to continue to use the lot in its present form with no improvements, but he would be "stayed" on further proceedings by the Staff, and continue its use until some- thing is determined on the right-of-way question. Mr. Claude Carpenter, Jr., attorney for the applicant, was present who'said he did not entirely understand the Staff's recommendation to permit its use in its present firm. .He indicated that they.are presently parking on one lot, but the other they have not. The application is the result of the City inspector informing them that under penalty of the law parking would have to stop. He stated that they had not improved the lot according to City ordinance (the one on the corner) and the other they have done nothing to except to. tear the house down that was there. "Our request is for parking space unrestricted. We will improve it according.to City Ordinance and_make every effort to comply with every zoning regulation and improvement regu- lation by the City. We.do not want to be restricted in this property. We want to know something before the year is out. It would be to our advantage to improve the property by paving it for our tenants." Mr. Venhaus said the posture of the Staff would remain the same even in view of Mr. Carpenter's statement. He indicated that they would be able to continue to use this property for off-street parking as they are presently doing. "They would not be required to improve the property, pave it, curb it, etc. There would be no point in being evasive about it. Our position is based on the notion that we do not want to see additional value built into this property that would have to be acquired by the public when the Mills Freeway is being built, nor do we want to risk any dependence or relationship being established between the property in question and the principal structure. Therefore we would be opposed to granting a variance allowing this use of the property. Parking in a.resid.ential district is a privileged use of the property. It does require a variance.from the Board of Adjustment to proceed with parking, and in view of what seems to me to be a clear public interest here .our recommendation would be that we not approve that use, and that we continue this case for a year " Mr. Carpenter asked if that meant that they could not pave the parking area. Mr. Venhaus replied that they could pave it but would do so at their own risk."Assuming that if the .Board reflected the Staff's recommendation in its decision, if they surface the parking area they would have done so without any clear definitive posi- tion from the City as to their .right to use it for off-street parking. We would not be authorizing or sanctioning the improvement of the property for parking use." Mr —Whitmore was asked to comment on this position. He said basically he agreed with the Staff's position,. but the City would be in an awkward position if they went to the trouble of improving it under this type of arrangement and then the City should determine a year from now not to continue the use. -2- Boaxtd of Adjustment Minutes Apt i I IT,107 Mr. Carpenter said the property is presently zoned'"D"-Apartment and asked what the City's position tdould be if they decided to build an apartment. Mr. Venhaus replied that the City would refuse to issue a building permit and give the Highway Department an opportunity to purchase the land before an apartment could be built. Mr. Carpenter then stinted that either they are going to use it as they want to use it with free and unrest`--ticted use of the property; or the City of the Highway Department is going fn purchase it, and that they would take whatever steps necessary to comply with the ordinance. The only question, he said, was whether or not they are permitted to pave it. Mr. Dover answered that the City will not stop them from paving it, but they wanted him to know that by not stopping him no legal rights would be gained. Mr. Carpenter said "in pavin- it the City will not force me to put in all the requirements under the local ordinance for paving parking lots?" To which Mr. Venhaus replied that the City would not require him to comply nth the parking ordinance. Mr. Venhaus added that the Staff is basing its recommendation on the fact that the land has been identified as property clearly within the proposed right-of-way of Mills Freeway and we have been assured that the Highway Department or the public will be purchasing the property within 22 years. He added that "we do not mean to be devious or comp-licate the matter or in any way impair the use of the property but we think there is a strong public interest here and we are trying to avoid additional expense in the acquisition of the property when it is necessary for the Freeway." A motion was made that the matter be deferred for a twelve months eriod, which was seconded and passed. Mr. Dickson Flake Abstained from the discussion and voting. Tract No. 2 - Z-1048 Applicant: Little Rock Land Company Location: 500 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 -an 8th story to existing building and construction of 8 story addition thereto extending to a height of 25 feet. The Staff's recommendation was read as foliows: "The Staff recommends approval of the requested Variance. The proposed construction should not affect adjacent properties and the land area is large enough to accommodate the parking and other requirements of the ordinance." Messrs. William Terry, Attorney, representing the applicant; Tom Gray, architect; and Duane S. King, Vice President of the Little Rock Land Company, were present. Mr. Terry said they, of course, concurred with the Staff's recommendation. There were no objectors. A motion was made for approval of the Variance as requested, which was seconded and passed. -3- Bot.rd of Adjustment Minutes April 17 1972 Tract No. 3 - Z-2561. Applicant: Lewis S. Rauton amd Metro Center, Inc. Location:901 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 building to a height of 100 feet plus signs and flags of 25 feet additional The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends approval of requested Variance. This proposal is part of the overall plan of development of the southeast area along the Mills Freeway at University. (The matter of a possible easement in connection with Coleman Creek is being explored at this writing.) Mr. Lewis Rauton, #18 Nottingham Road, was present in the interest of the applica- tion. There were no objectors. Mr. Taylor stated that Public Works Department had requested a 10 foot easement along the east side of this property for Coleman Creek drainage for a distance equal to where Coleman Creek lies within 40 feet of the property. Mr. Rauton said that Coleman Creek extends to .the northeast and does not parallel his property. Mr. Venhaus added -that if.it would accommodate the applicant, the City would accept an 8 foot easement -where the creek lies adjacent to subject property. It was suggested by. the Staff they they could see no reason why Mr. Rauton could not park inside that drainage easement. Mr. Rauton added that they plan a 6 foot planting area along that side and that he has had considerable fill placed on the southeast corner of this property raising it approximately 15 feet. This would require construction of a retaining wall to retain the fill. Mr. Taylor explained that in connection with the drainage easement, as far as actually needing it for drainage of the ditch itself there is little need, but wanted Public Works Department to have access along the east of the parking lot if they ever need to get into it. Mr. Rauton added that they were in process of attempting to open loth Street which would provide all the access they might need but that he was agreeable to the 8 foot easement for the distance required. A motion was made for approval of the application subject to Rroviding an 8 foot drainage easement along Coleman Creek for a distance equal to where Coleman Creek lies within 40 feet of the property as requested by Public Works Department. The motion was seconded and passed. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 P. M. Darrell Dover, Chairman 60_t��, Z&� Don R. Venhaus, Secretary -4-