Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_03 15 1971LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT M I N U T E S MARCH 15 1971 2:00 P.M. MEMBERS - P RES ENT L. Dickson Flake, Chairman Dave Grundfest, Jr. Spencer Compton Darrell Dover Lawrence Woolsey MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF PRESENT Dpn R. Venhaus L,6is E. Barber Richard Wood Jim Finch Dorothy Riffel OTHERS Perry Whitmore, Asst. City Attorney J. Huddles ton, Gazette Reporter Brenda Tirey, Democrat Reporter 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 as follows: Tract No. 1 - Z-2435 Applicant : J. H. Hill Location: 1712 Cumberland Street Description: "CI" -Two-family District Variance: Requests permission under the provisions of Section 43,22 (4) (d) of the Code.of Ordinances to�permit a parking lot in a residential zone The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends approval of this requested variance under the provisions of para (4) (d) Sec. 43-22.- (This case was considered at the -last meeting when the applicant -requested waiver of parking to accommodate expanded construction. He was advss,.ed to.apply to the Board of Adjustment to authorize a parking lot on adjacent property zoned "C"= lwro-family residential." Board of Adjustment Minutes - March 15.1971 Mr. David Blackwell of Ball and Hill, rug cleaners, was present representing the applicant, J. H. Hill. This lot is to be used for additional parking,_in.conjunctibh with the proposed addition to their building at 1715 Scott Street.. This recommend.am tion, he said, was made to them at the last meeting of the Board of Adjustment. A motion that the application be approved was made, which was seconded and passed. Tract No. 2 m Z=2250 Applicant: Cook Realty Company Locations 700°Block Interstate 30 (east side) Description: All of Block 5, and the north 15 feet of Block 12, Woodruff Addition, and that portion of East 8th Street lying between said Block's Classification: "I"=Light Industrial District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Height Provisions of Section 43-16 0£ the Code of Ordinances to permit construction of motor hotel to a height of M feet or 9 stories plus elevator tower The Staff°s recommendation was read as follows.- "The Staff recommends approval of the requested Variance. (The same requested Variance involving the same property was approved by the Board January 20,1969 for a proposed Howard Johnson Motel development which was subsequently abandoned.)" Mr. Gene Lewis, realtor, representing the applicant, was present. He said tae-toped that the Board would go along with the Staff recommendation. A motion was made that the application be approved, which was seconded and passed. Tract No. 3 - Z-2444 Applicants The Shack, Inc. Locations 1400 West 3rd Street Description: Lots 10, 11 and the S1 of Lot 12, Block 341, Cherry's Subdivision of Original City Classification: "Gml°" Commercial District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Front Yard Setback Provisions of Section 43-17 (4) of the Code of Ordinances to permit addition to non -conforming structure. The Staff recommended approval of this application. Mr. George Cook, was present representing the applicant, stating that they` -need this little addition, 13' X 14' to relieve congestion inside the Shack restaurant. It will be of masonry construction with a concrete floor. A motion was made that the application be approved, which was seconded and passed. 5 Board of Adjustment Minutes March 15, 1971 Tract No. 4 e Z-2160 Applicant: Location: Description: Classification: Heritage Corporation Trustee 2011 West 2nd Street Lots 11 and 12, and Lot 10 except that portion lying within the Third Street right-of-way in Block 6, Plunkett°s 2nd Addition "F"-Commercial District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Yard Setback Provi- sions of Section 43-15 of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction of parking deck extend- ing into yard space the Staff°s recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends approval of the requested Variance provided that the southwest corner of the structure be set back 25 feet from and parallel to the presently located sidewalk." Mr. Joe Grover, Secretary -Treasurer of the Heritage Corporation, the applicant, was present who expressed an opinion as to the requirement of the 25 foot setback stating that it would effect the deck parking adversely. Sufficient explanation was made to him to eliminate this concern. Mr. Venhaus added that because of the City°s ownership of an extensive amount of right-of-way, the developers of the property would not be required to set back under this recommendation 25 feet from their front property line. They would be allowed to take advantage of the rather extensive right-of-way extending on down to,Third Street, and he requested the Board of Adjustment to give considera- tion to prohibiting street level parking in the front yard area (25' setback area). The variance is still being required, but they are being allowed to use in effect public property for their own development purposes. Mr. Venhaus asked for considera- tion to prohibit offstreet parking at ground level in that front yard setback area; that it all be open space and unencumbered front setback area for aesthetic purposes. This would apply to that area 25 feet north of the sidewalk along the sidewalk, and anything at ground level between that 25 foot setback and the build- ing itself could then be parked in if they chose. A motion was made that the application be approved with a stipulation that the area 25 feet north__of.the north edge of the sidewalk along Third Street not be used for either building or parking. The motion was seconded and passed. Tract No. 5 - Z-2442 Applicant: Texaco, Inc. Location: 5501 South University Avenue Description: Long legal Classification: "A" -One -family District Variance: Requests a Vap iance from the non -conforming Use Provisions of Section 32-11 (2) (g) of the Code of Ordinances to permit addition to exist- ing service station; (2)from the Front Yard Setback Provisions of Section 43-15 of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction in front (Continued on next page) yard space -3- Board of Adjustment Minutes - March 15,1971 The Staff°s recommendation was made as follows: "The Staff recommends approval of the requested Variance provided a minimum of 15 foot vertical clearance be maintained between ground surface and the underside of the canopy." Mr. W. L. Stoker, representing the applicant, was present. He stated that they desire to erect a free-standing canopy for a pump to keep customers out of the weather. This has been done at other locations in the City. A motion was made for approval of the application subject to a 15 foot vertical clearance as required by the Staff, which was s,ecgnded and passed.+ ,V. OTHER MATTERS 1. Discussion of accessory uses to churches in "A" and "B" Zoning D istricts A motion was made to defer the discussion of this matter until the regular April 1,1971 meeting, which was seconded and passed. VI. ELECTION OF OFFICERS. FOR1971 By acclamation Messrs. Spencer Compton and Darrell Dover were elected Chairman and Vice Chairman respectively for the ensuing year. Mr. Venhaus asked permission to present another matter of business concerning procedures for processing development plans for residential development. He said there is a 'section in the zoning ordinance called Residential Development Plan that enables the 'Board of Adjustment to grant approval of more than one structure on a lot after proper application is made, notices given to adjacent property owners, and is properly adver- tised. There has been consideration given for some time by members of the Sta'ff, members of the Board of Adjustment, and members of the real estate industry to amend this process to allow the Staff to consider these residential development plans and grant Staff approval to them unless there is a Variance requested, parking, structure height, setbacks - and in many instances these residential development plans are quite simple in nature. There has been some feeling that perhaps the delay in the notice of hearing provision is somewhat an unnecessary encumbrance on development. The Planning Commission has asked the Staff to investigate the matter of amending the ordinance on such a basis. In other words, to allow the Staff to take jurisdiction over these development plans' approval except on an appeal basis. The appeal would be for a variance on a situation where the Staff might impose requirements on the development plan on which an applicant does not agree, and that he would be able to appeal the matter. I did not want to get into such an amendment without having this Board's reaction to it, and consideration of it. Mr. Dover said in his opinion it was a fine idea, but asked if it could be done legally - that Act 186 states that the Board of Adjustment can do this, that and the other - - Mr. Venhaus added your jurisdiction arises from --an absolute requirement in the ordinance that there be one structure on each lot, parcel or tract. This residential development plan procedure is located in the Board of Adjustment section of the Zoning Ordinance and that power is specifically given 'to the Board of Adjustment. Now to maintain the procedure and do it on an administrative level, and include the Board of Adjustment only when an appeal to a variance is requested, makes a lot of sense administratively, but " I share your concern of whether or not it is legal. You can even question whether the procedure is legal with the Board of Adjustment approval since Act 186 is essentially silent.on this kind of procedure. I don't know,and I think it would be unfair to ask Mr. Whitmore to render a judgment "off the cuff". I think the whole investigation of m4® Board of Adjustment Minutes March 15,1971 the procedure presupposes that it is legal. Of course, it would not be done if there were any opportunity that it were not legal." Mr. Dover added that he thought it is a problem that will come up and be tested. Mr. Venhaus stated that there is another possibility. We have got this provision - though they differ somewhat in wording. I think the intent is about the same. There is a provision in the subdivision regulations generally to the effect that the Planning Commission may approve large scale development plans and it goes on to construe development plans as more than one structure on a plot or lot, much the same as the other provision does. There is a possibility that it might have to be dropped entirely from the zoning ordinance in order to effect the amendment and then be accomplished under the subdivision regulations which would give the Planning Commission jurisdiction over the question. Of course you would get back to the same kind of situation; could the Planning Commission delegate this authority to the Staff. If they could not then the only thing that would be accomplished is it could go the Planning Commission - that section of the subdivision regulations does not require notice of hearing so you would not.have to go through the formality of filing an application, and sending out notices to adjacent property owners, but you would still have to meet the public hearing schedule - the Planning Commission schedule and Subdivision Committee's schedule. That really would not accomplish too much. I think possibly the appropriate way to proceed on the thing is to ask the attorney°s office to investigate the first question - whether It could be retained in the zoning ordinance other than as a preroga- tive of the Board of Adjustment, and, secondly, what use might be made of this section of the Subdivision regulations. One of the things that I think has been especially burdensome is the requirement.of notice of public hearing because I think in many cases it has given rise to the opportunity to protest something that really should not have been protested. In other words, the property has already been zoned for use. The question at that point would be if the buildings were separated properly, that there was sufficient access, and parking, and this kind of thing, to insure fire protection, etc.but we found ourselves in the middle of a question of whether or not apartments, should be built there which should not be debated at that point as the property had already been zoned. When asked why it was in the ordinance in the first place, Mr. Venhaus said the simple answer would be it was there as a remedy or a relief to the ordinance requirement that you could only have one structure on one lot, tract, or parcel of ground. Possibly the drafter of the ordinance recognized that you would deal with such things as apartment complexes, group housing, cluster housing or townhouses that was entirely different in nature and character than single-family development of one structure to one lot. However, the way the ordinance is drafted leads me to believe that they were way ahead of their time and they actually saw the possibility of utilizing this section or giving a more expansive use like planned unit development. Some of the wording in it indicates to me that they considered the possibility of perhaps building townhouses in a "B"-Resi- deuce District, or giving the Board that prerogative. That is another reason why I am not sure that it would be good to completely do array with it. What we are trying to accomplish is to streamlinetheprocedures to take care of those questions that do not require the participation of the Board where we -are talking about parking standards, setback standards, minimum separation, etc., and allow those to move quickly on an administrative level, and to retain the other kind of issues. Mr. Venhaus, in answer to a question, said that the Staff works very closely with the Fire Department on questions of access for fire equipment, etc. -5- Board of Adjustment Minutes March 15 ,1971 Mr. Flake said he shared that feeling that many times it seems to be simply a delay when it is pretty well cut and dried. Mr. Venhaus said the Staff is pursuing the matter, and would keep them posted as to progress. A motion was made that the meeting be adjourned, which was seconded and passed. It was adjourned at 2:45 P. M. L. Dickson Flake, Chairman -6- AAaLAI/P, t1h, 144 Don R. Venhaus, Secretary