Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_04 19 1971LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT M I N U T E S APRIL 19.1971 MEMBERS PRESENT Spencer Compton, Chairman Darrell Dover, Vice Chairman L. Dickson Flake Dave Grundfest, Jr. Lawrence Woolsey MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF PRESENT Don R. Venhaus John Lo Taylor Louis E. Barber Richard Wood James Finch Dorothy Riffel OTHERS Perry Whitmore, Asst. City Attorney J. Huddleston, 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 as follows on advertised matters: Tract No. 1 - Z-1546 Applicant: The Pioneer Corporation Location: East 8th Street at Ferry Street Description: Lots 1 through 6, Block 1, Lots 1 through 7, Lots 13 through 16, of Block 2, Johnson's Addn. Classification: "E"-Apartment District Variance: (1) Requests a Variance from the Height Provisions of Section 43-13-(1) of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction of 15 story apartment building (to a height of 130.8 feet plus elevator tower) (2) Requests a Variance from the Lot Area per family Provisions of Section 43-13-(5) to permit a density of 447 square feet per dwelling unit. Staff recommendation: This tract was rezoned to "E"-Apartment and a development plan approved by the Planning Commission February 6,1964 for two structures containing a total of 288 units. The density amounted to 506 square feet of lot area per family. Board of Adjustment Minutes - ADril 19,1971 The existing development which is only one structure contains 144 apartment units plus some commercial area on ground level on a used area of 88,438 square feet for a density of 614 square feet of lot area per family and provides a total of 164 parking spaces. The proposed development, an additional structure containing 182 units, and 6000 square feet of commercial area on ground floor, will be constructed on the remaining 57,271 square feet at a density of 314 square feet of lot area per unit, and provide 192 parking spaces for the 182 units and for the commercial area. The applicant proposes to combine the two areas as one site which would then be developed at an overall density of 447 square feet per unit with 326 units and 360 parking spaces. This proposal makes no provision for parking spaces for accessory commercial uses within the existing building which require approxi- mately 23 spaces. Based on the facts stated above, it is recommended that the original density of a total of 288 units at a lot area of 506 square feet be retained, and the request for height variance be approved provided (1) the lot area per dwelling unit not be less than 500 square feet; (2) the commercial uses be restricted to authorized accessory uses only; (3) and the site plan be adjusted to retain the maximum number of trees on the west side of the tract." Mr. Venhaus pointed out that this property was originally dealt with some years ago and it was approved for a density of 506 square feet for each dwelling unit, so this variance request comes on top of the previous approval by the Planning Commission for this site. Also it was explained that due to lack of communication betweeti the architect and the applicants they did not follow the usual policy of sending notices to adjoining property owners within 140 feet of the property according to az abstractor's list of the property ownership. They sent out telegrams presumably to all adjacent property owners, but the Staff could not certify that all property owners within 140 feet were contacted. The Staff can certify that everyone to whom they sent a telegram received it and acknowledged it, but we cannot certify that all property owners were contacted. Mr. Lyle Bettis, Secretary of the Pioneer corporation, the applicant, stated that all property owners were notified. The Chairman stated that the first order of business was whether or not the Board wished to consider this case based on the way it was advertised and prresented. Upon an assurance by Mr. Joe Buffalo, attorney for the applicant, that all property owners within 140 feet were contacted, a motion was made that the Board hear the case, which was seconded and passed. Mr. Venhaus said "in simple language, the Staff is recommending that we hold them from a density standpoint to just about the original granting - not below 500 square feet. The ordinance requirement is 600 square feet in an "E"-Apartment District. There was previously a waiver of 100 square feet. It was pointed out that a basic consideration is that on the Ferry Street side (west side of the proposed new site) there is now a row of oak trees that the applicant acquired when the public vacated Ferry Street which we would like to do everything possible to save. Mr. Buffalo, attorney for the applicant, said he had consulted with Mr. Bill Finley, architect, about the trees and they do plan to save the trees anyway. He indicated that they had been working since 1964 to get a feasible plan that they could afford to build which would be a feasible project. They have filed an application with FHA for mortgage insurance for the 182 units on the new Quapaw Towers Building. He said they felt that the location of this tract in Little Rock -2- Board of Adjustment Minutes- Avri1 19,1971 should be considered as to whether or not to waive the density requirement. The property is just north of Mac Arthur Park and along the Interstate #30 expressway and is an area of low density now with lots of open space and green area in the vicinity. Mr. Lyle Bettis, Secretary of the Pioneer Corporation, the applicant, said when they bought this property on the east side the corporation took a chance to help build the east side of Little Rock; they saw the potential and they did their best to finance the motel unit and the two apartment buildings. They spent 16 months dealing with every mortgage bank from New York to Florida and financing was impossible as they felt the company was not substantial enough to build the complex. The motel is now up and in operation, Quapaw Towers is complete and been open for four years with less than .01 of 1% vacancy with 127 on the wait- ing list. With 182 units it is feasible, but not with only 144 units due to increased construction costs and interest rates. He added that they would like to see another building comparable to the one they have; that they have proved that this is a nice place for people to live, Mr. Buffalo said that the application for the second Quapaw Towers which is proposed will include more efficiency apartments and one bedroom apartments as opposed to two and three bedroom units in the original building.as the demand for this type accommodation has been greater than they could fill. The new develop- ment calls for only 42 two -bedroom apartments, no three bedroom apartments, and the rest effficiency and one bedroom units. The fact that there will be more than 144 apartments does not necessarily mean that there will be more people there, and increase the density. Mr. Finley, architect, said there was no way that the trees could be saved with 182 unit density and added that by reducing the parking requirements there would be no problem in saving the trees. The parking would have to be revised on the Ferry Street side of the project. Mr, Venhaus expressed the opinion that "we are in an area of dangerous kind of precedent if we waive the ordinance for high density apartments. First of all, if we approve this project, by virtue of the original grant they have already received a waiver of 100 square feet per unit, and the overall density was reduced from 600 to 500 square feet per unit. This was done when the project was approved in 1964. To my knowledge this Board has not waived the density for apartment use except at 18th and Broadway, when you did reduce from 600 to 500 square feet on a proposed apartment complex for the elderly. I think there were good reasons for doing that insomuch as the lifestyle and use of the property was guaranteed by the government for a period of twenty years and there were some pretty firm guidelines in terms of the automobile demands, etc. for the site. With the exception of that project, I don't know of any waivers that have been granted. When we consider a waiver, even though you have an over-all density of 447 square feet, you are going below 400 square feet with the development on this particular site. Whether you look at it as a combined dansity of 447 square feet or the 300+ square feet for this particular development, that departs substantially from the ordinance. I am aware of the marketing problems and land costs, etc., but we are in a very tenuous position if the public standard gives way completely to whatever kind of development a man can finance on a piece of property. We may as well not have a standard of any kind. If you approve this for 447 square fo-et overall, I don't know where we stand with respect to a project that comes in for -3- Board of Adjustment Minutes A&ri 1 19, 1971 D 400 or 350 square feet. It is a very tenuous position, to say the least. X Q We have also been working with the FHA to see how they would respond to this Q project. We have reason to believe that they might not approve it the way it is submit- ted because of this density and lack of open space. The applicant has not submitted laps tb the FHA yet so at the moment we do not know how they respond to this site. le do know they use a land intensity ratio on their determination for market purposes, and this project does not finish very well utilizing that land use intensity ratio. The Staff would urge that consideration be given to the original waiver of 500 square feet per dwelling unit." Mr. Lyndel Lay, of L. E.Lay and Company, mortgage bankers, was present. He stated this has been submitted to the FHA for insurance, and in his opinion the project will be approved by FHA if this waiver is granted. The procedure that FHA follows basically includes a session with the land planner who comes from Fort Worth, and to his knowledge he has not visited in Little Rock - at least with the owners of the property. Mr. Lay said he felt with the waiver they have a good chance of the FHA approving the project due to the fact that MacArthur Park and the Freeway being in such close proximity the property lends itself to this type of structure as opposed to being built in a different location where there might be the possi- bility of highrise apartments being built around it. Mr. Lay said the application was filed sometime ago for receipt of a feasibility letter. "The procedure is to file preliminary information which does not call for a complete set of plans and working drawings. If the FHA thinks it is feasible they issue a letter of feasibility and at that time a set of plans and working }It�� drawings are filed. They do not encourage that this be done until such time as the cation and then found out that we had this project is feasible. We filed the appli problem with the City and we requested FHA to hold the application in abeyance until this meeting was held. They have not indicated that theywould decline the project- L, 182 units -" Mr. Dover asked if the 600 square foot requirement was relatively new. Mr. Venhaus replied that this has always been a part of the ordinance. "'That was the require- ment at the time this property was acquired in 1964. That was the condition that was required when the property was first acquired by the Little Rock Housing Author- ity, and this project was originally submitted as one project. The requirement was 71 600 square feet by ordinance and it was reduced at that time to 500 square feet. f, We reviewed other ordinances and found that the 600 square feet was not particular- ly restrictive. A lot of ordinances around the country require 650, 700, and even Q 800 square feet. our thinking from the Staff's standpoint on reducing the density m -requirement of highrise apartments has been more toward apartment development that might take place in the central core itself where you have "H" zoning in the 4entral business district. We have been thinking about removing completely density requirements in that extremely high density area. Again, though, this property is not located in the core of the City and not located in the core of the downtown area. I would question whether it would be very desirable in the flanking area of the core to completely diminish this standard." Mr. Flake said "I feel the circumstances of the Freeway and the Park justify consideration of a waiver and does not necessarily indicate a broad precedent." He then made a motion that the application for the height variance and the unit density variance be given subject to the following conditions: (1) that no matter what is done to accommodate the second condition (reference is made to the Staff's recommendation 'the commercial uses be restricted to authorized accessory uses only') that there be no waiver of parking -4- Board of Adjustment Minutes Avril 19,1971__ ratio. (2) that there be no excavation or surface parking or any other work which would damage the trees in the right-of-way of closed Ferry Street. Mr. Flake added that no waiver is granted for commercial uses .and that there be no commercial uses other than authorized accessory uses. The motion was seconded and passed. Tract No. 2 - Z-2460 Applicant: Camelot Inn, Little Rock, Inc. Location: Garland Street at Spring Street Description: Long legal Classification: "H"-Business District Variance• Requests a Variance from the Height Provisions of Section 43-19-(1) of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction of building to a height of 225 feet above Garland Street grade - to an elevation of 496.0 Mean Sea Level Mr. Herbert Rule, attorney representing the applicant, was present. Mr. Rule stated that the purpose of the waiver is to permit the Camelot Inn Hotel to be constructed on this site which is bounded by LaHarpe Boulevard on the north by the south boundary of Garland Street on the south, by the east part of the auditorium on the west, and on the east bounded by the west line of Lot 6, Block 99. The location of the hotel at this location is designed to permit the construction of the Convention Center Complex. Mr. Gene Levy, architect, was also present. A motion was made for approval of the application for Variance of height of 225 feet above Garland Street grade to an elevation of 496.0 feet Mean Sea Level. The motion was seconded and passed. i1. OTHER MATTER Consideration of church uses in "A"-One-f xaily and "B"-Residence Districts The Chairman requested Mr. Venhaus to supply some background for discussion of this matter. Mr. Venhaus said he had mailed the Board members a memorandum last month summarizing the dreumstances of an application for a building permit by the First Christian Church for a multi -purpose facility. Last month I submitted some questions to you for determination under authority of the zoning ordinance. The issues specifically are several. One of the significant questions is whether or not the facility proposed by the First Christian Church is a recreational type facility, is closely enough akin to playgrounds, community centers and those recreational -type uses included in the ordinance to make it fall within the province of the Board of Adjustment, and requires that an application be submitted to the Board of Adjustment for review and approval before a permit should be issued. Another question relates to the matter of accessory uses, whether or not such a thing as playgrounds, gymnasium, roller skating rink, pools, etc. associated with church programs should be considered customary accessory uses or -5 - Board of Adjustment Minutes aril 19.1971 whether again these are specifically dealt with in the ordinance and are of the type that are not allowed as a use by right in an "A" and "B" District, and require approval of the Board of Adjustment before a building permit can be issued. I did withhold a permit on February 19th. No application has been made to the Board of Adjustment by the Church. The matter has been to the Board of Directors on several occasions. This memorandum was at my initiative as Director of the Department of Community Development and is asking that you interpret the ordinance and render an interpretation so we will know how to proceed not only in this matter but on other issues as they come up in connection with private clubs that build recreational facilities, educational institutions, YMCA, Boys Clubs, etc. Again I would remind you we are not discussing specifically the First Christian Church facility except that represents a type of use that is in question. No application has been filed, no notices have been sent to adjacent property owners. The issue before the Board of Adjustment is strictly one of interpretation of the ordinance." At Mr. Compton's suggestion, the two portions of the ordinance relating to this issue were read. "On Page 759, Section 43-3-(4) of Article II establishes those uses allowed in an "A" and "B" District. The way this ordinance is organized only those uses that are specifically set forth in that Chapter are allowed in an "A" and "B" District. Under "A" and "B" Districts the uses that are allowed in this single-family District are one -family dwellings, churches, public schools, elemen- tary and high schools, other educational institutions with curriculums equivalent to a public elementary school or public high school, museums, libraries, parks, playgrounds or community centers owned and operated by the City, golf courses, crop farming and truck gardening, but not including livestock or other farming activity, and accessory buildings and accessory uses customarily incidental to these principal uses. These are the uses allowed. Again I think the significant thing is that churches are clearly allowed as a use by right in an "A" and "B" District. Museums, parks, libraries, playgrounds, community centers are allowed only if they are owned and operated by the public. The Zoning Ordinance establishes the duties and responsibilities and authority of the Board of Adjustment, Page 793, Sec. 43-22- (4) (D) sets forth the functions, duties and authority of the Board of Adjustment. It is titled in this way. The Board shall have the following powers and it shall be its duty to - and I make specific reference to paragraph D- "permit the location of the following uses in a district from which they are prohibited by this Chapter - airport, nursery, greenhouse, libraries, museum, community center, hospital, institutions of educational, religious or philanthropic nature, and parking lots. " My position is that the ordinance itself makes the distinction between a church as a principal use, and the other accessory type facilities such as recreational programs, and I think even educational buildings under a strict reading of the ordinance. For these reasons and for this understanding of the ordinance, and for this interpretation of the ordinance, I have taken the position that the First Christian Church and other institutions that are not owned and operated by the public, building similar facilities are required to make application to the Board of Adjustment for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. If you rule that such recreational facilities, playgrounds, etc. are a customery and incidental part of the principal use of the church then it will be our policy and we will not only immediately issue a permit in the Fifst Christian Church, but in the future will also issue permits to churches for similar type of facilities. I think we would be obliged to do the same thing for Boys Clubs, YMCA, private clubs within an "A" and "B" District and these other uses that presently come to us and either change the zoning to "C" on the property, or submit an application to the Board of Adjustment for the use of such facilities. For instance, the Racquet Club in Foxcroft, the recreational facility in Pleasant Valley - in both of these -6- Board of Adjustment Minutes April 19,1971 instances the neighborhood brought those areas in to be zoned "C"-Two-family. Under our ordinance "C", unlike "A" and "B", allows these facilities as a use by right.They could have exercised another alternative which was to bring these proposals before the Board of Adjustment and you could have permitted them in an "A' and "B" District after review and approval. As a matter of fact, we have three or four very recent subdivision recreation areas where they are building tennis courts, swimming pools, and related facilities for the exclusive use of the Owners Association in that Subdivision, and they have brought these properties in on the front end and asked that they be zoned "C" for that purpose. They could also bring them to the Board of Adjustment for approval in an "A" and "B" District. "C" District includes those uses that "A" and "B" excludes." Mr. Charles Brown, attorney representing the First Christian Church, was present. He stated he would like to speak on the issue as to what would be covered if the Board determines this to be customary for the Church to have the type of program that is contemplated. Mr. Brown said that a church is specifically excluded from having to come before the Board of Adjustment as a matter of right, and in the same ordinance are the words "customarily incidental use to the above uses as a matter of right." The real question, he said, is whether this is customary or not. If it were not customary, he said, he would agree that it would have to come before the Board of Adjustment, or if it were the YMCA that was going in an "A" or "B" District as a matter of permission, the Board of Adjustment could permit this. He pointed out that he came before the Board of Adjustment in a swimming pool situation in the western part of the City where it was not a City operated swimming pool. If it were not customary then the Board of Adjustment would be in a position of rejecting or permitting it. For this consideration he requested several ministers in the audience to express their views as to what has been customary in church activities. Mr. Gary Goldman of St. Paul Methodist Church said they had youth related activities such as a gymnasium in conjunction with their church program. Others who spoke were Revs James B. Argue, Pastor of Pulaski Heights Methodist, Church; James E. O'Connell of St. John's Seminary; Rev. Robert Bearden, Pastor of the First Methodist Church; Mr. Denny of the First Christian Church who enumerated churches who had similar facilities - Church of the Latter Day Saints, 7th Day Adventist, Christ Episcopal Church, Pulaski Heights Presbyterian and Pulaski Heights Baptist Church. Rev. Edwin Dunlap of the Winfield Methodist Church stated he considered recreational facili- ties vital and normal use in an educational program. Four letters were filed from Pulaski Heights Presbyterian Church, Second Presbyterian Church,. Pulaski Heights Baptist Church and St. Marks Episcopal who had this type of facility. Mr. S. J. Beauchamp, representing the First Christian Church, was present and stated that when they submitted their plans for a building permit they had no reason to believe they were not in conformity with the law. It is a multi- purpose building. Mr. Oscar Alagood, an adjoining property owner, was present and expressed opposition to the construction of the church facility, feeling that it would be establishing a dangerous precedent. Mr. Dover stated,it was his personal opinion that the use that the First Christian Church proposed do make of their property is a use customarily incidental to a church use. A church use is clearly permitted in an "A" zone, and having said that he moved that the ordinance would-be so construed, which was seconded and passed. -7- Board of Adjustment Minutes - April 19,1971 Mr. Venhaus added that as a matter of future procedure when a church proposes multi -purpose facilities, recreational facilities, etc. they will be construed as use by right in an "A" and "B" District, and that this is the feeling of the Board. Mr. Flake then added that when this ordinance was written (1) there was no contemplation of the expansion of church programs, and (2) churches were then primarily downtown churches, and since they are moving into residential areas in great numbers "it seems to me that while we have interpreted the ordinance this way that we still should recommend to the City Board that while they have this privilege there should be safeguards set up so that they also have obliga- tions in protecting what is a residential development and perhaps have the mechanics of approval that in the event of non-residential development in a residential zone that there can be requirements established by the Staff for compatibility, and that they may appeal those requirements to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Dover added that the ordinance needs some "second looks", but in its present form the Board of Adjustment has this authority. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 P.M. "11j_ W4 � � L" ti, S.9-fencer Compton, Oiairman r �r. Don R. Venhaus, Secretary