Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_09 20 1971LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT M I N U T E S SEPTEMBER 20.1971 MEMBERS PRESENT S: Spencer Compton, Chairman L. Dickson Flake Darrell Dover MEMBERS ABSENT Dave Grundfest, Jr. Lawrence Woolsey STAFF PRESENT Don R. Venhaus Louis E. Barber Richard Wood James Finch Dorothy Rif fel OTHERS PRESENT Perry Whitmore, Asst. City Attorney J. Huddl:eston, 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 which was seconded and passed.. The following action was taken on advertised matters: Tract No., 1 - Z-2198 Applicant: West Markham Development Corporation Location: 53100 Block West Markham Street Description: Lot 16, Block 9, Pfeifer's Addition Classification: ''E-l'.' Quiet Business District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Rear Yard Provisions of Section 43-14 of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction in rear yard. space The Staff recommendation was read .as follows_: "The Staff .recommends approval of requested Variance. The proposed structure shown.on the.site plan is in accordance with the general development plan for this property. Approval of the proposed 5'-2" rear yard is in line with Previous Board actions involving this. development." Board of Adjustment Minutes September 20,1971 Mr. Edward Lester, attorney, representing the applicant, was present. He said this development is in conformity with a development plan on the rest of the property which had previously been approved. Mr. Barber informed the Board that there was a question about two parking spaces which will be used also for this new and existing structures which is in violation of the Board's action on a variance for yard space granted in 1968 which stated that this space could not be used for parking. It specifically provided that there was to be no parking in the front yard space of the two lots (Lots 4 and 5) and provided that the north side of the parking lots was to be properly screened as required by ordinance. These two spaces occupy the front yard space of Lot 4. Mr. Lester argued that there are still enough spaces overall, 67 are required, and 79 are being provided. Mr. Venhaus asked if the Board was clear on the relationship between the zoning ordinance and this Board's previous action as it relates to the off-street parking. He explained that the applicant cannot park in that area as the Board has excluded that from the development plan approval and they are required to maintain a 25 foot green area on "A" Street. Since that time, however, an interpretation is that an "E-l" District allows parking in the front yard area unless this Board requires that it be -kept in open space. Mr. Lester said the all-over parking requirement has been met and to simply block out two spaces on one lot just did not make sense. He added that this application is for rear yard variance and requested action on it and said he objected to blocking off these two parking spaces on an all-over parking plan. Mr. Venhaus added that they have provided on their development plan what appears to be a 5 foot planting and screen area, and in -view of the fact that there is already an established parking to the west adjacent to "A" Street, the Staff does not feel strongly about this matter at all. He added that it will be the position of the Staff that the front 25 foot area cannot be used for off-street parking unless another application is filed. Mr. Lester replied "I reserve the right to say you are wrong." A motion was made that the -application be a2proved as filed, which was seconded and passed. Tract No. 2 - Z-1846 Applicant: R. C. Cunningham II Location: 801 Rodney Parham Road Description: Tracts "B", "C", "D", Briarwood Subdivision of NE 4 SE-4 Section 2, T-1-N, R-13-W Classification: "E"-Apartment and "D"-Apartment Districts Variance: Requests a Variance from the Area Provisions of Section 43-5 of the Code of Ordinances to permit a sign larger than allowed by ordinance (total of 155 square feet) Requests a Variance from the Setback Provisions of Section 43-13 of the Code of Ordinances to permit sign structure in yard space -2- Board of Adjustment Minutes September 20,1971 The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends denial of the requested Variances. It is the opinion of the Staff that a sign as proposed is commercial in nature and such types of signs should not be permitted within residential areas. Since the apartment complex covers a large area and 4 foot high screening is reqi�ir.°ed on the Rodney Parham side of the property, it would seem desirable to integrate the identification of the complex into the screening, preferably on an installed: masonry portion of such screening. The ordinance provides only for nameplates and does not specifically cover this type of identification sign - (only temporary signs - 8 square feet - indicating lease, hire, or sale.)" Mr. Bill Maloney, realtor, and Mr. Max Dietrich, General Manager of R. C. Cunningham and Company of Midwest Property Management, Ltd. of Oklahoma City, were present representing R. C. Cunningham, II, the applicant. He said they were aware of the residential area they are building in, and it is their intention to build an apartment complex that is compatible with the area. It will consist of 280 units and in a complex of this nature complex marketing problems arise. For example, they expect and anticipate a turnover of about 40 units a month, and this requires marketing, and when an investment is made in an apartment complex of this nature the turnover must be anticipated in advance and planned for. He stated that they have their own advertising program which includes newspapers, television and other media, and their experience has proved that a large degree of marketing is from a personal inspection of the property as a direct result of a sign or identification on the property which incites curiosity and is the spark which causes the sale. Without a marketing media they would be "in bad shape", he said, and cited as an example an apartment complex his company took over last year. They put up a sign, changed some other marketing media and very shortly "filled it up". 30% of those occupants indicated that the sign was responsible for their interest. He also stated that they have four or five city blocks of "view" around the perimeter of this complex, which will be landscaped and the trees saved where possible. He said it is a commercial venture and they would be hurt substantially if they do not have some marketing media on the site. Normally they use a billboard type sign, but due to the fact that this is a residential area the billboard just did not fit into the area. The proposed sign will be a steel frame with 3/4" mesh steel, with lettering attached to the mesh, with a background of rich warm brown - black color to blend in with the natural surroundings, The billboard portion would be 3/4" plywood 'with plastic surface. Mr. Dietrich stated that Rodney Parham, which is a residential street now, will eventually be a collector street which will make this a commercial area not suitable for residential development. He indicated that the Wilbur Mills Expressway will have an impact on this area, also, as there will be loading ramp across the street, and added that this sign was critical to their marketing program. Mr. Maloney emphasized the effect that Interstate 430 and the Wilbur Mills Express- way, and the relocation of Rodney Parham Road would have on this project, and `could change the complexion of all the area bordering on Rodney Parham Road. He said he would not say that the area will take on a commercial aspect, but the fact that Rodney Parham will become a four -lane road and a collector street would harm the residential area as such. This apartment complex will not face any homes - directly across the street is a nursing home, a school, a church, and while the apartment complex itself is a residential development, it is a commercial project and we and the lenders think a sign of this type is a necessity. -3- Board of Adjustment Minutes - September _20,1971 Mr. Barber pointed out that adjacent to the north portion of this tract is a "D"- Apartment zoned tract (10 or 11 acres) which would add to the residential character of the neighborhood. Dr. Fernando Padilla, 728 Legato Drive, was present and said the question boils down to whether or not the City accedes to the applicant's marketing problems which are obvious, but he would disagree as to what is the best way to get the apartments rented. It has been his experience in other cities that the most exclusive apartments are the easiest to rent, he said. 'There is a tendency for larger and larger signs, and he wondered where it will stop. He remarked that future plans for Rodney Parham Road as a four -lane road does not necessarily mean that it will deface the land. A letter of opposition from Mrs. Newkirk, 7701 Choctaw, was read and filed. Mr. Maloney added that he did not mean to construe that all of the property immediately adjacent to Rodney Parham would become commercial, but that it would no longer be conducive to single-family development but more to multi -family. Mr. Don Barrow, 707 Ouachita Drive, was present and stated that this apartment complex would do nothing to enhance the value of his property, and did not feel that further variances from City ordinances would help any more. He added that the City has ordinances which would control things of this nature and would like to see the City "stick to them". Mr. Dietrich maintained that a well -managed apartment complex with good landscaping, and is kept painted and kept up in an orderly fashion would make it profitable and he suggested that it is possible that the sign would help to keep the complex profitable and thereby keep it up to date and well maintained. The Chairman replied that the Board feels that certainly there are good and valid reasons for this community to want to encourage the development such as this which would be an asset to the community. "We do feel that when a "D" or "E" zoning is granted in a residential zone, all parties involved should be apprised of the type of construction involved and the type of signs, etc. We don't feel like it is something this Board would like to undertake -to in a sense lean in a commercial direction from what is known to the residents of the community in an area where we are trying to maintain a residential quality and character. We don't feel like your problems of advertising your product is paramount to changing the character of this residential area. We don't think this is fair to the residents. The Staff has made an alternative suggestion. This is a matter of philosophy. We don't feel like the philosophy of advertising is appropriate in a residential zone. We feel that it whould be for identi- fication only. We understand your position from a commercial standpoint, but we also feel that the ordinance was written to protect the residential zone against an abuse of what you are talking about. We are willing to accept the situation where there is identification, but not where it is on a promotional or advertising basis. We are not willing to give a variance that would allow that infringement on what we feel should be essentially of residential character." Mr. Dietrich responded saying that there may be room for a compromise; that the back- ground is not billboard and suggested instead of having a full -face sign like the one submitted. that an "A" frame which is smaller - 8' X 12'- sign which they could in some way tie in their marketing program, Mr. Compton said that "we feel like it is inconsistent with the ordinance as it is written to do this without another type of hearing. What we are saying is that you can -4- Board of Adjustment Minutes September 20,1971 develop an identification that is integrated with the architectural features of the project as suggested by the Staff, in the screen wall, and you could take that to the Staff for review, and if for some reason they felt that this was not properly integrated into the architectural features as is written in the ordinance, and you did not agree, you could then bring this back to the Board of Adjustment for review again. We are not interest- ed in encouraging the use of signs in this type of zoning district for the purpose of establishing an image or advertising, etc." Mr. Dietrich reasoned in regard to working it in with the architectural effect of the apartment if "we took a 20' X 3 0' section of mansard roof on the front of the project and, scroll in good taste the letters "Bri.arwood Apartments" on the mansard roof, does that meet what you mean of working into the architectural effect?" Mr. Dover added that whether it is architecturally integrated would have to be determined on each individual tease. I.n order to clarify the Board's attitude, Mr. Venhaus said "perhaps what ought to be done at this point is to refine what we understand the Board's approach to be here. I think what the Board has in mind is that they are not taking exception to your notion that this project ought to have marketability, and that it ,ought not to have decided investigation and be a kind of complex from the marketing standpoint and media stand- point that you can identify - I think this being done in a little different way and that is to design your approaches by the use of woods and stones, etc. and come up with an approach to this project at this curb cut that is so attractive and outstanding from a design standpoint - that when you mount "Briarwood Apartments" on it will have a decided and unique kind of identification with that project, and this would match very well with the media kind of approach. I think that what the Board is not buying is the fact that an interchange or four -lane street does not necessarily dictate that we ought to accept a commercial kind of character. The burden of writing off a street in terms of how it ought to look because it is commercial is already on the City very much, and I think it is something that the Board and everyone else would like to avoid as much as possible. You have an alternative where you would not disturb the public in any way but you actually enhance the public view by focusing attention on this approach by making it as attractive as it can be from a design standpoint - you not only identify your project but I think you build something of value into the property for the public rather than detract from it." Mr. Maloney asked if it would be possible to have this remanded to the Staff and allow them to try to work out something suitable with the Staff in the event the variance was required. The Chairman replied that at this time the Board would rule on the case as presented, but if the matter could be worked out with the Staff without a Variance it would be a separate case. It needs to be called to the attention of the surrounding property owners, and it may very well be an entirely different case. "You may want to come to this Board with another design and approach to this, and there may not be any objecting witnesses." Mr. Dietrich agreed that this was a good suggestion. Mr. Dover asked if the Board could not defer action on this matter, but would like a condition if it is re -submitted that it be re -advertised and proper notice given to adjacent property owners. Mr. Maloney replied that they would be willing to re -notify all adjacent property owners. Mr. Flake commented "do you really want to do this in light of the fact that a variance is not required if it is architecturally integrated and the Board has pretty much made its position clear that it would only approve something that is architecturally integrated?" A motion was made that a decision be deferred until it is brought up again at the request of the applicant, and at that time he be required to re -advertise and re -notify adjacent property owners. The motion was seconded and passed. -5- Board of Adjustment Minutes September 20.1971 OTHER MATTER Z-896 - W. J. Walker - 4924 Kavanaugh Boulevard Mr. Walker appeared to request reconsideration of this case which was heard at the August 16th meeting at which time his application for a Variance was denied. He said there was overwhelming opposition from the property owners at the last meeting and after the meeting he talked to some of them. He said he "had been over this road" about 8 years ago in the same neighborhood and for the same kind of zoning variance; and was just trying to get it for a different building. "The people who got the notices got the impression that I was making an application for a zoning variance to have a public garage and building a building and have a garage there. This is Lake City Marine property. I had a zoning variance in the old Safeway Building to allow us to repair motors in this building. We have purchased 100 feet more frontage which has a building on it which was a Conoco Station. When I purchased this property they were running a garage. I did not anticipate that I needed a zoning variance. We moved in to that property and have used it this year to repair outboard motors. A lot of the opposition I had was because they just did not like a retail business at this location, and since the hearing I have gone over the plans and I can very easily move my testing equipment in to an inside room. We can now provide off-street parking for our employees six to eight months of the year. We are providing a lot more customer parking area and many of the things these people objected to are problems that this extra 100 feet of land alleviates. The property is too valuable to leave it vacant. I would have to sell it or lease it which would create another business in this area. I feel strongly that I am not injuring these property owners by this request and it means a lot to me to get this variance." Mr. Venhaus explained that the by-laws state that a reconsideration of an application can only be accomplished by the unanimous consent of the members of the Board at the meeting. Mr. Walker said the City had given him notice to close and it would cost him thousands of dollars and he would rather get a re -hearing. Mr. Venhaus added that the Board could take the matter under consideration, but that the decision on the matter of re -hearing would have to be done at a public hearing. Mr. Dover said he would like the opinion of the other two members of the Board who were absent from this meeting, but who were present at the hearing when this case was discussed. A motion was made that the Staff suspend its "stop" notice to Mr. Walker until the Board has ruled on his request for re -consideration, which was seconded and passed. Mr. Venhaus said if the comments of the residents who were present at the last meeting were considered you would have to cnnclude they were unhappy with the situation as it now exists, and they were under the impression that it had been legally terminated. The Board ought to move with some dispatch on the matter on behalf of the residents, he said. A motion was then made that the members of the Board make arrangements with the two members of the Board who are absent to fix a time when the entire membership can be present for discussion of the matter. A motion was made to recess until the Board can reconvene with the other two members present, which was seconded and passe . There being no furt er bu iness, the meeting was recessed at 3:15 P.M. S.- encer Compto Chairman Don R. Ven aus, Secretary.