Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_10 04 1971LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT M I N U T E S OCTOBER 4,1971 MEMBERS PRESENT S. Spencer Compton, Chairman Darrell D. Dover, Vice Chairman L. Dickson Flake Dave Grundfest,Jr. Lawrence Woolsey MEMBERS ABSENT None STAFF PRESENT Don R. Venhaus Louis E. Barber Richard Wood James Finch Dorothy Riffel OTHERS Perry V. Whitmore, Asst. City Attorney J. Huddleston, Gazette Reporter 1:,30) P.M. There being a quorum present, the meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 1:30 P. M. The Chairman -stated that this was a resumption of the September-20th, regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment which was recessed at that time to' fix a more suitable date when all members of the Board could be present to hear a request from Mr. W.J. Walker for a re -hearing on Case Z-896, 4924 Kavanaugh Boulevard which was originally presented and denied at the August 16,1971 meeting when he requested: --a Variance to permit a public garage in an "F"-Commercial zone. The Chairman quoted the following from the by-laws with respect to re -hearings: Article V Sec. 1 - No rehearing of any decision by the Board of Adjustment shall be had except on motion by a member of the Board to reconsider the vote, made and acted on within ten days after its decisions and carried by not less than three (3) concurring votes. Sec. 2. No motion for a rehearing shall be entertained except upon written request for rehearing, and then not unless new eivdence is submitted which could not reasonably have been presented at the meeting at which the hearing was originally had. Sec. 3. If a rehearing is granted, the case shall be put on the calendar for a rehearing, and the notices issued in accordance with the notice provisions of these rules. Sec. 4. No additional application to the Board of Adjust- ment shall be allowed, unless there shall have been a substantial change in :the circumstances affecting such property since the prior decision on the same piece of property. Mr. W. J. Walker, the applicant, was present stating the notices were mailed to all adjacent property owners within 140 feet requesting that permission was being requested to permit a public garage in a commercial zone. He said that nine years ago he sent -1- Board of Adjustment Minutes October 4.1971 out notices and came before the Board of Ad ustment for a variance to repair outboard motors in a retail zone and he did not have any opposition at that time. They have been operating during most of 1970 in the building in which they are asking for a variance. This same location was formerly a service station which did automobile repair. Mr.Walker explained that he was on vacation at the time his son sent out the notices"and he erroneously allowed the Planning Commission to write this notice." (ed9 The Planning Commission was not involved). He said he was amazed at the amount of opposition at the hearing and was totally unprepared for it. He indicated that most of the criticism was against having a retail store of any kind in this area. "The original zoning for the Safeway Store went to the Supreme Court and there has always been opposition to this being retail at all. However, the remarks we heard at this meeting were mostly addressed to the business itself. Only two people mentioned noise from outboard motors running. This is the issue. Since the meeting I have studied it and we find that we can relocate this test tank and put it in a private room. We could completely isolate this test tank in the old Safeway building which had a room for meat in which we could repair motors. The walls are 12" thick, has a concrete roof and floor, and the ::room is an interior room with three walls. Most of the noise would be dissipated in an exhaust in the water, and I believe we can convince most of the objecting property owners that it is to their own interest that this variance be granted because with this building we are able to provide off- street parking for our employees on our own property, and customer parking. If I were forced to abandon this building, I would have to sell it for other retail business." In his opinion most of the criticism that the objectors had could be alleviated by having the use of this extra 100 foot frontage. He said it seemed ridiculous that they could repair motors in one building but that adjacent property owners would be damaged by repairing them in another building. He also indicated that they would enclose the window in the building and the wall. The Chairman summarized that the new evidence Mr. Walker presented was that he contended that the notices that were sent to adjacent property owners were misleading. Mr. Walker admitted that some of the animosity of the neighbors to his operation was justified since they were inconvenienced by his customers parking boats and employees parking across driveways, etc. but this situation would be corrected by using the two paved lots on the south side of the Safeway Store property for customer and employee parking. A motion was made for a rehearing of this matter at the November 15th meeting, which was seconded and passed. The Chairman reminded Mr. Walker that the matter is not so much whether to re -hear the matter, but in doing so the Board would not want to get into another situation where it would not be presented enough evidence of the jmZent of this operation to conform to what they agree to do a nd also their ability to provide an enclosure that will in fact prevent it -from being a nuisance. "You.Shbuld be aware that the burden of proof is on you; that you will establsh:a,,certain decibel level of noise, and prove by some means that the building material& ,that...you will use to enclose this space will in fact reduce the noise level. This is not simply a wall situation. We are talking about the sound from the exhaust through the roof - this system. We want you to demonstrate to us that it can be done. 'There is:some question about the manner in which the whole operation is run in terms of whether it does create a nuisance in the neighborhood from the standpoint of parking in the right-of-way, ingress and egress. You should demonstrate that_ it is possible to get cars in and out at all times and that you can control the traffic in there, that there will be no -2- Board of Adjustment Minutes - October 4,1971 parking in the right-of-way." Mr. Venhaus added that the only illegal part of the operation is the major overhaul and repair and testing of motors; that the other operation in an "F"-Commercial Distriat is a lawful kind of use, and if we hold in abeyance the cease and desist order it would mean that he could continue to repair and test motors until this matter is disposed of. He indicated that the noise factor is the real issue that is associated with motors which is an incompatible kind of use at this location. A motion was then made to extend :the "stop" order until the matter is resolved which was seconded and passed. OTHER MATTERS At the instigation of Mr. Flake, much discussion was had relating to accessory uses for churches in residential zones with the thought of restricting such uses, and suggested that the Staff work up something that the Board of Adjustment could review and either through the Planning Commission or some other procedure recommend to the Board of Directors that there be some reviewing authority which would have the right to review a church development plan when it goes into a residential area to make sure that it is developed in such a way that they are -good neighbors to surrounding homes. -Xr. Venhaus said he concurred with the suggestion and the question is whether it is a use by right or whether when a church put in this kind of accessory that it should boo reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment. The language could be clarified in the ordinance that there could be no doubjt that it would have to be approved by the Board of Adjustment. "You have interpretative powers of the zoning ordinance tihich could be amended to make it clear that it applies to the worship aspect of a church." Mr. Dover said he would like to see some proposed language worked up for the next meeting to be presented formally as an amendment to be smbmitted to the Board. Mr. Compton further stated that he would be in favor of differentiating between two; types of activities of churches which includes educational activities of the class- room type, and in addition fellowship halls, and wholesale recreational activities which in some instances are on a broad scale. Nurseries and day-care centers are now operated on a profit -making basis. A motion was made that the Board ask the Staff to draft their idea of the proper wording with a view toward giving the Staff the right of approval and review of church development plans when proposed for a residential area location, and that the church have the right of appeal to the Board of Adjustment in the event they have any reservations or disagreement ,.,with the Staff's requirements for that development plan. 2. Excavation Ordinance Proposal Mr. Venhaus said the Staff had been directed by the Planning Commission to write a specific ordinance which they have done. It involves all earthwork involving 2,000 cubic yards per acre which must have the approval of the Board of Adjustment in zoning Districts "A" through "E-1-A". No :,approval is required in Districts "F"- through "K". There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 P.M. until the regular meeting October ;1&,1971, 00 � Wt do�_,t, Don R. Venhaus, Secretary 4S.penceir Compton, Chairman -3-