Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_11 29 1971LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT M I N U T E S NOVEMBER 29,1971 MEMBERS PRESENT S, Spencer Compton, Chairman Darrell D. Dover, Vice Chairman L. Dickson Flake Lawrence Woolsey MEMBER ABSENT Dave Grundfest,Jr. STAFF PRESENT Don R. Venhaus John L. Taylor Louis E. Barber Richard Wood James Finch Dorothy Riffel OTHERS J.Huddleston, Gazette Reporter Brenda Tirey, Democrat Reporter 2:00 P.M. There being a quorum present, the meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 2:00 P.M. who explained that it was a "called meeting" necessitated by a lack of a quorum when the Board convened for its regular November 15th meeting. The minutes of the October meeting were not approved since this was a special meeting and would be acted on at the December 20th meeting. The following action was taken on advertised matters: Tract No. 1 - Z-2466 Applicant: Andrew Boyer Location: 420 North Shaclkeford Road Description: Long legal Classification: "A" -One -family District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Use Provisions of Section 43-3 of the Code of Ordinances to permit expansion of a non -conforming use The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "This application had its beginning as a rezoning request presented to the Planning Commission on June 3, 1971. At that time the Planning Commission deferred action on the petition for a period of 90 days to permit the applicant time to file a request for Variance with the Board of Adjustment. The attorney for the owner advised the Staff sixty days after the Planning Commission meeting that they desired to be placed on the Planning Commission agenda for September 2,1971, and they would not pursue the Board of Adjustment route. Board of Adjustment Minutes November 29 1971 The Planning Commission on September 9, 1971, denied the requested zone change and the petitioner appealed his case to the City Board of Directors. The City Board at its meeting on October 19,1971, suggested the Board of Adjustment route to the applicant. It now develops that the Fire Marshall, Chief Cummings, had on a recent inspection of the premises advised Mr. Boyer of the hazardous fire danger associated with the painting operations of his auto body repair business, and instructed him to separate his painting operations from the other part of his shop. Sec. 43-11 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to nonconforming uses reads as follows: "x x x the lawful use of a building existing on March 17, 1937, may be continued, although such use may be extended throughout the building provided no structural alterations, except those required by law or ordinance, are made therein x x x " Inasmuch as the alterations in this case amount to an extension of the building to accommodate the painting operations in compliance with the requirements of the Fire Prevention Code, it is felt that an alteration, to the extent of an addi- tion to the present structure in this case, is warranted„ Approval of the petition is recommended by the Staff." Mr. J. Drew Avance, Attorney, representing the applicant was present. He stated that Mr. Boyer had been in business at this location since 1957, and when the property was annexed to the City the zoning designation was "A" -Single-family„ Mr. Boyer operates a paint and body shop, and the City Fire Marshall, upon inspection of the premises, ordered him to separate the paint shop from the body shop for safety precautions, but permitted him to operate his business until a decision was made by the Board of Adjustment on his application. Access to the paint shop will be through a walkway door which would permit him to comply with the Fire Department requirements. There were no objectors. Mr. Venhaus explained that the significant part of the ordinance that we are deal- ing with is in the last sentence "except those required by law or ordinance". He said this is a standard kind of inclusion in most zoning ordinances put in for the purpose of a hearing like this one today. In some cases a man has a legal right to continue in a non -conforming use - he has the right to continue a certain kind of operation - but in the process of that operation he cannot expand or alter the structure. He sometimes runs afoul of another legal requirement imposed on him by the public, and he is not able to accommodate that additional requirement without changing the structure and in effect it becomes a taking of the property. This is a kind of safety valve that most zoning ordinances include that allows the Board of Adjustment to waive the usual non -conforming provision in exceptional cases of this kind. A motion was made that the application be app�oved,which.was seconded and passed. -2- Board of Adjustment Minutes November 29,1971 IV. CONSIDElUkTICid ITEM Z-896 Applicant: W. J. Walker Location: 4924 Kavanaugh Boulevard Description: Long legal Classification: "F"-Commercial District Variance: Requests permission under the provisions of Section 43-22-(4)-(e) of the Code of Ordinances to permit repair of outboard motors in a retail zone The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "As a matter of information, the Staff has experienced difficulty in obtaining sufficient material from the applicant pertaining to the proposed construction of a soundproof facility for small motor testing, and a site plan of the property showing the provisions for off-street parking with ingress and egress. A copy of the design for the motor testing facility has been received and furnished Messrs. Compton and Woolsey for their study and recommendations to the Board. As of this writing, Wednesday, November 24,1971 a satisfactory site plan has not been furnished.) The Staff re -states its previous recommendation which was: "The Staff recommends denial of this application. The further extension of "H" Business character uses to the north of the present shop site would effect a change of use for this block without proper zoning change. The present operation was permitted by the Board of Adjustment on February 18, 1963 on the condition that motor repair be confined within a soundproof testing room, and for the present lessee. The motor repair has been moved to the property which is the subject of this application and the operation thereat is in complete violation of the conditions the Board of Adjustment established February 8, 1963. The noise generated by the testing of these motors should by all means be contained in a soundproof or similarly treated room. There would be no objection to the sale of small motor parts at this location as it was formerly occupied by a filling station which is zoned "F". The zoning ordinance calls for "Hog Business zoning for a garage operation unless the Board deems necessary for public convenience or welfare. Sec. 43-22-(4) (e)." It is felt, however, that if the Board is disposed to grant the Variance that a minimum of 15 off-street parking spaces be provided and only the curb cuts be permitted as designated by the Traffic Division." Mr. W. J. Walker, the applicant, was present and stated that he now has submitted a plot plan which provides for the 15 spaces for off-street parking. He stated that he .had employed Mr. George Ellefson, a consulting engineer with Ecology Dynamics Associates, to make a study concerning the noise problem. Mr. Ellefson stated that they had done some work for other clients in the several .hundred HP range and they now found themselves faced with a design for a maximum of 115 HP for a soundproof room for an outboard motor operation. He explained a -chart he had prepared based on what would be classified as a standard outboard motor operation and these motors were obviously not standard as they are in various stages of disrepair, and not operated in the free air. There is no set M11 Board of Adjustment Minutes - November 29,1971 criteria - no way of analyzing this. He said the average sound level produced by an automobile on the street, a pneumatic wrench or an engine operating in a water bath is about a 90 decibel average without sound control, and the sound- proof device would reduce this by 60 decibels. Mr. Walker added that to date this year they had repaired 752 motors and the average time for use of the testing tank is about 5 minutes a day on an average of 12 motors. Mr. Compton reminded Mr. Walker that at the last meeting he was instructed to do certain things with relation to access, ingress and egress, keeping vehicles and boats off of the space between the property line and the street, the noise factor, etc. Mr. Walker said boats and rigs do block the sidewalks for a couple of hours at times when they receive a load of boats which have to be unloaded. Seven letters of opposition were filed and are a part of the record. By request a letter from Mr. Osborne W. Garvin who owns 1812 and 1820 North Jackson Street property was read as follows: "Please be advised that I own 1812 and 1820 North Jackson Street property immediately adjoining 'the above and I wish to register my protest against any change to permit 'public garage' in this zone. At the time Mr. Walker petitioned for a change in order to install a boat business, he represented to the Commission and also to the various property owners that all repairs would be done inside, any motors which would run would also be on the inside and since that time, a tank has been installed in a filling station immediate- ly north of the building which he formerly leased and this is being used for -testing of motors. I assume that other neighbors in the area have objected to the noise and I want to join them in their objections. Mr. Walker and I have been friends for many, many years, but I feel that this present request in view of his initial request is wholly improper and should be denied." Mr. Melvin Spear, 1816 N. Jackson Street, was present in opposition stating that originally Mr. Walker was to insulate the building where all motors would be repaired, but since that time motors were continuing to be repaired in the parking lot .which is contrary to statements made to the adjacent propertyowners. He said his family has no privacy, since his property backs up to the subject property across the alley. Mr. Fred Rice, 5120 "R" Street, was also present in opposition as it was his understanding that Mr. Walker intended to tear down the existing building and construct a boat garage. He was informed that Mr. Walker proposed to continue his operation of outboard motor repairs inside of the existing filling station building, but to reduce the sound level acceptable to the neighbors. Mrs. Julia M. Smith, 5114 "R" Street, was present in opposition objecting to the parking and noise problems produced by this operation. Mr. John W. Treadwell, 1900 North Jackson Street, was also present in opposition stating that this operation is too big for the location, and that the "housekeep- ing" on the property was very bad. Mr. S. C. Ragle, 5123 "R" Street, was present in opposition, stating that this was essentially the same application as that presented two months ago, and wanted to echo what has already been said by the objectors. Employees of the business have -4- Board of Adjustment Minutes November 29,1971 used "R" Street for parking, and although this has improved somewhat,if he provided the number of parking spaces for his customers and employees he apparently would not have any room to display his boats. Obviously, he said,the area is too small to operate a business of this kind. "Tlxe original mistake was made in permitting a business to operate in a residential area, and we hope you won't make a bad situation that much worse." Mr. Compton explained that before the Board of Adjustment could re -hear a case some new evidence must be presented. The new evidence that was presented was the introduction of sound control of the motors which is the justification for re -hearing this case. Upon questioning Mr. Walker said the chain link fence at the rear of his property has no gate into the alley. Mr. Dover asked the Staff if they had any different view now that the plan had been filed, and if its recommendation had changed. Mr. Venhaus said "the Staff has got a kind of historical perspective on this. We have felt that there has been some substantial violation of the original conditions established for this use by the Board of Adjustment. We also have a strong sense that the property is too small to accommodate the kind of operation that is proposed. Because of its location and size it is not appropriate kind of location for the use, On the other hand the use is going to be there - it can legally continue. The proposi- tion now is to see if something can be done to mitigate some of these problems. Mr. Walker has done a good job of trying to prepare information for this Board. If he follows through as he tras in bringing information to the Board, then I think it will be an improvement to the property. One of the things that ought to be done is for the engineer to follow this through, submit plans for the altera- tion of the structure, the design plans, and also to submit to us a certificate after the construction that this work has been done in accordance with his plans and recommendations so that we are assured that they are carried through and the Board is satisfied that it is built according to his plans. In view of the testi- mony, I am inclined to think that we would be mitigating the problem that exists out there. I am a little bit concerned about expanding the activity - on the other hand it appears to me if he improves the parking and circulation, the impact on the neighborhood would improve and be better than just a flat denial would accomplish. If he pursues the operation of the business with diligence and conscientiousness, it will be improved." Mr. Ellefson was asked if he could submit some kind of evaluation of the actual construction —He said the problem is that the City has no power level acceptance. "If we perform a design there is nothing but our determination of what constitutes an adequate ambient sound power level,. If that is not satisfactory with the neighbors they do not have -any recourse because the City does not have any control' The City does not have any acceptance criteria. Mr. Venhaus replied that he was assuming that the Board of Adjustment would consider his recommendation reasonable and that it would provide a reasonable reduction of sound level on the site. Mr. Compton added that the Board is asking for some follow-up to certify that what has been proposed to have done to alleviate these matters would in fact be done as -proposed. Mr. Woolsey asked if "could not we measure the noise level that now exists and then after this construction is completed according to the engineer's plans, then measure the end results as a measure of performance, and if it-feasonabl.e met -5- Board of Adjustment Minutes November 29.1971 expectations the City Staff could say 'you have performed and we are happy with it'. Mr. Venhaus suggested that a noise profile be established a distance of 100 feet around this property which would represent what the existing noise level is - the average kind of noise which would be generated by peak hour traffic, etc. - then from the standpoint of engineering application see what could be done by applying these measures in terms of reducing this noise level in accordance with this sound profile." Mr. Woolsey added that we would ask him to measure before and after measuring 100 feet up "R" street for example and report this mitigation to the Staff for evalua= tion. Mr. Walker said there had been no complaints in the other building which has a concrete roof, concrete floor, 6" thick walls, and if he did what his engineer tells him it would be a far cry from what they were doing and getting no complaints. He said this would be isdlated;td the point where it could not possibly be any problem."We have made noise level tests, and you can't hear motors running from the street. There is no question when we do what this engineer tells us to do, there is not going to be a noise problem from this source as it would melt into the noise which is there constantly." Mr. Venhaus reminded the Board to keep in mind that it obviously is impossible to have absolute control over some sophisticated aspects of decibel levels out there, and all that the Board can do is its reasonable best in disposing of this problem, and its burden is somewhat relieved by the fact that if the noise level should continue to be a problem they certainly still have the right to file legal action on the basis of nuisance. A motion was then made that this application be approved subject to construction of soundproof facilities in the old filling station as indicated on the drawing submitted, and that the site plan features also be implemented regarding parking and traffic flow; and further that measurement of the sound level be made and reported to the Staff as a matter of information of the reasonable average ambient of the noise level (1) of the neighborhood with motor testing not in operation; (2) generated by the facility before the improvement, and (3) generated after the improvement - three individual measurements. An amendment to the motion was made that only curb cuts be permitted as designaged by the Traffic Division; construct new curb, gutter and sidewalk as designated by the Department of Community Development; that there be some type of automatic door closers on the doors entering the soundproof room, and that the east fence be screened in some way with slats to screen it from residences; and that the same provisions for soundproofing be required if the operation is moved back to the original building, but that both motor testing locations cannot be used at the same time. The amendment was seconded and passed. The original motion was then seconded and passed. V. OTHER MATTER Z-2337 Applicant: Mechanics Lumber Company Location: 7600 Block of Cantrell Road Description: Long legal Classification: "F"-Commercial District and "C"Two_family District Requests approval of site plan for retail oriented lumber company in an "F"- Commercial Zone. (continued on next page) -6- Board of Adjustment Minutes November 29,1971 The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The submission of a site plan is in compliance with the Board of Adjustment decision of July 26, 1971 on Mr. Pfeifer's petition. At that hearing the Board made the following motion: "A motion was made by Mr. Grundfest that the Board of Adjustment hear applications for retail oriented build- ing supply and hardware stores in an "F"-Commercial zone. It was added that 'this has no bearing whatsoever in my interpretation on this particular site. We will have to see an application on a particular site with a development plan, the Staff's puggestion, etc. before I would want to make a determination on this or any other particular site or location."' Sec. 43-7 provides: "A wholesale business may be permitted by the Board of Adjust- ment in an "F"-Commercial District provided such wholesale business is of a retail nature as determined by the Board of Adjustment and where the business is wholly contained within a building or buildings, and is of the type not obnoxious or offensive by reason of emission of odor, dust, smoke, gas, or noise." On review of the site plan the Staff finds it acceptable provided the following is complied with: 1. The western access drive within this development crosses a parcel zoned "C"-Two-family. This property should be rezoned to "F" to accommodate the intended use of the land. 2. It is felt that to use subject property as intended, the sides of the property beginning at the southern edge of the shed located on the east side of the property, and extending around the property bordering all the residential zoned property should be screened with a 6 foot high solid wooden or masonry wall to isolate the property and protect, to some degree, the adjacent residential properties. Multi -family zoning lies adjacent to most of the western side of this property and single-family homes exist on the south. 3. That some landscaping be provided in the parking lot as now required by ordinance. 4. That trees be planted on the perimeter where possible to reduce to some degree the noise generated by this type of business activity." Mr. Eugene Pfeifer, III, the applicant representing Mechanics Lumber Company, was present, and stated the recommendations were agreeable to him. The question of the hammerhead turnaround was mentioned, and Mr. Pfeifer suggested that the Staff be given flexibility on screening and other matters to work out minor modifications. A motion was made for approval of the application subject to (1) the western access drive within this development crosses a parcel zoned C--Ttao-family. This property should be rezoned to "F"- to accommodate the intended use of the land; (2) it is felt that to use subject property as intended, the sides of the property beginning at the southern edge of the shed located on the east side of the property, and extending around the property bordering all the residential zoned property should be screened with a 6 foot high solid wooden or masonry wall to isolate the property and protect, to some degree, the adjacent residential properties. Multi -family zoning lies adjacent to most of the western side of this property and single-family homes exist on the south; (3) that some landscaping be provided in the parking lot -7- Board of Adjustment Minutes November 29.1971 as now required by ordinance; (4) that trees be planted on the perimeter where possible to reduce to some degree the noise generated by this type of business activity, with the understanding that the Staff have the authority to work out the location and height of the screening. The motion was seconded and passed. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:15 P. M. S. pencer Compton, airman " �0' x "/ , /"�' � � � - Don R. Venhaus, Secretary go