Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_12 20 1971LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT M I N U T E S DECEMBER 20,1971 2:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT S. Spencer Compton, Chairman Darrell D. Dover, Vice Chairman L. Dickson Flake Lawrence Woolsey Dave Grundfest, Jr. STAFF PRESENT Don R. Venhaus John L. Taylor Louis E. Barber Richard Wood James Finch Dorothy Riffel OTHERS ji, Huddleston, 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 October,18,1971 meeting and November 29,1971 (called meeting) meeting, which was seconded and passed. 09 following action was taken on the advertised matters: Tract No.l - Z-2540 Applicant: Trinity Episcopal Cathedral Parish Location: 1624 Spring Street, Description: Lots 7 and 8. Block 202, Original City Classification: "C"-Two-family District 'Variance: Requests (1) permission under the Provisions of Section 43-22-(4)-(d) of the Code of Ordinances to permit a church parking lot in a residential zone; (2) requests a Variance from the Front Yard Open Space Provisions of Section 43-20 of the Code of Ordinances to permit parking in the Front Yard Setback The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends approval of the requested Variance provided no parking be permitted in the front 17 feet to conform to the yard space of the rest of the block, and be set at this location with sight distances to be worked out with the Staff at the intersection of 17th and Spring Streets." Mr. Sam Davis, agent for the applicant, was present. He said they would move the fence back to the rear property line to maintain the 17 foot setback suggested by the Staff. Board of Adjustment Minutes December 20.1971 A motion Vsas made for approval of the Variance provided no parking be permitted in the front 17 feet to conform to the yard space of the rest of the block, and further provided that a fence be set at this location with sight distances to be worked out with the Staff at the intersection of 17th and Spring Streets. The motion was seconded and passed_ Tract No. 2 - Z-1968-A Applicant: Little Rock Land Company Location: 6323 West 6th Street Description: Long legal Classification: "F"-Commercial District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Height Provisions of Section 43-15-(1) of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction of an office building to a height of 75 feet with penthouse included The Staff recommendation was read as follows: 10The Staff recommends approval of the application. This tract is a portion of the Little Rock Land Company holding in this area. The tract was rezoned on July 5,1966 to "F"-Commercial with a covenant restricting the land use to "E-1" uses. The proposed Variance is needed due to "F" zoning requirements restricting the height to 22 stories or 35 feet. The proposed structure would be for "E-l" uses, but would be 75 feet + in height with penthouse. Due to the location of this property, the Staff feels that the yard spaces as indicated on the plan, and there is only one involved particularly, is not material in this case." Mr. William L. Terry, attorney, and agent for the applicant, and'.William B. Putnam, realtor, and Duane S. King, Vice President of the Little Rock Land Company,,were present in the interest of the application. There were no objectors. Mr. Terry explained that this is an office building structure four stories plus a penthouse which would be an "E-1" Quiet Business classification although the zoning is "F"-Commercial but there is a covenant which they are complying with. A motion was made that the application be approved, which was seconded and passed. Tract No. 3 - Z-2342 Applicant: J. H. Baird Estate Location: 800 Block of North University Avenue Description: Lots 1 through 10, Block 8, Lincoln Park .9ddn,- Classification: "E-1" Quiet Business District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Sign Area Provisions of Section 43-6 of the Code of Ordinances to permit erection of a sign larger in area.than'permitted (100 square feet on double -face) The Staff recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends denial of the Variance as requested as the size of the sign proposed would be totally out of character with the "E-1" zone, and particularly this area of University Avenue. The proposed sign being a rotating 5' X 10' double -face presents 100 square feet of surface area as opposed to the permitted 8 square feet. There are no signs of such -2- Board of Adjustment Minutes December 20 1971 size or character existing in the immediate neighborhood. Furthermore it is desired to point out that the minutes of the meetings of the Board when this proposed develop- ment was considered, reflect the applicant stating that this Health Club was a club - type operation private in nature supported by dues -paying members, and would exclude drop -in business. The Staff feels that no hardship is evident that would warrant the granting of the requested Variance." Mr. Gene Lewis, realtor, representing the J. H. Baird Estate, was present. He said he did not know about the Staff°s recommendation until Friday, and would like to defer the matter until the application can be modified. He added that they are of the opinion that the sign should be an architectural part of the structure itself in lieu of any exterior sign of this sort, and this is what they hope to sell the tenant on. He said that it might be possible to arrive at some type of advertising which would comply with the zoning ordinance requirements and Board of Adjustment action would not be necessary. Mr. Venhaus added that the Staff is not going to take this sign and negotiate down on the size of it - 75' or 65'. We have some notions about the approptiateness of it, he said. "We feel that we have a very fortunate situation on University Avenue in these areas - two office complexes across the street have a small black sign with the address of the structure. The only thing that we could make substantial progress on is a proposal to make the sign architecturally a part of the structure, and keep it very modest in size - then there might be some profit in further extending this so far as negotiating over the size of this freestanding sign out on the corner." Mr. Lewis commented that the reason for asking for deferral is the wording in the Code about the size of the sign and whether or not it is architecturally a part of the building is somewhat vague, and if it is architecturally a part of the building then there is no size requirement whatsoever, 1Abut we would like to check with the Staff to see if they consider it architecturally a part of the building, and there- fore we would be conforming." Mr. Peyton Rice, an adjacent property owner, was present to express his opposition to any size sign larger than that permitted in an "E-l" Quiet Business District. A motion was made to defer the matter not to exceed sixty days(February 21 1972 meeting) with necessary re -advertising and re -notification to adjacent property owners, which was seconded and passed. Tract No. 4 - Z-2210 Applicant: Various Owners by Roger Thurmond Location: 415 N. McKinley Street Description: Lot 1, Byrd's Addition, and Lot 1, Williamsburg Addition Classification: "E-1-A" Nursing Home, Lodging, and Undertaking District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Height Provisions of Section 43-14-(1) of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction of a 13 story office building The Staff recommended approval subject to a 30 foot dedication on Lee Avenue. -3- Board of Adjustment Minutes December 20 1971 Mr. William Terry, Attorney; Mr. Roger Thurmond, the applicant; Mr. James Gibson, realtor; and Mr. Gene Levy, architect, were all present in the interest of this application. Mr. Terry said the recommendation of the Staff was satisfactory to the applicant. A motion was made that the application be a rammed subject to a 30 foot dedication on the south side of Lee Street, which was seconded and passed. IV. OTHER MATTERS 1. Adoption of 1972 calendar of meeting dates A motion was made for the ado ci.on of the 1972 calendar, which was seconded and passed. 2. Consider including in the "E-l" Quiet Business District a barber sho (hair stylist) as a permitted use. Mr. Venhaus explained that there is little or not basis for making this distinction between hair styling salons for men and beauty shops for women, and the issue then becomes one of how we approach it from the standpoint of equities and fairness if we are going to continue to allow beauty shops to operate in an "E-l" District. He added "we made an error in allowing beauty shops in an "E-l" District, and procedurally the question is whether we move with as much dispatch as possible to amend the zoning ordinance to require both men and women's hairstyling salons have "F"-Commercial zon?ing." Mr. Grundfest expressed his opinion to continue to operate as is presently done under the ordinance but to amend the ordinance as soon as possible so as not to allow beauty shops in an "E-l" District, and until that time to consider each request individually. Mr. Venhaus clarified the feeling of the Board saying "it is the sense of the Board that I pass along your concern over beauty shops in an "E-1" District, andsugest to the Planning Commission that we deal with an immediate amendment that woul prevent beauty shops in an "E-1" District." A motion was made to this effect, which was seconded and passed. Mr. Venhaus added that if we amend the ordinance as you have suggested, then I assume that a beauty shop until it is done could come in on the basis of an individual application - would it also be your feeling that we could accept an application on a proposed men's hair styling shop to locate in a professional office building. One such application has been received. "My question is whether or not at! application could be filed with the Board for approval of a barber shop - hair styling salon for men - in this "E-l" District. You have just rendered a judgment that beauty shops should not be allowed in an "E-l" District, and asked that we use all possible haste in amending them out. Until this is accomplished, the beauty shop will still go in an "E-1"District, but the question is now would you be receptive to applications from men's beauty shops on specific approval of that application. If I administratively made a judgment that a men's hair styling salon fits the ordinance as it relates to beauty shops, would I be doing a substantial violence to your wishes on the subject? We still have a problem of equity and I can't think of one good reason why men's hair styling salon doesn't have as much right to go in this location as a women's beauty shop." In response, Mr. Compton stated "we are not really willing to give a -carte blanche approval to barber shops. We don't even think beauty shops have any business in this area, and so we would be reluctant to just give a blanket o.k. to moving barber shops in this area." -4- P Board of Adjuatrkent Minutes December 20,1971 Mr. Flake added that this is not a permitted rise in an "E-l" zone,and if they contend they are more like an "E-1" use in this particular case than an "F"-Commercial use, and it is approved in a specific application for a specific site only, and approach it in that way until the ordinance could be amended, that would be his suggestion. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:45 P. M. �/mil G on R. Venhaus, d Secretary S.Spencdr..Compton, Chairman -5-