Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_10 19 1970LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OCTOBER 19,1970 MEMBERS PRESENT L. U icks= t'lake S. Spencer Compton Darrell Dover Dave Grundfest, Jr. MEMBER ABSENT Wm. Finley Williams STAFF PRESENT Don R. Venhaus John L. Taylor Louis E. Barber Richard Wood Dorothy Riffel OTHERS .PRESENT Perry Whitmore, Asst. City Attorney J. Huddleston, Gazette Reporter Linda 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. 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: Tract No. 1 - Z-2395 Applicant: Lorene H. Ward Location: 2918 Battery Street Description: Lot 4 and the N a of Lot 5, Block 2, Sunset Addition Classification: "B"-Residence District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Use Provisions of Section 43-3 of the Code of Ordinances to permit an addition to an existing non- conforming duplex The Staff's recommendation was read as follows: "The Staff recommends approval of the requested Variance. Although this is an addition to a non -conforming use, the addition will not add materially to the life of the rather new structure which is now used as a duplex. This property lies within the Coliseum Urban Renewal Project; however, the Board of Adjustment Minutes - October 19,1970 Little Rock Housing Authority interposes no objection." Mrs. Lorene H. Ward, the applicant, was present and stated that she needs this additional room for the use of her mother who will be living with her and she would like to build a den at the rear of her house which would be 12' X 20'. There were no objectors. A motion was made for approval of the application for Variance, which was seconded and passed. Tract No. 2 - Z-2400 Applicant: Susie Hinton Location: 4804 West 24th Street Description: Lot 11, Block 3, Walthour's Subdivision of Lot 5, and the Sh of Lot 4, Block 1, Hyde Park Addition Classification: "B"-Residence District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Yard Area Setback Provisions of Section 43-12 of the Code of Ordinances to permit an addition to existing residence Staff recommendation: The Staff recommends approval of the requested Variance. The requested Variance is the result of a stop order being issued by the Building Inspector. The addition has progressed to such a degree now that removal or major modifica- tion would be prohibitive cost -wise." Mrs. Susie Hinton, the applicant, was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made for approval of the Variance request, which was seconded & passed. Tract No. 3 - Z-2401 Applicant: James R. Walt Location: 4801 Hawthorne Road Description: Lot 6, and the North 33.34 feet of Lot 5, Block 79 Country Club Heights Addition Classification: "A" -One -family District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Rear Yard Setback Provisions of Section 43-12 of the Code of Ordinances to permit an addition to existing residence Staff recommendation: The Staff recommends approval of requested Variance. The proposed addition to this residence should have no adverse effect on the neighborhood. The existing structure faces the side street and presents no problems on access to the proposed carport. Because neighbor's house lies close to property line, the applicant was advised to get a letter from,the neighbor as to his feelings on the matter. The letter has now been received and is part of the record." -2- Board of Adjustment Minutes October 19 1970 Dr. James R. Walt, the applicant, was present. There were no objectors. He explained that the proposed addition would be more acceptable to his neighbors than a separate structure and asked for its approval. A motion was made for a�roy of the application, which was seconded and passed. Tract No. 4 m Zm2399 Applicant: Arthur F. Baldridge Location: 316 North Plaza Drive Description: Lot 78, Plaza Heights Addition Classification- "A" -One -family District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Yard Area Setback Provisions of Section 43-12 of the Code of Ordinances to permit an addition to existing non -conforming structure Staff recommendation: The Staff recommends approval of requested Variance. This residence was constructed when this area was outside the City limits and constructed without supervision of our Building Inspection Department. The lot was platted with two 25 foot setback lines and a rear yard setback of 25 feet made initial construction difficult. The steep terrain of the lot and the present orientation of the structure is such that the proposed addition should not adversely affect adjacent properties." There was no one present at the meeting to represent this application. In accordance with the policy of the Board of Adjustment not to consider an applica- tion if the applicant or his agent were not present,the matter was deferred to the next meeting. A motion was made that the matter be deferred to the November 16th meeting and the applicant so notified with the added provision that he re -notify all adjacent property owners. The motion was seconded and passed. Tract No. S= Z-2396 Applicant: Moritz Shollmier Location: 3103 Shenandoah Valley Drive Description: Lot 19, Block 29, Pleasant Valley Addition Classification: "A"® One -family District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Height Provisions of Section 38®3 of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction of tower in excess of that permuted (100' total height) Staff recommendation: The Staff interposes no objection to the requested Variance should the neighbors not object to the tall antenna structure in the neighborhood. The current ordi- nance (Sec. 38 as amended) permit's a height of 75 feet above adjacent ground. The excess of 25 feet is the point at issue with this application." -3- Board of Adjustment Minutes October 19,1970 Mr. Shollmier, 45 White Oak Lane, was present in the interest of his applica- tion for variance from the height provisions of the Code of Ordinances which permits the construction of a tower not to exceed 75 feet. Mr. Shollmier is request- ing an additional 25 feet for his tower. He stated that the terrain in the area (3103 Shenandoah Valley Drive, Pleasant Valley) is very difficult to provide the proper antennas for amateur radio services which he performs in the interest of the University Medical Center's eye bank, and other public services to military personnel and others through a "ham" radio operation. He stated that the tower could withstand a 100 mile an hour wind which is in the shape of a triangle at the base, 20" on each side which dimension is reduced one-third up to 16", and the top 30' is 12". The elevation at ground level is 530 feet. Mr. Shollmier said that there was a misconception as to interference generated by -such a tower to TV and radio equipment in the area. He produced statements from Frank Lyon Company and Graybar Electric Company to the effect that if such equipment was in proper working order, this condition would not exist. Because of the aesthetic consideration involved, before he purchased the propertyin Pleasant Valley, a condition was written into the sales ciontract that a 100' tower was permitted, but at that time he did not realize that there was a restriction to 75°. He said he made a 10% downpayment for the lot, and the other 90% will be due in a few days. Mr. Shollmier presented this matter to the Board of Directors two months ago, and they passed it on to the Board of Adjustment for consideration. Mr. Fred Selz, realtor and sales -agent for Pleasant Valley property, said that he thought there might be some controversy over this tower, but that in his opinion it would not be harmful to the property owners -in Pleasant Valley, and certainly he would not do anything that he felt would hurt the value of any piece of property in the Subdivision. Mr. George McLain, 3022 Imperial Valley Drive, filed a petition having 57 signa- tures of property owners in Pleasant Valley who are most immediately involved in this matter. He reminded the Board that all utilities in this area are underground, and there are no utility poles or mires, and that the Bill of Assurance under which they purchased their property indicates that no structure shall be erected other than a single-family dwelling which shall not exceed two and one-half stories in height. In his opinion the installation of this 100 foot tower would adversely affect their investments in the property, and that Mr. Shollmier does not own a house there but only has an agreement to purchase the lot which is conditioned on the approval of this Variance. He asked that the application for Variance be rejected in the best interest of all concerned. Mr. Compton commented that the applicant could build a 75 foot tower without a Variance under the zoning Ordinance, and that a Bill of Assurance does not come within the purview of the Board of Adjustment. Mr. McLain, upon questioning, ` stated that the tower itself is objectionable to the people in this area and not the height alone, and that if the applicant did not get the Variance he would not build a house nor the tower. Mr. R.H. Wickard, President of the Property Owners Association of Pleasant Valley, stated that the membership had been polled, and on their behalf he wished to file a protest to this tower. Mr. Selz commented that there are many TV antennas in this area that are higher than three stories and therefore are in violation of the Bill of Assurance. -4® I Board of Adjustment Minutes - October 19,1970 Mr. George Gilliam, 3014 Imperial Valley, was present stating that he lived on a hill directly behind this lot and he would have to look at this tower every day; that he had invested a lot of money in his house and that this is his hobby and that the erection of the proposed tower would devalue his property and he would not have purchased his lot from Mr. Selz had he known this use would be allowed. He said he did not want to be forced to buy extra equipment to prevent interference. Mr. William H. Runge, 3100 Shenandoah Valley Drive, was present stating that his lot is almost directly across the street from subject property, and he objected to the tower. A letter of opposition was read from Charles Dietz, owner of Lot 19, Shenandoah. Mr. Grundfest stated that he would not comment on the Bill of Assurance because "that is not our job and we are not equipped to do so. The issue we are considering is whether the tower should be 100' or 759, and I personally cannot see any objection to making a 25 foot addition to the tower." A motion was made for approval of the Variance as requested which is the issue, and not the Bill of Assurance, which was seconded and passed. OTHER MATTERS Z-2375 Applicant: Southwestern Bell Telephone Company Location: 1100 Block of Nest Capitol Avenue Description: Block 291, Original City of Little Rock Requests a 6 month extension on Board of Adjustment approval of this case. Classification: "H"-Business District Staff recommendation: The Staff recommends approval of requested extension of time (additional 6 months from date of approval) for initiation of construction. The Board of Adjustment by-laws Article IV Sec. 3 provides that on approval of Variance, the building permit must be obtained within 90 days of such approval and construction completed in six months and further provides that the Board may grant extensions of time limitation. The applicant, by letter request, advises "it is expected that the building permit will be obtained and excavation for the new building will be initiated around the first of the year". A motion was made for approval of a six months extension to Aril 18,1971, which was seconded and passed. _M -5- Board of Adjustment Minutes October 19,1970 A brief discussion was had as to the present procedure for handling development plans and the possibility of some changes to allow the Staff to consider these development plans where there is more than one structure on a piece of property and approve them on an administrative basis if there are no other variances at issue. The only instances where it would come before the Board of Adjustment would be where the Staff had required certain restrictions on the development plan which the applicant would not agree to, and he would have the right of appeal to the Board of Adjustment. Ibis matter was presented to the Board for its thoughtful consideration for action at a later date. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:15 P.M. L. Dickson Flake, Chairman f Don R. Venhaus, Secretary