Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_05 19 1969LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES MAY 19,1969 A00ERS PRESENT Dave Grundfest, Jr., Scott Farrell Darrell Dover L. Dickson Flake MEMBER ABSENT W. Finley Williams STAFF PRESENT Don R. Venhaus John L. Taylor Louis E. Barber Dorothy Riffel OTHERS PRESENT Chairman Perry Whitmore, Asst. City Attorney Van Tyson, Democrat Reporter Jimmy Jones, 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 as mailed, which was seconded and passed unanimously. Action was taken as follows: Tract No. 1 - Z-1728 Applicant: J. C. Fuller by Edward Lester, Agent Location: 1500 Block West 3rd Street Description: All of Lots 11 and 12, and 1/2 of adjacent closed alley all within Block 6, Deaf Mute Addition and Lot 6, Block 365, Original City known as J. W. House Subdivision of Block 365 Classification: "E-1" Quiet Business & "G-1" Commercial District Variance: Requests Variances (1) permission under provisions of Section 43-6-(3) of Code of Ordinances to permit business machine company in "E-l" zone; (2) from the Yard Area Setback Provisions of Section 43-14 of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction in Side Yard and Front Yard Area Mr. Edward Lester, agent for the petitioner, J. C. Fuller, was present, and stated that basically this area is already developed in exactly this same type of develop- ment; that three years ago the property immediately adjacent to this to the west was rezoned. to "F"-Commercial for a school supply operation with a covenant that it would be used solely for school purposes. Because this Board does have authority BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES - May 19,1969 to grant a use of this type, he said, the applicant asked for the variance instead of asking for a rezoning to "F"-Commercial. A contract has been entered into with the Burroughs Business Machines Company to erect a building with a 20 foot setback taking into consideration existing building lines. Mr. Lester indicated that Burroughs would require a free standing sign which would be internally illuminated. He also said that they filed a covenant before (covenant filed with application), and would file one again with respect to the free standing sign for the Burroughs Company, and that they would like approval of a free standing sign, subject to approval of the Staff of the design and layout (the dimensions of which he did not have), as well as the other two variances requested. Mr. Venhaus commented that the intention of the ordinance was for a single -face sign (nameplate) flush with the building. Mr. Dover pointed out that no notice had been given adjacent property owners for a sign variance by the applicant. Mr. Lester argued that they would like permission to put this general type of sign on the property because of the commercial type area, and that the Staff would have to approve the ultimate design. A suggestion was made by Mr. Venhaus that the sign variance be separately considered as an advertised item and the Staff had no recommendation since it had no knowledge of such a request. Mr. Lester replied that he had no objection to this. A motion was made that the application be approved, but with the understanding that the free standing sign request be omitted. The motion was seconded and passed. Mr. Flake abstained. Tract No. 2 - Z-2285 Applicant: George L. Cook Location: 3802 Kavanaugh Boulevard Description: Long legal Classification: "D"-Apartment and "F"-Commercial Districts Variance: Requests a Variance from the Main Structure Provisions of Section 43-2-(5) of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction of more than one main structure ion a lot. Mr. George L. Cook, the petitioner, was present. He stated that this property lies west of the existing Crestwood Manor Apartments and his intention is to build three additional buildings identical to the building that is in existence on the present project. He exhibited pictures of the present project and of the vacant property now occupied by Hocott, florist, which has been leased to him under a 99 year lease. When asked about the arrangement with the adjacent property owner for a fire lane driveway on the west, he indicated that Mr. Hocott would dedicate 5 feet and he the balance which would be a recorded easement and used for a common driveway. Two of the tovmhouses face Kavanaugh and the lower one faces Lookout Road. A motion was made for approval of this application provided a 6 inch vertical curb is constructed denying parking just adjacent east of the fire plug which is located east and close by to proposed office structure; and provided a curb cut for ingress and egress is made approximating the center of the property on North Lookout Road; and provided the east driveway is used for ingress only; Page -2- Board of Adjustment Minutes - May 19,1969 and provided that the westernmost driveway allowing access to North Lookout Road be moved to within the leased grounds of this development or obtain additional land under lease to accommodate full width of driveway and a copy of such document - furnished this office for the case file; and further provided fire plugs be install- ed where indicated on the plan. The motion was seconded and passed. Tract No. 3 - Z-2065 Applicant: Dr. S. W. Boellner Location• 2303 Beechwood Road Description: Lots 18,19, 21, Block 11, Country Club Hts. Classification: "A" -One -family District Variance: Requests a Variance from the Yard Area Provi- sions of Section 43-12 of the Code of Ordi- nances to permit addition to existing residence Mr. E. G. Levy, architect, was present to represent the applicant. He stated that he has contacted all of the adjoining neighbors and shown them the plan and there were no objections anywhere in the neighborhood to this development. The building as proposed actually joins two existing wings on the east side of the house and one of the existing wings in about 712 feet from the rear yard property line, and will be built in such a manner as to be no closer to the east line than the existing structure. He said this would not harm the neighbors in any way as there is some precedence in that neighborhood in that there are many outbuildings, servants' houses, and garages on the rear property line, and immediately east of this addition is a garage building right on the property line, making it impossible for his neighbor to see this addition from his house. He stated that there is also a garage next door to the north which is 3' from the property line. The land -to -building ratio of this property exceeds three to one. A motion was made for approval of the Variance, which was seconded and passed. Tract No. 4 - Z-2279 Applicant: South Highland Baptist Church Location: 2701 South Elm Street Description: Lots 1 through 5, and the South 1/2 of Lot 6 Block 13, R. C. Butler's Addition Classification: "B"-Residence District Variance: Requests Variances (1)- from the Yard Area Provisions of Sec. 43-12 of the Code of Ordi- nances to permit addition to existing church building; (2) from the Sign Area Provisions of Sec. 43-12, and Setback Provisions of Sec. 43-3 to permit sign larger thanpermitted and to permit location of sign as proposed. Rev: Herbert Hodges, Pastor of the Church was present to represent the application. He stated that they plan to construct a building on the site of the present build- ing as an improved church educational facility and fellowship hall. The addition would fill an empty space between two buildings that currently exist. One will be destroyed and the other building built in its place, he said, which will be of Page -3- Board of Adjustment Minutes - May 19,1969 one-story construction. Mr. Hodges said they have no Church sign on the front of the property and they need it very much, and that it would be on the corner of the property away from any residences - the Safeway Store is across the street. The reason for this sign is for the purpose of advertising the Church tq.,passgrsby on Asher Avenue, and in his opinion it is necessary to be as large as r6quested - 7' x 10'-18'. It will be neon lighted at the top and interior lighted at the bottom. Mr. Grundfest informed Mr. Hodges that the legal requirements of a sign in this residential area is 10 square feet, and that his sign is 70 square feet for a single -face sign. Mr. Hodges replied that the dimensions mentioned for this sign are not as large, for example, as the sign at the 12th Street Baptist Church in a much more densely populated residential area. There are homes on all sides of this Church and this is not true in our situation, and we do need the sign very much - at least this size." Mr. Grundfest told him that the size of the sign is, of course, the problem. "By regulation we have 10 square feet, and some of these things have happened in the past which we are trying to keep from happening in the future. our quandry is caused by several things we mentioned earlier. The sign, according to regula- tion, is (1) not to be lighted (2) the size of the sign is above regulation (3) generally these signs are to be on the ground or attached to a building rather than a free-standing sign at this point 18 feet in the air, and all three of these requests are quite against the regulation as it is presently written." Mr. Taylor read a portion of the ordinance for "A" and "B"-Single-family uses in which zone churches are permitted. It read "church bulletin boards not exceeding 10 square feet in area and advertising displays, conforming to all of the provi- sions of ordinances now prevailing to which may in the future be passed governing same." Mr. Venhaus stated "There is something significant contained here in the ordinance when it speaks of a bulletin board not to exceed 10 square feet. I think this is an indication of how far over a period of time we have wandered from the initial charge of the ordinance with respect to signs for churches. I am sure the original intention here was to allow a church a common bulletin} type of notice normally located out in front of the church, or in the side yard at some point. When we consider the section referring to bulletin boards not exceed- ing 10 square feet, I think we are in an area dealing with something quite apart from what our ordinance originally intended with respect to churches when we talk about signs of the size and scope and design and intensity, etc. that become virtually commercial advertising as opposed to the kind of public informational notice that they were originally intended to be." A motion was made that the application be a roved with the exce tion that the size of the sin be in accordance with the ordinance which is 10 foot maximum, and that the location and design of the sign be submitted to the Staff under the usual procedures for securing a sign permit. The motion was seconded and passed. Rev. Hodges asked if they wanted to compete commercially, if they did not want to stay within the dimensions of just a "note", what the procedure would be. Mr. Grundfest replied that the property would then have to be rezoned by the Planning Commission. Mr. Hodges asked "does the ordinance decree then that we cannot advertise our church except just by something much like an attachment to a wall? In other words, this appears to be discrimination about a church because everything is lighted out there - maybe I should say "lit" out in that area." Mr. Grundfest told him that they as Board members did not pass on the regulation as such or Page -4- Board of Adjustment Minutes - Mav 19,1969 on the ordinance as such. "However, actually churches are being allowed to be in an "A" and "B" classification which is a privilege. That is giving rather than being discriminated against by not being allowed to put up a sign." Mr. Flake explained that the determination is between zoning classifications rather than against the church users. He said they were being allowed to go into a resi- dential zone as a church - no other non-residential use except a church or school is allowed in this zone." Tract No. 5 - Z-1532 Applicant: Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company Location• 7020 Asher Avenue Description: Long legal Classification: "F"-Commercial District Variance:: Requests a Variance from the literal provisions of Section 43-7 of the Code of Ordinances to permit storage of equipment and repair there- to Mr. Ray Thornton, agent, was present representing the applicant. Mr. Robert Wilson of that company was also present. He presented pictures and plans for the Board's perusual to aid them in visualizing the area involved. In the Rock Creek area on the old Hot Springs Highway - where the creek crossed the highway, the Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company, he said, presently has a bulk storage plant for gasoline, oils, and other warehouse goods relating to the utility operation - the odorant that appears in their lines and other substances- are now stored. Notices to all adjoining property owners were sent, including the Arkansas Power & Light Company who has a substation in the general vicinity, and there were no negative responses, he said. Mr. Thornton said that basically this location is now zoned "F"-Commercial which is a rather heavy commercial classification, and that their proposed use for the acreage which they own includes the location of certain warehousing and light equipment storage and repair which at the present time is being accomplished at 4th & Byrd Street. That property is being converted to another business operation► for the Graybar Electric making it necessary to remove this facility to another location. In his opinion, the use proposed is not out of line for uses now exist- ing in the area - a dry cleaning establishment, upholstery plant, and wrecking yard with deteriorating or abandoned automobiles. A letter of objection was read from Mr. Loftus J. Collomore, a property owner in the area. Mr. Dover suggested that this request is more in the nature of a rezoning case than a variance. Mr. Wilson stated that the use in the "F"-Commercial District very largely permits the uses which are now in the area, and that was the reason they pointed out the nature of the work that is now going on in this area and to illustrate that their proposed use is of a higher type than that. This matter was brought to the attention of the Board of Adjustment because there was the provision that a utility use could be permitted in another zone. "In other words, if we could prove that it were necessary for us to operate an equipment ditching machines and storage operation - what is what we are now talking about with respect to our request - not the bulk plant - but the machinery that we use Page -5- L V Board of Adjustment Minutes - W. May 19 ,1969 0 — �- Lr£ in connection with our rendering a utility service to Little Rock; that if it were necessary to have this in a commercial area or even in a residential area - `�' if it were absolutely necessary - this Board would have authority to allow that use, but we have not requested that. We have requested the use within an "F"- Commercial area where uses around us are less desirable than the one we are request- ing.'..' Mr. Dover replied that that would make an excellent case for rezoning. Mr. Wilson then stated "that we do feel that it is within the authority of this Board to grant this variance, and it was our choice of procedure to come in this direction because we felt our request was reasonable. With reference to the objection that was read, he is probably concerned because of the used car and junk automobiles in the area now. He does not want to see that kind of use continued. We do not propose to keep junked equipment on our yards. We try to keep operable equipment to take care of breaks in lines, lay new lines, and do what else is necessary in providing our utility function." Mr. Dover queried Mr. Wilson as to whether this property is actually Arkla Gas Company, to which he replied "it is" - it is not the Chemical Corporation - that is my understanding." Mr. Dover replied that the point is that we could not do this for anybody else. Mr. Wilson said "that is also a point in favor of our asking that it be done because it certainly restricts the use of this propery to utility repair. If this Board were to grant our request we could not then sell this property to a third person and let him come in and continue the kind of equipment storage and repair. The use would terminate with our use, and so you would not be acting as a matter of zoning to lower a zone but you would be permitting this one entity - to carry on an essential operation in this area." Mr. Grundfest reminded Mr. Wilson that according to the Staff's records there was a variance given on this particular piece of property to the Arkansas Louisiana Chemical Corporation sometime in the past. "Is this variance now for Arkla Gas or Arkla Chemical? Does the Arkla Chemical stilloperate the bulk plant?" Mr. LU Wilson said it will continue to operate that part of the bulk plant that relates LO to its equipment storage, its storage of goods. Mr. Dover asked him if this area has nothing to do with the bulk plan, to which Mr. Wilson replied in the negative. Mr. Grundfest said that that was the question that he was getting at - that it does not seem logical to operate the Arkansas Louisiana Gas yard if it were not for the Arkla Chemical bulk plant there. Mr. Wilson replied that since he did not know the nature of the history of this particular tract to a degree necessary to answer that, "it seems to me that this property has been owned by the Arkansas C) 0 Louisiana Gas Company for many years and has been used intermittently over these years for various utility purposes, and that it was a suitable spot, a sizeable tract of ground on a good highway for a bulk plant, and that is why we came in for the variance in the past to locate a bulk plant there." Mr. Grundfest made the comment that he understood that we are in effect changing the zoning if we allow them to store qeuipment on it; that the Board has the right to do that under the utility clause assuming that it is necessary to provide utility service to that area. Page -6- Board of Adjustment Minutes May 19,1969 _ Mr. Whitmore replied that in speaking of convenience and necessity of a public utility matter that you would be talking about more than just merely facilities that are directly employed in furnishing whatever service the utility furnishes. "I would assume that in order to show a reasonable convenience, you would have to say that if it is something other than the facility directly involved in furnishing the public, then you would have to show that this particular area has some relation to the ultimate services to the public. I would assume that in the area generally it was necessary for them to have equipment to dig lines, etc. that they would have the right to have a place to keep their equipment. As I understand it, what you are saying is that this is an equipment yard where you store your equipment and where you from time to time effect repairs on it. I certainly agree that it doesn't give them the right to abandon equipment there and just leave it there." Mr. Venhaus remarked that this is a very substantial point, but one that is not material with respect to this location and this proposed use. "One of the things we are concerned with is the matter of precedent and how this might come back to us at a later period. I think we ought to look at this word "necessary" 'in a very limited kind of context ® limited by the piece of property we are looking at. For instance I would be of the opinion that if we were talling about this use in a residential area or even adjacent to a residential area on a major street, I would think that it would be poor judgment indeed to construe the use in question as "necessary". I am not sure of the logistics of operating machinery in a given area or the fact that it would be more convenient and less expensive if the maintenance yard were moved out in this residential area. I am not sure that it would be congruent with what "necessary" means in the ordinance. I think "necessary" in that case means that if you have to have a substation, or whatever the Gas Company calls its installation, that is absolutely necessary in a residential area in order to provide service to that area, but I shouldn't think that we would ever want to put ourselves in the position where we would feel obligated to set up a maintenance operation or an equipment distribution center or something of that type in a residential area under this particular clause, and I don't think the fact that it was more expensive or it took more travel time, would justify that kind of an intrusion." Mr. Whitmore said in reply "I think you are speaking there of the function of the Board and not the power of the Commission. I would agree with you that if this were a residential area, I don't think the Commission - they could just summarily dismiss it. At least that would be my thinking. They are talking about m if you have five choices then pick the one where the impact is going to be less on the property® but that doesn't mean that the Board does not have the authority to treat differently public utility facilities." Mr. Venhaus said "I am not at all concerned about that particular issue at this location. I would be terribly concerned if it came up again in another kind of context with respect to the land use." Mr. Dover added that in his opinion the Board is not questioning that the proposed use at the proposed location is fine and suitable. Mr. Farrell then asked the question "if this application were denied, would this denial hamper the function of the utility company in this area?" Mr. Whitmore said "no, that was my response a while ago. When you think of necessity as it Page -7- Board of Adjustment Minutes Mav 19,1969 relates to a public utility and its servicing the public, there is a little different flavor that when we think of necessity as being something further than bread and water. I think it means that th=utility in the conduct of its business has the authority to choose what it deems to be reasonably necessary to its purpose. I don't think they could just summarily pick a place m I don't mean that it is completely arbitrary. What I am saying is that if you accept the fact that Arkla Gas has to have, within generally this area, equipment of the type that is going to be stored here, then there is no question in my mind that the Board has the authority to treat this application, and I am not trying to say the Board should approve or disapprove it. I think that .is where the Board's discretion comes into play and that they take into consideration the uses of the surrounding land and the impact that the proposed use of the property owner would have on the people that are using the lands in the area." Mr. Flake asked if there is adequate proof that it is necessary for this area. Mr. Wilson replied that the function of equipment storage and light repair of equipment is for the Little Rock area and customers in this part of the central distribution system of the Gas Company. "As mentioned, there might be a possi® bility of the Gas Company purchasing land somewhere else or condemning land somewhere else in order to meet this obligation which it has to the public of providing maintenance of its facilities so that we don't have any accidents, so that our pipes are repaired and laid as necessary to meet and keep up with the growth of the City. However, this is the most convenient and best property for the Gas Company in that it is property which we already own and we made this kind of judgmental approach here that Mr. Venhaus suggested. The Gas Company has various tracts of land for regulator stations and pipe line lands on the Arkansas River ® small fragments of land for utility use, and it owns the land on which its building is located. However, a survey was made of all the properties which the Gas Company now owns and which might be suitable for this use, and which was surrounded by property which we would not unduly interfere with, and this is the tract of land that we came up with ® the only tract that we have that is available and suitable generally for this kind of use, and that is the reason for our request." Mr. Dover said "if we have the authority do this, I don't believe there is any question about this use at this location being proper. My only concern was whether we had the authority to do it. But if we do have the authority to do it, I think the application is proper, and so feeling I willmove that it be approved." The motion was seconded and passed. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:15 P.M. Dave Grun est, Cha an Page -8- Don R. Venhaus, Secretary.