Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_07 21 1969LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JULY 21,1969 2:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Dave Grundfest, Chairman W. Finley Williams, Vice Chairman Scott Farrell L. Dickson Flake MEMBERS ABSENT Darrell Dover STAFF PRESENT Don R. Venhaus John L. Taylor Louis E. Barber Leon Sneed Dorothy Riffel OTHERS PRESENT Perry jghitmore, Asst. City Attorney 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-2295 Applicant: William T. Miller Location: 1514 Maryland Street Description: The E. 37%-feet of the S. 100 feet, and the E. 10 feet of N.50 feet of Lot 9, and the W.6 feet of Lot 10, al in Block 412, Compton's Subdivision of Lincoln Addition Classification: "F'" -Commercial Variances: (1) From the tear Yard Setback Provisions of Sec. 43-15 of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction in Rear Yard Setback (2) From the Main Structure Provisions of Sec. 43-2-(5) of the Code of Ordinances to permit more than one main structure on a lot (3) From Use Provisions of Sec. 43 of the Code of Ordinances to permit more than one use on a lot. Staff recommendation: The Staff recommends denial of this application. This is a case of mixed uses of the property. The building destroyed by the -explosion cannot be considered an accessory Board of Adjustment Minutes - July 21,1969 to the principal use of land, nor can the accessory building be used for business of any kind. (Sec. 42-3-(7). The Ordinance (Sec. 43-11-0) provides "if such a non -conforming building is removed, every future use of such land shall be in conformity with the provisions of this Chapter. The Building official advised that the structure on the rear of the property used for business purposes (embalming) was totally destroyed by the explosion occurring next door. Although the property adjacent on the west is zoned 'IF, -Commercial, it is not developed and used as such. A residence, an architect's office, and a day -nursery lie adjacent to subject property on the west. The Staff is of the opinion that granting an exception to permit two structures on a lot, which Section 43-2-(5) of the Ordinance prohibits, is not in the public interest and welfare in that the reconstruction of the building at its location on this oddly shaped lot only adds to the congestion in this mixed use area, and is adverse to sound redevelopment of the neighborhood and good city planning. Mr. Thomas M. Bramhall, Attorney, representing the applicant, William T. Miller, was present. He gave some history of the matter stating that an explosion occurred in a building at 9th and High Street in November, 1968. The building was a portion of the old Finkbeiner Meat Packing Plant which was owned by Shamrock, Inc. whose princi- pal stockholder is W. C. McMinn. When this building exploded it was located immediate- ly adjacent to the property belonging to Mr. Miller and it demolished his building which was a garage -sized concrete block structure whichhe uses for purposes of embalming services which he does as -an independent embalmer contracting with various funeral homes and mortuaries on a contract basis. The business has been located there for some 10 years and the building in question is located toward the rear of this property and is immediately adjacent to the building which exploded. It is a relative- ly quiet type of operation. The property immediately surrounding this property in question on the east and south has an "H" classification. On the north and west, the classification is "F"-Commercial which was the classification of Mr. Miller's property. Mr. Bramhall explained that Mr. Phil Ragsdale, representing Mr. Miller generally in regard to the entire incident of the explosion concerning damages sustained by him. He generally represents Mr..W. C. McMinn in that particular case, but more specifically he said "I have Mr. Miller's and Mr. Ragsdale's permission to represent Mr. Miller in this regard in applying for variances as stated. They are all trying between them to try to work out some sort of amicable agreement whereby Mr. Miller can be compensated.,,They found that the original structure which was there prior to the explosion could be replaced presently at a cost of approximately $5,600. which includes the removal of any debris, etc. and it was their decision that it would be more economical to replace the building than to repair it. He said that in an effort to resolve this matter, the Department of Community Development was contacted on several occasions. Mr. Miller was actually attempting to obtain a permit to re- construct the building and was advised that this could not be done under the present circumstances since to rebuild this structure would constitute a nonconforming use as set forth in the application. It appeared that there were two alternatives: (1) to construct a building on the site of this property where the dwelling is located (tear down the dwelling and construct a building housing both the embalming services and the apartment which is designed so that it would not conflict with the services of the mortuary.) A cost estimate was obtained in February, 1969 which reflected that the cost of this project would be $41,500. with an additional fee of $3,000. for a design drawing and general inspection; (2) or to apply to the Board of -2- Board of Adjustment Minutes - July 21, 1969 Adjustment for approval of the variances as outlined on the application. The difference in the cost of these two alternatives -is something like $38,fl00. Under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that to rebuild the structure would cost only $5,600. they decided to take this alternative. Mr. Miller only wants to go back into business as it was prior to the explosion. Mr. Bramhall said that he wanted it clearly understood that in support of these requests for variances the property would be used in no way different than it had been used prior to the explosion; that the property has been used in this manner on the same location for approximately 12 years and that there would be no additional change in the manner of operation; that they simply are trying to prevent a gross inequity to Mr. McMinn under these circumstances. Mr. Venhaus stated that in his opinion this was not a hardship case as implied r but that it would provide the applicant with better living quarters with an expanded operation of his business. He stated that he would hate to see this suggested as only a concession to the building code, as the property owner would be definitely, improving his property with all the values that implies. Mr. Bramhall said that as the law appears, the mere fact that there would be an increased cost to put his client back in substantially the same condition he was in prior to this explosion, it is taken into consideration only slightly in the rule of law in the damages provided for in the court. The proposed embalming service area is 15' X 40' which is twice the size of the old structure, but he contended that they would be entitled to some concession along this line as a great deal of the cost is going to be incurred simply because his building was destroyed. A letter objecting to the requested variances was read from James R. Howard, attorney representing Mrs. Louise B. Yancy owner of the property at 1518 Maryland Avenue, whose property is next door to the property in question and is still used as a residence. Mr. McMinn said that he had been there for a number of years, and did not know that it was a hazard to anyone, and that they should have gone ahead right then and built Mr. Miller's building back and there would have been no problem. He said the area is commercial and that this use will expand, and that the residences should not be in there, and when the Expressway is finally completed, the residences will probably be eliminated. Mr. Grundfest explained to him that the ordinance restricts the redevelopment of nonconforming uses. A motion was made that the application be approved, but it died for lack of a second. A substitute motion was then made that the application be denied, but there was no second to it. Mr. Finley Williams abstained in the voting because he was involved in some of the engineering work done for the applicant. Mr. Flake questioned Mr. Bramhall as to whether he would covenant that any time they ceased to use this as a personal residence or for this particular purpose (embalm- '°ing business) that this variance would no longer be in effect - that it applied only to the applicant individually under these circumstances. Mr. Miller said he would 9 comply with this restriction and that if the property were sold, it would be sold. as a unit. Mr. Farrell added that there were mixed uses on the property and he would be permitted to continue this use with a covenant as suggested. A motion was made that the application be approved 2rovided the applicant covenants that any time the use of`this property is changed, there shall no longer be a variance LLI for two main structures on a lot and two uses. The motion was seconded and passed. Y) -3- W �S_ Board of Adjustment Minutes - July 21,1969 Tract No. 2 - Z-2300 Applicant: Farm Bureau Building, Inc. by Cooper Jacoway Location: 1501 lest 7th Street Description: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, Block 413,Compton's Subdivision of Lincoln's Addition Classification: "E-l" Quiet Business District Variances: (1) From the Side Yard Provisions of Sec. 43-14 of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction of elevator tower in Side Yard (2) Waiver of off-street parking provisions of Sec. 43-21 of the Code of Ordinances to permit less than required number of spaces (3) Waiver of Height Provisions of Sec. 43-14 to permit height of 4 floors or 66 feet Staff recommendation: The Staff has given this case particular attention and considerable study in view of the existence of an adjoining building (1515 Building) 7 stories high which was constructed when the property was then zoned "F"-Commercial, and the 6 story insurance building lying to the east of the Capitol grounds which building was constructed when that property was also then zoned "F"-Commercial. Since the construction of both buildings, the "E-l" zoning District, with its requirements, became a part of the Zoning Ordinance (1958). At the time, of the construction of the Arkansas Farm Bureau Building, the construction complied with the requirements of the "F"-Commercial District. At this time two major points are involved: (1) waiver of side yard space to permit construction of two elevator shafts to which variance we can see no serious objection (2) waiver of height restriction for this building which is now located in an "E-l" zone. The granting of this variance will establish a precedent henceforth for construction of this nature and particularly in this "E-l" area surrounding the Capitol grounds. A zoning plan for this area was adopted by City ordinance (11,048) in June, 1960. The important issue developed here which is incident to this application is the precedent of granting exceptions to "E-l" District requirements for this property, for future developments in this "E-l" area around the Capitol grounds, and for application to the "E-l" Districts elsewhere throughout the City. The Staff does recommend that any favorable action taken resulting from this application be conditioned on bringing in the parking area across the street to the east, and any other parking area serving this business up to the standard of design and construction now required by the current ordinance." Mr. Cooper Jacoway, attorney, was present representing the applicant. Messrs. Waldo Frasier, President of the Farm Bureau and Mr . Gordon Wittenberg, architect, were also present. Mr. Jacoway explained that he furnished a detail showing the proposed location of some elevator shafts and in order to simplify matters suggested an alternative in which the shafts, instead of being at right angles, would be catercorned. He said the Farm Bureau owns the building through a corporation known as Farm Bureau Building, Inc. It is a three-story building at the southwest corner of 7th and High -4- Board of Adjustment Minutes Julz 21, 1969 Street'It is their wish to add a story, and in order to do this and serve the buiiding and utilize the space efficiently, they propose to install some elevators on the tktdrior of the building on the east side. The improvements contemplated would cost just under $1,000,000. and with furnishings and fixtures the cost would approxi- mate 1% million dollars. Mr. Jacomay stated that the Secretary of State joins in approving this improvement because of his concern about traffic congestion and adequate parking in the area. Parking space across the street contains more than enough spaces than required by City ordinance for a 4-story building, he said, and space which is not presently being utilized for parking to that extent will now be available and will appreciably relieve traffic congestion as it exists now and prevent any traffic congestion from the construction of the building. Mr. Jacoway assured the Board that the addition that will be placed there will be in complete conformity to the spirit and architectural conformity of the rest of the building. Mr. Wittenberg said they had not made any plans for paving the parking area which is presently graveled, but the Farm Bureau would be ;lad to conform to such a require- ment as their plans include the beautification of the area. A motion was made to a rove the application subject to an re uirements by the Fire Marshall, and that the application. ire coirmleted in accordance with the parking ordinance. The motion was seconded and passed. Tract No. 3. - Z-2297 Applicant: Don Kirkpatrick Location: 4425 West 12th Street Description: Long legal Classification: "F"-Commercial District Variance: From the Rear Yard Setback Provisions of Section 43-15 of the Code of Ordinances to ' permit construction within the Rear Yard Space Staff recommendation: The Staff recommends approval of this application inasmuch as adjacent property to the south is protected by a ditch which occupies most of the alley right-of-way. Mr.Don Kirkpatrick, the applicant, was present requesting a rear yard variance to construct a new building 4 feet from the back property line which would provide ample parking in the front yard space. The building code, he said, calls for a rear door and he could not open a rear door over City property, and the Fire Department requires a door in the rear probably at the west end of the building. It is his intention to put'two drainage tiles in the ditch on the south and bring it up to specifications for garbage pick-up. Some discussion was had about the possibility of constructing the building on the property line and installing a recessed door. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated that he planned putting the tile in and asphalting that space. Mr. James H. Morris, 1215 South Washington, who owns property adjacent to Mr. Kirk- patrick's was present stating that he did not PELrticularly object to the request for variances as long as the slain sewer line which has a manhole at the rear of this property would be accessible for periodic cleaning and unstopping procedures. He filed a petition with 4 signatures of adjacent property owners in opposition. A discussion ensued concerning the 10 foot casement between Lots 3 and 5 and it was suggested that this matter should be cleared up with relation to this application. A motion was made to aPPrOve the a li ation as submitted with the understanding that the building be allowed to be moved to the rpprlin# if the- exits can be worked out • ee [Board of Adjustment Minutes - ``� July 21,1969 �i to accommodate this, and the entire area to the south - from east to west - be tiled and paved, subject to staff approval �of�the total layout. The motion was seconded CL and passed. Ced. note: Sewer Department was contacted and will investigate) Tract No. 4 - Z-2290 Applicant: 0 Location: IM Description: Classification: Variances: T. W. Dupree & Tom Ferstl 5524 West 31st Street Lots 5 and 6, Block 8, C. O. Brack's Addition and 1/2 of adjacent closed Fillmore Street, and West 31st Street "D"-Apartment District (1) From the Yard Area Setback Provisions of Section 43-13 of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction in yard space (2) From the Open Space Provisions of Section 43-21-CH)Cb) of the Code of Ordinances to permit parking in Front Yard Setback Staff recommendation: The Staff recommends approval of this application provided (1) the parking on the south side of structure is made angle -parking (2) the turn -around at the southwest corner of property be constructed sufficiently large enough to provide easy turnaround of vehicles (3) that the development of this property including ingress and egress meet with the approval of the City Fire Chief x, The applicants were present to represent this application. Mr. Ferstl stated that they built a 9-unit apartment complex about a year ago and now propose to add an additional 5-units. Fillmore Street was closed at 31st adjoining this property and about a month ago when they requested a permit for the construction of an additional 5-units, they ran into the problem of parking which did not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and were advised to file an application for a variance by the Board of Adjustment, and two layouts for parking were submitted, Lu either of which are acceptable to the applicant. The layout is agreeable to LRU sue, as well as property owners in the area, as is the other variance requested. 14 spaces are available and only 9 are required. A memorandum from Fire Chief Daiis was read in which he disapproved of this particular site plan because of insufficient or inadequate access for fire equipment. Mr. Venhaus suggested that the Chief must approve this, and that it be released only 0 when it complies with his wishes in terms of fire protection. Mr. Grundfest suggested o that the applicants confer with the Fire Chief and try to arrive at some solution M for referral to the Board of Adjustment at the next regular meeting. Mr. Henry Cochran, 3023 South Taylor, was present stating that he owns 6 lots in the neighborhood and is very much interested in the traffic situation and fire hazard. He objected to the method of parking in the area of 31st and South Taylor indicating that visiting cars to the fraternity and sorority houses must back across other property to exit. They must do this or back up to 31st Street and turn around on Taylor Street. Mrs. Cochran was also present expressing the same objections as her husband. Z� .5c -Adjustment Minutes - July 21,1969 - - -- Mr. Tom Dupree, one of the applicants, stated that he is the partner of Tom Ferstl and that they pay $840.00 in taxes yearly on the property; that they have upgraded the property considerably providing living quarters for students going to school at LRU. He commented that the fire hazard could be resolved, he thought, by a conference with the Fire Chief. A motion was made that this application be approved subject to parking on the south. side of the street being changed to angle parking, and that the turnaround at the southwest corner of the property be constructed large enough to provide easy turn- around for vehicular traffic which will be using it; also that this proposal be submitted to the Fire Chief for his approval of ingress and egress for fire protection for the new units. The motion had no second. A motion was then made that the applicant work out a plan which is acceptable to Chief Davis, and that the Board be given the opportunity to review it at the next meeting on August 18th in its final form. The motion was seconded and passed. Mr. Farrell suggested that a request be made for an inspection by the City Engineer and that a report of such investigation be made a part of the evidence for the next meeting. Tract No. 5 - Z-2293 Applicant: Franklin E. Ray Location: #2 Trent Drive Description: Lot 91, Wakefield Village #4 Classification: "A" -One -family District Variance: From the Rear Yard Setback Provisions of Section 43-12 of the Code of Ordinances to permit construction in Rear Yard Space Staff recommendation: The Staff recommends approval of the application. Mr. R. E. Eaton was present representing Mr. Franklin Ray, the applicant, who stated that the Rear Yard Variance was requested to accommodate a proposed 14' X 24' addition to the back of the residence to be used as living quarters and an enlargement of a kitchen which was not adequate. It is a peculiarly shaped lot, being 100' across the back, 66.1 feet on the east side, 91.8 feet on the west side, and 89.7 feet on the south on Trent -Drive, and the house is 47' X 25;g' which includes a carport. A motion for approval of the application was made, seconded and passed. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:50 P. M. � s � Dave Grun est, Ji Chai -7- 004A., 4p, d�Z Don R. Venhaus, Secretary.