Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_09 15 1969LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15,1969 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 Marjorie Porter OTHERS PRESENT Perry Whitmore, 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. Action was taken as follows: Tract No. 1 - Z-2308 Applicant: J. J. Hocott Location: 3610 Kavanaugh Boulevard Description: Long Legal Classification: "F"-Commercial District Variance: From the Front Yard Setback Peovisions of Section 43-15 of the Code of Ordinances-;- and Main Structure Provisions of- 43-m�;2-(5) of the Code of Ordinances to permit addition to existing non -conforming structure. Staff recommendation: _ The Staff recommends approval of this application provided curb and gutter is installed on Kavanaugh Boulevard to eliminate existing head -in parking. Mr. J.J.Hocott, the petitioner, was present. He stated that he has been operating on 3�2- acres and is cutting his operation to 1/2 acre and wishes to move an existing masonry building. 90° parking on Kavanaugh was discussed and the fact that cars back out into the southbound lane was mentionecC� Mr. Hocott suggested the center line should be moved. He also stated there would only be room for four or f ive.cars along Kavanaugh if parallel parking was enforced. Board of Adjustment Minutes - September 15,1969 Mr. Venhaus stated his Department would use all of its resources to eliminate 90o parking and he did not want to commit the Department to any certain amount of on -street parking. In the future-, one of the City's desires will be to improve Kavanaugh and remove all on -street parking. Mr. Venhaus suggested it might be advisable to postpone the case for a month and make a study of the existing flow of traffic. Mr. Hoco'tt ddvised he was supposed to have moved last July 1st, and he was paying a penalty for egch delay. A motion that the Board approve the application was made provided curb:= and gutter:- will be installed along Kavanaugh. The motion was seconded and passed. Tract No. 2 - Z-1423 Applicant: Lewis Rauton Location: 6624 Boyle Park Road Description: Long Legal Classification: "El' -Apartment District Variance: From the Main Structure Provisions of Section 43-24 5) of the Code of Ordinances to permit more than one main structure on a lot or tract Staff recommendation: The Staff recommeds approval_ of this application provided the street identified on the Development Plan as South Rodney Parham Road be dedicated, and also the western 30 feet from the center line of Boyle Park Road be dedicated and 1/2 of 37 foot (back-to-back) pavement be constructed. Design of pavement for Boyle Park Road and South Rodney Parham Road be in accordance with Ordinance # 0808. This development plan has the approval of the Fire Chief. The Staff further recommends deletion of the parking spaces located at the entrance from South Rodney Parham Road into the northern portion of the development. Mr. Grundfest stated that the Staff recommended that South Rodney Parham Road as shown on the plat be deciated to the City, and asked Mr. Lewis Rauton, the petitioner, if he were willing at this time to make this dedication as suggested, to which Mr. R auton replied "no". Mr. Venhaus then said that that was the only issue before the Board - whether or not Rodney Parham should be dedicated, and in what way. Discussion prior to the meeting indicated that it be done by plat and if Mr. Rauton would subject this property to a platted procedure9 he could file a preliminary plat of the development segment north of Rodney Parham Road proposed, or to the south. "This would give the public the prerogatives they need on Rodney Parham Road without dedicating it to the public until such time as he brough in the second half of the development in the future and developed that property. The problem with that is that if he intended to develop the entire site as one project, that would do some violence to that particular proposal. We think that there is some interest here of the public that cannot be served by covenanting away all of the rights that we need on the street right now. For instance, right now we need to have some control over traffic on Rodney Parham, over off-street parking, over the conduct of the street, over the intersection as it relates to Boyle Park Road. -2- ILBoard of Adjustment Minutes - 01 Se tember 15,1969 We need some control of the street as it relates to the use by the public utility companies. Now, perhaps those rights could be given to us through a covenant, and if they can -then a covenant might well serve everybody's interest, but it would have to be a rather complicated kind of covenant,.and it is going to have Of to cover a lot of potential points in order to be acceptable as a document. Another thing that we think very significiant here is that it is our desire to begin by virtue of this project, the extension of Rodney Parham Road from Boyle Park :Road on to its existing terminus at Mississippi Street, and we want the utility companies and the various people who are going to be interested in developing this area to rely on this proposal and to act accordingly in the installation of the proper size utilities, etc. so that eventually we will have a full facility out of the street between Boyle Park Road and Mississippi. I would rely pretty much on Mr. Whitmore's advice in this area, and also on Mr. Rauton in terms of what he is willing to concede by virtue of an instrument of the type that we are talking about. If we can attend to these interests and satisfy these points through a covenant, then I don't think we would have seriqus objections to going that route." Mr. Grundfest asked Mr. Rauton if he planned to develop this as one development and if so what the time schedule for the development would be. He added that in a previous conversation, Mr. Rauton indicated his willingness to build Rodney Parham Road to the City's specifications and to dedicate South Rodney Parham at such time as it was extended, or a period of two years whichever would suit. Mr. Rauton's. rdply wap not audible-'. 3tht-! explained that one big factor in his r thin)cing is -the security involved. He cited the incidence of five murders in Memphis apartments, and that although this has not happened in Little Rock, he was extremely concerned about the possibility; that it was vital as far as an apartment complex operation is concerned, and that his lender would consider it important. ��.-:;-;r:.:'�+_•:.��>:`,: Mr. =� Rauton said that his lender might not be agreeable to ihe.'street dedication and they should be given the opportunity of expressing an opinion. Also, he said, he would have to have separate meters if he should agree to the dedication, one on the north side and one on the south side of the streetforwater and gas, and if it remains undedicated he could save some money. In the meantime some provision could be made with the utility companies to allow him to use one meter until the dedication, or until the street is completed and actually goes somewhere. At the present time it simply ends in Rock Creek bottom. Mr. Grundfest questioned Mr. Rauton about his willingness to set a time limit in which he would dedicate the street to the City. Mr. Rauton said this street is misnamed at this time as it is nothing more than a drive serving this property, and that he was willing to do it in an orderly stage - to provide the street right-of-way through this property and subsequently through any other property that he owns that would ultimately take this street to some place, but could see no reason to set a time limit. Mr. Rauton, after considerable discussion as to meter location and placement, said his plan now is to have one meter serving all 256 units, for water and gas. Mr. Grundfest that the Board is concerned about a controlled intersection and asked what the possibility would be of dedicating - say 20 feet from the property' edge back down what is South Rodney Parham Road - dedicating that so there would be a controlled intersection, yet leaving the rest of the area undedicated for the purposes of easements. Mr. Venhaus replied that this could be done. Mr. Rauton -3- Rbard of Adjustment Minutes - - ;!11 September 15 ,1969 commented that he did not understand the need for controlling the intersection when it is still only a private drive at this time, but would be willing when it does truly become an intersection. Mr. Grundfest suggested that with 256 units with possibly 256 cars which would be going in and out of that intersection regard- Ld less of whether it is opened or not, this is important. Mr. Rauton asked if it CL is necessary that the City have an easement in order to establish traffic control. IZ Mr. Venhaus explained that "we get into a pretty complicated kind of arrangement if you covenanted to allow us to exercise control over -that intersection for the purpose of intersection treatment. Normally we are on pretty shaky ground if we 0 are operating on private property in terms of traffic signing, control, etc. and I frankly don't know whether legally you could give us the measure of authority 10 that we would require for a covenant device. I know that our authority is extreme- ly limited on private property. Whether you could covenant us a stronger position than this, I am not sure. What we would be concerned with is since this is the only vehicular access to a rather substantial complex, we are not only concerned just about the intersection but we are concerned about Rodney Parham Road up to the point where these other two feeder streets come into it. Again we would be talking about trying through a covenant to grant us such prerogatives as necessary so that we could control parking in that area, and I really don't know what kind of problems we could get into." Mr. Rauton said that a 20 foot dedication into Rodney Parham Road would be entirely satisfactory as far as he was concerned, but it would be necessary to approach his lender broker and he would not want any "hitch" there. He asked if that 20 feet as suggested would give the City control at the intersection, to which Mr. Venhaus replied he thought it would, but if the covenant route was followed, the City would also need to have some understanding with respect to the rest of the street as to off-street parking as it is our desire to keep that street completely cleared. Mr. Rauton said it was his intention to do that and he would be agreeable to covenant- ing parking limitations on South Rodney Parham Road. The proposed development would U furnish 430 parking spaces which is a good ratio for 256 units. Mr. Venhaus express- 9: ed concern for future problems which might arise when other land owners - yet to be determined - might try to get Rodney Parham Road through that area if it were not dedicated even though there was a covenant for later dedication. Mr. Rauton said he was not aware that a dedicated street was being planned by the City from 12th Street down to his property. Mr. Venhaus said that it is being planned in connection with'tlevelopment processes; and it is not shown on the major street plan at present. Ld Mr. Flake suggested a time limit of two years for the dedication of South Rodney 0 Parham Street or a longer time if agreeable. Mr. Rauton said the development of < property between 12th Street and his property could be problematical as some of it Ldis owned by the Housing Authority, some if is low land which would have to be filled which would add to the cost considerably, and with the tight money market it might even be five years before it could be developed. Mr. Grundfest stated that with an agreement of this type it would be very diffi- cult to uphold unless there was a definite time limit set. Mr. Whitmore agreed and 0 added that it would almost be void unless it was "tied to something definite" - to when it is improved or at a given time, whichever is first. -4- Board of Adjustment minutes - September 15,1969 Mr. Venhaus suggested that since Mr. Rauton could not say when the development might take place to the north and west of this site that the covenant might be written for a period of two years and include in it that the period would be established by the Board at that time and could be extended again. Mr. Whitmore said that in his opinion a covenant of that nature would be enforceable against Mr. Rauton, but possibly not against an assignee. A covenant which had no condition in it would be enforceable against the person who owned the property subsequent to the present owner, and with conditions that require interpretation the ability to enforce it against the second party presents a problem. Mr. Whitmore said the covenant should be between the property owner and the City of Little Rock, and with some specified undertaking the City of Little Rock could extend the time for the dedication. The covenant could describe the property and stipulate that within "so many" years or a certain date, the property would be dedicated as a street to the City of Little Rock in association with this particular application. Mr. Flake said that within two years Mr. Rauton may not even have finished the proposed development much less the other property he owns, and that certainly the City is not going to with its own funds be developing any street within two years and suggested that the Board could stretch this and not put in the covenant that it could be extended - simply show in the minutes that it is the intent of the Board that this could be extended if the Board chooses to do so at that time and add something more like 5 years rather than 2. Mr. Rauton asked that if he never built this, or anybody else does in the future, and that nothing comes of that whole area, would he be required to make this dedication anyhow. He said with the money market like it is today, he could.be seriously hampering the value of this property and the usefulness of it, too, because the Right-of-way would of necessity have to be completely clear as to its location - this means being very specific. It may be that later on a slight change or a large change would be appropriate for development, and I would hate to do this. He then asked for consideration of the variance he requested so he could proceed hoping that something can be worked out on the street as he would not want to dedicate a strip through the property and then nothing happen and have it cut in two which would be a very bad blow to the value of the property. Mr. Flake suggested that we require the covenant when the building permit is issued, and Mr. Whitmore agreed that it could be done that way. Mr. Venhaus suggested that the wording of the covenant be worked out between the City Attorney's office and the Staff of the Community Development Department, and the final draft be presented to the Board at the next regular meeting on October 20th for ratification. Mr. Rauton verified his understanding that the dedication would not take effect until he filed for a building permit and it was issued. A motion was made that the application be approved provided that there be a covenant signed between Lewis Rauton, his successors or assigns, and the City of Little Rock, which agrees to a dedication, when the building permit is applied for, of the first 20 feet back from the intersection of what is designated as South Rodney Parham Road and Boyle Park Road and which agrees to a later dedication either at the time Rodney Parham Road is extended to any other public street or within five years, whichever occurs first, and the covenant to include that in the interim period between now and when the dedication takes place that the City would have control over the street specifications, right-of-way,and inspection of the actual improvements, utilities and other things such as fire lanes that need to be agreed 5615 Board of Adjustment Minutes - September 15,1969 upon by Mr. Rauton and the City. Once the covenant is agreed upon, at the end of five (5) years, or at the extension of Rodney Parham Road, the street would be dedicated in full. The motion was seconded and passed. Tract No. 3 - Z-2306 Applicant: Shavers Hawkins Location: 600 East 21st Street Description: Lot 8, Block 1, Oak Glen Addition Classification: "C"-Two-family District Variance: From all applicable provisions of Section 43 of the Code of Ordinances to permit expansion to non -conforming structure. Staff recommendation: A recommendation will be made at the Agenda meeting. Mr. Kenneth Lane, attorney, represented the petitioner. The petitioner and Mr. Alan Barnes were present. Mr. Flake inquired as to the number of employees Mr. Hawkins would utilize. Mr. Hawkins stated there would be four or five and that this business was located in a general business district. Mr. Venhaus stated that the Staff had searched the records and had not found any jurisdiction for the Board to grant this approval. The City Attorney and his Staff agree. However, there had been a Supreme Court case which was similar in which it was decided that the Board does have this jurisdiction. Mr. Grundfest advised that the Staff had no objection to the Variance if the Board could grant it. A motion was made that the application be approved, which was seconded and passed. Mr. Flake abstained. OTHER 1 VITTiitS 1. Mailing applicant a copy of Staff Recommendations prior to meeting. Board members decided this was NOT to be done. 2. Use of secret ballot as opposedtovoice vote. Voice voting procedure was sustained. 3. Reading of Staff Recommendations at the meeting Staff recommendations are to be read by the Chairman when the case is called. In that way they will become a part of the minutes. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:35 P. M. Don R. Venhaus, Secretary. Dave rundfest, ., Chai n '-m