Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutboa_04 20 1953MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT The Board of Adjustment met in the Mayor's Conference Room, City Hall, Monday, April 20, 1953, at 2:00 p.m., with the following members present: Mr. Bruce Anderson, chairman Mr. Waren Baldwin, Docket No. 16-53 - G. Bensky, # 23 Edgehill Road, described as Lot 239 Edgehill Addition, zoned "A" One -Family; request- ing a waiver of yard space in order to comply with the recorded bill of assurance. Mr. Rodney Parham, Jr. was present to represent Mr. Bensky. Mr. Bensky also attended the meeting. Mr. Parham reviewed the history of this case, explaining that it had been taken before the City Council for action. However, the Council referred the application to the Board of Adjustment since that was the proper Board to act on such applications. Mr. Parham stated that the city engineer would not issue a building per- mit on this property because of the need for a waiver of yard space. A plot plan showing how the house will be located on the lot and the _ need for a yard waiver was presented. The lot is a triangular shape thus making it difficult to comply with the yard requirements in the zoning ordinance. He added that the homes were expensive ones in that vicinity and that Mr. Bensky will construct at least a $159000.00 home thus complying with the bill of assurance as to the cost of the structure. The bill of assurance requires a setback of 20' on this particular lot, hoverer, Mr. Parham thought the bill of assurance had expired January 1, 1951. - - Mr. Mitchell, an attorney representing Mr. Couch, interrupted to show the members a photographic copy extending the bill of assurance to the year 2001. - - Mr. Parham then explained to the members that since a yard requirement of 201 setback had been established for this lot, he was of the opinion that Mr. Bensky would be allowed to build a home on it. Actually Mr. Bensky has a lot area of 7,000' which is more than the normal requirement for the average lot. Mr. Parham stated that he realized that a house located on this lot would distract from the nei&66 borhood since those homes are set back 40' and that a waiving of this yard space would decrease the value of the surrounding property. However, he added that Mr. Bensky had purchased this lot for $4,250.00 and needed to get his money out of the lot either by building on it or selling it to the property owners in that neighborhood for use as a park. Mr. Parham reminded the members that as far as the zoning ordinance is concerned, this triangular shaped lot is required to comply with the same yard space requirements as the average shaped lot, and he felt the Board -members should take this into consideration. Mr. W. S. Mitchell, attorney representing Mr. Couch, stated that Mr. Couch and other property owners in that vicinity are very much apposed to this application. Mr. Mitchell informed the members that this was the only lot in that area which does not have a front building line. The other homes in that area are setback 40' with the exception of Lot 19 which is a vacant lot. Since this lot (#23) does not have a front building line then Mr. Mitchell was of the opinion that a house could not be constructed on it. He stated that a new bill of assurance had been drawn up when the old one had expired and this new bill of -2- assurance was actually more restrictive than the first one. Mr. Mitchell stated that although it does not specifically state that a house cannot be built on Lot 23, every property owner in that vicinity had always been under the impression that it had been designated for a park and could not be used for the construction of a home. Mr. Mitchell showed a photographic copy of the plat of that addition which did not indicate a building line for this lot. He also felt that it would create a traffic hazard to construct a dwelling on the lot since that is a sharp curve and actually the corner of the lot has been cut back in order to ease that sharp curve. Mr. Mitchell stated that it would decrease the value of the surrounding property if Mr. Bensky is granted this yard waiver. Mr. Grover Owen was present to voice his objection to the application. He stated that he purchased his property in 1926 and had been living there since 1930. He had always understood that Lot 23 had been platted for a park and had never given a thought about a house ever being constructed on it. Mr. Owen was of the opinion that the construction of a house on that corner would create a death trap for the drivers of cars especially since that is already a dangerous curve. He stated that a blind corner would exist there if a house is erected on the lot. Mr. Owen couldn't understand how a house could be built on the lot and it comply with the yard requirements., however, he said that if an architect said that a house could be t1ilt there then he must know what he is talking about. Mr. Harry Pfeifer was present to object to the application. He lives across the street from that point and has lived there since the early 193019. Eger since he had lived there, the lot had been con- sidered as a park and he didn't think a house could be constructed on it. He also said that since there is a building line established requir- ing a 40' front setback then he just didn't think a house cc:ould be constructed on the lot. Mr. Arthur Phillips stated that when he bou#ht his property in that vicinity, the lot was a park. He also was of the opinion that since the homes in that immediate area are setback 40' from the front building line then he just didn't have any idea of a house being built on Lot 23. Mr. Phillips lives on lot 10. Mr. Anderson interrupted the protestants to ask if the deed, plat or bill of assurance stated whether a house could be constructed on lot 23 or if only a park could exist there. - - He was informed that although the records do not state so specifically, the 40' front set- back requirement in their estimation would be basis enough to keep a house from being constructed on the lot. The gentleman who made the original survey of that addition was present and informed the members that he was unable to remember whether that particular lot had been designated for a park or a building site. However, it seemed to him that since there is no frontage on the lot then the property was not intended for residential purposes. He had drawn a sketch of Lot 23 showing the required setback distance in accordance with the bill of assurance and the drawing showed very little space left for the construction of a home. The sketch also showed where a portion of this lot had been out back previously due to such a sharp curve at that point. Mr. Claskey who was speaking in behalf of the apblicant asked why, if the lot is platted for a part, a bill of assurance was ever issued in the first place. -3- Mr. Owen answered that he thought it got on the tax books by mistake and that Mannie Schumann had purchased it as that title land. Mayor Remmel stated that he would like to voice his objection to the apblication, not as Mayor of the City, but as a citizen. He owns the lot across the street from Lot 23 and assumed in 1930 that the property was going to be a park. When his mother bought the lot. she remarked that the lot was going to be a park. Mayor Remmel felt it was a shamue fbr a person to build a house on the lot when the other homes in that addition are much larger and have been setback 1+0' from the front building line. Mr. Chris Finkbiner stated that he would not mind having Mr. Bensky for a neighbor, but he thought that when the house was completed then Mr. Bensky would probably not be happy with it since the lot is much smaller than the others and as far as the yard space is concerned Mr. Bensky's home could not be in keeping with the entire area. Mr. Anderson reminded the people present at the hearing that the Board of Adjustment only has the power to grant or deny a yard waiver and could not prevent a house from being built on the lot. Mr. Parham asked for the floor once more and reminded the members that the present plat shows the property designated as a lot.' At the time Mr. Bensky pruchased the lot, there were no building line restrictions in the bill of assurance on the lot. Then later a line of 20' setback was required. The lot has been sold several times. Mr. Bensky bought the lot in 1946 and paid $4,250.00 for it. Now he is requesting to build his home on the lot and will be in keep- ing with the price of home in that area. Since Mr. Bensky has so much invested in the property then he feels that the Board of Adjustment should consider waiving the yard space requirements or perhaps the pro- perty owners in that vicinity would like to buy the property from Mr. Bensky and use it for a park. Mr. Baldwin made a motion that the application be denied since the location of the house does'not conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and, in addition, it would not be in keeping with the established building line and would create a traffic hazard; seconded by Mr. Marak. The motion carried. Docket No. 17-53 - 3rd Baptist Church, 1500 and 1504 Broadway, described as Lots 11 & 12, Block 206, Original City of Little Rock, zoned "D" Apartment; requesting a waiver of rear yard space in order to use for church purposes. Frances D. Holtzendorff, attorney for the 3rd Baptist Churc, and the pastor were present. Mrs. Holtzendorff explained that the church had purchased these two lots for $27,050.00 and planned to erect an educational building behind the existing house. At the present the church plans to use the new building for their additorium and will hold the Sunday School classes in the 17 room house which exists on the property. Then in the future, this house will be torn down and a new auditorium will be constructed which will extend from the educational building towards Broadway. The proposed structure will be 301 x 801 and will require a rear yard waiver since it will be construced within 111 of the rear property line. There will be no alterations on the existing house. Mrs. xgxtsam Holtzendorff stated that when the -4- auditorium is added onto the educational building in the future, it will more than likely extend out from the building in a "T" shape. However, since there is a great deal of space, the building could be constructed to face 15th Street. She stated that there were a number of possibilities. - - - Mr. Anderson reminded her that it would be necessary to come before the Board of Adjustment again when they plan to build the autiforium if it is going to face 15th Street. - - She answered that she was aware of that fact. At the present they feel that the most practical plan will be to extend the auiitorium.out from the educational building in a "T" shape to face Broadwyy, but later if the traffic should require them to do so, they might change their plans and request to face 15th Street. Mr. Dickenson was present to voice his objection to the appli- cation. He was apposed to the church building closer than 25' of the rear property line. His home is directly behind the churches'lots. He was also of the opinion that since an easement exists on the rear of the property, then the church is actually asking for a waiver to build within one foot of the rear property line for the church could not build over the 10' easement anyway. He said that frankly he didn't think the church knew what they wanted. Mrs. Dichenson thought there was enough traffic on Broadway now and that a church should not be located there since it would even increase the traffic problem especially as far as parking is concerned. She added that parking would be bad on 15th Street because it is narrow. Mrs. English ownes the property adjoining the side of these two lots. She was of course interested in the side yard space and stated that due to the traffic problem which already exists, whe did not think it was a good location for a church. Mrs. English mentioned th..t heavy trucks, ambulances, fire trucks and police cars which use Broadway a great deal would be a nusiance to the church. Mr. Taylor, who ownes an apartment building north of 1500 Broadway stated that frankly he had no objections to the yard waiver for he felt that Broadway is becoming commercial and in a few years the church will possibly be surrounded by commercial business. This, he added, in his opinion, would be undesirable to the church. He even made the suggestion that the church hold the property and in the future perhaps sell it for commercial use, thus making a profit on the lot S. Mr. Baldwin made a motion that the application be denied; seconded by Mr. Marak. The motion carried. Docket No. 19-53 - M. B. Matthews, 4904 West 28th Street described as the west 70' of Lots 7, 8, & 9, Block 1, Boulevard Terrace Addition, zoned "B" Residence; request- ing a waiver of side yard space as shown on the plot plan in order to construct a carport and storage room on the side of the house. Mr. Matthews was present and stated that he wanted to build a carport and breeze -way with a storage room also. Thestructure will be erected within one foot of his property line. It will be on the west side of the house. There were no objections. Mr. Baldwin made a motion that the application be approved; seconded by Mr. Marak. The motion carried. -5- Docket No. 20-53 - I. Besser, 5201 - 5215 Asher Avenue, described as Lots 1, 29 32 4, 52 & 6, Block 2, Intercity Addition, zoned "F" Commercial District; requesting two main structures on two _lots and a waiver of yard space as shown on the plot plan. Mrs. Besser stated that she plans to construct five new tourist cabins on her. lots. These cabins will have a cement foundation and will be built of brick. In addition, Mrs. Besser plans to put brick around the cabins which already exist on the lots with the exception of several very old cabins which have not been used for a number of years. Mrs. White and her manager. were present in interest of the application. She just wanted to know exactly what Mrs. Besser's plans were. She remarked that the Liwuor Store which is located on Mrs. Besser's property was a hendrance to her property across the street. Mrs. White was also interested in getting "Jane" street closed, but it was brought out that it had no baring on this case and was dropped. Mr. Baldwinmadea motion that the application be approved; seconded by Mr. Mar&. The motion carried. Docket No. 21-53 - James Reynolds, 1012 West 26th Street, described as Lots 3 & 4, Block 4, Woodlawn Addition, zoned "C" Two-FEmily; requesting permission to face house on 26th Street as shown on the plot plan. The mem'ters looked over this plot plan and decided that Mr. Reynolds was actually doing a good thing by facing the house on 36th Street. Mr. Baldwin made a motion that the application be approved; seconded by Mr. Marak. The motion carried. Docket No. 22-53 - Almyra Smith, 1522 Louisiana Street, described as Lot 7, Block 181, Original City of Little Rock, zoned"B" Apartment; requesting permission to add a flower shop onto existing house which will face 16th Street as shown on the plot plan with a waiver of yard space. Miss Smith was present with Mr. McDonnell to represent her. Mr. McDonnell explained to the members that the Planning Commission had denied the petition for rezoning when Miss Smith had applied for it. He thought that perhaps the Board of Adjustment would have the juriddiction to grant Miss Smith a temporary permit to operate a flower shop on the property. Miss Smith stated that she operated a flower shop on Kavanaugh at the present but must move soon. It was brought out that the ordinance mentions that the Board of Adjustment has the power to act on green -houses but nothing is mentioned hbout a flower shop. For this reason, Mr. Baldwin suggested that the plan- ning staff write the city attorney for an opinion on the power of the board to act on this application before they take any action on it. It was the City Attorney's opinion that the Board did not have the power to act on this matter. The meeting adjourned. Board of Adjustment Little Rock, Arkansas